Now Concerning a Woman's Role in the Church. Part 2

 

Attention to context-historical, social, local, and spiritual-is crucial when it comes to rightly interpreting a passage of Scripture. So let's look at the local context of the first "limiting passage"-1 Corinthians 14:29-35:

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 one 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. 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 improper for a woman to speak in the church (NASB).

---

First, Paul has already encouraged the women to pray and prophesy earlier in the letter (1 Cor. 11:5).

Second, Paul encourages the whole church to function in Chapter 14. He writes, "for you can all prophesy one by one" (v. 31) and "when you assemble, every one of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation . . ." (v. 26). (To assert that these exhortations don't include women is ludicrous. It's to suggest that the church doesn't include women, and the New Testament is only written to men!)

Therefore, for Paul to suddenly say that women must never say a word in the church meeting is to completely contradict himself in the space of a few sentences.

New Testament scholars have put forth two scenarios that easily resolve the apparent discrepancy. Let's examine each one.

Scenario 1

The meetings in Corinth were in utter chaos. Many of the members were speaking in tongues at the same time, and no one was interpreting what was being spoken. Some were prophesying jointly. And what some of the prophets were saying was in dire need of evaluation. But few people were doing this.

Some in the church were doubting the resurrection (1 Cor. 15). Others were under the impression that visiting prostitutes and committing incest were acceptable. To their minds, since these things were done with the body and not the spirit, they were innocent activities (1 Cor. 5-6).

In the face of all this, the women were interrupting those prophesying with questions. Their motivation was to learn. But they were adding a further distraction to an already disruptive meeting.

It was common in the ancient world for hearers to interrupt someone who was teaching with questions. But it was considered rude if the questions reflected ignorance of the subject. It must be noted that women in the first century-whether Jew or Gentile-tended to be uneducated. Any exceptions were rare.

Women were essentially trained to be home-keepers. Thus for a woman to query or challenge a man in public was an embarrassing thing in the Greco-Roman world. When women interrupted the men with questions, the men were being interrogated by their social inferiors. Hence, it was considered "improper."

In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul deals with this entire mess. First, he handles the abuse and misuse of tongues and prescribes guidelines for their proper use (1 Cor. 14:1-28). He then switches to the subject of giving and evaluating prophetic words (1 Cor. 14:29-34).

So beginning with Chapter 14:29, Paul shifts his attention to the prophets and their role in the church. He tells the Corinthians that when someone prophesies, they shouldn't do so at the same time that someone else is speaking. Instead, those who prophesy should do so in turn.

It's within this very context that Paul shifts to the sisters and says that if they don't understand a prophetic word, they should ask their husbands about it in private. Their tutoring is to occur at home, not in the meeting. The meeting is not a question-answer session.

Look at the passage again with this thought in mind:

And if they desire to LEARN anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to SPEAK in the church.

Notice the undeniable connection between "learning" and "speaking." Thus the only kind of speaking that Paul is restricting in this passage is that of asking questions. Both leading-questions and ignorance-based questions.

It's also quite possible that the sisters were quizzing their own husbands, evaluating their prophetic words personally and pointedly. Paul doesn't want there to be any domestic disputes in the meetings, so he asks the women to question their husbands at home.

Either way, Paul's injunction for women to "keep silent" doesn't possess an absolute sense. It's a corrective to a specific problem. The context bears this out. Instead of publicly clamoring for explanations, the women were to learn from their husbands at home. However, when it came to speaking in the meeting to edify the church, they were free to speak (1 Cor. 11:5; 14:26, 31).

To strengthen the case, the Greek word "silent" in this verse is sigao. It means to hold one's peace temporarily. The word has the flavor of being quiet in order to listen to what another has to say. Paul uses the same word two other times in Chapter 14.

He first says that the person speaking in tongues should be silent (sigao) if there is no interpreter (v. 28). Does this mean that the one who speaks in tongues is never to speak in the meeting? Certainly not.

Paul uses the same word again when he says that if a person interrupts someone prophesying, the first one speaking should be silent (sigao)-letting the other person interject his word (v. 30). Does this mean that the person prophesying should never speak again in the meeting after he has been interrupted? Certainly not.

In the same way, when a sister has a question during the church meeting, she ought to be silent (sigao). That is, she should hold her peace and yield the floor to the person who is speaking (v. 29-34). Does this mean that the sisters are never to speak in the meeting? Certainly not. Such an idea merely reflects a culturally biased misreading of Paul. It would also put Paul in stark contradiction with himself (11:5; 14:26, 31).

No, the "silence" here has a very restricted meaning. It applies to those times when a sister was confused by something spoken or when she overtly challenged a prophetic word. Paul was saying that in such cases, the sister should hold her peace and give way to the one speaking. She should then inquire of her husband at home. For Paul, this would foster both order and peace to a once chaotic and confused meeting in Corinth (v. 33).

While I'm no fan of Bible paraphrases, I think Eugene Peterson's translation reflects this scenario the best:

Wives must not disrupt worship, talking when they should be listening, asking questions that could more appropriately be asked of their husbands at home . . . Wives have no license to use the time of worship for unwarranted speaking (1 Corinthians 14:34-35, The Message).

Scenario 2

In verse 34, the text says, "but let them [the women] subject themselves just as the law also says." Interestingly, there is no law in the Old Testament that calls women to silence or to subject themselves. The Old Testament seems to say the opposite. For example, Psalm 68:11 says, "The Lord gives the command; the women who proclaim the good tidings are a great host."

What law could Paul be referring to here? Tellingly, the silencing of women was a Jewish ordinance in the ancient world. It came from the Talmud, which was the Jewish oral law during the time that Paul penned 1 Corinthians. According to the Talmud, women were not permitted to speak in the assembly or even ask questions. Consider the follow quotes from the Talmud.

A woman's voice is prohibited because it is sexually provocative. (Talmud, Berachot 24a)

Women are sexually seductive, mentally inferior, socially embarrassing, and spiritually separated from the law of Moses; therefore, let them be silent. (Summary of Talmudic sayings)

It is a shame for a woman to let her voice be heard among men. (Talmud, Tractate Kiddushin)

The voice of a woman is filthy nakedness. (Talmud, Berachot Kiddushin)

In light of the above, the negative words about women in 1 Corinthians 34-35 may not have been Paul's words at all. Instead, he may have been quoting those in the Corinthian church who based their view of women on the Talmud. The Talmud taught that women couldn't speak in the assembly and added that their voices were shameful, the very things that we read in verses 35 and 36.

This is further confirmed in verse 36 where Paul exclaims, "What! Did the Word of God originate with you?" The "What!" indicates that Paul wasn't in harmony with the quotation in verses 34 and 35.

We know that various concerns and questions came to Paul from the Corinthians in a letter (1:11; 7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1). Throughout 1 Corinthians, Paul quotes some in the church and then responds to their arguments (6:12, 13; 7:1; 10:23).

If quotation marks are placed at the beginning and end of verses 34 and 35, then the apparent contradiction between Paul's encouragement of female participation and his apparent silencing of them is resolved. Let's read the text with this scenario in mind.

Here is the stance of some of the Corinthians, as Paul quotes it:

"Let the women keep silence 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 improper for a woman to speak in church" (1 Corinthians 14:34-35).

Here's Paul's rebuttal:

What! Was it from you that the Word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? (1 Corinthians 14:36).

In this text, Paul seems to be saying, "What! Who do you think you are, setting yourselves up as the sole proclaimers of God's Word when what you're saying contradicts the Word of God?

Frank Viola

{mos_fb_discuss:5}

Написать комментарий