Silent Church Women Part 3
May 21, 2008
For God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.
The Quotation Reading
The words found in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 are so problematic that many doubt their authorship even belongs to the Apostle Paul. The external and internal problems of these verses have even led some to believe that these verses were added MUCH later by a scribe, since if these seemingly contradicting verses are removed, the text reads much more smoothly. Here are the issues: these verses seem to contradict, not only the rest of the bible, but Paul himself, in multiple places, and in the very same letter (1 Corinthians 11:5, 12:4-11)! The style employed in these verses is utterly foreign to Paul’s writing style . The appeal to the “Law” to justify silencing women frankly does not exist anywhere in the Old Testament. No where in the Old Testament does any law or command require that women “subject themselves” by being “silent” in an assembly or while in public.
Walter C. Kaiser, author of Correcting Caricatures: The Biblical Teaching on Women notes:
“The problem simply put is this: nowhere in the whole Old Testament does it teach or even imply what is claimed here. Now law in the entire old testament, much less the Torah, can be cited to teach that a women ‘must be in submission’ and ‘remain silent’ and if she wants to know or ask about anything, she ’should ask [her own] husband at home.’ Women spoke freely in both testaments.”
When Paul actually does cite the Law or scripture to support his points, he immediately follows it by quoting the law he is referring to, as he does in 1 Corinthians 9:8-9, 14:21, 1:19, 1:31, 2:9, 3:19, 10:7, 15:45. For more in depth analysis of Paul’s consistent writing style and the “mystery law,” see the very thorough article by Dennis J. Preato at God’s Word To Women.
A growing number of scholars insist that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is not the words of Paul at all, but that Paul is quoting the letter written to him from the church at Corinth and then promptly rebuking this degrading, legalistic notion in verses 36-38. Besides the fact that these verses contradict everything Paul has instructed the Corinthians up until this point AND there is NO SUCH LAW in the Torah or the entire Old Testament that requires women to be silent, there are other clues in the original manuscripts that support the quotation reading.
We must remember that ancient Greek did not have punctuation marks, so there is no such symbol that we can equate with how our quotation marks surround a quoted sentence. However, in many of the earliest manuscripts, there appears this greek symbol: η with a grave accent at the beginning of verse 36 to signal to the reader that the above statement is quoted.
Paul already informs the reader that he begins addressing “the things you wrote” back in chapter 7, verse 1. After Paul gives very thorough instructions on how to maintain order during worship gatherings, this bizarre verse appears and contradicts everything he has just instructed, followed by a peculiar, sharp rebuke in verses 36-38.
But if one reads verses 34-35 as a quote from the Corinthians and verses 36-38 as Paul’s response, suddenly the meaning becomes crystal clear and totally conducive to the rest of Paul’s letter: all members of the body participating in worship assemblies in peace and order. So Paul repeats this appeal from Corinth for the purpose of rebuking it, not to command a universal ruling that silences women in church.
It’s imperative to note that while there IS NO law in the OT that silences women, rabbinical “law” strictly forbade women to vocally participate in religious assemblies. Women were seen as obscene, deceitful, immoral, untrustworthy seductresses, whose only purpose was to make babies and serve men. Paul NEVER appeals to rabbinical law to establish universal mandates. Jesus spent most of his ministry openly defying and challenging such legalistic “laws” and “traditions” of the rabbinical Judaism. The early church experienced its fair share of Judaizers (Jews who converted to Christianity, but still believed it necessary to observe the purity codes and rabbinical laws/traditions). Judaizers insisted that converted Gentiles be circumcised, abandon eating idol-offered meat, observe Jewish Sabbaths, etc. Paul refutes all of these assertions made by Judaizers clinging to rabbinical tradition. Such is the case here; Paul quotes Judaizers in Corinth to reveal the hypocrisy in such a statement and then flatly contradicts it, even mocks it. Ironically, these verses used to silence women are actually part of Paul’s defense of a woman’s right to participate as full member of the body.
Bible Scholar Dennis J. Preato concurs that the “mystery law” cited here is from the irrelevant rabbinical laws:
These verses are best understood as a slogan or rabbinic saying based on the Jewish “oral law,” not the written word of God. Therefore, these verses cannot be used to prohibit women from pulpit ministry within the church.
Below is the entire passage from verses 26-40. Remember that the the word brethren (Greek word: adelphoi) is gender plural or gender inclusive, including both men and women. Read verses 34-35 as a quoted statement. This blew my mind the first time I did this.
What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation Let all things be done for edification. If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment.
But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.
THE WOMEN ARE TO KEEP SILENT IN THE CHURCHES; FOR THEY ARE NOT PERMITTED TO SPEAK, BUT ARE TO SUBJECT THEMSELVES, JUST AS THE LAW ALSO SAYS. IF THEY DESIRE TO LEARN ANYTHING, LET THEM ASK THEIR OWN HUSBANDS AT HOME; FOR IT IS IMPROPER FOR A WOMAN TO SPEAK IN THE CHURCH.
Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues. But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner.
The King James Version translates verse 36 as: “What? Came the word of God out from you? Or came it unto you only?”
The phrase “Did the word of God come to you only..” is believed to be a reference to Jesus’ first appearance to the women at the tomb, the first entrusted with the good news of His resurrection and the first commissioned to tell the male apostles about it! Basically, Paul’s point is that the word of God has come to all believers, so how dare they deprive the church body by silencing half its members.
J. Lee Grady points out:
“This strange response makes no sense if we believe that Paul penned verses 34 and 35. But if he is contradicting the statements made by the Judiazers at Corinth, then we can understand the definat tone of verse 36.”
Deciphering quotations seems to be a tricky task for bible translators. For instance, 1 Corinthians 6:12, 6:13 and 10:23 are marked as quotations in the NCV, NIV, NLT, and NRSV; but they are not shown with quotation marks in the ASV, KJV, NASB, and NKJV. These kind of discrepancies occur because of the lack of punctuation signals available in ancient Greek.
However, all the available evidence seems to point to these verses and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 being quotations that Paul is rebuking.
Theologian Kenneth S. Kantzer wrote:
“In 1 Corinthians 14, we are caught in an intricate interplay between quotations from a missing letter form the Corinthians and Paul’s solutions to the problems the letter had raised. The verse is clearly not repeating a law of Scripture and cannot be taken as a universal command for women to be silent in church. That interpretation would flatly contradict what the apostle had just said three chapters earlier.”
I believe this reading is the strongest and most logical choice for interpreting 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. I apologize for the lengthiness of this post, but it’s difficult to present the sound-bite version of a biblical interpretation most people are unfamiliar with and do it justice! When there are only 2 obscure and highly controversial verses in the entire new testament that seem to bar women from ministry and church participation, we must dig into the scriptures and examine all available evidence to clarify their true meanings.
linda
Julie Clawson
Makeesha
ngilmour
adrieneb
beautiaful
May 22, 2008 at 2:05 am
Very, very interesting. And you’re right: reading that passage as a quotation makes the whole passage make sense, whereas before I always halted at it and tried to figure out what had momentarily possessed Paul=)
May 27, 2008 at 10:52 am
Fantastic stuff. Thanks for doing your homework! You’ve presented this wonderfully.
May 30, 2008 at 10:18 am
Thank you thank you thank you. I can’t express how much I needed to read this. I met Jesus about 3 years ago and have struggled ever since with studying my Bible, partly because of questions like this one.
I came across this just about a month ago and haven’t picked up my Bible again since. I was so irritated that I just walked away because I didn’t know what else to do. This blog is definitely going on my favorites list :)
June 3, 2008 at 10:30 am
oops…guess I should have read part 3 before I commented on part 2!
Just food for thought…has anyone ever thought why there was a prophecy (Joel) for women prophesying (preaching) to ANYONE at Pentecost for the ‘church age’ but then later on in the Epistles they are mysteriously silenced? Doesn’t make sense, does it? God is not the author of chaos and confusion. It is US who have confused it.
August 2, 2008 at 11:25 pm
The quotation theory makes the most sense by far for me.
November 10, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Only problem is the fact that bretheren IS masculine.
ἀδελφός
adelphos
Thayer Definition:
1) a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
2) having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
3) any fellow or man
4) a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
5) an associate in employment or office
6) brethren in Christ
6a) his brothers by blood
6b) all men
6c) apostles
6d) Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place
Strongs:
From G1 (as a connective particle) and δελφύς delphus (the womb); a brother (literally or figuratively) near or remote (much like [H1]): – brother.
November 10, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Ladies I dont see why you all have a problem with the order of creation. Can you not trust that a godly man will love you as Christ loved the church?
Women dont know how to submit and men dont know how to lead. It seems a big problem.
March 8, 2009 at 12:08 am
I would like to say that 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 is not in the original Greek manuscripts and therefore it’s not Pauline Doctrine and therefoe should not be given any consideration at all. These fake versus was an invention of the Roman Catholic Church to defame and dominate women and even till this day violence against women is the by product of such false teachings. Perhaps you should consider teaching the truth about 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 to assist battered women in taking up researching the Bible on their own. Once they see abusive men have hoodwinked them by twisting scripture maybe those women will come out swinging and win after they learn the truth. Love in Christian sisterhood, Kate
October 20, 2009 at 8:48 am
What in the world do you mean “a growing number of scholar” don’t even think Paul wrote this? I have to admit, when I read this assertion from you ,you lost me. The minute that we let “a growing” (and boy, they are growing in these last days) number of so called scholars try to talk me out of the Bible’s clear origin, I am open to anything. How many theories continually spring up today that tell us, Joe so and so, from go blow your nose cemetary (ur, seminary) thinks Jesus had a wife. HOgwash!
October 20, 2009 at 8:53 am
By the way, I can tell by your, shall we say, creative photo, that you feel extremely stifled, and sort of pissed off too. Wow. what language. Perhaps I should learn to bridle my tongue . Is that what you had in mind with your photo? I think it captures well the desire we have as woment to let it rip with our words. I’m still working on bridling me. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to reinvent the gospel just because I have alot to say.
The word is still the word.
Could it be that God really HAS called us to show restraint? WE already know that we are more verbal than men. We know how to run over them with our mouth. We are usually better at saying it than they are. We probably all COULD preach just as well….some even better than them. BUT DOES THAT MAKE IT RIGHT?
October 20, 2009 at 8:53 am
Umm…first of all, if you read my study on this, I DO believe Paul penned these verses. My only point in mentioning how bible scholars struggle with these verses was to show how difficult interpreting them has been over the centuries, not that I reject Paul penned them. For many scholars, it’s not even implication of “silent women” that give them trouble…it’s the language and style employed, how there IS NO LAW recorded anywhere in the Bible that would silence women like the verse says, etc. Also in several manuscripts these verses are placed in a completely different place! That’s why scholars argue about it, and they have a point, it has been a very difficult verse to understand and interpret.
October 20, 2009 at 8:57 am
It’s too late for me, ladies. God has already gotten in THIS sisters face about thinking I should be able to, because I can. I could probably lead better than my husband, preach better, and manage the finances better.
“do you want to talk to the man in charge, or the woman who knows what’s going on?”
Ooh, ouch, doesn’t your flesh identify? This is Jezebel’s favorite saying, besides “I’m not the head, just the neck that turns the head.”
Let’s not be coy here, ladies. You and I both know that women are equippped to do a better job than the man in many areas. Aren’t they? Don’t you secretely believe that? Then why did God put the man in charge? It’s to teach us humility. Or we would run over the guy. Because we can.
Own it.
I had to
October 20, 2009 at 9:01 am
Roselady, I think all believers are told to use their tongue wisely. Preaching and participating in church should not be about being “over” men or trying to out talk them, but using our gifts to benefit EVERYONE, including men. This is not a battle of the sexes, men and women need each other. I am no man hater. I don’t want a women-dominated leadership anymore than I want a man-dominated leadership. I want to see all believers be able to fully participate in the Body according to their God-given gifts and abilities. You are free to disagree with my understanding of the scriptures, but please don’t accuse me of not adhering to the Word. We obviously have different understandings on this particular issue. I’ve cited all the evidence for my position. If you disagree, please counter my arguments with evidence and not personal attacks. Thank you.
October 20, 2009 at 9:05 am
Really, all I want to know, maam, is would you be able to come to these convictions reading the word with no commentaries? I mean, just the word? It seems to be that people always run to the “original language” (which they don’t even fluently know… so they have brother so and so who supposedly knows, and just happens to agree…) Do you get my point?
October 20, 2009 at 9:13 am
None of us have the luxury of being able to read the word by itself and interpret correctly. We are 2000-4000 years removed from it’s original form, original setting, original context, original language, and original audience. Even the “traditions” that read the bible “alone” are taught to view the bible through a particular lense, depending on their church’s theology, whether it be calvinistic or arminian, premillenial, postmillenial, amillenial. Ect. And newsflash, without looking to the original lanuage and context you would have many parts of the bible that contradict each other. For instance, these verses in particular (if understood that Paul is actually commanding women to be completely silent in the assembly) contradict his command just 3 chapters earlier about how women are to conduct themselves while exercising the gift of prophecy in the assembly. How can women deliver prophecy (an inherent vocal act) if they must remain silent. Hermeneutics are necessary to gain a fuller understanding of the scriptures and how they are to be applied. Paul praised the Bereans for not just taking what he said at face value, but that they studied to confirm the veracity of this teachings.
October 20, 2009 at 9:28 am
Roselady, how do you understand the scripture in which Paul declares “women shall be saved through childbearing”? (1 Timothy 2) At face value it seems as if Paul is saying women receive salvation through childbearing. But this would be heresy, since all our saved by Jesus’s work on the cross. So what to do? We look the original language, original context, cultural and historical factors, and we can clearly see that Paul is not teaching any such thing, though if we read this verse for “what it plainly says,” it would contradict the crux of the entire gospel message.
October 29, 2009 at 9:30 am
My wife pointed me to this website because one of your girls commented on her blog [my wife and I are complementarians]about a year ago and I think you wrote in response to her [hoperoadblog.com].
It blew my mind that there is a website like this. I responded to a “feminist” that commented on her blog this week and I merely said that it is impossible that Christian women can be feminists. When she emailed me this blog “christianfeminism.wordpress” I almost spit out my water.
Anyway, I digress,
I have no problem with interpreting 1 Timothy:11 or 1 Corinthians 14…. I never even thought about having to look at original languages for these particular verses [although they are good to know] because they are so plain and clear foundationally and fundamentally to the whole counsel of Scripture.
If you are posting interpretation after interpretation and article after article [by people who agree with you] on why these verses DON’T work or DON’T mean what they say [for women], then how do you interpret ANY Scripture? These hermeneutical errors are extremely serious to how you are to biblically act and respond as a [presumingly Christian] woman. It is heresy and nothing less than blasphemy. It is no different then a Jehovah’s Witness or a Mormon perverting Scripture to mean what they want it to say. It is no different than a homosexual saying, “God really doesn’t condemn homosexuality.”
Don’t get me wrong, this isn’t a “hate” response, it is a plead for repentance and you must see what CHRIST HIMSELF has in mind and the wisdom of God, from creation. Paul spoke and wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit [like every other apostle and prophet], that is if you believe 2 Tim. 3:16-17. All Scripture is breathed by God. So, what you interpret as “Paul’s saying” is really God’s saying.
I applaud that you look into the original languages [or at least copy the people that supposedly have that you agree with], however do you do the same with all of Scripture? If not, why not? Don’t you know that Scripture interprets itself? If you are a Christian and have the Holy Spirit indwelling you, you will understand these things.
How do you feel about sin? Do you know that you are a sinner and that you are in desperate need of a Savior? Otherwise you perish. Do you know that your Savior is a man [God-Man]?
Are you married? If so, how do you contend with: Ephesians 5:22-30, Colossians 3:18, 1 Peter 3:1, Titus 2:3-5?
If you have no reverence for what Scripture says and if you are more concerned with “original languages” about only your specific issue, then you will never read and understand the Word of God as it is. If you have no reverence for specific issues in Scripture, then you have no reverence for God. At that rate, you will continue to compromise and pervert what Scripture explicitly teaches about ALL issues [not just women looking for power or for the ability to speak or what have you].
My last point: I typically repond to what people write verbatim, but it would take me three years to respond to every little thing you wrote on just this post. So, I will only take one random paragraph for now:
You said,
“A growing number of scholars insist that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is not the words of Paul at all, but that Paul is quoting the letter written to him from the church at Corinth and then promptly rebuking this degrading, legalistic notion in verses 36-38.”
Scholars? What is a “scholar”? For the sake of everyone that reads this blog and yourself, name these “scholars.” How do you know that these are not the words of Paul? Please write your logic for this. Saying you “have a hard time understanding what Paul is teaching” as opposed to “1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is not the words of Paul at all” are two completely different issues. One has a spirit of humility and concern. The other is ignorant, arrogant and worthy of being ostracized from the Christian community. How do you contend with 1 Corinthians 1:1?
Besides the fact that these verses contradict everything Paul has instructed the Corinthians up until this point
How are these verses contradictory? Do you understand that if you say they are contradictory, you indeed discount the infallibility and inerrancy of Scipture and that you are a heretic?
AND there is NO SUCH LAW in the Torah or the entire Old Testament that requires women to be silent, there are other clues in the original manuscripts that support the quotation reading.
What does this have to do with anything?
October 29, 2009 at 10:32 am
A.J. Where to begin? While being accused of heresy is always a treat, you are making several faulty arguments.
First of all, I am NOT questioning the inspiration of scripture, but our understanding of it. All throughout Church history, Christians have understood the bible differently, translated copies of the bible differently, and used scriptures to support the most heinous of beliefs: slavery, racism, genocide, the prosperity gospel, etc. The problem is NOT with scripture itself, but what people do with it and how they understand it sometimes.
Secondly, reading the bible for “what is plainly says: or “as is” is assuming that the copy of the bible you have in your hands has been the same since its conception thousands of years ago. We must always look back to the oldest manuscripts we have, examine the original language as well as original context to rightly interpret the scripture and also, as you pointed out, let scripture interpret scripture. That is exactly our goal here. English translations differ from each other and do not always fully convey the original greek/hebrew meanings.
Take the verse in 1 Timothy that says (in english) that women are SAVED through childbearing. This is a direct “clear” statement. But we know that women are NOT saved through childbearing, but by the blood of christ, just like everyone else. To teach otherwise would be heresy. Yet, the “plain” reading of this verse conveys just that. But once we look at the original language and context, we can see Paul is not teaching that women are saved through childbirth at all.
Thirdly, the context of 1 Corinthians is Paul responding to a letter from the Corinthian church. He starts answering their questions/problems in 7:1. He makes several quotations from the Corinthians throughout the letter for the purpose of responding to it. It is PRECISELY because I DO NOT believe the scripture contradicts itself that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 HAS to be understood differently than the way strict complementarians like yourself understand it (presumably that women must be completely silent in church). If this is the case, that Paul is really mandating that all women be COMPLETELY SILENT in church, how do you explain Paul’s instructions JUST THREE CHAPTERS earlier (ch. 11) for how women are to dress while they prophesy in church?? How can women be allowed to prophesy (which is an inherent vocal act) in church and yet be commanded to stay silent? Do you really believe God (speaking through Paul) would be so inconsistent as to give guidelines for women (and men) prophesying and then change His mind 3 chapters later and silence them all?? Do you attend a church that demands complete silence of your women?
Any time Paul invokes “The Law” to support his commands, HE ALWAYS quotes the exact scripture he is referring to. Yet in these verses we find the phrase “as the law also says” with no direct reference–which has everything to do it! Not only that..THERE IS NO LAW ANYWHERE IN THE OT (or NT for that matter) that commands women to be silent. We know that Paul, when quoting “The Law” always quotes the scriptures. Since there is no law the requires or even implies what is being “commanded” in these verses, then this is a huge problem To top it off, there is a plenty of evidence that contradicts the assertion that women are to remain silent and not lead in the OT: Deborah, a prophet of God spoke freely and publicly to men, also lead men and the whole nation of Israel, Miriam spoke publicly and lead her people in worship, Huldah interpreted scripture for men and spoke for God. I could go on. The only recorded “law” that demands women;s silence is found in the Talmud, which PAUL NEVER REFERS to in order to mandate christian behavior, in fact he spends most of his time refuting Judiazers who adhere to the Talmud to control christian life. So if anything, it is YOU that believes the scripture contradicts itself if you believe these verses are actually silencing women.
In many of the original v. 34-35 are placed in entirely different places within the book of 1 Corinthians. Some believe that these verses were added much later, but I do not share this believe. I believe Paul quoted The Corinthians (as he does throughout the rest of this letter) for the purpose of rebuking such an oppressive teaching.
You said: “I have no problem with interpreting 1 Timothy:11 or 1 Corinthians 14…. I never even thought about having to look at original languages for these particular verses [although they are good to know] because they are so plain and clear foundationally and fundamentally to the whole counsel of Scripture.”
How is it that these verses are consistent with the whole of scripture?? Paul praises Priscilla, who along with her husband, taught a man, Apollos. I already mentioned the Miriam (who called called a leader of Israel in Micah 6:4), Deborah who lead Israel, spoke for God TO MEN, and was called a prophet and judge, and Huldah, who taught the Word of the Lord to men. Paul calls the woman Junia, an aposlte. Calls many other women in the NT his coworkers and co-laborers in spreading the gospel (which is a verbal act). So how are all these examples (and there are many more) consistent with THIS ONE VERSE that seemingly silences all women??? It’s not consistent in the least. I documented extensive studies of the passage in 1 Timothy as well.
I believe I am a sinner and have been redeemed by the blood of Christ. I have been restored into a right relationship with my Creator, through Jesus, AND been restored to right relationship with my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. I believe all of God’s children are to esteem each other higher than we esteem ourselves, that the Holy Spirit gives gifts, regardless of gender and when those gifts are STIFLED on the basis of gender, the entire BODY suffers. I am married. My husband is a good egalitarian man that believes in mutual submission and mutual leadership based on gifting. Ephesians 5 is one of the most beautiful passages in all of scripture, it’s a shame how it’s been used to make women second-class citizens, though.
You can check out the writings of scholars Dennis J. Preato, Katharine Bushnell, Catherine Kroeger, Linda Belleville, Gordon Fee, Gilbert Bilezekian J. Lee Grady, Suzanne McCarthy. You can also check out the Christians for Biblical Equality website (cbeinternational.com) or God’s Word to Women (godswordtowomen.org) that have a vast collection of scholarly articles on the subject of women in the bible and excellent research on the scriptures pertaining to women.
Also, there are MANY self-proclaimed complementarians who also view this verse as a limited disciplinary measure to the dysfunctional congregation at Corinth, not an all time mandate on godly mature women to vocally participate in church gatherings. While I find this interpretation faulty, for many reasons, even other comps realize how ridiculous completely silencing women is and how inconsistent it is with the rest of scripture. Do not confuse someone questioning a particular UNDERSTANDING of scripture with the scripture itself. There is plenty of evidence that points to the scripture ITSELF being DIAMETRICALLY opposed to the prevalent interpretation that strips godly women of leadership roles within the church.
Our goal is not to elevate women above men, but to advocate men and women working along side each other in order to bring about God’s kingdom. We believe men suffer too when half the members of the church are forbidden to fully participate in church.
October 29, 2009 at 11:38 am
aj, you also need to consider anna the prophetess speaking publicly in the temple about jesus the messiah shortly after his birth. (luke 2)
additionally, when we find verses that seemingly contradict each other like in 1 corinthians 11 & 14 that is when we need to study the original languages. when passages are consistent with the whole of scripture the layperson does not need to seek out the original language. it is also wise to realize that we all look to others to help us understand scripture. do you not listen to what your pastor says about scripture? no one understands the bible in isolation and it was never intended to be read that way. we are all part of one body and need each other. i also encourage you to read some of the articles at christians for biblical equality. it is a huge resource for the types of questions you are asking and goes into great depth: cbeinternational.com
God bless you.
October 29, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Tia,
I appreciate your very prompt and thorough response. Since I have never actually debated with a woman before on this subject [due to absurdity and apparent staunch opposition to one another. Hence, the name of this website. E.G One will use Scripture to mean one thing and the other uses it to mean something else, making it annoying, circular and never-ending. That is why I will attempt to describe the “whole counsel of God” in the entirety of Scripture. ], this will be my last response. I hope to leave you with something.
You said,
“First of all, I am NOT questioning the inspiration of scripture, but our understanding of it.”
Did you not say in your previous post,
“A growing number of scholars insist that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is not the words of Paul at all, but that Paul is quoting the letter written to him from the church at Corinth and then promptly rebuking this degrading, legalistic notion in verses 36-38.”
If you did not question the inspiration of Scripture, then why you would even think of mentioning this? That does not help your supposed position if you believe in the infallibility, inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. Also, anyone who would say that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 was not written by Paul is not a scholar but a heretic.
“Secondly, reading the bible for “what is plainly says: or “as is” is assuming that the copy of the bible you have in your hands has been the same since its conception thousands of years ago.”
What do you mean by this?
“We must always look back to the oldest manuscripts we have, examine the original language as well as original context to rightly interpret the scripture and also, as you pointed out, let scripture interpret scripture.”
Your right, I will come over your house and we will examine the papyrus manuscripts that Paul himself wrote on and see if we can come to a conclusion that is different than what was passed down throughout all of Christendom; including the canonization, institution of the Apostles Creed and the Protestant Reformation, etc..
“Thirdly, the context of 1 Corinthians is Paul responding to a letter from the Corinthian church. He starts answering their questions/problems in 7:1. He makes several quotations from the Corinthians throughout the letter for the purpose of responding to it. It is PRECISELY because I DO NOT believe the scripture contradicts itself that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 HAS to be understood differently than the way strict complementarians like yourself understand it (presumably that women must be completely silent in church). If this is the case, that Paul is really mandating that all women be COMPLETELY SILENT in church, how do you explain Paul’s instructions JUST THREE CHAPTERS earlier (ch. 11) for how women are to dress while they prophesy in church?? How can women be allowed to prophesy (which is an inherent vocal act) in church and yet be commanded to stay silent? Do you really believe God (speaking through Paul) would be so inconsistent as to give guidelines for women (and men) prophesying and then change His mind 3 chapters later and silence them all?? Do you attend a church that demands complete silence of your women?”
Whenever Paul, or anyone speaks or writes in Scripture, they have the glory of God in Christ, in mind. For example, he starts the letter with, “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ [1 Cor. 1:3].” When Paul is writing to the Corinthians, he doesn’t just have divisions, women speaking in church and spiritual gifts in mind, he is speaking to every area of life and taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ [2 Cor. 10:5-6]. Therefore, with Scriptures like 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is to be interpreted with the rest of the book, considering culture, other epistles and the rest of the Word of God.
For example, some things are cultural of the time of Paul, such as the head coverings as we see that this is the only time that is mentioned in the NT. It is not crystal clear that women should wear head coverings today for example [we would think it is silly, not that the Scripture is to be ignored or to be read with less reverence. It is nevertheless historical]. However, Paul repeatedly makes statements like in 1 Cor. 11, “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman from man.” This is clearly a foundational and very fundamental statement to not only that culture in that time period but from creation. Paul is clearly talking about Adam and Eve. He is mentioning the creative order and purposes of God in laying down foundational truths to create order within the local body of Christ or the church. As you know, he mentions the same thing in 1 Tim. 2:11-15, “11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.”
Paul’s main purpose in 1 Timothy is not to “keep women quiet,” but merely to list or build up the qualifications for pastors or overseers, as Timothy was. The main purpose of telling a woman to, “learn quietly with all submissiveness [v.11]” is to say “I do not permit a woman to each or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet [12].” The context does not change in 1 Corinthians 11. He begins that chapter with “But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God [v. 3]”. If Paul permitted a woman to prophesy, then apparently she was able to prophesy. But, I don’t see near the explicit nature of being “completely silent” as in the context of teaching or having authority over men.
“Any time Paul invokes “The Law” to support his commands, HE ALWAYS quotes the exact scripture he is referring to. Yet in these verses we find the phrase “as the law also says” with no direct reference–which has everything to do it! Not only that..THERE IS NO LAW ANYWHERE IN THE OT (or NT for that matter) that commands women to be silent. We know that Paul, when quoting “The Law” always quotes the scriptures. Since there is no law the requires or even implies what is being “commanded” in these verses, then this is a huge problem To top it off, there is a plenty of evidence that contradicts the assertion that women are to remain silent and not lead in the OT:”
Once again, how is this relevant? Why do you think it is necessary for it to be a “law” in the old testament for it to be valid in the new and vice versa? I can think of hundreds of examples of things that God “permitted” in the OT but does not in the new. Perhaps the best example of all is marriage. Men had many wives in the OT [not that it was right] and it is forbidden in the New. Apparently Jesus felt the same about divorce.
“They said to Him, ‘Why then did Moses, command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?’ He said to them, ‘Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.’”
Matthew 19:8-9
“How is it that these verses are consistent with the whole of scripture?? Paul praises Priscilla, who along with her husband, taught a man, Apollos.”
I am assuming you are talking about, “When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately”. [Acts18:26]
This doesn’t appear to be in the context of the local church, nor a “teaching setting” as her husband was with her. There are many cases like that in Scripture.
Returning to what I briefly stated above, the books of Timothy and Titus demonstrate the qualities of a sound church and listing the qualifications of deacons, bishops and overseers.
“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach;” 1 Timothy 3:2
“Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.” 1 Timothy 3:12
“But as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine: that the older men be sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience; the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things—that they may admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not blasphemed.” Titus 2:1-5
In the listing of these basic qualifications for ALL church leaders and overseers, I only gather that they are men, but the women help and submit to them. That is why the “original languages” are not necessary in these cases to find out something that is very blatant and straight-forward and explicit in Scripture. These are the Scriptures that are evaluated when ordaining men into the ministry today.
Do I believe that women are gifted to teach [Acts 18:26]? Absolutely
Do I believe that women are gifted to teach women [Titus 2:4]? Absolutely
Do I believe that women are gifted to teach men and women together? Generally, No
I am not a “complementarian” just to be the opposite of an “egalitarian.” I believe that women are to submit to men in all ways in reverence for Christ because that is what He ordained from the foundation of the world to glorify Him. “Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord.” Ephesians 5:22
Many people think this Scripture for some reason means something like “wives submit to your husbands as husbands submit to your wives.” Husbands do not “submit” to wives in the same way that wives “submit” to husbands. The marriage relationship is a unique relationship in that the context is different from all other relationships on earth. It is to reflect Christ and the church. It is symbolism. The wife is the “church” and the husband is “Christ.” The wife, if she is a humble Christian, will gladly submit in ALL ways to her husband, “as to the Lord [v.22]” just as the husband will “love his wife as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her [v. 25] Does this look like the woman is a “second-class citizen”? Absolutely not! The woman is the bride! The church! Women are the ones that are to be treated as if their husbands will die for them at any moment while lavishing them with a love that is incomprehensible. Hardly second- class citizens.
“Our goal is not to elevate women above men, but to advocate men and women working along side each other in order to bring about God’s kingdom. We believe men suffer too when half the members of the church are forbidden to fully participate in church.”
Neither is my goal to elevate men above women, but to exalt Jesus Christ in the way that He has clearly ordained and defined in His Word. Without the “roles and giftings” that women are truly called to do, men could not fulfill theirs and there would not be a church. So, the church could not function without women. I have said all that I will say.
Oh, and I recommend reading John Piper.
God Bless
October 30, 2009 at 7:12 am
OK, let’s try this again.
Do you or do you not acknowledge that Paul quotes other people for the purpose of responding to an issue they raise in OTHER parts of this letter (and in other letters for that matter)? Paul wrote down other people statements/questions, and therefore those quotes are part of scripture’s inspiration, but for the purpose of being refuted/addressed, not implemented. The quotes are not Paul’s own words, but were meant to be used in scripture so we can see how these issues were handled. So while I do not believe that Paul is commanding women to be silent, I do believe those verses are inspired, but that we have wrongly understood, translated, and applied this verses. There are other scholars, such as Bart Erhman, who believe this verse is so inconsistent with the rest of Paul’s letter a scribe added the verses hundreds of years later. I DO NOT SHARE THIS VIEW. It makes perfect sense that Paul quotes the letter from the Corinthians (as he does in other places throughout the letter) and then promptly rebukes the notion in verses 36-38. Either you believe it is shameful for a women to speak in church or you do not.
Again, Paul’s invoking “The Law” makes a huge difference. If you believe Paul wrote down these verses as his own words, then you must admit that Paul is teaching that there is a LAW somewhere in scripture that silences women. THERE IS NO SUCH LAW FOUND ANYWHERE in either testament. It has nothing to do with there HAVING to be a law in order for Paul to silence women in the New Testament, but that if Paul is TEACHING there is a law that requires such and there is none, this would make him a liar or wrong, which I don’t believe he was.. The Law mention is more proof that these verses are a quotation from the Judiazers in Corinth since there was a rabbinic law that demanded women’s silence.
Perhaps you should do a little studying on how the scriptures were passed down through the ages. In some of the older manuscripts these verses are not even in the same spot as they are today. Also 1 Timothy 2:9-15 has been translated much differently throughout history, only receiving part of its rendering now in the 1940s! I document evidence for those verses in these posts:
abandonimage.blogspot.com/2008/05/backdrop-of-1-timothy.html
abandonimage.blogspot.com/2008/05/women-more-easily-deceived.html
abandonimage.blogspot.com/2008/05/forbidding-women-teachers-or-false.html
abandonimage.blogspot.com/2008/05/mistranslation-of-1-timothy-211-12.html
I am currently putting together a study on the head covering passage. But I can tell you know, the fundamental difference between comps and egals are how we interpret the word “head” (kephale in the greek). Comps see the word head as “boss or lead” and egals interpret the word as “source” or “origin.” You see it has a divinely mandated hierarchy and we see it as about oneness and mutuality. In the mean time, here is an article that sum up egal. Positions on head coverings and the theology behind:
godswordtowomen.org/badge.htm
Of course I agree with you that the “big picture” behind scripture is to glorify Christ, and for his people to carry that out by loving God and loving others. But your position still has the problem that if verses 34-35 are Paul’s own words that He commanding silence and yet three chapters earlier he affirms women prophesying, that this is a contradiction. These two teachings cannot be reconciled, regardless of what the bigger picture is. If you want to believe Paul both taught that women can prophesy in church and yet must remain silent in church, then at least admit you are ok with the bible flat out contradicting itself.
The creation story, pre-fall, implies nothing but Adam and Eve’s mutuality and NEED for each other. Eve being called a helper (ezer in Hebrew) to Adam is the same word used for God in 17 places in the OT. We would never assume because God is called our help or Helper that He is under us or that is His only purpose or role. God gives the dominion mandate to BOTH Adam and Eve without qualification. They are both told to rule, subdue, and care. It is the result of sin that lead to the longtime hierarchy between the sexes, not God’s ideal intent. And in Christ, we can relate to each other as God originally meant to. Here are the studies I put together on creation:
abandonimage.blogspot.com/2008/03/adam-and-eve-first-egalitarians.html
abandonimage.blogspot.com/2008/03/eve-help-meet.html
And here are studies on “the husband of one wife” clause for deacons and elders:
abandonimage.blogspot.com/2008/06/what-about-women-deacons-and-elders.html
abandonimage.blogspot.com/2008/07/what-about-women-elders-and-deacons.html
abandonimage.blogspot.com/2008/07/phoebe-deacon-of-early-church.html
Paul instructing women to teach younger women does not exclude them from teaching more broadly and in a church setting. Paul also instructs men to teach younger men, but we would never assume men are ONLY allowed to teach younger men. Women can love their husbands, children, guard their homes and be active in church leadership. Just like men can love their wives, be active fathers and also guard the home and be in church leadership. These verses are not mutually exclusive. How is it that you do not see the cultural influences in these verses, considering the vast restrictions places on women in jewish, greek and roman cultures??
By your own admission, you believe women are capable to teach (other women). But if they can teach and teach TRUTH, why couldn’t a man sit and listen to such teaching? Men and women alike are vessels. Authority lies in God’s Word and God Himself, not the people He chooses to deliver His message. We all have been entrusted to the ministry of the word and admonished to use our gifts for the benefit of the entire body.
Even if you hold to that wives should submit to their husbands, that is a far cry from ALL WOMEN should submit to ALL MEN. I am a woman, but I am not under you. Nor would I submit to you in the same way I would submit to my husband, even if I WAS a complementarian. I should, as a believer, esteem you higher than myself, but you should do the same for me. Gender is not a determining factor in this. Ephesians 5:21 teaches that all believers should submit themselves ONE TO ANOTHER, this includes women to men, and men to women, and husbands and wives.
And if you believe God gifts women in prophecy (since Anna and Phillip’s four daughters were prophets, not to mention all the OT women prophets), why would men not want to benefit from God speaking through women? Doesn’t that sound more like pride than anything else? If God gifts women to teach, preach, prophesy and lead in a Christlike manner, then this is nothing men should be against or afraid of. It has nothing to do with “usurping authority,” for all leadership is really about service and empowering OTHERS to live out their callings to the Lord.
I encourage you to come back and read the studies I’m working on about Ephesians 5. It’s one the most beautiful passages in all of scripture.
I’ve read plenty of Piper. Not convinced :)
I encourage you to look over the evidence provided at godswordtowomen.org and cbeinternational.com
Don’t just dismiss our evidence because you have been taught something different. Actually get familiar with the entire position, all the evidence, and how it is lived out before reacting against it. The whole of scripture points to God reconciling all believers to Himself and each other.