1 Cor. 14:34-36 women speaking in the church

[philpott]

I am seeking to learn the true meaning of the text 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 which reads, "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in church. What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?"

I am not interested in political correctness, but rather the truth. So, please restrict comments to Biblical exegesis and not chase personal agendas related to current thinking on women's rights.

Also, what do you think the Lord is referring to when He mentions, "as also saith the law?"

[Etcetera]

Philpott:

Greetings in the shared love of the Lord.

Like yourself, I am not interested in political correctness. However, here below are the problems that I once had with this passage, strictly from an exegetical view. But first let me quote the passage for easy reference:

1 Corinthians 14:34-35: Let the women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the law also says. And, if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.

1. As you noted, Paul mentions the law. The problem here is that the law never actually tells women to subject themselves, and Paul gives no hint as to which passage he might be interpreting in this way.

2. The enjoined silence on the women does not seem to fit well with the rest of the New Testament’s teachings on the subject.

3. More specifically, such silence contradicts an earlier passage in this same epistle! 1 Corinthians 11:5 (part of another highly controversial passage on women!) states that a woman praying or prophesying must have her head covered (in the church; see 11:16). Yet in our passage, right in the middle of a discussion about prophesying and speaking in tongues, Paul tells women to be completely silent. So... they cannot prophesy after all?

4. What about single women? This passage says that women who wish to learn something ought to ask their own husbands at home. But Paul himself seems unlikely to have forgotten about single women; he certainly does not forget about them earlier in this epistle (7:8-9, 25-35).

With these problems in mind, I at one time thought it most likely that these two verses were an interpolation, a comment written by someone other than Paul and inserted into this letter as a means to garner his authority for the position taken. After all, several manuscripts move these two verses to the end of chapter 14, as if they really did not belong. True, no manuscript actually removed them altogether, but the disturbance was enough to make me think that perhaps a scribe had added this injunction to Paul’s epistle.

However, I hold to a different view now, and all because of a little one-letter particle word in the Greek language. The Greek particle e (an eta, not an epsilon), when appearing at the head of a sentence, often goes untranslated, or is translated or in the sense of a contrary view, or can be translated: What!? It often means: “I totally disagree with the mistaken position that I just cited from my opponents.” In the examples that follow I have translated e as what!? to make the point clear:

Romans 9:20-21: But who are you, O man, who answers back to God? Shall what is molded say to him who molded it: “Why did you make me like this?” What [e]!? Does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel honor and another for dishonor?

1 Corinthians 6:8-9: On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud, and that your brethren. What [e]!? Do you not know...?

Apply this idea to our particular passage...:

1 Corinthians 14:34-36: Let the women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the law also says. And, if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church. What [e]!? Did the word of God come forth from you? Or has it reached you alone?

...and it becomes evident that Paul is quoting something that some of the Corinthians are saying (“let the women keep silent...”), then refuting it (“what!?”). Scholars pretty much agree that Paul is citing some Corinthian positions in 1 Corinthians 6:12-13 too (all things are lawful, food for the stomach), then providing his own comments (not all things are profitable, the Lord will do away with both).

We know that the Corinthians were divided into various schismatic factions (1:10-13; 3:4). What has happened, I think, is that the female prophets mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 have upset the members of one or more of the other factions in the church, and their solution is to utterly silence the female prophets (instead of following the proper procedure outlined in 14:29, with the saints evaluating each prophetic word given; easier to shut the women up once and for all than to have to think about each word spoken). In the process, they misrepresent both the proper procedure of the church of God (not surprisingly, since they are so carnal) and the law (not surprisingly, since they are gentiles). Paul cites their position, then refutes it: Such is not how things are supposed to be done (“what I write you is the commandment of the Lord”), nor is it how things are in fact done in the other places that the word of God has penetrated (“did the word come forth from you?”).

This solution, I think, makes much more sense than trying to figure out why Paul got so contrary all of a sudden.

In the name.

Etcetera.

[jpholding]

Etcetera.

Would you be willing to let me use that as an article? (I'm assuming Glenn Miller hasn't covered it. If he has I'll skip it.) It would also fit nicely with the conventions of GR rhetoric, would it not?

[BrianB]

Just as a little extra information, Gordon Fee defends the "gloss" explanation in his commentary on 1Cor. D.A. Carson responded to Fee's work here:

http://www.netbible.com/docs/splife/chrhome/manwoman/chap6.htm

For what it's worth,
Brian

[philpott]

Etcetera:

Thanks for the reply. I will take the paper home tonight and give it some thought.

In reading through your paper today, I did see one thing that I wanted to point out. You wrote, "such silence contradicts an earlier passage in the same epistle! 1 Corinthians 11:5...states that a woman praying or prophesying must have her head covered..."

The command for a woman to be silent in the church is not contradictory to 1 Cor. 11:5 because 11:5 is not talking about the congregational meeting. It refers to life outside of the church. Notice that in 11:18, the Lord takes the epistle back to conduct in the church, or congregation, when He said, "when ye come together in the church..." However, no such reference is made to head coverings in prayer - it is not restricted to the congregational meetings.

In 1 Cor. 14:34-35, God obviously is referring to the congregational meeting as He says "let your women keep silence in the churches"

Best regards.

[Etcetera]

Philpott:

I think that 1 Corinthians 11:16 speaks otherwise: "We have no such practice, nor the churches of God." Compare 1 Corinthians 14:34: "Let the women keep silent in the churches." What is at issue is what is happening in the meetings, not at home.

11:17 does not switch to the issue of the meetings. It emphasizes the "not for the better but for the worse;" the coming together is the occasion of the "worse."

Furthermore, Paul notes that the whole purpose of prophesying is to convey the words of God to others with some measure of clarity. The best venue for tongues is in private, but prophecy is for edification:

1 Corinthians 14:4, 5b, 18-19, 22b: One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church.

Greater is he that prophesies than he who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.

I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all; however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind that I might instruct others also....

...but prophecy is a sign not to unbelievers but to those who believe.

It would be strange if the occasion of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 turned out to be the using of prophetic gifts in private, outside the church altogether.

Thanks for responding.

Etcetera.

[Etcetera]

J. P. Holding:

Miller does address it, but I forget where. I first ran across this idea some twelve or more years ago in a book whose author and title I have forgotten. I dismissed, then forgot about, the idea for years, embracing instead the gloss hypothesis, until I ran across Miller's treatment and was reminded all over again of it. I reconsidered the argument, and was sold.

Yes, this view fits in perfectly with the methods of rhetoric, and is related to the prosopopoeia device whereby one invents a fictitious, but representative, opponent and then engages in a back-and-forth conversation with him in the text (without the benefit of quotation marks, colons, or and marcation of where one ends and the other begins; the flow of the argument itself is the marcation). Paul uses it quite a bit in Romans. The device in 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 is like a single "round" of prosopopoeia instead of a full conversation.

In him.

Etcetera.

[dizzle]

Dear Etcetera:

That is an interesting theory that I have not heard before. Are you sure that Miller addresses it? I have read Miller's stuff on women in the church and do not remember this. However, I do not find Miller's treatment of the Timothy passages very convincing.

[philpott]

Etcetera:

Regarding your suggestion relating to the usage of "What," I agree that this is the meaning of the Greek word. However, this would rather seem to intensify the stated meaning of the 14:34-35 text.

In Romans 9:20-21, when "what" is employed, the contrary thought to God's statements concerning His absolute sovereignty is stated, "Why did you make me like this? What!" However, in 1 Cor. 14:34-36, the objection to the statement is only implied. There seems to be an implied answer of "That is not fair" to the statements ending "it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." Then the answer affirms the previous statement by saying that the word did not come forth by women. It only came to them.

In what way do you see the questions in 14:36 to refute the statements made in verses 34 & 35?

Thanks.

[jpholding]

Yep --

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fem09.html

about halfway down. :smile:

[Etcetera]

Philpott:

In Romans 9:20-21, when "what" is employed, the contrary thought to God's statements concerning His absolute sovereignty is stated, "Why did you make me like this? What!" However, in 1 Cor. 14:34-36, the objection to the statement is only implied.

By "God's statements concerning his absolute sovereignty" I presume you mean Romans 9:15-18. Yes, Paul states his point about God's sovereignty, then holds out an objection or counterpoint, then says: "What!?"

Same thing in our passage. First, the statement of truth, the point:

1 Corinthians 14:29-33: And let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. But, if a revelation is made to another who is seated, let the first keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets, for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.

This is proper church order according to Paul. But he knows that there will be an objection from a certain contingent in Corinth that is of the opinion that women are to be excluded from the "all" of this outlined process of prophecy, exhortation, learning, and good judgment, so he voices the counterpoint here:

Let the women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the law also says. And, if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.

Note that this objection effectively bars women from doing two of the basic things discussed in the preceding verses: Speaking (including prophesying) and learning. This counterpoint is now refuted:

What!? Did the word of God come forth from you? Or has it reached you alone?

Why, in other words, are you Corinthians the only ones amongst the many churches who have thought of implementing this muzzle policy on women?

...in 1 Cor. 14:34-36, the objection to the statement is only implied. There seems to be an implied answer of "That is not fair" to the statements ending "it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." Then the answer affirms the previous statement by saying that the word did not come forth by women. It only came to them.

"Implied" means that there is some detail in the text that points to a missing element. What detail are you seeing in the text that implies a cry of inequity ("unfair!")? Without some such detail, the missing element is merely nonexistent, not implied.

In what way do you see the questions in 14:36 to refute the statements made in verses 34 & 35?

"What!?" The firm disagreement with the sentiment just expressed.

"Was it from you that the word of God came forth?" Did the traditions (1 Corinthians 11:1) and accepted church procedures (11:16; 14:33) originate with you (those among you Corinthians who would write or say such a thing as verses 34-35), that you feel so free to disregard them and invent others, attempting to silence half the congregation in the process?

"Or has it come to you only?" Why are you the only ones who have attempted to institute such a practice? Is it that the word of God reached you alone of all the churches? If you are correct in this opinion of yours, then all the other churches must be mistaken, since their practice disagrees with yours. (A kind of reductio ad absurdum.)

If there is any glaring error in this exegesis, I am certainly not seeing it. It seems very tight.

Cheers.

Etcetera.

[Etcetera]

J. P. Holding:

Thanks for finding the reference in Miller. I actually agree with him on this one.

Dee Dee:

Not sure about Miller's take on the Timothy passage. I must have skimmed it on that page when I came across the part about 1 Corinthians (unless the two essays were originally separate), but it has been to long for me to remember if I agreed or not. Perhaps I shall go over again presently.

Etcetera.

[philpott]

Etcetera:

I understand your argument, but I have some reservations. Therefore, I have some questions to clarify the position in my mind.

You contend that the flow of the text is point - counterpoint. Where do you see the change in context? In the verses before verse 34, Paul is discussing order in the church. He tells the Corinthians that they are to "keep silence in the church" (verse 28) concerning tongues, if there is not interpreter. He explains why this is necessary in verses 29-33. Then he immediately says, "Let your women keepe silence in the churches." Where is the change in context that tells us that we are now in a point - counterpoint discussion whereas we were not before when he uses the same structure, "let _____ keep siilence in the churches."

You wrote, "Or has it come to you only? Why are you the only ones who have attempted to institute such a practice?" I do not agree at all that this is the meaning of verse 36. This is God's reply to the woman complaining "this is not fair." God then replies that the Word of God does not come forth from women - none of the "writers" of the Bible were women and women are forbidden to preach in the church. God tells us in 1 Timothy 2:11-14 why this is necessary, where he also confirms that women are to be silent in the churches. The Word was preached to them but not by them.

You wrote, "If you are correct in this opinion of yours..." I have stated no opinions. I merely stated the fact that God clearly lays out when He is speaking to the congregation or not throughout the book of 1 Corinthians. In 11:1-16, He does not tell us that He is speaking of the congregation, but in verse 18, He immediately takes us to the meeting of the congregation.

You wrote, "then all the other churches must be mistaken, since their practice disagrees with yours." Now you are stating your opinion. Show one Bible text where a woman is given freedom to speak in the church.

Sorry I have to cut this off, but I will try to pick it up on Monday.

Have a nice weekend,


Philpott

[dizzle]

Dear Etcetera:

I am finding your treatment (which I understand that you have gleaned in part from Miller) of this passage very convincing, and it clears up a lot, and does not blatantly contradict anything else.

With the Timothy passages, I think Miller is getting squeamish about a spiritual hierarchy with male headship. I am not squeamish about such things at all. Right now I firmly am a complementarian and do not believe that women should hold roles such as Senior Pastor and so on. I think Miller misses the implications of Paul's appeal to the created order in the Timothy passage personally and the very important Jewish concept of firstborn etc. For Paul to make the point that the man was created first makes a very distinctly Jewish point in that regard.

[Etcetera]

Philpott:

You contend that the flow of the text is point - counterpoint. Where do you see the change in context?

I am not certain what is tripping you up here. The phrase "as in all the churches of the saints," of course, is the transition. If our chapter happened to end with that phrase, after the discussion of order in the church and how to conduct prophesying in the church, and after the rationale for such procedures ("for God is not a God of confusion but of peace"), no one would go looking for the "missing" ending to the passage. The text would be completely intelligible as it would hypothetically stand, ending at 1 Corinthians 14:33.

That is the point, and it is textually self-sufficient. The counterpoint follows. Paul realizes that some will not take that "all" in verse 31 seriously and will wish to exclude women from the proceedings. Remember that this hypothesis calls for at least one group in the Corinthian church to actually be saying things such as we find in verses 34-35. The first-century readership in Corinth would not have to guess whose words were being quoted. They would already know that Paul was using the common Greco-Roman rhetorical device whereby one cites an opposing view and then answers it, simply because they could look around the church and identify members who held to precisely the views that Paul is rhetorically setting up for the kill.

Our clue to understanding verses 34-35 must come from outside that hypothetical Corinthian context. And it comes in the form of that little particle e. We know by that one letter that we are to look for a point of view in the preceding material that the author is opposing.

You wrote, "Or has it come to you only? Why are you the only ones who have attempted to institute such a practice?" I do not agree at all that this is the meaning of verse 36.

You need to provide reasons from the text. What follows in your discussion does not come from the text at all. To wit:

This is God's reply to the woman complaining "this is not fair."

My version (UBS fourth edition) does not have the women crying unfair. It is simply not in the text. You have to provide it, yet the text makes perfect sense without it.

God then replies that the Word of God does not come forth from women - none of the "writers" of the Bible were women and women are forbidden to preach in the church.

None of the writers of the Bible were women? How do you propose to prove who wrote Esther? Or Ruth? Or even some of the psalms? Or Job, for that matter? (It is about a man, but does that mean that it is by a man?)

And whence did you get the notion of preaching in the church? 1 Timothy 2:11-15 mentions teaching. (It might not matter in the long run, but a careful look at what the texts actually say is imperative.)

You wrote, "If you are correct in this opinion of yours..." I have stated no opinions. I merely stated the fact that God clearly lays out when He is speaking to the congregation or not throughout the book of 1 Corinthians. In 11:1-16, He does not tell us that He is speaking of the congregation, but in verse 18, He immediately takes us to the meeting of the congregation.

You wrote, "then all the other churches must be mistaken, since their practice disagrees with yours." Now you are stating your opinion. Show one Bible text where a woman is given freedom to speak in the church.

You have completely misunderstood me. The "opinion of yours" was not yours, Philpott; I was speaking for Paul in an effort to clarify. Here is what I wrote:

"Or has it come to you only?" Why are you the only ones who have attempted to institute such a practice? Is it that the word of God reached you alone of all the churches? If you are correct in this opinion of yours, then all the other churches must be mistaken, since their practice disagrees with yours. (A kind of reductio ad absurdum.)

This entire paragraph, except the final parenthesis, was a paraphrase of Paul speaking to the Corinthians, not me (Etcetera) speaking to you (Philpott). "If you (Corinthians) are correct in this opinion of yours, then all the other churches (in the Mediterranean area) must be mistaken, since their practice disagrees with yours."

Show one Bible text where a woman is given freedom to speak in the church.

I already have. 1 Corinthians 11:16 states that the other churches of God have no such practice as letting the women prophesy without a covering, which has as its corollary that the churches do have a practice of letting the women prophesy with a covering. This is the policy of the churches, not the homes. Church and home are two separate entities, as Paul makes crystal clear in the subsequent context:

1 Corinthians 11:22: Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God...?

The female prophets in 11:2-16 are prophesying in the church, as indicated by 11:16. The problem is, not their speaking out, but their doing so in an unacceptable manner.

Cheers.

Etcetera.

[dizzle]

I also have some additonal comments to make... in Paul asking if the word come forth from them, he is not referring to men and women, but to the Corinthians as a whole and obviously referring to them trying to shape/mold/distort the word as if were their property to do so. I am becoming very convinced by your arguments on this Etcetera, but possibly there is a tension with the Timothy passages which also command silence.

[philpott]

Etcetera:

Once again, I will take your paper home and study it tonight.

I do have a couple of questions for now:

1) I asked that you show one Bible text where a woman is given freedom to speak in the church. You replied, "I alreay have. 1 Corinthians 11:16 states ....."

However, as I have stated, I have serious doubts as to whether 1 Cor. 11:16 is speaking of conduct in the congregation. It appears to me to be speaking of general principles, not specifically in the church. If your premise is correct, that it is okay for women to speak in church, then surely there is some other verse in the whole Bible, other than this one that you can hang your hat on.

2) What about 1 Timothy 2:11-14? Can you also explain why it is not to be understood as it is written?

Thanks,
Philpott

[philpott]

Etcetera:

I realized when I was going through the postings last night that I did not respond to your posting regarding 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, where you disagreed with my statement whereby I contended that those verses do not apply specifically to a congregational meeting.

You wrote, “I think 1 Corinthians 11:16 speaks otherwise….What is at issue is what is happening in the meeting, not at home.”

Again, I disagree. The discussion throughout the verses (2-16) is Christ’s headship over man and man’s headship over woman. Is this a truth only inside the church? Then, in verses 13-14, God seals the fact the He is speaking of a universal truth by referring to nature to prove the point. Then in verse 16, when He refers to “the churches of God,” it does not mean that the discussion applies only in a congregational meeting. Just because something is taught by the church, that principle is not restricted to the congregational meetings.

You wrote, “11:17 does not switch to the issue of the meetings. It emphasizes the “not for the better but for the worse….”

Again, I disagree. There is a very clear change is subject matter here. The Lord, through Paul, tells us, “Now in this” (this that I am about to tell you) “I praise you not….” What does He praise them not for? Verse 18 says “for first of all….” I don’t think the change in subject could be much clearer. The “come together in the church” of verse 18 has no relation to the issue of headship in verses 2-16.

You wrote, “It would be strange if the occasion of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 turned out to be the using of prophetic gifts in private, outside the church altogether.”

Of course, prophetic gifts is not the subject of the section, but rather headship. If by strange, you mean upsetting to the churches of today, you are certainly right. However, it would certainly clear up the tension with two other verses that are absolutely plain in their prohibition of women speaking in church. As you know, the most common defense for not obeying the very clear statement in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is that it cannot possibly mean what it says because it conflicts with 1 Corinthians 11:5.

I am not saying that I have closed my mind to the discussion. I have not. I am taking all of the posts and studying them. But I have not been convinced by the discussion yet. I had never looked into the issue before, but I have been reading some older commentaries, like Calvin and Gill. I did not realize that the practice in the churches in the 16th through 18th centuries (not sure about the 19th yet) was that women did keep silent in the congregational meetings.

In another posting you wrote (regarding point – counterpoint in 1 Cor. 14:29-35), “same thing in our passage. First, the statement of truth, the point (1 Cor. 14:29-33)” and then the counterpoint 34-35.

I understand your premise. However, it just does not seem to flow. If, as you contend, verses 29-35 are a point – counterpoint, then why are they not talking about the same subject? Verses 29-33 are speaking of the gift of prophesying. Verses 34-35 are talking about women speaking, not prophesying, in the church. I am sure some would allege that “speaking” in verse 34 is referring to prophesying, but that will not work. If it was referring to prophesying, then there would not have been a prohibition of women even asking a question before they got home.

In another post you wrote, “Paul realizes that some will not take that ‘all’ in verse 31 seriously and will wish to exclude women from the proceedings. Remember that this hypothesis calls for at least one group in the Corinthian church to actually be saying things such as we find in verses 34-35.”

As you said, you have to create this hypothesis in order to get this thought out of the text. It does not flow naturally from the text.

In that same post you wrote, “the first century readership in Corinth would not have to guess whose words were being quoted. They would already know that Paul was using the common Greco-Roman rhetorical device whereby one cites an opposing view and then answers it, simply because they could look around the church and identify members who held to precisely the views that Paul is rhetorically setting up for the kill.”

Did God give the Bible in such a fashion that only those present at the point of revelation could understand the meaning of His message? There are many cases in the Bible where knowledge of customs and settings will enhance one’s understanding of God’s complete meaning of the text. However, He never gave the Word in such as way that His people would absolutely misunderstand the meaning if they did not have colloquial knowledge. According to 1 Corinthians 1, God’s man audience throughout the ages has been the common working class people, not the “mighty” or the “wise” or the “noble.” Your premise requires extensive colloquial knowledge to begin to understand the passage, and even then, it is difficult.

Concerning the misunderstanding concerning the “opinion of yours,” I apologize. I usually read and update the posts after work, before going home. In that case, I did not take enough time to read the post carefully. In the future, I will try to print the posts and take them home to read carefully before answering those that are more technical and thoughtful. Unfortunately, I do not have email at home.

Again, thanks for taking time to correspond on the issue.

Philpott

[Etcetera]

Philpott:

The discussion throughout the verses (2-16) is Christ’s headship over man and man’s headship over woman. Is this a truth only inside the church? Then, in verses 13-14, God seals the fact the He is speaking of a universal truth by referring to nature to prove the point. Then in verse 16, when He refers to “the churches of God,” it does not mean that the discussion applies only in a congregational meeting.

The universal truths are not the point of the passage. They support the head covering. They clearly support the head covering in a less than universal fashion, right? Are women to wear the covering 24 hours a day? No, only in the context of the passage, when prophesying and praying. In other words, the universal nature of the references does not support a universal reading of the enjoined practice.

If I say that children are less mature than adults and therefore should not be allowed in gun shows, the universal principle of children's immaturity is not being limited to the gun show. Children are immature both within such a show and without.

Similarly, if Paul says that the man is the head of the woman and therefore women ought to wear head coverings in church, the universal principle of headship is not being limited to church. The specific practice of the church gathering is simply meeting certain universal standards.

Just because something is taught by the church, that principle is not restricted to the congregational meetings.

1 Corinthians does not say that this principle was taught by the church. It states that it was practiced by the church. And to say that the church practiced certain things at home flies in the face of the Pauline way of using the word church, as in, for instance, 1 Corinthians 11:22, in which houses and the church are antonyms, and 11:34, in which homes and coming together are antonyms.

If Paul had wished to underline a practice amongst Christians at home in 11:16, he could easily have said: "...nor have the saints [or brethren] of God."

There is a very clear change is subject matter here. The Lord, through Paul, tells us, “Now in this” (this that I am about to tell you) “I praise you not….” What does He praise them not for? Verse 18 says “for first of all….” I don’t think the change in subject could be much clearer.

Nor do I. But the change in subject happens to be from a behavior worthy of praise (11:2) to one not worthy of praise (11:16), not from a behavior at home to one in the church. "In the first place" clearly does not mean: "This is my first point about your gatherings at all." It means: "This is my first criticism of your gatherings," since 11:2-16 was, not a criticism, but rather a praise for the church in general (despite the few that might "wish to be contentious" in verse 16). That is the transition, from praise to critique, not from home to church.

If, as you contend, verses 29-35 are a point – counterpoint, then why are they not talking about the same subject? Verses 29-33 are speaking of the gift of prophesying. Verses 34-35 are talking about women speaking, not prophesying, in the church. I am sure some would allege that “speaking” in verse 34 is referring to prophesying, but that will not work. If it was referring to prophesying, then there would not have been a prohibition of women even asking a question before they got home.

Verses 26-31 are about at least these three things: When to speak, when to keep silent, and how best to learn (and edify). Observe:

What then, brethren? When you assemble, each has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and in turn, and let one interpret. But, if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in the church, and let him speak to himself and to God. And let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. But, if a revelation is made to another who is seated, let the first keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and may be exhorted.

Notice that speaking and keeping silent are antonyms, and how many times they crop up in the passage. Note also that all of the activities in verse 26 involve speaking: Psalms, teachings, revelations, tongues, interpretations. Note finally that the purpose of these restrictions is to allow learning to take place. Prophecy is but one permutation in this text of the general theme of speaking.

Our controversial little passage then states:

Let the women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the law also says, and, if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church.

Now, if one thing is clear here, it is that we are still on the same subject! Speaking, keeping silent, learning.... And let me emphasize that we are still on the same subject no matter which of our respective views is correct. So when you say...:

Verses 29-33 are speaking of the gift of prophesying. Verses 34-35 are talking about women speaking, not prophesying, in the church.

...you are trying to create a total disjunction between two passages that are as intrinsically related as they could be. You are correct to a point. The subject is speaking, not (only) prophesying, but speaking includes prophesying... and speaking in tongues, and giving revelations, and interpreting, and so on. Speaking includes prophesying, not because I say so, but because Paul himself says so in verse 29: "Let two or three prophets speak...." It is Paul writing all these verbal cues and connections, not I.

As you said, you have to create this hypothesis in order to get this thought out of the text. It does not flow naturally from the text.

How so? It flows naturally from the usual usage of e. I do not have to "create" the hypothesis that someone at Corinth spoke words such as those found in verses 34-35. That position is the natural byproduct of understanding Paul to be refuting an opposing viewpoint. That is the hypothesis. Grant that, and the opponents' having at some time spoken words like that is a given.

My point was that Paul did not have to write those words in such a way as to make himself perfectly intelligible to you or me on the first run-through two millennia later. We have to study to catch up, so to speak, to where the Corinthians were merely by virtue of living in the first century. What came naturally to them (their working knowledge of contemporary rhetoric, for instance) is great effort for us.

Did God give the Bible in such a fashion that only those present at the point of revelation could understand the meaning of His message?

Frequently. But this is not necessarily one of those times.

However, He never gave the Word in such as way that His people would absolutely misunderstand the meaning if they did not have colloquial knowledge.

This statement is simply false.

I am not saying that I have closed my mind to the discussion. I have not.

Nor have I. If it is any consolation to you, I have some nagging doubts myself, based on parallels between verses 34-35 and other parts of the New Testament. But this is my best answer for now (and for the past couple of years).

What about 1 Timothy 2:11-14? Can you also explain why it is not to be understood as it is written?

I really do not wish to get into that passage at present. Several reasons.... First, I spent a great deal of my adult life convinced that the Pastorals were not written by the apostle Paul. I have only in the past couple of years tried to "redeem" them, and am not through yet. Second, this is one of the very passages that gives me pause on my argument in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. Third, much may hang on the precise nature of teaching in the New Testament. There is some teaching that seems to be given by gifted individuals regardless of office, and other teaching that seems to be reserved for elders alone. Fourth, much may hang on the meaning of the word woman in all our passages. It might mean wife, not just any woman in general.

The wise route to take on your part might be, not to concede the point entirely, nor to categorically dismiss it, but rather to allow that, if all else were to work out favorably, the argument that I have put forward could in fact be the right way to look at it all. (On its own merits, it makes sense.) If not, if it turned out that other passages muzzled women completely, then perhaps you were right all along (but then some explaining of a few items, such as 11:2-16, would be in order).

Your point about the Calvinistic churches and so on is interesting, but not really to the point. Many groups have gotten the record wrong before. There is no foolproof safety net here. We could all be mistaken.

In his name.

Etcetera.

[philpott]

Etcetera:

Thanks again for the reply. I do understand your argument. I am not sure that I can accept it Biblically, but I really appreciate you taking time to explain it to me so well. I have the entire thread on paper so that I can continue to study the issue and refer to it in the future.

It seems like the discussion has pretty much come to a stand still. I am not trying to cut this off prematurely, but I do not want to waste your time. I do understand the hypothesis.

So, thanks again.

Philpott

[dizzle]

Dear Etcetera:

I understand that you do not wish to get into Timothy now. I do think that the passage will revolved around what teaching is being referred to there. So I do think it limits women there, but limits them very specifically and would not then cause a conflict with your Corinthians interpretation.

[Etcetera]

Philpott:

I have the entire thread on paper so that I can continue to study the issue and refer to it in the future.

I do that too. :smile:

I will often carry such a paper around with me in my pocket for days, referring back to it in spare moments.

Many thanks for the exchange.

In him.

Etcetera.

:cheers:

[Etcetera]

Dee Dee:

Thanks for your input.

I am on a current course of study that may eventually lead me to a consideration of apostolic teaching and the passing on of apostolic traditions, so I might yet get a chance to align Timothy with 1 Corinthians.

In the name.

Etcetera.

[David O]

Also, what do you think the Lord is referring to when He mentions, "as also saith the law?"


I wonder if he is referring to the setup of the temple. They weren't even allowed to go in past the outside part.

[Waterrock]

Etcetera? Etcetera!!! It's you! Waterrock here.

Brian mentioned a link to an article by D.A. Carson in which Carson dismantled Fee's idea that I Cor. 14:34-35 is an interpolation. Carson also went on to address the idea you've been promoting (that Paul is presenting an opponent's position in this passage). The entire article is at
http://www.netbible.com/docs/splife...woman/chap6.htm ~ I'll give a few select morsels from it (and then we all have to go buy the book, okay?):

"During the last decade and a half, one notable trend in Corinthian studies has been to postulate that Paul is quoting the Corinthians in more and more places—usually in places where the commentator does not like what Paul is saying! That Paul does quote from the Corinthians’ letter no one disputes. But the instances that are almost universally recognized as quotations (e.g., 6:12; 7:1b; 8:1b) enjoy certain common characteristics: (i) they are short (e.g., “Everything is permissible for me,” 6:12); (ii) they are usually followed by sustained qualification (e.g., in 6:12 Paul goes on to add “but not everything is beneficial … but I will not be mastered by anything”—and then, following one more brief quotation from their letter, he devotes several verses to the principle he is expounding)..."

Some (such as Walter Kaiser) who have endorsed the idea that I Cor. 14:34-35 is a quote of Paul's opponents (real or devised) have cited Thayer for support. Carson clarifies, however, that their citation of Thayer is not complete:

"Thayer then goes on to list several other exemplary passages: Romans 3:29; 1 Corinthians 9:6; 10:22; 11:14 (he points out that there is a textual variant there); 14:36 (the passage at hand). Consider Romans 3:29. In the preceding verse, Paul insists, “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.” The next word, at the beginning of verse 29, is the disjunctive particle in question: “Or [is] God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God… .” Certainly neither Paul nor Thayer (and presumably not Kaiser) wants to overturn what Paul wrote in verse 28. Rather, using a rhetorical device, Paul goes on to say, in effect, “If you want to deny or refute this truth, then at least face up to this: monotheism itself demands that God is not the God of Jews only, but of all.”

Exactly the same sort of reasoning occurs in the other passages Thayer quotes. [Carson might be stretching a bit here.] He then adds, as part of the same article in his lexicon, two extrapolations of this usage of the disjunctive particle : (a) e„ agnoiete, “or don’t you know,” citing Romans 6:3; 7:1 [cf. 6:14]; (b) e„ ouk oidate, “or don’t you know,” citing Romans 11:2; 1 Corinthians 6:9, 16, 19. In each case the flow of the argument demands that the words that succeed the expression are used to enforce, rather emphatically, what some among the readers are in danger of trying to deny or refute: the clause that precedes it. In short, Kaiser has not understood Thayer’s point."

Carson then turns to Gilbert Bilezikian's approach:

"Worse yet is Bilezikian’s discussion of some of the relevant passages in Paul. For example, he writes: “In [1 Corinthians] 6:1-2, Paul challenges the Corinthians for their propensity to go into litigations against each other before pagan courts, rather than to submit their contentions to fellow believers. He counters this situation with ‘(nonsense!) do you not know that the saints will judge the world?’” Again, however, it is important to listen to the text itself. In verse 1, Paul writes, “If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints?” The verb dare in this rhetorical question proves beyond contradiction that in this context the assumed answer is “No!” ... There is even less excuse for [Bilezikian's] failure in understanding when he turns to 1 Corinthians 6:15-16, for Paul himself inserts, after the rhetorical question but before the disjunctive particle, the words me„ genoito: “Never” (NIV), “God forbid” (KJV). Once again, verse 16 emphatically reinforces the truth of verse 15, if the rhetorical question is read in any sort of responsible way. ..."

"The brute fact is this: in every instance in the New Testament where the disjunctive particle in question is used in a construction analogous to the passage at hand, its effect is to reinforce the truth of the clause or verse that precedes it."

Yours in Christ,

Waterrock


:hi:

[Socrates]

03-29-2003 @ 11:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47696#post47696)
Dee Dee Warren:

With the Timothy passages, I think Miller is getting squeamish about a spiritual hierarchy with male headship. I am not squeamish about such things at all. Right now I firmly am a complementarian and do not believe that women should hold roles such as Senior Pastor and so on. I think Miller misses the implications of Paul's appeal to the created order in the Timothy passage personally and the very important Jewish concept of firstborn etc. For Paul to make the point that the man was created first makes a very distinctly Jewish point in that regard.

I agree. This is one of very few places where I think Miller is mistaken. It's hard to get around the fact that Paul justifies male leadership in the church by referring to the created order, not mere cultural factors.

Similarly, in Ephesians 5:22 ff., Paul justifies male headship in marriage by comparing it to the relationship of Christ to the Church, which is again not merely a cultural thing.

[Undomiel]

This is a really good article on the topic:

Miriam
After God brought the Israelites through the Red Sea, Miriam sang praises that are now part of the word of God: "Miriam the prophetess, Aaron's sister, took a tambourine in her hand, and all the women followed her, with tambourines and dancing.

"Miriam sang to them: `Sing to the Lord, for he is highly exalted. The horse and its rider he has hurled into the sea' " (Exodus 15:20-21). In public worship, Miriam sang what is now the word of God.

Miriam was a prophetess, which means that she spoke the word of the Lord. A prophet is someone who speaks on behalf of God to the people; a prophetess had the same role. Miriam had a role of spiritual leadership. [Click here for article on Miriam]

Deborah
The next prophetess in the Bible is Deborah. "Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading Israel at that time. She held court under the Palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites came to her to have their disputes decided" (Judges 4:4-5).

Deborah was a prophetess and a judge, and in both roles she spoke the word of God. Her role was not just a one-time event, but an ongoing responsibility. The people came to her for leadership on a regular basis--and there is nothing in the Bible to suggest that anyone thought it was unusual for a woman to perform this role. She was simply the most qualified person, and people accepted that.

God can raise up stones to do his work, and if he needed a man to do his work, he could raise up a man. But in this case he chose to work through a woman, showing that there is no theological reason that God can't use a woman to speak on his behalf, or to have a woman lead his people.

There were many men in Israel at that time, but God wasn't searching for one to be the judge, and apparently the Israelites weren't, either. They were quite willing to go to Deborah to have their disputes decided. She had wisdom, and her wisdom was more important than her gender.

Deborah was a prophetess, someone speaking the words of God. "She sent for Barak son of Abinoam from Kedesh in Naphtali and said to him, `The Lord, the God of Israel, commands you: "Go, take with you ten thousand men of Naphtali and Zebulun and lead the way to Mount Tabor. I will lure Sisera, the commander of Jabin's army, with his chariots and his troops to the Kishon River and give him into your hands" ' " (verses 6-7).

Here the Bible describes a woman speaking the words of God, giving commands to a man who was apparently enough of a leader that he could raise an army of ten thousand men. God is quite willing for a woman to give his commands to men. There is nothing in the nature of God or the nature of men and women that makes such a thing inappropriate. God can use women, and we need to be alert for the possibility that he is, and we need to be willing to respond.

Deborah went with Barak, and in verse 14 she again gives the word of the Lord to Barak: "Go! This is the day the Lord has given Sisera into your hands. Has not the Lord gone ahead of you?" So they went, and they won. It was a great victory, and Deborah and Barak commemorated their victory with a song of praise that is now part of the word of God.

"On that day Deborah and Barak son of Abinoam sang this song: `When the princes in Israel take the lead, when the people willingly offer themselves--praise the Lord! Hear this, you kings! Listen, you rulers! I will sing to the Lord, I will sing; I will make music to the Lord, the God of Israel' " (Judges 5:1-2)

Who is this "I" who is singing? In verse 7 we see that it is Deborah: "Village life in Israel ceased," the song says, "ceased until I, Deborah, arose, arose a mother in Israel." Deborah is the primary author of this part of Scripture. Like Miriam, she was singing praise to God in public worship. She is expressing spiritual leadership, speaking the word of God. This is a legitimate thing for women to do.

When the best person for the job is a woman, then God is quite willing to use a woman to do the work that needs to be done. Even in a patriarchal society, God can use women to speak his words.

A similar thing happened with Hannah, the mother of Samuel. "Hannah prayed and said: `My heart rejoices in the Lord; in the Lord my horn is lifted high. My mouth boasts over my enemies, for I delight in your deliverance. There is no one holy like the Lord; there is no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God' " (1 Samuel 2:1-2).

Again, a woman's words are now inspired Scripture. She spoke the word of God with words of worship that have inspired synagogues and churches for thousands of years, and that is a notable achievement for anyone. God inspired her to sing a song of praise.

Most of God's spokesmen were men. In this patriarchal society, all the priests were men, the kings were men, the military leaders were men. But even in that male-dominated society, God could use women to do his work.

Huldah
In 2 Kings 22, we catch another glimpse of what God was doing with women. In the 18th year of Josiah's reign, workers found a scroll of the law in the temple. Josiah told the high priest what he should do: "Go and inquire of the Lord for me and for the people and for all Judah about what is written in this book that has been found" (verse 13).

The high priest wanted to ask the Lord about the scroll, so he "went to speak to the prophetess Huldah, who was the wife of Shallum son of Tikvah" (verse 14). They could have looked for Jeremiah, but there was no reason to. Huldah spoke the word of the Lord just as much as Jeremiah did. A prophet speaks the words of God, and a prophetess speaks the words of God, and God inspires one just as much as the other.

So they asked Huldah, and in verses 15-16 we read her reply: "She said to them, `This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: Tell the man who sent you to me, "This is what the Lord says: I am going to bring disaster on this place and its people, according to everything written in the book the king of Judah has read." ' "

Huldah was commenting on the meaning of the Scriptures and predicting the future, giving an authoritative message from God. Again, there is no indication that anything unusual was happening. No one said it was strange to go to a woman instead of a man. Huldah was known as a prophetess, which means that she was known to speak the word of the Lord. She was doing the same thing she had on many other occasions: She spoke on behalf of God to the people. That is what prophetesses did.

New Testament
In the New Testament we learn of other women who spoke the word of God. Mary sang praises that are now in Scripture (Luke 1:46-55). Anna was a prophetess (Luke 2:36-38). After Jesus was resurrected, he appeared to some women and gave them a message: "The women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples.

"Suddenly Jesus met them. `Greetings,' he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, `Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me' " (Matthew 28:8-10).

Jesus has no problem with women delivering commands to men. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. He gave them that authority by giving them the message, and in doing so, these women were speaking the words of the Lord. Jesus expected the men to listen to the women and obey the command they delivered.

There were prophetesses in the early church, too. When the disciples were speaking in tongues, Peter told the crowd what was going on. It was a fulfillment of Joel's prophecy: "In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy" (Acts 2:17-18).

God inspires both men and women to speak. That was not unheard of in Old Testament times, and this is the way it should be in the new covenant age, too. God will cause both men and women to speak. Luke does not tell us what the women were inspired to say. All the preaching done in the book of Acts is done by men. That was probably a practical necessity in that culture. But there is nothing theoretically or theologically wrong with women being inspired to speak.

Luke mentions in Acts 21:9 that Philip had four daughters who prophesied. As prophetesses, they would speak the word of God, as they were inspired by God. They may have composed songs of praise, like Miriam and Deborah did, or they could have commented on the meaning of the Scriptures, as Huldah did. All of those are within the range of what is biblically possible.

1 Corinthians 11
1 Corinthians 11 gives us another example of women speaking the word of God--and this in a letter from Paul, who is sometimes quoted as saying that women should not speak. But that kind of quote is possible only when it is taken out of context, because 1 Corinthians 11 shows that Paul did approve of women speaking, even in church.

There are many details in the chapter that we cannot explore now, but we can take note of a few things about women. Paul writes: "Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head were shaved" (verses 4-5).

Christians have debated the meaning of these words for centuries. Paul was writing about a cultural custom we do not have today. His point seems to be that that men and women should act in culturally appropriate ways when they pray or prophesy.

Paul is addressing something that is done in public. He is not worried about whether people cover their heads in private--and prophesying almost by definition has to be done in public. Paul is discussing something that other people can see. The concepts of shame and honor concern what other people can see.

In chapter 14 he talks in more detail about prophesying, and it is something done in church, in the worship services. It seems clear that in chapter 11 Paul is talking about women praying and prophesying in church.

What does Paul mean when he talks about prophesying? In chapter 12, he lists prophecy as a spiritual gift. In chapter 14, he says: "Everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort. He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church" (verses 3-4).

Prophecy is an ability that God gives to people to strengthen, encourage, comfort and edify others. Paul wished that everyone in the church could do this. It is a valuable gift, for the strengthening of the church as a whole. It is done in church, for good of the church. Verse 24 says that prophecy is something that could convince people of sin and could lead someone to faith in Christ.

When Paul writes about women who prophesy, he means women who encourage, comfort, edify and strengthen the church. He means women who are speaking in church to help the church grow, to help believers become better servants of God.

Some speakers must be silent
In verse 26, Paul gives some instructions for the worship services. "When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church." The priority in our worship services is building and strengthening the church.

In verses 27-28, he says: "If anyone speaks in a tongue, two--or at the most three--should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God." "Keep quiet" is a Greek word that is later translated as "silent." It does not mean total silence, but peace and order. Instead of everybody talking at once, people ought to take turns.

Verse 29: "Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said." We don't have to assume it is a message from God just because somebody said it is. Rather, we should judge it carefully, thinking about what it means and how it fits in with other things we know about the gospel.

Verses 30-31: "And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop [the same Greek word is used here for being quiet]. For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged." Everyone could prophesy, as God gave the spiritual gift to encourage, comfort, edify and instruct.

Which women should be quiet?
Paul said they could all prophesy, as long as they took turns doing it. So in verse 34, "women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says," what did he mean?

Is he contradicting what he wrote in chapter 11? Is he saying, contrary to the Scriptures that we have seen, that women are not allowed to speak the word of God? Or that they can do it anywhere except church?

No, Paul is not contradicting himself. There are several reasons to believe that this verse applies to a limited situation. First, common sense tells us that women do not have to be completely silent in church. They can say amen; they can sing hymns; they can whisper a question to their husband to find out what verse is being discussed.

Paul does not forbid all talking or all questions--he is concerned mainly about peace and order in the worship service, and what he forbids is talking that disrupts the worship service. When he tells women to be quiet, he uses the same Greek word that he had used for men who were speaking in tongues or prophesying. He is referring to out-of-turn talking.

The second clue that Paul is discussing a limited situation is that the Law does not tell women to be silent in the worship meetings. The Bible says that wives should be in submission to their husbands, but not to all men in general. The Greek word for "women" also means "wives," and the context indicates that Paul meant "wives."

Third, verse 35 shows that the command is limited to wives: "If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

This verse cannot apply to single women, widows or women married to non-Christians. When Paul says that women must be silent, he means that wives are not to be asking disruptive or nonsubmissive questions of their husbands in the worship service. Whispered questions are not disgraceful, but disruptive questions are.

Paul has just talked about how various speakers would prophesy, and the others would weigh carefully what was said. There may have been discussion at this part of the worship service, and people would ask questions of the speaker. This cannot be proven, but it is a plausible situation, and it helps make sense of what Paul wrote.

Paul is saying that it is not appropriate for a wife to get involved in this discussion, or to challenge what her husband had said. That would be nonsubmissive, and therefore against what the law says. If wives want to find out something, they can ask their husbands at home. If it's somebody else's husband, of course, they couldn't ask at home; they would have to ask in church just like everybody else.

If we take verse 34 out of context, we could turn it into a requirement for total silence of all women in church. But that is not what Paul meant. Paul is simply requiring wives to be silent for a time, just as he required everybody else to be quiet for a time. The context itself tells us that Paul's words are limited to a specific situation--a situation that rarely occurs in churches today, because our worship services use a different format.

A basic rule of biblical interpretation is that we should try to understand a writer in such a way that we don't make him contradict himself. The Bible clearly says that women can speak the word of God, and Paul allowed women to speak in church. So when he says that women have to be silent, we need to understand that his comments are limited in some way by the situation.

That is what we have done here, and that is what we need to do in 1 Timothy 2. When it says that women are not allowed to speak in church, we should not try to make it say more than it means. We should try to understand the words in such a way that they do not contradict the clear examples in Scripture that women can speak the word of God. As we explained in our 1997 study paper, the basic conclusion is that women can speak in some situations, and they can have certain kinds of authority, but not others.

Paul does not spell those details out for us, but Scripture leads us to that conclusion. In that study paper we associated the limit of authority as that of an ordained elder. But a person doesn't need to be an elder to speak in church, or to give sermons, or to comment on the meaning of the Scriptures, or to comfort and edify and instruct. Women may do all those things, as God gives them the spiritual gifts to serve the church.

Peter gives us a fitting conclusion when he says, "Each one should use whatever gift he [or she] has received to serve others, faithfully administering God's grace in its various forms. If anyone speaks [whether man or woman] he should do it as one speaking the very words of God" (1 Peter 4:10-11). Anyone who speaks in church should strive to speak the words of God, and women are certainly included in those who may speak the words of God in church.

http://www.wcg.org/lit/church/ministry/women.htm

[David O]

We should not make it say less than it means. Remember Hebrews makes no mention of Deborah. Saul prophesied after he had gone evil, Balaam's ass spoke to rebuke him. I'm not going to donkey church.

[mickiel]

There are more females in churches than males by far. Population wise, i think God has created more females than males, and that not just in the human world, but the inscet and animal kingdom as well. Conclusion; there will be more preist of God who used to be human females than males. There will be more kings in the kingdom who used to be female than males. There will be more prior females inGods kingdom than males, secondary conclusion, God must love females. He must see more in them than males to create so many of them.

[David O]

He must see more in them than males to create so many of them.


By this math reasoning, He sees the most in bugs or microrganisms.

I think you're onto something with the references to heaven. We all become the sons of God. I find no reference to "daughters of God." So ruling and reigning would possibly be from former women. He can love me, and my superior here at work equally without destroying our work relationship. In fact all authority is established of God. So when I work for my boss, it is for God. God does love some people more than others, though. See Daniel's greeting from the angel.

[Steven]

philopott,

1 Cor. 14:34-36 women speaking in the church
philpott:

I am seeking to learn the true meaning of the text 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 which reads, "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in church. What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?"

I am not interested in political correctness, but rather the truth. So, please restrict comments to Biblical exegesis and not chase personal agendas related to current thinking on women's rights.

Also, what do you think the Lord is referring to when He mentions, "as also saith the law?"



I am seeking to learn the true meaning of the text 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 which reads, "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in church. What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?"

I am not interested in political correctness, but rather the truth. So, please restrict comments to Biblical exegesis and not chase personal agendas related to current thinking on women's rights.

Also, what do you think the Lord is referring to when He mentions, "as also saith the law?"



The principle of women not speaking in church services is universal, applied to all churches. The text is pretty simple: women should stay silent in church, should not be teaching or preaching or usurping any authority over men whether in a building or out.

It is common when refuting an argument to move away from the Scriptures and the simplicity of the text and context, insteading moving to opinion and assertions, which are averant doctrines of the ignorant and heretical doctrines of those who intellectually deceive.

You were right on in bringing this point up; this is the type of thing that should be discussed, despite the railings of religious feminists and homosexuals that would speak contrary to the Scriptures.

- Steven

http://www.informationgospel.net/greek_meanings.htm
(we have researched some of the same issues here and on similar pages)

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 04:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=144512#post144512)
Steven:

The principle of women not speaking in church services is universal, applied to all churches. The text is pretty simple: women should stay silent in church, should not be teaching or preaching or usurping any authority over men whether in a building or out.

Dog puke! This is nonsense which ignores the subject of the entire chapter.
2 Pet 2:22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog [is] turned to his own vomit [dog puke] again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

It is common when refuting an argument to move away from the Scriptures and the simplicity of the text and context, insteading moving to opinion and assertions, which are averant doctrines of the ignorant and heretical doctrines of those who intellectually deceive.

You were right on in bringing this point up; this is the type of thing that should be discussed, despite the railings of religious feminists and homosexuals that would speak contrary to the Scriptures.

So anyone who disgrees with you is either a homosexual or a feminist? Anyone who uses the argument you just did is so insecure in their manhood the only way they can feel like a man is to use the Bible like a club to put all women in subjection to all men. And if you did not have homosexual leanings yourself you would not accuse others of that.

1 Cor 14 is NOT a universal rule for all women to be silent in all churches but deals with a problem of speaking in tongues at the Corinthian church. Read the chapter tongues is mentioned fourteen (14) times in thirteen verses, before and after vss 34-35.

1 Cor 14:, 2, 4, 5 ², 6, 9, 13, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 26, and 39. Since Paul is talking about controlling speaking in tongues from vs. 1 thru vs. 39, why would vss, 34-35, suddenly become a rule for all women in all churches at all times, and NOT about speaking in tongues, and then switch back to talking about tongues in vs. 39?

Also, Philpott asked you a question which you did NOT answer, "what do you think the Lord is referring to when He mentions, "as also saith the law?"" Do you know the answer, I do? And it deals with this question. If the wives are supposed to ask their husbands, who do the widows and unmarried women, ask when they want to learn something? Or are the supposed to keep silence also and not learn anything.

Most men, like you, who doubt their masculinity and misuse the Bible the way you do, only know the few proof texts which out-of-context seem to support your unscriptural "men are superior to women" attitude. But my Bible starts in Genesis where God said He created woman in His image. In the image of God. NOT almost, NOT a little less. But in the very image of God.

And throughout the Bible we are told God is no respecter of persons. But you tell us that God IS a respecter of person. Women, just because they are women, according to you, must keep silent, cannot be leaders in the church, etc.

Paul who wrote 1 Corintians also told us that in Christ Jesus there is NO male or female.

And OBTW you want to call me a homosexual? I have a son older than you and I earned several awards in combat in Viet Nam including the Distinguished Flying Cross. I do not have any problems with my manhood. If a woman can preach better than I can. Preach on sister. Give God the glory.
1Cr 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

1 Cr 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Deu 16:19 Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous.

2 Ch 19:7 Wherefore now let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take heed and do [it]: for [there is] no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts.

Act 10:34 Then Peter opened [his] mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

Rom 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God

Col 3:25 But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.

Jam 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

1 Pe 1:17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning [here] in fear:

[Steven]

shepherd,

I was answering philopott's original post and was not looking at any other posts. I am dissapointed that you were so offended and felt alienated by my words, resorting to personal attacks.

I am more than willing to discuss this issue with you in light of the Scriptures, some of which you have presented above, but I don't have the time for personal speculation and opinion. You seem to be knowledgable and well-studied, but opinions and speculation merely weaken your arguement. If you plan to be Christ-like and would like to discuss this from the Scriptures, I'd be happy to discuss it or debate it :smile: ; I have no time for disrespectful rantings, despite age.

- Steven, fellow worker in Christ

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 01:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=145140#post145140)
Steven:

shepherd,

I was answering philopott's original post and was not looking at any other posts. I am dissapointed that you were so offended and felt alienated by my words, resorting to personal attacks.

I am more than willing to discuss this issue with you in light of the Scriptures, some of which you have presented above, but I don't have the time for personal speculation and opinion. You seem to be knowledgable and well-studied, but opinions and speculation merely weaken your arguement. If you plan to be Christ-like and would like to discuss this from the Scriptures, I'd be happy to discuss it or debate it :smile: ; I have no time for disrespectful rantings, despite age.

- Steven, fellow worker in Christ

Oh I beg your pardon, you did not make the post which I quoted and quote again here? The post had your name on it.

It is common when refuting an argument to move away from the Scriptures and the simplicity of the text and context, insteading moving to opinion and assertions, which are averant doctrines of the ignorant and heretical doctrines of those who intellectually deceive.

You were right on in bringing this point up; this is the type of thing that should be discussed, despite the railings of religious feminists and homosexuals that would speak contrary to the Scriptures.

Correct me if I am wrong but is this not saying that anyone and everyone who disagrees with your interpretation of the scriptures, relating to the role of women in the church, is guilty of, "averant [aberrant] doctrines of the ignorant and heretical doctrines of those who intellectually deceive" and "the railings of religious feminists and homosexuals that would speak contrary to the Scriptures." If I am reading that wrong, I apologize. So if you did not say that please tell me what you did say. And you said something about "disrespectful rantings"

And OBTW there was no personal speculation or opinion in my post. I quoted the Word of God. And I take it very personal that someone calls me a homosexual because I believe that God created woman in His own image and that in God's eyes, just as the word say, there is NO male or female, and that God is NOT a respecter of persons, in or out of His church.

See you didn't just say something was wrong, misunderstood, etc. but you started the personal attacks with words like, "aberrant doctrines, the ignorant, heretical doctrines, intellectually deceive, the railings of religious feminists and homosexuals"

Maybe you ought to take a look at that log in your eye, if you are indeed, a fellow worker in Christ. Whether you discuss or debate it with me or not is immaterial to me. If you post your misinterpretations of the scripture and call people who disagree with you homosexuals, and worse, I will certainly respond.

And FYI the picture under you name is Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson of the Lubavitch Orthodox Jewish sect in Brooklyn, New York. He is considered to be the messiah by his followers, they expect him to resurrect. Should a follower of Christ be displaying a picture of a false messiah?

[Steven]

shepherd,

Point 1: Let me clarify something, I did not speicifically call you or refer to you as a homosexual, which itself is an abomination to God.

Point 2: thank you for pointing out about the avatar; I found it on the internet on a clip-art site under general misc., and had no idea it was of such significance.

I am a working stiff so allow me time to look over the material you presented, and I will give you a response.

- Steven

[Steven]

If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. 1 corinthians 14:37

shepherd,

You may want to note the verse above, that Paul called all that he'd written there commandments of the Lord; it is a commandment and therefore not open to opinion or man's (or woman's) assertions.

"For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." 1 corinthians 14:33

God is not the author of confusion, its usualy a man that brings confusion.

Contextually, Paul is setting down rules for the corinthians, and all churches of the saints as well.

Contextually, Paul is speaking throughout these chapters setting down order in the Church as the commandments from the Lord which we abide by universally as the Church, despite those who would cause dis-order in the church by re-interpreting Paul's words to suit themselves.

1 corinth. 14:34. Let your women keep silence (sigao - to keep silent, hold peace) in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; (laleo - utter words, talk, tell, utter) but they are commanded to be under obedience,(hupotasso - be under obedience, put under, subdue unto, (be, make) subject (to, unto), be (put) in subjection (to, under), submit self unto) as also saith the law.

1 corinth 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask(eperotao - to ask for, i.e. inquire, seek) their husbands at home (oikos - a dwelling, by implication a family (more or less related, literal or figuratively): for it is a shame (aischron - a shameful thing, i.e. indecorum) for women to speak in the church.

Shepherd please note this: 1 corinth 14:38 " But if any man be ignorantagnoeo - not to know (through lack of information or intelligence); by implication, to ignore (through disinclination):
KJV--(be) ignorant(-ly), not know, not understand, unknown.
... let him be ignorant."

That is, that if anyone did not recognize the authority of Paul's teaching as being commandments of God then that one was not to be recognized as a legitimate servant gifted by God.

A common practice for women in the early church was to be silent in church; if they wanted to learn doctrine, they would ask their husbands at home. They married relatively young and raised
families, taking care of the home. Even a woman today, in following this example would find a measure of happiness and contentment, having love for their children and reverence for their
husbands, out of obedience to God.

See below articles:

The Modern Female
(a small article on some historical facts about feminism)
http://www.informationgospel.net/the_modern_female.htm

Wifely Role
(extensive article on the Christian married woman's role)
http://www.informationgospel.net/wifely_role.htm

Bible Studies
(what the Bible says about a woman's role in the church)
http://www.informationgospel.net/bi...ieshelpmate.htm

The Children Article
(encouraging article for mothers)
http://www.informationgospel.net/children_help.htm

Why the issue of women usurping authority is Greek to everyone...
http://www.informationgospel.net/greek_meanings.htm

- Steven

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 09:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=145952#post145952)
Steven:

"If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. 1 corinthians 14:37

shepherd,

You may want to note the verse above, that Paul called all that he'd written there commandments of the Lord; it is a commandment and therefore not open to opinion or man's (or woman's) assertions.

You may want to note the scriptures I posted before, Gen 1:27, Deu 16:19, and 2 Ch 19:7, these are commandments of the Lord; it is a commandment and therefore not open to opinion or man's (or woman's) assertions. God spoke hundreds of years before Paul was born. Anything Paul said must be interpreted in light of what God said before.

We do NOT ignore what God said, as you are doing, to make a few out-of-context verses by Paul fit our unChristlike doctrines of man.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Deu 16:19 Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous.

2 Ch 19:7 Wherefore now let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take heed and do : for [there is] no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts. [Gal 3:28, Act 10:34, Rom 2:11, Col 3:25, Jam 2:9, 1 Pe 1:17]
Please tell me why I should note anything you have posted. I posted scriptures, many from the OT, and twice you have accused me of posting assertions, and opinions.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, [i]there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Either God is a respecter of persons in some circumstances or He is not. God says HE is NOT a respecter of persons, "[there is] no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons," The scripture do not specify only in salvation or some other isolated situations.

Steven please note this: 1 corinth 14:38 " But if any man be ignorantagnoeo - not to know (through lack of information or intelligence); by implication, to ignore (through disinclination):
KJV--(be) ignorant(-ly), not know, not understand, unknown.
... let him be ignorant."

[mickiel]

Today @ 01:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=146011#post146011)
OldShepherd:



You may want to note the scriptures I posted before, Gen 1:27, Deu 16:19, and 2 Ch 19:7, these are commandments of the Lord; it is a commandment and therefore not open to opinion or man's (or woman's) assertions. God spoke hundreds of years before Paul was born. Anything Paul said must be interpreted in light of what God said before.

We do NOT ignore what God said, as you are doing, to make a few out-of-context verses by Paul fit our unChristlike doctrines of man.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Deu 16:19 Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous.

2 Ch 19:7 Wherefore now let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take heed and do : for [there is] no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts. [Gal 3:28, Act 10:34, Rom 2:11, Col 3:25, Jam 2:9, 1 Pe 1:17]
Please tell me why I should note anything you have posted. I posted scriptures, many from the OT, and twice you have accused me of posting assertions, and opinions.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, [i]there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Either God is a respecter of persons in some circumstances or He is not. God says HE is NOT a respecter of persons, "[there is] no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons," The scripture do not specify only in salvation or some other isolated situations.

Steven please note this: 1 corinth 14:38 " But if any man be ignorantagnoeo - not to know (through lack of information or intelligence); by implication, to ignore (through disinclination):
KJV--(be) ignorant(-ly), not know, not understand, unknown.
... let him be ignorant."






He cannot SEE the scriptures you post, not THE WAY that you do. Here is the most frustrateing truth in debate; people can only do what they are able to do, we can only see what our minds see. THIS IS DEFINTE PROOF--- that God works with humans on DEFINTE DIFFERING LEVELS. We may not can DEFINE these levels, none of us really know where we are, but as we mix and mingle with each other we discover who is on our level.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 01:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=146128#post146128)
mickiel:

He cannot SEE the scriptures you post, not THE WAY that you do. Here is the most frustrateing truth in debate; people can only do what they are able to do, we can only see what our minds see. THIS IS DEFINTE PROOF--- that God works with humans on DEFINTE DIFFERING LEVELS. We may not can DEFINE these levels, none of us really know where we are, but as we mix and mingle with each other we discover who is on our level.


Oh you are absolutely right, I am well aware of that, it even has a name, "cognitive dissonance." And if my only goal was to convert him or others like him, I wouldn't have gotten involved in the discussion at all.

But there are others who chance to be here, not posting, just reading the various discussions and there might be someone who is wavering, almost convinced by the misogynism being promoted, and perhaps being exposed to a logical presentation of more of the Bible than the few out-of-context proof texts will convince them of the truth.

[Gavin]

Dear Etcetera:

greetings and thank you for your thoughtful post. :smile:

1. As you noted, Paul mentions the law. The problem here is that the law never actually tells women to subject themselves, and Paul gives no hint as to which passage he might be interpreting in this way.

Paul frequently uses the word "Law" to refer to the entire Old Testament. For example, verse 21. So it is possible that he alluding to any passage in the entire Old Testament, which makes it very difficult to determine what passage he has in mind (or whether he not he has a specific passage in mind at all or just a general summary of OT teaching).

The reference to the Law could be a reference to Genesis 3:16 ("he will rule over you") or, more in line with I Timothy 2:13ff., the creation order in Genesis 2:19ff.. Granted these passages do not enjoin silence, but Paul often makes points off of his own interpretations of Old Testament passages he is citing or alluding to. In any case, nothing about Paul's reference to the Law calls for a questioning of the authenticity of the passage, or as you argue, the interpretation that verses 34-35 contain a quotation from the Corinthians with which Paul is disagreeing.

2. The enjoined silence on the women does not seem to fit well with the rest of the New Testament’s teachings on the subject.

I am not sure what you are referring to here, but if my interpretation of I Corinthians 14:33-34 is correct, that Paul is restricting the authority of women in the church but not all speaking whatsoever, then the passage is entirely accord with I Timothy 2, for one. It is your interpretation, as I see it, that needs to be reconciled to I Timothy 2.

3. More specifically, such silence contradicts an earlier passage in this same epistle! 1 Corinthians 11:5 (part of another highly controversial passage on women!) states that a woman praying or prophesying must have her head covered (in the church; see 11:16). Yet in our passage, right in the middle of a discussion about prophesying and speaking in tongues, Paul tells women to be completely silent. So... they cannot prophesy after all?

Unless by silence Paul does not mean that women can never speak in any way at all, but (related to the context of weighing prophecy [verse 29]) that women cannot take part in authoritative leadership roles in the church.

4. What about single women? This passage says that women who wish to learn something ought to ask their own husbands at home. But Paul himself seems unlikely to have forgotten about single women; he certainly does not forget about them earlier in this epistle (7:8-9, 25-35).


This seems to me to be a minor point. The majority of women at Corinth were probably married, and Paul may have simply not thought about the others.

However, I hold to a different view now, and all because of a little one-letter particle word in the Greek language. The Greek particle e (an eta, not an epsilon), when appearing at the head of a sentence, often goes untranslated, or is translated or in the sense of a contrary view, or can be translated: What!? It often means: “I totally disagree with the mistaken position that I just cited from my opponents.”

I disagree on this for two reasons.

In the first place, it is not at all clear that Paul is citing his opponents in verses 34-35. When he does cite a Corinthian saying, it is (1) very short, and (2) followed by clear argument to the contrary of the idea behind the quotation or at least qualification of it (e.g., 6:12). Neither of these criteria is met in I Corinthians 14:34-35.

Secondly, some confusion surrounds the word epsilon as used in the Greek New Testament. Allow me to quote one scholar:

Although it is true that the first word in verse 36 is probably a disjunctive particle, nevertheless the proffered explanation does not follow. Odell-Scott and Manus understand verses 33b-35 as the proposition against which the disjunctive “What!” responds. In other words, Paul allegedly cites the Corinthian view that women must be silent, and then replies with some exasperation, “What! Did the word of God originate with you?” He thereby dismisses the content of verses 34-35. Bilezikian wants to render the word by “Nonsense!”34 Kaiser specifically appeals to Thayer’s Lexicon, which lists 1 Corinthians 14:36 as an instance of the principle that this disjunctive particle may appear (in Kaiser’s citation of Thayer) “before a sentence contrary to the one preceding [it]… .”35 However, Kaiser has not quoted enough of Thayer’s context to convey his meaning accurately. To quote in full, Thayer says that the disjunctive may appear “before a sentence contrary to the one just preceding, to indicate that if one be denied or refuted the other must stand: Mt. xx.15 (i.e., or, if thou wilt not grant this, is thine eye etc.).” In other words, Thayer does not say that the disjunctive particle in question is here used to contradict the preceding clause, and thus dismiss it, but that it is used to introduce a “sentence contrary to the one just preceding,” not in order to dismiss the preceding, but in order “to indicate that if one be denied or refuted the other must stand.” To put the matter another way, he is saying that the construction is a form of logical argument that is used to reinforce the preceding clause, as Thayer’s example from Matthew 20:15 shows. There, the first part finds the landowner saying to the grumbling workers, “Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money?” As Jesus proceeds, He certainly does not want to overturn the principle articulated by this rhetorical question; of course the landowner has that right. But since the workers have not accepted this principle, Jesus introduces a “sentence contrary to [this one]” to force the workers to see the preposterous nature of their criticism. To use the language of Thayer (who is quoting the King James Version in italics and inserting ordinary lettering to show the true force of the disjunctive particle), and filling in the words hidden behind his “etc.”: “or, if thou wilt not grant this, is thine eye evil, because I am good?” In the NIV, using the same change of typefaces to make the point, we obtain “Or, if you are not willing to admit the truth I am affirming, are you envious because I am generous?” In other words, if the workers “deny or refute” the first clause (which both the landowner and Jesus affirm), then at least they had better face up to the second (to use Thayer’s expression, “to indicate that if [the first] one be denied or refuted the other must stand”).

Thayer then goes on to list several other exemplary passages: Romans 3:29; 1 Corinthians 9:6; 10:22; 11:14 (he points out that there is a textual variant there); 14:36 (the passage at hand). Consider Romans 3:29. In the preceding verse, Paul insists, “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.” The next word, at the beginning of verse 29, is the disjunctive particle in question: “Or [is] God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God… .” Certainly neither Paul nor Thayer (and presumably not Kaiser) wants to overturn what Paul wrote in verse 28. Rather, using a rhetorical device, Paul goes on to say, in effect, “If you want to deny or refute this truth, then at least face up to this: monotheism itself demands that God is not the God of Jews only, but of all.”

Exactly the same sort of reasoning occurs in the other passages Thayer quotes. He then adds, as part of the same article in his lexicon, two extrapolations of this usage of the disjunctive particle : (a) e„ agnoiete, “or don’t you know,” citing Romans 6:3; 7:1 [cf. 6:14]; (b) e„ ouk oidate, “or don’t you know,” citing Romans 11:2; 1 Corinthians 6:9, 16, 19. In each case the flow of the argument demands that the words that succeed the expression are used to enforce, rather emphatically, what some among the readers are in danger of trying to deny or refute: the clause that precedes it. In short, Kaiser has not understood Thayer’s point.

Worse yet is Bilezikian’s discussion of some of the relevant passages in Paul. For example, he writes: “In [1 Corinthians] 6:1-2, Paul challenges the Corinthians for their propensity to go into litigations against each other before pagan courts, rather than to submit their contentions to fellow believers. He counters this situation with ‘(nonsense!) do you not know that the saints will judge the world?’”36 Again, however, it is important to listen to the text itself. In verse 1, Paul writes, “If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints?” The verb dare in this rhetorical question proves beyond contradiction that in this context the assumed answer is “No!” In other words, the question itself is a rhetorical device for forbidding such litigation. Verse 2 then begins with the disjunctive particle: “Or [do] you not know that the saints will judge the world?” Thus, using exactly the same reasoning that Thayer employs, we conclude that verse 2 reinforces the truth of verse 1, the truth that Christians should not enter into the litigation in question. Bilezikian has simply not understood what is being affirmed under the force of the rhetorical question.

There is even less excuse for this failure in understanding when he turns to 1 Corinthians 6:15-16, for Paul himself inserts, after the rhetorical question but before the disjunctive particle, the words me„ genoito: “Never” (NIV), “God forbid” (KJV). Once again, verse 16 emphatically reinforces the truth of verse 15, if the rhetorical question is read in any sort of responsible way.

Bilezikian does not even have a rhetorical question to fall back on when he treats 1 Corinthians 6:8-9. To quote him again: “In 6:9, having exposed the misbehavior of brethren who wrong and defraud each other, [Paul] counters with ‘(nonsense!) do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?’”37 Again, let Paul speak. In verses 7-8, as part of his denunciation of the same Corinthian practices, he writes: “Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.” Paul does not now want to turn around and say that they have not been acting this way: clearly, they have been, and the burden of his remark is that they should not be. Equally clearly, however, some Corinthians are slow to accept his denunciation. They would prefer to “deny or refute” (Thayer’s terms) Paul’s contention. So Paul goes on: “Or [do] you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?” In other words, if you want to buck at what I am writing in verses 7-8, at least you had better swallow what I say now in verse 9—and of course the effect is to reinforce, emphatically so, the burden of verses 7-8.

In every passage he treats on this matter, Bilezikian demonstrates, quite remarkably, that he does not understand what he has cited. In one instance (1 Corinthians 11:13), he refers to the particle e even though no Greek edition known to me includes that particle.38

All scholars make mistakes, I no less than others. But the sheer vehemence that has surrounded the treatment of this particle in recent years attests that we are facing more than an occasional lapse of exegetical judgment. We are facing an ideology that is so certain of itself that in the hands of some, at least, the text is not allowed to speak for itself.39 The brute fact is this: in every instance in the New Testament where the disjunctive particle in question is used in a construction analogous to the passage at hand, its effect is to reinforce the truth of the clause or verse that precedes it. Paul’s point in 14:36 is that some Corinthians want to “deny or refute” what Paul has been saying in verses 34-35. So he continues, “Or [if you find it so hard to grant this, then consider:] did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?” This is part and parcel of Paul’s frequent insistence in this letter that the Corinthian church return to the common practice and perspective of the other churches (1:2; 4:17; 7:17; 11:16; 14:33) and to wholehearted submission to apostolic authority (14:37-38).40

From Carson, D. A. in “Silent in the Churches”:
On the Role of Women in 1 Corinthians 14:33B-36

Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
A Response to Evangelical Feminism

Wayne Grudem and John Piper, editors

[Etcetera]

Waterrock:

Greetings again, friend of Yahweh!

I read your selection from Carson a couple of weeks ago (I had not noticed the thread for some time) and, after looking at (most of) his examples (and even shoring up a couple for him, I think!), have concluded that he is probably correct about 1 Corinthians 14.34-35. I was overinterpreting the particle.

So, Philpott, if you are still out there, I retract my statements about the Greek particle in 14.36a.

That leaves me, Waterrock, with a problem between this passage and 11.2-16. That link of yours was dead by the time I got to it, so I do not know if Carson attempts to harmonize the two texts, but if you have any insights I would like to hear them.

Funny, Carson says that the material thought to be Corinthian quotes in the epistle is usually that which the commentator himself dislikes. But I was still a skeptic when I arrived at my conclusions (through someone citing Fee, if I remember correctly), and cared not a hoot whether the Bible pounded on the poor womenfolk. (Actually, at the time I probably wished that it did a little bit more than it seems to now; more fodder for skepticism; having to marry your own rapist was always a good one.)

My motive for seizing upon this solution was because I just could not imagine Paul changing his mind only three and a half chapters after 11.2-16. I was always willing to see a contradiction, but that one seemed too much.

In him.

Etcetera.