The words are stark and strong. 34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (1 Cor. 14:34-35). As you read them you scratch your head – puzzled. “Is that right?,” you ask. “But I thought this series was on Biblical equality.” Didn’t Pastor Jon teach us that Paul affirmed women ministers?” Maybe you feel trapped. “How should we understand this passage?,” you wonder. “How do we unlock this text?” And you hear the click of a lock sliding into place. You’re trapped in a room with your only chance of escape to understand and interpret these difficult verses. Don’t worry - you’re not alone.
Welcome to the 1 Corinthians 14 Escape Room. What’s an escape room? It’s a new entertainment trend where a group is assembled in a locked room and has one hour to “escape” by using clues to solve puzzles. You can find clues underneath the rug, or sifting through the books on the shelves, or by taking a closer look at all those paintings on the wall. You may find a string of numbers you need for a combination lock or a good old-fashioned key for a padlock.
Everywhere you look is a potential clue or a riddle waiting to be solved. This will demand are best thinking, carefully paying attention to clues, but time is short, and we’ve got serious work to do - the clock is ticking. Let’s go. How do we unlock this passage?
3
Basic Interpretations of vss. 34-35 have been offered. (see bibliographic note at the end of this blog)
1. Paul meant it – generally,
for all women, in every church, for all time. This is certainly a possible, straight-forward reading of
the text. It’s interpreted by supporters not so much as a “total” silencing
(though some have done so) but a silencing of women from the prophetic or
teaching roles in church or at least from evaluating that teaching because they
lack the proper spiritual authority. The problem with such a view, of course,
is that Paul already has affirmed women speaking in church in 1 Corinthians 11:5,
10. Why would Paul encourage a practice that he later says in the same document
should never occur? But we’ve also
already seen Paul acknowledge women and men in the same speaking roles and
roles of authority in Romans 16. So the challenge of such a reading is that it
makes Paul inconsistent at best, if not hypocritical at worst. Whatever
solution we wish to find must certainly be one that makes the best sense of all
of Paul’s writing and theology and not simply one passage.
2. Paul
meant it – specifically, not as a general prohibition for all women in every
church.
Those in this camp recognize that the problem is not women speaking
per se but disruption, disorder and ignorance. The strength of
this view is that it seeks to place the spotlight on the real problem that Paul
seems to be at pains to respond to: disorderly speech. Chapter 14 is all about
maintaining order and decorum in church gatherings and silencing the disorderly
talk from three groups of people (not one) and uses the same imperative Greek
verb for each of these three groups.
- A tongues-speaker, male or female, is to be silent (sigaō) and stop speaking in tongues if there is no one to interpret (1 Cor. 14:28).
- A prophet, male or female, is to be silent (sigaō) and stop prophesying if someone else receives a revelation (1 Cor. 14:30).
- Women are to be silent (sigaō) and stop asking questions if there is anything they want to learn (manthanō); they should keep their questions for home (1 Cor. 14:34-35). These questions may have been directed to the men and women prophesying: prophecy was so that everyone could learn (manthanō) and be encouraged, see 1 Cor. 14:31.
All these people, both men and women, need to hold their tongues and stop speaking in these situations. But 1 Corinthians 14 is not about silencing tongues-speakers, prophets, or women altogether. It’s about creating a context so that the “church may be built up” (1 Cor. 14:26). In this way, it would seem to be that Paul was prohibiting a certain form of speech that fail to do that. But what that is – is not clear. Some New Testament scholars say it was women interrupting the flow of a congregational meeting by asking too many rudimentary questions. Others say that women with pagan backgrounds, like the Corinthians, would have assumed that Christian prophecy functioned like pagan oracles who responded to direct questions. These women were thus asking personal questions assuming that the whole point of prophecy was to get answers. These are certainly plausible. Either of these reasons, are not our problem today and therefore cannot be used to silence women. The challenge, however, is that it’s hard to make vs. 36, “Or did the word of God originate with you?” make sense and why would Paul speak so strongly, without a noticeable caveat, saying, “It is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church”.
3. Paul didn’t write it.
a. It’s a quotation from one of
the factions of Corinth. First Corinthians was written in response to a verbal
report from Chloe’s people (1 Cor. 1:11), which in and of itself is telling for
it intimates that she is a leader of the Corinthian church. We must remember
that Paul is responding to a letter that we don’t have and quotes people he
disagrees with: “It is not good for a man to touch a woman” (1 Cor. 7:1); “We
all possess knowledge” (1 Cor. 8:1); “There is no resurrection” and “Christ has
not been raised” (1 Cor. 15:12, 14). These are not Paul’s own thoughts or
beliefs but him acknowledging what some in the church have said. Some scholars have
argued that vss. 34-35 are just such a quotation and that one of the factions
was trying to silence women in church meetings. This would mean that they do
not reflect Paul’s own thinking which, in turn, makes the best sense of vs. 36,
which can now be heard as a rebuke of that position: “What! Did the word of God
originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached?” The Greek which
is translated “only ones” is grammatically masculine and thus cannot refer only
to women. So it only makes sense that vs. 36 is Paul’s voice reengaging and
reprimanding men who are trying to silence women. The challenge to such a view
is that there is no direct acknowledgement in the text that this is a quote.
b. It’s a later interpolation or
addition by a scribe to the text. Interpolations are later additions inserted
into the Scriptures by unknown authors. We’ve already noted how vss. 34-35 sit
oddly, both grammatically and interpretatively, within chapter 14. In fact,
this is easily highlighted by how easy it is to lift out vss. 33b-35 and go
straight from verse 33a to verse 36 without any loss of flow or meaning. This
is further evidenced by the fact that in some early manuscripts, vss. 34-35
appear after vs. 40. This reality has led some evangelical scholars to suggests
that the verses were not written by Paul but inserted by an unknown author at a
very early date. By the way, while this may be new to many of you, it is not
utterly foreign in that we have interpolations in our current Bibles. For
example, the longer ending of Mark’s Gospel (Mark 16:9-20) and 1 John 5:7-8,
which does not appear in any manuscript before the fourteenth century.
Which
one is right? How do we escape? There is no consensus. How do we
respond?
Context is key. We have focused on women in our passage today but
“women” wasn’t the point or the problem. It’s important to remember that the
problem of our passage is disorderly speech, speech that doesn’t build up the
body of Christ, speech that involves both men and women. Beyond, chapter 14 we
saw that Paul, both in 1 Cor. as well as in other letters affirms women
speaking and having authority in the church (see previous sermons). When
struggling with certain passages always remember to take two steps back to
consider the book as a whole and the wider context of the Bible. Remember these
writings are a part of larger library of those who have followed God for over
thousands of years and thus part of a broader story that offers critical
components for understanding specific passages. To build a rigid theology which
silences people in the church, particularly one that is difficult and only two
verses, is dangerous. At the very least, considering context makes
interpretation #1 not likely.Let “hard” mean “humble.” We also need to recognize that there are hard passages in Scripture. And it’s not helpful to consider all passages as if they are simple and easy to read or straightforward. Our passage today has a number of competing interpretations that are held by scholars of the highest order with strong evangelical credentials. If that’s true, then to be glib or dismissive to other interpretations of vss. 34-35 is unbecoming. We need to listen well to each other with humble spirits recognizing that we need each other to read the Bible well. We need people with expertise in Greek and the ancient Roman world. We need people who demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit and embody the Scripture in their lives. We need people who can confess their frailty and humanity with those three powerful, humanizing words: “I don’t know.”
Remember that translations are interpretations. One of the most interesting elements for me in our series on women and gender in the Bible has been the reminder that translation is a difficult task and that translators make a number of unspoken assumptions about emphasis, word choice, etc. that can change how we read texts. We saw this with the word “deacon,” for example, which the NIV transliterates for Phoebe as “deacon” (Romans 16:1) yet also translates as “servant” (Romans 15:8) as well as “minister” (Col. 1:7). Why is Phoebe a “deacon” (Romans 16:1) and Epaphras a “minister” (Col. 1:7), if it’s the same word in Greek – diakonos? Similarly, in our passage today the word “silence” appears only once in English and yet the Greek word appears two other times for those other than women as “keep quiet” vs. 28 and “stop” in vs. 30. My point is not to besmirch translators – it’s difficult work. My point is to always remind us that words matter and that a translation does more than supply a word but offers meaning.
Finally, do you want to escape? The combination is always the same 1 – C – o – r – 1 - 3. Reading the Bible well is not about winning. It’s about loving God and loving others – better together. Do you want to read the Bible well and escape unnecessary conflict that divides into factions, promotes disorderly speech that harms the body of Christ? Then remember this: “4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.8 Love never fails.” These are the values that will help you escape. We must read the Bible with love “for” others and the values of 1 Cor. 13 are as much critical resources for study as any scholarly tool. One of the most damaging modern reads of the Bible was making 1 Cor. 13 a marriage text.
It’s not a marriage text but a church text. That’s why we must practice conversation in our study of scriptures. Scripture is read properly when it’s read lovingly with others. Then again, maybe should read it as those who consider each other husband and wife. Because lovers can disagree but faithful lovers don’t leave. You can be right and still be trapped in the room. Love is the only way out.
This sermon was greatly helped by the excellent summary of Marg Mowczko. To read it click here
No comments:
Post a Comment