A post at The Assembling of the Church, 1 Corinthians 14:26ff – normal or particular? , regarding normative church practices got me thinking. There seems to be a quandary in 1 Corinthians 11: 2-15. On the one hand, we read that women are to cover their heads when the pray or prophesy. But on the other hand a few chapters later we read that women are to keep silent in church (1 Corinthians 14:33-34). Why have a command about women prophesying with their heads covered if they are not permitted to speak in church?
So is Paul contradicting himself here? Is this command incompatible? Maybe Paul is just musing about an academic issue since women are forbidden from speaking in the church gathering in the first place?
Here is my take. Paul is giving a number of commands in 1 Corinthians (and elsewhere). Women should cover their heads when they pray or prophesy, wherever they may be. Women should be silent when the church gathers. But 1 Corinthians 11: 2-15 doesn’t strike me as a strictly “when the church gathers” command. In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul explicitly states: “When you come together”. In the second half of 1 Corinthians 11 when speaking of the Lord’s Supper he expressly states twice: “when you come together” and “when you come together as a church”. In fact, not being a Greek scholar it seems that Paul is making a contrast between the first and second half of 1 Corinthians 11 in terms of application. The Lord’s Supper passages in the second half is a command expressly directed at the church gathering. Conversely, the headcovering passages strike me as a universal principle. A wife should cover her head when she prays, whether in an intentional gathering or at home or anywhere else. The same applies with prophesying. The difference is that women don’t prophesy as part of the church gathering. That doesn’t mean that they never prophesy, just not in the gathering of the church.
See, problem solved!
(The post at Assmebling of the Church is worth your time to check out in it's own right!)
33 comments:
...and that's exactly the conclusion I came to when people were challenging me on the same "contradiction" about five years ago.
I think there's an unspoken assumption that leads to this seeming contradiction; namely, that the only time anyone would pray or prophesy in the presence of others would be doing so up front, at an official meeting of the entire congregation. ;)
Hmm...veddy eenteresteeing...
Arthur,
There is another possibility between contradiction and absolute silence for women when the church meets.
When Paul tells the one who speaks in tongues to be silent, he doesn't mean absolute silence, but don't speak in tongues. In other words, there's a context. The same person could speak at another time (not in tongues) without disobeying the command for silence.
When Paul tells the prophet who is speaking to be silent, he doesn't mean absolute silence, but stop speaking so the other prophet can speak. The same prophet could speak at another time without breaking the command for silence.
Perhaps there is a context for Paul telling women to be silent as well.
-Alan
Alan,
I can see that as a possibility, but what about the rest of the command:
For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. (1Co 14:33-35)
It seems that the point is not that women should pipe down or wait their turn but that it is shameful for them to speak (which seems to parallel the shameful to pray with uncovered heads) and that they should save their questions for their husbands at home.
Also there is this....
Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. (1Ti 2:11-12)
It seems that when taken as a whole, Paul is expressing that women should not be teaching or prophesying in the gathered assembly of believers. I don't think that would apply outside of the gathering, i.e. at home.
Arthur,
If you're correct, then what Paul really meant was, "When you come together, each one has... except women..." (14:26) and "If any speak in a tongue... except women" (14:27) and "Let two or three prophets speak... except women" (14:29) and "For you can all prophesy in turn... except women" (14:31) ... etc.
I guess this applies to all the passages concerning exhorting one another, teaching one another, rebuking one another, admonishing one another, etc. Women can only do this silently... somehow?
-Alan
Doesn't 1 Cor 14: 26 start with:
What then, brothers?
Doesn't that mean that Paul is specifically addressing men in this and the following verses? Unless I am losing something in the translation, which is certainly possible since I speak zero Greek.
I did a word study once on the word "silent" (as in the "keep silent" verse) and came to an interesting discovery. It comes from the same root word that's translated other places as "steadfast". It literaly means "to stand in one place" - it's used in the same context of men who seek to be leaders should "not be quarlsome" or "brawlers" Obviously these men are permitted to speak - they just should not be inclined to do so in an argumentitive way.
I also read a book some years back now pertaining to that verse in Timothy about "...suffer not a woman to speak or to have authority over men..." The book was called "I suffer not a woman" I have it around here someplace and if anyone wants to know the authors I can dig it up.
Any how - this book makes some very intersting points about New Testament and Old Testament and the roles men and women found themselves in. There is a place in the Old Testament where God states "I gave you Moses, Aaron and Marium as your leaders." (not sure where it is right now and I know it isn't worded like that in the King James - another thing I'd have to look up - lol) This book had an interesting take on that passage in Timothy.
Arthur,
The term adelphoi (brothers) is masculine. But, it is also the term used for mixed groups.
For example:
All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers (adelphoi). In those days Peter stood up among the brothers (adelphoi) (the company of persons was in all about 120) and said, ... (Acts 1:14-15 ESV)
The first use obviously indicates Jesus' actual brothers (related by birth). The second... did Peter only stand among men? Did they ask the women mentioned earlier to leave?
Here's another example from Paul in 1 Corinthians:
I appeal to you, brothers (adelphoi), by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. (1 Cor 1:10 ESV)
Were only the men to agree? Was it okay for the women to disagree?
In fact, the feminine noun for "sisters" is very rarely used except for those related by birth, because the masculine was used for mixed gender groups.
-Alan
By the way, you are correct that 1 Cor 11 does not specifically mention that the women praying and prophesying occurred during the church meeting. However, using that logic, 1 Timothy 2:12 does not mention the church meeting either. Using that argumentation, then it is wrong for a man to ever learn from a woman.
There must be a context for these instructions.
-Alan
Alan,
But wouldn't the context indicate that he was referring to the men in the local church? It seems odd that he would say that that "brothers and sisters" in conjunction with participating in the church and then turn around and say that it is shameful for women to speak in church and that they should ask their husbands questions when they get home. I don't see how you can reconcile the admonition for women to be silent, the statement that women speaking in church is shameful and the instruction for women to ask their husbands at home if they desire to learn with women prophesying in the gathering of the church. How could it be simultaneously shameful and permissible for women to speak in the church gathering? Paul seems pretty specific in singling out women in contrast to men.
Alan,
Regarding 1 Timothy 2:12 I think that you are correct, that does not specify the church meeting nor should it. I don't believe that it is OK for men to be leaders in the church and then be submissive to their wives at home. So the principle seems again to be universal that women are to submit to the husbands leadership, in the home and the church. Men should be leading in the home and that includes teaching their wives (which dovetails with the 1 Cor 14 passage). The fact that many men are passive and unable/unwilling to lead and teach in the home doesn't negate the command.
Since 1 Timothy 2:12 does not refer to the context of the church meeting, then you conclude that Paul was saying that a woman should never teach a man? In fact, that same verse says, "She is to remain quiet".
If this is your interpretation, then I think you're going to have a problem with Acts 18:26, which makes it clear that Priscilla took part in teaching Apollos. I would also be surprised to learn that you had never learned anything from a woman... or perhaps that was wrong of you?
Consistency is very difficult...
-Alan
Is Acts 18:26 descriptive or prescriptive? We don't get much detail here and I would be very hesitant to overturn what Paul expressly stated because of the description of an event. Perhaps what occured is that they pulled him aside and Aquila did most of the talking. Or perhaps Priscilla was overstepping her bounds. I don't say for sure that she was not teaching him but I am also not sure we can assume that she was not overstepping herself. After all Paul was writing a lot of this stuff to reaffirm what he already taught, presumably because of the error of some in the church which would imply that a) women were teaching somewhere and b) Paul was correcting that behavior. I don't think that an description of her actions negate the express admonition of Paul. There are lots of descriptions that are not prescriptions.
Have I learned anything from women? Sure. My mom taught me how to scramble eggs. I don't see that being a problem from Scripture. I have also learned a lot about forgiveness and humility and service from the example of my wife. Was she authoritatively teaching me? No. It was through her conduct, which is not only not wrong but perfectly consistent and Biblical:
Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct. 1 Peter 3: 1-2 (Emphasis added)
There is nothing at all wrong and a lot that is right in learning valuable lessons through the conduct of godly women. Women have a lot to teach us through their conduct and that is Biblically consistent.
Arthur,
Setting aside the question from Acts (prescriptive or descriptive), let's look at your examples.
Concerning learning from your wife, you asked, "Was she authoritatively teaching me?" and you answered "No". So, is Paul prohibiting "women teaching" or "women teaching authoritatively" or even "women speaking at all" (since he does tell them to be silent and the context is NOT the church gathering, as you admitted).
Yes, we can learn alot from a godly woman's conduct. Are you saying you've never learned from your wife's words? Or another woman's words?
Should we stop listening when women speak just in case we might learn something?
-Alan
Ooh! I just found this interesting tidbit from a book titled, Roman Wives, Roman Widows (p.93):
Just as it was improper for a wife to pray unveiled, so too it was later said to be shameful for a woman to speak in the Christian meeting in the context of weighing up of prophecy, 'even as the law says' (14:34). While it has been argued that the law refers to the Mosaic Law, no specific injunction can be cited from it that forbids women speaking in the assembly. Women were not to intervene (intercede) in public settings or to come between two parties, and an imperial ban had already existed from the time of Agustus on women intervening on behalf of their husbands in the context of a legal argument. In the time of Claudius, according to Ulpian, the Velleian decree of the Senate (senatus consultum Velleianum) was passed by the Senate. The disruption of Carfania from a previous era was still being held up as a negative example and was seen as the excuse for this prohibition. Whether this was the law being referred to is uncertain, but it may provide an alternative explanation to the Mosaic law, where commentators refer to Genesis 3, which is not strictly the Torah, although the matter of subordination was established in that passage. The concern for the wrong impression being given to the outsider is also central to the issue of order in the service and particularly prophetic activity which is for unbelievers (14:22-25) and in which women also engage (11:5).
Arthur,
If God (through Paul) is not prohibiting all teaching of a man by a woman in 1 Timothy 2:12 or if God (through Paul) is not saying that a woman must always remain quiet, then perhaps there is a context to 1 Timothy 2:12 that is not specifically stated. However, if there is a context to 1 Timothy 2:12, then perhaps there is also a context to 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.
-Alan
Alan,
The reality of what happens shouldn't negate Paul's command or give us leave to assume a context that is not given in the text. In other words, the fact that you or I may have been taught by our wives does not give us leave to impose a context on what Paul is saying 1900 year later. Your original post suggests that 1 Cor 14 is normative for the church. I would agree and I don't think we should try to find a context in which it would not be. Similarly, I think that Paul's plain teaching on women teaching is also normative.
Unless I am mistaken, Paul repeatedly admonishes us against women teaching men. The language he uses, at least in translation, is quite strong and unequivocal. The only counter we have is a one verse description of Priscilla being part of the instruction of Apollos, a description which is accompanied by neither approval or disapproval. So the prudent and consistent treatment of the issue would be to avoid women teaching men, especially so but not necessarily limited to the church gathering. Issues of equity or the perceived ability of women to teach really aren't relevant.
The question I would ask is what is the motivation to try to find a context in which Paul didn't really mean what it appears he meant?
Arthur,
Actually, Paul "repeatedly admonishes" using the "one anothers", which include everyone. Thus, Paul consistently says to teach one another, admonish one another, exhort one another, rebuke one another - all of these commands include men and women and all of these commands require speaking. In fact, there are only two passage in which Paul specifically limits women speaking (1 Cor 14:34-35 and 1 Tim 2:12).
As far as I can tell, there are two ways to deal with this "contradiction" without considering it a contradiction.
1) Assume that Paul only means men when we instructs us to teach, admonish, rebuke, or exhort one another, since according to 1 Cor 14:34-35 and 1 Tim 2:12 Paul does not even want women to speak to men.
OR
2) Assume that there is a context to 1 Cor 14:34-35 and 1 Tim 2:12 which is not specifically written. (This is an assumption that is made in many other cases in various passages of Scripture.)
I prefer the second option, while you prefer the first (if I'm understanding you correctly).
-Alan
oh... I forgot to finish my thought.
In either option above (#1 or #2), assumptions have to be made that are not specified in the text. In #1, we have to assume that the "one anothers" are limited and only apply in certain contexts (i.e. men to men or women, but women only to men). While in #2, we have to assume a context to 1 Cor 14:34-35 and 1 Tim 2:12 that is not specified in the text (judging prophesy, etc.).
-Alan
Alan,
I don’t think there is an equal weight of evidence in your either-or. On the one hand we have some pretty clear admonitions from Paul and Peter which are consistent with New Testament teaching on gender elsewhere. In other words, 1 Cor 11: 2-15, 1 Cor 14: 33-35, 1 Peter 3: 1-2, 1 Tim 2:12, Ephesians 5: 22-24, all are consistent with one another. We don’t have to “assume that the "one anothers" are limited and only apply in certain contexts (i.e. men to men or women, but women only to men).” Paul clarifies for us that when he writes of the various “one another” functions in the church, especially as related to women teaching men, that is restricted to men.
On the other hand, we have an appeal to a hidden context. That context would have seemed to be important for Paul and Peter to have bring up, especially given their emphatic statements. Under the inspiration of the omniscient Holy Spirit, if there was a context that would impact future generations one would assume it would be mentioned. The original recipients of Paul and Peter’s epistles are a tiny fraction of the eventual audience, so it doesn’t strike me as a logical assumption to think that there is an underlying unwritten context that completely changes the plain meaning of what they were saying.
You said,
“Assume that there is a context to 1 Cor 14:34-35 and 1 Tim 2:12 which is not specifically written. (This is an assumption that is made in many other cases in various passages of Scripture.)”
Can you give me an example of this hidden context overriding the explicit teaching of a text?
Arthur,
You said, "In other words, 1 Cor 11: 2-15, 1 Cor 14: 33-35, 1 Peter 3: 1-2, 1 Tim 2:12, Ephesians 5: 22-24, all are consistent with one another." Where does 1 Cor 11:2-15, 1 Peter 3:1-2, or Eph 5:22-24 say that women are prohibiting from teaching a man or speaking? That is the topic that we're considering, right?
"Can you give me an example of this hidden context overriding the explicit teaching of a text?" I never said that a hidden context overrides the explicit teaching of a text. The context (which may not be explicitly stated) can help us understand a text. Here is one example... notice how it is translated in the ESV:
Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching. (1 Timothy 4:13 ESV)
Here is the literal translation:
Until I come, devote yourself to reading, to exhortation, to teaching.
What's the context? You can read the passages around it if you like.
-Alan
By the way, in order to return to the topic at hand, I want to point our attention back to 1 Timothy 2:12:
I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. (1 Timothy 2:12 ESV)
You admitted that there was no context, so this is a general instruction valid for any context. So, a woman is prohibited from ever teaching a man (it doesn't say with words, by the way). A woman is prohibited from exercising authority over a man in any context. And, finally, a woman is required to always remain quiet.
Is this your understanding? If not, how would you limit the prohibitions / requirements? And, where would you find those limitations in the text?
-Alan
Alan,
The other verses I quoted are not specifically speaking of women teaching men but they are indicative of the general roles of the genders. Male headship is not merely a vague doctrinal issue but is central to the understanding of the Christian family and the gathering of the church.
“I never said that a hidden context overrides the explicit teaching of a text. The context (which may not be explicitly stated) can help us understand a text.”
That is not really the same thing at all. If you are saying that when Paul makes statements like he does in the two text in question, the unwritten context changes the meaning of those words so that he doesn’t really mean that would shouldn’t teach a man and that women should remain silent, that is applying a nonexistent context that doesn’t clarify, it changes. In 1 Tim 4:13, it is implied that Paul is speaking of the Scriptures instead of reading. Paul certainly wouldn’t be writing to encourage Timothy to read the Harry Potter books. That clarification (“Scriptures”) is not the same thing as saying that Paul doesn’t really want Timothy to devote himself to reading the Scriptures, exhortation and teaching. In other words, it doesn’t change the point Paul is making. Saying that women are to be silent in the church gathering and they are not to teach men, but then saying that Paul really wants women to not be silent in the assembly and Paul really wants women to teach men is not a clarification supported by the context. It completely changes or more properly negates what Paul is saying. That seems to be an overly broad hermeneutic that is hard to apply consistently.
“So, a woman is prohibited from ever teaching a man (it doesn't say with words, by the way). A woman is prohibited from exercising authority over a man in any context. And, finally, a woman is required to always remain quiet.
Is this your understanding?”
Actually, it says she is to be quiet, so that would preclude verbal teaching but not run afoul of her being an example in 1 Peter 3:1-2. But yes that is my understanding that a woman should not exercise authority over a man (in the church or in the home) and that women should not teach men (also in the church or in the home).
Having said all of that I think most Christian husbands are woefully underprepared and disinterested in taking the burden of headship, which includes teaching your wife and children. I count myself among that group, but my failings are not license to ignore Scripture.
Arthur,
Someone that I trust said that I'm coming across as a jerk in this comment thread. I apologize.
My understanding of 1 Cor 11 is that Paul is referring to praying and prophesying while the church meets. My understanding of 1 Cor 14:34-35 is that Paul is prohibiting women from judging prophecy. I do not believe these interpretation are contrary to the general teachings of Paul concerning male headship or concerning the "one anothers" of Scripture.
As you said, it is obvious that Paul is talking about reading Scripture in 1 Tim 4:13. But, this is not in the text. It is an assumption that we make. I believe it is a valid assumption, but it is an assumption. We often have to make assumptions as to the context of the NT letters.
This does not mean that we can make up our own context. Also, we must take into account the entirety of Scripture. We will still come to different conclusions - as you and I have done in relation to 1 Cor 14:34-35.
Again, I apologize for seeming to be a jerk. Thank you for the discussion.
-Alan
Coming across like a jerk? It what way?
I certainly did not take it that way and I don't think an apology is necessary at all.
We Yankees have thicker skin than y'all apparently!
It's been interesting reading the back and forth between you two (Alan and Arthur). To be honest, my head is swimming, so there's some stuff to think through and sort out.
But I have another question.... In the beginning of 1 Cor. 14, it says that prophecy is for the benefit of the church, that the church will be built up. How does that fit with women prophesying (1 Cor. 11:5) and also being silent in church? 1 Cor. 14:3 says that "the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation." and verse 4 says "...the one who prophesies builds up the church." Does the woman prophesy at home and then have her husband relay her words to the body of the church? Sounds awkward, at best. But even that would be a problem, wouldn't it, because she would be telling her husband God's words, in effect teaching him what to say? Or do women only prophesy to other women and children, when we somehow all get together without our husbands, specifically building up only the female and juvenile parts of the church?
And just think, this is all milk, not solid food (1 Cor. 3:2)!
Blessings,
Debbie
BTW, Arthur, in 1 Cor. 14:5 Paul says, "Now I want you all to speak in tongues...." In your quest to worship as the NT says, are you seeking to speak in tongues? ;)
Just curious,
Debbie
Debbie,
All valid questions.
First, the church is not merely the local gathering. If Eva is teaching at home and edifying my kids who are Christians, even speaking prophetically, that is lifting up the church. It is a mistake to read “the church” and reduce that to the local gathering. When you are home teaching Ben and Elizabeth, you are edifying the Body of Christ. In fact I would argue that there is a lot more edifying and uplifting of the church that occurs outside of the local gathering on Sunday morning than occurs during that meeting (unless of course I am teaching on Sunday morning). In Ephesians 4: 11, Paul said that prophets among others were given to the church for the building up of the body of Christ. There is nothing that implies that would be limited to the local church gathering, in fact given the universal language he used in verses 4-6 it certainly seems to have a universal application instead of being limited to the scheduled local church meeting times. (I have a whole post that deals with this tendency to say “church” and think of it as a local expression I am planning on posting later) Granted, I have yet to hear anyone of either gender say anything truly prophetic. Wise yes, edifying certainly, silly quite often, but something truly prophetic? I don’t believe so.
Second, the exhibition of miraculous tongues was a supernatural expression in other, real languages. If Eva was teaching the kids and suddenly started speaking German, well that would be interesting but not edifying since my kids don’t speak German or any other foreign language.
Third, the gift of speaking in tongues has passed away as has the gift of prophecy. I don’t believe there has been a legitimate expression of the gift of tongues since the apostolic age. Hebrews 1: 1-2 tells us that the old prophetic model we think of (i.e. Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc.) has passed away. Prophets are not given to for us new revelation but are given like apostles, shepherds, evangelists, teachers, etc. for the building up of the church. The role of building up the church is one of proclaiming the Gospel and the apostle’s teaching (I may be misinterpreting “prophet” here, so Alan feel free to correct me)
Fourth, there is nothing that precludes wives from asking questions and being involved in the conversation in the home. In fact, we came to the conviction on headcovering not because I decided one day to say to Eva: “Cover thy head woman!”, but because she had a question about it and asked me to look into it, which I did. There is a clear difference between asking questions and teaching authoritatively. In other words, Joyce Meyers standing on a pulpit “teaching” a mixed audience, including her husband, is a usurpation on her part and an abdication on her husbands part.
My big issue is that rather than accepting what Paul has said at face value, there seems to be a great deal of effort expended to try to poke holes in what he has said. Not in this conversation but among many other conversations I have read and been involved with where people seem determined to prove Paul wrong. It seems that we should take Paul at what he said unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary. You have read, I am sure, arguments from people who try to explain away Ephesians 6:4 and Deuteronomy 6:7. These are not unclear passages (1 Cor 14: 33-35 and 1 Tim 2:12). These passages are not vague or out of character with the rest of Scripture. So I think that the prudent and consistent application is for women to not teach men, not be authority over men, to cover their heads when praying at home or in public, to raise their families and edify the Body of Christ in that way. I think perhaps we are listening to the world tell us that equality in Christ requires egalitarianism in roles.
Arthur,
I understand that the role of prophesy has changed - that it's no longer God's method of revealing His word to us (as in the OT) because we have the revelation of Himself as revealed in Jesus. Still, the Bible lists prophesy as a spiritual gift in the NT, so I don't see how we can say it has passed away. The same with the gift of tongues. I hear - and read - people say it has passed away, but I've never had anyone show me where it says that in the Bible. I understand the function of that, too; to present the gospel to others in their language. You live in an area where people from around the world come to school. Do you earnestly desire to speak in tongues to them so they can hear the gospel clearly in their native language? If not, why not?
If we are to take what Paul says literally, why don't we need to take everything literally? Why pick and choose? How can we say that 1 Cor. 11:10 literally applies to us but that 1 Cor. 14:5 doesn't?
(Can you tell I get frustrated by this?)
Blessings,
Debbie
Debbie,
1 Cor 13:8 does tell us that prophecy and tongues will pass away although it doesn't say when. The church was also given apostles but I don't think we have apostles today even though they were a gift to the church.
I will agree that we need to be more consistent in our application of the text. Our failure to do so should spur us to even greater prayer and study to conform ourselves to God's will. Our failings should not discourage us from faithfulness but spur us on to greater fidelity to the Word. As an individual and as a family we have a long way to go. I would say that we all need to study issues like headcovering and the purpose of the gathering of the church to see what the Scriptures tell us.
I would also say that it is troubling when so many evangelicals takes Romans 1: 26-28 or passages on justification by faith alone literally and without question but then disregard passages where the practice is less acceptable. It is perhaps a lot easier to rail against those homosexuals and Roman Catholics from the pulpit than it is to suggest that the women in your congregation should cover their heads.
Arthur,
Keep reading, and I think you'll see when they will pass away. "Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away." 1 Cor. 13:8-10 And verse 12 says, "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known."
Looks like the partial - tongues, prophecy, knowledge - pass away when the perfect comes - when Christ has come again and all prophesies have been fulfilled. Makes sense, because we won't need those things anymore. We won't need a different language to tell someone about God, we'll all see what God is doing so there will be no need for someone to tell us, and we won't need to gain knowledge because we will know as we are known.
As for apostles, weren't they by definition people who had seen or known Jesus personally? I wouldn't expect them to still be alive here now!
BTW, 1 Cor. 13:12 is one of my favorite promises. What an awesome thing it will be to "know fully, even as I am fully known."
Blessings,
Debbie
Debbie,
I would not say that it is impossible for tongues to manifest themselves. I would say that it is not normative for the church because of their supernatural nature, which is what differentiates desires to speak in tongues and prophetically from women teaching men or covering their heads.
If someone from MSU showed up at church, even a man, and spoke nothing but Swahili and God miraculously gave Eva the gift of tongues so that we could speak to him, that would indeed be a miracle and who would we be to deny that? But that certainly is not normative. Women not speaking in church, women covering their heads to pray are normative events.
The key difference is that while tongues are entirely a work of God, when it comes to who teaches in the church, to women being submissive and covering their heads, that is something we control. We can desire, as Paul says he does, that people speak in tongues but Paul then goes on to declare that women speaking in church and praying with uncovered heads is shameful. Paul recognized our lack of control over tongue speaking and prophesying. I think there is a great difference between desiring a spiritual gift that God alone can bestow and simple acts of obedience that we control. I would argue that in every event or mention of speaking in tongues it is seen as an act of the Holy Spirit. The same would hold true with prophesy, which is a miraculous working of the Holy Spirit and not normal in the church today. Not impossible, but not normal. Covering your head or declining to teach in the church is something you have total control over. You can’t make yourself speak in tongues, but it is a pretty simple thing for you to cover your head.
Post a Comment