Recovered In Christ

Did Paul Really Command Women To Be Silent In the Churches?

  Drs. Eddie & Susan Hyatt

1 Corinthians 14:34-35
34 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

First of all, this verse would seem to contradict what Paul has said in earlier parts of this letter. For example, in his discussion of head coverings in chpt. 11, it is obvious that he recognizes women praying and prophesying in the church. Also in chpt. 14 vs. 23, he speaks of the potential of the whole church coming together and all speaking with tongues. Then in vss. 24 & 31, he speaks of the potential for all to prophesy. In vs. 31 he says that all may prophesy that all may learn and all be encouraged.

All Can Pray and Prophesy

In no way does Paul imply that all does not mean both men and women in these verses. If he had wanted to exclude women he could have done so, but he doesn’t. Vs. 21 has Paul saying, In the Law it written, with men of other tongues and other lips will I speak to this people . . .. However, men is not in the Greek; it was added by the translators. In a similar way, vs. 27 in the KJV has Paul saying, If any man speak in an unknown tongue . . .. Again, the KJV translators have taken a lot of freedom, for the Greek word translated “man” is tis and actually means “anyone.” In this whole discussion about prophecy and tongues in the church, Paul is obviously careful not to exclude anyone from participating because of their gender.

Some Think This Verse is an Early Gloss

Vss. 34-35 are so out of character with the rest of the chapter and, indeed, the rest of the letter that it has led some prominent, evangelical scholars to conclude that Paul did not write these verses. This is the view of Dr. Gordon D. Fee, professor of New Testament at Regent College, who believes that an early scribe/copyist (remember they didn’t have photo copiers) added these words and they found their way into the text. Such an addition by a scribe is known as a “gloss.”

Paul is Actually Repeating a Statement of the Corinthians

The more likely option is that Paul is repeating something that the Corinthians have written to him in a previous letter. It is obvious that, in this letter, Paul answers questions that have been posed to him by the Corinthians. He introduces their questions with the phrase now concerning. For example, he says in 7:1, Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is not good for a man to touch a woman. That part of the phrase, it is not good for a man to touch a woman, is most likely a statement made by the Corinthians in a previous letter to Paul. He repeats it here as a means of introducing the topic for discussion. In 12:1 he says, Now concerning Spiritual gifts an indication that he is now addressing questions they had posed to him about Spiritual gifts. Not only in 7:1, but in other sections of the letter Paul quotes things the Corinthians themselves have said, such as in 1:12 and 3:4: And there is strong evidence that in 14:34, Paul is quoting something the Corinthians said in a previous letter.

You’ve Got to Be Kidding!!

That Paul is here quoting something written to him by the Corinthians is indicated by his use of a tiny Greek word at the beginning of vs. 36. It is the word η which it is often used in Greek as an “expletive of disassociation,” such as the English, “No way!,” or You’ve got to be kidding!,” or “Nonsense!,” or “Get out of here!”

In other words, Paul quotes what they have said about women being silent and then replies, “Nonsense,” “You’ve got to be kidding, “No way!” Did the word of God come originally from you?

“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.  And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” What? came the word of God out from you? Or has it come to you only? – Paul

Bible  translators have been inconsistent in the way they translate and present verses  throughout 1 Corinthians.  Some Bibles put quotes around certain verses to  indicate that Paul is quoting another source, and other Bibles don’t utilize any  quotes.  For example, in 1 Corinthians we read: “All things are lawful for me”  (6:12; 10:23) and “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”  (6:13).  These verses are marked as quotations in the NCV, NIV, NLT, and NRSV;  but they are not shown with quotation marks in the ASV, KJV, NASB, and NKJV.  In  this instance, the NCV, NIV, NLT and NRSV correctly indicate that  Paul is quoting a slogan that the Corinthians used in order to justify their  immorality.

Another example of where Bibles could use quotation  marks and do not is 1 Cor. 7:1.  Paul writes: Now concerning the things about  which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman.  The second  underlined phrase should be placed in “quotes” since Paul is alluding to one of  the questions posed by the Corinthians.  He is quoting them.

Origen, an early Church leader (ca. a.d. 200) considered 1  Corinthians 7:1 as introducing a slogan. [7] Bible translators present 1  Corinthians 14:34-35 without quotation marks, which does not mean that verses  34-35 must be read as a declarative statement.  The New Revised Standard Version  (NRSV) does enclose 14:33b-36 in parentheses to characterize it as a  parenthetical comment meaning that it does not fit in smoothly with the  surrounding texts.  Unfortunately, most Bible readers are unaware of the  significance of such comments.  They generally read these verses as a  declaration forbidding women from speaking in church. Paul is not writing a declarative statement. (Dennis J. Preato)

I had just completed a teaching session in which I had explained why 1 Tim. 2:11-12 does not prohibit women from functioning in leadership roles in the Church. One student, who was obviously disturbed, challenged me with a question. “Can you show me one place in the New Testament where a woman ever functioned as a pastor?” I replied, “If you will first show me one place where a man ever functioned as a pastor!” He was stunned in that he could not think of a single example.

Eisegesis vs. Exegesis

My answer was designed to show him how much we read into the Biblical text. This is known as eisegesis–to read something “into” the text that is not there. On the other hand, exegesis means to “take out” or extract from what is there. It is so easy to practice eisegesis and read into the Bible our own prejudices, assumptions and traditions. The Church is guilty of eisegesis in many areas, but none so much as in the development of its doctrine of women and their role in the Church. An honest exegetical examination of the appropriate passages, however, reveals a very different view.

Women Pastors in the NT

There are numerous women leaders in the New Testament, some who obviously functioned in pastoral roles of oversight. Paul mentions 2 of these female pastors in Rom. 16 as well as a female apostle.

Phoebe, a Woman Pastor

In Romans 16:1 Paul commends to the church at Rome our sister Phoebe who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea. Paul refers to Phoebe as a servant which is the Greek word diakonos. Diakonos, or its verb form, is translated minister in 23 other places in the New Testament. For example, in Eph. 3:7, Paul says that he became a minister (diakonos) according to the gift of the grace of God. Phoebe, therefore, was a minister, probably a pastor, from the church in Cenchrea. This is borne out by vs. 2 where Paul refers to her as a helper of many and of myself also. The Greek word translated helper in this verse is prostates and, according to Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, means to set over, to rule, superintend, preside over, protect, and care for. When this passage is examined apart from our traditions and prejudicial assumptions, the evidence is overwhelming that Phoebe functioned in what today we would call pastoral ministry.

Priscilla, A Woman Pastor

In verses 3-5 of the same chapter, Paul refers to Priscilla and Aquila and the church that is in their house. Priscilla and Aquila are always mentioned together in Scripture which indicates that they worked and ministered together as a husband and wife team. This is confirmed by Acts 18:26 where both Priscilla and Aquila took Apollos aside and both explained to him the way of God more accurately. In the Greek, Priscilla is always mentioned first. Since Paul reversed the culturally accepted manner of mentioning the husband first, he obviously wanted to make a point about her leadership role. Many commentators conclude that Priscilla is mentioned first because she was the spiritually gifted one and the leader of the church that met in their home. Again, the evidence is overwhelming. Priscilla functioned as a pastor.

Junia, A Woman Apostle

In verse 7 of the same chapter, Paul sends greetings to Andronicus and Junia who are of note among the apostles. Junia is a feminine name and so we have here a woman who is recognized by Paul as an apostle. The early church father, John Chrysostom, commenting on this verse, said, “Oh how great is the devotion of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle.” If a woman can function as an apostle, may not she also function as a pastor.

What About 1 Timothy 2:11-12?

“But,” some will ask, “What about Paul’s admonitions in I Corinthians 14:34 and I Timothy 2:12 for women to be silent?” For the sake of space, we will look at 1 Tim. 2:11-12 which many consider to be the Bible’s clearest statement against women functioning in leadership. It says, Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. On the surface and out of context, this passage sounds quite clear in its restriction of women. But a different picture emerges when we consider four simple exegetical facts.

1 Timothy Was Written To An Individual, Not To A Church

First of all, the letter of 1 Timothy was written to an individual, not to a church. We should expect, therefore, that the things written in the letter are related to the situation of the individual, i.e. Timothy, to whom it was written. It is a “personal” letter.

1 Timothy Addresses A Personal, Local Situation in Ephesus

Secondly, vs. 3 of chpt. 1 clearly states the reason for this letter to Timothy. It is not to lay down a universal system of church order. It is to encourage and instruct him as he deals with a false teaching that is circulating among the Christians in Ephesus where he is located.

This requires rightly dividing the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15). Paul obviously was not issuing universal edicts for all churches of every time and place. He is addressing unique issues related to Timothy and the church in Ephesus.

A Strange Greek Word

That Paul is addressing a unique situation in Ephesus is further borne out by the fact that the word “authority” in 2:12 is a translation of the Greek word authentein which is found only here in the entire New Testament. If Paul is here giving a universal edict for church order, why doesn’t he use the normal word for authority, exousia, which he and all other New Testament writers use. Why does he here use a word that neither he nor any other New Testament writer ever uses–a word that refers to someone who claims to be the author or originator of something.

The obvious answer is that Paul is here dealing with the unique situation that exists in Ephesus. If Paul had been giving a universal rule for church order in this passage, he would have used the normal New Testament word for authority.

Paul May Have Been Addressing A Particular Woman in Ephesus

Fourthly, this view is borne out by the fact that there is a change from the plural to the singular and then back to the plural in this passage. In vss. 9-10 of chpt. 2, Paul refers to “women” in the plural. But when he comes to the restrictive admonition of vss. 11-12, he changes to the singular and refers to “a woman.” Afterwards, in vs. 15, he returns again to the plural. This may indicate that, in writing this passage, Paul had a particular woman in mind who was primarily responsible for spreading the false teaching in Ephesus. Be that as it may, Paul, in this passage, is obviously addressing a unique, local situation in the city of Ephesus.

So, who says women can’t pastor? Not Jesus! Not Paul! And not the New Testament!

Read Full Post »

WHO’S THE BOSS?

THREE  REASONS WHY EPHESIANS 5:21-33 IS NOT
ABOUT AUTHORITY IN MARRIAGE.

By Drs. Eddie L. Hyatt & Susan C. Hyatt

(This article is a brief summation of the arguments presented
in the Hyatt’s book by the same name.)

WHO’S THE BOSS? is probably the most commonly asked question among Christians concerning marriage.  The idea that the wife is to submit graciously to the leadership of the husband has become a sacred cow in Spirit-filled and Evangelical Christianity.  The favorite passage for advocates is Ephesians 5:21-33.

But is this position Biblically correct?  The answer to this important question is NO.

REASON #1 – A MATTER OF CULTURE THE KIND OF MARRIAGE PRACTICED BY THE EPHESIANS INDICATES THAT THIS PASSAGE IS NOT ABOUT AUTHORITY

The form of marriage practiced by the Ephesians was known as “marriage without hand,” meaning “marriage without commitment.” In this pagan model, the wife remained under the authority of her father or the oldest male in her birth family.  Since the wife’s family could remove her at any time, uncertainty destabilized the marriage relationship.

Furthermore, a father-in-law could pressure the husband to do his bidding by threatening to “recall” the wife.  This could be especially trying for Christian couples since a pagan father-in-law could threaten to remove his daughter unless she and her husband renounced their faith.

Important in this discussion is the meaning of the Greek word hupotasso, translated by the English word “submit” in this passage.  An informed study of the meaning, as opposed to a biased, cursory rendering, clearly reveals Paul’s intended meaning as being “to identify with.” It has nothing to do with “being put under.” The Ephesians’ readers understood what Paul really meant: A married woman was no longer to identify with her birth family but was, instead, to identify completely with her husband; and the two were to be one.

REASON #2 – A GRAMMATICAL ISSUE PAUL BEGINS THIS DISCUSSION OF MARRIAGE WITH A CALL FOR MUTUAL SUBMISSION.

That “submit” in this passage has nothing to do with subordination to authority is further clarified by the fact that Paul begins this discussion in vs. 21 with a call for Christians to identify with one another.  It reads, “Submitting yourselves [all believers} to one another in the fear of Christ.”  It is a call to solidarity, loyalty, and all that such intimate commitment demands.  And it works in both directions equally; it is unilateral.  It is mutual; it is not male-dominated.

In vs. 22, most of our English translations have Paul saying, Wives, submit to (hupotasso) your own husbands as to the Lord (NKJV).  But the word “submit” is not found in the Greek! It was inserted by translators.  The passage literally reads, wives to your own husbands.  This means that the verb for vs. 22 is found in vs. 21.  This means that disposition of “submission” expected in vs. 22 must be the same as that required among all believers in vs. 21.

This model of mutual identification fits with Paul’s other teaching about marriage found in 1 Corinthians 7, which is actually his most extensive teaching on marriage.  In this chapter, Paul addresses husbands and wives separately; and in each instance, he gives exactly the same responsibility and “authority” to each.  There is perfect mutuality throughout the chapter.  Neither is to exercise authority over the other.  In fact, Paul alternates between men and women twelve different times in this passage; and, as Gordon D. Fee points out, “In every case there is complete mutuality between the two sexes.” [Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 270].  Why haven’t we heard teaching on marriage from 1 Cor. 7?

REASON #3 – A SIGNIFICANT WORD PAUL’S CHOICE OF THE GREEK WORD KEPHALE (“HEAD”) INDICATES THAT THIS IS NOT ABOUT RULERSHIP

The meaning of this passage has been distorted because of the assumption that kephale means “ruler,” “leader,” or “boss” in the same way that the English “head” can carry this figurative meaning.  We now know that this assumption is wrong.  Unbiased research reveals that had Paul wanted to convey the idea of “authority,” he would have chosen the word archon.  This word, archon conveys the idea of authority, rulership, or leadership.

Kephale means “source.” This is important because it teaches the Ephesians that women were created from the same substance as men.  It refutes the pagan idea that women were made of an inferior substance between that of man and animal.  Paul, therefore, undermines this pagan notion by referring to the man as the kephale (“source”) of the woman in creation and exhorts husbands to love their wives as their own bodies (vs. 23).  She is bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh, (Gen. 2:23)–a fitting and equal partner.

This rendering is neither bizarre nor fringe but is, in fact, confirmed by the best research in the field.  For example, one of the most complete Greek lexicons, Liddell, Scott, Jones and McKenzie, list various meanings for kephale, but it does not list “authority over, ” “ruler,” “boss” or anything similar as a definition.  Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen, in their study of headship in the Septuagint discovered that when the word ro’sh (“head”) was used figuratively to mean “source” or “beginning,” the translators used kephale.  However, when ro’sh was used figuratively to mean “ruler” or “boss” (e.g., the head of the tribe of Judah), the translators used archon meaning “ruler.” Many other Evangelical scholars, including F. F. Bruce, Catherine Kroeger, and David Scholer, concur.  Some disagree, not because of lack of evidence, but because of a prior commitment to “male headship.”

SO WHO’S THE BOSS?

The idea that Eph.5:21-33 teaches that man is the boss is incorrect and harmful.  It does not harmonize with Biblical teaching as a whole.  Nor is it true to the literary or cultural contexts in which it was written.  As with all error, it has caused untold damage, in this case, to individuals and to Christian marriage.  Further, it quenches the gifts and abilities of women by telling them that they must always fill a subservient role.  And it puts ungodly pressure on men by demanding that they function in areas for which God may not have gifted them.  Also, studies show that this model has contributed to rampant domestic abuse in the Church.  So, WHO’s THE BOSS?  For a truly successful marriage, there can be only one–the Lord Jesus Christ.

Read Full Post »