The Lord is awe-inspiring, fearsome, fascinating, intriguing, majestic, and full of splendor: breathtaking! Here is what I saw of him today and what came to my heart and mind in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35,
"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 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."
Here is where Paul is accused of being a misogynist. This passage says women are to remain silent in the churches, to be in submission, if they want to know something they should ask their husbands at home, and that it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. That sounds pretty wild by today's standards, doesn't it?!
There is no textual evidence yet that these verses are a scribal gloss that made its way into the existing manuscripts of 1 Corinthians we have available today (such as the long ending of Mark 16 or John 8:1-11). However, many think that is the origin of these verses, given the difficulties these verses represent, and the difficulties have nothing to do with the women's lib movement.
Here are just a few reasons why:
Contrary to Paul forbidding women to speak in the church, we read his guidelines as to how the women are to speak in church earlier in this letter, "But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head." 1 Corinthians 11:5. Also, verse 13, "Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?" In verse 16 Paul says these guidelines are what is practiced in "the churches of God".
The passage says that women are not allowed to speak, but be in submission in the churches "as the law says." We don't find anything in the Old Testament Scriptures that say such a thing. When Paul speaks of the law, he is not speaking of Jewish tradition. Some appeal to Genesis 3:16 but that verse doesn't say what is being said here in this passage.
Some try to limit what it is that women are prohibited from in this passage, but the verses are delivered in language that is absolute. According to this passage, women are to remain silent, they are forbidden to express themselves in any form of public speaking in the church.
The notion that it is "shameful" or "disgraceful" for a woman to speak in the church speaks of what is found to be inconsistent with accepted standards of modesty. It is disgraceful for her to speak at all, not simply to speak in a certain way. How do we understand that for all cultures for all time?
Gordon D. Fee, in the New International Commentary on the New Testament, 1 Corinthians says, "Thus, in keeping with the textual questions, the exegesis of the text itself leads to the conclusion that it is not authentic."
A bit of a hornet's nest here. I realize there are other positions on the passage and I offer this as mine. Some may think I'm weak on my fidelity with the Scriptures based on my comments here, but I assure you that is not the case. I am entirely convinced that the Scriptures, comprised of the Old and New Testaments are fully and verbally inspired by God. That the Bible is infallible in the original autographs and are the final authority for all faith and practice, that God intended them and he intends we know them. The work of textual criticism has made possible a great understanding of what those original autographs looked like, but it is a field that has not entirely exhausted itself as variant readings do turn up from time to time.
Anything of the Lord capture your heart from Scripture today? Share what moved you about him from your Bible reading today. I'd love to hear from you!
If you have someone you would like to receive these ruminations, send me their email address. I'm happy to add them to the list. If you are receiving this and would like to be removed from the list, just reply and let me know.
"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 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."
Here is where Paul is accused of being a misogynist. This passage says women are to remain silent in the churches, to be in submission, if they want to know something they should ask their husbands at home, and that it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. That sounds pretty wild by today's standards, doesn't it?!
There is no textual evidence yet that these verses are a scribal gloss that made its way into the existing manuscripts of 1 Corinthians we have available today (such as the long ending of Mark 16 or John 8:1-11). However, many think that is the origin of these verses, given the difficulties these verses represent, and the difficulties have nothing to do with the women's lib movement.
Here are just a few reasons why:
Contrary to Paul forbidding women to speak in the church, we read his guidelines as to how the women are to speak in church earlier in this letter, "But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head." 1 Corinthians 11:5. Also, verse 13, "Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?" In verse 16 Paul says these guidelines are what is practiced in "the churches of God".
The passage says that women are not allowed to speak, but be in submission in the churches "as the law says." We don't find anything in the Old Testament Scriptures that say such a thing. When Paul speaks of the law, he is not speaking of Jewish tradition. Some appeal to Genesis 3:16 but that verse doesn't say what is being said here in this passage.
Some try to limit what it is that women are prohibited from in this passage, but the verses are delivered in language that is absolute. According to this passage, women are to remain silent, they are forbidden to express themselves in any form of public speaking in the church.
The notion that it is "shameful" or "disgraceful" for a woman to speak in the church speaks of what is found to be inconsistent with accepted standards of modesty. It is disgraceful for her to speak at all, not simply to speak in a certain way. How do we understand that for all cultures for all time?
Gordon D. Fee, in the New International Commentary on the New Testament, 1 Corinthians says, "Thus, in keeping with the textual questions, the exegesis of the text itself leads to the conclusion that it is not authentic."
A bit of a hornet's nest here. I realize there are other positions on the passage and I offer this as mine. Some may think I'm weak on my fidelity with the Scriptures based on my comments here, but I assure you that is not the case. I am entirely convinced that the Scriptures, comprised of the Old and New Testaments are fully and verbally inspired by God. That the Bible is infallible in the original autographs and are the final authority for all faith and practice, that God intended them and he intends we know them. The work of textual criticism has made possible a great understanding of what those original autographs looked like, but it is a field that has not entirely exhausted itself as variant readings do turn up from time to time.
Anything of the Lord capture your heart from Scripture today? Share what moved you about him from your Bible reading today. I'd love to hear from you!
If you have someone you would like to receive these ruminations, send me their email address. I'm happy to add them to the list. If you are receiving this and would like to be removed from the list, just reply and let me know.
No comments:
Post a Comment