In Paul’s letters, he not only
discusses theology and ethics but also very practical matters for the churches
to which he writes. One of these more practical matters appears in 1
Corinthians 14, where Paul discusses ten ways in which the church can and
should conduct itself in order to maintain ‘decency and order’. Much
of what he says is straight-forward, and perhaps the only section that has
caused some confusion is what Paul says about women in this
chapter. In this brief article, I will offer my explanation of the
verses, but the main purpose for writing it is to highlight the fact that the
whole chapter is about practical ways in which the congregation might put into
practice the principle of doing all things in decency and in order.
The first check on disorderly
worship is that the worship service should not be for someone’s personal,
religious experience but for building up, encouraging, and consoling others in
the church. For this reason, prophecy is preferred over the speaking
of mysteries in some message in tongues that only builds up the individual
(14.1-12). Crucially, note that Paul does not establish order by
suppressing prophecy and speaking in tongues. Words of prophecy are
put in check by making sure that they serve the entire gathering.
The second check on disorderly
worship is that it should be understandable. Words spoken in tongues
require an interpretation of tongues so that others may understand what is
said, and therefore one speaking in tongues in the congregation should pray for
an interpretation (14.13-19). Messages in tongues without
interpretation fail to produce decency and order in the church service.
Paul quotes Isaiah to make his point: ‘In the law it is written, “By people of
strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and
even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord”’(1 Corinthians 14.21,
Isaiah 28.11, 12). Isaiah was speaking of God’s teaching Israel a
lesson (‘precept upon precept’) through the punishment that would come through
the foreign armies of Assyria. Paul’s use of the text is at the
level of implication: a lesson in a foreign tongue cannot and does not bring
about obedience. Christian prophecy, on the other hand, is
understandable, and it can call unbelievers to account, disclose the secrets in
his heart, and lead to conviction, repentance, and worship (14.24-25).
The third and fourth checks for
orderly worship are that messages in tongues should be interpreted (14.13),
limited to two or three, and they should be delivered in turn, not all at once
(14.27). Paul does not, notably, establish order by limiting
participation to a select person or to select persons. He encourages
participation: ‘When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a
revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation’ (14.26). Already in
chapter 12, Paul affirmed a diversity of gifts from the Spirit in the church.
The fifth check on worship to
maintain order is that, if there is no one to interpret a message in tongues, a
person with such a message should keep silent (14.28). This
principle of keeping silent so as to keep order will arise again in reference
to women.
The sixth check for orderly
worship is in reference to prophecy, which can itself be problematic in that a
prophet can claim to deliver a message from God but may in fact not be inspired
to do so. A prophet may come up with his or her own message and even
use the mode of prophetic speaking for self-gain. This was a problem
already noted in the Old Testament as there were false
prophets. Jesus had warned against false prophets, too (Matthew
7.15-20). People were wary of prophecy, and Paul felt a need to warn
against quenching the Spirit and despising prophecy (1 Thessalonians
5.19-20). Rather, the Church should ‘test everything’
(5.21). Likewise, John says, ‘Beloved, do not believe every spirit,
but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets
have gone out into the world’ (1 John 4.1). To the Corinthian
church, Paul says, ‘Let two or three prophets speak, and let the
others weigh what is said’ (14.29). Prophetic messages only have a
place in the congregation if the congregation weighs and approves what is said.
The seventh check on worship so
that order is maintained is that no one person should dominate. Paul
says, ‘ If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the
first be silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all
may learn and all be encouraged’ (14.30-31). Notice that this is a second
time to keep silent.
The eighth check is that
prophetic inspiration is not, shall we say, ecstatic, in the sense that one is
unable to contain or control the message and just has to blurt it
out. Paul says, ‘the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets’
(14.32). Paul explains that ‘God is not a God of confusion but of
peace’ (14.33). This principle of ‘peace’ runs deeply in Paul’s
thinking about the church. Based on it, he allowed Christians to
divorce non-Christian spouses if the latter did not wish to remain in the
marriage (1 Corinthians 7.16). Paul’s entire letter to the Ephesian
church was a letter explaining how the reign of Christ brought peace into the
various relationships of believers and resulted in their unity. Christ is
our peace (Ephesians 2.14). Ecstatic prophecy—which was known in
Asia Minor especially in the cult of the goddess Cybele—was not
Christian. The spirits of prophets were subject to the prophets.
The ninth check on worship that
would keep it decent and orderly had to do with women. Paul says
that the women are to remain silent and not speak in the church
(14.34). We know that this does not exclude ordered speech in the
congregation, since women did pray out loud and prophesy (1 Corinthians
11.5). Women who did so, Paul insists, were to do so with their
heads covered, which was a culturally appropriate way of acknowledging
household order. That is, it was a way of recognizing that they were
under their husbands’ authority, and to pray or prophesy without their heads
covered would be to challenge the household’s order. One might
discuss how to apply this in other cultures, but Paul’s purpose in saying this
is to keep order and to avoid introducing disorder in the church gatherings.
To return to what he says in
chapter 14, we therefore note that women keeping silent is not about their not
saying anything but must be about their not disrupting the
service. Paul says that women should be in submission (14.34) and
‘If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at
home’ (14.35). Speaking appears to have to do with questioning what
was being taught in the church, either for a lack of understanding or to
challenge the speaker’s message or teaching. (Even today,
congregations listen quietly to the preacher in a service without turning the
sermon into a lecture followed by questions and answers or
debate.) The particular speaking in the service that Paul has in
mind is a speaking that would render a disruption of order.
The cultural context is important
to appreciate as we may be confused why women speaking in a meeting might be
taken as indecent and disorderly. Women in the Greek context more
than in the Roman were confined to the home. This was in part for
their protection, but women out in the streets may be thought to be loose and
wanton. Of course, women might go out to the marketplace or attend a
theatre, so they were not prisoners in their homes. Their presence
in the business of the city was, however, a matter of stepping into the domain
where men played out their social roles. Coupled with this, we might
further need to appreciate, was the fact that education was normally for
men. A few centuries earlier, Socrates thought it unusual that
Crete and Sparta, the most ancient of the Greek states, allowed women to learn
philosophy. He said that they in fact excelled in it, and women
prided themselves in their education (Plato, Protagoras 342d). Thus,
elsewhere in Greece (and throughout the known world at the time), women wanting
to participate in the teaching in a service by asking questions would be
disruptive for their lack of education as well as for their taking on a
different social role. Paul is not opposed to their learning, but
that learning process, involving questions and explanations, should take place
at home. Their husbands could answer their questions. It goes
without saying that this passage is not only culturally embedded but also that
it has nothing to do with women in the ministry, preaching, or
teaching. In fact, Priscilla and her husband, Aquilla, instructed the
noted Bible teacher, Apollos, in the full Gospel--Acts 18.26. It has
to do with women creating disorder by speaking in a public service in
1st century Greece.
The tenth check that Paul
mentions, and with this he concludes, is that those independently minded for
thinking themselves prophets or spiritual in their own right do not have the
right to assert their own views. Rather, if they really are prophets
and spiritual, they should agree with him. He does not say this
because he is an apostle, although he might have done so. Rather,
they should agree with him because together, as spiritual people, they can
discern what is a command of the Lord (14.37). In this point, Paul
is saying that nobody has the right to private interpretation along with claims
of authority (v. 36).
The verse that concludes the
chapter is where we find the language of ‘in decency and in order’—the theme of
the whole chapter. Paul says, ‘So, my brothers, earnestly
desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But all
things should be done decently and in
order’ (14.39-40). Paul could not cover every topic
facing churches in his time, let alone in subsequent centuries after
him. However, the principle of ‘in decency and in order’ is one that
should still apply. We need to appreciate that this does not exclude
spiritual gifts but regulates their use according to their purposes and the
nature of congregational worship. The principle might apply in
different ways at different times, as I have suggested in regard to women’s
silence. Finally, we are reminded that private interpretations
cannot be legitimated on the grounds that one claims to be a prophet or spiritual. This
is an important point in our time, when innovative and revisionist
interpretations in liberal denominations have undermined orthodoxy and when
prophetic voices in certain charismatic churches (and notably in Africa) give
prominence to individual prophets seeking attention and power rather than
seeking to promote the upbuilding of the church.
Comments