Silent Women Wearing Hats, Part 2

Does Your Theology Do This?The pattern I pointed out yesterday in 1 Corinthians was that often in the book there was a rather dramatic statement that when examined looked wrong. I doubt there are too many people who think that husbands and wives should not have martial relations as 1 Corinthians 7:1 seems to say.  Yet that was the interpretation given by many in the early church even though that interpretation was contradicted by the next verses. So the pattern is that the rather odd sounding statement is then directly contradicted by the next few verses. Of course a portion of the church decided to take this exactly as it is written, and ignore the context in order to do so. This is done today in the next scripture I will address. 

In addition to the two examples I gave in I Corinthians 6 and the one I just mentioned in I Corinthians 7, there is another example of this pattern I wish to point out that is in 1 Corinthians 14:

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.

Oh how much I enjoyed this scripture as an immature teen. Based on little snatches of conversations over the years I am afraid that many grown men are teenagers in disguise. 

What about this scripture does not seem right? 

Corinth TodayThe first problem is that we know from Church History that women were not silent during services in the First Century Church. In this very same book in the 11th chapter, Paul tells us that women were to prophesy. The only issue for Paul seems to be that when women do so they should wear a hat! (As you might guess I will talk about this in part III on Monday.) How much sense does it make for Paul to mention women as preachers (remembering that prophecy for the early church mostly fit into the category of preaching) in chapter 11 as normative for the church, yet just three chapters later forbid it? 

A second problem is that there is nowhere in the law where women were forbidden to speak in religious services. Genesis 3 is often advocated as the scripture that is being referenced. However this is a faulty interpretation of Genesis 3. The "curse" given to Eve is that she will be dominated by her husband, which is outside of God's original intent in the same way that the "curse" on Adam, that there will be great hardship in providing food for the family, was not God's original intent either. Both are the result of sin. 

But there is a kind of law that does demand that women be submissive—oral Jewish law. Here are some examples: 

Ten measures of speech descended to the world; women took nine.  Kiddushin 49b (often speech is translated as gossip) 

One sage, Rabbi Eliezer, went further to forbid teaching Torah to daughters by comparing it to the teaching of “tiflut” (Sotah 21b).

The general consensus of Jewish oral law was that women could not even ask questions of a Rabbi. 

Rabbi Eliezer’s stand was so strong that he refused to answer an intelligent query from a woman who was one of his primary patrons (JT Sotah 3:4). While an opposing sage, Ben-Azzai, contended that fathers must teach their daughters, he garnered minimal support (Otzar Hamelech 1:13), with the historical consensus siding with Rabbi Eliezer. 

Note how well this fits in with 1 Corinthians 14 where one of the issues was women asking question in public of leaders, This was not well received in Judaism. 

In the First Century various parts of the synagogue service would be shared among all men. So in a traditional synagogue service each man would at some point pray this traditional prayer: "Thank you God that you did not make me a woman." While this may have had more to do with the idea that men were favored because they had more religious obligations than women did, the constant repetition of this prayer publicly would have an effect on the attitudes of the ones who recited the prayer, and the ones who heard it.  There is also the traditional Jewish proverb, "It is better to give the law to a Gentile, than to a woman." To understand this proverb fully one has to consider the very low estimation of the Jews toward Gentiles. 

(Note that when one reads the word "law" in the New Testament one should not assume that the written law is what is meant, law can mean many things and is not limited to one meaning. Here it seems very likely the law referred to is the oral law.) 

So the first part of the pattern we noted yesterday does exist here. Things are said that do not fit with the context of 1 Corinthians. The second part of the pattern is that the odd statement is immediately followed by its denial. Is this what we find here? 

³⁶ Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? ³⁷ If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. ³⁸ But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored.

So the pattern fits when you understand that the word "you" in Greek is in the masculine declension. So a potential translation could go like this:  

³⁶ Or did the word of God originate with you men? Or are you men the only people it has reached? ³⁷ If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. ³⁸ But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored.

In other words Paul is strongly rebuking those who want to put down women. God can, and does, work through women. 

While I think I have made a good case that Paul is quoting the letter he received and is disagreeing with it, there is another interpretation that needs to be considered. 

Here is how The Message translates this section: 

^34-36Wives must not disrupt worship, talking when they should be listening, asking questions that could more appropriately be asked of their husbands at home. God's Book of the law guides our manners and customs here. Wives have no license to use the time of worship for unwarranted speaking. Do you—both women and men—imagine that you're a sacred oracle determining what's right and wrong? Do you think everything revolves around you?

 ^37-38If any one of you thinks God has something for you to say or has inspired you to do something, pay close attention to what I have written. This is the way the Master wants it. If you won't play by these rules, God can't use you. Sorry.

Since 1 Corinthians 14 deals with speaking in other languages, or "tongues," it certainly makes sense that this was causing chaos in the church—remember that the Corinth Church was a mess. When I was taking Greek at the Assembly of God's Theological Seminary for my Masters in Religious Studies at SMU, this issue came up. I said that while I did not have a lot of experience in charismatic churches, it seemed to me that women did most of the "tongues" speaking. Most there agreed with this, and no one verbally contradicted it. 

But in any event, this interpretation leads to the conclusion that in general women could, did, and should speak. But in this particular area, the women needed to stop the chaos that such charismatic activity can bring. 

The important thing for us men to remember is the danger of trying to silence women. 

³⁶ Or did the word of God originate with you men? Or are you men the only people it has reached? ³⁷ If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. ³⁸ But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored.

I do not wish for God to ignore me!