Hi TK,
One point that may or may not make a difference, at least in my church, is that the elders generally dont teach. they are responsible for making decisions regarding things, but they don't really assume teaching or preaching roles.
To me it makes no difference. A woman should be free to do anything a man does.
Darin,
Mort, do you think the Catholics should require their priests/bishops to be married?
I don't think the Catholic church should require
either celibacy or marriage of their priests. Let each priest decide for himself. Of course, I would also say that their should be women priests except that I don't believe in the whole concept of a priesthood (other than the priesthood of all believers).
Paidion, sorry for the delay. Work and sleep sure put a crimp in my forum time!
Danny, let's assume that you are correct, and that Paul's instructions concerning women applied to the culture of the day, but not to our culture. How, then would you exegete the following passage? Why would Paul give such instructions concerning women even in the culture of his day?
"For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged; and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." I Corinthians 14:31-35
The first thing we encounter with 1 Cor. 14:31-35 is that it appears to contradict 1 Cor. 11:2-16, where Paul writes that women should have their head covered when they pray or prophesy. It seems clear that men and women were praying and prophesying in the same public gathering (as evidenced by how Paul immediately goes on to talk about how they conduct the Lord's Supper at their meetings). Obviously, a woman can't prophesy in silence. In 1 Cor. 14:3-26 Paul states that prophecy is a gift for strengthening, encouraging, comforting, edifying, instructing and convicting the church.
We also know from Acts 21:9 that Philip had four unmarried daughters who were known to prophesy. This is consistent with Joel 2:28, which Peter reiterated (Acts 2:18): "Your sons and daughters will prophesy..." It appears clear that women were exercising spiritual gifts of a vocal nature in the meetings of the New Testament church.
So, how can the two passages be reconciled, particularly 1 Cor. 14:34-35? There are differing views. For example, Gordon Fee, Professor Emeritus of New Testament Studies at Regent College (and co-author of one of my favorite books,
How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth), has written "...the two text-critical criteria of transcriptional and intrinsic probability combine to cast considerable doubt on their [verses 34-35] authenticity." Fee concludes that verses 34-35 were probably not written by Paul, but were added at a later date.
I have a different take on this than Fee, however. Since you asked how I would exegete it, here goes:
We have to remember that when we read Paul's epistles we're reading someone else's mail. This is especially true of 1 and 2 Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians Paul is responding to disturbing reports that he has received from members of Chloe's household about multiple problems in the church. The Corinthian church was then approximately 5 years old. Additionally, he has had a visit from 3 men whom the Corinthians know (1 Cor. 16:17). Perhaps these men gave similarly disturbing reports. Paul is also responding to a letter or list of questions that the Corinthians had sent him (7:1), perhaps through the aforementioned visitors. He periodically quotes phrases and addresses specific topics from this letter and then responds to them. Examples: "Everything is permissible for me" (6:12); "Food for the stomach and the stomach for food" (6:13); "It is good for a man not to marry" (7:1 - whether or not this is a quote from the Corinthian's letter is a matter of some debate); "Now about virgins:" (7:23); "Now about food sacrificed to idols:" (8:1); "We know that we possess knowledge" (8:1); "Everything is permissible" (10:23); "Now about spiritual gifts:" (12:1); etc.
The challenge is that Koine Greek didn't have quotation marks (and less punctuation in general than English). The Corinthians--the original intended audience--knew exactly when Paul was quoting from their letter. We don't. We have to rely upon our translators to sort out what is and isn't a quote from the Corinthian's letter to Paul. Our various English Bible translations differ on which verses they place in quotes.
Many scholars posit that 14:34-35 is another such quote from the Corinthians. It makes sense of the aforementioned contradiction and also makes sense of Paul's immediate rebuke in verse 36, "What?! Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?"
It appears that the Corinthians, among their many other errors, have accepted a teaching from the Judaizers which says that women must remain silent during their Christian gatherings. The Jewish Oral Law (Talmud) forbade women from speaking at synagogue. Now, just as they had done repeatedly in the past, the Judaizers have come into the incipient Christian churches trying to convince Gentile believers to conform to Jewish legalism.
The use of the word "law" in 14:34 is telling: "...women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the
Law says." When Paul refers to the Law in his letters, he refers to the Old Testament scriptures and he usually quotes them (see 1 Cor. 9:8-9 and 1 Cor. 14:21). When Paul quotes the Torah, it us usually to make a point, but not to mandate adherence. In Romans 7:4 Paul writes that we are dead to the Law. Even so, nowhere, to my knowledge, does the Torah (the Law of Moses) state that women must be silent during gatherings. Nor can I find it anywhere else in the Old Testament writings. The Talmud (Oral Law) in the other hand, does. This is the "Law" that is being referenced in 14:34. I'm not aware of any place in Paul's writing where he quotes the Oral Law as a guideline for Christian behavior. The Jewish Oral Law is not authoritative for the Christian church. It is not scripture.
So, to summarize, Paul has told the Corinthian women in verses 11:2-16 that they should keep their heads covered when they offer vocal ministry in the meetings. In verses 14:34-35 he quotes an errant teaching that the Corinthians have received from the Judaizers. In verse 14:36 he rebukes this teaching. In verse 39 Paul tells the Corinthians to be eager to prophesy (some were not so eager to have women prophesying) and to not forbid speaking in tongues (Who was being forbidden? Women.), but (verse 40) to keep things fitting and orderly.
Wouldn't it be ironic if a false teaching by 1st century Judaizers, which Paul rejected and rebuked, was later adopted by Christians and ascribed to Paul?