FEATURED MEMBER ARTICLE: 1 Corth 14:29-36, a closer look. By lilpixieofterror

[Trout]

1 Corth 14:29-36, a closer look.

What is the view of women in the Bible? This seems to be a question that people throughout history and in our modern time want to answer. Was Jesus and Paul really anti women or is there more to it than the ‘plain reading’ of the text? There has been a movement in the past few years to answer these questions; such popular works like Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code try to answer these questions. One example of this is can be found here:

“The Priory believes that Constantine and his male successors successfully converted the world from matriarchal paganism to patriarchal Christianity by waging a campaign of propaganda that demonized the sacred feminine, obliterating the goddess from modern religion forever.” (1)

Of course, there were a few religions that did have female dieties (such as the Isis cult), but is there really any evidence that there was full blow 'matriarchal paganism'? No, because after all... groups such as the Mirthia cult were far from 'matriarchal' as well as most of the religions o f that time. So did Christianity really erase these beliefs? No ; however; some of these questions are not answered as easy this, so what I’d like to do is go into one common verse to discover, is Christianity really anti-women or are we just not getting the message that it is telling us? I’m going to go into just one common verse from Paul that is commonly used just to show that Paul (often cited as being the worst of them all) is about as women hating as sugar is sour:

“As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 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.” (2)

What I like to look at first is the various views on this verse and tries to develop which one these views would accurately reflect what Paul was teaching really teaching. One commentary {Matthew Henry’s} even goes as far as to say: “Enjoins silence on their women in public assemblies, and to such a degree that they must not ask questions for their own information in the church, but ask their husbands at home.”(3) This does seem to support the idea that Paul was indeed telling women to sit down, shut up, and be obedient, but the question is, is this right way to view this passage or is this simply one person who did not properly understand what Paul said or did he have an agenda of his own? I can not answer wither or not there was some kind of agenda by the author of that commentary without invoking some kind of grand conspiracy theory, but I can answer wither or not this view is the proper way to describe of Paul’s message. I’d like to dispute Matthew Henry’s view on this. I think this passage is telling us something else. So what is it? Well first, I think Paul was quoting the church of Corinth’s position and then refuting it and here is why:

"The first thing we notice is that verse 33b ("as in all the congregations of the saints") probably goes with 33a, and NOT with 34 (so rendered in the NAS). The only other time this kind of argument occurs in Paul is in I Cor 11.16, where it is a CLOSING argument--there too about propriety in worship." (4)

I think this is a important thing to point out because if it’s closing the other paragraph and this is a new one, that means Paul is not saying women around the church should be quiet and never teach. On the contrary, it’s saying something quite different indeed. To back this up, let’s take a look at the verse quoted above to see if it matches up:

"…If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God." (5)

If we keep reading we discover that the topic changes from Property in Worship to the Lords Supper, so it seems that he is correct that the only example we have of Paul doing this is an ending argument, not an opening line for an argument. It appears the proper way to format 1 Corth 14:32-34 is:

"The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. For God is not a God of disorder but of peace, as in all the congregations of the saints. Women should remain silent in the churches."

So now that it is established that the early church (at least Paul) was not telling women to sit down and shut up and this was a universal truth, but that the two verses are unrelated to one another which leads to the second point.

"Unless Paul changes the subject of this paragraph THREE TIMES(!)--from universal silence, to asking questions at home, and then back to universal silence--then the 'universal silence' clauses are rather severely restricted in scope, to that of simply disruptive questions by early-learners!" (4)

Which I think is again backed up by the text and let me point out how:

Verse 34 says: Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. So that seems to be about universal silence, but then we find in verse 35: 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. But wait, didn’t he say they should be quiet yet now he is saying they should only speak at home? Quite interesting and then we find in verse 36: Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? What on earth does this mean? Is Paul really saying to sit down and shut up or is there more to it? What if Paul was quoting their position and refuting it? Well, Glenn Miller seems to agree with this and gives quite an elaborate argument on that, but for time sakes, I’ll just quote his conclusion and what Glenn Miller says:

"But even if I am mistaken, the most likely OTHER alternative is that of "we do not have a clue what he meant"...It CANNOT mean 'universal silence in the churches'--for that contradicts MOST of the rest of the passage and the rest of the epistle (not to mention, known Pauline and early church practice). To turn it into a restriction on women from making any audible, articulate sounds in church is so against EVERY SCRAP of data we have--with the "exception" of I Tim 2, which we look at next(!). Exegetically, I just cannot see a strong and textually-consistent case for 'universal silence' from this passage." (4)

Taking all of this in mind, how should we view 1 Corinthians 14? Let me try taking all of these things into mind and showing how it should be read:

"Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. For God is not a God of disorder but of peace, as in all the congregations of the saints." (6)

This right here is order of worship; it is Paul telling the people of the church that you should be careful and think about what you are going to say before you say it. After all, what is the point of saying something that nobody will understand? Basically, think before you speak. This leads us to the next set of verses:

"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 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."(7)

This is Paul quoting them after all… wouldn’t a former ‘teacher of the law’ know that the law itself does not say that women should be in submission? In fact the law is far more equalizing than many other societies of the time, for example women could be witnesses in the Law of Moses (8) while in other societies, such as the Greeks, did not allow women to have a education or even allowed married women to leave home, entertain guest, etc. (9) So it sounds to me the data leads up to there being nothing about women hating, but simply the case of us not looking closely at what Paul is trying to tell us, which leads to next set of verses:

"Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored." (10)

In other words, “Guys, why are you telling these women to sit down and keep their mouths shut? If God has something to say though them, why not let them speak? This is not right at all! Listen to them, let them speak, but remember, think before you do it. Take the time to understand before you decide to say anything.” Taking all of this data into mind, this right here is a pretty modern way of saying this, but I think the case has been made of this interpretation of this set of verses. I’d also like to point out these facts about Paul in case you are not convinced with this argument thus far:

1. Some of his first converts were women. An example of this can be found in Acts 16:15, in which a women named lydia was converted and requested Paul and his companion stayed with her.

2. Paul’s mentioning of women along with the men in his greetings and farewells. In Romans we find several women mentioned which are; Phoebe (Romans 16:1), Priscilla (Romans 16:3), Mary (Romans 16:6), Junias (Romans 16:7), Tryphena and Tryphosa (Romans 16:12), Persis (Romans 16:12) and many others. So why would a woman hating man mention so many women and some being in such positions?

3. Verses such as:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (11)

Why would a women hating man make women equal like this if his goal was to turn women into second class citizens?

4. Some other religions of the time were not allowing women to be in god’s service, such as our text book says:

"Women could not be admitted to the god’s service. When the Christian church, which baptized women as well as men…" (12)

I think what the Bible is telling us is a message far different than what the ‘plain reading’ tells us. Paul is not telling women to sit down and shut up, this would go against the rest of his letters; instead we should look carefully at the wording and the message before we pass judgment. What Paul is really saying is that God values his daughters as much as his sons. This is not a commandment of telling women to sit down, shut up, and listen to whatever a man tells you. This is saying think before you speak and to the men…. Well listen to what they have to say, it may be a message from God.

1. Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code, P 123

2. 1 Corinthians 14: 33b-34, NIV

3. http://www.biblestudytools.net/Comme...er=14#1Co14_34

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

5. 1 Corinthians 11:16, NIV

6. 1 Corinthians 14:29-33, NIV

7. 1 Corinthians 14:34, 36, NIV

8. Deuteronomy 21:18-21

9. James L. Garlow/ Peter Jones, Cracking Da Vinchi’s Code, P 62

10. 1 Corinthians 14:36-38, NIV

11. Galatians 4:28, NIV

12. Stephen L. Harris, The New Testament: A Students Introduction, P 58

[lilpixieofterror]

Thanks trout!

[Trout]

[LostSheep]

I read this article yesterday. It's very interesting. I'll have to look into this argument further.

[Amazing Rando]

Another possibility suggested by the manuscript evidence itself is that this passage is actually a non-Pauline interpolation (i.e. it may have been added in later, much like the ending of Mark or John 8:1-11 were tacked on to the gospels).

[lilpixieofterror]

Another possibility suggested by the manuscript evidence itself is that this passage is actually a non-Pauline interpolation (i.e. it may have been added in later, much like the ending of Mark or John 8:1-11 were tacked on to the gospels).

I heard you talk about that one on another thread. I might have to add that one in once I've done a bit more reading on it.

[Amazing Rando]

It's by no means certain, but it is a possibility that shouldn't be overlooked. Any good commentary on 1 Corinthians that you can find at your local livrary ought to have more info.

[lilpixieofterror]

It's by no means certain, but it is a possibility that shouldn't be overlooked. Any good commentary on 1 Corinthians that you can find at your local livrary ought to have more info.

I'll have to do that when I get home.

[JonLanceBarker]

Interesting...

[Alan3838]

lilpixieofterror ,
I'm a newcomer to Theologyweb and your writing and teaching on this subject is excellent. It's nice to see people that dig in like you did in this.

[lilpixieofterror]

Thank you Alan.

[John Gardner]

Like many others, I was/am challenged by the idea that the women-in-silence verse in 1 Cor. 14 iwas either (a) a statement of a position which Paul went on to rebut, or (b) an interpolation. I haven't read Glenn Miller's piece on this passage yet (couldn't get in on Google) but I'd like to. Cite, anyone?

But meanwhile, PLEASE let the other shoe (1 Ti 2:12) drop!

1 Ti 2:12 But I do not suffer a woman to teach nor to exercise authority over man, but to be in quietness;
1Ti 2:13 for Adam was formed first, then Eve:
1Ti 2:14 and Adam was not deceived; but the woman, having been deceived, was in transgression.
1Ti 2:15 But she shall be preserved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and love and holiness with discretion.

Whatever Paul means here, it can't be either (a) a refutandum, or (b) an interpolation. I don't suggest 1 Tim is a corroboration of the silence-in-ecclesia passage in 1 Cor; the verses in 1 Tim seem to aim at godly good works (v. 9). So that leaves the question, What is Paul saying here?

[John Gardner]

Whoops! I missed the footnote link to Glenn Miller. Cancel my whine about citations please.

[lilpixieofterror]

Whatever Paul means here, it can't be either (a) a refutandum, or (b) an interpolation. I don't suggest 1 Tim is a corroboration of the silence-in-ecclesia passage in 1 Cor; the verses in 1 Tim seem to aim at godly good works (v. 9). So that leaves the question, What is Paul saying here?

Actually, it's a misunderstanding of 1 Timothy 2 all together. Let me demonstrate... learning in silence was a good thing in Paul's day and age.

The women are to "learn in silence." Despite the negative connotations this phrase brings to our ears, in the first century "silence" (hesychia) was a positive attribute. It did not necessarily entail "not speaking," as is evident in Paul's use of the word earlier in the chapter (I Tim 2.2; compare 2 Thess 3.12). Rather, it implied respect or lack of disagreement (as in Acts 11.18; 21.14). As a result, the rabbis and the early church fathers deemed quietness appropriate for rabbinical students, wise persons and even leaders."
Women in the Church: A Biblical Theology of Women in Ministry, Stanley Grenz and Denise Kjesbo, P128.

So far it seems that this is a case of us just not understanding the cultural context of the verse, now what does it mean by authority? Well, the issues there is pretty complicated, nobody knows the true meaning of the word Paul uses there (authentein), but from what I see in the article I linked to in my source work, the tradition translation of the word is more along the lines of usurp authority. The fact is, Paul used a rather uncommon word here and he could of easily used the much more common. So if that was his meaning... why didn't he use it?

Personally I see this verse in the same light I see the other verses, people simply apply their modern views to 1st century text and coming up with incorrect translations and interpretations.

[Augustine2004]

Nobody would learn any given subject from someone who doesn't know anything about it.

All Jesus' chosen apostles, including Paul, were males. So, initially, the only ones who knew the most about what Jesus was teaching were males.

I think that is a likely description of what Paul had in mind when he used the word authentein. I don't think it would be a sin to learn from you LPofChristianity, if you really do know everything all there's to know about Christianity and know how to correct me.