Bring out your togas. We're going Greek today.
Sandi told the story of a woman who had an affair with a ministry partner. Kelley talked about protecting our brothers in Christ. Sadly, it's a theme we see in many churches--what happens when ministers, both men and women, aren't careful.
It surprised me to find that this is a theme God addresses.
A friend of mine sat down with my husband and me to show us what he'd discovered in the Greek when he studied 1 Corinthians 14.
This is how it reads in the English:
"As in all the churches of the saints, the women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak. Rather, let them be in submission, as in fact the law says. If they want to find out about something, they should ask their husbands at home, because it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church."
Most translation leave it as "women should not speak" in some form or fashion. Here's where the Greek comes in. Stay with me for a moment. This gets good.
Paul uses an infinitive for "to speak." In the Greek, if you want to have a subject with the infinitive (the person doing the action), you use an accusitve form (akin to our direct object, except in Greek, the accusitive is shown by changing the spelling of the word rather than changing the order, as it is in English). However, here the word that most people take to be the subject, a generic "them," is not in the accusitive form. It's in the dative form (like our indirect object). Which means technically, the verse should read "for they [women] are not permitted to speak to or in them."
In this passage, Paul isn't conveying some general principle of not speaking in church. (In fact, above, he talks about when women pray and prophecy in church, which, last time I checked, are manners of speaking.) In this passage, Paul's pointing to a specific group to which women shouldn't talk, namely the prophets.
In other words, in a passage talking about church order, about when prophets should speak and when they should stay silent, Paul seems to be remarking that if the women specifically see a problem with what the prophets prophecy, they shouldn't go directly to that prophet. No, they should first discuss it with their husbands, and together the husband and wife team could go to the prophet.
Which would protect from any shenanigans.
It could protect from anything happening from them being alone, and it could protect from any accusations from them being alone (and I hate to say this, but when egos are bruised from confrontations, it's quite possible one of the hurt parties could accuse--think Joseph and Potipher's wife).
In fact, my friend further pointed out to my husband and me that we have an example of this in Acts 18. When Priscilla and Aquilla, a godly couple who ministered together alongside Paul, heard this new guy, Apollos, speaking, they discerned that he didn't quite have all the facts. Together, Priscilla and Aquilla took Apollos aside and instructed him.
So my question is how do we honor the 1 Corinthians 14 passage?
Some of it's easy enough: in church, a husband and wife team can approach things together. But there are other questions.
What about student situations? Does a female drag her husband to campus when she has a meeting with her male professor or a male take his wife when he has a meeting with his female professor?
And what about singles? In Paul's day, singles were rarer than they are now as women got married earlier. Before they got married, they remained under the care of their father, which would mean single females could approach prophets with their father. Now, however, singles may live hundreds of miles from their parents. How do we honor this passage and protect these relations with singles?
These questions aren't all that different from the ones Sandi and Kelley raised. Kelley pointed out leaving doors open and when all possible working with numerous people in the same building. I encountered the open-door policy often when in seminary.
What about having a woman on staff or on the elder board who could be an advocate? This woman, a godly leader invested with authority from the church (or school), could be someone to whom other women could turn and with whom these women could approach men.
What are some ways you've seen this done well? Or ways you'd like to see this done well?
Tapestry features leading Christian writers and thinkers who have come together to engage culture from a biblical worldview. For more information about the contributors, please see the 
This is a messy section that has given scholars a headache for centuries. Other resources (in addition to those mentioned by Sandra):
1. Because different manuscripts list these verses in different places, some scholars argue that the verses were a later addition (a common explanation when that's the problem)--G. D. Fee, First Corinthians [NICNT], 697-710; P. B. Payne, “Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus, and 1 Cor 14.34-5,” NTS 41 [1995]: 240-262. I believe the verses to be original, although the fact that they're shifted around by early scribes and written in margins in some places show the difficulty even the early church had with this passage.
2. Many scholars hold to the view that this passage talks about women speaking against, or judging, the prophets in this situation (rather than the women not speaking in church period, which would go against 1 Corinthians 11, a passage that talks about women prophesying in church--and it's interesting to note that Paul never specifies that they prophesy to other women only)--Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, pp. 136-37; Morris, pp. 201-2; Robertson and Plummer, p. 325; James B. Hurley, Man and Woman In Biblical Perspective, pp. 188, 190; Thomas Constable, http://soniclight.com/constable/notes/pdf/1corinthians.pdf, and the NET Bible (see notes for 1 Corinthians 14:33-36).
Corollary: Some scholars, such as G. Campbell Morgan, believe that Paul wrote the prohibition in ch. 14 because of conditions unique in Corinth. For example, the passage implies that Paul addressed a specific situation in which chaos rather than order ruled the church worship service (the overall problem Paul addresses in ch. 14), and this disruption discouraged the strengthening and encouragement for which the service was intended. The book Sandra mentions explains a unique situation in Rome concerning the "new" woman v. the "old" woman Caesar wished to re-establish with dress codes and other "proper" behavior.
Within these, an idea exists of protecting respectable relations between men and women within the culture in order to strengthen the church. This leads me back to my original question: how can we in today's culture create relations between men and women that encourage respect for the strengthening of the church (especially when affairs lead to the detoriation of the local churches)?
A follow-up, excerpting the message from the Greek-ist I sent this page to:
QUOTE:"The authoress (who seems to know little Greek) does not see that the dative feminine pronoun autais "to them" is the indirect object of the preceding passive verb epitrepetai, "it is not allowed." Together the two words mean "It is not allowed for them." The pronoun is certainly not the "subject" of the following infinitive (although she writes as if she thought this was the only alternative to her interpretation), and it is also ungrammatical to try to construe it as the infinitive's indirect object, as she does. The pronoun is a feminine plural, and it cannot be understood in the way she proposes. It is clearly the indirect object of the preceding verb, and that is why it is in the dative case." [End Quote]
Grace.
Thank you for your comments, John, as we together as the body of Christ study God's word in true grace. Couple of things I'd like to point out regarding both of your comments:
1. 1 Corinthians 11 allows women to prophesy and pray in churches (although you mention that Paul forbids women from prophesying in church). That sheds light on this portion of his letter (i.e. he must not be telling them to generally be silent in all situations as some take this to mean).
2. We must always understand the culture from which the apostles write and what issues they address. As I'm sure you know, the Bible was not written in a vaccuum. This does not in any way make it less powerful or meaningful in our culture--every culture can and should be transformed by God to be a culture that can uniquely glorify God--but allows us to better understand their point of view. As we better understand their meaning, we can better apply it to our life. This is simple language theory and communication theory. For more on this, please see the writings of Vanhoozer, Franke, Wright, and Newbigin, for example.
3. I'm fully willing to admit I'm not the foremost Greek expert in the world. However, I continue to study it and work it out so I may best understand the word of God. In this particular passage, I continue to argue that how most translations take that dative as the subject (does not permit them to speak) is wrong. Because of this, we have a responsibility to figure out to what the word refers (and continue examining it). One of the things I intended to do with this blog post was to begin such dialogue but also help women understand that in this particular passage, we've had it wrong. This particular passage is not a general warning to always keep silent, but is referring to a specific context of prophesy in worship. Rather than interrupting the prophets and confronting them directly (which is where the dative comes in to play--not a general "them", but referring to this specific situation "in them"), the women were to go to their husbands and together they could straighten the matter our or learn more.
Yes, but the thing is: the dative isn't unclear, nor what it refers to...that's the thing; none of the Church ever thought it was unclear, either, till this text became un-PC by modern standards changing; and I do get what 1 Cor 11 says, but, however, notice that passage says nothing about a woman doing that in either mixed company, nor does it exhort her to be a spokesperson (prophet) to the Church, but merely refers that whenever she does either (again, indicates nothing about whether she should do so amongst the whole congregation), she is to have her head covered: this also wasn't even debated until this century!
Also, when handling a text, does the text itself indicate something cultural, or no? If you said yes in this case, you could make the same argument for practically any other part of the text: it's a loose argument that the text itself does not bear. If you want to make this kind of "how do we apply this cultural thing today", take a look about the prohibition of eating in idols' temples for the sake of others' consciences: there you go!
However this text in itself only demonstrates an apostles' own command, and of course the good 'ol rule could be applied here, scripture interprets scripture: you can check for the theme in scripture; and if we want to think "cultural" here, from the Judeo-Christian perspective of Paul's time, they disallowed all speaking (and even most participation) in Synagogues at the time, for which Paul is sometimes called a "radical" for saying "let the women learn..." but they forget the lat part "in silence...". (He's not trying to re-orient thinking on the sexes here, which idea has had much undue influence upon handling the biblical text in recent history. I think of one of the NRSV translators who protested the committee meddling with the translators' work after the fact to make it politically correct, though being himself very liberal in doctrinal and theological orientation, yet said it was dishonest to read such ideas into Paul's writing, as a committee, not the mass of translators, did to their work.)
Anyway, perhaps the dative confusion is over that it doesn't seem normal to we who speak english? The structure to an English speaker is odd, but it's not to greek, far as I know: I find that when I move in and out of thinking in Spanish, then look at the Greek...that some things don't seem so odd anymore, but that my own language was just getting in the way: though by no means am I advocating studying the language from the viewpoint of one or another modern language, but just that some things that may seem odd, even in your own language, and hard to understand, may really just be a form you're not familiar with.
And as I said before, I'm grateful that this makes me want to study hard, and thanks again. : )
I've always gotten a burr up my back whenever this subject comes up.
Often, pastors have attriubuted it on the culture of the time. A culture which still exists in many of the M/ddl# E@st countries as we speak.
Your "infinitive" approach is a better angle. But it certainly is wrapped up tightly in its translation...
Just looking at what you're saying all seems a little outlandish given that it seems nobody in history has ever come up with something like this, as far as I can tell.
Furthermore if you take a moment and read a very literal version (in this case I'm referring to the Revised Version) I think Terry (http://blog.bible.org/tapestry/content/loosing-tongues-women#comment-284) has it correct, as the Revised Version, "for it is not permitted unto them to speak"; so the "unto" doesn't trip you up, it's equivalent to "to", (there is no different), so it's, "for it is not permitted to them to speak".
That in itself, then, should give you a clue to whether or not this is cultural (i.e. the apostle himself, in writing, is telling us that it is forbidden "to them" to speak, just as he forbids women from prophecying in the congregations). Speaking of this "cultural" stuff, whereas it is important to know of cultural things to understanding certain expressions and such, when the apostles themselves are delivering instructions, and emphasizing it's themselves delivering it, it's not cultural; like how people explain 1 Cor 11 away today as "cultural", and yet the apostles' commands are contrary to Corinthian culture (religious services among Greeks often forbid women to cover their heads-and no, not for orgies; Jewish services required both sexes to cover their heads: the apostle not only go against both, but emphasize that he ("I") delivered it to the churches, the word "tradition" means "gave to", very diffferent from the modern use of the term).
And I'm not even trying here to harp on 1 Cor 11, at the moment, although it should tell us all something when up to several decades ago it was still widely obeyed, and had been since the beginning (though its original intent increasingly ignored over the centuries); I just bring it up as a good example of dumb arguments of people who ignorantly appeal to culture, ignore the text, and especially when they don't even know about the culture. Sheesh guys! Be more careful with God's Word, okay?
And just to be careful myself I've also contacted a very able fellow in Greek to investigate this article's claim.
And as to all the different people trying to handle Greek, this really makes me want to buck-up and study hard so as not to err. Thanks for that.
Hi John:
I want to take a second to respond to both of your comments here since I'm the moderator here for the day and since I've been in on the discussion from the beginning (Terri, with an "i" not a "y"!).
I think you may have misunderstood Heather's discussion of the culture as it relates to this passage. What Heather is trying to do is understand how the passage would have been understood and applied by the first readers/hearers and then move from that to applying it to our world today. This is a perfectly legitimate strategy within a historical/grammatical/literary hermeneutic and something we should pay attention to in all passages, not just ones that are difficult for us. I think if you read Heather's post and comments carefully, you'll find that she is not trying to claim the text to be "cultural" and thus not applicable today, but rather is trying to figure out how it applies in specific situations, i.e how we can be faithful and obedient to the text today.
As to your other points about the Greek, I think Heather's comment to you and my comments back and forth cover the issue adequately.
Finally, I want to address the tone and rhetoric of your comments. The hostility and condescension with which you address the author is frankly an unacceptable way for a Christian brother to address a fellow-worker and quite honestly renders your arguments to be less persuasive. You will note that in the comments I came to similar conclusions as you about the translation Heather was proposing but did so without insulting her intelligence or resorting to sarcasm. Just to be clear I want to list some quotations from your comment that represent the type of tone that is unacceptable on Tapestry:
The authoress (who seems to know little Greek).....
I just bring it up as a good example of dumb arguments of people who ignorantly appeal to culture, ignore the text, and especially when they don't even know about the culture. Sheesh guys! Be more careful with God's Word, okay?
And as to all the different people trying to handle Greek, this really makes me want to buck-up and study hard so as not to err. Thanks for that.
I'm not going to spend anytime defending Heather's ability with the Greek text (though I know her to be quite competent after 5 semesters at DTS), but I will say that most people who are priviledged to work with the original languages of the Scripture do so humbly recognizing the challenges it brings.
Here's the thing John (and anyone else still reading this far down!): at Tapestry we welcome disagreements, differences of opinions, and corrections where and when we make mistakes but we expect and demand that these be communicated respectfully and graciously and without personal insults, undue sarcasm, and/or namecalling. We want to have a conversation that is open yet civil with the same courtesies you would give a friend you were talking with at the dinner table. I am confident we can have a fruitful conversation about evidence and methodology without the extra rhetoric.
Thanks,
Terri Moore
Just a couple things:
1. "The authoress" was not my comment, if you'll read the one I posted: I was posting a quote from a very able greekist; the posts after that one, I posted tired and not paying enough attention, and grumpily: and I'm very sorry.
2. "Ess" at the end of "author" is merely feminizing "author". Personally I don't really see that as too offensive, however I think he probably was in writing: just as probably any very careful teacher is when they feel someone is handling the text very poorly (as the rest of the e-mail he sent indicated, which I did not post). "Grace" goes both ways: we both give and deal, and if there's a problem with his tone I could relay a message for you: he's quite nice, and more serious than most, I think, about due caution.
3. The offensive thing, I think, is that this text isn't cultural: I think the comments regarding perhaps couples going to some brother is great (rather than individuals to the opposite sex); I think those kinds of considerations...masterful! But in regards the text itself, you get that part: and that part is just text, it's not so much "cultural": "it is not permitted to them...". Personally I am (and, increasingly I've observed increasingly more Christians are) getting frustrated with will-nilly handling of the texts, poor teaching, and excitement declaration of opinion on it, rather than paying it close attention: not only because it's the "irreverent babble" that the word declares is false religion that spreads through the Church like gangrene, being uninformed by the word, but when it's specifically by botching the word...not good.
4. Also, I do myself think more than just a bit of tone of my own came off too seriously: and for that, I apologize; I do admit, I am frustrated with the way people treated the Bible these days; including this post (more in another comment).
5. I'd be careful, personally, to promote chatter on a text without someone being qualified to do so.
6. It is outlandish to propose something unheard of, when you don't even know about the Greek, before asking anybody qualified, contrary to every word study, commentary, resources, lexicon...and my first post, I believe, wasn't offensive in tone until, perhaps, the "dumb arguments" part (the text before that is meant to be factual and condensed: which probably doesn't help is sound as friendly as it does sterile and cold). If it 'twas, I apologize sincerely.
I'll have to be brief in my response since the kids are home (so forgive typos and any incoherency!), but here goes....
First of all thanks for your two comments today, they stick to the issues and I appreciate that. Second, I hope you don't think I was in anyway taken aback by your passion for accuracy in handling Scripture. I certainly see that as a virtue and would encourage you to continue studying. I'll use the numbers from your previous comment in my comments/responses below:
1) and 2): You and I may just have to agree to disagree on the authoress comment. I do feel however that since you posted it under your name, it's your responsibility though it didn't originate with you (you could have edited it out and we are holding Heather accountable for an idea she posted even though it originated with someone else). The phrase about knowing little Greek is an insult and an undue one at that. Even if we agree that her translation is off, one mistake does not make that statement true. We all make mistakes every now and then when dealing with a 2000 year old text written in another language. And since authoress is not the conventional way of referring to a female author (at least not in scholarly literature, nor have I seen it used anywhere in popular lit before your comment) can you see how, coupled with the following statement, it might be seem condescending in some sense?
3) I still think we're talking past one another when we use the word "culture" or "cultural." See my comment above.
4)Thanks, I share your frustration and I am sincere in saying we are happy to have disagreements and dissenting opinions here as long as the conversation remains respectful as it has today.
5) and 6): If I understand you correctly you seem to be concerned about the qualifications of us (as a group, I think?) in dealing with the Greek text of the NT. (I'm getting this from your statements about "chatter on a text without someone qualified" and proposing things "without even knowing about the Greek"). In response to this I would like to refer you to the author's page (see the side bar under "Most Popular") where you can read about each of our authors. Most, if not all, have gradute degrees in some area of Theology, many have a ThM (which requires extensive study in the original languages), some are seasoned Women's Ministers, and some have DMin degrees. I personally have a ThM in NT studies and am in the midst of my Phd studies in NT. Of course, none of this means that any of us are infallible in our interpretations of Scripture, but I do think that, as a group, we are qualified to speak on a wide range of issues and that, as a group we can interact with, sharpen, and correct one another (one good reason for a group blog like this). And I do think that means that we deserve the benefit of the doubt-both with regards to our qualifications and our intentions. We are all committed to understanding and living in obedience to the Lord and helping other women (and men) to do the same.
Thanks again for your comments today. It's homework time at my household, so I'm off!
Terri
Thing is, I think it would be dishonest to strike-out that commentator's tone; I don't mind editing someone's word so long as the editing is [bracketed] to indicate there has been a change, but that can be done only if one is not changing the meaning that's coming across; if it's removing something unnecessary to the point, or post-text of the point, I'm fine with that: so long as it neither changed the intent, nor, even, tone.
In regards culture, "cultural" is just something "due to culture", is it not?
: )
=====
Regarding trying to see how they'd apply these verses then, versus how we would not, the post:
________Indicates that when translations say "it is not permitted to them to speak", it's not as it seems, but that:
________________1. Ignoring the grammatically mistaken-argument.
________________2. "In this passage, Paul isn't conveying some general principle of not speaking in church. (In fact, above, he talks about when women pray and prophecy in church, which, last time I checked, are manners of speaking.) In this passage, Paul's pointing to a specific group to which women shouldn't talk, namely the prophets. [...] In other words, in a passage talking about church order, about when prophets should speak and when they should stay silent,"
________________________which has the problems:
________________________________a. The actual text does not indicate the prophets, another earlier context talks about order in regards female prophets, but, contrary to claims that this passage contradicts chapter 11 because "it says women are to prophecy", to read that passage indicates no such thing (as comment above).
________________________________b. These instructions here are general, applied to women period, in the Churches: and have been unchallenged in nearly all of Christian history, until recently...except perhaps by the text's implications, during Paul's time.
________________3. "[Rather it] seems to be remarking that if the women specifically see a problem with what the prophets prophecy, they shouldn't go directly to that prophet. No, they should first discuss it with their husbands, and together the husband and wife team could go to the prophet."
________________________which is speculative, eisegesis, not exegetical, and built on misassumptions, and an argument hooking into an earlier thought on "shenanigans"; it IS valid to say women should not go to someone of the opposite sex privately (Acts 18 being a fine example to bring up), completely: but nothing in this text indicates that such is the subject matter here.
Then the post, leading toward completion, discusses that topic, of not getting into situations with the opposite sex leading either to temptation, or possible accusations: but nothing to do with, or drawn from, the particular Biblical text: so that contrary to the thought of it being about learning how to apply it now, its' about someone's thoughts on what it should be to apply it now.
As to "cultural", I brought that up for several reasons: one, that's usually the argument drawn-up these days regarding controversial passages as these; two, the post does bring culture into view, which may have triggered that connection in my mind:
"And what about singles? In Paul's day, singles were rarer than they are now as women got married earlier. Before they got married, they remained under the care of their father, which would mean single females could approach prophets with their father. Now, however, singles may live hundreds of miles from their parents. How do we honor this passage and protect these relations with singles? [...etc.]"
Though most assuredtly the post, by culture, doesn't itself try and annul this passage. this particular passage. However, Heather's own comment brings that into view:
"We must always understand the culture from which the apostles write and what issues they address. As I'm sure you know, the Bible was not written in a vaccuum. This does not in any way make it less powerful or meaningful in our culture--every culture can and should be transformed by God to be a culture that can uniquely glorify God--but allows us to better understand their point of view. As we better understand their meaning, we can better apply it to our life."
As if we haven't already understood this passage from the beginning; maybe common, contemporary, Americans don't...but they forget the faith is a transmitted one, along with its commands, practices, order, doctrines, etc.. There's not a vacuum between us and the apostles, nor is understand culture then particularly important or relevant to understanding this particular passage: to suggest such merely functions (whether intended or not) as a diversion.
For a post titled "Loosing the Tongues of Women" which immediately brings-up 1 Cor 14, there's more than a little implication that what is posted is saying,
"everyone's wrong about this passage, it's really about shenanigans, women are supposed to speak: here's why"
For going into subject matter altogether other than the passage, it's more than troubling; now in regards truly false prophets, if nobody would stand to publicly oppose them as we are told to do to false teaching...I would applaud the woman who does this: saying that it should be otherwise (or that we should go to them in private after they've publicly taught/spoke falsely) is more than eggregiously in error, one because he who prophecies must do so with 2 or 3 who are able to judge whether it is true, and two because it is written that we are to publicly expose error and those who propagate it: something which neither Paul nor Co. did with any air of being civil; or if we want a more staunch application here, she might tell ask her husband to immediately stand and oppose the public teaching too, if we consider applying what Heather is saying.
I Think it's dangerous to propose as the intent of a text, well meant or not, a meaning contrary to its first sense, and bearing little hermeneutical support (or worse, being built on linguistic mistakes), what is provably specious. It's also begging opposition when to do so is to go contrary to history and all knowledge on that particular: not that such is impermissable or never to be allowed (as people can surely err), but I think this point is clear enough.
Such speculation is gossipy, gangrene for the Church, creating disorder and tumult for it, not establishing peace: it's no good to stoke questions on a matter from a text that leaves no room for any; we often forget that scripture is usually didactic, rather than conversational; to to beg questions and get people discussing opinion on what is clear...isn't acceptable. To do so on what is not and what has actually, provably, been twisted or subverted to something other than Christ, so long as not used as another diversion, may be helpful.
If, however, someone has questions on passages like these, then good: they ought to go to those with knowledge and ask privately, whether open-doored, or someone of the same sex, and then also be critical (in the scholarly sense) of those explanations, comparing it to scripture; if married and a lady...she can ask her husband. But to broadcast all this on a worldwide medium, on a blog set-up on a hugely popular website, on a topic that's not a mystery...is not commendable.
To bring-up a passage, read it, argue against it, then opine on one's own thoughts...is not acceptable among saints, nor valid or respectful handling of scripture. It is, in fact, the method and tactics of cults, and false teachers, to give the impression that what is about to follow will be biblical when they give messages and such, but which is rather their own judgment. None of us, however, should be so quick to sit in that kind of judgment on scripture; or so wrest it.
And none of this is said to either offend, or angrily, or as an attack, either: just dead serious.
Grace.
I appreciate the kinder tone.
I'll just choose a little section to address, because the entire message would mean an entire chapter for me....
You wrote, "These instructions here are general, applied to women period, in the Churches: and have been unchallenged in nearly all of Christian history, until recently...except perhaps by the text's implications, during Paul's time."
Applied to women period? Gune is translated "wife" or "woman" depending on context, is it not? And this context has "husband" (14:35). The counterpart to husband is wife. This question, and others like it, have most definitely been raised in the past, not just since Betty Friedan wrote The Feminine Mystique. No matter where you fall on the answer, the fact is, the most conservative translations have, indeed, been challenged.
v. 34 - Winter (Roman Wives, Roman Widows) makes a case for "as the law also says" being a reference to Roman, not Jewish, law. Compare Paul's statement about keeping Jewish law in Romans 8:3. And the entire Book of Galatians. Yes, Winter's info on Roman law is, indeed, new, but it is so because of evidence from inscriptions, archeaology, etc.
Interpreting scripture a "new" way is not always a capitulation to culture. Sometimes, indeed, discoveries from past centuries influence our current understanding. Song of Solomon was considered an allegory in much of the church's history, but the relatively recent discovery of Egyptian wasfs inform how we read it today.
Also, one of the reasons complementarians prefer to label themselves complementarians rather than traditionalists is that the appeal to tradition, as you've summarized it here, has enormous flaws. First, these verses have, indeed, been challenged in past centuries. Second, if you read Augustine, Luther, Tertullian, Chrysostom ("A woman is softer of mind than a man"), etc., about the WHY of the church's continual silencing of women, you will find arguments from which most Bible scholars today want to distance themselves. They include the ideas that women are more easily deceived than men; that man is made in God's image but not woman; that God made women not for dominion but only to serve; and a long list of similar such statements these scholars believe contract clear biblical teaching that woman was made for co-dominion, not just procreation, and she was indeed, created in the image of God. .
wow that didn't end up as "brief" as I thought, huh?
Huh, I too have never noticed that dative and am now curious as to how its functioning? I think your friend is right that it is not the subject of the infinitive but I still think we may have a mystery on our hands. The dative is a feminine pronoun and we would need to confirm the referent. Did your friend say why he thought it would refer to the prophets when the pronoun is feminine (remember prophet is one of those tricky masculine nouns that has 1st declension endings)? The closest plural feminine noun is "the churches" in the previous clause, so that might be the most probable referent. That would put us back where we started so that the second clause in vs34 should be "for they are not allowed to speak in/to them (the churches)." I think that might be the best translation at first glance but I always reserve the right to change my mind upon closer analysis when datives and pronouns are in the mix!
All that said, I think your point is a valid application either way you translate it. It also fits with Matthew 19 where in a confrontation you should take another along with you to approach someone....... Bu may not affect the student/teacher scenario since its not technically within the church setting.
OK, changing my mind after a second look, the dative looks to be modifying the main verb, "it is not permitted" (which is 3rd singular and passive) and thus the phrase is "it is not permitted for them to speak." so the dative is still referring to women, but modifying the main verb.
Actually, I think your first explanation makes more sense--"in them" parallels "in the churches." (The gar is an explanation of why they should be silent, and the explanation using the word for "speak" rather than "prophesy" or "teach." So a command, then an explanation, another command, then another explanation.) This makes sense in the context. Paul is calling for order in prophesies (not restrciting them). Basically, stop interrupting each other. Go in turn so everyone can learn and be encouraged. Paul then specifically says in this situation, in this worship time in the churches, women shouldn't interrupt but should learn in a more fitting situation in their culture.
Another thing my friend talked about that I forgot to mention is the nature of Asian churches. He grew up in India, taught in seminaries in India for years, and now teaches in a seminary in Philippines. In Asian cultures, it was considered rude for people of the opposite gender to speak to each other in public places (i.e. church). Of course, it's not in our culture, so keeping in mind contextual theology, we need to be sensitive to that.
I'm still working all this out in my mind taking what my friend taught me and going back to the Greek (and back again and again and again). This dialogue helps me work through all this.
Yeah, you could be right. Those darn Greeks and their word order. Didn't they know how difficult it would be for us 2000 years later to figure out which verb the dative modified? The only thing that makes me put it with the main verb is cuz it's passive. A search on this construction would be helpful, but I have a pumpkin party to attend. Maybe later? Someone should write an article on this.
And your friend has a point. It would have certainly been more than rude for a woman to correct a man in public in the first century Roman world and it would have reflected quite poorly on her husband also.
Even more so us today, then (for future readers of English)...with the rapid mutation of the language and the necessity of some structure since order can determine meaning in English (as well as create or resolve ambiguities), to a much greater extent than in Greek (where you can mix-up words pretty thoroughly and it still (usually) all makes sense because of the cases(!), which are the key...). :)
Not that this will really actually matter: in English people use various forms of grammar both based on the origin of their heritage and the era of their learning, or from which their learning inherited its notions!
Enough posting for the tired guy.
Ah, the feminine pronoun. I'll have to think more on this. Thanks for pointing it out.
Another thing I'm wondering about: in Corinth temples, women "led worship" (which was prostitution in Aphrodite's name). If here Paul's talking about order and worship in the churches, could it be he wants to distinguish the difference in the worship of Christian from the worship of pagans? This could put women in a precarious position.
Thanks, Terri.
In his book The Blue Parakeet. Part Four of the book deals with the "blue parakeet" passages you outlined above. I reviewed the book in my post What to do with blue parakeets? on Everyday Liturgy.
Wow...now I have to go home and ask my husband the Greek scholar why he never told me this before ;)
I think your questions are really important, but I find myself at a more fundamental place. What in the world? I know so many women who've held their tongues in church for years and this verse was one of the main reasons why they did so. I feel the "if onlys..." if only they'd spoken, been able to share, hadn't thought they had to keep silent out of some wrong-headed desire to please God.
Yuck.
And, honestly, I haven't seen this done well. I think the church I'm in now maybe comes the closest. It's small, and functionally pastored by a husband-wife team. If a woman had a question or took issue, I know she could go to the wife and be heard.
I took five semesters of Greek in seminary and didn't pick it up either!
I know what you mean about women who stayed silent in a context Paul never intended. That's why my friend said he thinks the church owes women an apology. (I also want to note, though, that this friend is complementarian. He believes other passages speak to women and authority, but he doesn't believe this passage speaks to women speaking or not speaking in church.)
I'm glad you're in a church now that blanaces this better than you've seen in the past. The husband-wife team sounds like it's working well.
Post new comment