Other Books at Freedom's Ring

Chapter 9

Praying and Prophesying

Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoreth her head; for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven. For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled. For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man: for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man: for this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, so is the man also by the woman; but all things are of God. Judge ye in yourselves: is it seemly that a woman pray unto God unveiled? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God (I Cor. 11:2-16).

After nearly forty years of studying and teaching on the subject of women's role in the church and arguing all the traditional points about women's silence and submission, I was shocked when I seriously and honestly reconsidered the implications of I Corinthians 11:4-5. It was not hard to interpret verse 4: "Men should remove their head coverings during worship services," because that is what we teach and practice, and we claim that is what Paul taught. They were not to pray or prophesy in those worship services with their heads covered. However, verse 5 clearly instructs women to cover their heads when praying and prophesying. I was forced to ask honestly, "Were men and women praying and prophesying in the same service?" I could rationalize the women's role of prayer by saying that they could obey the command while being led in prayer by a man or praying silently, and thus conform to I Corinthians 14:34. However, a woman could not prophesy in silence. In chapter 14:3,4,5,6,12,19,24 and 26, Paul stated that prophecy is for edification, exhortation, consolation and instruction. If this is so, then the women had to break silence in order to prophecy. I have yet to meet a Biblical scholar who does not agree that I Corinthians 11 deals with the public assemblies, where most praying and prophesying take place. I have met a few people who declare that it was in a worship service until the evidence clearly refuted their stand on female silence. These same people suddenly saw the light and then it wasn't a worship service.

The Lord's Supper, in the latter part of this chapter, is part of a public assembly. So, without question, Paul was referring to praying and prophesying, breaking bread, and drinking the cup in the public assembly. If we look back to Joel's prophecy and Peter's statement about it, we find that Joel's prophecies came true with the establishment of the church. One then finds these women praying and prophesying alongside men in the public assembly of the Corinthian church. We must conclude that these women were fulfilling the role which Joel prophesied and which Peter said had come to pass. Any other conclusion is denial and selective interpretation of scripture from one's own bias.

The following questions should be asked and honestly answered by those who conclude that women are prohibited from reading, preaching, leading prayer, teaching, etc, in the general assemblies or the class assemblies of the church:

1. Is it not obvious that men and women were both prophesying in the same assembly in chapter 11:1-16?
2. If, as some try to assert, in order to maintain consistency, women prayed and prophesied only before and to other women, why would they have had to have their heads covered? They wouldn't have been in the presence of men while doing this praying and prophesying.
3. Why, then, would they be required to wear a covering to show their submission, if no men were present?
4. Was the covering worn simply to show other women that they respected men in all other non-assembly situations?
5. Should a woman who is explaining the message of Christ to her children, or praying with them, also wear a head covering while doing so, in order to show that she honors her husband and other men, though none are present?
6. Should a woman wear a hat or covering while she speaks out in a private Bible class, or just in a public Bible class, or in all classes?
7. If this was not a public worship service, does God require women to wear a covering anytime and anywhere they teach or pray, to show respect for their husbands and other men?
8. What were the occasions in which Paul would demand men to remain uncovered while they prayed and prophesied? Would it not be in mixed public worship and public classes, showing both men and women that they respected their head, Christ?
9. How could anyone logically conclude that these women were anywhere other than in worship?

It seems clear that both men and women were prophesying in the same services for mutual benefit. In verses 17-33, they broke bread and drank the cup together in the same service. It seems obvious that this was the Lord's Day service as well.

C. R. Nichol, in his book, God's Woman, argued that chapter 11 dealt with the Lord's Day services and that both men and women prophesied in it. He further argued that Paul left the discussion of the regular Lord's Day service at the close of this chapter and began addressing special services where the gifts of the Holy Spirit were being exercised in chapter 12.

His argument is based upon the fact that Paul seemed to finish the discussion of the Lord's Day worship service in chapter 11, which included the Lord's Supper, since he began chapter 12 with a new subject by saying, "Now (change of subject) concerning spiritual gifts." Nichol concluded that a new subject was now under discussion. He then argued that the silence in chapter 14 was to be exercised only in services where spiritual gifts were being exercised and that since the special gifts of the spirit had passed away with the Apostolic Period, the silence rule regarding their exercise would no longer apply. This certainly is an interesting theory, and I note it here. I certainly agree that this is a valid argument. It alone has enough weight of logic and scripture to cause us to change our doctrine and practice in regard to women's role in the church. It alone should keep honest men and women from being dogmatic about their positions. Although I agree with the validity of the conclusions which C. R. Nichol reached, I, for other reasons, firmly believe we have been wrong on this subject.

In the May 26, 1987, edition of the Firm Foundation, Larry D. Mathis took the same view as Nichol. He wrote, "No such meetings are held today. There are no prophets living in the church now; hence, no prophets' wives." He concluded that, "Actually, I Timothy 2:11-12 is the passage that restricts or forbids women such activity today." We shall see later that this "proof text" in no way supports his conclusions on women's role in worship.

We must review what Paul taught in I Corinthians, chapters 11 through 14:33, before we can discuss the short two-verse "proof text" Mathis referred to, upon which much of the Christian world has based its official or unofficial determination to keep women out of the public roles in the work and worship of the church.

First, we need to understand whom Paul is talking about when he refers to women and men in this passage. The question which must be addressed is this, "Was Paul talking about husbands and wives in chapter 11:2-16, or about men and women?" Some of the controversy about women's role in the church and the subject of silence or quietness is due to the translations, and not necessarily all the translations are borne out in the Greek. To make determinations and to get a better understanding of what Paul meant when he used a particular word, the Greek text must be addressed. We need to follow that word through his writings. We will start with the Greek for husband, "aner," and the Greek word for wife, "gune."

The translators of the American Standard Version, twenty-nine times in Paul's writings, translated "aner" as husbands, and twenty-two times, as man. Four of these twenty-two translations in the texts are clear that "husband" was meant: Romans 7:3, I Corinthians 7:13, Ephesians 5:28, and I Timothy 5:9. This leaves eighteen times that it is translated as man. In four of these, "aner" is clear that husbands are not the meaning, those being Romans 4:8,11, I Corinthians 13:11, and Ephesians 4:13. Thus, in fourteen passages there is some room to question the translations. All fourteen are contained in the passages which the church has relied upon to build its doctrinal stance about the woman's role in the church. The translators translated Paul's use of "gune" thirty-three times to mean wife. Twenty-three times in Paul's letters it is translated woman. Two of these passages clearly refer to wives; those are Romans 7:2 and I Corinthians 7:13. The balance of the translations to woman, instead of wife, is also found in the texts under study.

There is a fundamental rule in lexicography that says, "A word should be translated by its most common usage unless there are clear and compelling reasons not to." Paul's most common usage of "aner" and "gune" is in reference to husband and wife, and they are so translated most often.

In I Corinthians 11:3, Paul says, "the head of the woman is the man." I cannot find any other passage in the Old or New Testaments which even suggests that men are the heads of women, generally. Perhaps I Timothy 2 is an exception which we will study later. Now, let us use wife and husband in this text. "The head of every wife is the husband." This agrees perfectly with Ephesians 5:23 where the Greek words "aner" and "gune" are used, "for the husband is the head of the wife." Nowhere in the Bible does God teach that someone else's woman is subject to me or any other man or that my wife is subject to other husbands or other men. It does clearly teach that wives are subject to their own husbands. Colossians 3:18 reads, "Wives, be in submission to your own husbands." Again, "aner" and "gune" are the Greek words.

Thus, if we use wife instead of woman, in I Corinthians 11:3-16, and husband instead of man, we have consistency in Paul's own writings and consistency with the rest of the Bible. The only possible exception is in I Timothy 2.

So, what might be the basis for Paul's instruction in the first part of chapter 11? Christian wives had gained equality in marriage, unlike any granted in Jewish and Gentile cultures (I Corinthians 7). They had gained freedom in Christ. They enjoyed the gifts of the spirit. They were privileged to exercise those gifts. "In Christ Jesus," they had learned that "there was neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female, but that all were one." All had access to the throne of God and His grace through Christ. It is apparent, with this new-found freedom and equality, they had begun to remove the signs of submission to their own husbands. They apparently were removing their veils and clipping their hair. They were saying, "Christ has set us free, and made us equal, so let us cast off the veils and cut our hair to show our new-found equality with our husbands."

Thus, Paul instructs wives, not women, that they still have husbands and should show respect for them in the assembly of the church by wearing coverings while praying and prophesying. By the same token, their husbands were expected to show their submission to Christ by removing their head coverings while praying and prophesying.

We should note again that a wife's being in subjection to her husband does not suggest that she is inferior. For he says in verse 7 that she is the "glory" of her husband. In Ephesians 5:25, Paul tells a husband (aner) to love his wife (gune) as Christ loved the church. In fact, the marriage was to be a glorious marriage, just as the church was to be a glorious church. Husbands were to "love their wives as their own bodies" and "to love their wives as they loved themselves." This is not a demeaning position for a wife, but rather, it is a glorified position in the Christian community.

The point that is consistently overlooked in the study of the assembly referred to in this passage is that both wives and husbands were praying and prophesying while uncovered and covered. These wives were not silent! No one can logically and honestly interpret this scripture to say that the men, or the husbands, were praying and prophesying uncovered in a worship assembly made up of men only. But some argue that the instruction regarding prayer and prophesying by women applied to private classes or assemblies for women and children only. In fact, an objective look declares the opposite. Men and women were praying and prophesying in the same assembly.

There is nothing in the context or the text to even suggest separate services. To attempt to find a way to explain away the obvious is to wrest the scripture and to use warped logic. We must ask and answer one simple question to understand this passage: Where did men and women or husbands and wives pray and prophesy in the assembly referred to in this passage? Prayer and prophesy are a part of worship services. Paul said so a number of times in I Corinthians 14. There is no indication from chapter 11 through chapter 14 that women were in some special assembly.

Paul, in this passage, is not addressing the question of whether wives and husbands may speak in the worship of the church, but rather what attire and hair styles they must wear or not wear while they are doing so.

Paul makes it clear that women and men were both praying and prophesying in a common assembly. He made no suggestion that there was the slightest deviation from the norm in so doing. These wives were simply to show the signs of subjection to their own husbands while participating in the prayers and prophecy. One reads too much - far too much - into this passage by concluding that headship, in any way, denies women roles in public worship. Had it been wrong for women to pray and prophesy in the assembly, Paul would have told them so, instead of telling them how to dress while doing so.

Paul addressed many other problems in worship in the context of chapters 11-14. After addressing the veil and hair issues during worship in I Corinthians 11:13-16, he immediately addressed the proper observance of the Lord's Supper in verses 17-34.

Some Bible students who cling to the traditional interpretation of I Corinthians 14:34-35 declare these women couldn't have prayed and prophesied in the general assembly because such contradicts the above scripture. Those who do so deny the obvious. To them, maintaining their tradition gets in the way of searching for truth.

Some argue that if "aner" is translated husband instead of man, you make Christ the head of only married men. This argument is specious. The fact that Paul addresses a husband and wife problem in no way suggests that he is only the head of married men. He is the head of the church and the church has both married and unmarried members.

Paul says, in verse 17, that in giving this charge "on attire and hair while praying and prophesying," he praised them not, for they came together not for better, but for worse. The charge in verses 2-16 is directly related to the same coming together in verses 17 and 18. They did not show signs of honor required in verses 11-16. They were factious in verse 19. They got drunk in church. The rich ate and drank in the love feast at church, embarrassing and shaming those who were poor, in verse 22. By so doing in worship, they failed to discern the body of Christ (verses 27-29).

Since we have no Biblical texts outside this passage and our other two proof texts which even suggest that men in general are over all women in general, but that there is ample evidence for wives to be in submission to their own husbands, we could logically conclude that husbands and wives are the subjects of I Corinthians 11:2-16. The Greek certainly allows it.