Silent Females
Notes
Transcript
Provocative Statement
Provocative Statement
Let’s get straight to the provocative statement.
For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints,
the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.
If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached?
If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord.
If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.
So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.
But all things should be done decently and in order.
Those may sound as hard words. Hard to understand. Hard to hear.
First of all, we want to submit ourselves, our cultural expectations, our gender expectations, our sense of “rightness” or “fairness”… we submit wholly to God’s Word. All of God’s Word.
“Let God be true and every man a liar.”
Equally, we want to hear and understand God’s Word as God intends. In order to do that, we want to hear Paul’s words as Paul intended, as his readers in Corinth would have understood him.
We know that God’s Word is consistent, and so we compare what 1 Corinthians has to say with what the rest of Corinthians has to say… and other writings of Paul, and the rest of Scripture.
Possible Interpretations:
Possible Interpretations:
Literal and direct: Women should never speak in church.
Contextual: Women should refrain from certain types of speech in church. (Tongues? Prophecy? Sifting prophecy?)
Scenario specific: women were interrogating their husbands concerning prophecy and they shouldn’t embarrass them in public.
Translation: Women should stop speaking quite so much.
Cultural/Historical: Uneducated 1st century women should listen and learn until they have enough knowledge and context to contribute.
Non-negotiable
Non-negotiable
I am going to teach my best understanding of this passage. I take a position on this and I make choices as a leader and pastor according to how I understand all of Scripture.
I could be wrong here. Now, as always, you should be following the command in 1 Cor 14:29 and “weigh what is said.”
But there is a non-negotiable here.
Smart people disagree. Recall 1 Cor 13… we need love. “Bear with one another”.
If we close in prayer and we are still in disagreement - that’s okay. That’s well expected.
If we close in prayer… and we have not love. If we break covenant, break fellowship, break community on this… we are wrong at a far more fundamental level than anything in church order and practice.
There are things here we don’t understand, things that are unclear, this isn’t one of them.
What about Women Prophesying with no Hats On?
What about Women Prophesying with no Hats On?
So, why is this an interpretive challenge at all? Just have all the women remain silent! And to be sure, there are churches that take this as a direct apostolic command that should be applied across all cultures and times. They also tend to have all the women keep their head covered, remember back in 1 Cor 11.
That’s not crazy, I trust they are honestly seeking to search out and obey God’s will and that is beautiful.
I do think there is a conflict here, though. A tension in the Scripture that we need to seek out and understand.
Remember back in 1 Cor 11:5?
but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.
What’s the assumption there? That the wife is praying and prophesying. Now it is possible that this is restricted to when women are praying or prophesying in private, however, there are a couple issues there.
Both the previous pericope and the next are about how one interacts in corporate setting, with one another. Verse 2 starts with commendation, verse 17 contrasts that commendation with concern about how they practicing the Lord’s supper. So the surrounding context is public, the idea of it being “disgraceful” for a woman to be uncovered doesn’t make a lot of sense if it’s in private because… who would even know?
And also… prophesy is fundamentally public. It is forthtelling the message of God to God’s people. Maybe (maybe, maybe, maybe) female prophets are somehow restricted to prophesying to their husbands and fathers only… but that doesn’t appear to be the case with any of the other female prophets in the Bible: Deborah, Miriam, and Anna.
It’s possible, but the most natural interpretation of 1 Cor 11:5 is the way women are showing respect and submissiveness within the public sphere while praying and prophesying.
What’s more, we have examples aplenty of women being specifically sent and directed by God to prophesy to men: My favorite example: It is women who are first to testify / witness / forthtell / prophesy the good news that Jesus is Risen. (The 14 Marys). That’s the best prophecy: He is Risen!. Spoken to a room full of men.
So we have a tension, Paul giving instructions about “how to exercise prophetic speech” to women… and instructions on how they should “always be quiet.”
How do we resolve the apparent contradiction? I don’t think the Corinthians were confused here, I think Paul was calling out some things that were obvious or apparent to them. Just a bit more confusing to us.
The Surrounding context
The Surrounding context
Starts and end with “order and peace.”
For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.
As in all the churches of the saints,
and ends with it:
But all things should be done decently and in order.
What’s more, women aren’t the only group Paul tells to be silent.
In verse 28 he tells those who are speaking in tongues without interpretation to be silent.
But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God.
And in verse 30, he tells a speaking prophet to be silent if someone else chimes in with a word from God.
If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent.
… and then he tells women to be silent.
And then wraps it all up, prophecy, tongues, with
But all things should be done decently and in order.
So at some level the women speaking is disruptive.
What Kind of Speaking?
What Kind of Speaking?
Here is where we start interpreting.
Most scholars and I would guess most of you would agree that women can generally speak “in church.” I guess that because I’ve likely heard you all speak at one time or another.
It is “certain kinds” of speaking that Paul might be referring to here.
One possibility is that Paul is forbidding women from speaking in tongues. But the most recent reference to “speaking” is actually prophecy… but that in turn would be challenged by the instructions given to women on how to prophesy respectfully.
There are many many scholars who look at 1 Cor 14:29 for the answer.
Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said.
The Didache, which records a lot of early church practice, says that this “weighing” what is said could involve a lot of follow-up questions, even about weighing the prophets personal life to determine their moral reliability.
And imagining the wives in particular joining in on that questioning.
“Oh, I see, you can tell us what God says but you can’t wash the dishes, can you?”
That would be shameful.
That could well be the case. My challenge is that it assumes two kinds of speech “prophecy vs. weighing of prophecy” that are never mentioned elsewhere in Scripture.
I think the clearest reading of this passage is that he really does want women to be silent in general… and that prophecy is actually the one beautiful exception to this rule.
I think Paul is telling women to be completely silent, unless God tells you to speak, then speak, then be silent again.
The question is “why?” Why would it be shameful for a woman to speak? Why would it be disruptive to the order of worship?
A glimpse into culture
A glimpse into culture
Quote from Plutarch, writing around this time, born a bit North of Corinth in Greece:
“For a woman ought to do her talking either to her husband or through her husband, and she should not feel aggrieved if, like the flute-player, she makes a more impressive sound through a tongue not her own.”
Quote from Marcus Procius Cato, writing before this time in Italy,
“Indeed, I blushed when, a short while ago, I walked through the midst of a band of women. Had not respect for the dignity and modesty of certain ones (not them all!) restrained me (so they would not be seen being scolded by a consul), I should have said, ‘What kind of behaviour is this? Running around in public, blocking streets, and speaking to other women’s husbands! Could you not have asked your own husbands the same thing at home? Are you more charming in public with others’ husbands than at home with your own? And yet, it is not fitting even at home (if modesty were to keep married women within the bounds of their rights) for you to concern yourselves with what laws are passed or repealed here.”
Perhaps women speaking to people not their own husbands was, in that time, scandalous or, as Paul would say, “disgraceful.” Indeed, isn’t that the disciples’ reaction every time Jesus does that?
In that sense, it may be that Paul was restricting women from any nonliturgical speech, in particular asking questions of men.
This would fit well with the larger principle of “obey God first, then bow to Ceasar.”
If God tells you to speak (aka, prophecy) SPEAK! (1 Cor 11).
The absolutely amazing thing is that there is provision for women to speak at all, much less to prophesy, speaking messages on behalf of God. That is radical. If God tells you to speak, SPEAK!
Otherwise, follow the social and cultural guidelines of Jewish, Greek and Roman culture, showing your submissiveness and respect to your husband by staying silent as you normally would.
Which would be more scandalous and disruptive in our culture? Allowing women to speak as they normally would or prohibiting them from speech in church?
In our culture, like my wearing a hat when I pray and KK not, which would reflect more respect and dignity for me as her husband: if she speaks freely and respectfully at church, or holds up a sign saying “Dusty doesn’t let me talk at church?”
This is why I believe women can speak in our church. They can come up to the microphone and pray… or prophesy… or teach… or preach, though there’s another text to wrestle with there.
It’s not about you
It’s not about you
Now, here is where things could get real tricky. If I just read these verses, verse 36 sounds like Paul is doubling and tripling down on women being silent and condemning anyone who disagrees as not from God.
Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached?
It gets lost in the English, but he isn’t addressing women with “you” or “y’all” here. It’s a masculine pronoun, likely, as is usually the case, to address again everyone in the church.
That all of these things, he believes, he knows he is speaking on behalf of the Lord. He is a prophet, right now, and, returning to verse 32
and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets.
This is why whenever we seek to hear from God anything at all, we submit what we hear to what we read in Scripture, to Jesus’ words, to apostolic authority.
If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord.
If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.
So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.
But all things should be done decently and in order.
Why all things “done decently and in order?”
Because it ultimately isn’t about us. It isn’t about us getting to speak or getting our rights.
To God alone be the glory. And then, as He gifts and directs us, serving, loving on His people.
This, again, as in speaking in tongues, as in prophecy, as in any of the gifts… our temptation is to make it about us. Yes, even if you are the shy, self-effacing type… our flesh still can make it about us.
Am I being loving, first to God, then to others.
Am I being submissive and humble, first to God, then to others.
Am I in order, edifying the church
… Or am I being disruptive, distracting others or even seeking attention?
Am I speaking, teaching, talking because God is leading me to, directing me to? Or is about me?
And in our disagreement… because we will have those, about this or other matters of doctrine and practice.
God’s going to answer all of these questions one day. “Oh yeah… Dusty was wrong about these 74 things… and the rest he got perfect.” Or something. God’s going to answer those questions… but I think there are some other questions that trump all secondary issues:
Is Jesus your Lord and Savior? Yes.
Did you love Dusty like Jesus loves you, even when he was obstinately wrong?
Did you allow disagreements within the Body of Christ to become division within the Body of Christ?
I think God weeps at the divided and broken state of the Church.
This, this is our great unity: Christ Jesus, who lived and died and rose again for me. It doesn’t mean we don’t wrestle with these things and even struggle with one another. It means that we do it in love, always seeking His glory and the good of His church.
Let’s take that time, to reorient our selves in worship before His throne.