Longtime reader Alan (he’s been commenting almost as long as I’ve been blogging) asked,
Jay, the apostle Paul wrote through inspiration that the Law requires that a woman be in submission. So I accept that as true. [I agree.] It certainly seems likely that he was referring to Jewish law, since he does so often, and since we don’t have examples of him using secular law to prove a point. [I agree.] We don’t know exactly what part of the Law he meant. [I disagree, since only Gen 2 makes sense in context, but Paul could have been clearer.] We don’t know whether it was explicit or an implied requirement. We don’t know whether we possess a copy of the referenced document today or not. [Strongly disagree. The “Law” in Paul’s vocabulary is almost always Torah but occasionally the OT. It’s never a reference to the Oral Law or anything else.]
But the absence of evidence is not evidence. The fact that the inspired apostle said the Law requires it is enough. [I agree.]
Paul was a Pharisee. He knew the Law. [I agree.]
I insert my responses in brackets so readers can easily tell where Alan and I do not agree — since we agree on most of what he said. I responded in the comments (edited and expanded), as follows:
Alan,
We’re talking past each other. Paul said that the Law requires submission. You are right. I agree. Have never said otherwise.
The question is why submission requires silence in the assembly. And it doesn’t — not per se. It requires submission, as Paul says.
(1Co 14:34 ESV) For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.
The grammar is quite exact. The clause “as the Law also says” modifies the clause “should be in submission.”
I just checked Randy A. Leedy’s BibleWorks New Testament Greek Sentence Diagrams, a feature of the BibleWorks software that diagrams every Greek sentence in the NT.
And it agrees with the translation. Hence, we look to “Law” for submission and easily find it. Not even a little controversial. Gen 2 requires wives to be suitable helpers/complements to their husbands, and so they are not permitted to act in ways that bring shame to their husbands. Hence, the Law requires submission — but in the sense of Gen 2, not in the domineering sense of Gen 3:16.
Paul’s reference to the teaching of “the law” probably has the Genesis creation narratives in mind, with their implications for order and propriety in relationships between men and women (see Thiselton 2000: 1153–54; Bruce 1980: 136; Carson 1987: 129; Keener 1992: 86–87; see also commentary on 1 Cor. 11:2–16 above). Some think that Paul is alluding to Gen. 3:16 and its statement to the woman that her husband will rule over her (cf. 4Q416 2 IV, 1–8). That text, however, deals with a domination resulting from the curse of the fall (though see Grudem [1982: 253–54], who thinks that the source is Gen. 3:16 in conjunction with Gen. 2:18–23).
G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, UK: Baker Academic; Apollos, 2007), 743.
But why does submission require silence? Paul does not say that the Law requires silence. He says that submission requires silence — it’s a second-level step in his logic. And the reason he gives is in the very next verse: “For it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.” “For” indicates that this is the explanation for what precedes (“gar” in the Greek).
“Shameful” (aischron) is a reference to the views of others in an honor/shame culture. BDAG (the premier NT Greek lexicon) defines “shameful” as —
1. A term esp. significant in honor-shame oriented society; gener. in ref. to that which fails to meet expected moral and cultural standards
In short, the grammar says that Paul is giving a cultural reason for silence in response to a scriptural requirement to be in submission.
The commentaries agree:
He simply says that they should ask their questions of their husbands at home and not disturb the assembly. That would outrage propriety; it would be disgraceful (the same word as in 11:6), which Bultmann understands as ‘ “that which is disgraceful” in the judgment of men’ (TDNT, i, p. 190).
Leon Morris, 1 Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale NTC 7; IVP/Accordance electronic ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1985), n.p.
Garland concludes that “Paul’s instructions are conditioned by the social realities of his age and a desire to prevent a serious breach in decorum” and that he “may fear that the Christian community would be ‘mistaken for one of the orgiastic, secret, oriental cults that undermined public order and decency.’” In applying such a text to other contexts and cultures we must be aware of the extent to which Paul and other biblical authors are sensitive to the social norms of proper decorum in the places where they ministered.
Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians (Pillar NTC; Accordance electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), n.p.
The final reason given for their being silent in the assembly is that speaking in church, apparently for the reasons given in v. 34, is “shameful,” in the sense of being inconsistent with accepted standards of modesty.
Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987), 708.
The Law (Gen 2, in my opinion) requires submission. This requirement is not in dispute. The culture (according to the apostle Paul) tells us how submission plays out — in silence — because that how the people of that age outside the church thought.
The church would be dishonored in an honor/shame culture had they acted otherwise — and that would have hurt the cause of the Gospel. See the excellent Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible
Here’s an article I found helpful:
SHAME AND HONOR Honor and shame were values that shaped everyday life in biblical times. Honor, the primary measure of social status, was based upon ascribed honor and acquired honor. Inherited or ascribed honor was social standing due to being part of a social unit, principally the family. Those born to rulers and leaders were held in high esteem due to family honor. Jewish preoccupation with genealogies ensured inherited honor was secure. Matthew (Matt. 1:1–17) and Luke (Luke 3:23–38) give genealogies for Jesus that highlight the high status claimed for Him. In Matthew, Jesus’ pedigree is right both as to Jewishness (direct link to Abraham) and His right to be king of the Jews (descended from David). Luke traces Jesus’ lineage through Adam to God, claiming Jesus’ right to be Savior of all of mankind.
Acquired honor was gained through meritorious deeds or public performance. Family social position provided the honor base from which males launched out with hope of increasing family and personal honor. The public forum provided challenges for gaining or losing honor. A challenge might show the superiority of one person or group over another. A challenge could be ignored if not worthy of response due to social distance between the parties, but a true honor challenge required response. The party recognized as winning gained honor and the other lost honor or social standing. For example, when the Pharisees and Herodians observed Jesus to see if He would heal the man with the withered hand (Mark 3:1–6), an honor challenge took place. If Jesus violated Sabbath law, He would lose honor. If He did not heal the man, He also would lose honor. The trap looked perfect. In response to this unethical challenge, Jesus clarified the Sabbath’s intent so He could lawfully heal the man. When the trap failed, they decided to collaborate to destroy Jesus and His rising social status (which came at their expense).
Constant competition in public for honor infected even religion. In both Testaments the tendency to use religion for gaining personal honor based upon a show of piety is denounced. In Matt. 6:1–18 Jesus decried misuse of religious acts (almsgiving, prayer, and fasting) for gaining personal honor.
Shame was not simply the opposite of honor, both positive and negative shame existed. Shame could be handled positively by knowing how to keep matters out of public awareness. For example, a woman could bear shame well by remaining covered in public and by avoiding male dominated arenas. Shame could also designate dishonor or loss of honor. When people claimed an undeserved place of honor, shame resulted (Luke 14:7–11).
Perhaps the most vivid honor/shame text is Phil. 2:5–11. Jesus had unquestionable inherited, ascribed honor; yet He gave it all up and took the most humble of all honor bases (a slave) and died the most shaming of all deaths, crucifixion. However, God gave Him the highest of all honor positions and a name above all names on the honor scale, causing all to bow before Him. The honor code is thus defined by God instead of men.
Women especially bore shame and were expected to do so in a positive manner. Women were also seen as threats to honor. An immoral woman tainted the honor of the entire family, and so women generally were kept away from things tending to dishonorable behavior. The veiling of women related to this concern.
“Shamelessness” described one who refused to abide by honor and shame codes. Such people did not respect social norms nor care about public opinion of their social status. In Luke 18:1–8 the unjust judge is a classic example of a shameless person, one who “didn’t fear God or respect man” (HCSB). In the OT the “fool” is a “shameless” person who likewise neither feared God or respected social wisdom and norms.
Bill Warren, Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 2003, 1473–1474.
Unlike guilt, in an honor/shame society, shame is always about how others perceive you. It’s not necessarily about sin. It’s about appearances. The Japanese would speak in terms of “losing face.”
Now notice that this analysis is built entirely on the scriptures and an understanding of the culture of that age found in history. I’ve not once referred to preconceptions or assumptions or the Equal Rights Amendment or Women’s Liberation. Every argument comes straight from the Greek text.
And it’s really quite clear — if you are willing to accept the historicity of the surrounding honor/shame culture and the ill-view of women in the surrounding cultures. And if you disagree with my view of history, then you’re going to struggle explaining why Paul spoke in terms of “shame” in any other kind of culture.
Jay, thanks for this follow-up. We actually agree on more of those points in your first few paragraphs than you realize. I commented a few articles ago that I agree with your conclusion that Paul was referring to Genesis 2-3 when he mentioned “Law” in 1 Cor 14:34. And I’m glad to learn that we also agree on the point that the Law required women to be in submission. (Although Genesis 2-3 does not specifically say that, it is implied – an unwritten requirement. But we apparently agree that it is a requirement). Where we disagree is on the point of whether submission requires “silence” (whatever “silence” meant in this context.) I’ve studied this passage in the Greek and in a dozen or more translations, and they uniformly convey the meaning that “not permitted to speak” followed from “submission”. Otherwise Paul’s logic falls apart.
Our other major disagreement is on the matter of “shame”. The passage does not say “shame” was in recognition of a cultural norm. Rather, it says “as in all the congregations of the saints”, and “If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command.” The notion of shame being merely cultural has to come from somewhere else, because it is not in the text. I suspect that notion comes from the reader’s biases. That’s what some readers *want* this to mean.
Orthodox Jewish congregations today don’t require women to be silent, do they?
Orthodox Jews are going through the same controversy on this topic that everyone else is, although the conservative resistance is holding ground.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/femalerabbi.html
Orthodox Jews are going through the same controversies on this topic as everyone else.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/femalerabbi.html
Quote
JAY: “We’re talking past each other. Paul said that the Law requires submission. You are right. I agree. Have never said otherwise.
The question is why submission requires silence in the assembly. And it doesn’t — not per se. It requires submission, as Paul says.”
(1Co 14:34 ESV) For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.”
I have commented before on how Numbers 30 plays into this discussion on submission. I think this passage more (or at least as much) clearly speaks to 1Cor 11 & 14 than Gen 2-3.
So what we are left to consider is “What does submission LOOK LIKE in the assembly?” In the normal “practice” of today’s churches, do the usual public expressions of worship (reading, praying, preaching) display submission or authority? They display authority, derived and delegated presumably from an elder ship (in congregation with elders. or from “leaders” in congregations without elders).
With this understanding . . . how is submission best shown? Can women, especially in praying or preaching, display submission? Should their prayer or message be “pre-appproved”; would that
‘demonstrate” submission?
Also, the root of shame (TDNT) more commonly show the judgment of shame coming from God, who is judging what is shameful
A. The Linguistic Usage in the LXX
Most frequently God is the subject, and the shame to which He brings is His judgment (Ps 43:9 *, v.l. e)coudeno/w; 118:31 118:116 ). The middle is relatively uncommon, and has the common Greek sense of “being ashamed” (i.e., of doing something, 2 Esd 8:22 etc., or of having done something, 2 Chron 12:6). Mostly ai)sxu/nesqai denotes experience of the judgment of God; and it is usually difficult to decide whether the form is middle or passive, i.e., “to be shamed or confounded,” or “to be ashamed” in the sense of “having to be ashamed.” What is in view is not so much the state of soul of the ai)sxunqei/$ but the situation into which he is brought and in which he is exposed to shame and has thus to be ashamed.
B. The NT Usage
From the root ai)sx- we also find ai)sxro/$ in the NT in the sense of “that which is disgraceful” in the judgment of men (1 Cor 11:6; 14:35), especially as expressed in words (Eph 5:12, cf. Herm. v., 1, 1, 7 ) or in relation to filthy lucre (Titus 1:11). This corresponds to Greek usage, as does the use of the compounds ai)sxrologi/a (Col 3:8; Did., 5, 1 ), ai)sxrolo/go$ (Did., 3, 3 ) and ai)sxrokerdh/$ (1 Tim 3:3 [Š] 8; Titus 1:7; Adv. 1 Peter 5:2) — words which are typical in the lists of vices, c. 30 of the Characters of Theophr. being devoted to ai)sxrokerdh/$. Perhaps ai)dxrologi/a and ai)sxroke/rdeia may be described as more choice.2. The rarer ai)sxro/th$,3 which is attested only in Attic literature, is found once in Eph 5:4, where it occurs with mwrologi/a and eu)trapeli/a in the sense of ai)sxrologi/a.
Bultmann
(from Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Copyright © 1972-1989 By Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. All rights reserved.)
(Sorry, but the Greek formatting gets lost in pasting, and I do not see how to correct of change)
The problem I see is we make things about symbolism, then an example of and if it is but symbolism, then the symbolism can change. But this is just us adjusting the scriptures. In regards to keeping silence it was an act of submission in the assembly. Paul could have said, “women should be in submission” without assigning a how, but he did assign a how. This was submission in application. Jesus died on the cross to redeem us, but if this is about symbiolism, then Jesus could have done any numerous things to relay this thought and dying was really not important and yet we are told was important. This all comes down to what God declares Holy, we should declare Holy. God told Abram that the ground in front of him was Holy and yet it was ground just like all of the other ground. And yet Abram treated as Holy, not because of any better composition, but because God said so. So back to silence, If God said this was the way to show submission in the assembly, even though there are other possible ways, then it is so. If it is shameful as related by God, then it is shameful, regardless of culture.
Bruce Malina has an excellent text on cultural anthropology in the ancient world called The New Testament World (3rd ed.) The first chapter is Honor and Shame: Pivotal Values of the First-Century Mediterranean World. It also covers patriarchy, Kinship, Marriage, and Rules of Purity. All relevant to this topic for further study.
“For it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.” This is not the reason submission requires silence. It is the reason why: “If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home.”
He does not say why “it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.” You assume a cultural explanation. There are other more reasonable explanations.
I agree wholeheartedly Jay, except I don’t think Paul was upholding stringent decorum as these were homes they assembled in. Not major proconsuls. Paul was calling for common courtesy and decency. Not strict Victorian propriety.
R.J. I think that is what is behind the submission. Even the men were told to submit to silence to let others speak in I Cor.14. It wasn’t about seeking thier own, but seeking the best of others and allowing others to shine.
We do not have be told why it was a shame, but I suggest it has to do with the whole of the verse, “Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.”
It is a shame because they have been instructed not to and it wouldn’t be submission. In fact it would be a shame for women to speak in the churches. And then Paul offers a way they can inquire about what they heard, “ask their husbands.”
Dwight wrote:
>> It is a shame because they have been
>> instructed not to and it wouldn’t be submission.
Exactly. The argument is sometimes made that this no longer applies because it’s no longer a shame for women to speak in the assembly. But that’s a circular argument. The only reason it’s not considered shameful today is that the church has not been teaching that it is shameful.
Women in old folks homes for women, girls reformatories, women thrown together in military service, and in womens prisons where the women meeting for worship lead the singing, prayers, teaching, preaching, serving the Lords Supper and everything else. No men participating but may be present like the guards on duty in some places and no husbands to ask.
Should they stop woman led worshiping and remain silent because of the scriptures being brought up here? If not why not?
Are they being disobedient?
Alan and Dwight,
Keep on thinking as I do – – – submission to apostolic authority and practice. Why is there disputation? I believe it starts because we fail to accept what the simple words of scripture say. So a rhetorical “eta” and “culture” become the way around — past — through scripture. How much clear clearly must God through inspiration declare something? To our “enlightened” minds of freedom … or in words simple enough for even the “common” man to understand?
John F,
I certainly agree with what you say re the NT usage of “shame.” As the Theological Dict of the NT says, the word is used “in the NT in the sense of “that which is disgraceful” in the judgment of men. My point exactly. Here’s a fuller quotation
Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, Eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 1964–, 1, 190–191.
The boldface is my emphasis. Paul is not speaking of how shameful God perceives women speaking but how this appears shameful “in the judgment of men.”
RE: TDNT quote on shame — The article is by Bultmann (as noted when I posted above), so his comments need be understood in his hermeneutic framework. While lexicons are most useful tools; they are not always free from theological bias (note “eis” by Mantey and psallw by Gingrich / Danke). I don’t think Jay quoted any fuller than I, but does have the Greek formatting
So as Dwight points out — outside sources are understood with caution. My other questions remained unanswered.
Once again: So what we are left to consider is “What does submission LOOK LIKE in the assembly?” In the normal “practice” of today’s churches, do the usual public expressions of worship (reading, praying, preaching) display submission or authority? They display authority, derived and delegated presumably from an elder ship (in congregation with elders. or from “leaders” in congregations without elders).
With this understanding . . . how is submission best shown? Can women, especially in praying or preaching, display submission? Should their prayer or message be “pre-appproved”; would that “‘demonstrate” submission?
John F wrote:
Until about the middle of the 20th century, one way women showed submission was with some form of head covering, in keeping with 1 Cor 11:10. Of course the few who do that now are considered weird, and most church leaders won’t touch that passage with a ten foot pole.
I am well aware of the head covering question. The widow of one of my former college professors continues to wear a head covering many years after his death; she seeks to honor his memory in this way.
Thanks Alan, I appreciate your comments.
Alan, I may have a tendency to abbreviate too much; I did not intend to minimize your comment.
My shorthand view of 1Cor 11 is as follows: Paul wished the Corinthian women to follow the customs of “respectable” women in that culture. Those customs generally conformed to the principle of patriarchy (see Numbers 30 as well as the overall Biblical narrative). Paul gives little or no detail about the custom; the Corinthians knew them well. Given this lack of specific detail it is difficult, probably impossible, for we Christians some 2000 years later to replicate the Grecian practice. Therefore such imitation is not required, even if we desired to do so from a Biblical basis. Seeing the cultural corruption of modern dress, we might as Christian congregations discuss and agree internally to recognize some form of appearance (I do not have an idea what that would look like, but certainly not a “uniform”) that recognizes a biblical principle. (We see this in some religious groups even now.) Peter’s comments about modesty are appropriate to consider here. Paul’s teaching in I Cor 11 cannot be forced as a “weightier matter of the law” such a love, mercy, reconciliation, baptism, or the Lord’s supper. These “weightier matters” all have multiple references of supporting documents. The veil has but one, though that fact in itself does not give license to bypass its’ teaching import.
Women wearing some sort of covering on their heads was customary in Christian churches worldwide for 1900 years. It became not customary when the church stopped teaching it.
I don’t think 1 Cor 11 has anything to do with the culture outside the church – just as I don’t think 1 Cor 14 is talking about the culture of unbelievers. Those texts say nothing about customs of outsiders. The reasons given pertain to Old Testament history and doctrine – and those reasons predated the Mosaic Law. It seems to me that many modern readers don’t want to follow those teachings and so they try to ascribe them to a different culture.
Alan, take a look at these comments; I think they are worthwhile. There is also quite o bit of information about Graeco-Roman kephale (coverings) as shown in the history of the coinage or the era.
http://thenarrowpath.com/ta_headcoverings.php
The church is IN culture, but not necessarily a PART of culture. And when culture in not in conflict with the Creator, Christians should respect what in honorable in the sight of all men
2 Cor 6:17-18
“Therefore, COME OUT FROM THEIR MIDST AND BE SEPARATE,” says the Lord.
“AND DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN; And I will welcome you. 18 “And I will be a father to you, And you shall be sons and daughters to Me,” Says the Lord Almighty.
NASU
John F wrote:
Sure. But secular history cannot refute the inspired scriptures, no matter how prolific the writings. If we accept that the scriptures are inspired by God, we have to take them at face value. God said what he meant to say, in the way he meant to say it.
I agree, the scriptures transcend culture, but they are written TO culture. Our challenge is understand the application of scripture in our culture — that we might honor and glorify God. Would a literal application of ALL scripture lead us to a legalism that does not glorify God, but merely glorifying self? (Is singing a hymn and going out after the LS a “binding” example? Is meeting in an upper room binding?) How we distinguish between apostolic authority and traditions that we should honor and human traditions that we should not is an ongoing search. A thousand pages of man’s wisdom falls short a single word of God. The simplest understanding is usually the best.
If only Paul said in I cor.11 or 14 anything about culture and if about culture, then what wasn’t. I mean the Lord’s Supper itself was developed from the Passover which was part of the Jewish culture, nevermind that God commanded the Passover to be done. I agree Alan, we use this culture excuse to excuse ourselve whenever we feel like it an don’t use in other places even though the whole of the letters, all of them, were written to different people in different cities with different makes of people. And yet these were passed around and used as if it was written to them. We can say well it was addressed to the Romans, but then again Paul uses Jewish concepts, so it either had Jews and he was discluding the Gentiles or he was speaking beyond their culture to identify the Christian culture by command. When I Cor.11 was directed to “every man” and “every woman” are we then to deduce that this wasn’t everyman and everywoman, but just the locals. Ahemmm!The simplest understanding is the text and not grounded in assumptions.
John F., (Is singing a hymn and going out after the LS a “binding” example? Is meeting in an upper room binding?)
These above aren’t commands arguing for application like I Cor.11 in regards to headship, for men and women, and I Cor.14 in regards to silence for women in the Assembly and even the Lord’s Supper in I Cor.11.
They are examples and it is true that we have a tendency to make a single example a binding law, which is Pharasaical, but then again when we see many examples for a pattern, then we would think that this means something too. But still maybe not binding.
But the things we aren’t discussing are matters of example, but matters of Paul saying something directly to the people that he inteded for them to follow. And he directs it to the saints. Did the culture have spiritual gifts and if they did, then you might have a point, but he is talking to saints with spiritual gifts and saints who men and women.
All the places I mentioned yesterday where only women were meeting and worshiping are called churches by those women involved. I believe they are right, there are more than two or three meeting, in some places more than meeting in many of the local churches of Christ today..
The church at ________all across America are Women only Prisons for example.
Paul only writes about how men and women should act in mixed sexed churches but how would he write if there were those churches I mentioned, all women back then? Did Paul think only men went to prison?
Times change and God changes too. WE do too and there are many examples of what used to be LAW in the coC that is not observed today.
Women participating is just one more small change from my way or the highway Paul.
A.J. As you noted Paul had in context a mixed-sex crowd, so if that condition exist, then Paul’s command should exist. Now when you move into a crowd where there is only women, then this doesn’t exit because there are no men to be submission to.
Since Paul said he spoke with God’s authority, then don’t you mean “from my way or the highway God”?
This is like saying that what should apply to an apple should also apply to an orange even if Paul’s instruction was only within the context of the apple.
And arguably just because we allow homosexuality into some gatherings doens’t make it right in God’s eys, but you are right this used to be God’s law back then.
It is amusing and perhaps disturbing to read this in depth conversation about women and have no female voices. I appreciate your knowledge and passion, but would love to have a more representative conversation. Ultimately, none of us are personally limited in our ministry based on our gender. Thanks for taking the time to share your knowledge.
Dwight, Am I understanding you to be saying if there are no men present women cannot lead other women in worship?
I believe you meant in your second sentence to use EXIST instead of EXIT. Am I right?
Surely we all agree that as time goes by we have changed from many things we used to quote Paul on that were do it or suffer hell, to now, most of the most conservative coC don’t even think is necessary.
Douglas, I commented quite a bit in the Wrapping Up Some More 5/5 post and the Junia one from 5/10. (Maybe an older one in the week too?) I appreciate you realizing an exegesis and hermeneutic about people should involve insight from those people about how they interact with the Living God within them. I know its unintended, but handling ‘women’s roles’ the same way we do instruments is quite objectifying. There are a lot of books and blogs out there to help with the human factor. Sara Barton’s A Woman Called is excellent, and Kaitlin posted a lovely piece this week on serving communion heavenlyhats.blogspot.com I encourage you all to look into them and talk to women in our churches. Exegesis is important, but let’s not forget we serve a relational God living and working in all of the saved today.
The Gk for “mercy” in Matt 9:13 and Matt 12:7 is ελεον, which is also the word used in the LXX for Hosea 6:6. The context of Jesus’ uses of the passage certainly supports the traditional translation as “mercy” (KJV, ASV, ESV, NET, NIV…) Jesus wanted to redeem sinners, so he wanted mercy. He could have given them judgment without going to the cross. His preference for mercy was so overwhelming that he went to the cross so he could offer mercy.
The discussion in this series of articles has ranged far and wide, seeking a basis for rejecting the traditional interpretation of the passage. Multiple theories have been tried. Maybe the verses are not inspired. Maybe they are inspired, but merely reflecting a question that had been asked. Maybe they were inspired, but only restricted women in that particular place and time. etc… It seems that it doesn’t matter which is correct, as long as one of them is. Any of them achieves the goal of rejecting the traditional application.
The basic assumption I have in interpreting scripture is that God knew what he was doing when he inspired the message. He knew the message would be passed down for thousands of years through different languages and cultures. He knew most readers would not have deep knowledge of first century culture, much less of ancient Greek and Hebrew. He knew about every one of the controversies that would arise from the text, before he wrote them. And so he said what he said, in the way that he said it, intentionally. Even Jesus himself didn’t take liberties with what God told him to say.
Joh_12:49 For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.
These passages are really not complicated. They don’t require advanced degrees in ancient languages and ancient cultures to understand. I can hand these verses to my six year old granddaughter and she can tell me what they mean. (really!)
Alan, your granddaughter may be able to tell you what she thinks Paul was saying to the church in Corinth, but she will have a much harder time telling you what God is saying to her through those verses, especially as she gets older and desires to bring her gifts to the church. There will grow an un-ignorable tension between her relationship with God, the face value rendering of those couple of verses, the meta-narrative of God’s relationship with women, and the differences between our culture and theirs in regard to women. I have yet to meet a woman who remained in the church of christ who didn’t face this tension. Depending upon many factors, like her gifts, and whether she is called to ministries predominantly in or out of the church, the age at which she first tries to do something in church and is told she cant-which happens to all girls at one point-, how that is handled, how she is taught to read the Bible, etc… i’t resolves easily for some. Others, not so well. There are major inconsistencies even between 14:34, 37, and 39. Who is ‘anyone’? Who are adolphoi? Is this wives or all women? (I’m not suggesting we get into all that right now; it’s been done by Jay and others). But I think the whole matter is more complicated that you’re implying.
I, like you, am extremely hesitant not to heed to the traditional interpretation on a matter. It’s why I struggle with a lot of the emergent church doctrines, but that’s another post. But it’s important to ask Why something has been interpreted the way it has for so long. In this case, our interpretation on women in church is rooted in patriarchy, and that tradition didn’t begin until the church became predominantly Gentile. To relay this point, I’m pasting a portion of an email correspondence between myself and Ben Witherington that I know he has written about extensively other places, so I’m violating any trust:
“I think there were at least four factors that led to the loss of the egalitarian spirit of the NT church: 1) the increasingly Gentile character of the church in the 2nd and subsequent centuries brought patriarchy, and priesthood and sacrifice notions back into play, because of the background of these Gentiles; 2) the loss of future eschatology and especially the loss of possible imminence eschatology led to culture creep, more and more the dominant models for things came from the culture; 3) the rise of a defective approach to human sexuality that associated sex with sin, and abstinence with holiness. This was the rise of asceticism which led to monasticism and of course talented women being shunted into nunneries. Separate was not equal. 4) the rise of Mariology. Obviously if Mary is the picture of the ideal woman, she is someone who was simply known as Jesus’ Mom, so then motherhood was going to be exalted as the ideal female role.”
We have to answer whether patriarchy is a part of God’s plan or if patriarchy is a cultural phenomenon as old as the fall (though it isn’t in all cultures.) If it’s cultural, as I believe, it has no more business being canonized for all time than honor and shame. If Paul is addressing a church in crisis in an honor and shame and patriarchal culture, our application of those verses must be rooted in his eternal message found throughout the meta-narrative (mutual submission?) because we live in a nearly egalitarian, life and death culture. In Christ,
Tiffany, I understand the difficulty these verses pose for a woman in America today. But the difficulty of a biblical teaching is not a valid argument against the teaching. For 1800 years there was consensus about what these verses meant. It’s not hard to see what has changed.
It’s the difficulty of a culturally based Biblical teaching to an occasional audience. That’s the difference where we aren’t seeing eye to eye. As Witherington explained, there has not been consistent interpretation on these verses. Hermeneutics is significantly easier anytime a Biblical teaching lines up with the current culture, and the culture of patriarchy is long and widespread, no doubt. But that culture has changed (and has always been different in parts of SE Asia and Latin America). No one is claiming God’s eternal message has changed. The eternal, foundational truths should never be compromised. Again, the crux of the dialogue is this: many consider patriarchy a part of God’s eternal message. Others interpret it as cultural, or as a result of the Fall that the church should be actively striving to overcome. It’s an important discussion though -not just with women, but any topic-because the hermeneutics of how we apply an occasional directive in a more egalitarian time (or culturally different time) determines how the Gospel remains accessible to as many as possible.
“Mom — Dad, Why is that lady preaching?”
“Don’t worry, Sarah, it is okay.”
“But didn’t Paul say it was a shame for a woman to speak in church?”
“Yes, but that is not really how scripture applies for us today; we live in a different culture.”
“Okay, Daddy, okay Mom.”
Fast forward. . .
“Mom — Dad, Why can’t I have sex with my boyfriend?”
“Because scripture says your body is holy to God. Paul tells us that in his letter to the Corinthians.”
“But Mom, Dad, you told me that scripture doesn’t really apply to us today; we live in a different culture.”
Hmmm . . .
JAY; “I’ve read the Torah. I know what a statute reads like.”
So. . . does 1 Cor 14:33b -ff read MORE like statute, or the narrative of a story line?
What does it READ like?
Also, much has been said to separate 1Tim from 1 Cor. I think that does not work weil. From the below we see that Ephesus was facing much the same as Corinth
1 Tim 3:14-16; 4:1-5
14 I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long; 15 but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how 2 one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.
1 Tim 4:1-5
But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; 5 for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer. NASU
Also, Paul instructed that his letters be shared with other churches; (Colossians 4:16
When this letter is read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and you, for your part read my letter that is coming from Laodicea. NASU)
Therefore, what Paul tells the Ephesians is also for the Corinthians, and also the reverse. Paul expected his “occasional letters” to have a wider reception than the first reading to the first recipients.
1 Tim 1:3-7
As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, 2 remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, 4 nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering 2 the administration of God which is by faith. 5 But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6 For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, 7 wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions. NASU
We has been presented several “confident assertions” which IMHO are fruitless discussion, unfit for harvest, but should be pruned off and left to die.
In a few decades, will we see the “officially appointed” deaconesses as the “husband of one wife” since we can “culturally” apply the definition of marriage. Or will we “legalistically” insist that gender reassignment surgery take place first? It is not an idle question.
John F-That’s so apples and oranges and discrediting to your granddaughter’s ability to discern and critically think I’m not even going to address it. I suggest reading back on what Jay already wrote about culture and hermeneutics.
Tiffany, I’ve read it all, and long before jay’s blogs ever came on the scene and likely long before you were born. I have degrees in Bible and Communication; that merely informs us of tools for exploration. That does not make me an expert, but it does mean I am informed and have a bit of historical perspective. When you choose the hermeneutic, you choose the outcome. You say apples and oranges; I say it is vine and branches; poison the vine of a good hermeneutic and and the branches are poisoned as well.
Yes, “Dad — Mom’ was a perhaps a bit simplistic, and perhaps you choose to “not address it” but the point of a confusing approach to scripture remains. Others besides myself (Dwight and Alan come to mind) have pointed out that the simplest understanding is likely the best, whether we culturally want to accept it or not. We can put fingers in our ears and say, “I’m not listening” but the message is still there.
John F,
1 Cor 14:33b ff, like the rest of the letter, reads a lot like a letter.
The Law of Moses is statutory law because it was issued by God as such. It’s not just that God had authority, but he chose to exercise his authority through the issuance of laws. We therefore read the Law of Moses as Ancient Near Eastern legislation. And there are scholars who study the legislation of that era and see the obvious choice of form that God made.
Deuteronomy was written in the form of an ANE vassalage treaty — and we should read it as such.
Revelation is apocalyptic literature, which follows its own conventions. It is, nonetheless, highly instructive to the church as to how we should live as God’s people.
Of all Paul’s letters, Philemon and 1 Cor seem to me to be the most “occasional,” that is, written to deal with particular fact patterns that required Paul’s intervention.
We shouldn’t confuse a command with a law. Paul gave commands in 1 Cor to deal with the particulars of the situation at hand. In c. 11 he told them to eat at home. It was a command but not a law. I’m pretty sure it’s okay for Christians to eat together, even in their church buildings. Unless they botch it as badly as the Corinthians did — then they’d be better off eating at home.
Now, Paul is usually careful to give his reasoning behind his commands and conclusions. And these are often laws. Hence, he often refers to God’s laws in drawing his occasional conclusions. This is part of what makes his epistles so very valuable to the church. He doesn’t just issue decrees. He reasons from the gospel, the OT, the resurrection, etc. to reach his conclusions, and in so doing, instructs us on how to do hermeneutics the right way.
Am I repealing a law? No. I’m treating an occasional letter as an occasional letter. I’m respecting choices God made, reading his Spirit’s words in the form in which he chose for them to be written. I’m refusing to impose foreign standards on the text. To call it a “statute” is to read it as something it simply is not — and that will always lead to a bad reading.
This is how I was taught to read the scriptures as a child in the North Highlands Church of Christ, Russellville, Alabama. I thought we’d always read letters as letters. I think that goes back to Campbell, at least. This is not exactly radical or revolutionary.
John F,
“Mom — Dad, why are we eating in the church building?”
“Why aren’t the women wearing veils?”
“Why are the women wearing jewelry?”
“Why don’t the men lift holy hands to God?”
“Why don’t we greet one another with a Holy Kiss?”
“Why don’t we meet in an upper room?”
“Why don’t we have just one cup?”
“Why do we have grape juice instead of wine?”
“Why do the elders allow electronic giving — on business days and not just Sundays?”
“Why don’t we have women deacons? Cenchreae did. The early church did.”
“Why do we only have men passing out announcement sheets?”
“Why don’t we speak in tongues?”
“Why did we hire someone to preach when we have elders?”
“Why do we give money to missionary organizations not mentioned in the Bible?”
“Why do we eat together at the building?”
Jesus:
Somehow we managed to raise children who understood God’s will on fornication despite having a kitchen in our church building. And multiple cups. There were those who said it couldn’t be done. Even children can understand that not every First Century practice was intended to last forever.
On the other hand, they do sometimes insist on wearing sandals to church, and when I complain, they show me the flannelgraphs they were raised on. I’m just glad they don’t dress up based on Veggietales.
You list about 15 questions that have led to division. My old College professor Mac Lynn I think lists about 39. I merely attempted to point out the difficulty of deciding between two passages; yes I used two extremes to make the point. Jesus used hyperbole as well.
The “occasional letters” were to be shared among congregations that we might know how to behave in the “household of God.” The cultural aspects of some of those congregations was different, yet Paul could say “As in all the churches…” moving past a specific culture to an underlying principle applicable to “all the churches”.
So, what does submission, about which principle we agree on, look like in practice in the church today?
And WHAT IN THE WORLD do you have against SANDALS? I mean, after all, they were good enough for Jesus and the 12 and the seventy. Also, very convenient for shaking off the dust toward those who refused the message. 🙂
John F,
Not only did some (not all) of my list lead to division, each one is an example of a disagreement over whether a text applies only in its cultural setting or more generally. Some churches say that Paul’s instruction to “eat at home” is for all time, making eating together in the building sinful. Some disagree. Some say churches must use wine in communion. Some say Welch’s — only invented in the 19th Century — is permissible. Not all led to splits but many did.
The role of women question in 1 Cor 14:34-35 is of similar kind. In fact, the language of that passage is remarkably similar to the language of 1 Cor 11:2-16, dealing with veils. And I lived through the hats-in-church controversy and change. I saw it happen.
And yet no one is getting bent out of shape over churches not requiring women to cover their hair with veils. There is no way Paul was discussing fashionable, expensive hats! Nor was he discussing a merely symbolic bit of lace to evidence submission. He wanted the women to wear veils over their hair because in that world, many considered it immodest for a married woman to let a man not her husband see her hair.
Burton Scott Easton and W. Shaw Caldecott, The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, 1915, 1–5, 3047.
And that’s a 1915 source, long before the era of Women’s Liberation and the ERA.
Paul wrote regarding veils,
Very similar to 14:33b, 36
So I guess we need to start insisting on veils. It may look bad to those outside the church, but Dang It! submission means submission, and if God says show submission by wearing a veil, we’ll just do that because it will please the Maker of the Universe. And our women won’t have to wear veils when they’re in women-only meetings. But we are all agreed on submission, and Paul says veils are required for submission, and so there really is no imaginable case to be made the other way.
Jay, I need to respond to your claims to authority as a lawyer:
>> I’m a lawyer. I study and apply “law.” Law comes in various forms.
and
>> The hard question — and this is what lawyers do for a living —
>> is asking what facts are material,
and
>> Again, as a lawyer, I know what presuming does to the search for truth.
Argument from authority is a logical fallacy. I’m sure you know there are plenty of lawyers who disagree with your arguments. Lawyers are not the authority who decide cases, and they are not especially well known for being right all the time. On average, lawyers lose their case half the time. It is not the lawyer, but the judge who decides who is right. Certainly the lawyers in Jesus’ day were convinced they were right, but they were not.
It has been my observation that appeals to authority enter the discussion when the material arguments are found to be insufficient to win the case. Your credentials as a lawyer are not material to the question of understanding scripture.
“So I guess we need to start insisting on veils. It may look bad to those outside the church, but Dang It! submission means submission, and if God says show submission by wearing a veil, we’ll just do that because it will please the Maker of the Universe. And our women won’t have to wear veils when they’re in women-only meetings. But we are all agreed on submission, and Paul says veils are required for submission, and so there really is no imaginable case to be made the other way.”
I knew I would “win you over” eventually :). I’ll be pleased to buy the first for your wife. What drab, non descript color would she prefer? And what length (I don’t supply plumage)/ Or was there “just a touch of sarcasm there? 🙂
In His service,
BTW Alan, I think Jay was referring more to his training in law and logic, rather than an inherent authority as a result of that training. God is the judge; we His often poor interpreters, which is why we need the Holy Spirit.
Jay, Why not consult the scripture instead of referencing a person who is making a commentary on scripture? This seems to be a common way to avoid the actual scripture. We just listen to someone else speak and follow their opinion. ex. The modern oriental custom of veiling is due to Mohammedan influence and has not been universally adopted by Jewesses in the Orient. In NT times, however, among both Greeks and Romans, reputable women wore a veil in public (Plutarch Quaest. Rom. xiv) and to appear without it was an act of bravado (or worse); Tarsus, St. Paul’s home city, was especially noted for strictness in this regard (Dio of Prusa, Tarsica prior, § 48). Hence St. Paul’s indignant directions in 1 Cor 11:2–16, which have their basis in the social proprieties of the time. The bearing of these directions, however, on the compulsory use of the hat by modern women in public worship would appear to be very remote. Burton Scott Easton and W. Shaw Caldecott, The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, 1915, 1–5, 3047.
Mohammad was born about 500 CE and I Cor. was written by Paul around 55 CE, thus Mohhammedian influence was not felt in Paul’s time and they had veils then and before as noted in the OT. There is very little evidence that wearing veils in the Roman culture was that prevalent and most of the fescoes and sculptures do not reflect this either. A kind of head covering was worn that wrapped around the head, but this wasn’t prevelant either. Paul argues against those who wore braids and gold, not those that wore head coverings, which would have covered up the gold and braids. Paul never argues that he is making a command to back a custom and this is out of character with Paul in pressing others to do what was a human tradition, which he was vehemently against in Col. The reasoning for Paul’s argument for application is headship as given in vs.2-3 and argues from God to Jesus to man to woman, affecting both men and women equally. The scripture was directed to “every man” and “every woman” as to deflect from the specific culture that Paul was writing to and to be applied broadly to all genders everywhere.
Dwight,
You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. In one comment you criticize the use of external sources to the scripture to provide historical background — and in the very next comment, you cite historical background from external sources: “There is very little evidence that wearing veils in the Roman culture was that prevalent and most of the fescoes and sculptures do not reflect this either. A kind of head covering was worn that wrapped around the head, but this wasn’t prevelant either.” You don’t bother to cite your authority, but I’m pretty sure your information on frescoes and sculpture did not come from the pages of scripture.
In fact, historical sources to provide contemporary historical context are entirely appropriate and necessary. But regardless of that issue, Paul issued an instruction in 1 Cor 11:2-16 regarding head coverings. He was not talking about hats. A lace was not yet invented either. Nor do bits of lace “cover” the head. Therefore, he was certainly speaking of some sort of covering found in Jewish, Greek, and/or Roman practice, which is likely the toga pulled up over the head to cover the entirety of a woman’s hair — a form of veiling, that is, covering the hair. We see this practice in ancient statuary and frescoes. We see nothing of lace or hats.
My question to you and others who insist on female silence is why don’t you also practice head covering per c. 11? How do you decide that silence is forever and yet togas over the hair are not?