(Seems rather late in the discussion for an introduction, but we really need to gather some context here.)
(1Co 14:33-36 ESV) As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. 36 Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached?
This is a familiar text to those who’ve grown up in a Church of Christ — too familiar most likely, in the sense that we may have read it so many times that we no longer can see it for what it actually says.
Reading in light on 1 Tim 2:11-15?
For example, it’s extremely common in Church of Christ preaching to combine this text with 1 Tim 2:11-15 as though the church in Corinth was expected to fill in gaps in the text of 1 Corinthians by pulling out their pocket-edition, tabbed, gold-leaved, red-lettered KJV Bibles, with center-column cross-references telling them to turn to 1 Timothy to fully understand Paul’s message.
But, of course, 1 Timothy wasn’t written until years after 1 Corinthians, and it was written to Timothy while he was in Ephesus, not Corinth. Sound exegesis requires that we read 1 Corinthians as the church in Corinth would have read it — and so not combined with other NT texts. Paul would certainly have written with the Old Testament in mind — as he expressly says — but not expecting his readers to interpret in light of letters not yet written.
Public vs. private speech?
We make a similar anachronistic blunder when we suggest that Paul was prohibiting public speech by women but not private speech. This makes sense to us because our church services are in auditoriums at services advertised to the public through the Yellow Pages and Internet. But the Corinthian church certainly met in private homes, perhaps even in secret in times of persecution. The services certainly weren’t advertised to the public. They would have seemed to those present much like a small group meeting today — with no more than 30 persons present and so private. A First Century residence would not have held more, except for the extraordinarily wealthy. To refer to the Christian assembly as “public” would have seemed absurd to a First Century Christian. I mean, are our small group meetings “public”? Then neither were the early Christian assemblies.
The “Law”
Now we get down to the lick log. Paul says that his instruction for women to be silent in the assembly is “as the Law also says.” Obviously, he is referring either to the Law of Moses or the Five Books of the Law — Genesis – Deuteronomy. No one has plausibly suggested any other possibility, and every other use by Paul of nomos in 1 Cor is a reference to Torah.
But the Law of Moses nowhere requires women to be silent in the tabernacle or anywhere else for that matter. Miriam leads the women of Israel in singing after they crossed the Red Sea (Exo 15:21). She is also referred to as a “prophetess” (Exo 15:20), that is, someone who speaks by the power of God. Then there’s —
(Mic 6:4 ESV) I sent before you Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.
Hence, the prophet Micah describes Miriam as a leader of Israel.
On the other hand, growing up, I also read the maps in the back of my Bible, and there was always a map of Herod’s Temple, which had the Court of Women outside the inner court in which only men were allowed — so that women weren’t allowed to be as close to the Holy of Holies as men.
But that separation is not created by the Bible but by the rabbis. Nowhere in the very detailed descriptions of how to build the tabernacle is Moses told to separate men from women or to let only men be closest to God. The map is good history but bad theology.
So there’s nothing at all in the Law of Moses that even arguably requires women to be silent in the assembly. Indeed, in those passages where Israel is called the ekklesia, the assembly is often said to speak in response to Moses, and no distinction is made between men and women.
This brings us to Genesis 2 and 3, which nearly all commentators believe to be Paul’s intended reference. In fact, in 1 Cor 6, 7, and 11, Paul has already alluded to Gen 2 as describing the relationship between husbands and wives.
Many hierarchical commentators believe Paul was referring to —
(Gen 3:16 ESV) To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”
But notice the following —
1. There is nothing here about Eve being silent in Adam’s presence.
2. The command is for Adam to “rule” Eve — the same word used for the rule of despots and kings. This language cannot be plausibly translated “spiritually lead.” For example, the same word is found in —
(Gen 37:8 ESV) [Joseph’s] brothers said to him, “Are you indeed to reign over us? Or are you indeed to rule over us?” So they hated him even more for his dreams and for his words.
This is not the language of gentle, loving, Golden Rule spiritual leadership. It’s the language of dominance.
3. Not surprisingly, this is also the language for what sin does to the world and to relationships. It’s routinely referred to as a curse — being the very same curse that Jesus died to reverse.
Paul describes the Gen 3 curse on creation as follows:
(Rom 8:20-23 ESV) 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.
So how can we be inwardly groaning for redemption from the curse while simultaneously imposing it on our female members? Such a theory is profoundly bad theology.
So if Paul isn’t referring to Gen 3:16 when he speaks of the “Law,” what is he referring to? Plainly, just as in the previous chapters of 1 Cor, he is referring to the relationship of husbands and wives found in Gen 2. So that’s what we’ll look at in the next post.
I guess it depends on whether one concedes that the passage highlighted in this OP was spoken by Paul or was a reiteration of a question asked by the Corinthian leadership… If Paul, then I can see your point and would agree that this subjugation is punitive and perhaps even removed by the new covenant of grace… “Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. [2Co 3:17 ESV]
If however, the “eta” argument is in fact true, then it wasn’t Paul who asked about the Law so Paul’s previous use of the word would have no bearing since it wasn’t his word selection but theirs. It then begs the question whether or not THEY would have been so clearly informed as to the curse of Gen 2 or if they were referring to a local ordinance restricting women from speaking in public…
One article I read from a GCI online article footnoted a comment about how Rome restricted women in it observance of religious practices… It said this, ” “Official religion of the Roman variety was closely supervised. The women who participated were carefully organized and their activities strictly regulated” (Linda Belleville, “Women in Ministry,” in Beck and Blomberg, 119). Richard and Catherine Clark Kroeger cite Plutarch, Cicero, and Livy for evidence that Rome had laws regulating the behavior of women in worship (“Pandemonium and Silence at Corinth,” Reformed Journal 28[June 1978], p. 9). References are Plutarch, Lives, on Solon; Cicero,Laws, II.xv; Livy, XXXIX.xv; and Phintys, Stobaeus, IV.23.61.”….
Now, I’m neither an expert on Roman religious practices or a historian but it does seem that there is some indication that there was in fact some ordinance that restricted participation by women in religious services. If that is the case then it would not surprise me that the leadership in Corinth would question Paul about how this civil rule might impact their gatherings especially since they were living under Roman domination…
Seems to me that they ask Paul if they have to abide by these Roman restrictions and Paul says no you don’t. He just gave women instructions on how to pray in some sort of gathering and then says that EACH has a gift FOR THE COMMON GOOD…How else to make a prophesy available for the common good except to speak what God gave them to share ? The gyrations used to avoid this conclusion in either instance are many…
Jay, I think you are right that “law” here is a reference to the relationship between husbands and wives found in Genesis 2-3.
Note that the leaders of the Jews had established regulations to define the practical meaning of written laws. For example, there was a regulation about how far you could walk on the Sabbath. That was not written in the commandment, but was an established standard which was apparently accepted as legitimate by the NT writers. Apparently also there were similar standards related to the conduct of women based on the Law which were accepted in Paul’s day, since he states that women “must be in submission, as the Law says.” He deemed “they are not allowed to speak” (whatever he meant by that) to be a natural conclusion from the requirement in the law that women be in submission.
1Co 14:34 women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.
In effect he is stating the continuity of the role of women between the OT law and the Christian church.
I don’t see this as a reference to Genesis 3:16. But I think you’re portrayal of the meaning of that verse doesn’t reflect what’s there. I’m sure you’re familiar with Susan Foh’s analysis (https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/01-genesis/text/articles-books/foh-womansdesire-wtj.pdf). I haven’t seen anyone deal better with that verse in context.
And I would argue that Genesis 37:8 says nothing about what kind of rule Joseph’s brothers found offensive. It was the mere thought of him ruling, just like in 37:9-10.
So rule/master or however you choose to define the word in Genesis 3:16 is not necessarily a despotic rule.
BTW, are you familiar with Ken Cukrowski’s argument that this is a reference to Numbers 12, where the prophetess Miriam spoke out of turn? It’s toward the end of this document: http://uccabilene.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Cukrowski-2.pdf
Paul writes in 1 Timothy, Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.’But I suffer a woman not to teach, not to usurp authority over a man, but to be in silence” . Perhaps Paul didn’t write that either but a scribe who was against women added it . It gets to be all quite silly and we as Bible students are supposed to think, “Oh this has nothing to do with what Paul spoke to the church at Corinth?” And why? Because…it was written..years later? I’m not following the line of reasoning here. So, Paul is giving instructions for Timothy to teach the church on the roles of women and how they are to learn from men and to not teach men…and it sounds extremely familiar to what is said in 1 Corinthians but somehow we are supposed to put our hands over our ears and go La-La-La La-La-La I didn’t hear that!, and it has no bearing on anything else written in another place? I’m sorry, but that’s a weak argument .
Paul writes in Ephesians 5:19 “Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your hearts to the Lord. He writes in Colossians, “Let the word of Christ dwell in your richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.” Do these verses written to different congregations have anything to do with each other? Of course they do. Paul often says one thing to a congregation and repeats what he has said to another group and changes the wording slightly but the point is the same. Obviously the place of women in regards to leadership in the assembly didn’t resolve itself and end at Corinth. It continues today.
I can’t help but be reminded of a Bible study a friend of mine from college years went on where he was discussing obeying the Lord in repentance and baptism and he quoted Acts 2:38 and the woman said, “Acts 2:38 isn’t in my Bible”, and he said, “well it is”, and she grabbed her Bible and turned to it and sure enough it wasn’t there; she had taken a pair of scissors and cut it out.
Usually the only ECF one quotes is the one who agrees with your position and only as long as they affirm your position. But we all know that they often disagreed among each other, went off on bizarre rabbit trails and never claimed for themselves to be divinely inspired. Their writings inost cases are limited and often unchallenged. They are unreliable resources.
Alan wrote,
It’s conceivable that “Law” refers to the oral law, but we have the oral law in the form the Mishnah and Talmud today. But I’ve read countless commentaries, blogs, comments, etc. on this topic, and I can’t recall anyone citing a particular command in the Mishnah or Talmud as a likely candidate for Paul’s statement. I don’t think we can assume an oral law for which there is no evidence.
I’ve found this in the Babylonian Talmud —
I see nothing here akin to Paul’s statement in 1 Cor. 14 – except a clear cultural stigma against women speaking with other women’s husbands. But nothing that says “don’t talk in the synagogue.” The prohibitions are general.
If you check the other references to nomos in 1 Cor, which I just did last night, you’ll find that every other reference is to the Torah, not the oral law. Given how little regard Jesus had for the oral law, it really seems unlikely that Paul would be enforcing it on the early church. This is especially so given that the Jews living west of Jerusalem did not learn Hebrew, studied the Septuagint, and were not much influenced by the rabbis. The rabbis were only active in Palestine and Babylon, where the scriptures were studied in Hebrew and the oral law was enforced as though from God himself.
Tim,
The Hebrew word is mashal. It next appears in —
(Gen 4:7 ESV) If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.”
We should “spiritually lead” sin? Or dominate and overcome sin?
(Gen 24:2 ESV) And Abraham said to his servant, the oldest of his household, who had charge of all that he had, “Put your hand under my thigh,
We really don’t know what kind of authority the chief servant had in that culture. So we move to —
(Gen 37:8 ESV) 8 His brothers said to him, “Are you indeed to reign over us? Or are you indeed to rule over us?” So they hated him even more for his dreams and for his words.
Say what you will, the sense of “rule” is that sentence is not “spiritual leadership like that of a loving husband” but the kind of dominance that one would fear.
(Gen 45:8 ESV) So it was not you who sent me here, but God. He has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt.
(Gen 45:26 ESV) And they told him, “Joseph is still alive, and he is ruler over all the land of Egypt.” And his heart became numb, for he did not believe them.
Joseph had so much authority that he converted Egypt to a feudal system in which Pharaoh owned every tract of land in the country. He was able to exact taxes. He was a wise rule, but one with virtually unlimited power, which he used to destroy private property rights of an entire nation.
(Exo 21:8 ESV) If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her.
Here, mashal refers to power to sell a slave girl to foreign masters.
(Deu 15:6 ESV) For the LORD your God will bless you, as he promised you, and you shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow, and you shall rule over many nations, but they shall not rule over you.
As I recall, when Solomon consolidated Israelite rule over their neighbors, they were conscripted into forced labor.
So I’m just not seeing “loving spiritual leader” in mashal. It’s a harsh word used of despotic rule.
Now, the key here is that you can’t make a case for “loving spiritual leadership” from 3:16 unless that’s what the word means. It’s just not. It’s not ever used of a loving, spiritual, gentle leadership. It’s used of the rule of ANE kings — who were absolute in their power. Some ruled well. Some ruled poorly. All had absolute power over their subjects.
Regarding Foh, I agree with her conclusion:
This has become the accepted interpretation of most commentators in the last several years — and I think for good reason. 3:16 is not what God wants in a marriage but the result of sin.
Tim,
The Num 12 argument seems very weak. She wasn’t punished for daring to speak but for criticizing God’s chosen leader for his people. Interesting that God let Aaron remain unpunished, but this seems more likely due to his status as high priest and the need for him to continue the service at the tabernacle, not his gender. The text does not speak in terms of gender.
Gordon J. Wenham, Numbers: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC 4; IVP/Accordance electronic ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1981), n.p.
Monty wrote,
Monty,
I’ve not remotely suggested that 1 Tim 2 is inauthentic here or anywhere else. Why accuse me of what is plainly untrue?
1 Cor 14:34-37 is different because the manuscript evidence is different — and because Paul really does change subjects if not positions. The problems Gordon Fee points out in the New Int’l Commentary are all quite real — and it would be irresponsible to ignore them. Therefore, I point them out to my readers AND I point out the counter-arguments. I’ve cited world-class experts who DISAGREE with Fee as well. So there’s nothing even a little silly about considering the authenticity of the text BEFORE we impose it.
It’s Pollyanna-ish and naive to imagine that the text that a translation committee chose is correct because they chose it. Serious students of the Bible realize that there are manuscript differences and that some manuscripts have inauthentic interpolations. Nothing silly here at all.
Monty wrote,
Let’s be clear here. It’s common practice in the Churches of Christ to conflate the two passages as though they were written at the same time to the same persons. In fact, they were not. 1 Cor 14 was written years before 1 Tim 2. It just was — and I know of no one who disputes that construction of Paul’s work.
So when the church in Corinth read 1 Cor 14, they could not have interpreted by adding to it the commands in 1 Tim 2 regarding women usurping authority and teaching. It would have been quite impossible. Therefore, we interpret 1 Cor 14 in the cultural and historical context of Corinth (not Ephesus) and within the context of 1 Cor, not 1 Tim. We don’t insert text from 1 Tim 2 into 1 Cor 14 to make it read “better” or more plausibly.
That’s not unfair or liberal or illogical.
I’ve not argued that therefore 1 Tim 2 is not to be honored by the church; only that we read each passage in its own context. I fail to see what’s the least objectionable about such a plea.
On the other hand, I can’t count the Sunday school classes I’ve been in where the “silence” of 1 Cor 14 was imposed on 1 Tim 2 (which is about quietness — an attitude) so that women weren’t allowed to speak even in Bible class (due to the false conflation: they must learn in silence). Or efforts to limit the prohibition on female authority to the assembly by inserting the 1 Cor 14 context (the assembly) into 1 Tim 2 (which is not so limited).
I don’t believe we can take scissors and combine those two passages into one. They must be exegeted separately in their own times and places. Once they’ve been understood, then of course we live by whatever conclusions we reach — from both passages. But we don’t treat them like a jigsaw puzzle to reassemble them into something Paul did not write.
Monty who have been very. Lear about what I believe who is saying what and why and how it all comes together. You might go back and read the threads again. The support for it has been far more than just “I think it says”. But you do y have to agree. Obviously. But it’s unfair to suggest that it’s just something that we want it to say.
Paul admits he sinned, called himself chiefest of sinners but we do not know all or in what case or how.
My being married 53 years (to the same woman) has taught me to beware of single men giving lessons and advice much less commands on how to treat women or how women should act.
If I had to choose a sin of Pauls, this would be highest on my list. Talk about overstepping your bounds!
Might of, probably did, come come from his Roman citizenship (didn’t he, a Hebrew, want it so bad that he bought his) training and teaching where this was the rule for women around men. Also enforced the maintaining of the Roman male hierarchy which was very restrictive top to bottom among the Roman men based on age, breeding, education, etc..
BTW you might want to check out John Gill’s commentary on 1 Cor 14:34, as well as Adam Clarke’s, for references to the Jewish ordinances forbidding women to speak in the assembly. These are likely to be what Paul had in mind. See, there is some value in these older commentaries 😉
A passage Jay has not discussed in “submission” that I think is relevant here, outside of Gentile considerations is Numbers 30:
Num 30
Moses said to the heads of the tribes of Israel: “This is what the Lord commands: 2 When a man makes a vow to the Lord or takes an oath to obligate himself by a pledge, he must not break his word but must do everything he said.
3 “When a young woman still living in her father’s house makes a vow to the Lord or obligates herself by a pledge 4 and her father hears about her vow or pledge but says nothing to her, then all her vows and every pledge by which she obligated herself will stand. 5 But if her father forbids her when he hears about it, none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand; the Lord will release her because her father has forbidden her.
6 “If she marries after she makes a vow or after her lips utter a rash promise by which she obligates herself 7 and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her, then her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand. 8 But if her husband forbids her when he hears about it, he nullifies the vow that obligates her or the rash promise by which she obligates herself, and the Lord will release her.
9 “Any vow or obligation taken by a widow or divorced woman will be binding on her.
10 “If a woman living with her husband makes a vow or obligates herself by a pledge under oath 11 and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her and does not forbid her, then all her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand. 12 But if her husband nullifies them when he hears about them, then none of the vows or pledges that came from her lips will stand. Her husband has nullified them, and the Lord will release her. 13 Her husband may confirm or nullify any vow she makes or any sworn pledge to deny herself. 14 But if her husband says nothing to her about it from day to day, then he confirms all her vows or the pledges binding on her. He confirms them by saying nothing to her when he hears about them. 15 If, however, he nullifies them some time after he hears about them, then he is responsible for her guilt.”
16 These are the regulations the Lord gave Moses concerning relationships between a man and his wife, and between a father and his young daughter still living in his house.
NIV
It seems to me the “The Law” here has something to say about the subject of submission.
Per the source of “the Law” reference, Ben Witherington offers that Paul (or whoever wrote this portion) is referencing Hab 2:20, “But the LORD is in his holy temple; let all the earth keep silence before him!” Obviously, this is a prophet and not from the book of the Law, but in class Witherington explained that the phrase “the Law and Prophets” was used in a way that tandems the two so fluidly that oral Law was established through both, the Law and the books of prophecy. In addition, Paul spends an enormous amount of time freeing the churches from the Law, so it seems grossly counter-productive to be yoking them to it here in 1 Cor. This ‘law’ of reverence, rather, in Hab., is an eternal principle that daily fits into Paul’s vision for the church. It also brings contextual unity to the passage for throughout the section Paul is addressing order and reverence (for the men and women).
Tiffany,
Thank you so much for sharing that insight. When your comment hit my computer, I had Witherington’s commentary on 1 Cor open on my desk, looking at his thoughts on this very passage. I’m a fan of his work.
He rejects the interpolation theory and also the theory that these are words of the Corinthians that he is repudiating. Rather, he considers Paul to be addressing inappropriate questioning by women — likely women prophets. He concludes, much as I do, that Paul was definitely not requiring that all women be silent in all assemblies forever. He says that c.11:1-16 plainly gives them permission to speak. “Paul is correcting an abuse of a privilege, not taking back a woman’s right to speak in the assembly, which he has already granted in ch. 11.” Page 287.
The Hab 2:20 suggestion is new to me and bears some thought.
“Silent” in the Hebrew is hacah, similar onomatopoeia to our “hush!”
It’s an ironic declaration. Idols cannot speak, but God can (as he is presently doing through Habakkuk). Thus, while the idols stand mute, the entire world should stand mute in the presence of God — the God who speaks.
David W. Baker, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah: An Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale OTC 27; IVP/Accordance electronic ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1988), n.p.
The thrice repeated sigao! that culminates Paul’s discussion may well be a reflection of this thought. God, unlike the pagan gods, isn’t approached with a cacophony of babbling and shouting, as though he needs to be awakened from his sleep. YHWH is approached with reverent silence, because he lives, he hears, and he responds. True prophets speak in response to his prompting, not their own.
To return to Witherington’s commentary,
Conflict & Community in Corinth, p. 287.
John F argues for NT submission based on Num 30.
I’m not convinced. The Anglo-American legal system banned women from making contracts without a man’s approval for centuries. It wasn’t until the late 19th Century that the American states passed laws allowing adult women to make contracts without the consent of their husbands. It wasn’t until the 1980s that most states allowed women to convey land without their husband’s signature.
I lived and lawyered through that transition, and celebrated the fact that Alabama and the other states chose to grant women equal rights to own and sell real estate without having to have the federal government force them to do so by enacting the Equal Rights Amendment. That amendment was never enacted because it became unnecessary. The states voluntarily changed.
Now if we want to go back to the old days and treat our wives and daughters as children incapable of conducting business on their own, you won’t find an advocate in me. I practice law with women partners and have represent women clients every day. I can think of nothing more absurd and morally repugnant.
So if that principle does not apply in today’s world when it comes to business, how could it apply to something much more important: life in church? And if it applies in church, why not apply in the business world?I mean, if women must submit in the sense of having to have their husbands approve their decisions, surely it’s ALL their decisions, not merely whether to speak in the assembly.
Do we really want to tell our wives and daughters that Num 30 is still binding on them? Surely we can recognize that this is no longer the Bronze Age and women have changed.
Alan,
Clarke wrote,
Adam Clarke, Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Whole Bible (Accordance electronic ed. 6 vols.; Altamonte Springs: OakTree Software, 2004), n.p.
John Gill says the same thing. I’d found that passage in my earlier comment — but not being able to read Torah to the synagogue is not the same thing as being required to be silent. Of course, the Jewish practice of Paul’s day might have been for women to be entirely silent in the synagogue. I frankly would be surprised if they were allowed to ask questions of the speaker. But I don’t find that in the Oral Law. Just in the culture of the day.
So I don’t think we can say “as the Law also says” refers to the Oral Law. I see no evidence of that. But I agree with the commentators that the PRACTICE of the synagogues was to silence the women — as that was indeed the culture of the Jewish people in the First Century.
RE : Numbers 30 I think illustrates that the LAW does has something to say about submission; Western culture has nothing to say to the point. Numbers 30 also speaks to the headship question that has been addressed in other posts.
Jay’s point was that nothing in the law addressed Paul’s “even as the law says” . Num 30 recognizes the headship of the husband/father and the “right” to silence his wife’s words. How can these verses NOT be commentary? Here in Corinth the “women/wives” are to be silent — perhaps much in the same way as Num 30. Where was the vow made? In home or in public, either was “subject” to the husband / fathers review, revocation, or reaffirmation.
There was not a single implication the I desired to see women as chattel. I had already stated that in my opinion Paul was not referring to oral law.
I just don’t think we can leave this passage in the dust for this discussion. It just does not affirm what some want to be affirmed.
I’m glad you quoted that verse, for it’s folly to offer any interpretation of Genesis 3:16 that doesn’t line up with Genesis 4:7. The wording in the Hebrew is identical, except for number and person (but you’ve read Foh’s article).
Just as sin desired to dominate man, Eve would desire to dominate her husband. But he must/ought overcome that threat. [Note that when God was speaking with Cain, he wasn’t describing what would happen, but what should happen. Same in Genesis 3:16]
“Even as the law says,” has to refer to something in the law that argues for submission, whether in specific or in general, otherwise why would Paul reference it. It must have been something they undderstood or something they could go back to. Just to say that the Law was done away with is not correct. The works of the law, especially in worship, were relieved, but not the moral aspects. To murder was part of the Law and was argued for in the NT as well. All of the relational aspects between man and women were also seemingly intact as far as man and wife/ marriage/divorce, etc. We as saints are to be submissive to one another in all things. While a woman might be submissive in the speaking role in the assembly, the man must be submissive in love, caring, just as Christ did for the congregation. This isn’t a one way street. From what I understand that in the synagogue men sat on one side and the women and children on the other and men read from the Torah, but they didn’t leave their place in the seats to go to the front to read it. This was all man’s traditon, initially, but then again so was baptism, which God adopted and magnified in Jesus.
I agree and yet Priscilla didn’t preside in a “speaking” role in a group setting, but in a private teaching role and she did so with her husband, but what she did was important and Godly. We should encourage this more. There was a law that women couldn’t drink in Roman society, but this wasn’t fought for as “law” in the scriptures, even when drinking was being assessed. I don’t know of a place where any of the apostles used the local law to insinuate what one should do as a command and they actually vocally condemned these human derived “laws”. Submission is the point of “as the law says” and not women speaking in specific, although that would be an act of submission according to the flow of thought. Gen. and Num, 30 all point to submission. The church is to be in submission to Christ as Christ is the husband of the church. The scriptures never back off of this concept. But like I said we as saints are to be submissive to one another in all things. We can’t place more emphasize on the women without showing a problem of our own in this. Submission shows a humble character, which we should all exhibit towards each other.
Acts 18:24-26
Now a Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures. 25 This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; 26 and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.
NASU
TOOK HIM ASIDE indicates a private or semi private setting. We never have an example of a woman publicly rebuking a man like Paul opposes Peter “to his face”
Maybe it is our “egos” that want to encourage our wives and daughters in “positions” or ?places” the are not asked to be in of go to.
There is a difference in speaking as one having authority over others, versus speaking with or to, which is what I was alluding to. It has nothing to do with size of the group. True, “She was involved with speaking to and correcting the error of a man that wasn’t her husband”, but she was with her husband and she didn’t confront him in the presence of all. John F sees the distinction.
What I see is an attempt to actually do the opposite of what I Cor.14 and I Tim. that argue for which were written by the same person at different times, but basically say the same thing. We are told to sing, in two different books (Eph. and Col.), by the same person, but does the fact that they were written to two different groups and one had wine and the spirit involved in the context detract from the argument for singing from the heart. Would we go there? It shouldn’t be a matter of IF we should apply it, but HOW and then we work with all the many options we have before us.
Strangely,if we look at the majority of Christians there is a great push to do more in the assembly, but when it comes to outside of the assembly we are lost and this is where the real work is.
Dwight… who speaks in the assembly that has absolute authority of all others in the assembly ?
Basically, the one who controls the floor has the place of speaking authority, whether they speak with good authority or not. We as the audience give control to the speaker by not speaking over them. I am not speaking of scriptural or absolute authority, but rather the authority of position. The argument of I Cor.14 was to give the floor to someone who had an interpreter, even though both of them were speaking in tongues, because only one them would edifiy the rest. Now we as a group can deny the speaker the chance to speak, even though they have a very scriptural lesson, by not allowing them or placing them into that position. Speaking with or to another on a personal one-on-one basis isn’t the same as speaking over or as one in control of a group.
This is really a distraction from the main point: application. Can we argue that “singing…making melody in the heart” in both Eph.5:19 and Col.3:16 aren’t relevant to and supportive of each other despite them being written by the same author to different towns with different surrounding context a few years apart? Are they unfair/ unapplicable because some can’t physically sing?
Dwight… the folks in Corinth were told to take turns. I guess we can give control to a single person for the speaking portion and get used to it.. and we can keep women from ever doing that and ask them to get used to it..
When Paul discusses singing in the passages you listed above he describes singing as “teaching and admonishing… Now how does it make any sense whatsoever to say that women can use words to teach and admonish in a group of mixed genders while singing but not while talking… Seriously ? And Lord knows when only the ladies sing during a certain segment of some songs, like some like to do, isn’t that profane !!! Come on man.
The more I understand Aquilla, the more I appreciate his manhood.. Supportive of his wife when the culture and times did not lend itself to it. Here we are today and some of the most important leaders of our era in government and business include women.. And we won’t let them pass a communion tray standing up.. wow.
Now I am going to back up a little for perspective and agreement. I think we tend to be assembly-centric where our Chrsitianity is wrapped up in the assembly. If we think about it, the assembly is rarely commented on, while the letters were written to the saints in the towns. The assembly wasn’t intended to be the center of Christianity, Christ was. Assembly was to be a small part of the Christians life and it still is time wise and yet this little section of I Cor.14 is talking about assembly and doesn’t translate into what a woman can do in general.
A woman can do alot and do. And I think Aquila is a shining example of this as you point out.
If we can pull ourselves out of the building in which we spend a couple of hours we will see opportunities everywhere that even we men don’t appreciate and have access to. For some reason to us church is the “big show”, but to God life is the “big show”. We focus so much on the doing “important” things in the assembly that we don’t see the bigger picture of life and that women are everwhere in it being holy, teaching, helping others, providing, etc. I am humbled.
Just for information of a general nature — a serendipity as I am travelling from Texas to Oregon.
The Hampton Inn on Litchfield Road, Goodyear (Phoenix) AZ has a large room containing an amazing collection of English Bibles from centuries gone by . . . ORIGINALS all the way back to the Bishops Bible (mid 16th C, and more. I was / am intrigued and amazed at this museum; some items are for sale. http://www.thebiblemuseum.com Don Callaghan
Well worth seeing; don’t know how else to share with mutual lovers of the Bible.
John F,
Thanks for the note. I don’t get to Phoenix much, but I would enjoy the museum. I remember vividly being in the British Museum and seeing Codices Sinaiticus and Alexandrius. Beautiful, ancient vellum codices from the time of Constantine if not sooner — the primary sources of all modern Bible translations. Very moving to see those beautiful, ancient works. And I’d love to turn the pages of a Tyndale or Bishops Bible!
Dwight, I would probably have to take exception to your suggestion that all leadership was male.. The qualifications say, “and likewise women.”…. and then we have Phoebe listed as a deacon in a specific assembly. There isn’t much credibility in saying that deacon also meant servant and when it’s a male it’s a leadership role and when it’s female it’s a servant or helper role… Phoebe was whatever a deacon was. Thus, you have a distinct qualification for women and an example..Hard to argue against that without having to insert personal opinion and traditions. I believe women were documented to have served in deacon roles for several hundred years of the early church. If you argue for earliest understanding being of some value, if only for their example, then women were always included as they had talent and opportunity.
God also said he established roles in the church that included prophets…And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. [1Co 12:28 ESV] Now one might ask why God would gift a woman with a prophetic gift for the church then tell her to hush. Or, why would a husband or man be offended by a woman using her spiritual gifts whatever they may be ? I find it hard to believe that it would be offensive but in order to require submission, one would have to object and ask the woman not to do it and to be submissive to the request…. Or, we could have more Aquilla’s that encourage them.
I also agree with Tiffany that patriarchy isn’t necessarily a dogma that must be perpetuated where women are trained, capable, spiritually empowered, and willing. God used women to fill the highest offices in the land (Judge) instead of their husbands… There were no women Kings but then she would be a Queen instead of a King… still no example.. But, we have no King but Jesus now, and no male priests.. We in fact EACH are priests… that would include women.. so the new covenant changed the priesthood from male only to include women. Rev 1:6 I guess we each have to decide but I see a tapestry woven from Miriam that includes women as key members of the administration that God established, both in the Old and New covenants.
Most importantly, I see an opportunity to encourage more women and young women to take an active role in the assembly. Rom 12:5 says this.. so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. [Rom 12:5 ESV]
Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if proe who leads, with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness. [Rom 12:8 ESV]phecy, in proportion to our faith; [Rom 12:6 ESV]
if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching; [Rom 12:7 ESV]
the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who contributes, in generosity; the one who leads, with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness. [Rom 12:8 ESV]
We are one body in Christ… No Male or Female… SURELY, there is a tremendous value to using the other half of the body of Christ in whatever gifting they have.. It seems that is why they were gifted in the first place ! Paul doesn’t say in Rom 12 that these gifts are gender specific.. He just says to use them well… seems that should include women..
Dwight,
1 Cor 14 says nothing about authority. You are incorporating that concept from 1 Tim 2, which is talking about something else altogether. Asking questions of the speaker is not an act of authority. It’s how people learn. It’s the act of a student.
For that matter, reading from the Moses Seat in the synagogue was a privilege available to any male 14 or older. If a child read and offered his understanding of Isa 61, he was not speaking with any sort of authority. He was just part of the community sharing his ideas — and subject to questioning in order to discuss and interpret as a community. We impose our own hierarchical ways on what was a much more community-centric system in both the synagogue and the church.
Just so, even in today’s CoC, most Sunday school teachers have “authority” to call on members or run the classroom, but their doctrinal teaching isn’t authoritative for the church. No one has to agree with them — and, trust me, I’ve been disagreed with plenty of times. I have no more “authority” as a Bible class teacher than my powers of persuasion and the Spirit provide — which often is very little.
A guest speaker in the pulpit also carries no authority other than the privilege of speaking. If the church disagrees, well, they can disagree. In most Churches of Christ, only the elders have the authority to decide doctrine or much of anything else. The preacher only has authority by delegation from the elders. And if goes outside their authorization, he’s exceeded his authority. He has no inherent authority to bind the church just because he stands behind a pulpit and talks. (The Baptists would see it otherwise, but we are not they.)
On the other hand — and this is very important — if a female prophet were to speak by the power of the Spirit, then her speech would indeed be authoritative — by God’s own authority. And this was plainly allowed.
But you can’t make 1 Cor 14 makes sense by analyzing it in terms of female authority. That’s just not what the passage is speaking to.
So what do you make of this passage —
Now, there had been a few — distinct minority — female prophets before Pentecost. So what changed? Merely giving the Spirit of prophecy to a few women would have been no change at all. The change seems to be that women would receive the gifts of the Spirit just like the men. And when we read in Acts, Rom 12, and 1 Cor 12 about gifts of the Spirit, we see no distinction between men and women. Now how odd would it be to say that women who carry the mark of the Kingdom by being gifted this way must be silenced in the assembly. And yet they’d be speaking and teaching and acting with authority. Indeed, that seems to be the very point of Joel’s prophecy.
So how do we reconcile Joel with Paul in 1 Tim 2? And in 1 Cor 14? We should at least confess that it’s a difficult thing and — please, oh, please — avoid the temptation to say that the answer is “clear” and “obvious.” I mean, it’s only clear if you don’t bother to read it in context with Joel, Acts, Rom 12, and 1 Cor 11 and 12. Those passages force us to think about it — and I’d hope we’d give it the serious reflection that the scriptures merit.
I’m not sure that First Century deacons were leaders. We don’t really know what they did. We just assume …
But clearly the elders had authority. But they were ordained in the same cultural milieu that led of 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2. There’s a very real tension here that requires resolution beyond “I just do what it says.” Because you don’t. If you did what it says, you’d also —
And I have trouble reconciling this passage with 1 Cor 14:33b-37. Paul says the least honorable parts of the body receive the greatest gifting from God–so that there’d be no division. And that’s pretty plain and clear, too.
Hence, I can see no conclusion that respects ALL the texts other than the one I propose in the main post. At least, I’m trying to make ALL evidence fit. I’ve yet to see a serious effort from those who disagree to reconcile their teaching with the rest of the scripture. How do we make the silence of women in the assembly a permanent feature of Christendom and yet preach 1 Cor 12 and 11 and Joel?
(I’ll address the submission question in another comment.)
Price,
In fact, I disagreed with the local ordinance theory. Also the “oral law” theory. I think Paul uses nomos to refer to Torah or perhaps the OT. Every other use of nomos in 1 Cor is to Torah, and there are several such references. I gave them all in an earlier comment.