From: A Torah
Commentary on First
Corinthians 7-13 Return to Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2011
Chapter 14—Part
2: Problem Texts
14:2: The nature of tongue speaking on
Some
see the text as referring to two different types of tongue speaking in
This scenario is open to
serious challenge on the ground that if religious excess can lead a person to
sprout gibberish, then an equally zealous individual might mislead himself into
believing that he can provide a “translation” of it into the local tongue.[5] And if the person is actually “faking” the
tongue, isn’t s/he, in blunt reality, no less than a blatant false
teacher? Rather than passing by in
silence, don’t they deserve the sternest rebuke?
It
is a far more common interpretation of “tongues” in
External
factors (both first century and modern) encourage such an approach. Certain ancient pagan cults spoke in ecstatic
tongues and if Christians were doing so as well, there was an obvious
need for Paul to rein in any excesses lest Christianity be dismissed as of no
greater importance than one of its polytheistic rivals.[9] Furthermore, the fact that the vast bulk of
alleged “tongue speaking” today is of this nature also encourages the
identification of the two phenomena as one and the same.[10] But was this [Page 85] the case in the first century and was Paul
embracing such?
Eighteenth
and nineteenth century commentators usually contended that the tongues were
intended to be taken by readers as a known language; if not literally the
identical phenomena with that recorded in Acts 2, then the same essential type
of event. Although a large number of dissenters
still exist, the twentieth century saw a dramatic shift to the “ecstatic”
reading of the events to the point where that now dominates the field as we
move deeper into the twenty-first century.[11] This has been produced by a convergence of
religious “liberals” who discount the existence of the genuinely miraculous in
much, most, or all of the New Testament and “pentecostal
types” who have spread the practice wide and far in their missionary
enthusiasm.
Perhaps the best way to answer the question of which approach is best, is by analyzing the words and phrases that can be cited in behalf of the two interpretations. We will be mainly dealing with chapter 14, with a text or two from other places.
First, evidence pointing to the “tongue” being an authentic human language, but simply unknown to the speaker. The ATP works from the premise that Paul considered the “tongues” to be genuine languages and that assumption is reflected, with varying degrees of explicitness, throughout its rendering of the chapter. Hence, we will not be introducing much of that version of the text in the current section but limit ourselves to the NKJV, which leaves the question far more open.
A. Initially we should suggest that there is a powerful argument from silence that works against the ecstatic interpretation: “there is no reference in the text of 1 Corinthians 14 to the emotional or mental state of the tongue-speaker.”[12] The whole premise of the chapter is that the phenomena was under the control of the participant. However, an ecstatic state (as the expression is normally used), is, by definition, beyond control.
If it existed, the
Corinthians would have needed an instruction concerning what to do with the
person who was “losing it” and entering into such a state in spite of
themselves. If it were the norm, they
would also have needed to be told how to handle those who insisted on
continuing when someone else now wanted to speak. Indeed, if beyond self-control and ecstatic,
how could Paul realistically even attempt to limit the phenomena the way
he does? The absence of teaching dealing
with such matters weighs heavily against defining speaking in tongues in such
terms.
B.
14:2: Paul’s explanation of what a tongue speaker
was saying—“in the Spirit he speaks mysteries.” Today we would probably call this a
euphemism or code language, words which made good sense to the listeners but not
necessarily to us. The words, today, are
easily read as if referring to the idea of occult truths not given to the
normal population of believers--or things so “mysterious” we are unlikely to
understand it. Hence the reason it could
be introduced as a “proof” of the ecstatic/gibberish understanding of the
phenomena.
We introduce it here, however, because the
language actually conveyed the idea of Divine truths that had not been
previously disclosed and things we could not have reasoned to on our own
initiative[13] (or,
perhaps, even wanted to try to!); hence the “divine secrets” in the ATP.
[Page 86] The
broader use of the term outside Corinthians argues for “mysteries” being things
now being revealed that had previously not been provided.[14] “It has been given to you to know the
mysteries of heaven” (Matthew
Other texts include,
“Having made known to us the mystery of His will” (Ephesians 1:9); “by revelation
he made known to me the mystery, as I have briefly written already”
(Ephesians 3:3) and “when you read” his words “you may understand . . . my
knowledge in the mystery of Christ” (Ephesians 3:4).
In Corinthians itself we
have a pattern of similar usage.[15] 1 Corinthians 2:7: “But we speak the wisdom of God in a
mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our
glory.” 1 Corinthians 13:2: “Though I . . . understand all
mysteries and all knowledge.” 1
Corinthians 15:51: “Behold, I tell
you a mystery.”
Hence we are dealing with Pauline terminology for spiritual
truths and insights that human perceptivity alone could never obtain. This argues that--unlike gibberish--we are
dealing with a tongue that can communicate thoughts, ideas, and
convictions. That implies a
genuine language though one “no one understands” among the local Corinthians
without a translation being provided.
C. 14:5, 13, 27: Such tongues can be
“interpret[ed].” It is
conceptually hard to justify that term if what is being spoken means absolutely
nothing in the first place. Robert Gerhusen cites (from Ernest Best) a famous nonsensical
piece of non-genuine language from Through the Looking Glass, “ ‘Twas brillig,
and the slithy toves did
gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogroves, and the mome raths othgrabe.’ This is incapable of translation as it
contains no cognitive information or meaning and is not a language. It cannot
be translated into any language (including Greek).”[16] This is also true of the ecstatic approach to
what was being spoken in
Faced with the impossibility of translating that which communicates nothing intellectually, Fred D. Howard concedes that what was said “formed no words or sentences. Therefore, interpretation hardly would consist of a word-by-word translation; it would be a general explanation of what was uttered.”[17] Yet if there were neither real “words or sentences,” how can one meaningfully even claim there was anything to be “explained” or interpreted?
Does God mysteriously
invest “nothing” with a “substance” when it passes through the lips of a
(pseudo) translator—pseudo because there is nothing to be translated in the
first place? If a Divine message is
being given at all, is it not through the misnamed “translator?” If so, why waste time with the (non) tongue speaker who is actually communicating nothing?
In this scenario, the tongues were a dead end phenomena to manifest miraculous power. Nothing more. The “translation” was a totally separate phenomena in order to provide a message that would benefit and was related to the preceding tongue speaking only by virtue that the other came first. Nothing was actually derived from the tongue speaking except an occasion (excuse?) to deliver a message for the listening audience in their own language.
[Page 87]
D. 14:9-11: Paul argues that
tongues, to be useful, must have “words easy to understand” (14:9), that there
are “many kinds of languages” of this kind in the world (
Against this can be introduced the reference to musical instruments in verses 7-8.[19] Even there, however, Paul stresses that they must “make a distinction in the sounds” so the listener can understand their intent. This point would be expected if the subject consists of genuine human languages, but not be germane if tongues were merely ecstatic utterances.
E.
It has been objected that since Corinthian tongues are “compared” or “contrasted” with real languages they can’t be real languages[22] (note the important but subtle shift when we substitute “compared/contrasted” with for “equated” with). On the other hand, how can ecstatic, meaningless “jibberish” be compared with a foreign language at all since the idea of real meaning is inherent in the concept of any human tongue? The comparison only works if the difference lies in the ability of locals to recognize and grasp the words rather than in the words being inherently incomprehensible because meaningless.
F. 14:20-25:[23] The response of the listeners constitutes an argument in its own right. If “a church full of people speaking gibberish would hardly convert an unbeliever,”[24] then it would seem almost equally true that even a church limiting itself to three tongue speakers would have little convincing impact as well.
On the other hand if speakers
of a genuine language were in the audience (or even individuals who could
recognize it as a genuine tongue) then hearing such coming from mouths
untutored in these languages would be startling and impel them to a
reconsideration of their own lack of faith.
Paul’s objection to everyone speaking spontaneously would remain
true: it would sound chaotic and impede
the listener from verifying that what he was hearing was genuine and was what
it appeared to be.
And
how much more so would be the impact when the two or three who were permitted
to speak, had their words actually interpreted into the local language--a
double blow to the unbelief.
Interpreting gibberish would, on the other hand, be dismissed as
illusion or delusion if nothing known to be “real” were there to begin with.
[Page 88] Interestingly,
we have an ancient example of a person speaking a genuine, legitimate language
but who was literally laughed at because the locals could not speak it. I refer to Ovid’s description of his exile in
a city located on the
G. 12:10: This text refers to “kinds of tongues” in the plural. Genuine languages would fit the plural but are their kinds (plural) of gibberish?[26]
Certain other elements, however, can be introduced in behalf of the
dominant approach, that the tongues were ecstatic in nature.
A.
The ecstatic phenomena is widespread even in
our own age. Which proves
absolutely nothing as to whether it is a duplication—or
a perversion—of the tongue speaking in the first century. Applying a “scriptural label” no more makes
something scriptural than Satan calling himself “God” would transform him into
such. No, I am not calling
Pentecostals followers of the devil; I am simply trying to provide an
illustration that is so crystal clear that no one on either side of the
controversy will attempt to deny it. We
should always make sure that scriptural language is used in scriptural ways and
not merely assume that since the language is the same, the practice is
identical as well.
B. 14:19: Paul contrasts speaking “five words with my understanding” with speaking “ten thousand words in a tongue.” This could be taken as an indication that tongues could not be spoken with “understanding;” hence had to be ecstatic. But Paul is discussing here the speaker (note the emphasis on “my understanding” rather than “their understanding)--on the listener’s capacity rather than that of the hearer: the central idea of speaking in an unknown tongue was that it was unknown to the person uttering the words. He (or she) couldn’t understand it, but that did not mean it was not understandable by anyone at all; that is why he insisted that there be interpreters available before the gift was exercised in the assembly (14:27). Then, the people would hear, as Paul desires “words with . . . understanding.”
C. 13:1: Paul refers to speaking “with the tongues of men and of angels” in the preceding chapter and some would find this relevant in the current context as well as indicating that which is literally and inherently incomprehensible and which will sound like “gibberish” to us. However, let us put the expression outside of the tongue speaking controversy. If we heard the term “tongues . . . of angels” in some other context, we most naturally would interpret it to mean the language they communicate with each other in.[27] There is no reason to change that in the tongue speaking context either.
(Or are the “angelic
tongues” we hear in such services real languages and only the human ones we hear gibberish even
though they sound remarkably alike? And
if they are real ones, why do they sound like gibberish rather
than something that would actually communicate meaning?)
[Page 89] An intriguing argument can be made that Paul is actually utilizing hyperbole: i.e., if it were possible that I could speak all earthly languages and whatever angelic ones that may exist.[28] Just as it was inherently implausible that Paul meant that they would speak in all the languages of their day, it would not necessarily require that they speak in angelic languages either. On the other hand, he clearly assumes that they were utilizing some other human languages, so the internal logic of the argument would seemingly require that they might speak in some angelic tongue(s) as well.
The tongue would have convincing power to the unbelievers only to the extent that they recognized genuine foreign languages, thereby giving credibility to any speaker’s claim that they were then shifting to an angelic one. But where do we get the idea that even the speaker himself knew the difference or when the shift would occur? And on what other basis was the audience to assume such a shift had been made?
If they were routinely used without notification, could their “gibberish” form avoid prejudicing the hearers against accepting the evidence of even genuine earthly ones? What hearers could understand but not naturally explain (earthly tongues) could well produce faith, but “angelic” ones that both made no sense to the ears and no earthling has ever naturally spoken? And for which one only had the claim of genuineness and an utter impossibility of confirming it?
Hence—if they occurred at all--we would expect their use in church to be rare and minimum.
Furthermore, Paul neither asserts nor
implies that “tongues” of an “angelic” nature were actually being utilized in
the assembly.[29] His language is hypothetical—“if.” Even if
such gifts were being granted, their use in a private situation of prayer and
meditation makes far greater sense than in a public one. No one at any time could verify whether an
angelic tongue really was being spoken no matter how many visitors
passed through their meetings, while if it was used in private, that highly
desirable trait of external
verifiability would be totally irrelevant. Here it was for your good, while the
congregational use was for everyone’s.
In addition, in chapter 14, Paul deals with what was being practiced in the church’s meeting; in chapter 13 he is conspicuously not discussing the church service but the entirely different matter of evaluating the basis of an individual’s claims to human grandeur and pointing out that even if such language ability was present in an individual, being love-less made it all in vain.
Conclusion as to the nature of the phenomena: As we examine the pros and cons of the matter, the evidence seems clear that Paul considered the tongues of his day to be genuine languages. And that, though he clearly regarded being able to speak them as miraculous, that was still no justification for utilizing them in the church assembly unless it could be done in a manner useful to the audience.
Another issue needs to be raised in this connection, however: What is the relationship of the Corinthian tongues to those of Pentecost in Acts 2?[30] It is extraordinarily hard to read Acts 2 (“began to speak with other tongues,” 2:4) without concluding that the intent is to describe genuine, contemporary existing languages--especially when the author goes out of the way to provide a lengthy list of the country / regional languages that were being heard (2:8-12).
[Page 90] Certainly what was being said was not of the ecstatic nature: The apostles were able to shut up and let Peter begin a message on the lessons to be learned from what was going on;[31] clearly the gift was within their control just as Paul insisted that the Corinthians control theirs by limiting the number of speakers and none talking at the same time as someone else. (Alternatively, one can infer that all the apostles moved through the huge crowd or gathered different segments of the large audience and addressed it; either way they would break the crowd down into more manageable size groups.)
A very different approach will be taken by those who regard it as improbable or impossible that genuine languages could have been spoken on Pentecost. One way to do this is to distinguish between the intended literalness of the author and its true, abiding meaning to the current generation. Yes, the author thought in such terms, but because he—through excess enthusiasm? exaggeration?—misstated the true nature of what happened, we must seek out a symbolic meaning. But if we begin with a falsehood, how do we make it spiritually relevant when we make it “symbolic?” Furthermore, if the author intended something that was clearly untrue, how can this but strike a major blow at his credibility on any other contested issue that he discusses?
Another way to handle it
is to argue that a symbolic nature was intended from the beginning. Hence one well known scholar speaks of how
“this part of the Pentecost story may be intended simply as a symbolical way of
saying that Pentecost reversed the curse of
For ourselves, we will simply accept that he meant what he said “literally” since there seems no good reason to degrade the moral integrity of the gospel writers--Acts having been written by the author of Luke--nor his historical integrity. He may not always have provided all the details we would like to have (what historian does?), but those that he does provide come from a man who well researched his topic (Luke 1:1-4).
Even
so, concededly there are differences between the two cases of Pentecost and
Even if a strict
geographic location = distinct language correlation is adopted, does that
exclude the supernatural power being at work in the speaker rather than the
listener? It would not have been
improbable that as the individual apostles wandered through the large crowd,
that they shifted languages according to the nationality group they were
addressing, which would still place the wonder in the speaking rather than the
comprehension. Even if Peter was doing
all the speaking alone, one could imagine him shifting from one tongue to
another so that the impact of his message would be maximized.
[Page 91] Evidence
in favor of a miracle on the hearing end lies in how the text records the listeners
asking “how is it that we hear each in our own language in which we were born”
(2:8). But hearing in their
tongue would be natural if the speaker was speaking in their
language. Indeed, what else would
they be hearing if such were the case?
Hence
these objections are not conclusive in shifting the miracle from speaker to
listener, though one can not exclude the possibility of elements of both being
intended by the author of the text.[34]
In
One
additional difference also deserves passing attention. In 1 Corinthians tongue speaking and prophecy
are treated as if two separate phenomena; in Acts 2 the ability to speak in
tongues was a means of expressing supernatural teaching (prophecy).[35] Actually, the demand that there be
“interpreters” present in
14:3: The main nature of “prophesying (ATP: miraculously speaks what God has revealed):” “foretelling” or “forthtelling,” prediction or teaching? Mentally, most individuals equate the term “prophesy” with a prediction of the future. After all, was that not the function of the Old Testament prophets who claimed that very gift? On the other hand, their example should warn us against limiting the term to this narrow a form: although much of their teaching is prediction, it went hand in hand with and as a tool, to encourage the current generation to reform itself.
As such it also represents
advocacy and a plea for change. Indeed
large sections of the prophets contain rebuke independent of any
explicit linkage to a forthcoming threat at all. In short, teaching,
“preaching,” admonition, rebuking.
Prediction is the “goad” to reinforce the urgency of the teaching.
Fred
Zaspel concisely sums up a number of New Testament
texts that may--or even conclusively--make the concept of receiving Divinely granted teaching or knowledge the primary thrust of
being a prophet,[36]
[Page 92]
For
example, when at His hearing before Caiaphas Jesus
was spit upon and smote in the face while blindfolded, He was mockingly
exhorted to "prophesy who it is that smote thee" (Luke 22:64). This prophecy would clearly involve direct
revelation.
When Jesus
could tell the hidden past of the woman at the well, He was immediately
recognized as a prophet (John
Agabas exercised the gift of prophecy in a predictive way:
he foretold a coming famine and also Paul's coming sufferings (Acts
I Timothy
Ephesians
Indeed,
1 Corinthians 14:3 stresses the teaching rather than predictive element in
prophecy: “But he who prophesies speaks
edification and exhortation and comfort to men.” Paul’s use of the three words “edification,”
“exhortation,” and “comfort” indicate that direct teaching will play the
primary role in the message of the “prophets” he has under consideration.
This
would be a practical outgrowth of the setting of a congregational service. It was designed to be of immediate
encouragement and benefit to the listeners through the presentation of a truth,
insight, or message that would build up the hearers. Heribert Muhlen suggests that 2 Corinthians
Yet prophecy in the sense
of predicting did continue to play a role, as the book of the Apocalypse
shows. Written to be read to the various
congregations, the predictive element is dominant, though mixed with a dose of
overt and immediate moral instruction as well.
The
Old Testament prophets played this dual role in their work, as noted at the
beginning of this section. On the one
hand, they predicted the future--either threats or blessings, depending upon
the obedience or defiance of the nation and its leaders at the moment. On the other hand, they delivered plea after
plea for a renewed obedience and dedication to Yahweh. Neither part of their function eliminated the
other. Nor did it in
the New Testament era as well.
But the dominant one, in both cases, would seem to be teaching
and preaching on immediately applicable matters.
Paul indicates in these
verses that the entire process was more complicated that this, “For if I pray
in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful
(ATP: my mind is not being used). What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I
will also pray with the understanding (ATP:
understanding mind). I will sing
with the [Page 93] spirit and I
will also sing with the understanding (ATP:
mentally aware mind).”
One deeply committed believer
in singing aloud in tongues today uses
Singing
with the spirit then is obviously singing without the understanding, since it
is contrasted in this verse of scripture with “singing with the understanding.”
We are expected then--as in Paul's demonstration of the gift--to sing with the
understanding and also sing without understanding. Why this would be the case,
is one of the mysteries of being a spirit-filled believer, but our understanding
does not have to be complete in order for us to benefit from it.
Deeply
held conviction no doubt, but I would suggest not as compatible with the text
as he believes. The repetition of the
word “my” twice in verse 14 stresses the obligation of the individual to be
immersed in what is going on. Even if
the Holy Spirit has given the reader a prayer to be uttered in the worship
service, it is not to be done unless the speaker can say it with personal conviction,
sincerity, and passion--with the involvement of his own spirit (the “my
spirit,” twice mentioned). Likewise,
even if the Holy Spirit has given a song for the benefit of the church, it is
to be kept to oneself unless one could, similarly, throw one’s entire self into
its presentation.
Note that the text says
“and” not “or.” They are not being given
an alternative to choose between, but instructed to have both Spirit and one’s
own intellect involved. In short, the
text implicitly stresses the essentiality that the Spirit’s message be either
provided in the speaker’s own language or interpreted into it by the Spirit
before being spoken aloud. Unless it
is, there is no way the individual can fulfill his own role of praying or
singing with understanding. Nor can it
provide anything to others beyond being another “idle wonder” that looks
impressive and may move one’s emotions, but provides no actual value to the
intellectual part of Christian spirituality.
The
point is made explicit in verse 28, where the writer pointedly insists that if
there is no interpretation of a tongue, there is to be no speaking aloud. This also fits in well with
Hence,
though the individual human spirit is involved so is that of God’s
Spirit. The individual did the singing
but the divine Spirit gave the message that was sung.[39] The individual spoke the prayer, but the Holy
Spirit provided the text. Either one
represents a situation in which a prayer or song is first spoken in a tongue
and then “led” by an interpreter or both are done by the same person. The latter would seem to make more inherent
sense and would be the situation envisioned as ideal in 1 Corinthians 14:5, one
where the tongue speaker is the one who “interprets, that the church may
receive edification.”[40]
(This
does not rule out times where the tongue speaker might sing or pray in his
own mind rather than out loud.
Even
in an age lacking the supernatural gifts, there are obvious lessons from these
texts. We can not sing with the Holy
Spirit, but we can sing with our own spirit, our inner self
involved in the singing, which includes investing the singing with emotion and
sincerity.
Similarly,
we can not pray under the guidance of the Divine Spirit, but we can pray with
the guidance of our own spirit—avoiding rote phrases and repetition we seem to
use, unvaryingly, every time we pray. It
needs to involve an expression of the inner spirit and wishes and that involves
far more than the narrow repertoire that prayer can become.
In
both singing and prayer we need to know what we are saying. If a song is one of those older ones with a
little known word or phrase, the meaning is going to “go over the head” of many
unless it’s explained by the song leader—or, as I’ve seen done, footnoted in
the song book itself. Likewise a prayer
needs to be in the language that people understand; proverbial “two dollar
words” have rare place in a worship setting if everyone is to be sure to
understand. Even more important, whoever
is leading a prayer needs to speak loudly enough to be heard. He may not be speaking in an “unknown” tongue
if he doesn’t, but he surely will be speaking in an unheard one!
Something
much akin to this has happened to the word “Amen” at the close of prayers. It often becomes merely equivalent to: “This is all that’s going to be in the
prayer. It’s over.” It becomes, in effect, ritualistic and
stripped of any particular significance beyond telling everyone that the
service can now go on to something else.
Similarly an “Amen” to some point in a preacher’s sermon is irrelevant
unless one has been paying attention to what has been said and has been
impressed by its insight or accuracy.
In its original Hebrew
setting (and its usage in New Testament Greek), the word was taken far more
seriously. Literally the meaning was,
“so be it”[41] or “it
is so,”[42]
i.e., “it is true.”[43] Hence, it indicated concurrence, endorsement,
and approval.[44]
Tony B. Warren sums up the
thrust of the word quite concisely,[45]
Found both
in the Old and the New Testaments, it is also translated in different ways,
depending upon the context of the passage in which it is found. This Hebrew
“Amen” is derived from the root [aman], which means to be firm or solid in the sense
of permanency. Thus by implication, it
means to be sure, true or faithful. So
whenever we see this word “Amen” used in scripture, it is affirming truth, or
illustrating something is said that is of absolute certainty.
[Page 95] Unless
those elements are there, “Amen” represents nothing but empty rhetoric. The endorsement use of the word goes back at
least to the days of Moses when various parts of the Law were read to the
people and, after each section, they responded with an “Amen” (Deuteronomy
27:14-26). Some suggest this as the
earliest “prayer” use of the term,[46]
though in my mind the element of acceptance as true and authoritative seems far
better. More parallel to Deuteronomy 27
than prayer usage, are the 75 cases in the gospels where Jesus introduces a
teaching or assertion with the word “Amen” to stress its thorough reliability
and truthfulness (typically rendered by something along the line of, “Truly, I
say to you”).[47]
In the second century,
Justin Martyr explained to his Gentile readers who would usually be
unacquainted with the religious services of believers, that after church
prayers “all the people present express their assent by saying ‘Amen.’ ”[48] He also explained to them that this was a
carry over from the Jewish use, “This word ‘Amen’ corresponds in the Hebrew
language to ‘So let it be!’ ”[49]
14:22-25: How can tongues be a “sign” to unbelievers
(
Hence Paul’s reasoning might be along this line: if the outsiders heard an individual speaking in a foreign language from their own native land—or which they had learned during their own travels—and which the locals had no reason to be acquainted with, that would be a sign that could not easily be gainsaid. It would make them aware that something unexpected was going on and that they had best pay closer attention to the proceedings than their biases might normally permit. It would be a “sign” that God was at work; in contrast, the prophetic message they heard, was to build upon that “sign” and actually convince them of the validity of Christianity in particular and/or their spiritually lost state. Tongues began it; direct teaching completed it.
In the context of no local speakers of the tongue, the tongues could still be a warning “sign” to attending unbelievers that something possibly miraculous was going on. To those knowing a smatter of it, it would encourage belief in a miraculous origin. Only in those who spoke it well would it be a near conclusive evidence that a miracle was occurring before their eyes.
That would encourage belief, but belief in what? If the speech he heard told him what, his problem was resolved, but since the presence of an unbeliever is treated as unusual (but not uncommon), the assumption has to be that the message was normally one for the benefit of believers in particular. Further reason that a separate “prophetic message” was needed to provide the visitor with what else he needed to know.
But what of when such a person was not present—which could easily occur? Of what value would the phenomena be in such cases? For one thing, the speaking would still alert the listener that something strange was going on—and, as believers, be an ongoing manifestation that divine power was at work among them.
In either case, the
prophet would automatically be speaking in the local tongue as [Page
96] a matter of daily course and,
hence, be able to provide a message of direct, convincing benefit to the
listener. If one assumes that in Acts 2,
the tongue speaking merely attracted the attention of the crowd, while
there was only one lesson delivered (by Peter), then we might have a roughly
comparable situation (or, for that matter if there were multiple speakers, all
using a language most all understood).
The tongue speaking would have served its attention as a “sign” and opened
the audience’s hearts to listening.[52]
From
this utilitarian standpoint, we can understand Paul’s personal preference to
minimize his use of tongues in the assembly, “But now, brethren, if I come to
you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you unless I speak to you
either by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching” (1
Corinthians 14:6). The tongues would be
a “sign” but it would be these other means in the vernacular that would lead to
conversion or to the moral improvement of those already converted.
The
second half of verse 25, describing the result of hearing his secrets being
exposed, has been cited as evidence:
“so, falling down on his face, he will worship God and report
that God is truly among you.” This
sounds far more like overwhelming guilt over specific matters
rather than the reaction to even the best regular gospel message, no matter how
powerful and convincing.[54]
That
same reality is argued, Wayne A Grudem suggests, from
the Greek word rendered “revealed”--in his preferred reading, “disclosed” or
“become manifest:” It is “the Greek term
phaneros. Both this word (eighteen times in the New
Testament) and its related verb phaneroo
(forty-nine times in the New Testament) always refer to a public, external
manifestation, and are never used of private or secret communication of
information or of the internal working of God in a person’s mind or heart.”[55] What was previously known only to the visitor, has now been shared with all who are present.
The
least satisfactory explanation is to say that the message has forced the hearer
to examine his own heart and “his secret thought, desires and motives become
clear, to himself at least.”[56] In this scenario, the words prick the heart,
forcing repressed uneasiness and guilt to come to the surface and be
faced. The person already recognizes the
folly of what has been done, but for the first time the full moral impact that
it was evil comes to the surface.[57] “Something previously hidden and painful for
the individual to see is revealed as an essential part of the experience of
liberation.”[58]
That people today come to
conversion through such a process, an often unwilling acknowledgement of one’s
severe imperfections—and, since human psychology and [Page 97] nature is fundamentally the same as back
then—one has to assume that many first century converts went through the same
progression. Paul does not deny that
such occurs. What he has in mind here,
however, seems to be something even more dramatic, the exposure of specific
sins in such a manner that the listener knows that he or she fits the
description regardless of whether their name is actually mentioned. (Probably not the latter for that would tend
to set off such a fit of human defensiveness that shame could easily overrule
the admission of guilt.)
This
seems to best fit Paul’s attribution of the conversion to the teaching that has
been heard. It is the message, not the
hearer’s conscience, that has stripped away the veil
of secrecy. Now one must either openly
embrace the behavior or repudiate it. If
there is anything worse than “playing a fool,” it is to have to admit it and yet
keep acting in the same manner.
In a
context of direct supernatural guidance, the reference could be to an
individual being instructed—before or during the assembly--to quote a Old Testament psalm (a “psalm” in the traditional Jewish
use of the term).[59] If a new composition is in mind, the idea
would be that they had been guided to write a psalm for presentation to
the group[60] or that
it had been revealed to them during their group meeting itself.[61]
Writing psalms and other
compositions for religious singing was not unknown in first century Judaism,
the example of
Song writing for pagan
worship was a social reality as well and the Gentile component of the church
would have been acquainted with the phenomena from their own past life. Writing religious songs to glorifying the One
they served would, therefore, have been regarded as quite natural by those
coming from both backgrounds.
If the “psalm” were a new one and no one else knew it, it could be shared
in one of two ways. Firstly, it could
simply be recited. Since hymns typically
have a poetic sound to them, a certain rhythmic structure might easily come to
the mind of the audience as soon as they heard the words, providing an
automatic “melody” to go with the words.
Secondly, it might the
composer/recipient singing it solo,[64]
where the full impact would be gained, something lacking if only the words and
not the tune were all that was involved.
The Divine giving of a psalm to be sung (rather than just to be
read) might logically include a gift of singing talent--the ability to present
a given psalm[65] (and,
by implication, that of others as well?) with such skill and ability that if
the people paid attention they would be edified and emotionally moved (as
versus merely entertained as in much modern church music?).
Either way, a Christian
psalm so presented would obviously--if it attracted the interest of the
group--become part of its ongoing repertoire of music for congregational [Page 98] use.
Scholars have suspected that sections of such works form the basis of
several passages in the New Testament:
Ephesians 5:14; 1 Timothy 3:16, Revelation 5:9-10, 15:3-4 have been
cited as likely examples of the phenomena.[66] Philippians 2:6-11 and Colossians 1:15-20
have also been suspected of having such a musical root.[67]
It
is worthy of comment that the Christian repertoire of religious music involved
“psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” (the identical language being used in
both Ephesians
So
far as it goes, all this makes perfect sense but still leaves the puzzling fact
of “hymns and spiritual songs” being omitted.
Perhaps it was taken for granted that “psalms” would be taken as
standing not only for works in that specific style but for these other ones as well. Some contend that “hymns and spiritual” songs
simply refer to types of Biblical Psalms, an approach that precludes the
use not only of later songs but all non-biblical ones as well.[68]
Such, however, would have
excluded any truly Christian music.
The cross, Jesus’ death and triumph, and such like can certainly be
found in passing mention in the Psalms, but a hymnology for a religion
where Jesus is the heart and soul, would seemingly require a music that
puts him directly and emphatically at the center. The Biblical Psalms would only partially
serve that function.
Perhaps
the wisest approach is that of Adela Y. Collins who
argues that “it is unlikely that the text refers to three sharply
differentiated (our emphasis, RW) kinds of liturgical expression here.”[69] In other words the three expressions likely
are intended to overlap and reflect, in part, the terminological inexactitude
of everyday speech—especially when groups of varying background, as in
These references to “coming together as a church” could argue one of two things: (1) Not every time the congregation came together was for the purpose of worship; they might gather together for the purpose of eating and enjoying each other’s company—not for the worship purposes discussed by Paul. These would not be cases of eating as part of or supplemental to the worship but as an entirely different phenomena of social or
[Page 99] charitable fellowship. (2) He might be contrasting this with how
smaller groups might meet in their “houses to eat and drink in” (
What interests
us here are the strictly religious assemblies in which “each of you” had
something to contribute. Unfortunately,
religious worship in the western tradition has become very much a spectator
sport. If one comes from a background where the emphasis is on a liturgy, then
the center of the service lies in that prescribed set of rituals. Everything else is really secondary. If one comes from an evangelical type
background, the emphasis is on the sermon and everything else is perhaps little
more than an adjunct to fill out the remainder of the time.
Although
these characterizations are exaggerations, there is more than a little validity
to them. (In extreme cases, they are
barely exaggerations at all.) In
contrast to both, Paul seems to have in mind a situation in which a significant
number of individuals participate actively, “Whenever you come together,
each of you has a psalm (ATP:
song of praise), has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an
interpretation (ATP: has an explanation
of it)” (
Oddly,
some insist that Paul is condemning all this: it is in the midst of multiple rebukes
against each and every one doing what they wished rather than what was for the
common good, citing 11:21 as an example of this hyper-individualistic attitude
being applied to participation in the Communion—each did it on their own
without waiting for everyone else. “So
now, in chapter 14, ‘each one’ is attempting to exercise his spiritual gift
divorced from those regulating principles which were designed to facilitate
edification.”[72]
This
view is driven explicitly by the desire to remove the danger of church solos
being derived from “each of you has a psalm.”
Of course, in real life you are far more likely to have “groups” or
“choirs” singing rather than soloists and the text is talking about what a
(= one specific individual) does rather than groups, choirs, or even what the
congregation specifically does together in regard to singing.
Perhaps the biggest
difficulty of the condemnatory/prohibition interpretation is that it ignores
the closing words, “Let all things be done for edification” (
The
same critic, in a different context, more meaningfully notes that singing was
not the only way psalms could have been presented (though, in our
judgment, one could easily imagine singing fitting the description being given
at least equally well): “A psalm can be read or quoted as easily as
it can be sung.”[73] Furthermore, if the goal involves teaching
the psalm and encouraging audience participation, “It certainly could have been
introduced phrase by phrase with the church joining in, much in the same
fashion as with antiphonal or part singing.”[74] (For all we know, that may have been the [Page
100] way it was done! First the individual singing a segment and
then the congregation repeating it.) Any further congregational use naturally
would match the norms they would utilize with any other vocal composition.[75]
Some of Paul’s list best fits a predetermined decision to participate: to present “a psalm” and “a teaching,” in particular. “A revelation” is easy to imagine as either received before the service or during it. In contrast, even if a person knew beforehand that the Spirit would be speaking in a “tongue” through him, the actual meaning of the words would still not have been received and its “interpretation” (by its very nature) had to be “on the spot,” for the benefit of the listeners.[76] (Unless we are going to assume that the translator knew—beforehand—what was going to be said in a tongue, which seems astoundingly unlikely.) The same logic is also true if “interpretation (ATP: an explanation of it)” refers to the newly delivered “revelation,” which immediately precedes the “interpretation” reference. Revelation requires application of the teaching and development of it unless the recipient were blessed with both skills.
Although
the context is that they are explicitly supernatural gifts of the Spirit, the
emphasis on the ability and willingness to participate is also quite
emphatic. The “each of you” does not
mean that each individual had all of the forms of participation that
Paul then lists—just that each had at least one of these (assuming that the
list is even intended to be an exhaustive one, which is unlikely). A differentiation of roles and responsibilities
seems clear from Paul’s earlier challenge, “Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles?” (
Each, at least
potentially, had something to contribute, but not everyone could be
expected to fulfill the identical role.
Furthermore, just as there were limitations on the number who spoke in
tongues and prophesied (a maximum of three each), such texts presuppose that not
everyone who had something to contribute actually did so in any single given
service.
Even assuming only 50 or
60 people were present, if everyone—even just the males—literally had a
separate and distinct “something” to do in any one specific service, they would
have an “all day/night meeting” whether they intended to or not. Hence it is wise to see the participation
of “all” as including joint activities done together. For example, in their collective singing or
in their giving—but that would still be a contribution to the service while in
a following meeting some of the same individuals who took no leadership role in
the current service might be the major participants. Nothing was locked in concrete.
Recognizing that it would
be a practical impossibility for “each of you” to literally participate
individually in every service, the author promptly imposes some practical limitations: two to three can speak in tongues,
accompanied by an interpretation of the message (
How long
each of these presentations would take is any one’s guess, but it would seem
hard to have crammed it into a single service of the traditional hour or less
of modern practice! On top of this,
there was a contribution taken up (chapter 16) and the observance of the Lord’s
Supper (chapter 11). From Paul’s own practice
(at
[Page 101] Though it is right to stress the practical limits beyond which
Paul’s words were not intended to go, we still need to remember that “each of
you”--at least potentially--had something to contribute. This clearly required that participation
opportunities were to be maximized rather than minimized, the reverse of the
dominant practice today. (Thereby doing
much to encourage the creation of “house churches,” whose limited numbers
maximize the need for participation. That approach, unfortunately, also limits a
congregation’s collective potential for the very same reason.)
In
the non-miraculous church assembly of today, there still remains maximum room
for personal involvement, limited only by the practices of the individual
congregation and personal willingness to participate. Even in 1 Corinthians 14, the text
conspicuously does not label everything they did as an act immediately
directed by the Holy Spirit, such as speaking in tongues and prophesying would
have been.
In our society
this is even more important. Having a
“psalm” or “teaching” today could involve something as “down to earth” as a selected
scripture reading that is presented.
Having an “interpretation” means one thing miraculously, but
non-miraculously it would cover thoughts on what a text means that had not
previously been discussed. (Think Bible
class context especially.) But miraculous
matters—and their, ironic, potential for disruption—is the thing foremost on
Paul’s mind, however much these other matters would rise in importance in cases
when the Spirit was not active or today when that age is completely over.
On
the other hand, neither Testament encourages credulity and
one would anticipate an active, concerned evaluation of what is being said not
only by the other prophets but by all the members at large who are in
attendance.[79] Taken this way, it is not that one prophet is
to be “judged” by the other prophets, but that all the prophets are to
be judged by the membership.[80] This is extraordinarily radical for its
day: judging was not just for the formal
leadership, it was not just for those deemed as having the deepest religious perceptivity, it was to be done (or at least attempted) by
one and all.[81]
A
third approach is also possible. In
Finally,
what is the significance of the word “judge” in this context? Does it mean to “judge” the application
of what is being said to the congregation?[82] Does it mean to judge the validity of
what is being said, i.e., to protect the group against the danger that someone
has spoken by self-delusion? Quite
probably it took in both aspects.[83]
[Page 102] Some
make a distinction between judging the prophet and judging the prophecy. Those who believe that there was a major
subjective element in New Testament era prophesying argue that the judging
required a shifting out of what was consistent with the Old Testament and
apostolic messages from what was not.[84]
In “real world” terms
would not the failure to speak strictly in accord with those OT and apostolic
standards automatically brand the speaker as deluded, at best, and an open
false teacher at the worst? In either
case, having failed the test, why should the membership yield their meeting
time to such individuals in the future?
Or to look at it from a
different angle: Why would we expect an
omnipotent God to give a message so ineptly that the speaker could mistake what
was really given with his/her own interpretive gloss? Is God that inept?
Shifting viewpoint angles
yet again: Or are we so humanly
inept that any Divine communication inherently carries with it an
uncertainty factor as to whether we received what we thought we did? One believer in contemporary revelation
argues this way, “We must always bear in mind that we seldom see or hear
clearly from God (their emphasis, RW).
It is also true that we do not always clearly understand what he has
even said.”[85] If the trouble is with us then, why
doesn’t God choose someone who can understand things rightly then? What would be the very relevance of
revelation if it couldn’t be counted trustworthy?
This type of approach
would seem to inevitably leave us with a bungling God: One who either cannot provide fully reliable
and understandable revelation or who has created a species utterly
incapable of accurately and reliably receiving it.
Laying aside what appear to be futile concepts of revelation (or of God’s
nature), even the genuine article required application and the danger of ungenuine “revelation” required a testing of those
claiming to give it in Biblical days.
The idea of testing what we hear as to its genuineness and how it
applies is certainly not an idea unique to 1 Corinthians. In 1 Thessalonians 5:21--in the context of
“prophecies” (
A pivotal test was its
consistency with revelations accepted as definitively coming from God. Acts 17:10b-11 indicates Paul taught to listeners in the synagogue,
i.e., “prophesying” [forth speaking]--a parallel to what happened in the
Corinthian congregation. In the context
of judging the validity of that teaching, we read that “these were more
fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all
readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these
things were so” (17:11).[86] We have every reason to assume that this
would have been a pivotal test for the Corinthians as well, supplemented by the
generally acknowledged teachings they knew were accepted locally and elsewhere
as apostolic in origin.
Hence these verses picture
supernatural gifts as fully under the control of the person the Spirit has
given a gift.[88] Furthermore, this implies they were fully
aware of what was going on around them.[89] Their consciousness was not blotted out nor
their awareness of what was happening internally and externally. In short, there was no such thing as a
Spirit-produced and guided lack-of-control or “ectasy.” Indeed, the existence of such a situation
would be a priori evidence that self-delusion or worse was directing the
individual.
It
should be noted that Paul does not explicitly apply the self-control principle
to tongue speaking. On the other hand,
he labels prophesying the greater spiritual gift (
The
element of controllability marked Christian worship distinctly from its
polytheistic competitors, a reality which local church membership would have
been well acquainted with due to their pagan background:[90] The oracular “revelations” given by
polytheist prophets and prophetesses were regarded as thoroughly beyond
their control, the “divine” so overwhelmed them that they claimed no
responsibility for what came out of their mouths.[91]
In true
prophecy, in contrast, even though there might be an inner sense of
“compulsion” to speak, it still remained a controllable one.[92] The God of the Hebrews
permitted you self-control rather than turning onto its automation. If they acted as the pagans in their
prophesying, then they were open to the obvious accusation that the same ill or
degrading spirits were still active within them and guiding them.[93]
In
the rank and clique obsessed congregation of Corinth, this “sharing of the
spotlight” meant the removal of any one “noted” individual from dominating what
was happening; he had to yield to someone else even if he was perceived to be
one of lesser talents or (worse yet!) of a different clique. Or even of a lower social standing.[94] (Which might well have been
counted as even worse.) It
produced a crude equality that, over a period of time, must have transformed
their attitude toward those of different social levels, via the crucible of
behavior rather than abstract theory.
The
element of controllability provided a ready make “check” for whether what was
being said was genuine. If two spoke at one time, at least one had to be faking
it[95]
or self-branded by behavior as self-centered—so much so that he thought he was
immune to the rules governing any one else.
Either was likely a crippling (fatal?) blow to one’s standing and
acceptability in the congregation.
How the three speakers
were to be chosen is not spelled out. It
may well be that certain individuals requested in advance permission to speak
during the current (or forthcoming) service.
Even so, if God acted during the service to give another a
message, then those pre-arrangements were to be set aside and they were all to listen to the speaker [Page 104] currently receiving a revelation.[96]
We aren’t
informed how one prophet told another they had something to say. A gesture? A hand motion? A simple, “I have something I need to say,”
spoken at a breaking point in the first prophet’s words? Whatever it may have been, it is clear that
the one speaker at a time edict prohibited him from beginning until (to use
modern parliamentary equivalence) “the floor had been yielded” to the second
person.[97]
Nor
are we informed as to why Paul limited the number of prophets to a maximum of
three in one service. The most obvious
reason for this (as well as the sister limitation of tongue speakers to a
maximum of three—
In chapter 14, it is
clearly the Holy Spirit that is assumed to be providing the prophecy yet
In
contrast to this type of analysis, Leonard L. Thompson argues that the
“prophetic spirit” was simultaneously Divinely sent and
“part of the human makeup of a prophet.
Being at home in both the divine and the human,
the spirit made a natural link between the two.”[98] The problem with this approach is that you
end up with a “spirit” that is neither truly human nor truly
Divine: note that it is only “in” the
divine rather than being divine. It
seems far more faithful to the concept of genuine supernatural gifts in the
first century, to take the “interlocking” approach suggested in the previous
paragraph.
A
further step away from the idea of objective Spirit given messages being passed
through the individual’s own spirit to the audience, is taken by Gerhard Maier,
who uses 14:32 to prove that it is the human’s own spirit that “reveals” the
message not the Divine Spirit, “That means that the interpreter cannot simply
equate his words with the Holy Spirit’s, as if the later had irresistibly
implanted this or that statement. He
must take personal responsibility for his claims, representing his
interpretation (our emphasis, RW) in the context of the entire
congregation, allowing it to be corrected as need be (cf. 1 Corinthians
14:29).”[99] Based on the same proof text, a more popular
orientated volume puts the logical results of such an approach, “. . . [T]hose
who are being moved by the Spirit can make mistakes One’s own ideas can intrude themselves
on the working of the Spirit. Heretical
doctrines and practices can be the result.”[100]
So the congregation can set right what the Holy Spirit was inadequate to fully and accurately reveal through the prophet? (Some of the claims analyzed in earlier sections merge in with this scenario.) Furthermore if the prophets’ own spirits could so subjectivize an objective revelation that he could no longer distinguish between revelation and personal opinion, how in the world did those who “judge” what was being said do so?
In cases of brazen
fakery--out of psychological maladjustment, for example--one can grasp them
detecting that it wasn’t happening at all.
But to “winnow out” the “real truth” from the larger mass these
scenarios would require? Utilizing Occam’s razor, [Page 105]
wouldn’t it be far simpler (if genuine revelation occurred at all) to
have it occur undiluted to the prophet him or herself?
On a more positive (and
intriguing) note, the nineteenth century Biblical scholar Moses Stuart argues
from the presence of both the Holy Spirit and the human spirit in 14:29 that we
have a critical piece of data on the nature of inspiration--that the Divine
Spirit worked through the modes of thought and expression most fitting to the
individual’s personality and background.
“The diversities of style and plan, throughout all the Scriptures, is evidence which cannot be set aside, that this matter must
be substantially as has now been stated.”[101] Neither dictation nor subjective
interpretation without supernatural control fits the concept of divine
inspiration, he argues.
In Revelation 22:6 we read
of “the God of the spirits of the prophets,” the reading in
Likewise,
1 John 4:1 utilizes the plural when it cautions, “Beloved, do not believe every
spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false
prophets have gone out into the world.”
1
Corinthians
In
First of all, let us approach the
subject from the interpretive standpoint of divine revelatory “spirits” not being involved. In that case, Revelation 22:6 may well mean
exactly the same as 1 Corinthians
1
Corinthians 12:10 (“discerning of spirits”) might mean discerning their intent
and meaning—one might well be giving a fully accurate presentation of the
Spirit’s revelation yet not be anywhere near aware of the implications of it,
which a different individual might be blessed with. Alternatively, if “spirits” be taken as
including the possibility of evil spirits steering the speaker wrong, then the
function would be to determine what came from the Divine Spirit and what came
from demonic imitators.
In 1
John 4:1 “test[ing] the spirits” is needed “because many
false prophets have gone out into the world.”
This would be fully compatible with the idea of demonic spirits
inspiring individuals, but--as an individual who has followed politics for over
50 years--a more down to earth possibility also comes to mind: egotistical or mentally unbalanced
individuals who are faking the gift for money or reputation. Either way it does not have to be a case of divine
spirits being involved.
The
effort to find revelatory “spirits” in the literalistic rendering of 1 Corinthians
14:12 about being zealous for “spirits” flies in the face of the fact that the
terminology is [Page 106] taken by
virtually every translation as synonymous with being enthusiastic for what
the Spirit gives, rather than to a multiplicity of spirits as the agents of
the revelation. If the latter has any
validity at all, one explanation might well be that God and His Spirit actually
spoke through the use of angels and that these angelic “spirits” varied from one
tongue speaker/prophet to another.
Which brings us to the
alternative view, of revelatory “spirits” in general and angels in particular. Certainly the use in Hebrews 1:7 (quoting the
Old Testament) would be compatible with such an angelic explanation, “And of
the angels He says: ‘Who makes His angels spirits
and His ministers a flame of fire.’ ” Likewise of angels in Hebrews
One could imagine them as agents
of the Holy Spirit, as we’ve mentioned, just as the Spirit is of God in 1
Corinthians 12 and of God and Christ in John 16:13-15. However even these two Hebrews proof texts
make angels the servants of the Father and not of the Spirit, making
that intention seem unlikely to be underlying Paul’s teaching on Spirit
revelation.
That there is nothing in
the texts we’ve examined that require such an interpretation has already
been noted. Furthermore, we have a
fundamental nomenclature problem if this is the case. Note how chapter 12 describes these various
gifts,
“12:1 Now
concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be ignorant: . . . 3 Therefore I make known to you
that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no
one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit. 4 There
are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 There are
differences of ministries, but the same Lord. 6 And there are
diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. 7
But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the
profit of all: 8 for to one is given the word of wisdom through
the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit,
9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of
healings by the same Spirit, 10 to another the working of
miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another
different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11
But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to
each one individually as He wills.”
So,
are these gifts of the Holy Spirit or gifts of angels? On one side is the repeated emphasis on the
Spirit as if being the sole giver; on the other side, verses that might
– but no more than that -- argue the Spirit’s utilization of angels. In such a case where does the overwhelming
probability lie?
And, if angels were the
immediate tool of the Spirit, why doesn’t Paul come right out and call them
what they really are?
Other
texts to prove angelic or other divine (rather than demonic) spirits are also
appealed to, “This view of the pneumatika also
seems to be reflected in the comment about Peter’s angel (Acts
[Page 107] In
Acts 12 we do have an angel freeing Peter from prison and then departing
the scene (12:7-10). When
Peter arrived at the home of Mary (
Most likely this was
simply a derogatory dismissal in accord with their claim that she was crazy
(“you are beside yourself!”), neither of which was to be taken as anything more
than a determination to make her be quiet.
If they really believed it was “only” an angel, wouldn’t they
have gone out to see if the angel had a message for them? Or was “angel” an
euphemism for how we would likely express it today, “It must be his
ghost”?
1
Corinthians 14:14: “For if I pray in a
tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.” “My spirit:” did each believer have a specific
“spirit” dedicated just to them? Such
would seem to be the inevitable requirement of the text. Hence pressing this as an external
spirit would not be the most natural meaning.
To the rest of us, it simply means that Paul prayed with his own
inner spirit. Even Spirit guidance did
not become an excuse for rote religion.
Galatians
6:18: “Brethren, the grace of our Lord
Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
Amen.” Their individual human
spirit obviously needed “the grace (favor)” of Christ; why in the world
would their external revelatory spirit need it?
In
short, these verses seem increasingly marginal to any successful effort to
define Paul as referring to external revelatory spirits in 1 Corinthians 14:32.
It is, of course, possible that
“spirits” is effectively an euphemism for the Holy
Spirit personally, but in its different
specific manifestations of presence. This way the fact that the mere mortal can
stop from continuing the prophesying or tongue speaking does not sound as
extreme a statement as saying, “You can stop the Holy Spirit from speaking
through you.”[105]
Wayne
A. Grudem, who seems to clearly have this idea in
mind (though worded differently), sees evidence not in angelic texts—as
considered above--but in ones that may more directly concern the Holy Spirit. In John 4:2 we read, “By this you know the
Spirit of God: Every spirit that
confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God.” The spirits are manifestations of the Holy
Spirit.[106]
On the other hand it could
equally well mean that the testimony given by the individual human spirit
(whether claiming inspiration or not) has the backing of the Divine Spirit but only
if it believes that Christ came in a tangible, fleshly form. “The Spirit” reveals to “every
spirit” (directly or indirectly) rather than being synonymous.
More
relevantly he takes “the seven spirits of God” in Revelation 3:1, 4:5, and 5:6
(and possibly “the seven spirits who are before His throne,” in 1:4) as texts that “apparently
refers to the various manifestations or workings of the Holy Spirit.”[107] Although this is a fascinating assumption,
one would seem hard pressed to take it beyond the most conjectural of
speculations. As far as what we know,
these could be seven special angels set apart for extraordinary duties
(cf. the Hebrews epistle texts we examined).
And, of course, we can’t raise that beyond the level of reasonable
speculation either.
[Page 108]
The fact that Paul argues
from the universal precedent of “all the churches of the saints” (
Regardless of how one argues the application of the text to the modern world, it is vital to remember that in its original context the admonition for womanly “silence” is both preceded and followed by admonitions about the exercise of supernatural gifts. Paul’s thought flow goes through five steps:
First, he lays down the principle that women
are to “keep silent (ATP: keep quiet) in
the churches (ATP: assemblies), for they
are not permitted to speak” (
The
admonition of women to silence is not part of a “broadsheet” of generalized
instruction; it comes hard on the heels on trying to bring order to the
Corinthian gathering in regard to the use of supernatural gifts. Of speaking in tongues, the apostle had
said: “If anyone speaks in a
tongue” (
We
see here in verses 34-37 the continuation of that speaking versus silence
scenario but with the addition of a new point, its application to women.[109] They are to leave the speaking to the men (or
husbands if one interprets the text as we have argued). Indeed, it is strictly in this context that
the “silence” of women should be interpreted—at least initially and in its
primary application so far as the book of Corinthians is concerned.
Prophesying
was supernaturally provided teaching and could take the form of either
prediction or admonition. As we look at
the Old Testament prophets, though, the admonition element was clearly just as
important to them; indeed, the prophecies were generally of what would happen
if they refused to yield to God’s will, a goad to repentance rather than the
cause of the prophet speaking.
The
closest modern parallel we have to the prophetic office today would be that of [Page
109] pulpit preaching. It involves a degree of oversight of the
congregation—whether official or unofficial--whether one seeks it out or claims
to deny it. Responsibilities of that
nature come automatically if for no other reason than you are perceived as an
“authority figure” and to assure that someone “gets the job done.”
Hence it seems hardly
likely Paul would have been any more happy with modern
women in the pulpit that he was with supernaturally guided women prophesying in
his day. Furthermore, his emphasis on
how what he was teaching reflected the universal consensus of the church
(14:33) argues that, however broad woman’s role was outside of direct church
leadership, this was one area reserved for the other gender. Many feminists regard it as “sexism;” I would
propose it was God’s method of kicking the male gender and making sure they
were actively involved in their religion rather than considering it part of “a
woman’s responsibility.”
Second, he supports his assertion that
this was a desirable practice by noting that this mind frame had always been
the divine will (14:34): “they
are to be submissive, as the law also says” (“should be subordinate, as even
Moses’ Law teaches,” ATP). Hence they
were not to think it was new teaching in any way; the principle had always been
present.
We
have noted in the Old Testament precedents section the difficulty of pinning
this down to one specific text. Likely
this is what caused Walter A. Maier to note that “Paul is careful to write kathoos kai ho nomos legei, ‘as also
the law states,’ so that one need not search the Pentateuch for the record of
the precise words employed by Paul in this verse 34. Kathoos allows for similarity of teaching.”[110]
He then goes on to argue that the similar teaching in
1 Timothy 2:11-14 does cite a scriptural precedent, that of Adam
being created first and Eve only secondarily.
He then notes that in 1 Corinthians 11:3, 8-9 also goes to this
relationship to show the proper husband-wife relationship. Hence, in his judgment, this cumulative
evidence argues that Paul had the Genesis in mind as his proof text.[111] That might well be the case.
Third, Paul reminds them that they have
a quite acceptable way of gaining the information they seek: they should “ask (ATP: question) their own husbands at home” (
In our world of large
numbers of unmarried women, the advice would probably be (for an adult) to seek
advice from the preacher or a respected teacher they had confidence in or (if a
child) seek out assistance from their parents.
In regard to both its original setting and its modern day applications,
the Pauline counsel was based upon the assumption that the male would be
knowledgeable enough to answer the question—or at least know the right
place to find it. It does not require
much imagination to think of the scathing language Paul would have used of such
males who did not—then or today.
A.
Limiting the prohibition to challenging one’s own spouse in public. As already noted, in the verses preceding
telling them who to seek counsel from, Paul had [Page 110] been speaking of prophets and their function
(14:29-32) and the need to avoid disrupting the church service (14:33). Some have creatively tied this all together
into one package: wives are prohibited
from embarrassing their prophet-husbands by challenging what they say outside
the privacy of their home. In other
words the “silence” limitation is only in regard to what their own spouse was
doing and not to males in general.[113]
Anthony C. Thiselton supports this analysis. He makes an intriguing case that “ask” should
carry the more stringent overtone of “interrogate,” i.e., vigorously question
and, perhaps, even deny. Such actions
were to take place in the privacy of the home rather than in public where one
or both parties might be embarrassed or humiliated.[114]
A few translations lean in
that direction--or, at least, can be read in that manner once the idea has been
put into one’s mind.
The analysis unquestionably has its share of difficulties. Even taken as a reference to husband-prophets and as “interrogating,” it remains a case of women reacting to the public teaching of others rather than doing it. And even that limited role is specifically discussed in a prohibitive rather than permissive context. If reacting is prohibited, how could Paul have anywhere intended to embrace the leadership role of publicly presenting prophecy itself?
The harsher and more stringent an overtone we put on the word “ask,” the more difficult it is to see the logic as to why the prohibition would be specifically a female orientated command. Would it be proper for a male to try to make “mincemeat” out of a fellow male—who is a prophet—merely because they share the same gender? The reverse is also true: The more we minimize or remove the element of censuring questions from “ask,” the less reason we would expect a female to be denied the privilege of intervention—unless a question of gender / marital status rather than the questioning itself be the central matter of concern. Let us develop the matter at greater length:
B. The problem of the
indirect nature of the prohibition—“silence” referring to only one type of
speech in particular. If Paul was only
putting the damper on time-hogging or confrontational questioning or stirring
up needless controversy--or anything of that nature--why would women be specified in particular? In my preaching days my memory is permanently
scarred by two obnoxious women who were a plague on anyone who crossed them—not
just me. But need we mention the
excesses of the male gender? In
short, if Paul has in mind just behavioral intemperance why single out just the
women?[115]
For
that matter, it is assumed that women had been disruptive in
Furthermore, the shortest distance between two lines is a straight line: To deal with confrontational and disruptive females, the shortest and directest method would have been an explicit rebuke of such behavior. Would we not expect a direct censure along the [Page 111] lines of, “The disorderly women should keep silence”?[117] If that is his actual or primary concern?
Instead, we are supposed to believe that he took the very indirect method of laying down the broad pattern of “silence” and in such a manner that all women (married at least) are covered. This when he was actually only concerned with a far narrower issue, which we must carefully draw out of the much broader wording. We have to “back read” from a needlessly broad principle to what was really the matter.[118]
This does not seem a reasonable interpretive approach. It seems far better to argue—whether one accepts his restrictions or not—that Paul has in mind the issue of proper gender or marital behavior not the more limited sphere of just interference with worship or congregational matters.
C. And the other women? Paul was well aware that there were
individual women not covered by his immediate reference to marital status--1
Corinthians 7[119]
mentions the long term betrothed (assuming that “his virgin” refers to that
relationship), to the separated, to the divorced, and to the widowed. Paul’s all encompassing language argues
strongly that he regarded such individuals as representing a very small
proportion of female disciples since he did not feel it necessary to address
any of these specifically in the current text.
The fact that the question
is to be received by one’s andras (Strong 435,
defined by him as “a male human being; a man; husband”) has caused some to
argue that the verse’s “husband” would be better translated as “menfolk.”[120] One would be hard pressed to find much in the
way of translations—I haven’t come across any—that so renders it. The fact that the term is more
expansive than just “husband,” does, however, establish a precedent at least
for those who were outside the married category as to the propriety of their
seeking out alternative sources of assistance.
As in all other areas of
life, “rules” are established to cover the “normal situation”—in his age
married women—rather than the exception.
How Paul would have dealt with these exceptions to married
individuals must be a matter of speculation.
It seems extremely unlikely, however, that he would have regarded even
possible exceptions to his teaching as denying the general application of what
he had said. In other words, in even the
most expansive reading of his intent, the possible “exceptions” were unlikely
to remove the general prohibition of female leadership roles.
Whether intent or side effect,
this would also compel the husbands in particular—and males in general--to pay
attention to what was going on and to be able to understand and explain it.[121] They could not play the gender game of the
twentieth century and pretend that religion was women’s work.
Almost
inadvertently, the text also gives us a fascinating insight into the informal
aspect of early worship. As R. C. H. Lenski puts it, “It seems that in the early church the
custom prevailed to ask questions at the public services, very probably on
subjects that were brought up by the prophets.
It would thus be natural for the more ‘forward’ women to claim the
privilege of at least asking questions.”[122]
Fourth, the apostle emphasizes that they
had no right to alter this situation (
Fifth, he stresses that what he is
teaching throughout this chapter is divinely ordained (
To
what extent did Paul intend this to apply to conventional preaching, teaching,
and discussion in the assembly (i.e., that done without any claim to being
miraculously guided)--either on the giving or the questioning end of such
matters? The principles regulating order
in the assembly so things will not become chaotic (cf.
Furthermore,
verse 34 seems to have in mind something above and beyond just a situation in
which miraculous gifts are being exercised, “And if they want to learn
something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for
women to speak in church.” Here the
perspective is that of asking questions (“want[ing]
to learn something”), rather that of personally conveying teaching either in
conventional or purportedly miraculous forms. (Yet if he was condemnatory of the former how
could he consistently have been laudatory of the
latter?)
However,
the context is not asking questions in a class nor is it something done “at
home” or in some type of meeting (religious centered or otherwise) outside the worship
service of the church. The context is a
formal assembly of the church which, in those days, involved people speaking in
tongues or prophesying. The logic of
the text is that they are not to interrupt the process, even when it did not
involve the personal use of Spirit gifts but merely the normal questions that
arise from hearing a message.
Tongue
speakers were to speak “in turn” (i.e., one at a time),
with the implication that it was not to be interrupted though it was to be
interpreted (
The text and modern church
practice--Context is pivotal: teaching /
preaching whether through speaking in tongues or prophesying is that context
and any twenty-first century application should be within that framework. Conspicuously not touched upon by Paul’s
instruction is, for example, saying “Amen” at the end of a prayer that someone
else has said. Profoundly different from
the topic under [Page 113] consideration,
are such things as passing out the communion or taking the collection; it is
hard to see how either can be classified as a “leadership” role and certainly
neither involves the prohibited teaching.
(The conceptual parallel would be closer in the terms “deacon/deaconess”
[= servants of the church] and in no way preachers or “elders” [= church
leaders]. “Deacons/deaconesses”—as the
terms themselves show—are servants / workers on behalf of the church,
rather than leaders and authority figures over it.)
Would
public reading of a scripture text be a form of prohibited teaching? One can see how it might be, but one can also
see how you aren’t teaching anything.
You are merely reading aloud what a teacher has said. (Unless one adds a personal
“commentary” on to it.) Are they really
the same?
Finally,
singing, is an activity in which all join in (or should) on an equal basis, the
only “leadership” here being, perhaps, the song “leader.” Though, in all candor, he is not the “leader”
in anywhere near the sense we attribute “leadership” to the public
speaker. The song “leader” is simply
walking the audience through how someone else arranged for things to be
done. What that other person has
done is definitive; not what the song “leader” wished had been done. So here too we must carefully ponder which
side of the “silence” barrier of
Six approaches to eliminating the Pauline restriction
Many efforts are made to eliminate the female teaching limitations Paul insists upon in these verses and we have only touched on one of them in detail—the effort to redefine the silence to questions only and abrasive questions in particular. Hence it is appropriate that we spend further time on other approaches that attempt to remove the limitations Paul refers to. Six basic arguments are common.
The first is to dismiss it all on the grounds that it represents
Paul’s personal and “sexist” opinions.
This is the easiest method:
Paul was simply prejudiced against women. We are the centuries
later theological victims of one’s single man’s biases. Not just single numerically but also single
so far as never being married and with all the prejudices that can bring.
On
the other hand, if Paul’s apostleship was genuine and we accept that divine
“inspiration” (however you desire to define the term) was providing permanently
authoritative guidance, then such objections in no way demand the rejection of
his teaching. Flipping the argument
over, if such guidance was not present, is anything immune to rejection?
Which edges us into the second way to limit the modern application of Paul’s teaching—it merely represents the culture of his times. Cultures have changed so the public leadership role of women must be altered to include all those open to males. Accepting that the biases were not purely personal, then one can argue that they [Page 114] were absorbed from the customs of his day. Hence Paul need not be pictured as a villain perpetuating evil but even as a victim himself of the assumptions of his culture.[123]
Yes, his views do
reflect the prevailing norms of his time—church norms at least. He himself claims that all the
congregations of his day (at least outside
But nomenclature games can be played two ways. Whose norms are the better ones? We are alive and they are dead. We are far more technically advanced than they. We write the books “exposing” their folly and they aren’t around to defend themselves.
Were they biased? Or is the term far more fitting our own reaction to it? That we can not tolerate something different from our own set of preferences? For that matter, what right do we have to hurl the term “bias” in regard to earlier cultural norms when we live in a modern world that denies that moral absolutes either can or do exist?
And when they can’t, must not all judgments be purely subjective
ones? Accept those premises, and our
practices have no claim to superiority; theirs have every right to be
respectfully regarded as at least equal.
(Not superior, necessarily, but at least equal.) Who then are we to criticize them for their
“failures” when we have an abundant set of our own?
Yes, Paul was certainly concerned with the standards expected in his day. Yet it should also be noted that the desire to have a church compatible with the mores of a given society does not necessarily mean that one is merely yielding to its prejudices and preferences. In addition, even though a culture may have a “bias” against something that does not automatically prove that its criticism is erroneous or misguided.
When Paul rebuked
incest because of how even outsiders condemned it, he was reflecting the
dominant view, but surely he wasn’t wrong in going so. Was he acting merely on the basis of societal
bias or, primarily, on the basis of underlying Christian standards? Surely the latter! The two interlocked and he invoked both.
Although “women
preachers” certainly are not in the same category as incest, it should be noted
that Paul condemns such partly, at least, on the basis that “the law also says”
it (
Furthermore to claim that Paul was writing just to make the church acceptable to the surrounding world carries with it the inherent difficulty that the central message of the crucified Christ was anathema to that society—Jew and Gentile alike. If he defied societal expectation on this most fundamental issue, would it have been so startling to have done so on important lesser matters as well?
Especially when a justification could easily be found in his emphasis on the “oneness” of all in Christ—regardless of gender, wealth, or earthly status. In addition, female leadership precedent was not totally lacking even in his age. There were religious [Page 115] cults in polytheism in which women did play a major religious leadership role. Precedent existed.
Hence it is not
surprising that there is a tendency to believe that the bias reflects not so
much polytheistic values as Jewish convictions.[124] Paul was insisting that the Gentiles follow
these limitations, presumably in the interest of inter-ethnic peace. On the other hand, Paul did yeoman’s work in
opposing the imposition of Jewish customs when it was needless (think
circumcision in particular). Why, on
this relatively secondary issue, would he be so insistent upon
capitulation? To some this argues for
the improbability of it happening; to others it might argue for him yielding on
a secondary point in order to easier stand firm on more central matters.
Yet beyond the
existence of a “Petrine” party in
Or, perhaps, there
is one piece of evidence in that context—but it comes not from anything they
are described as doing (or reasons for their divisions) but from the authority
that backs up his teaching. Paul
insisted that what he said about women needed to be followed because it was what
“the law” taught (
But when the “law”
of old was no longer relevant, Paul’s consistent pattern is to advocate what is
now relevant—or are we to argue that every time he introduces
scripture in 1 Corinthians he does so to keep the Jewish faction
happy? Would not far sounder reasoning
be to argue that he introduces the Old Testament because, on the point(s)
considered, they are germane and relevant to the contemporary practice he
desired? Which is
profoundly different than citing it so as to keep traditionalist Jewish
Christians happy.
One other aspect of the “bias question” deserves consideration before passing on. Even assuming that the roots of the teaching be treated as far more rooted in cultural practice than divine revelation, how would that establish as desirable and better the contemporary “bias” in favor of unlimited opportunities for public religious service by women? What are the objective criteria that establishes our modern set of preferences (“biases”) as better than another?
We often think differently than they did, but we should tread quite gingerly as to where and how fervently we affirm our own superior spiritual insights. If the Pauline ones are to be dismissed on such grounds, what will be the fate of our own at the hands of a future generation? The path of future history is neither set in concrete nor guaranteed: they might well applaud our “responsible change.” On the other hand, if catastrophe should overtake America and the West, the disaster might equally well be attributed to the “spurning of God’s will”—both on matters like this and, even more, so our
[Page 116] redefinition of moral norms in a way
repugnant to the apostle’s teaching.
Love it or hate it; it could go either way.
In short, whatever conclusions we come to on such matters, the Pauline doctrine can not be so cavalierly dismissed out of hand as it often is. Fundamental principles of how long apostolic teaching is binding and how, when, and whether it should be adapted to a new set of cultural biases have to be resolved. Historically speaking, the “proper” solutions will only appear transparently obvious long after they have become generally adopted and tested by the “fire” of opposition, duration, and an ever changing environment.
The third approach to justify contemporary practice is to play off Paul’s “permissive” teaching against his “restrictive” teaching and argue that the former must prevail. Of course, a female prophetic gift is referred to not only in this book but also in Acts as well. The early scholar Origen (c. 185-254) had to respond to the Montanist argument, that since there were apostolic age female Christian prophets, that automatically provided the right to exercise their gift any time and anywhere. Origen countered, with full justice, that though the daughters of Philip are referred to as having the gift in the book of Acts there is no evidence that they utilized it in the church assembly. Similarly, women in the Old Testament were, upon occasion, blessed with the gift and we also find in that context no evidence of it being exercised in a religious assembly (the synagogue or some conceptual equivalent). Hence, even if the gift be genuine, the church meeting was not the proper place for it.[126] (It should be noted that he wasn’t ready to grant the assumption of genuineness either.)
As
to Paul’s writings in particular, it is certainly true that his teaching in
various places present both women’s equality with men in the church (Galatians
(The cynic in me can’t
help but suggest: If a new generation
arises—one that decides a modified “patriarchialism”
would be better for society’s survival—will the same individuals who argue
this, happily go along with the reversal or will they “fight to the death” for
maintaining the changes they have brought into being? It is surely a “given” that when rejection of
the apostolic norm comes into play, any acceptable changes must be in a “liberal”
and “permissive” direction and are assumed to be definitively established
“forever.” This reflects the same
stubbornness and refusal to yield as their critics manifested before a new
order gained dominance. To passionate
advocates of any approach, change seems acceptable—but always in only one
direction.)
The problem here is that
the same apostle taught both principles:
hence he saw nothing inconsistent between the two; he saw nothing
in the idea of “equality” that required a woman’s ministry. Did he misinterpret what he himself
wrote? And how in the world did God
permit a misinterpretation (i.e., the restrictive elements) to be embodied in
the scriptures? (Of course if one
believes the writings represent Paul’s unique religious self-consciousness,
without such external fail-safe mechanisms, there is no difficulty. But there should be, even then, considerable
embarrassment at the apostle’s blunder.)
Few would deny that the early church leadership of elders/presbyters represented [Page 117] a male prerogative and the qualifications are written in such terms (1 Timothy 3; Titus 1).[127] This would argue that however much theoretical and even real equality there was in the earliest church, that there remained areas where gender distinctions were observed, preserved, and insisted upon. That may offend our twenty-first century preferences for absolute egalitarianism, but seems an inescapable reading of the textual evidence. Why then would it be regarded as an unquestioned evil if the current generation did the same? Why should our own set of culturally influenced biases triumph over those of the apostles? (Assuming we should even admit any such dominant role in the rules they laid down.)
The fourth way of expanding the contemporary rights of women in regard to public ministry and leadership, is to argue that Paul explicitly recognized it in chapter 11 and that, therefore, chapter 14 must be interpreted in some manner recognizing that unrestricted teaching right of females. It is argued that in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Paul endorses the right of women to publicly pray and prophesy as church leaders and this is thoroughly inconsistent with the prohibitory teaching found in 14:33b-36.[128] Of course this is based upon the assumption that chapter 11 is discussing congregational worship, a premise we have examine in detail and found wanting. In chapter 14, however, Paul makes explicit that he has in mind what is happening in the congregational assembly. In chapter 11, the discussion is quite different: the right of women to exercise the gift of prophesying in and of itself. As to right, there was no doubt (chapter 11); as to exercising that right in the church service there was complete rejection (chapter 14).[129]
On
other subjects the distinction is easy to see:
Paul embraced marital sexuality (chapter 7), but no one would argue that
it had a place in the church service.
There are many other things that are right as to morality and propriety
but would be inappropriate as part of the worship. Paul taught that women’s prophesying was of
such a nature—praiseworthy and laudable, but not part of the church service.[130]
The problem seems to be that we place on the generalities a broader construction than the limitations Paul taught must also be observed. Within the context of his time, this combination of principle and application made him very much a “liberal” in religious conduct; applying them in our own very different age makes the same man with the same attitudes and beliefs seem very “conservative” if not “reactionary.”
But
assuming that the teaching was
intended to create a blanket right for women in chapter 11, how do we explain
the apparently restrictive comments in chapter 14? Several explanations have been suggested for
this.
For example, the restrictions
of the chapter have been interpreted as only forbidding “disputation”[131]
the raising of “controversial issues in church,”[132]
and “violat[ing] rules of
social decorum of that era.”[133] The silence was like that of the prophets who
were to speak one at a time and be silent if another had a message to reveal.[134] Hence the “submissive” “silence” of
Although
such factors would be included in the prohibition, one wonders how such
behavior as being argumentative, violating the expected social norms, and
refusing to be respectful of the right of the others to speak would have been
considered proper for the male either.
In other words, something significantly beyond such factors must be
involved when only one gender is specified.
(See our lengthy discussion further above.)
[Page 118] The
power of the argument in favor of a public leadership function of women is
weakened when the nature of the silence is reduced from banning public disputes
and debates to merely “the practice of women joining in the congregational
discussion of what a prophet or a teacher had said.”[136] Approached this way, this would seem a
nonsensical prohibition: women could
publicly teach in that assembly but could not join in the ensuing discussion as
to what it meant?
Others
define the Greek word rendered “speak” in 14:34 as prohibiting the equivalent
of merely idle and aimless “talk” or “chattering:” “it is shameful for women to keep talking
during the worship service.”[137] Yet, as one proponent of this view concedes,
that is equally true of males![138] He argues that the “social roles” of women
in general and married women in particular in that society permitted them to
gossip along while the serious business of a meeting was proceeding. As a result they would not pay attention to
the speaker and would disrupt the assembly.[139]
Yet the wording of the argument is so broadly asserted that it seems to be against speaking at any time rather than against any one form of speaking, especially a form that would be wrong from either gender! In other words, one can easily see it applied to this potential problem, but as only one application of the broader principle.[140]
The fifth way of resolving the perceived
difficulty of reconciling Pauline limitations with modern preferences is to
simply dismiss the restrictive teaching as an interpolation and, therefore,
irrelevant to creating an authoritative apostolic teaching. Hence a goodly number deal with the
antagonism between Paul’s teaching and current western theories of women’s
proper religious roles on the grounds that the relevant verses (33-35) are an
interpolation.[141] It began as a “marginal note” and was
inadvertently inserted into the text and, once there, was perpetuated by later
copyists.[142]
In all candor,
verse 36 does sound like a more logical sequel to verse 33. Verses 34-35 are a sharp break with
what comes before and after so far as the thought-flow
of the text. In contrast, placing it
after verse 40 (“Let all things be done decently and in order”) would
make it an amplification of that clearly relevant principle. The “Western” style text places it at this
point—and only the “Western” textual tradition.[143] Since this tradition is one that is usually
viewed skeptically due to additions not present in other manuscript traditions,
a number of scholars tend to believe this is yet another example of its alleged
bad habit of accepting interpolations.
(Of course this “disposes” only of the Western version not its
alternatives.)
Yet even here the disputed
teaching is not missing; only its location is altered. And we can easily imagine a disturbed editor
moving it from its apparently original and relatively “disruptive” setting to
this more congenial one.[144] In light of the paucity of manuscripts with
it here, an alternative and reasonable scenario is “that this displacement is
due to a scribal error of omission that immediately was corrected by
reinserting the text at the end of the section.”[145]
Since the charge of “bias” has a tendency to be thrown around as a slur on those who do not concede the modern feminist approach to women in the pulpit, is it not worthy of consideration that without such pressures, the interpolation dispute would only be waged as to where it was moved from and to rather than from the standpoint of never having been in the text originally? The embarrassing fact is that the challenged words are found in all manuscripts.[146] Hence, if there was an interpolation it occurred at an
[Page 119] extraordinarily early period, one that was
far more likely to reflect Paul’s own attitudes than that of a more anti-female
generation a century or two later.
Failing to find manuscript
evidence, the insertion hypothesis has to be defended on alternate grounds. Hence the interpolation approach has been
supported on the ground that the appeal to the law (i.e., Law of Moses, the
Torah) was more likely to come from those he was answering than from Paul
himself. In other words, it represents a
view that Paul rejects.
Carl B. Bridges, Jr.,
makes two arguments against this deduction.
First he observes that Paul does cite the Torah in this book,
“though admittedly on a somewhat different basis, in 9:8-9 and
The interpolation
scenario has also been backed on the grounds that Paul praised such women
workers as Phoebe (Romans 16:1-15) and that Priscilla was involved in the
conversion of Apollos (Acts 18:26).[148] But one would be hard-pressed to convincingly
argue that Paul (Romans) or Luke (Acts) assumed that either of these women’s
activities occurred as part of the church worship or that they were exercising
public leadership functions while carrying out their activities.
The final method of dealing with the
difficulty is to argue that the “restrictive” view is actually that of Paul’s
opponents rather than Paul himself.
This allows a bi-gender application to posts of church leadership from
the more “liberal” texts we have discussed.
Hence the appeal of the argument that Paul is actually presenting the
views of his Corinthian foes and that he is rejecting them.[149] To make this scenario work, one must abandon
any interpolation theory; it can only work if it remains where it is and
is genuinely apostolic.
In this
reconstruction,
7:1 (definitely
the Corinthian view): “Now concerning
the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a
woman.”
8:1 (definitely at
least an allusion to what they had written if not their exact words): “Now concerning things offered to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge
puffs up, but love edifies.”
[Page 120] While
Three of five
cases seem conclusively the Corinthian view, one puts their view into a form he
can accept and one neutralizes its potential for harm. How in the world does
14:34-35 fit any of these precedents? He
does not cite it explicitly as the Corinthian view. He does not rework it into a form that strips
it of its misuse (as in
In none of these
does Paul introduce a scriptural proof text as coming from his foes as part of
his presentation (“as the Law also says,”
This is not even
to get into the matter of the pure, unprecedented length of the
hypothetical quote in
Assuming that one
can somehow overcome these major obstacles, then and only then is there the
need to deal with the argument that in
“His response
comes in
Even taking
Of course “male language”
need not refer exclusively to such; it is also known to include women,
according to the context: Think that
despicable word “brethren” so despised by feminists that its very presence in a
translation is deemed abhorrent nowadays.
Furthermore, the indignation factor in
Hence this
commentator finds it extraordinarily hard to see how
Notes
[1] Ehrman, 271. Others who take the real languages approach
include Gromacki, Called, 153; Lenski, 504-505, 509.
Witherington, Conflict, 258, 267,
believes they may have been real though, if so, often
obscure ones. On the whole, however, he
feels it far more likely that they were genuine languages, but not earthly
ones--i.e., that of angels (267).
Onlookers in one place or another would be able to tell whether a
language was a real one or not, those in all places could tell if they were
ecstatic, but how could anyone, anywhere be able to know they were
angelic?
[2] Heribert Muhlen, A Charismatic Theology: Initiation in the Spirit, translated from
the German by Edward Quinn and Thomas Linton (Ramsey, N.J.: Paulist Press,
1978), 152. He firmly rejects the
notion, however, that it can be described as “ecstatic” since it is under the
person’s self-control (citing 1 Corinthians
[3] Coffman,
197, 227-228. Also advocating a mixture
of “real” and “subjective” tongues, is Boyer,
131.
[Page 125] [4]
Coffman, 227-228, suggests the possibility that Paul knew that there were no
such Spirit-gifted interpreters in
[5] A phenomena Ibid. concedes occurs in our contemporary world
(236-237).
[6] Spivey
and Smith, 322, describe the phenomena as “inspired but unintelligible
utterance.” Frederick C. Grant, 96,
describes it as “wild and uncontrollable;” “unintelligible,” but that it was
also somehow “inspired” and genuine proof “of the divine presence in the
Christianity community.” This creates
the a priori difficulty of how a real God would overtly cause people to
speak a non-real language and then go through the “pretense” of
translating it for the audience. There
seems a vast ethical difficulty in this as well.
[7] Hunter, 109.
[8] Goodspeed, xx; Selby, 366, calls it “ecstatic
gibberish.” Zahn,
279, uses almost the same terms, “ecstatic and unintelligible utterances.” Others who take the ecstatic interpretation
of tongues include Raymond Bryan Brown, 363; Connick,
280; Freed, 272; Horton, 65; Koenig, 77, 89; Lohse,
64; Murphy-O’Connor, Doubleday, 140-141; Orr and Walther, 282, 283, 291;
Perrin, 103; Pregeant, 361; Price, 807; Rife, 47;
Russell D. Snyder, 475-476; Walter, 147; and Martin Israel, Smouldering
Fire: The Work of the Holy Spirit
(New York: Crossroad, 1981), 70.
[9] Cf. Cartledge, 105.
[10] Price, 807.
[11]
[12] Zerhusen, “Tongues, Part
II.”
[13] John R. Williams,
Renewal Theology: Systematic Theology
from a Charistmatic Perspective, three volumes in
one edition (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1990, 1996), vol. 2, p. 404.
[14] Texts suggested by Robertson, “Tongues Today?”
[15] Texts suggested by Robertson, “Tongues Today?” also
includes 1 Corinthians 4:7, “stewards of the mysteries of God;” how
could they be a “steward” of it, if they didn’t know the substance of
those “mysteries?” He also utilizes 1
Corinthians 2:1, which in [Page 126] whatever
translation he relies upon, utilizes the phrase “the
mystery of God,” a rendering found or implied in few other versions. He provides a useful presentation of many
other relevant passages in this regard as well.
[16] Zerhusen, “Tongues, Part
II.”
[17] Howard, 108.
[18] Parry,
150, correctly takes this to be an “illustration from foreign languages.” Yet he believes that, at a minimum, the bulk
of tongue speaking was “ordinarily unintelligible” (149), statements which seem
to contradict unless one takes the approach that both foreign languages and
ecstatic tongues are under consideration in the chapter.
[19] Kugelman, 272, who sees the instrument reference as an
indication the tongues were incoherent and, with the possible interjection of a
few genuine words, ecstatic in nature.
[20]
Frederick C. Grant, 109, accepts this as a reference to genuine language but
holds to the ecstatic nature of the tongue speaking in
[21]
Murphy-O’Connor, Doubleday, 146, makes both the quoted identification of
the language as that of an invading army and the assertion (in the very
following sentence) that this was gibberish, hence precedent for ecstatic
tongues. It might sound like
gibberish but it wasn’t such, unlike any genuinely incoherent speech. Armies can’t function with “communications”
being incomprehensible—not and win at least.
The citation rather properly provides evidence for the Pauline
understanding of “tongues” as genuine foreign languages.
[22] McFadyen, 196,
and Nielen, 275.
[23] For reasons I do not comprehend, I somehow put this
under pro-ecstatic arguments in an earlier draft. How I made this transposition I have no idea,
but it is an effective illustration of a lesson useful in dealing with all
commentators, including this one: we are
all human and quite capable of making mistakes.
[24] Selby, 367.
[25] Tristia V. x. 37f., as quoted by Bruce, Corinthians,
131.
[26] Orr and
Walther, 280, hold to the ecstatic interpretation and concede that they do not
understand what Paul has in mind. Zerhusen, “Tongues, Part II,” introduces this ability to
differentiate into “types” as an argument against the ecstatic approach.
[27] Cf. Zerhusen, “Tongues,
Part II.”
[28] Cf. Bridges, 91.
[Page 127]
[29] Zerhusen, “Tongues, Part
II.”
[30] Holl, 21, argues--oddly, in our judgment--that there is no
textual evidence of what the author of Acts meant by the phenomena. Gettys, 104, hedges
as to how the Pentecost phenomena was intended to be interpreted: on the one hand he calls it “a form of
ecstatic utterance” (which suggests gibberish and non-sense language), yet on
the other he describes it as utilized by the kind of person who “seemed to have
a power to speak in a dialect or tongue not natively his own.”
[31] Wayne A. Grudem, Essential
Teachings of the Christian Faith (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1999),
422.
[32] Moule, Holy Spirit,
87-88 concedes a literal original intention but, while hedging his language,
seems to find this approach the preferable one for the modern age.
[33] Raymond Bryan Brown, 376, who adds that it could also have involved
both elements. Brauch, 160, takes the same approach. Talbert, 89, believes it was exclusively a
miracle of hearing in a person’s own language.
[34] For a
negative evaluation of additional arguments against both Corinthian and
Pentecost tongues being the same basic gift of speaking in knowable foreign
languages, see Mare, 262-263.
[35] Raymond Bryan Brown, 376.
[36] Zaspel, Fred. “Chapter 15:
Prophets & Prophecy” of Spiritual Gifts.
1996.
At:
http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/spiritualgifts/ch15.htm [January
2011].
[37] Muhlen, 149, though quoting the text from a different translation.
[38] Watson, Ray.
“Singing in Tongues—Why Do You Sing in Tongues in Worship?” At:
http://www.secretplaceministries.org/pages/articles/singing-in-tongues.html. [January 2011]. This view is quite common. To give but one other
example, Feeney, Jim. “Why Speak
in Tongues? (Is Speaking in Tongues of
God? Is It for Today?)” At:
http://www.jimfeeney.org/speakingintongues.html. [January 2010.]
[40] For the argument that the “spiritual songs” Paul
encourages in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 are Holy Spirit inspired
“tongues” songs, see John R. Williams,
vol. 2, p. 404. Of course even Spirit
inspired songs could—like prophesying—be in the vernacular. Indeed, since the songs were intended for use
by one and all, one would be startled if they were (often) anything else.
[42] Ibid.
[43] Mare, 273.
[44] Leon Morris, The Epistle to the
Romans, in the Pillar New Testament Commentary series (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1988), 91.
[45] Warren, Tony B.
“What Does ‘Amen’ Mean?” July
2003. At: http://www.
mountainretreatorg.net/faq/amen.html. [January 2011].
[46] Jaroslav Pelikan, Jesus through the Centuries: His Place in the History of Culture ([N.p.]:
[47] Ibid., 15.
[48] As quoted by Ibid., 14.
[49] As quoted by Ibid.
[50] For a
critique of the view that we should put the interpretive gloss “Jewish
unbelievers” on this, see Thomas R. Edgar, Satisfied by the Promise of the
Spirit (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Resources, 1996), 184-186.
[51] Ibid., 184.
[52] John R. Williams,
vol. 2, p. 400.
[53] Grosheide, 332.
[54] Grudem, Prophecy
(Revised Edition. Wheaton,
Illinois: Crossway Books, 2000),
153 The example he gives is one where
the message is in a contemporary non-charismatic Baptist congregation
where the speaker feels impelled to say something not originally intended for
his message. It is not explicitly
addressed to a specific individual but the message so clearly fits him (someone
has walked out on his family)—and by probability alone no one else in the
audience—that the guilty one is moved to repent.
[55] Ibid., 152-153.
[56] Parry, 156.
[57]
[Page 129] [58]
Timothy Ashworth, Paul’s Necessary Sin: The Experience of Liberation (
[59] Ralph Brucker,
“Observations on the Wirkungsgeschichte of the
Septuagint Psalms in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity,” in Septuagint
Research: Issues and Challenges in the
Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures, edited by Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn
Wooden (Atlanta, Georgia: Society of
Biblical Literature, 2006), n. 28, p. 362, argues it could refer to either
these traditional psalms or “newly written psalms.”
[60] Adela Y. Collins, “The
Psalms and the Origins of Christology,” in Psalms in Community: Jewish and Christian Textual, Liturgical, and
Artistic Traditions, edited by Harold W. Attridge
and Margot E. Fassler (
[61] Nielen, 284, and Abraham Kuyper, Our
Worship, translated from the 1911 Dutch edition by Harry Boonstra (
[62] Adela Y. Collins, 113.
[63] See the extended quote from On the Contemplative
Life in Ibid, 114.
[64] Bruce, Answers,
99.
[65] Grosheide, 335.
[66] Raymond
Bryan Brown, 381.
[67] Frederick J. Cwiekowski, The Beginnings of the Church (Mahwah, New
Jersey: Paulist
Press, 1988), 127.
[68] John W.
Keddie, Sing the Lord’s Song: Biblical Psalms in Worship (
[69] Adela Y. Collins, 113.
[70] Ibid., 113. Whether this is or is not the exact point she
is driving at in her amplifying remarks, it would certainly seem one
inescapable implication of it.
[71] Robert Jewett, Paul, the Apostle to
[72] Wayne Jackson, “1 Corinthians
[Page 130]
[73] Wayne Jackson, “Are Choirs and Solos Authorized for
the Church Assembly?” Part of the
Christian Courier website. At: http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/261-are-choirs-and-solos-authorized-for-the-church-assembly
[January 2011].
[74]
[75] Ibid.
[76] Cf. Andrew Wilson,
“1 Corinthians
gatherings.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=50&Itemid=63
[January 2011].
[77] Ibid.
[78] Lenski, 611;
Lipscomb and Shepherd, 214.
[79] Hargreaves, 182, and Moule, Holy
Spirit, 63.
[80] Grosheide, 338.; Zerr, 34-35.
[81] Jewett, 119.
[82] As
suggested by Bruce, Corinthians, 134, and Grosheide,
338.
[83] James
D. G. Dunn, The Christ and the Spirit: Pneumatology
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998), 70.
[84] For quotations and citations, see Kell,
27-28.
[85] Ken Crause, Praying with
Purpose and Power ([N.p.]: Xulon Press, 2007), 104.
[86] Robert A. Rorey, The Bible, Natural Theology and Natural Law: Conflict or Compromise? (
[87] Orr and Walther, 311, and Walter, 153.
[88] Bruce, Corinthians, 134-135, and Elmer H. Zaugg, A Genetic Study of the Spirit-Phenomena in the
New Testament (Doctoral dissertation; Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Libraries, 1917), 53.
[89] Sam Storms, The
Beginners Guide to Spiritual Gifts (
[91] Fitzmyer, First
Corinthians, 527.
[92] Kell, 36.
[93] Cf. Jewett, 117.
[94] Ibid., 118.
[95] Ibid., 119.
[96] Getty, 1128.
[97] Storms, 95.
[98] Leonard L. Thompson, “Spirit Possession: Revelation in Religious Studies,” in Reading
the Book of Revelation: A Resource for
Students, edited by David L. Barr (
[99] Gerhard Maier, Biblical Hermeneutics,
translated by Robert Yarbrough (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1994), 93.
[100] Paul
Hughes, Christ in Us: The Exalted Christ
and the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit (
[101] Moses Stuart, A
Commentary on the Apocalypse (Andover:
Allan, Morrill, and Wardwell, 1845), vol. 1,
p. 168.
[102] E. Earle Ellis, Prophecy, 30-31.
[103] Ibid., 32-33, introduces the idea of revelatory angels and
the parallel he sees to the concept in
[104] Ibid., “Prophecy,” 50.
[105] In effect this seems to be the view of Grudem, Gift, Revised Edition, 97-98.
[106] This appears to be the thrust of Ibid.,
97.
[Page 132]
[107] Ibid.
[108] C. K.
Robertson, 71-73. Some, however, argue
for a uniform practice, at least in Judaism.
Richard Boldrey and Joyce Boldrey,
62, contend that women teachers were incompatible with Jewish custom and
therefore Paul prohibited it. If Paul
could argue that they needed to avoid behavior that would be repulsive to their
polytheist neighbors (
[109] Boiled down to its essence, this is the argument of
Walter A. Maier, “1 Corinthians 14:33b-38.”
[110] Ibid.
[111] Ibid.
[112] For
the case that wives are the specific “women” under consideration see Orr and
Walther, 312-313; cf. Parry, 159.
[113]Kistemaker, Exposition, 513-514.
[114]Thiselton, 1158-1161.
[115] Wayne A. Grudem, Evangelical
Feminism: A New Road to Liberalism? (
[116] Ibid., 160-161.
[117] Ibid., 161.
[118] Ibid.
[119]
Because of the non-married women mentioned in chapter 7, Sawicki,
49, regards the instruction to ask one’s spouse to be a rather “curious”
assertion. Not so curious, however, if
married couples were the prevalent case.
[120] Walter A. Maier, “1 Corinthians 14:33b-38.”
[121] Grosheide, 343.
[122] Lenski, 618.
[124] As noted by John M. Hicks, “Women in the Assembly
(First Corinthians
[125] Ibid.
[126] For the full quote see Kovacs, 239-240.
[127] One has far more room to argue in regard to whether
there were “deaconesses” as well as “deacons,” though there would still be the
important matter of whether the terms manifest de facto descriptions of a pious
woman’s work or de jure descriptions referring to a
formal church office.
The
picture is further complicated by the modern inclination to look upon “deacon”
as a formal church position rather than as a service to the
membership. A “deacon” was “a servant;”
“a servant” is—in the strict sense—not a post of “instruction giving” (i.e.,
authority) but of instruction “carrying out.”
(Yes, in practice there is an overlap caused by the fact that “carrying
out” can mean “giving instructions” in order to carry out their commission. But wise
and successful “servants” in all ages have known that there were still distinct
differences in the two roles.) For an
interesting critique of “deacons” as “office holders” from what appears to be a
Baptist perspective, see Cooper P. Abrams III, “A Biblical Look at Deacons.” Dated 1998, 2009. Part of the Bible Truth web site. At: http://www.bible-truth.org/deacon.html. [May 2011.]
[128] For example, Sampley, 79.
[129] Grosheide, 251,
341.
[130] For a consideration of evidence of women prophesying outside both the family and church contexts see Grosheide, 251-253.
[131] Kummel, 203. Bruce, Corinthians,
135-135, takes the approach that disruptive behavior is in mind, but concedes
that some of Paul’s wording is incompatible with that being all that was
involved in his prohibition. Ralph P.
Martin, Spirit, 86-88, believes it applies specifically to this and
miraculous speaking in tongues.
[132]
[133]
Raymond Bryan Brown, 382.
[134] Brauch, 169-171.
[135] Ibid., 171.
[137] Bristow, 62. Also see
Quast, 186.
Wilfred L. Knox, n. 16, p. 323, disputes the premise, arguing that “the
word . . . has lost its sense of ‘chattering’ in New Testament Greek as it is
clear from its use in verses 1-6, 19, where it is used of prophesying;
consequently it is impossible to hold that Saint Paul intends to forbid women
to talk in Church; the prohibition clearly refers to public speaking.”
[138] Bristow, 62.
[139] Ibid., 63-64.
[140] For a
strong argument that since the same word is not used in this sense in
its multiple occurrences in this chapter, that it is highly questionable to do
so in the current text, see Barrett, Corinthians, 332.
[141] Pregeant, 363, emphasizes it by stating that “many
scholars” take this approach. The
expression is repeated on page 368.
Specific examples of such scholars include Bassler,
328; Conzelmann, 246; Schenlle,
65-66; and Graydon F. Snyder, 185. For a fine essay defending the interpolation
scenario (and rebuttals to criticisms of the scenario) see Phil Payne, “Is 1
Corinthians
textualcriticism.blogspot.com/2010/01/is-1-cor-1434-35-interpolation.html
[January 2010].
[142] Murphy-O’Connor, Message, 133. Cf. Flanagan, 80-81.
[143] Eriksson, 202.
[144] Hicks, “Women in the Assembly.”
[145] Murphy-O’Connor, Message, 133, adopting the view of
Antoinette Wire.
[146]
Bridges, 133, Polhill, 249, and Scott G. Sinclair, Jesus
Christ According to Paul:
The Christologies of Paul’s Undisputed
Epistles and the Christology of Paul (Berkeley, California: BIBAL Press, 1988), 71.
[147] Bridges, 139.
[148] Cf.
the summary of such texts in Flanagan, 80-81.
[149] For a
detailed summary of this approach, see Flanagan, 81-82. Those who take this approach include Peter F.
Ellis, 103, and Getty, 1129.
Murphy-O’Connor, Doubleday, 152, suspects that this was the
case. Note that this represents a shift
from his earlier view (see above) that the verses were originally an interpolation. Now he accepts that they were genuine (151).
[Page 135]
[150] Hicks, “Women in the Assembly.”
[151] Summary from an individual who is open to women
preachers but regards this view as weak: Hicks, “Women in the Assembly.”
[152] Ibid.