Essay 4—Men and Women in Worship—(6,7) Silence During Worship

Outline: 026-E4.6-Silence During Worship
Passage: 1 Corinthians 14:26-40
Discussion Audio (1h04m)

Respect one another’s rights to
speak, listen, and learn during public worship.

The present passage includes verses that are sometimes pointed to as “proof” that women are to remain silent in church and, by inference, that they are not to take part in leading public worship (vv.34-35, 37). I found it an curious coincidence that discussion of this passage fell precisely on this year’s International Women’s Day, March 8, 2014.

There are many problems with using these verses to support the idea that women must maintain a lesser role in public worship. The first is that in the immediately preceding set of verses (vv.26-33), both the tongues-speaker and prophets are instructed to “remain silent” (v.28) or “be silent” (v.30) under certain conditions. The women are instructed to “keep silent” (v.34) as a third group in the series. The problem for modern interpreters is that Paul does not appear to provide any limiting circumstances in the text itself.

In our study we have already established that women did prophesy and lead in public worship (11:5). The second problem then is that Paul would appear to be contradicting himself if (vv.34-35) is interpreted as literal and universal.

A third problem is that in its context, what is frequently translated as “women” is, in this case, best translated as “wives.” This means that at the very least, unmarried women are not included in Paul’s instruction.

The final problem I note here is with the “command” Paul refers to in v.37. Frequently for those who wish to “prove” that Paul issued women’s silence in worship as a binding and universal command will point to this verse. On the surface it could be read as pointing back to its immediate antecedent, which is indeed the command to remain silent and ask their husbands at home. But when the entire rhetoric of vv.37-40 is viewed, the command most likely refers to the command that love be the context for all Christian activity that is found in chapter 13 (see diagram, from Bailey, location 4954).

The crux for interpreting, understanding, and applying this passage comes in v.33a, “For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.” This appears to be a hinge verse that summarizes why the gifts of tongues and prophecy must be employed in a controlled manner, such that in some cases silence is necessary. It also introduces that reason why Paul instructs wives to remain silent. The Christian wives in the Corinthian church were disrupting worship and causing confusion, preventing other worshipers from hearing and learning.

Kenneth Bailey provides, in great depth, a reconstruction of what he believes was happening in the Corinthian church, based upon his experiences among the present-day peoples of the area. This is found in Chapter 4.7, “Women and Men Worshiping: No Chatting in Church”, of Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes: Cultural Studies in 1 Corinthians. His line of thought, briefly, is thus:

1. The Corinthian church was perhaps the most diverse in composition – including those fluent in Greek and those with just enough to get by
2. Some of those speaking during worship may have had strong accents of a non-native Greek speaker – making understanding difficult for some hearers – thus they might inquire amongst themselves what they were hearing
3. Due to their cultural upbringing, women were handicapped with a very short attention span, as short as fifteen seconds
4. When they were not being directly addressed and/or didn’t understand what was being said, they would quickly begin chatting amongst themselves
5. Men and women may have sat separately. If this was the case, wives may have shouted across the divide to their husbands to ask them to explain
6. Therefore, the wives are instructed to respect the others in worship and remain silent and ask questions once at home
7. In a predominantly oral culture, as soon as the speaker pauses the audience begins discussing the subject amongst themselves. It is particularly prominent in women’s gatherings. It is their way of learning and retaining information.
8. Paul’s instruction is not that women should stop participating, speaking, and leading worship. Paul’s instruction is that they should keep quiet so that everyone is afforded the opportunity to hear what the speaker is saying.

C. H. Talbert, in Reading Corinthians, summarizing 1 Corinthians 11-14 writes:

On the one hand, the Corinthian spirituals contended that some gifts were better than others; indicated that they wanted the higher gifts; took the position that tongues were a sign for unbelievers, prophecy for believers; and held that women should not occupy a leadership role in Christian worship. On the other hand, the apostle argued that there are a variety of gifts and that each one makes its own contribution to the common good; showed love to be the indispensable motivation for the manifesting of any gift; insisted that understandable speech is mandatory in corporate worship for both believer and unbeliever; and stood firm for the principle that Christian corporate worship is not a male-dominated enterprise.[1]

Nowhere in 1 Corinthians does Paul give a universal command, applicable to all places, peoples and times, that women and men have different roles in the church.[2] Paul affirms the right of women to lead, speak, and teach the entire church during public worship.

To see it otherwise is terribly faulty and holds dire consequences for the integrity and health of the church. To maintain practices that divide the service of men and women in the church is, in effect, doing that which the Corinthians were being corrected by Paul – condoning and encouraging divisions, creating a class of people that were considered “more spiritual” by the nature of gifts. Paul would be appalled.

The message of this passage is clear and simple: When in public worship, respect one another. Show love by remaining silent when others are speaking so that those around you can listen and learn. Nothing more, nothing less.

---

[1] Reading the New Testament: Reading Corinthians, 1 Cor. 14:20-36, “Conclusion”.

[2] And I hasten to add that such instruction is not found in any of the remaining undisputed Pauline writings.

Essay 4—Men and Women in Worship—(5) Spiritual Gifts in the Body

Outline: 025-E4.5-Spiritual Gifts in the Body
Passage: 1 Corinthians 14:1-25
Discussion Audio (1h14m)

Public Worship Should be Inclusive and Participatory

Paul returns to the discussion of tongues and prophecy in the first half of chapter 14. It is easy to see the point of this section as the better value of prophecy over tongues. However, in the overall context of the entire essay and in particular the corresponding portion of the chiastic pair found in chapter 12, the thesis of this passage is around the appropriate use of spiritual gifts in public (corporate) worship. Tongues and prophecy happen to be the two examples that Paul picks up and uses in this passage because both involve speaking, and the Corinthian believers (at least some of them) considered one (tongues) more “spiritual” than all other gifts.

A couple of other questionable conclusions sometimes drawn from this passage are: 1) that this passage is defining the theology of the spiritual gift of tongues[1]; and 2) that tongues are less valuable, and possibly even bad/evil, because the use of tongues is selfish[2] and/or does not engage the mind.[3]

The most important contextual point to keep in mind during the reading and interpretation of this passage is that Paul’s parenesis is directed at what happens during public worship. Private devotions are not a concern here.

The first part of this passage (vv.1-5) discuss the purpose of each gift. Tongues are for uttering to God mysteries that human language cannot convey. Prophecy is for uttering messages from God for the edification of the entire community. Since tongues edify only the individual and prophecy edifies the entire assembly, Paul’s preference is for prophecy in public worship.

The reason for prophecy is that it speaks "edification, exhortation and comfort" to the rest of the people. These three words set forth the parameters of the divine intent of prophecy, and probably indicate that in Paul's view the primary focus of a prophetic utterance is not the future, but the present situations of the people of God.[4]

The second part (vv.6-12) provides a number of different illustrations in which Paul shows that intelligibility is necessary in public worship. The parable of the foreign languages is sometimes used as a basis for defining the gift of tongues as the ability to speak foreign languages, but the context does not support this interpretation.

The analogy is not that the tongues-speaker is also speaking a foreign language, as some have suggested,  but that the hearer cannot understand the one speaking in tongues any more than he can the one who speaks a foreign language.[5]

In the third and final part (vv.13-25) Paul discusses why intelligibility is necessary in public worship. Worship is a communal experience. Everything that takes place should be done in a manner that invites participation from all present. If some people cannot understand what is going on, they are unable to participate. This goes against the purpose of unity of fellowship through worship. Not only are all invited to participate, but all are expected to participate.[6] In this section also, Paul affirms the value of the gift of tongues, but in public worship it must be made intelligible through the presence of an interpreter.

Verse 22 contains words that pose difficulties for interpretation. It is commentary on verse 21, but its sense is not immediately clear. C.H. Talbert offers one possibility.[7] He sees verses 21 and 22 as assertions being made by some of the Corinthian believers and verses 23-25 as Paul’s response against the assertions. In this interpretation the Corinthians are asserting that tongues are a sign from God as proof to unbelievers of their spirituality. Prophecy, on the other hand, is not for unbelievers because mysteries of God are only for believers. Paul turns their assertion upside down. He writes that when unbelievers see them speaking in tongues, they will associate it with the madness of pagan cultic worship. Intelligible words of prophecy work to convict all who hear, so it is more desirable in public worship.

The other alternative sees Paul’s position reflected in the whole of verses 21-25. In this interpretation, “signs” are a manifestation of God that can mean either blessing or judgment. Paul agrees that tongues are certainly from God, but when unbelievers and outsiders hear it, they won’t understand and instead of drawing them toward God, they will see this as madness and something to stay away from. Thus tongues, instead of having a good effect, has the negative effect of forcing people away from God and into judgment. On the other hand prophecy is also from God, but the utterances are understandable by all. It has the effect of bringing conviction to outsiders and unbelievers (who choose to come to a church assembly – this isn’t about general evangelism outside of a church setting) so that they are moved away from judgment into the community of grace; i.e., building up the church. The “sign” of God’s favor is the building up of the church through the conviction of unbelievers and outsiders, not manifestations of the Spirit.

Paul’s admonition to the Corinthians is about some of the principles of public (corporate) worship. It is not primarily a discussion about spiritual gifts, such as tongues and prophecy. The primary principle is that worship must be intelligible to all. Secondary principles arise out the primary: that it must be inclusive (believers, unbelievers, those who are well-versed in Christianity, and those who are not); and that it should be participatory (there are no spectators, all are invited to preach and teach as God directs). Whatever takes place during corporate worship must be edifying to the entire assembly. No one should be excluded.

For the 21st century church a major application I see is in the form of a question. How do our assumptions about religious topics, liturgy, language (jargon), etc. exclude people from participating in worship? How can we turn corporate worship from a primarily spectator activity into a participatory one?

At the same time Paul's clear preference for prophetic utterances is often neglected throughout the church. By prophecy of course, as the full evidence of this chapter makes clear, he does not mean a prepared sermon, but the spontaneous word given to God's people for the edification of the whole. Most contemporary churches would have to be radically reconstructed in terms of their self-understanding for such to take place.[8]

---

[1] That is not to say one can derive part of a theology of tongues from this passage.

[2] 14:4, “build up himself” (ESV). In response Gordon Fee writes (New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First Epistle, 14:2-4) “The edifying of oneself is not self- centeredness, but the personal edifying of the believer that comes through private prayer and praise.”

[3] 14:14, “my mind is unfruitful” (ESV).

[4] NICNT, 1 Cor. 14:2-4.

[5] NICNT, 1 Cor. 14:10-11.

[6] 14:24, “But if all prophesy,” with the implication that Paul assumes all present could prophesy if they so desired and God enabled them to do so – but not that all must prophesy or that all will.

[7] Reading the New Testament Series: Reading Corinthians, 1 Cor. 14-20-36.

[8] NICNT, 1 Cor. 14:5

Essay 4—Men and Women in Worship—(2) Order in Worship—Eucharist

Outline: 022-E4.2-Order in Worship-Eucharist
Passage: 1 Corinthians 11:17-34
Discussion Audio (1h09m)

Actions and attitudes in the Christian church that abuse the poor
is the same as abusing Christ

The English Standard Version Study Bible notes gives the heading for this section of 1 Corinthians as “Social snobbery at the Lord’s Table.” Reading Corinthians from Reading the New Testament commentary series gives it the subheading “Social Significance of the Supper.” In other words, theology has direct bearing on social relationships. What, then, is Paul’s theology in this passage?

The passage is broken into three major sections:

1. The problem statement (vv.17-22)
2. Theology (vv.23-26)
3. Observations and solutions (vv.27-34)

The Problem

The Corinthian letter to Paul did not mention this problem. It is entirely possible that those in leadership did not even recognize it to be a problem. Or, they were too embarrassed to bring it up to Paul. Whatever the case, Paul heard about it, quite possibly from the servants and/or slaves of the house in which the Corinthian church met.

The best reconstruction of the problem appears to be that it happened during the meals held at the Corinthian assembly (gathering, church) at which time the Last Supper of Jesus was remembered. The church consisted of members from all social strata – from nobility and the wealthy to the slaves and the poor. It appears that the church was following Roman customs in its meals; i.e., those with leisure time – the wealthy – arrived early and had access to the triclenium and the best foods and drinks offered there, while the less well-to-do arrived later, hungry, and had to make-do with what was left and had to settle for seating or standing outside in the atrium area. Instead of united fellowship the meal was an event in which social divisions were heightened in visibility.

Paul offers no commendation (praise) for allowing this divisive cultural tradition/norm to exist at a church function. The Corinthians may be repeating words from the Last Supper, but because of their present actions, Paul writes that this is not “the Lord’s Supper” but “their own supper.” Instead of fostering community and communal good, the meal is dividing and highlighting the harmful aspects of individualism.

Theology

Paul writes that “remembrance” is not merely recollection about Jesus and the events of the Last Supper, but for it to be truly remembrance the church must participate actively in what the supper means.

Paul writes that the supper is an activity in which social divisions and hierarchies of authority are erased. It is a remembrance of the act of love of Jesus that led to his death on the cross. It is a remembrance of the birth of a new community, based not on nationality, race, gender, or social status, but on adoption into God’s family as a friend and brother of Jesus.

The manner in which the Corinthian church “remembered” the Last Supper was a travesty of what it was supposed to teach. The Lord’s Supper was supposed to be a proclamation of the gospel of restoration of relationships from hierarchy and roles to egalitarianism, but the Corinthians had made it the exact opposite of that.

Observations and Solutions

Paul writes that the church must examine herself before partaking of the Lord’s Supper to see if she is worthy. This section, in particular, has been lifted out of context by much of traditional Christian interpretations. It has been made to say that individual Christians must examine themselves to determine if there is any sin that might cause them to be unworthy of partaking of the Supper, and that if done unworthily, they will incur judgment from God.

That is not what Paul intended. The entire context is in the framework of social justice. The Corinthian church, as a whole, was allowing and even promoting social divisions and inequality through her actions. Paul is writing against this “sin.” It is a sin committed by the entire church, not specifically individuals. Paul is calling on the church to examine herself.

In the context of this letter and in the light of the discussion he has offered the Corinthians up to this point, one should see that, for Paul, to eat the bread and to drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy way is eating and drinking with an attitude of self- centeredness, of individualism or arrogance.[1]

This is not a call for deep personal introspection to determine whether one is worthy of the Table… [It is] a call to truly Christian behavior at the Table. It is in this sense that the Corinthians are urged to examine themselves. Their behavior has belied the gospel they claim to embrace. Before they participate in the meal, they should examine themselves in terms of their attitudes toward the body, how they are treating others, since the meal itself is a place of proclaiming the gospel.[2]

When the church allows traditional and cultural social divisions into her life, she becomes unworthy and guilty of abusing Christ himself.

Such an abuse of the "body" is an abuse of Christ himself. The bread represents his crucified body, which, along with his poured out blood, effected the death that ratified the New Covenant. By their abuse of one another, they were also abusing the One through whose death and resurrection they had been brought to life and formed into this new eschatological fellowship, his body the church.[3]

Paul perceives that all is not well with the church and places fault on how the church is treating the poor. He attributes this to “judgment from the Lord.” But that should not be read as God causing or punishing, but as allowing consequences of their poor behavior to bear its fruits. It is also vital to note that Paul never writes that individuals will be the direct recipient of judgment but rather the church.

The solutions Paul proposes are twofold. First – his recommended solution – is that the church correct her abuses and welcome everyone to the Table so that she will become a worthy participant in the Lord’s Supper. The second suggestion that Paul makes is that if there are groups or factions that cannot accept the theological significance of the Lord’s Supper and want to continue traditional Roman banquets that they do so in their own homes before coming to meet with the rest of the church. That way judgment will not fall upon the church.

Throughout this passage Paul never directly attacks social and cultural customs. He never commands the wealthy to share with the poor. He never writes that social inequities are wrong. But what he does by introducing a theology of equality and egalitarianism is to quietly chip away at the foundations of human priorities of wealth and privilege, and the status and security those things can afford. What Paul does write is that within the church assembly, such things must not become sources of division and factions. When the church gathers, no individual or group must be allowed to feel shame and dishonor because of what they don’t have or who they are not.

As noted throughout, this paragraph has had an unfortunate history of understanding in the church. The very Table that is God's reminder, and therefore his repeated gift, of grace, the Table where we affirm again who and whose we are, has been allowed to become a table of condemnation for the very people who most truly need the assurance of acceptance that this table affords—the sinful, the weak, the weary. One does not have to "get rid of the sin in one's life" in order to partake. Here by faith one may once again receive the assurance that "Christ receiveth sinners."

On the other hand, any magical view of the sacrament that allows the unrepentant to partake without "discerning the body" makes the offer of grace a place of judgment. Grace "received" that is not recognized as such is not grace at all; and grace "received" that does not recognize the need to be gracious to others is to miss the point of the Table altogether.[4]

---

[1] Understanding the Bible Commentary: 1 Corinthians, entry for 1 Cor. 11:27.

[2] New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First Epistle, entry for 1 Cor. 11:28.

[3] NICNT, introduction entry on 1 Cor. 11:17-34 (D. Abuse of the Lord’s Supper).

[4] NICNT, entry for 1 Cor. 11:31-32.

Essay 4—Men and Women in Worship—(1) Leading in Worship

Outline: 021-E4.1-Leading in Worship
Passage: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16
Discussion Audio (1h13m)

Paul could have easily solved the controversy
by commanding the women, “Stop leading in worship.”
But he didn’t.

Women (and men) were leading worship in the Corinthian (and all other) churches. They were leading prayers and proclaiming the word of God to the church through the spiritual gift of prophecy.

What then, was the problem?

The problem wasn’t with women preaching and leading in church.

The problem was with “clerical garb.”[1] Or, the problem was with “eschatological women,” believing that they had already become “like angels,” were casting off all symbols of gender distinctions.[2]

Many English translations of this passage are interpretations based on preconceived traditions of patriarchy and complementarianism. They fail to render words consistently. As a result they end up with biases with which many readers take as the “word of God” when in fact they are interpretations of men (literally!).

When Paul writes “head” (κεφαλή kephale) it is not ever meant to imply authority or establishment of hierarchy but simply “origin of life.” Fee writes, “Paul’s understanding of the metaphor, therefore, and almost certainly the only one the Corinthians would have grasped, is ‘head’ as ‘source,’ especially ‘source of life.’”[3]

Many translations mix “man” and “husband” when it should be rendered as “man” (ἀνήρ anēr) each time. Likewise with “woman” and “wife” (γυνή gyne). Paul did indeed speak to single and marital relationships in chapter 7 but in this passage he is broadening the discussion to relationships of “every man” and “every woman” to the church. It is inappropriate and out-of-context to read any kind of marriage relationships into this passage.

Another major translation issue involves how to translate διά (dia) in verses 9-10. Many translations translate this as “for” in verse 9 and “because of” in verse 10. As a result English readers get the idea that Paul writes in verse 9 that “woman [was created] for man,” i.e., woman/wife as a servant/subordinate role to man/husband. When dia is rendered consistently what is seen is,

For man was not created because of {dia} woman, but woman because of {dia} the man. Because of {dia} this the woman should have authority {exousia} on the head, because of {dia} the angels.

This rendering removes any kind of role or subordination and what is seen is simply the creation account of Genesis 2 in which the man is formed first and then the woman from [because of] the man.

Just in case the reader might be tempted to think that creation order matters, Paul counters that in verses 11-12 that the order, in fact, does not matter. Even more, if one thinks thinks that being first means priority in importance, the first creation account of Genesis 1 shows that later is better. Bailey writes,

The difficulty with this conclusion [that created first means more important] is that the creation stories begin with the lesser forms of life and move on to the more advanced forms. If created earlier equals more important, then animals are more important than people, the plants are more important than the animals and the primitive earth “without form and void” is the most important of all![4]

The creation account forms the center of Paul’s argument in regards to women’s right and authority to lead churches and worship. In Genesis 2 the woman is created as a helper (‘ezera) for the man.[5] The God of Israel is often referred to as ‘Ezer when he comes to save his people. Helper then refers to a being or a person who holds superior powers to the one being helped. In other words, if one is to read the Genesis account literally, woman is superior to man, who was found to be helpless. Lest women think they are superior to men Paul’s words in verses 11-12 apply just as equally to women as well as men. Bailey writes in regard to Paul’s argument in this passage,

Seen in this light, our understanding of the text and of Paul’s view of women are transformed. Women, for Paul, are not created “for men” … Rather women, as descendants of Eve, are placed by God in the human scene as the strong who come to help/save the needy (the men)… Paul emerges as a compassionate figure who boldly affirms the equality and mutual interdependency of men and women in the new covenant.[6]

The climax in the center affirms women in worship leadership and gives them a
sign of their authority… A part of this new creation is the restoration of the
equality and mutual interdependence between men and women in Christ.[7]

It appears that the women thought that part of their new freedom in Christ was to cast off traditional garbs of women, that they could (or should, even must?) appear as men when leading worship. For some in the congregation this was seen as unacceptable and even sexually enticing. Paul was apparently trying to find a compromise in a congregation of mixed cultural traditions. He tells the women, “I commend you for leading in worship, but please, keep your head covered so as not to be distracting to some in your congregation.”

Later in this essay (chapter 12 and 14) Paul will discuss spiritual gifts more fully. But he is foreshadowing the topic by writing that spiritual gifts are not distributed based on gender but on need, to build up the church.

To define ministry roles based on gender is
tantamount to destroying the church.

---

[1] Bailey, Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes, locations 3484-3498.

[2] Fee, New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First Epistle, entry for 1 Cor. 11:3.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Bailey, location 3522.

[5] Bailey, location 3620.

[6] Bailey, location 3623.

[7] Bailey, locations 3655, 3659.