Context Is Key
As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. 1 Corinthians 14:33-35
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 1 Timothy 2:11-12
Our 'modern church' tends to mark these two passages as inapplicable. We explain that these verses were intended for the churches of that time in the culture of that day and that they do not necessarily apply to us here in North America in the 21st century.
We're studying 1 Corinthians 14 in my cell group and a common question has been raised: If our 'modern' churches disregards these two verses, what other parts of the Bible should we ignore? Alternatively, why don't we dismiss other instructions or commands in the Bible in the same way?
A key part of the answer for the above two passages is the context of the chapter. What other topics are being addressed at the same time? What was the purpose?
In the case of the first passage, Paul wants to have order in the congregation; to limit the number of people that will speak in tongues during any one meeting; to have hymns, revelation and teaching all together. In the case of the second passage, Paul wants men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer; women to dress modestly; to intercede for kings and those in authority.
The context of both of these chapters is not about Sin Not or Do Not lists. It's not about commands for everyone. It's Paul's personal leadership for the people he is speaking to. In the first case it's the Corinthian church since they were getting a little out of control during their meetings. In the second case he's advising his protege Timothy and giving him advice. The way that we interpret these other things can help inform the meaning of the above verses.
When I was living at my townhouse in London with four roommates, we had a certain rule: Do not allow friends to sleep over night unless you have asked the other roommates at least twenty-four hours in advance. If you look at the black and white of it, that's just a straight, incontrovertible regulation.
In practice, though, it wasn't hard and fast at all. Exceptions were made many times. Some of us cared about this rule more than others and it generally wasn't a big deal. When I moved into the basement of my current house with my brother, this rule went out the window. The rule came into play because of specific circumstances that came up because five people were living in a four bedroom house. Those issues do not apply to my new house.
This rule change isn't without reason, right? A new situation means some rule changes. I'm sure you all understand exactly what I'm getting at, which is that the Bible has to be understood in context as well. Some rules apply to everyone, some apply to Paul's audience only.
The trigger point comes from comments that were raised in posts like this back in November 2004. Why can't verses denouncing homosexuality be dismissed as advice to the culture of the time? The question was phrased otherwise in my cell group: Why do we accept the command not to murder if we can so easily dismiss other parts of the Bible?
Again, context is key. Likewise, no one is dismissing verses out of hand with no consideration and the first two passages are not dismissed 'so easily.' It does require a fair amount of research, discussion and thinking so it's not a flippant conclusion.
Regarding the specific argument about homosexuality, this issue is referred to in passages like 1 Corinthians 6:9, Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. I'm not here to denounce homosexuality but you can feel free to look at the context of those verses and those chapters. How does that compare to the first two chapters that I referenced in this post?
I actually started to write this back on November 29, 2004 in response to the blog post that I linked to above. I've held off finishing it because this can be a tricky subject, especially with so many different view points around. I'm not here to draw a line in the sand, I just want to explain my own conclusions. (And I'm not even pretending that my arguments represent anything close to full-out textual criticism.) I know that this kind of question can bother Christian and non-Christian alike but hopefully this discussion proves useful.
14 comments:
Thanks for that post Jamie, I often think about these questions myself. It's true that things have to be taken in context & with our world the way it is now it's hard to see how specific verses applied during bible times.
Homosexuality is a topic of much debate. I sometimes wonder if the verses are geared towards discouraging promiscity & sexual crimes, rather than seeing how a same sex relationship could even be monogomous like man and woman. Also much of the bible encourages us to procreate, something that homosexuality discourages.
Cheers,
aka Mike
"As in all the congregations of the saints..."
Uh... this isn't just for one church in a particular place and time. It says "all."
Like I said, I did hesitate for several months before posting this. I was worried about referencing homosexuality even in the context of, um, context.
Mike, check out that placement of the "as in all" part with the other translations provided by BibleGateway. Most of the other ones show it as part of the previous paragraph instead.
For anyone reading this, I also recommend reading "The Message" translation of that passage. It's easier to read than the NIV translation and Paul's point might seem more clear.
The Message isn't a translation that anybody builds doctrine on. It's far from literal and is rife with doctrinal bias; it is only useful as a basic introduction for someone who has never read the Bible before. For a life-long adult Christian to cite it during serious study is just laziness.
All right, so the placement of the initial phrase is in question. It doesn't change the very simple commands in Corinthians and Timothy.
People hate to admit that their sacred texts sometimes don't line up with aspects of their own culture that they've internalized. For example, it's baffling to watch North American Muslims argue that the Koran elevated the status of women. Poppycock. But they have barred themselves from considering the possibility that the Koran was a product of a particular place and time - it has to be transcendent. And how on earth could a transcendent document not line up with liberal democractic values??? Gasp.
Same way with the Bible. All you're doing here is trying to make it look like the Bible was written in a liberal democractic culture. Which it wasn't.
Laziness, Mike? Ease up, there.
I did recommend reading several translations. I also recommended The Message, the key word being 'also.' Your comments about that version are noted, as are those from people that prefer the KJV to the NIV.
You say that I'm trying to show that the Bible was written in a liberal culture? I thought I showed the opposite.
Their culture was different from ours and so some rules apply to them that do not apply to us. Likewise, we have some rules that did not apply to them, like instructing youth group leaders not to visit casinos.
Re: Not to mention the fact that if you open the door to gay marriage, you open the door to polygamy, and incest, and everything else and its mother.
I couldn't have found a better example of the bible changing the definition of marriage according to context. Pologamy all started in the bible...and it was perfectly acceptable according to God. Now polygamy isn't because we live in a different culture & time.
It's no wonder we have a hard time defining marriage.
Cheers,
And incest too. Remember Lot and his daughters who both had children by him and became the ancestors of the Moabites (Gen 19). Also people used to have harems with tons of concubines & multiple wives in the bible...which seemed to be perfectly acceptable.
Indeed context would seem to be the key to sorting out these issues of marriage and procreation.
Cheers,
Nah, the Message is for lazy beach reading. It's the Dean Koontz of Bible translations. It interprets the text for you to an extent that most other translations do their absolute best to avoid. It works for you guys because it happens to line up with your pre-existing doctrines.
Doesn't anybody else find it the least bit interesting that the interpretations of these verses in the initial post happen to line up nicely with mid-late 20th century north american culture...? Which came first?
There have been - and there are - Christian churches in which women are not allowed to speak. The difference? The interpretation grew up in a different time and place. Example, the Greek Orthodox church. There is a strict seperation of sex roles.
Here's my point, hopefully stated more clearly and less polemically: Your doctrines are interpretations of the text, and your interpretations are unavoidably intertwined with a particular place and time. Do not confuse your interpretation of the text with the text itself.
And no offense meant with the laziness thing, sorry. I mean to speak generally. All apologies.
The Message might not be the exact theology or whatever, but I think it's a good supplementary Bible to read. It explains certain things easier and can help create easy reading for fun once in a while. I definitely wouldn't read JUST the Message - simply because it doesn't have an exact translation of God's Word (it's a paraphrase), but it's nice to read it alongside a more "accurate" translation once in a while.
I would also note that 1 Corinthians 11:5 talks about women praying and prophesying in reference to proper manners in church. If Paul refers to women doing this just three chapters before in 1 Corinthians 14:34, then 'speaking in church' cannot strictly mean speaking aloud in a congregation.
Therefore the text isn't as straight forward as it might seem, right?
I would also note that 1 Corinthians 11:5 talks about women praying and prophesying in reference to proper manners in church. If Paul refers to women doing this just three chapters before in 1 Corinthians 14:34, then 'speaking in church' cannot strictly mean speaking aloud in a congregation.
Therefore the text isn't as straight forward as it might seem, right?
It doesn't say anything about the prophecy taking place in church.
And of course I'd never suggest that the text is straightforward. But eventually you have to accept that spilling pages upon pages of ink to dispell certain seemingly clear and yet culturally unacceptable statements is folly.
In that same chapter, Paul says women need to have long hair. He says it is a part of the natural order, and that the churches "have no other practice." I'd really like to see someone explain that away. Or tell women they have to have long hair. Either one.
1 Corinthians 11:5 does not directly indicate that it's prophecy in church, as you said. Are you suggesting that this paragraph was there to tell women to cover their heads while praying at home?
As it happens, when we discussed the passage in my cell group about women being silent, some people did say that that stands today. Not so much that they can't speak at all, but that they can't be lead pastors or whatnot. So no, not everyone agrees with my suggestion that it was only intended for the specific audience in the Bible.
And if my point is that certain 'rules' don't apply to us here and now, how are you disproving my point by listing other similar examples?
The reason why so much ink has been spilled is because patriarchy is so entrenched in society (and the church) that once some pretty straight forward historical, cultural, and literary exegesis is done and the conclusion is made that first century Christianity was radically egalitarian (as supported by the New Testament), then there is a huge backlash. And so men entrench themselves in positions of power building arguments to support their position of privilege while those who are egalitarian are left continually trying to drum their point into some pretty thick skulls.
Mike, I think you're probably a pretty smart fellow, and I very much agree with your critique of Christians who try and make the bible support liberal democratic values, but you're way off on this one. I suggest you read excerpts from "The Moral Vision of the New Testament" by Richard Hays, a New Testament scholar at Duke if you want a quick glance at the issue. A more comprehensive study is found in "Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis" by William Webb (another New Testament scholar).
Post a Comment