-----------------
In the past we have had occasion to comment on several of the nameless author's explanations of biblical beliefs. Almost without exception they have been superficial, error-prone, or simply downright unbiblical.
In the past we have had occasion to comment on several of the nameless author's explanations of biblical beliefs. Almost without exception they have been superficial, error-prone, or simply downright unbiblical.
Today's article is no exception. The author arrogantly suggests, despite acknowledging centuries of debate over the teachings of the Apostle Paul, that he is going to settle the matter. What follows is the author's errant attempt.
For centuries, the teachings of the Apostle Paul have been at the epicenter of theological debates within the church, and in recent years, particularly surrounding the interpretation of his views on gender roles. One such debate that keeps rearing its ugly head (Apparently centuries of debate is an ugly thing.)
pertains to Paul’s instruction to women in 1 Corinthians 11, where he discusses the cultural practice (The author presumes his premise is true.)
of women wearing head coverings during worship. At the heart of the issue is whether Paul’s words should be seen as a timeless command for all Christian women or as a culturally specific instruction applicable only to the church in Corinth.
This question of interpretation is not a new quandary. It has its roots in the early church and has been revisited throughout the centuries, stretching from the era of Church Fathers, through the Middle Ages, the Reformation, and into the present day. Various theological perspectives, such as complementarianism, have emerged with their distinctive interpretations, contributing to this ongoing conversation. Today, Egalitarians, feminists, and progressives often point to this passage to try to paint conservative, complementarians as inconsistent and hypocritical in their theological perspective on gender roles. (Yeah, yeah, yeah. You've already told us it's been debated.
This question of interpretation is not a new quandary. It has its roots in the early church and has been revisited throughout the centuries, stretching from the era of Church Fathers, through the Middle Ages, the Reformation, and into the present day. Various theological perspectives, such as complementarianism, have emerged with their distinctive interpretations, contributing to this ongoing conversation. Today, Egalitarians, feminists, and progressives often point to this passage to try to paint conservative, complementarians as inconsistent and hypocritical in their theological perspective on gender roles. (Yeah, yeah, yeah. You've already told us it's been debated.
And by the way, the author will mention complementarians almost a dozen times, but will never explain why complementarianism is uniquely correct in these doctrines.)
Complementarians, affirming the biblical revelation of equal worth yet distinct roles for men and women, (To what biblical revelation does the author refer? Establishing this concept of equal worth yet distinct roles seems like it would be a key component to his argument.)
Complementarians, affirming the biblical revelation of equal worth yet distinct roles for men and women, (To what biblical revelation does the author refer? Establishing this concept of equal worth yet distinct roles seems like it would be a key component to his argument.)
do however adhere strictly to Paul’s teachings. (The author again presumes his premise. He has yet to discuss or establish that his opinion is indeed strict adherence.)
This brings forth a compelling query: Why do complementarians, who maintain the enduring relevance of Paul’s command in 1 Corinthians 14:34 for women remain silent and in submission in church, (The author neglects the context of this. This was a matter of order in this particular church, where women were asking questions of their husbands during the gathering of the saints, and Paul considered it out of order. Note the very next verse, which the author omits:
1Co. 14:35 If they want to enquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
It seems obvious that Paul was not commanding the complete and total silence of women in church. In fact, this command comes in the middle of Paul's explanation of prophecy and tongues, which the author does not believe in. The author insists on literalism regarding one verse in chapter 14, but does not accept other verses in chapter 14.
And the author will go on to discuss chapter 11, where women were speaking in church. He never will reconcile this.
We would suggest that women's silence in church is clearly context-specific. It was a matter particularly applying to the Corinthian church, though it is certainnly possible the principle might extend to today's church, should people abandon decorum on a Sunday morning.
In any case, the author glosses right over this important context.)
not extend the same literal interpretation to Paul’s discussion on head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11? The journey to unpack this question invites us into a deeper exploration of Scripture, encouraging a closer look at the nuances of language, culture, and context in biblical interpretation. (Nuances not contained in the author's presentation.)
Paul’s directive in 1 Corinthians 14:34, according to the English Standard Version (ESV), declares, “the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.” Complementarians understand this verse as a universal command, which lays down a timeless principle for the roles of men and women within the church. (?? 1 Corinthians 14:34 has nothing to do with "roles." It is not describing duties of a "role" at all. It is addressing a specific indecorus behavior of certain women in this particular church!)
Paul’s directive in 1 Corinthians 14:34, according to the English Standard Version (ESV), declares, “the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.” Complementarians understand this verse as a universal command, which lays down a timeless principle for the roles of men and women within the church. (?? 1 Corinthians 14:34 has nothing to do with "roles." It is not describing duties of a "role" at all. It is addressing a specific indecorus behavior of certain women in this particular church!)
It’s not seen as a restrictive command but as one that embraces and highlights the unique roles assigned by God to each gender. (Again the author insists on describing this as a "role," specifically applying to women. However, certain men are criticized for speaking in church as well:
Ga. 1:9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
Clearly who speaks or doesn't speak has nothing to do with roles, but rather, what is proper for behavior.)
However, when approaching 1 Corinthians 11, complementarians interpret the text differently. Here, Paul discusses a cultural practice of his day: (Again the author presumes his premise.)
women covering their heads during worship. (No, it's specifically when they pray or prophesy. And of course, these activities involve speaking in church. And again, we know the author does not believe in contemporary prophecy, which means he is picking and choosing his literalness.
The author's thinking is truly muddled.)
This, though, is not seen by complementarians as a universal command that extends to all cultures and times. But why is that?
Throughout history, the church has recognized that Scripture is composed of both prescriptive and descriptive passages. The nuance in this distinction is critical for sound biblical interpretation. Prescriptive passages—passages that prescribe— entail clear commands intended for universal adherence by all believers, regardless of their temporal or cultural circumstances. Such passages, both in the original Greek and English translations, are typically characterized by the use of imperative verbs, signaling a binding instruction.
Descriptive passages, on the other hand, are distinct. They primarily serve to recount—or describe—specific situations, events, or customs within a given historical and cultural context. These passages do not necessarily set forth rules or commands for believers to follow universally. The language used here often lacks the strong imperative verbs seen in prescriptive passages. Instead, it uses indicative or subjunctive verb forms, providing descriptions, illustrations, or hypothetical scenarios. (Indeed. Let's now see how the author employs these principles.)
With this understanding, let’s turn our attention to the cultural practice in Corinth during Paul’s time, where a woman’s head covering symbolized submission and respect—a clear societal norm. This custom forms the backdrop of 1 Corinthians 11:4-6 (ESV), wherein Paul writes, “Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head… For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short.”
In this passage, there’s an evident absence of imperatives, both in the original Greek and in the English translation. (A couple of verse later Paul writes his conclusion,
Throughout history, the church has recognized that Scripture is composed of both prescriptive and descriptive passages. The nuance in this distinction is critical for sound biblical interpretation. Prescriptive passages—passages that prescribe— entail clear commands intended for universal adherence by all believers, regardless of their temporal or cultural circumstances. Such passages, both in the original Greek and English translations, are typically characterized by the use of imperative verbs, signaling a binding instruction.
Descriptive passages, on the other hand, are distinct. They primarily serve to recount—or describe—specific situations, events, or customs within a given historical and cultural context. These passages do not necessarily set forth rules or commands for believers to follow universally. The language used here often lacks the strong imperative verbs seen in prescriptive passages. Instead, it uses indicative or subjunctive verb forms, providing descriptions, illustrations, or hypothetical scenarios. (Indeed. Let's now see how the author employs these principles.)
With this understanding, let’s turn our attention to the cultural practice in Corinth during Paul’s time, where a woman’s head covering symbolized submission and respect—a clear societal norm. This custom forms the backdrop of 1 Corinthians 11:4-6 (ESV), wherein Paul writes, “Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head… For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short.”
In this passage, there’s an evident absence of imperatives, both in the original Greek and in the English translation. (A couple of verse later Paul writes his conclusion,
1Co. 11:10 For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
"Ought" is opheiló:
"originally belonged to the legal sphere; it expressed initially one's legal and economic, and then later one's moral, duties and responsibilities to the gods and to men, or to their sacrosanct regulations. . . . opheílō expresses human and ethical responsibility in the NT"
Doesn't this seem like an imperative?)
Therefore, Paul isn’t issuing a direct command; he is stating a cultural fact. He’s saying, “this is what happens,” not “this is what should happen.” His language here is indicative, describing the prevailing practice of his day, not prescriptive, dictating what must be done in all societies and eras. (??? Just a few verses later Paul writes:
1Co. 11:16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice — nor do the churches of God.
Dear reader, does this sound descriptive or prescriptive? Was Paul describing cultural practices, or was he telling the Corinthian church what must be done?
In fact, Paul was describing what EVERY church must do. This is prescriptive, clearly containing an imperative.)
What Paul accomplishes here is a masterful blend of cultural description with a universal theological principle. He uses the culturally-specific practice of head coverings as an illustration to bring to light a timeless truth: the unique and equally significant roles of men and women within the body of Christ. (Again the author appeals to "roles." We are beginning to think that the author doesn't understand the meaning of the word "role." A role is a set of prescribed behaviors, duties, prohibitions, and attitudes assigned that come to bear on the proper function of a group. For example job duties. So Joe Blow's job duty as an older man of faith might be the role of being an example for younger men or cleaning the church, while Mary Doe's could be lead the women's group or to pass out bulletins.
What Paul accomplishes here is a masterful blend of cultural description with a universal theological principle. He uses the culturally-specific practice of head coverings as an illustration to bring to light a timeless truth: the unique and equally significant roles of men and women within the body of Christ. (Again the author appeals to "roles." We are beginning to think that the author doesn't understand the meaning of the word "role." A role is a set of prescribed behaviors, duties, prohibitions, and attitudes assigned that come to bear on the proper function of a group. For example job duties. So Joe Blow's job duty as an older man of faith might be the role of being an example for younger men or cleaning the church, while Mary Doe's could be lead the women's group or to pass out bulletins.
If we add the word "gender" to the word "role," then we have entered the realm of prescribed behaviors, duties, prohibitions, and attitudes that are gender-specific. But there are very few descriptions of gender-specific roles in the NT apart from marriage. The only one we can think of is the description of elders/overseers, which requires a male [1Ti. 3:2].
See our detailed discussion of church leadership here.)
This demonstrates how Scripture can use historical and cultural descriptions as a vehicle for communicating eternal principles. It’s not the cultural norm itself that carries forward through time, but the underlying truth it is used to express.
Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 (ESV), Paul uses nature itself to support his argument, “Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.” Thus, the assertion that Paul’s reference to head coverings is descriptive, not prescriptive, stands strong. It serves as a testament to the meticulous, context-aware approach complementarians employ in their interpretation and application of Scripture. (Having completely botched the application of descriptive/prescriptive, the author now will turn to the main topic.)
In stark contrast to the culturally descriptive nature of the head coverings discussion in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul’s discourse just a few chapters away in 1 Corinthians 14:34 adopts a different tone and linguistic approach. Here, the apostle issues a clear directive, establishing a universal principle for orderly worship in the church. The English Standard Version (ESV) reads, “the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.”
Unlike the indicative, or descriptive, language used to describe the practice of head coverings, this verse uses imperative language, indicative of a prescriptive passage. The Greek verb translated as “should keep silent” (σιγάτωσαν) is in the imperative mood, representing a command or an instruction. Similarly, the phrase “they are not permitted to speak” (οὐκ ἐπιτρέπεται) carries a prohibitive tone. This transition from indicative to imperative language signifies a shift from description to prescription, from cultural illustration to a divine injunction.
Moreover, Paul’s reference to “the Law” suggests an appeal to a higher, timeless authority, one that transcends cultural norms and practices. His language invokes the divine law as given in the Old Testament, further substantiating the prescriptive nature of his instruction. (Back in the passage regarding head coverings, Paul appealed to the angels [1Co. 11:10]. So, does the Law trump the angels, or vice-versa?)
Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 (ESV), Paul uses nature itself to support his argument, “Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.” Thus, the assertion that Paul’s reference to head coverings is descriptive, not prescriptive, stands strong. It serves as a testament to the meticulous, context-aware approach complementarians employ in their interpretation and application of Scripture. (Having completely botched the application of descriptive/prescriptive, the author now will turn to the main topic.)
In stark contrast to the culturally descriptive nature of the head coverings discussion in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul’s discourse just a few chapters away in 1 Corinthians 14:34 adopts a different tone and linguistic approach. Here, the apostle issues a clear directive, establishing a universal principle for orderly worship in the church. The English Standard Version (ESV) reads, “the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.”
Unlike the indicative, or descriptive, language used to describe the practice of head coverings, this verse uses imperative language, indicative of a prescriptive passage. The Greek verb translated as “should keep silent” (σιγάτωσαν) is in the imperative mood, representing a command or an instruction. Similarly, the phrase “they are not permitted to speak” (οὐκ ἐπιτρέπεται) carries a prohibitive tone. This transition from indicative to imperative language signifies a shift from description to prescription, from cultural illustration to a divine injunction.
Moreover, Paul’s reference to “the Law” suggests an appeal to a higher, timeless authority, one that transcends cultural norms and practices. His language invokes the divine law as given in the Old Testament, further substantiating the prescriptive nature of his instruction. (Back in the passage regarding head coverings, Paul appealed to the angels [1Co. 11:10]. So, does the Law trump the angels, or vice-versa?)
This passage’s language and context strongly suggest that Paul’s instruction for women to keep silent in the churches is not a mere description of Corinthian culture or a response to a specific circumstance. Rather, it is a directive, a command intended for the wider Christian community, transcending cultural and temporal boundaries.
This juxtaposition between the descriptive nature of the head coverings passage and the prescriptive instruction in 1 Corinthians 14:34 reinforces the fact that we should be committed to a careful, nuanced interpretation of Scripture. It illustrates how we navigate the complex interplay of cultural context, linguistic analysis, and theological principles to faithfully apply God’s Word in their congregations.
Additional support to the universality of this command is given in the previous verse. In 1 Corinthians 14, the phrase “as in all the churches of the saints” appears at the end of verse 33. But in Greek, it’s common for a sentence to continue into the next verse. Many Bible scholars believe this phrase makes more sense if it’s seen as introducing verse 34’s command about women in the church. This way, it shows that the command is intended for all Christian churches, not just the one in Corinth. (We need to again mention a similar verse from chapter 11 regarding head coverings:
1Co. 11:16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice — nor do the churches of God.
This is what we mean by muddled thinking.)
Paul’s command in 1 Corinthians 14:34, advocating for silence and submission from women in the churches, finds a parallel in his first letter to Timothy. In 1 Timothy 2:12, Paul states, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” (We discuss this verse in detail here.)
Paul’s command in 1 Corinthians 14:34, advocating for silence and submission from women in the churches, finds a parallel in his first letter to Timothy. In 1 Timothy 2:12, Paul states, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” (We discuss this verse in detail here.)
This similar directive, appearing in a separate letter to a different community, further reinforces the universality of Paul’s instruction.
The bottom line, a proper understanding of these passages will reveal that the command in 1 Corinthians 14:34 is a universal prescription for the church. At the same time, the mention of head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11 is a cultural norm used descriptively to underline the eternal principle of gender distinction. It’s not inconsistency or selectiveness in interpretation. Rather, it demonstrates an unwavering commitment to understanding and applying Scripture accurately and faithfully. In doing so, complementarians celebrate the God-ordained distinction between male and female roles within the church, recognizing their unique and equally important contributions to the body of Christ. (So there we have it. The author has settled a centuries-old debate... Not. In fact, he has completely reversed the application of prescriptive/descriptive.
The bottom line, a proper understanding of these passages will reveal that the command in 1 Corinthians 14:34 is a universal prescription for the church. At the same time, the mention of head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11 is a cultural norm used descriptively to underline the eternal principle of gender distinction. It’s not inconsistency or selectiveness in interpretation. Rather, it demonstrates an unwavering commitment to understanding and applying Scripture accurately and faithfully. In doing so, complementarians celebrate the God-ordained distinction between male and female roles within the church, recognizing their unique and equally important contributions to the body of Christ. (So there we have it. The author has settled a centuries-old debate... Not. In fact, he has completely reversed the application of prescriptive/descriptive.
We should say that we don't insist a women pray or prophesy with her head covered. We would be more general in that a Christian woman should not have a shaved head or extremely short hair, and a man should remove his hat while praying or prophesying. we think this characterization satisfies the constraints Paul laid out in 1 Corinthians 11.)
No comments:
Post a Comment