Other Books at Freedom's Ring

Chapter 14

Other Considerations - "What?"

There is one additional and extremely important argument that should be honestly considered, before we leave the fourteenth chapter of I Corinthians. It regards the Greek term, "e," translated "what?" in the introductory word of verse 36. The argument has strength and must be considered by all serious students of this subject. Translated "what," it is an exclamation negating or contrary to the verses immediately preceding it. Thayer's position was that the "e" with the grave accent may appear "before a sentence contrary to the one preceding (it)...." He listed I Corinthians 14:36 as an illustration. The conclusion would be this: Paul has quoted what some Corinthian husbands or men were teaching regarding the place of wives or women in the Corinthian church. It may have been what was socially acceptable among the Gentiles. It may have also come out of Rabbinical law. "Let your wives (women) keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted for them to speak; but let them be in subjection as also saith the law. If they would learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home" was not an Old Testament law. And Paul retorts in verse 36, "What? Was it from you, husbands, men, or you Corinthians, who say women should be silent, that the word of God went forth? Or came it to you, Corinthian husbands (or men)?" According to Thayer, Paul would be actually teaching the opposite of what we have traditionally believed and taught that he said. This proof text, which has been used to keep women in silence and subjection, loses its force completely. That is most ironic. Incidentally, there is no grammatical evidence that "as in all the churches of the saints," in verse 33, is connected with verse 34. It probably is saying that "God is not a God of confusion, but of peace" in only Corinth, but "in all the churches of the saints." But this must be better understood.

We have traditionally interpreted churches in verses 33 and 34 as congregations of the church universal. "Eklesia" is the Greek term for church and more properly translated "assembly." These scriptures would and should read, "As in all the assemblies of the saints" and "Keep silence in the assemblies." We certainly don't believe women should keep silence in the churches in the universal sense, as members twenty-fours hours a day.

Using the logical translation of "Eklesia," we would say Paul instructs women to be "silent" and "not to speak" in the assemblies of the saints. But we get into trouble again. Just which assemblies are women forbidden to speak in? Which must she remain silent in? A Bible class is an assembly of saints. A home Bible study is an assembly of saints, prayer meetings, lectureships, singings, and gospel meetings are all assemblies of saints.

Not only are we forced to form a creed on which assemblies she may speak in, but we must designate which speech is acceptable to us and to God in each assembly. That is a big order! These problems are cleared up further when we view the significance of the arguments in this chapter.

Was Paul countering the heresy of these Corinthians, among whom were some who believed that women, or wives, should be silent in the worship service, because of Rabbinic law or custom. Certainly, there is no Old Testament law that suggests that because a wife was subject to her husband she should also be silent in assemblies. He is asking, "Do you mean to think that it is from you, husbands only, or men only, that the word of God went forth, or that no wife or woman in the church received the word or can declare it?" Paul is using the interrogatory to make a positive statement about husbands (or men) not being the only ones who received the word of God or from whom it had to come. No one doubts that Paul's questions in this text are rhetorical. The answer is obvious: "The word of God did not come from you husbands (or men) only." The Corinthians certainly understood that this was the truth coming out of the two questions.

So, Thayer's position clearly makes this position as credible as any other, in view of what women actually did in the Old and New Testaments. Why? Because Paul has no doubt that the word of God did not originate with the Corinthians, but quite the contrary. Moreover, Paul knew women had the spiritual gifts because he had already instructed them on how to dress their heads when prophesying or praying in worship.

The "what!" was a rebuke of those Corinthians who believed that wives (women) should keep silence not speak in the church. There is certainly sound argument in the Greek for that interpretation. This argument sheds light from a different perspective and should keep any student of God's word from being dogmatic about trying to maintain the traditional absolutes and non-absolutes that we traditionally attempt to force into this passage. These conclusions certainly make verses 34-35 conform to the rest of Paul's teaching in the context of chapters 11-14, which clearly show that all members, including women, were publicly exercising speaking gifts.

Paul then states, in verse 39, "Wherefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and forbid not to speak in tongues." This instruction was given to the brotherhood at Corinth. It tells men and women to earnestly desire to prophesy and does not forbid them, men or women, from speaking in tongues. Why would Paul instruct the men and women in the Corinthian church to seek the gifts of prophecy and tongues if women were going to be forbidden to exercise them in the assemblies of the church? Remember, this whole chapter is about assemblies. The whole church is being instructed.

It is about the way in which gifts were to be exercised that Paul has been giving instruction in this entire context, not that men and women could not exercise them peacefully and profitably in the assembly.

We know that when the church assembled, individuals, including men and women, had Psalms, revelations, tongues, or interpretations, etc. The evidence is overwhelming! No serious student of this subject can fail to recognize the clear implications of Thayer's statement on the study of this subject.

Traditionally, we have read I Corinthians 14:34-35 and concluded that this was an absolute rule, but absolute only where we decide to enforce it. And then, we justified violating this absolute with our exceptions as we have seen fit. Better exegesis would compel us to fit verses 34 and 35 into the entire context of chapters 11 and 14, instead of starting with verses 34 and 35, and forcing the context and the rest of the Bible to agree with our interpretation of those two particular verses. The evidence is too overwhelming to argue that both men and women did not both have gifts and did not exercise those gifts in the assemblies of the church.

With this acknowledgement, it is clear that the most these two verses and those in chapter 11 say is only that a wife should not appear to challenge her husband's authority over her by removing a sign of authority in such a way as to cause confusion by questioning him in the assembly. And, perhaps Paul was only saying, "You are not to chatter or babble in the assembly." This would meet the requirement of the Greek for "speak." Neither insubordination to husbands or babbling was allowed.

Using Thayer's position and that of other lexicographers, Paul is telling the Corinthians they are not the only source of God's word. So, how dare they try to impose silence on women or wives in the churches of the saints, which was a false tradition being created in Corinth? In the interest of honesty and consistency, we all know women ask all kinds of questions in the various assemblies of the church. Who is wise enough to speak for God on which questions and in what assemblies women can ask questions, even if the above arguments are wrong? Who will dare draw the lines for God and impose their "special" insight on all others, even causing a hellish division in the church, or in maintaining false doctrines based upon our tradition instead of the teachings of the Bible? When there are clearly two or more logical conclusions to be reached on a particular scripture, no one person or group has the authority to impose a single interpretation on all others.