Particulars
of Christianity:
312
The Church Ethic
1 Corinthians 14
Introduction
& 3 Models of Church Gatherings and Leadership
Examining the Models
Examining the Models
Conclusions and Study Expectations
Examining Church Gatherings
in the Gospels
The First Supper, Jesus'
Specific Instructions, Conclusions
Survey of Post-Ascension
Church Gatherings
Apostolic and Eldership
Functions in Acts and the Epistles
1 Corinthians 1-10 &
Introduction to 1 Corinthians 11-14
1 Corinthians 11-13
1 Corinthians 14
1 Timothy 2:12, Conclusions
on Women in Church Gatherings
Conclusions: 1 Corinthians
14, Church Gatherings & Leadership
1
Corinthians 14: Women Teaching in Church Gatherings and the
Overall New Testament Picture
Further
evidence that Paul’s intent in this passage is to prohibit
everyone from speaking at the church meeting comes from the
final verses of this chapter, in which he provides even further
restrictions. In verses 34-35, Paul lists one final restriction
on participation at church meetings. This final restriction
further limits the number of people who would be able to speak
to only men. In two separate statements Paul instructs the
Corinthians that women were not allowed to speak at the church
meetings.
This
segment of 1 Corinthians 14 will touch on our final category
which dealt with gender participation in church gatherings.
In that category we noted that the Viola model claims that
women can and must be allowed to participate in the church
gatherings just as the men. In contrast, the Elder-Leadership
model held that only men are allowed to participate in New
Testament church meetings, both as the main speakers and also
as those who interrupt with questions and comments. With these
points of view in mind, let’s take a look at Paul’s comments
in 1 Corinthians 14:34-40.
1
Corinthians 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 (5293), 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. 36 What?
came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
37 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. 38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be
ignorant. 39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid
not to speak with tongues. 40 Let all things be done decently and in order.
15:1 Moreover,
brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto
you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand…
Although
it will be covered in more detail later, we should also mention
1 Timothy 2:12 at this point. 1 Timothy 2:12 is often mentioned
alongside 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 as a potential reference
to a universal prohibition against women speaking in church.
1 Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to
usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.14 And Adam was not deceived,
but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Now
many attempts have been made to understand Paul’s comments
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:12 as anything but
a universal prohibition against women speaking during church
meetings. Among those who oppose taking Paul’s statements
in first Corinthians as a universal prohibition against women
speaking in church is Frank Viola. His model for church gatherings
and leadership rejects any notion that participation in the
church gatherings was restricted to men.
(Incidentally,
women had both the
right and the privilege to participate in the meetings of
the church. See endnote for details.) 6 – Frank Viola,
Reimagining Church,
Chapter 2, Reimagining the Church Meeting, pages 55
The
endnote mentioned in the quote above directs the reader to
two online articles written by Frank Viola on the subject
of women participating in church gatherings. The links for
these articles are “A Woman’s Role in the Church” at www.ptmin.org/role.html and “God’s View of
a Woman” www.ptmin.org/view.html.
All of our quotes from Viola on this subject are taken from
these two articles.
In
these writings, Viola offers several proofs for his conclusion
that women could and did speak, teach, and participate in
church gatherings. Below we will provide Viola’s arguments
against taking passages like 1 Corinthians 14:34-40 as a universal
prohibition against women speaking, teaching, and asking questions
in church gatherings. Then we will evaluate each of his arguments
to see if they are sound.
The
first argument offered by Viola is that a universal prohibition
against women speaking in church contradicts the overall New
Testament message about women.
A
basic question must be answered at this point: What is the
overall teaching of the New Testament on a woman’s role in
the church? That is, what’s the big picture about women
in ministry? – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role
in the Church, An Open Letter, page 6
With
that said, whatever the “limiting passages” mean, they cannot
in any way overturn the New Covenant. Neither can they contradict
the entire thrust of the New Testament. Hence, the idea that
women are excluded from speaking in God’s house is a catastrophic
breach of the New Covenant. A covenant that has done away
with earthly distinctions and treats both men and women as
co-priests in God’s kingdom. – Frank Viola, Reimagining
A Woman’s Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 3
Galatians
3:28 sums up the New Covenant nicely: “There is neither Jew
nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female, for you
are all one in Christ Jesus.” This passage summarizes Paul’s
understanding of the effect of the gospel on cultural givens
like racism, slavery, and gender oppression. Galatians 3:28
is not constricted to “salvation.” Instead, it holds social
implications for everyone. – Frank Viola, Reimagining
A Woman’s Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 3
Previously,
we saw Viola wrongly claim that the New Testament had done
away with rules. In the second quote above, Viola wrongly
claims that the New Covenant has done away with earthly distinctions
between men and women. The first thing we should mention is
that in the quotes above Viola’s argument against making distinctions
between men and women is based entirely on his conclusion
that as a whole the New Testament makes no such distinctions.
This conclusion is the very thing that is in question in this
portion of our study. To accept Viola’s conclusion as proof
would be circular reasoning or question begging. Therefore,
we must evaluate the reasoning and evidence Viola offers in
support of his conclusion that the New Covenant does away
with gender distinctions, including with regard to church
meetings.
In
support of his claim that the New Covenant does away with
gender restrictions, Viola cites Galatians 3:28 saying that
this passage is not limited to salvation only, but has social
implications. From a hypothetical point of view it is possible
that Paul is eliminating all social restrictions based on
gender just as Viola suggests. But it is also possible that
Paul is speaking merely of salvation. How do we know which
is the case? Again, Viola has merely offered his conclusion
without exegeting the text or examing of the opposing position.
This is another clear case of Viola proof-texting a verse
out of its context to disprove his opponents as if merely
citing the verse ends the discussion. But what does the context
of the Galatians actually say?
Galatians 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham
might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that
we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it
be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed,
no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. 16 Now
to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not,
And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed,
which is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the covenant,
that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which
was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul,
that it should make the promise of none effect. 18 For
if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more
of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because
of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise
was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand
of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator is not a mediator
of one, but God is one. 21 Is the law then against
the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law
given which could have given life, verily righteousness should
have been by the law. 22 But the scripture hath concluded
all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might
be given to them that believe. 23 But before faith came, we
were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should
afterwards be revealed. 24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster
to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified
by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer
under a schoolmaster. 26 For ye are all the children of God
by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
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. 29
And if ye be
Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according
to the promise. 4:1 Now I say, That the heir, as
long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though
he be lord of all;
Now
is Paul discussing general social questions here in this passage?
Not at all. Paul is clearly discussing the ability to inherit
the promises given to Abraham. In the Outlines section of
our website we discuss the New Testament definition of the
gospel in the outlines listed under the title “Gospel
Overview” and “Covenant and Dispensational Theologies."
From our study of the Biblical texts it is clear that the
gospel of Jesus Christ essentially involved making the promises
that Abraham and his seed would receive the Promised Land
available to everyone. That is the subject that Paul is discussing
here in Galatians 3.
To
put it simply, the context of Galatians 3 is Paul speaking
about inheriting the promises that God gave to Abraham. Now,
as Paul says, the promises made to Abraham about inheriting
the Promised Land were passed on to his seed, which ultimately
was Jesus Christ, who receives those promises and gives them
to those who follow him. Because of this Paul can conclude
in verse 29 “if you are Christ’s then you are Abraham’s seed,
and heirs according to the promise.” The promise dealt with
the inheritance of the Promised Land. This promise will be
fulfilled when Jesus comes and establishes his kingdom on
earth.
Throughout
this passage, Paul is contrasting who may receive the promises
under the Old Covenant and who may receive them in the New
Covenant. Notice in verse 14 Paul states that through Jesus
Christ the blessing of Abraham can come on the Gentiles. This
is because in the Old Covenant, the Promise was made to Abraham
and his seed (as verse 16 attests.) The Gentiles were not
Abraham’s seed and so the promise was not available to them.
The promise was for the Jewish people only. However, as verse
14 says, through Christ, Gentiles can now receive these promises
with the Jews. Verse 28 is nothing more than a restatement
of this same concept that Paul first mentioned in verse 14.
Through Christ, Jews and Greeks can both receive the promises
of Abraham. Likewise, Paul says that slaves and freemen alike
can received the promise of Abraham. And lastly, Paul states
that women and men alike can receive the promise of Abraham.
This is all very clear from the passage.
It
is important to realize that under the Old Covenant there
were restrictions placed upon inheritance depending upon slavery
and gender. The facts concerning inheritance among slaves,
sons, and daughters are plainly described in Genesis 21:10,
24:36, 25:5-6, Deuteronomy 21:15-17, Leviticus 25:10-16, 24-26,
Numbers 26:50-55, 27:1-11, 36:1-13. These facts concerning
inheritance are summarized in the following three quotes from
Smith’s Bible Dictionary.
Heir.
The Hebrew institutions relative to inheritance were of a
very simple character. Under the patriarchal system the property
was divided among the sons of the legitimate wives…Daughters
had no share in the patrimony...The
Mosaic law regulated the succession to real property thus:
it was to be divided among the sons, the elders receiving
a double portion, Deut. 21:17, the others equal shares; if
there were no sons, it went to the daughters, Num. 27:8, on
the condition that they did not marry out of their own tribe,
Num. 36:6 ff; otherwise patrimony was forfeited. If there
were no daughter, it went to the brother of the deceased;
if no brother, to the paternal uncle; and, failing these,
to the next of kin. – Smith’s Bible Dictionary, page. 240
Jubilee,
the year of. …3.
The laws connected with the jubilee. – These embrace three points: (1)
Rest for the soil… (2) Reversion
of landed property. “The Israelites had a portion of land
divided to each family by lot. This portion of the promised
land they held of God, and were not to dispose of it as their
property in fee-simple. Hence no Israelites could part with
his landed estate but for a term of years only. When the jubilee
arrived, it again reverted to the original owners.” –
Bush… (3) The manumission of
those Israelites who had become slaves. “Apparently this periodic
emancipation applied to every class of Hebrew servants – to
him who had sold himself because he had become too poor to
provide for his family, to him who had been taken and sold
for debt…” – Cowles’
Hebrew History. 4.
The reasons for the institution of the jubilee…(4) “This law
of entail, by which the right heir could never be excluded,
was a provision of great wisdom for preserving
families and tribes perfectly distinct…to establish their
right to the ancestral property.” – Smith’s
Bible Dictionary, page. 325-326
Slave.
I. Hebrew slaves – 1. The
circumstances under which a Hebrew might be reduced to servitude
were—(1) poverty; (2) the commission of theft; and (3)
the exercise of paternal authority. In the first case, a man who had mortgaged
his property, and was unable to support his family, might
sell himself to another Hebrew with a view both to obtain
maintenance and perchance a surplus sufficient to redeem his
property. Lev. 25:25, 39. …2. The servitude of a Hebrew might be terminated in three ways: (1) by the
by the remission of all claims against him; (2) by the recurrence
of the year of jubilee, Lev. 25:40; and (3) the expiration
of six years from the time that his servitude commenced. Ex.
21:2; Deut. 15:12. – Smith’s Bible Dictionary, page. 637
As
we can see, in Old Testament Israel slavery was mostly comprised
of what we would call indentured servitude. If a person had
a debt they were unable to pay, then that person and their
family as well as any land they possessed might be sold into
servitude until the debt was paid off or until the Jubilee
year, which occurred every fifty years. It is interesting
that under the Old Covenant, the Promised Land was divided
by lot to each family and the inheritance laws, particularly
as applied to slaves and women, were specifically concerned
with preserving each family’s allotted inheritance of the
Promised Land. Since slavery was largely connected to financial
loss and the sale of one’s property, slaves were prevented
from retaining and receiving their family’s allotted land.
Consequently, it is inherently true that during the time of
their slavery, slaves did not retain their allotted inheritance
among the Promised Land.
Similarly,
a father’s property was only divided among his sons, not his
daughters. The only exception to this was when a man died
without sons, in which case his property would go to any daughters
that he had, but only if they married within their tribe.
In this way, the allotted portion of the Promised Land would
be preserved in the proper family.
Against
this detailed historical backdrop, it is easy to see how Paul’s
comments in Galatians 3 are intended to relate to Old Testament
restrictions for inheritance category by category, including
restrictions concerning Gentiles, slaves, and women. Paul’s
point is simply that the hope of inheriting the promises under
the New Covenant had no such restrictions. And since Paul’s
point here is so specifically related to definite details
about Old Testament inheritance, it is wrong for Viola to
superimpose and expand Paul’s point beyond inheritance to
literally all social and cultural distinctions, particularly
regarding women.
In
fact, we know that Paul’s comments here were not intended
to overturn hierarchical authorities because elsewhere Paul
and Peter require slaves to submit to their masters (Ephesians
6:5-8, Colossians 3:22-24, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, Titus 2:9-10,
1 Peter 3:18) It is also worth noting that this New Testament
requirement for slaves to continue submitting their masters
often occurs very near to instructions for women to submit
to their husbands. (Ephesians 5:22-33, Colossians 3:18, 1
Peter 3:1-6). Lastly, it is important to note that in Ephesians
and Colossians, Paul instructs slaves to submit to their masters
in the very same breath that he mentions the slaves and masters
equally receiving an inheritance in Christ. Obviously, Paul
intended to revoke the restrictions on who could inherit God’s
promises in Christ without revoking the hierarchies and authority
involved in those relationships.
In
order to arrive at Viola’s conclusion that Paul is remarking
about gender-related social issues as a whole we must go beyond
the text’s discussion of simply being able to receive our
inheritance in the kingdom. Paul says nothing about the roles
of men and women in all facets of social interaction. He is
merely saying that both can receive the promised kingdom through
faith in Christ. Once again, Viola’s proof-texting has led
him (and perhaps his readers) astray from the facts of the
scripture.
But
what about Viola’s larger claim that a prohibition of women
speaking in church is against the grain of the New Testament
itself?
That
said, some have interpreted the “limiting passages” to mean
that women must de facto be excluded from sharing in a meeting
when men are present. But
this conclusion runs against the grain of the broad principles
of the New Testament. – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s
Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 8
Concerning
Viola’s claim that the New Testament itself makes a universal
prohibition against women speaking in church impossible, his
first support comes from the simple fact that Jesus’ had women
followers.
But
Jesus also had a group of female disciples. Luke also used
a shorthand phrase to refer to them. He simply called them
the Women. Interestingly, Luke used this phrase the same
way that he used the Twelve. They
were the Lord's disciples also--the female counterpart to
the Twelve. The Women followed the Lord wherever He went,
and they tended to His needs. And He was not ashamed. – Frank
Viola, http://www.ptmin.org/view.htm
But
there's more. The greatest
disciples of Jesus Christ were not the Twelve. They were the
Women. The reason? Because they were more faithful. –
Frank Viola, http://www.ptmin.org/view.htm
During
our Lord’s earthly ministry, a group that Luke calls the
Women were just as well known as the Twelve
(Luke 8:1-3; 23:49, 55; 24:24). In fact, the twelve male disciples were a
rather pitiful bunch when compared to the Lord’s female disciples
(see Chapter 16). – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role
in the Church, An Open Letter, page 7
There
are several points to address from Viola’s argument here.
First, if Viola is right, then why do we even have a distinction
between Jesus’ women followers and men followers? More precisely,
if Viola is right, why were “the twelve” apostles only men?
Since Jesus clearly had women followers and Viola claims these
women were greater and “more faithful” than “the twelve” why
didn’t Jesus appoint women as “apostles” to be among “the
twelve”? From Viola’s point of view, there is no apparent
explanation for this New Testament fact. On the other hand,
what we know from the New Testament strongly indicates that
the distinction of “apostles” was, for some reason, reserved
only for men. This fact is best, and perhaps, only explained
by the view that this unique, teaching-oriented leadership
role was unavailable to women who because of their gender
would not be permitted to teach the church.
Second,
it is critical to Viola’s position that “the women” are treated
in the same way in the New Testament as Jesus’ male disciples.
If there is inequity in the New Testament treatment of Jesus’
male and female disciples then Viola’s concept that men and
women are to be treated equally in the church falls apart.
So, is Viola correct? Are “the women” treated as counterparts
to “the twelve?” No, they are not. There are several reasons
that Viola’s conclusion is in error.
For
one, the fact that Viola has to inform us about this group
is telling. The reason Viola has to tell us about this group
is because there is so little attention given to this “group”
in the gospels. Consider that there are only 10 references
to “the women” followers of Jesus in the gospels and the book
of Acts.
Matthew 27:55 And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him:
Matthew 28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know
that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
Mark 15:40 There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene,
and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;
Mark 15:41 (Who also, when he was in Galilee,
followed him, and ministered unto him;) and many other women which came up with him unto Jerusalem.
Luke 8:2 And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities,
Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,
Luke 23:27 And there followed him a great company of people, and of women, which
also bewailed and lamented him.
Luke 23:49 And all his acquaintance, and
the women that followed
him from Galilee, stood afar off, beholding these things.
Luke 23:55 And the women also, which came with him from Galilee,
followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body
was laid.
Luke 24:10 It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James,
and other women that were with them, which told
these things unto the apostles.
Acts 1:14 These all continued with one
accord in prayer and supplication, with
the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his
brethren.
From
these ten mentions of “the women” we learn the names of a
few of them. And we learn that a few of them were the first
who discovered the empty tomb and encountered the risen Christ.
But beyond these and a few other facts the gospels give little
detail or attention to these people, their relevance to Jesus’
ministry, or the unfolding of church history. There is no
record of their preaching or of any exploits performed by
them. There is no record of any women leading or starting
churches. And we have no epistles written by women, including
these women in particular. At the very least, this begs the
question as to why the authors of the New Testament, who Viola
claims viewed women as equivalent to men in all respects,
ignored or downplayed the role of women when recording the
gospels and the history of the early church.
Contrast
this with the attention and prominence that are given to “their
male counterparts,” “the twelve.” The phrase “the twelve”
is used in the New Testament to refer to the twelve disciples
over 34 times. Alternatively they are referred to as “the
apostles.” The apostles are referred to an additional 78 times
in the New Testament. Time and time again, we learn how Jesus
took these twelve men aside and taught them, He ordained and
sent them out, He gave them the power to exercise demons and
heal the sick, He said they would sit on the twelve thrones
over the twelve tribes of Israel, and it is their twelve names
that are on the gates of the heavenly city. We also have records
of churches that they founded or acted as overseers of. And
we have epistles written by them exercising authority and
instruction over the churches. Indeed, a very large majority
of New Testament writing discusses the contributions and relevance
of these men to the spread of Christianity.
No
comparison can be made here to “the women” followers of Jesus.
This is not a demeaning fact about Jesus’ female followers.
It is just a clear statement from the New Testament that Jesus’
female followers are not given the same treatment or significance
in Jesus’ ministry or the later New Testament church period,
despite Viola’s assertions to the contrary. It is obvious
that Viola is in error for asserting that Jesus’ female followers
were as well known as the apostles, were greater and more
faithful than the apostles, and that the apostles were “a
pitiful bunch compared to the Lord’s female disciples.”
During
our Lord’s earthly ministry, a group that Luke calls the
Women were just as well known as the Twelve
(Luke 8:1-3; 23:49, 55; 24:24). In fact, the twelve male disciples were a
rather pitiful bunch when compared to the Lord’s female disciples
(see Chapter 16). – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role
in the Church, An Open Letter, page 7
But
beyond his overestimation of Jesus’ female followers in comparison
to the twelve apostles, a larger question looms over Viola’s
claim that the New Testament itself prohibits a restriction
against women speaking in church. To put it simply, Viola
is in error for thinking that this has anything to do with
resolving the question of whether women could speak in church.
The fact that Jesus had women followers, that these women
were the first to see the resurrected Christ, that these women
were present in the upper room on the day of Pentecost, or
that they were with Jesus while he hung on the cross has no
scriptural or logical connection to the question of whether
women could speak in the church. It is entirely possible that
despite these scriptural facts about Jesus’ female followers,
they were still prohibited from speaking or teaching in church.
As such, Viola’s argument, that general New Covenant truths
deny the possibility of a universal prohibition against women
speaking in church, suffers a serious logical flaw.
1
Corinthians 14:34-40 – Contradictions and the Interpretation
of Unclear Passages
As
Viola continues his argument against a universal prohibition
of women speaking in church, his next point is that such a
prohibition would not only contradict general New Testament
teaching about women, but it would also contradict specific
New Testament statements that women could and did speak and
teach at church gatherings. Specifically, Viola states that
if 1 Corinthians 14:34-40 prohibit women speaking in the church
this would contradict Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 11
and elsewhere that women did speak and teach in church.
The
fact is that Paul seems to contradict himself on this subject.
– Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role in the Church, An
Open Letter, page 2
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). – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role
in the Church, An Open Letter, page 10
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. – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role in
the Church, An Open Letter, page 10-12
Does
this mean that the sisters are never to speak in the meeting?
Certainly not. Such an reflects a culturally biased misreading
of Paul. It also puts Paul in stark contradiction with himself (11:5; 14:26, 31).
– Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role in the Church, An
Open Letter, page 10-12
This
would contradict his own words. Consider
the following: In 1 Corinthians, Paul states numerous times that women may prophesy
in the church (1 Cor. 11:5; 14:26, 31). Prophecy contains instruction, for
Paul writes, “for you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone
may be instructed (taught) and encouraged” (1
Cor. 14:31). All Christians, including the women, are to teach
and admonish one another through psalms, hymns,
and spiritual songs (Col. 3:16). The manifestation of
the Holy Spirit, which includes prophecy, words of knowledge,
and words of wisdom, is given to the whole church for the
common good (1 Cor. 12:1-12). And these gifts are to function
in the church meetings (1 Cor. 14). God bestows all spiritual
gifts with undistinguishing regard on men and women alike.
There’s no such thing as a gender-specific spiritual gift.
The author of Hebrews tells the whole church,
including the sisters, that given their relative spiritual
age, they all should be teachers (Heb. 5:14). The author
of Hebrews also encourages the whole assembly, brothers and
sisters, to exhort one another when the church gathers
(Heb. 10:24-25). – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s
Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 14-17
(Notice
that in the last quote above Viola agrees that “prophecy”
was a teaching gift. In doing so he corroborates our conclusion
that Paul is limiting the use of gifts in a church meeting
to gifts that are instructional and teaching-oriented.)
Viola’s
assertion that Paul’s statement would be self-contradicting
rests solely on two faulty premises. The first is Viola’s
error in claiming that 1 Corinthians 11 is a discussion of
women praying and prophesying in church gatherings.
It
is certainly possible from a purely hypothetical point of
view that this passage is discussing women praying and prophesying
in the church, but it is equally possible that Paul is simply
discussing women praying and prophesying at home or in a private
setting. And, if Paul is discussing women at the church gatherings
in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, then his comments here would indeed
seem to be at odds with his later statements in 1 Corinthians
14:34-38. To be clear, however, there is no inherent contradiction
between the two passages unless Paul is discussing women at
church gatherings in 1 Corinthians 11. And this is a tough
case to prove.
Consider
for comparison the evidence we have that 1 Corinthians 14:34-38
pertains to women at church gatherings. The case is substantial.
First of all, the verses themselves mention two times in two
verses that women are to “keep silence in the churches” and
“it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” Add to this,
that these verses from chapter 14 follow at the end of a long
section spanning at least two chapters where Paul is clearly
providing protocols for conducting church gatherings, including
who could participate in them and how.
Conversely,
what might we offer to substantiate the notion that 1 Corinthians
11:1-16 is about women at church gatherings rather than in
private settings? For one, 1 Corinthians 11:1 follows a passage
in which Paul is discussing whether Christians were permitted
to eat meat when they were invited to dinner by non-Christians.
Verse 1 of chapter 11 starts a new topic which is not related
to the previous discussion of meats sacrificed to idols. The
important point is that “church gatherings” are not the topic
in chapter 10 nor are they the current topic as Paul moves
into chapter 11. And the text of verses 1-16 says nothing
about church gatherings at all. Look at the passage again
if you are unsure. There is no mention of the communion meal,
no Greek words which speak of gathering together, and no statements
about being “in church.”
Furthermore,
as we have already seen, in the very next two verses (verses
17-18), Paul moves on to another subject. He is no longer
discussing women and head coverings. He has turned to the
subject of divisions within the church.
1 Corinthians 11:17 Now in this that I declare unto you
I praise you not, that ye come together not for the
better, but for the worse. 18 For
first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear
that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
Notice
that both verse 17 and verse 18 include the phrase “come together”
and “come together in the church.” From this there can be
no doubt that Paul is now discussing matters regarding church
gatherings. However, verse 18 clearly declares that the divisions
are the first issue Paul wants to address on the topic of
Corinthians’ church gatherings, when they “came together in
the church.” If “division” is, as the text states, the first
thing Paul wants to criticize the Corinthians for when they
“came together in the church” then what proceeds verses 17-18
must not be an issue that pertains to when the Corinthians
“came together in the church.” Consequently, in addition to
the lack any positive indication that church gatherings were
being discussed in verses 1-16, verses 17-18 provide a strong
negation that verses 1-16 were pertaining to church gatherings
at all.
As
such, 1 Corinthians 11 does inform us that women prayed and
prophesied, but it is not a passage that presents women as
praying and teaching through prophecy in the church gatherings.
Notice again that Viola himself does not exegete these passages,
but merely proof-texts them as if just citing them proves
his point. Put simply, since 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 is not
discussing women speaking or prophesying in church gatherings,
it is no contradiction for Paul to forbid women from speaking
or teaching in church in 1 Corinthians 14:34-40.
But
what about 1 Corinthians 14:26 and 31, Colossians 3:16, Hebrews
5:14, and Hebrews 10:24-25, which Viola also claims demonstrate
that women spoke and taught in church? Let’s look at these
passages so see what they say.
1 Corinthians 14:26 How is it then, brethren?
when ye come together,
every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue,
hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things
be done unto edifying.
1 Corinthians 14:31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all
may learn, and all may be comforted.
Colossians 3:16 Let the word of Christ
dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching
and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual
songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.
Hebrews 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one
teach you again which be the first principles of the
oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk,
and not of strong meat. 13 For every one that useth milk is
unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age,
even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised
to discern both good and evil.
Hebrews 10:24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
25 Not forsaking the
assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some
is; but exhorting one another: and
so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
As
we look at these texts we must remember that the question
before us is whether we have instances recorded in the New
Testament of women speaking and teaching in church. Do any
of these passages indicate that women specifically spoke and
taught in church? Not at all. Viola claims that since these
passages use terms like “us” and “all” and “every” that they
necessarily included literally each and every person. But
it is important to keep in mind that this is the very question
we are investigating.
For
instance, terms such as “us,” “all,” and “every” are by their
very nature more general than terms like “women,” which is
much more specific. If we start from the specific statements
made by Paul, we see from passages like 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
and 1 Timothy 2:11-14 that Paul specifically identified women
as not being allowed to speak. If we assume that Paul taught
the same rules in all of his churches, then the result would
be that his general remarks about “all” and “everyone” who
could speak in church would have been understood to refer
only to men. In other words, it necessarily follows that if
Paul universally taught that only men could speak and teach
in church, then when he wrote about “all” those who spoke
or taught, he was writing about men only. In short, just because
Paul used terms like “all” with regard to speaking or teaching
in church, it does not logically follow that he therefore
necessarily included those persons he elsewhere directly prohibited
from doing so. And to interpret these verses the way that
Viola does runs contrary to the normal relationship between
more general and more specific statements in language.
Viola
himself agrees that clear New Testament passages should be
used to understand unclear passages.
It’s
my opinion that we
should always interpret the obscure by the clear, not the
other way around. When we interpret the clear and consistent
thrust of Scripture in light of one or two obscure passages,
we end up rupturing the core message of the Bible. And we are forced to do all sorts of exegetical
gymnastics to make the many clear passages fit our interpretation
of the few obscure texts. Therefore, when an obscure passage
seems to be at odds with the clear thrust of Scripture, we
must look carefully at context. – Frank Viola, Reimagining
A Woman’s Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 9
Which
then are more clear, Paul’s specific statements in 1 Corinthians
14:34-35 (and 1 Timothy 2:12) or 1 Corinthians 14:26, 31 and
Hebrews 5:14 and 10:25? Which are more clear, 1 Corinthians
14:34-35 (and 1 Timothy 2:12) which clearly and specifically
identify women as persons who were prohibited from speaking
in church? Or 1 Corinthians 14:26, 31 and Hebrews 5:14 and
10:25 which simply refer to those who could participate in
churches but do not clearly or specifically tell us if this
included women or not?
By
attempting to interpret 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (and 1 Timothy
2:12) by appeals to 1 Corinthians 14:26, 31 and Hebrews 5:14
and 10:25, Viola is using unclear passages to re-interpret
passages, which are much more clear. And it is also obvious
that Viola is, in his own words, “forced to do all sorts of
exegetical gymnastics to make the many clear passages fit
[his] interpretation of the few obscure texts.”
To
prove that statements such as 1 Corinthians 14:26 and 31 as
well as Hebrew 5:14 and 10:25 are intended to be general,
rather than literal, we can look to anther example from 1
Corinthians. We can remember that we have already seen Paul
state specifically in several other places that not everyone
had the gift of prophecy (Romans 12:6-8, 1 Corinthians 12:10.)
But in verses 24, 26, and 31 of 1 Corinthians 14, Paul states
that “all prophesy.” It would be a logical error to conclude
that because Paul says “all may prophesy” (in verses 24, 26,
and 31) that therefore his statements that “not all prophesy”
no longer indicate that not everyone was able to prophesy.
Instead, we must understand Paul’s statements that “all may
prophecy” to refer to everyone who had the gift of prophecy,
not to everyone in general and not to everyone present.
And
“prophecy” is not a lone example. In 1 Corinthians 12:30,
Paul rhetorically asks, “do all speak with tongues?” implying
a clear “no” answer, just as in chapter 12:4-11, Paul states
that different people have different gifts. They do not all
have the same gifts. But in chapter 14:23, Paul uses the phrase,
“If therefore the whole church be come together into one place,
and all speak with tongues.” Does the phrase “all speak with
tongues” overturn Paul’s previous statements and now literally
mean that everyone does have the gift of tongues after all?
Or, is the phrase “all speak with tongues” meant as a general
statement to referring to “all” who had the gift of tongues,
rather than literally everyone or literally everyone present
at the church gathering?
As
we can see, general statements using “all” and “everyone”
must be interpreted in light of the specificities provided
in the surrounding context. “All prophesy” does mean that
everyone present at church gatherings had the gift of prophecy.
It means “everyone who had the gift of prophecy” but not the
rest of those present. “All speak in tongues” does not mean
everyone at church gatherings spoke in tongues. It means “everyone
who had the gift of tongues” but not the rest of those present.
Similarly, a statement saying “all can speak in your church
meetings” must be taken to refer to all those whom Paul permitted
to speak or teach in church meetings and not to everyone in
general (including women).
We
should also note that Colossians 3:16 and Hebrews 5:14 don’t
even mention church meetings at all.
In
addition to claiming that such general passages contradict
a universal prohibition against women speaking in church,
Viola also argues that these “limiting passages” cannot be
taken as a universal prohibition because their meaning is
highly unclear.
The
truth of the matter is that the “limiting passages” are highly
obscure. Anyone who asserts that they are clear and
direct is living in a fog of presumption and academic naivety.
For one thing, such an assertion reflects a benighted dismissal
of texts like Acts 2:17, Galatians 3:28, and 1 Corinthians
11:5, 14:26, 31. – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role
in the Church, An Open Letter, page 9
Pick
up any decent commentary. Look up the “limiting passages,”
and you’ll discover the various ways these texts can be interpreted
due to the ambiguity of the language. The fact that competent evangelical scholars
disagree on the meaning of Paul’s word usage in these passages
attests to their obscurity. – Frank Viola, Reimagining
A Woman’s Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 9
There
are two reasons why it is very inconsistent for Viola to argue
that these passages are unclear. First, if Viola himself can
argue that 1 Corinthians 14:26, 31 and Hebrews 5:14 and 10:25
are clear, how in the world can he argue that 1 Corinthians
14:34-35 (and 1 Timothy 2:12) are unclear? His standards for
clarity seem to be artificially designed to support his presumed
position.
Second,
it is also very inconsistent for Viola to argue that these
passages are unclear since he himself is so certain that they
clearly do not provide but, in fact, prevent such a prohibition.
By arguing with conviction that 1 Corinthians 14:34-40 and
1 Timothy 2:12 absolutely do not provide a universal prohibition
against women speaking in church, Viola is arguing that the
texts are clear and that they clearly do not provide such
a prohibition. Consequently, he clearly believes we can make
a determination about the texts’ meaning. For him to also
say that we can’t determine what the texts mean is inconsistent
at best and misleading at worst. Viola must make a choice
here. If he is convinced that these texts are unclear then
he must refrain from taking a strong stance on what they mean.
If on the other hand, Viola believes that the texts clearly
do not provide a universal prohibition against women speaking
in church, then he cannot argue that the texts are unclear.
1
Corinthians 14:34-35 – Special Case or Universal Teaching?
The
next set of arguments that Viola offers against a universal
prohibition all fall into the category of pleading special
circumstances. In other words, in the quotes that follow,
Viola argues that Paul is prohibiting women speaking and teaching
in 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2, but that these prohibitions
were special cases that pertained only to Corinth and Ephesus
and are not a universal rule for all the churches. One important
point to make about such arguments from Viola is that these
arguments actually recognize that Paul is prohibiting women
from teaching in these passages.
Another
important point to note about Viola’s line of reasoning here
is that it constitutes another contradiction on Viola’s part.
In arguing that the rules of 1 Corinthians 14:34-40 and 1
Timothy 2:12 are not universal rules binding for the church
of all generations, Viola is contradicting his earlier statements
that 1 Corinthians 11-14 provides prescriptive practices that
were taught in all the New Testament churches and which were
binding for the church in all generations.
Point:
Normative apostolic
commands are binding
on the contemporary church. But normative apostolic practices are as well. By normative, I mean those practices that
contain a spiritual subtext and are the outworking of the
organic nature of the body of Christ. Such practices are not
purely narrative. They carry prescriptive force. This means
that they reflect the unchanging nature of God Himself. And
they naturally emerge whenever God’s people live by divine
life together – irrespective of culture or time. In that connection the Book of Acts and the
Epistles are awash with references to the apostolic tradition.
In 1 Corinthians 4:17, Paul declares how he
taught his ways “everywhere in every church.” To Paul’s mind, doctrine and duty
– belief and behavior, life and practice – are inseparable.
In short, that which is included in the apostolic
tradition is normative for all churches yesterday and today.
The exhortations of Paul to “hold firmly to the traditions
just as I delivered them to you” and to practice what “you
have learned and received and heard and seen in me” are the
considerations that should guide our church life. – Frank
Viola, Reimagining
Church,
Chapter 14, Reimagining the Apostolic Tradition, pages 247-248
The
truth is that there are numerous practices of the early church
that are normative for us today. These
practices are not culturally conditioned. – Frank Viola,
Reimagining Church,
Chapter 14, Reimagining the Apostolic Tradition, page 248
Here
are the two verses from 1 Corinthians that Viola cites in
his quote above.
1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of
me, even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now
I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things,
and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
1 Corinthians 4:17 For this cause have
I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful
in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my
ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.
With
this in mind, we must note that in 1 Corinthians 14, Paul’s
prohibition of women speaking, teaching, and asking questions
in the church gatherings is itself set within similar language
referring to what was the custom taught and practiced in all
the churches. Notice verses 33 and 36.
1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the
author of confusion, but of peace, as
in all churches of the saints. 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. 36
What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you
only? 37 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. 38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. 39 Wherefore,
brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with
tongues. 40 Let all things be done decently and in order.
Paul’s
reaction to the Corinthian women speaking in their church
meetings is “What? Did the Word of God come out from you?
Did the Word come only to you?” and “what I write unto you
are the commandments of the Lord.” By saying these things
Paul connects his prohibition regarding women with familiar
references to Jesus’ teaching and references to the word of
God that went out everywhere to all the churches. In fact,
Paul specifically mocks the idea that the Corinthian church
might have some special teaching on this matter that wasn’t
known elsewhere. The Corinthians thought that their practice,
which allowed women to speak in the church was more spiritual
(verses 36-37), but Paul called it ignorance of the Lord’s
commands. This doesn’t sound like Paul’s limitations are specific
to the Corinthian church. Rather, according to Paul, they
are based on the teachings of Jesus that Paul had taught in
every church.
Furthermore,
in our study of this epistle, we have already noted that in
every previous case where Paul was addressing Corinthian arrogance
and malpractice, he corrected them with a teaching that was
universally held in the church. In no case did we find Paul
offering novel solutions particular only to the situation
in Corinthian. If we take this passage within the context
of this epistle, then we would expect the same to be true
in this passage.
We
must keep in mind that Viola has already pronounced with conviction
that what Paul taught regarding church gatherings in 1 Corinthians
11-14 is binding for all generations and that chapters 11-14
are not simply responses to specific first century cultural
conditions. But with regard to the issue of women, Viola himself
now reverses course perhaps hoping no one will notice. In
the quote below, Viola says that Paul’s instructions that
women must be silent in the church gatherings in 1 Corinthians
14:34-40 is merely a cultural condition that pertained only
to the first century Corinthian church.
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 was 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.” – Frank Viola, Reimagining
A Woman’s Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 10-12
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. – Frank
Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role in the Church, An Open Letter,
page 10-12
Viola
must make a decision here. Either 1 Corinthians 11-14 contains
binding instructions for the church in all generations or
it merely has a series of culturally conditioned prohibitions
that only pertain to first century Corinth.
He cannot take what he likes and say its binding for all time
and leave the parts he doesn’t like and say that they are
just first century cultural issues that don’t apply outside
that specific context. This is especially problematic because
the parts, which Viola wants to relegate to first century
cultural issues, are attached to assertions that these instructions
went out to all the churches (1 Corinthians 14:35-36).
If
Viola wants to suggest that Paul’s comments in 1 Corinthians
14 are a special case for the Corinthian church only and are
not intended for the universal church, then he cannot demand
that we must take 1 Corinthians 11-14 as being informative
and prescriptive for church meetings. If it is the case that
the protocols for church meetings mentioned in 1 Corinthians
are only relevant to a special case in Corinth and were not meant for the church at
large, then it necessarily follows that we cannot build our
model for church gatherings on Paul’s instructions to the
Corinthians.
For
instance, what would happen if someone wanted to suggest that
all the instructions in 1 Corinthians 11-14 were only meant
for Corinth because of special
circumstances there and, consequently, these chapters were
not meant to govern church gatherings universally either then
or now? What would happen to Viola’s model, which draws upon
these chapters to suggest that “every member participating”
is a universal requirement for all church gatherings to this
day? And what would Viola be able to say to refute such a
counterargument that chapters 11-14 are only relevant to Corinth
at this particular time rather than to the rest of us in the
church at large? How would Viola prove that the instructions
in chapters 11-14 are binding for all churches and not just
an isolated, obsolete peculiarity for first century Corinth? Perhaps Viola would
point to those verses in chapters 11-14 which appeal to universal
axioms such as Paul’s analogy of the body? Yet Paul uses that
same analogy to prove the need for male hierarchy over women
in 1 Corinthians 11. Or maybe Viola would point to the apparent
axiomatic nature of other verses or assertions by Paul? Would
he point to contextual references of Jesus’ own commands,
which by their nature are universal for the church? Would
he point to contextually adjacent statements about what Paul
had ordained in all the churches? Would he point to the larger
thematic trends that run throughout the whole epistle? These
are the exact same proofs that demonstrate the prohibition
regarding women was universal rather than isolated solely
to Corinth.
To
summarize, if Corinthians only pertains to the Corinthian
church then we must instead build our model for church gatherings
on the information that we have learned elsewhere from the
New Testament. After all, 1 Corinthians 11-14 is the only
passage that even potentially suggests “every one” could participate
at church gatherings. As we have seen, the rest of the New
Testament simply and consistently depicts one, two, or maybe
three speakers dominating a gathering while the crowd interacted
with questions or comments. Consequently, if the instructions
in 1 Corinthians 11-14 were summarily classified as “not universally
binding,” that would leave us very clearly with a model in
which a small number of persons spoke at church meetings,
the teaching of the word to the crowd, but in which limited
participation was open for persons in the crowd to ask questions
or make shorter comments.
However,
if we do take Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians to be
relevant, informative, and prescriptive for all church meetings
and not just those in first century Corinth, there is nothing in them that would
conflict with the model we have seen elsewhere in the New
Testament. Paul is not putting forward a model where all persons
at the church gatherings participate equally and with the
same function. Instead, Paul is clearly limiting the number
of persons who could speak to a few. And he is clearly limiting
the participants to only those who could instruct or teach
the congregation. This is exactly what we’ve already learned
from our survey, namely that only a few persons, the elders,
would speak at the church meetings, teaching the church. Likewise,
some additional participation was allowed for others to ask
questions and make shorter comments.
So,
Viola must make a decision. Is 1 Corinthians 14 prescriptive
for all churches in all generations or does it only pertain
to first century Corinth?
As,
we have seen, this is not the only decision Viola must make.
In his articles on women participating in church gatherings,
Viola offers several contradictory and mutually exclusive
explanations of 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2:12. In one
case, Viola recognizes that these passages do contain prohibitions
against women speaking and teaching in church. The quote we
just looked as is an example. In that quote Viola acknowledges
that Paul is prohibiting women from speaking in the church
meetings because they were uneducated and it was considered
rude. For reference, here is that quote again.
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 was 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.” – Frank Viola, Reimagining
A Woman’s Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 10-12
In
the next quote Viola contrarily explains that Paul is not
prohibiting women from speaking in churches in 1 Corinthians
14:34-40, but that instead Paul is actually objecting to such
a notion.
Scenario
2. Some scholars have put forth a different interpretation
of this text. Yet it leads to the same conclusion as the interpretation
just described. In
verse 34, Paul 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 Jewish
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 statements,
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 obscene and shameful, the very
thoughts 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 (1:11; 7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1).
– Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role in the Church, An
Open Letter, page 12-13
There
are at least three glaring problems with Viola offering up
this explanation. First, as we said, Viola is offering two
contradictory and mutually exclusive explanations for why
1 Corinthians 14 isn’t a reference to a universal prohibition
against women speaking and teaching in church. First, Viola
says Paul was actually prohibiting the Corinthian women from
speaking and teaching because they were uneducated. But, in
the quote above, Viola makes the claim that Paul is actually
objecting to a prohibition against women speaking and teaching
in church. This type of tactic makes it seem like Viola is
willing to consider whatever explanation of these passages
gets around a universal prohibition against women speaking
in church. It seems desperate. It seems like Viola will accept
any interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14 so long as it permits
women to speak and teach in church.
Second,
Viola is simply in error when he argues that Paul cannot be
referencing anything from the law.
In
verse 34, Paul 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. – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s
Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 12-13
In
verse 34 of 1 Corinthians 14, Paul states that the reason
women are not permitted to speak is that they are to be under
obedience. The word translated “under obedience” in verse
34 is the Greek word “hupotasso” (Strong’s number 5293.) This
same word is used by both Paul and Peter when discussing this
same point in three other epistles.
1
Corinthians 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 (5293), as also saith the law.
Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves (5293) unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
24 Therefore as
the church is subject (5293) unto Christ, so let the
wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Colossian 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves (5293) unto your own husbands, as it is fit in
the Lord.
1 Peter 3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection (5293) to your own husbands;
that, if any obey not the word, they also may without
the word be won by the conversation of the wives;…5 For
after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who
trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection (5293)
unto their own husbands:
Notice
that Peter explains for his readers that the Old Testament
itself supports his instruction that women are to be in subjection
to their husbands. This parallels Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians
14:34 that this teaching is also found in the law. The Jewish
writers of the Old Testament used the phrase “the law” at
times to refer to the first five books of the Old Testament,
which were written by Moses. As such it is not necessarily
the case that Paul is referencing a specific Old Testament
law in 1 Corinthians 14:34. Paul may simply be doing what
Peter is doing in his epistle and saying that the Old Testament
indicates that women are to be in submission to their husband.
From this we can see that Viola is either being ignorant and
less than thorough in his study of this subject or he is being
deliberately deceptive in his presentation of the arguments
that are involved.
Also,
notice that this word for a woman’s “subjection” to her husband
is intentionally applied by Paul to the church’s subjection
to Christ in Ephesians 5 (as well as 1 Corinthians 11:1-3,
which we looked at earlier.) By doing so, Paul makes it impossible
for us to distinguish the type of subjection the wife must
show to the husband from the type of subjection that the church
must show to Christ.
From
these facts we can be sure that in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
Paul himself is saying that women must be silent in the churches,
that they are not permitted to speak, and that they are to
be in submission to their husbands. Paul is not quoting the
Talmud in order to reject this idea. Instead, Paul is referring
to the same type of Old Testament mandates that Peter does
in 1 Peter 3, when Peter likewise requires women to be subject
to their husbands.
Third,
in light of Paul’s comments in the other “limiting passage,”
1 Timothy 2:12, it is both foolish and pointless to suggest
that in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Paul is merely citing a Talmudic
tradition that he disagrees with. If Paul raises the idea
that the Law required women to be in silent subjection only
so he can scoff at such a notion, why we find Paul himself
invoking the Law to prove the silent subjection of women in
1 Timothy 2?
1 Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to
usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13
For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
As
we look at 1 Timothy 2, we see that Paul again makes reference
to the writings of Moses (the Law) in support of his prohibition
of women speaking in church (verses 13-14.) However, in his
article, Viola doesn’t attribute Paul’s reference to this
passage from the Law as a Talmudic quote. The reason Viola
doesn’t attribute this remark to the Talmud is because Paul
is simply restating two well-known Old Testament facts from
the Book of Genesis. Man was formed before woman. And in that
first sin, Adam was not deceived but Eve was. (Interestingly,
the fact that man was created first is also cited by Paul
in 1 Corinthians 11:1-10 when instructing the need for women
to submit to the hierarchy of men.) And Paul cites these facts
from Genesis as an explanation for his prohibition of women
teaching. Clearly this is no Talmudic reference that Paul
is quoting in order to refute.
Paul’s
attribution of this prohibition to the Law of Moses, rather
than some Talmudic passage, is also revealed in the Greek
grammar in 1 Timothy 2. Paul introduces his explanation for
this prohibition with the Greek word “gar” (Strong’s number
1063), which is used to introduce explanatory clauses. So,
in verses 12-13, Paul is saying, “Women must be silent and
learn in subjection, they cannot teach the men because (gar)…”
Then the reason Paul immediately gives for his prohibition
isn’t because “because (gar) your women in Ephesus are teaching heresy.” Instead, Paul
immediately says “they must not teach because (gar) Adam was
formed first and Eve was deceived.”
We
should ask why Paul includes Eve’s deception in his explanation
for his prohibition? The text itself provides an adequate
explanation for Paul’s reference to Eve’s deception in Genesis
3. According to Paul, women shouldn’t be permitted to teach
men because women have a greater tendency for being deceived,
a tendency which is evident in Eve’s first sin. As Paul explains,
God put man first and women must be in submission to their
husbands. According to Paul, when the man instead followed
his wife’s lead, this resulted in sin. He cites the example
of Adam and Eve as support. As such, Paul is using Genesis
3 to justify his prohibition of women teaching.
And
Paul is not wildly extrapolating on this point when it comes
to what Genesis teaches. Let’s look at God’s response to Adam
for his sin, in Genesis 3.
Genesis 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice
of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded
thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it:
As
we can see, God himself describes that man listening to his
wife’s “teaching” was part of what lead to the first sin.
This is no reference to the Talmud cited for immediate refutation.
This is Paul himself citing a portion of the Law of Moses,
which prohibited women from teaching men. In order to circumvent
the rationale provided by Paul in the text, Viola must invent
an alternative reason for why Paul refers to Adam and Eve.
Viola has no problem coming up with an explanation that is
completely outside the scriptural indications.
Putting all the facts together, the following
scenario emerges: Paul’s warning to the church in Ephesus was finally coming
to pass. Five years
earlier he forewarned the Ephesian elders that wolves would
penetrate the church and draw disciples after themselves with
perverse teachings (Acts 20:28-30). The wolves had appeared.
So Paul exhorts a young Timothy to combat their perverse teachings
(1 Tim. 1:3-7; 6:3-5). Since Timothy was well aware of
the heresy, Paul doesn’t need to explain it in detail. However,
it appears that it
was a kind of proto-gnosticism. Gnosticism was a heresy
that appeared in the second century. The Gnostics taught that
full salvation comes through special knowledge (gnosis)
that only the initiated possess. What Timothy was battling
in Ephesus
appears to have been an extremely embryonic form of this heresy.
(Paul seems to refer to the heresy when he
says to Timothy, “Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing
ideas of what is falsely called knowledge [Greek: gnosis+”—1
Timothy 6:20, NIV.) According to the false teaching, both
eating meat and engaging in marriage were forbidden (1 Tim.
4:1-3). Myths about the Law were also embraced (1 Tim. 1:4-7).
– Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role in the Church,
An Open Letter, page 14-17
Of
course, concerning the quote above, nothing that Viola has
said is extra-biblical. From what we can derive from the bible,
nothing he has said is unwarranted or incorrect. Gnosticism
was indeed an early and prominent heresy that challenged the
church. It is indeed likely that Timothy was dealing with
an early form of this heresy in Ephesus
and that Paul spoke of this in this first epistle to Timothy.
As Viola points out, from the text we know that this heretical
group forbid eating meat and engaging in marriage and that
they held to certain kings of myths. But we know all of this
because it is stated in the text.
The
extra-biblical part is what comes next.
We know from historical records that the Gnostics
perverted the creation account. Eve was regarded as both
a mediator and redeemer figure.56 She pre-existed Adam. Man
came into existence because of woman, and
he was given enlightenment through woman. Since Eve was the
first to take a bite from the Tree of Knowledge, she was regarded
as the bearer of special spiritual knowledge (gnosis).
It is for this reason
that those who accepted this heresy preferred the leadership
of women over that of men. The heresy taught that women could
still lead people to the illuminating gnosis that was
represented by the Tree of Knowledge. It was further believed
that redemption completely reversed the effects of the fall
so that men were no longer subject to earthly authorities
and women were no longer subject to their husbands. –
Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role in the Church, An
Open Letter, page 14-17
The
reason Viola brings up the teaching of some Gnostics is to
provide an alternative explanation for Paul’s reference to
the Genesis account of creation. Without this outside information
and without the completely speculative assumption that heretics
in Ephesus
were performing the specific action of elevating women over
men, Paul’s reference to Adam and Eve strongly indicates that
the prohibition was both biblically-based and universal.
It
is absolutely true that we know from writers like Irenaeus
and other ancient documents what the Gnostic cults taught.
It is true that some of them magnified women as bearers of
spiritual enlightenment and taught that woman was created
before man. And it is true that some of them forbid meat and
getting married. However, not all Gnostic cults taught that
eating meat or getting married was forbidden. Other Gnostics
taught that earthly things such as these were irrelevant to
spiritual living and that we could do whatever we wanted in
this material body without affecting our true spiritual selves.
We know from 1 Timothy that the heresy Timothy was dealing
with was of the former kind of Gnosticism, which forbid eating
meat and marriage. But the larger point is that Gnosticism
was somewhat diverse in its teachings. Various Gnostic sects
taught and emphasized different heretical teachings. We don’t
know whether or not one form of Gnostic teaching on women
was an issue in Ephesus
at this time. Viola wants us to assume it is the case. But
Paul doesn’t specify that this specific issue of women dominating
their men was going on there when he wrote. Instead, the women
seemed to be dominated by men who were false teachers.
One
of the reasons Viola feels that we are safe to make this assumption
(that Paul was refuting Gnostic teachings elevating women
to a place of dominance) is because, according to Viola, this
is the only time we find Paul referring to Eve’s role in the
fall. For Viola, the only way to explain this unique reference
to Eve is if Paul was refuting a form of Gnostic heresy that
promoted women over men.
In all of Paul’s other writings he always
hangs the fall around Adam’s neck. But given this particular
situation, he sets his sights on Eve. – Frank Viola, Reimagining
A Woman’s Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 14-17
But
is this the only time Paul references Eve’s contribution and
deception in her and Adam’s sin? Not at all. In fact, another
time Paul references this is in his writings to the Corinthian
church.
2 Corinthians 11:2 For I am jealous over
you with godly jealousy: for
I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you
as a chaste virgin to Christ. 3 But
I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through
his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the
simplicity that is in Christ.
Notice
that Paul’s comments here in 2 Corinthians involve the headship
of Christ over the church and the headship of the husband
over the wife. This is the same thing that Paul is discussing
in 1 Timothy 2 and elsewhere. And we see that again Paul mentions
that Eve was deceived. Should we conclude that in 2 Corinthians
11 Paul is combating the same Gnostic teaching about the woman
being superior to the man that Viola claims Paul is taking
aim at in 1 Timothy 2? Obviously, there is no reason to do
so. In reality, we have no reason to conclude that either
2 Corinthians 11 or 1 Timothy 2 have that particular Gnostic
teaching in view. Again Viola’s scriptural facts are in error,
Paul does refer to Eve’s deception elsewhere. And Viola’s
reasoning is in error when he tries to avoid the obvious implications
that result from letting 1 Timothy 2 speak for itself.
It
is also curious to note that Viola inadvertently attributes
a Gnostic origin to his own arguments. Near the end of his
description of Gnostic teaching, Viola says, “It was further
believed that redemption completely reversed the effects of
the fall so that men were no longer subject to earthly authorities
and women were no longer subject to their husbands.” Viola
himself has articulated this very argument in favor of his
own view regarding women. Notice that while Viola ultimately
describes scriptural submission between a husband and wife
as mutual, he clearly defines one-sided submission to the
husband as a result of the fall.
As
far as the marital relationship goes, the husband/wife relationship
is an earthly picture of the heavenly reality of Christ and
His Bride. So I take at face value Paul’s injunction
for wives to be subject to their husbands (Eph. 5:22:
Col. 3:18; see also 1 Pet. 3:1-7). Yet
I’m quick to add that this passage has been all-too often
lifted out of its proper context and misused by controlling
husbands who wish to brow-beat their wives. In addition,
Paul is a strong proponent
of Christians submitting to one another in the fear of
Christ (Eph. 5:21). Therefore, in a sense, husbands must also
submit to their wives. Jesus Christ doesn’t dominate nor
subjugate His Bride. Male
domination of women, therefore, is a symptom of man’s fallen
nature (Genesis 3:16). It’s not a Divine mandate. Yet
submission and subjugation are two very different things.
– Frank Viola, Reimagining
A Woman’s Role in the Church: An Open Letter, page 20
Elsewhere,
Viola once again echoes this theme that the redemption offered
in the New Covenant liberates women from that suppressive
male dominance that resulted from the fall.
Modern
scribes have turned New Testament verses into oppressive laws
without any regard to local and temporary conditions.
By contrast, Paul’s
message is one that promotes radical freedom rather than suppression.
And that freedom liberally
extends to men and women. Therefore, if our interpretation
of Paul contradicts his message of freedom, then we are connecting
the dots incorrectly. – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s
Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 17-18
In
fact, Viola repeatedly states that all hierarchy results from
mankind’s fall into sin. The idea that all hierarchical leadership
results from sin more than implies that the redemption brought
by Jesus Christ involves redemption from hierarchies, including
the hierarchy of men over women.
Alongside
humanity’s fallen quest for a human spiritual mediator
is the obsession with the hierarchical form of leadership. – Frank
Viola, Pagan Christianity,
Chapter 5, The Pastor: Obstacle to Every-Member Functioning,
page 109
Actually,
we believe that, as a result of our fallen nature, people always move to adopt hierarchy
and top-down relationships because they give human beings
a sense of control and security. – Frank Viola, Pagan
Christianity, Final Thoughts, page 262
As
we cover in our Gospel Overview study (provided in the Outlines
section of our website), it is a constant theme in the Old
Testament that the wife is to follow her husband’s lead and
not the other way around. In passages like 2 Corinthians 11
and 1 Timothy 2, the New Testament upholds this theme and
Viola even recognizes that it does (although ultimately he
seems to waffle a bit on this topic).
As
far as the marital relationship goes, the husband/wife relationship
is an earthly picture of the heavenly reality of Christ and
His Bride. So I take at face value Paul’s injunction for wives
to be subject to their husbands (Eph. 5:22: Col. 3:18; see
also 1 Pet. 3:1-7). – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s
Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 20
As
we can see from the end of the quote above, Viola even references
several New Testament passages in support of the biblical
conclusion that wives must be subject to their husbands. We
have looked at these verses earlier, but here they are again
for reference.
1
Corinthians 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 (5293), as also saith the law.
Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves (5293) unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
24 Therefore as
the church is subject (5293) unto Christ, so let the
wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Colossian 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves (5293) unto your own husbands, as it is fit in
the Lord.
1 Peter 3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection (5293) to your own husbands;
that, if any obey not the word, they also may without
the word be won by the conversation of the wives;…5 For
after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who
trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection (5293)
unto their own husbands:
We
might compare these verses with what Paul says in 1 Timothy
2.
1 Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to
usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.14 And Adam was not deceived,
but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
In
verse 11, Paul states that a woman must “learn in silence
and with all subjection.” The word translated “subjection”
is the Greek word “hupotage” (Strong’s number 5292.) This
Greek word “hupotage” is the noun derived from the Greek word
“hupotasso” (Strong’s number 5293), which is used in all of
the above passages to speak of a woman’s submission to her
husband.
It
is obvious then that Paul isn’t discussing anything in 1 Timothy
that differs from what he is discussing in 1 Corinthians 14,
Ephesians 5, or Colossians 3. Nor is there anything in 1 Timothy
that differs from what Peter says in 1 Peter. Instead, all
five of these passages are discussing the exact same thing,
that a woman must learn in silence and submission to her husband
and that she cannot teach him. In 1 Timothy, Viola contends
that the mention of Adam and Eve can only be explained as
a refutation of Gnostic doctrines. But is Paul refuting these
same Gnostic doctrines in Ephesians 5? Were the same problems
being addressed in Colossae
and in Corinth? Was Peter indicating that wives must
submit to their husbands only because Gnostics taught that
women should lead the men? Obviously not. Why then should
we conclude that Paul’s remarks in 1 Timothy 2 can only be
explained as a refutation of a very specific Gnostic teaching
for which we have no evidence in that location? The only reason
to accept such a conclusion is if we wish to avoid a universal
New Testament prohibition against women speaking or teaching
in church gatherings.
Viola
himself acknowledges the clear connection between 1 Corinthians
14:34-40 and 1 Timothy 2:11-14, both linguistically and in
terms of the instructions themselves.
It’s striking to discover that there are seven
parallel words that appear in both this text and 1 Corinthians
14:34-35. Two of them are: learn and silent. In
both passages, the word learn is translated from the
same Greek word: 1 Timothy 2:11: “A woman should learn (manthano)
in silence and full submission.” 1 Corinthians 14:35:
“And if they desire to learn (manthano) anything, let
them ask their own husbands at home.” In the Timothy passage,
Paul says that the sisters in Ephesus
should learn in silence and full submission….In
effect, 1 Timothy 2:11 is the same instruction that Paul appears
to give the sisters in Corinth. That is, the women
ought not to disrupt the meeting with questions and challenges.
In the church meeting, they should learn in quietness.
So the first thing Paul says to Timothy is, “Let the sisters
stop asking leading-questions to challenge the brothers. Instead,
let them take on humility and learn with studious attention.”
– Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role in the Church, An
Open Letter, page 14-17
First,
it seems striking that Viola acknowledges such similar instructions
are given to two different churches, but somehow still argues
that these are not universal ordinances in all the churches.
Second, if Viola believes 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14
are both prohibitions from Paul that use the same terminology,
why would he also offer the idea that in 1 Corinthians 14
Paul is quoting the Talmud in order to reject a prohibition
against women speaking and teaching? This is an absurd argument
from Viola and a convoluted interpretation of scripture. Obviously,
Paul is not quoting the Talmud in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.
Instead, Paul is himself saying that women should remain silent
in church, that they should learn in submission, and that
the Law also indicates this.
Yet
there are still more problems with Viola’s conclusion that
1 Corinthians 14 is not a universal prohibition. The next
problem has to do with Viola’s misunderstanding of the context
of the passage.
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 was 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.” …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…. Notice
the undeniable connection between “learning” and “speaking.”
Therefore, 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. – Frank Viola, Reimagining A
Woman’s Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 10-12
Here,
Viola identifies Paul’s restrictions on women with the specific
issue of prophetic words. Viola asserts that the women were
asking questions about prophecies and their questions arose
out of ignorance because they were uneducated in such matters.
According to Viola, it was because of this transitory situation
that Paul restricted women from speaking. Consequently, Viola
concludes that women were only being restricted from asking
questions and not being restricted from speaking or teaching
in general. If Viola would have studied this passage in the
context of Paul’s instructions throughout this letter and
especially in light of chapters 11-14, he would understand
that the larger context isn’t limited to questions about prophetic
words, but to limiting what should and shouldn’t go on at
a church gathering.
By
doing the contextual analysis that Viola neglects, we have
seen that Paul first restricted what gifts can occur at the
meetings to teaching-related gifts. Then Paul restricts how
even the permitted gifts were to be used in the meeting. Even
a gift like speaking in tongues, which Paul previously allowed,
was not allowed if there was no interpreter. Similarly, Paul
limits both the number of potential persons who could speak
in tongues or prophecy to two or three of each at the most.
His other limitations are based on what is proper at church
meetings in general and connected to what Paul taught everywhere,
although the Corinthians weren’t complying. Paul’s general
theme of these passages is to limit who speaks in a church
gathering, not just who can ask questions but who can contribute
and teach. Since this is the context, we must understand 1
Corinthians 14:34-40 similarly. Only by failing to account
for this larger context and these larger themes can Viola
restrict Paul’s comments solely to questions about prophecy.
But this misunderstanding and failure to take into account
scriptural context is a common result of the proof-texting
that Viola has continued to exhibit in his writings.
In
this next excerpt Viola erroneously argues against a universal
prohibition based on the idea that the Greek word for “silent”
in 1 Corinthians 14:34 only means a temporary silence.
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 reflects
a culturally biased misreading of Paul. It also puts 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 quiz
her husband at home. For Paul, this would foster both
order and peace to a once chaotic and confused meeting in
Corinth
(v. 33). – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role in the
Church, An Open Letter, page 10-12
Viola’s
interpretation of the Greek word “sigao” (Strong’s number
4601) in this passage and its meaning in general is flawed for several reasons. First, this word
does not mean “temporary silence” as in “momentary silence.”
The same word is used in Romans 16:25 to describe how the
mystery of Jesus Christ was “kept secret” (“sigao”) since
the world began.
Romans
16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according
to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according
to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret (4601) since the world began.
From
this we can see that the Greek word “sigao” can refer to a
long period of silence and not just momentary silence or temporarily
holding one’s peace. Since the word “sigao” might range from
a short time of silence to a very long time of silence, the
real question then is what amount of time is Paul saying that
the women should be silent for? We can answer this question
by examining Paul’s usage of “sigao” in 1 Corinthians 14.
As we have already seen, in 1 Corinthians 14:28 Paul stated
that if there is no interpreter present then those who spoke
in tongues were to be silent in the church gatherings.
1
Corinthians 14:28 But
if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence (4601) in
the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
How
long is the person who speaks in tongues to remain silent
if there is no interpreter present? The answer is “for the
entire meeting.” Contrary to Viola’s reasoning, Paul does
require that if no interpreter is present then the duration
of the silence for those who could speak in tongues should
span the entire meeting. It may be true that Paul intended
that the prophets could alternate as each one began to receive
from the Lord. In such a case the silence of the prophets
is determined by which one is receiving a word from the Spirit.
However, in the case of the speakers in tongues, the silence
is determined by the presence or lack of presence of an interpreter.
The question then becomes in the case of the women what does
the text say determines the duration of their silence?
1
Corinthians 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.
According
to the text itself, the duration of the women’s silence is
the church meeting itself. We don’t have to wonder how long
intended for the women to be silent because he says so. They
should be silent for as long as they are at the gathering
and they are allowed to speak again after the church gathering
is over when they are again at home with their husbands. It
is not determined by waiting their turn as Viola suggest.
Rather, they are allowed to speak at home, but they are not
allowed to speak in church.
Similarly,
Viola’s notion that Paul is merely instructing the women to
wait their turn is also absurd. Paul has already provided
instructions that those who speak and teach through prophesying
must take turns and hold their peace while someone else is
speaking. If Paul allowed for women to speak and teach through
prophesying and only intended to prevent them from asking
questions, then why would Paul need to provide specific instructions
for women to take turns and hold their peace when prophesying?
He wouldn’t because he already gave instructions for the prophets.
It would be totally redundant. Consequently, Paul’s instructions
for women to remain silent cannot simply be instructions to
those who can prophesy and speak in tongues to temporarily
hold their peace as they take turns prophesying. To interpret
the passage as referring to a temporary silence as speakers
take turns is completely redundant and it makes no sense why
Paul would repeat it for the women at the end of the chapter.