Do you believe women can be preachers/pastors?

Actually, it is. Three times: (1) “women should be silent in the churches,” (2) “they are not permitted to speak,” (3) “it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”

It’s important to let the actual words sink in to see how different this is from how Paul tells the prophets and tongues speakers (whether men or women) to be silent while someone else is talking. Or how he tells tongues speakers to be silent and speak quietly to themselves and God if there is nobody to interpret. In those cases, it’s not categorical silence because their speaking would be shameful. It’s strategic silence to maintain order and intelligibility.

Seeing the harshness of the words to the women is the first step to seeing how completely those words contradict Paul’s teaching in this chapter, and in fact of the whole letter, especially since chapter 11. Paul has been building the case for how everyone can participate, not just those privileged by society.

But the Corinthians were hostile to this message. They had sent a letter to Paul, and he often refers to bits of it (see 7:1). One of the easiest ways to see where Paul is quoting the letter is by looking for where he seems to disagree with himself. He’s not double-minded – he’s responding to them! That’s the whole purpose of his letter.

  • They say that anything we do with our bodies is fine because God will destroy material things like food and bodies (6:12a, 13a). Paul says that how we use our body, which belongs to the Lord, can dominate our whole being – and like Jesus we’ll still have a body when God raises us again (6:12b, 13b–14).

  • They say that men shouldn’t have relations with women (7:1). Paul says that while singleness is great, not everyone has that gift; men and women should have relations only with their spouse; and husband and wife each have authority over the other (7:2–7).

  • They say that tongues are a sign for unbelievers and prophecy isn’t for unbelievers (14:22). Paul says that tongues just make unbelievers think you’re crazy while prophecy is what may show unbelievers that God is among you (14:23–25).

  • They say that women should be silent in church, and if they insist on learning, do it at home from their husbands (14:34–35). Paul says that church services are supposed to be a place where everyone can learn and be built up (and in Greek, the word for “built up,” oikodomeo, puns on the word for “home,” oikos). He insists that all should want to use their gifts, especially prophecy, in church (14:1), that all should come prepared to contribute (14:26), and that many should be able to speak, but in an intelligible and orderly way (14:31–33). After quoting the Corinthians, Paul insists on his authority to set them straight (14:36–38), then repeats his message about not forbidding anyone from speaking, the very thing the Corinthians were doing (14:39–40). That would be a very strange way to conclude if the words against women speaking were his own.

When we allow Paul to actually speak to his original audience and respond to their letter, he no longer seems to contradict himself. He doesn’t give instructions for how women should prophesy only to tell them to be silent in church a few chapters later.

There are other lines of support for this reading, including a textual issue in verses 14:34–35, the unusual way the verses refer to the law, and a scarcity of early quotations of these words even by people trying to silence women in church, but this is long enough. If you want more, some guy wrote an article that goes into much more detail.

1 Like

It’s not though. I showed what it’s actually talking about in my previous post. The context is not confusing in the verses I posted. The verses are very clearly about wives , with husbands, disrupting the service.

He also says for others to be silent as well.

1 Corinthians 14:20-28 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Instruction for the Church
20 Brothers and sisters, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature. 21 In the Law it is written: “By men of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers I will speak to this people, and even so they will not listen to Me,” says the Lord. 22 So then, tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is not for unbelievers, but for those who believe. 23 Therefore if the whole church gathers together and all the people speak in tongues, and [b]outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are insane? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all; 25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you.

26 What is the outcome then, brothers and sisters? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. All things are to be done for edification. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, it must be by two or at the most three, and each one in turn, and one is to interpret; 28 but if there is no interpreter, he is to keep silent in church; and have him speak to himself and to God.

In the same chapter just a few verses prior he mentions brothers and sisters having things to share.

So how is it that you think paul forgot that 1 minute later? He’s not a fool. He’s very intelligent. He did not contradict himself.

Just like when he says if there is not a interpretation they need to be silent. Talking to those with tongues. That does not mean they can’t talk at all.

In the verses of 1 cor 14 it’s about a specific problem of wives asking their husbands questions during the assembly of the saints. It’s not contradicting what he just said…

Agreed! That’s exactly my point. Did you read my post?

There is actually no certain way to know what is and what is not a quote since they did not have quotation marks.

It also does not matter because it’s clear that he’s talking to wives, not women, because if they are not a wife they have no husband to go ask.

So he’s not contracting what he said earlier and it does not take theoretical quotes to solve the problem. Just contextual analysis.

I did read your post.

I disagree with your post. I said the same thing here as I did earlier. It’s you who disagreed with me. Only to then say you agree in the next post. I imagine we will both be caught up on where the distinctions are in a second.

The difference is this.

You think he’s not contradicting himself because he’s quoting something.

I don’t think it’s a quote right there. I think he’s speaking his thoughts. I also don’t believe he’s contradicting himself.

The reason why we think it’s not a contradiction is different.

We agree on the outcome, but not the process.

This is also not related to women being elders. It’s not related to eldership at all.

Also, by the time you’re finished typing I’ll be off for a while. I’m not ignoring you. Just have spent my allotted time at the moment to be here.

I disagreed that the words in 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 don’t silence women completely (in church), and showed how they are quite different from how Paul asks prophets and tongues speakers to be silent in certain situations. I agreed with you that Paul isn’t contradicting himself. That was actually my summary: “When we allow Paul to actually speak to his original audience and respond to their letter, he no longer seems to contradict himself. He doesn’t give instructions for how women should prophesy only to tell them to be silent in church a few chapters later.”

So, when you ask if I think Paul forgot what he wrote a minute later, I’m left scratching my head as to what you’re responding to. I’m arguing that Paul is not contradicting himself, and so when he seems to say something that he goes on to disagree with, or has already disagreed with at length, it’s a strong clue that he’s quoting or at least paraphrasing the opinion in the letter he’s responding to.

Edit: I just caught your edited post now. I think we’re now clear on where we agree and disagree. That’s good! Have a good night, and thanks for the conversation.

2 Likes

No they don’t. It is very strange to say otherwise. He said what he said as a Second Temple Messianic Jew personally enlightened by the Messiah to a disorderly, libertarian Greek church.

You know, I don’t know where you’re even getting this idea from, as I’ve made my position on slavery pretty clear (i.e. it’s a bad thing to have all your basic rights and freedoms and human dignity and sense of worth ripped away from you because a psychopath thinks it’s fun to make you suffer). I don’t understand your comment here, as you haven’t explained yourself at all. But on the off chance you’re saying I’m defending slavery because I spoke about the power of redemption, well, I just don’t even know how to respond to that. Redemption (the life altering experience of realizing one was completely wrong but that God forgives you anyway) can happen to anyone (even a Nazi) who suddenly sees his/her choices in a new light and decides to change. Isn’t this the message of love, hope, healing, and forgiveness offered by Jesus? That even the worst “sinner” can “turn around” and go in a different direction?

The choice to be a slave-owner doesn’t have to be final. There are lots of other choices for how to live one’s life, and if one is ready to acknowledge this and decide to stop abusing others, God is right there to guide you towards healing and redemption. This is what Divine Love and Forgiveness mean – not denying what happened, or making excuses for what happened, but starting with honesty and then using courage to launch the healing process.

If you think this is black and white thinking, Mitchell, then I guess that’s your choice.

God bless.

2 Likes

The point is that the world and circumstances change a lot. The world 2000 years ago is vastly different than the world today, and life in a free country is vastly different than Germany in 1940s. Nor is all slavery in history like it was in the US. And it is not defending the evils of slavery to point this out. Slavery is not and never was a good thing BUT slavery does not equal ill treatment nor is it antithetical to love. There has been slavery both with ill treatment and without (and it is not right to equate the two), just as there has been love between slaves and owners. Just like with Schindler, it has often been the best alternative available in evil times when the world simply didn’t value human life very much at all – treating people like vermin to be exterminated. Again, it is NOT defending the evils of slavery to point this out. Human trafficking is just about the worst of evils in the modern world and should be stopped at all costs – there is no excuse for it, and I would exterminate the perpetrators without a second thought.

1 Like

I think this is a topic on which you and I aren’t likely to agree as it pertains to the ancient world, but I certainly agree with you that human trafficking is one of the modern world’s worst evils. It’s a devastating source of suffering.

I’m really not concerned with what the bible says about it honestly because I don’t read the bible as an infallible and timeless document. There are plenty of things in there that I disagree with (and that most of us disagree with) culturally because of the evolution of society. I don’t think God really cares about such things as cultural norms if something can advance his kingdom. Obviously, Jesus spoke to certain ideas and had specific feelings on topics but I think everything has a time and place and the expression behind those ideas can be made to fit our expanding cultural views without going against the intent of those words.

I absolutely understand that this is not a traditional view in the church (and especially American evangelicalism in which I am most aligned) but I’m honestly just so annoyed with these kinds of conversations that it has turned me off to even caring what these old guys thought about women (or whatever). My honest take is if someone wants to spread the love of Jesus why should anyone care what kind of person they are? And if they want to lead people to Christ and lead a community of believers, then more power to them! And, what a great witness to all of the young women growing up to see that there is a place for them in the kingdom as well!

4 Likes

I was going to say welcome to the forums since I hadn’t seen you before but welcome back at any rate. I think there are many here who would agree that this question is not one which requires the input of scripture to answer. There are also some who would agree that scripture can usually support whatever conclusion you’re looking to draw. It boggles my mind to think anyone might decide half our population is not worthy/qualified to take positions of leadership in a church. But then I don’t rely on the Bible at all, so it is much easier for me to say than you. Sure do appreciate you saying it though.

3 Likes

Yeah - long time lurker, few times poster. I’ve had a few posts here and there but I mostly just check the feed when the email digest comes in. Thanks for the welcome though! :slight_smile:

1 Like

Yeah, really stinks to see so much talk from those who would benefit most from the exclusion of women. But, I’m sure it doesn’t cause them any discomfort to not have a woman present during these talks.

Marshall, what is your source for this interpretation (or is it your own?) I don’t ask this with a contrarian spirit, but in actual curiosity … and think no less of it even if this is your own. I find it intriguing and have re-read these texts for myself. Your explanation is an interesting resolution on the matter of tongues where Paul does apparently contradict himself in the space of a few short verses. As you say, his quotation is explicit in 7:1, but less so (or not at all?) in that short later text (14:22-25) where it seems we are obliged to infer that he is referring to a quotation. But if he was, it would explain what is going on there, when he seems to do an about face and declare that really - prophecy is for unbelievers. Of course Paul goes on in the next paragraphs to entirely favor prophecy over tongues (no matter who all is doing it or regardless of who all the audience includes, - just “see that it is done in orderly fashion”); it seems Paul’s reasoning hinges around whatever it takes for “building up” or “learning” or “encouragement” to the body. So it seems to me that Paul’s conclusion in the matter is that prophecy is for everybody (both believers and unbelievers); and tongues should be more of a private affair unless an interpreter can render them intelligible to the wider body.

I don’t suppose there were such things as quotation marks in the Greek sources, so we depend entirely on textual clues, right? Your rendering of how Paul is “setting them straight” in verses 36-38 is also intriguing and may shed light on that too. The phrase: “Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached?” have always seemed a bit awkward, if not a bit mysterious to me. The NRSV includes those inside a parenthetically demarcated section (all the way from 32b through the end of 36) and an NRSV footnote indicates that other ancient authorities put verses 34-35 after verse 40. And it’s a safe bet that ancient Greek also knows nothing of “parentheses” - leaving me to wonder at the interpretive motivations for the parenthetical denotation there.

I know … I could look up commentaries for myself too; but I’m shamelessly asking you first if this has been a common scholarly explanation for what is going on here, because it seems to me it would help make sense of it.

[with lots of edits…]

Not to talk for him. But his view is one of the few views that are common among those that realize parts of the letters are obviously quotes including this section. Though obviously I do believe there is a better approach to this section but it’s not something he came up with on his it is a fairly common view. One of the Bible Project episodes talks about this and I believe they cite several theologians who believe this. But also it’s debated where those quotes start and end.

2 Likes

Thanks … I haven’t listened to very many Bible Project episodes, but I’ve appreciated the ones I have heard. I’ll have to look for the one you mention.

Okay - so I did watch the Bible Project episode specifically about 1 Corinthians, and it was all very good. But I didn’t hear them bring up anything about the quotations view you are referring to. Was it another one of their videos that does this?

[And in fact they never once even bring up the specific issue of ‘women’ or the specific prohibition verses that interest so many - they side-step that whole issue; which may be deliberate on their part and in keeping with the message they do give!]

No, I definitely didn’t come up with it. The earliest source I know for taking the women verses as a quotation is Katharine Bushnell’s God’s Word to Women published in 1921. The book is divided into lessons, and her reading of 1 Corinthians 14 appears in lessons 25–28. It’s also been advocated in multiple works by David Odell-Scott and Gilbert Bilezikian, and Glenn Miller has some helpful online notes about it. (Miller’s notes introduced me to the possibility.)

More recently, Lucy Peppiatt’s Women and Worship at Corinth argues for a slightly longer quotation of 14:33b–35. I think there are good reasons not to follow the modern splitting of verse 33 between two sentences, and this longer quote can’t be supported by the textual issue in how verses 34–35 float around between manuscripts. But her book is excellent, especially on 1 Corinthians 11 with the head coverings.

Unlike most of the others, Peppiatt also sees a quotation in the verses about the purpose of tongues and prophecy (14:21–22). There are also several sources that only see a quote in those verses, but not the women verses. The first source I’m aware of to see them both is Charles Talbert’s commentary Reading Corinthians.

For myself, eight years ago I wrote a long, rambling article on this that traces the history of interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:34–35, deals with alternate modern interpretations, and addresses the most common objections to the quotation view. The article I linked a few posts ago is a condensed piece where I focused on making a positive case.

Yes indeed. My favourite example is John 3:16. Are those Jesus’ words or John’s? We don’t really know, and different translations will end Jesus’ speech in that section at different points. But while it’s nearly moot whether those words come from Jesus or his inspired biographer, the placement of quotation marks matters much more when Paul is responding to what the messed-up church at Corinth had written to him.

The danger is that we’ll go to extreme lengths to harmonize the words he is rebuking with his own words – and in so doing, show that we can really make his words mean whatever we want. That’s a danger present wherever Paul is combatting the Corinthian viewpoint, not just the women verses.

Indeed, but I’m not a fan of how the NRSV translates that. We know there’s something weird about verses 34–35 because of the textual issue, the immediate rebuke, the contradiction with the summaries before and after. But it’s really hard to point to anything that marks out the whole of 33b–36 as deserving different punctuation (whether quotation marks or parentheses).

1 Like

It was on their podcast in a recent series on Letters (I think the episodes were Letters E6 and Letters Q+R #2). I love their podcast, but it was a frustrating listen since they seemed so close, yet (in my view) not quite there.

1 Like