1 Coríntios 14
Thomas Constable · Citado em PreceptAustin
1 Coríntios 14
Constable say the woman is to be silent in regard to asking questions or addressing one who prophesies (as in 1 Cor 14:29-30). That is a possibility for it does not say they are absolutely not to prophesy. The command is that the women are not permitted to speak. And yet we know women were permitted to prophesy (1 Cor 11:5). Clearly this refers to speech in the assembly. Note that the word speak occurs 22 times in 18 verses in this chapter and by far the majority refer to tongues, prior to this use in verse 33. One other point is that the same verb keep silent is used in verse 28 and that refers to tongues that are not interpreted. Therefore if one focuses on the contextual uses, it would not be unreasonable to consider that here in verse 33 Paul is not referring to speaking in general (1 Cor 11:5 rules that out), but is referring to the issue of speaking in tongues as that which is prohibited. POSB agrees that "women are to keep silent in the church—they are not to exercise the gift of tongues in the church. Note two points. An interpretation of these verses must keep in mind the context of 1 Cor. 14. To lift these verses out of context does violence to Scripture and to the high esteem with which Christ and the New Testament hold women. Paul mentions this matter because women were probably the ones most abusing the gift of tongues and the predictive element of prophecy. Paul's charge is for the women to calm down and keep quiet, to bring things into order. The passage is directed both to the local problem of the Corinthians and to any other church where women are abusing the gifts of tongues and the predictive element of prophecy. (Preacher's Outline & Sermon Bible) Henry
1 Coríntios 14
Constable - The word translated silent (Gr. sige) means just that, namely to keep silent or to hold one's peace. However in 1Cor 11:5 Paul spoke as though women prophesying in the church was a common and acceptable practice. I think the best explanation of this apparent contradiction comes out of the context, as is usually true. Paul had just permitted others in the congregation to evaluate the comments that a prophet made (1Cor 11:29). Now he qualified this by saying the women should not to do so vocally in the church meetings as the men could. The teaching of the Law on this subject appears to be a reference to woman's subordination to the authoritative man in her family (Ge 3:16). The Law then would refer to the Old Testament, as in 1 Cor 14:21. William Barclay's explanation appeals cultural differences to explain Paul's command to be silent (but this really does not resolve the issue either in my opinion) - We have already said that in the ancient world the place of women was low. In the Greek world Sophocles had said, “Silence confers grace upon a woman.” Women, unless they were very poor or very loose in their morals, led a very secluded life in Greece. The Jews had an even lower idea of women. Amongst the Rabbinic sayings there are many which belittle their place. “As to teaching the law to a woman one might as well teach her impiety.” To teach the law to a woman was “to cast pearls before swine.” The Talmud lists among the plagues of the world “the talkative and the inquisitive widow and the virgin who wastes her time in prayers.” It was even forbidden to speak to a woman on the street. “One must not ask a service from a woman, or salute her.” It was in a society like that that Paul wrote this passage. In all likelihood what was uppermost in his mind was the lax moral state of Corinth and the feeling that absolutely nothing, must be done which would bring upon the infant Church the faintest suspicion of immodesty. It would certainly be very wrong to take these words out of their context and make them a universal rule for the Church. But are to subject (hupotasso) themselves, just as the Law also says - Subject is also a command in the present imperative. Keep silent (4601) sigao from sige = silence) mean to be silent, to "hold one's peace", to keep in silence or keep secret. The idea is to say nothing, keep still, keep silent (eg, Lk 9:36) or to stop speaking (eg, Lk 18:39). In the passive voice sigao means to be kept in silence. Finally, sigao can convey idea of keeping something from becoming known, to be concealed or to be kept secret (the only NT use with this meaning being here in Ro 16:25) Sigao - 10v - NOTE 3 USES IN THIS ONE CHAPTER 1 Corinthians 14, the first referring to tongues, the second to prophecy and the third which is the most controversial. Lk. 9:36; Lk. 18:39; Lk. 20:26; Acts 12:17; Acts 15:12; Acts 15:13; Rom. 16:25; 1 Co. 14:28; 1 Co. 14:30; 1 Co. 14:34 Question: Do women have to remain silent in church? (See also 6:25 minute video by Gotquestions.org) Answer: First Corinthians 14:33–35 states, “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” (ESV). In 1 Timothy 2:11–12, we have similar instruction: “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. . . . She must be quiet.” At first glance, these passages seem to issue a blanket command that women never be allowed to speak in the church, for any reason. In both cases, a closer examination of context is necessary. The whole of 1 Timothy 2:11–14, quoted only partially above, is this: “A woman a should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” Note that Paul specifies the subjects of teaching and assuming authority. A woman is to “be quiet” in that she does not teach men in the church, and she shows her submission to authority by learning. In other words, this is not an absolute command for women to remain silent at all times in all services. There are also some contextual considerations in the 1 Corinthians 14 passage. Earlier in the same epistle, Paul mentions situations where women seem to be allowed to pray and prophesy in public: “But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved” (1 Corinthians 11:5). Commentators suggest various ways of reconciling 1 Corinthians 11 (women pray and prophesy) with 1 Corinthians 14 (women are silent): • Chapter 11 gives the rule for a smaller group of believers; chapter 14 gives the rule for the entire assembly. • Chapter 11 focuses on dress (head coverings) as a symbol of submission without regard to the propriety of a woman praying or prophesying—the subject of prophesying being addressed later, in chapter 14. • Chapter 11 acknowledges that, in the Corinthian church, women prayed and prophesied, but Paul reserves his condemnation of women prophesying for chapter 14. In each of the above interpretations, the conclusion is the same: 1 Corinthians 14 teaches that women are to be silent in the general assembly of the church. Taking a closer look at 1 Corinthians 14, we see the overall concern is orderly assemblies. The church of Corinth was noted for the disorder rampant in that assembly (verse 33). It seems that everyone in the church service was participating whenever and however they desired. Those with the gift of tongues were speaking simultaneously, and no one was concerned with interpreting what was being said. Those with a supposed revelation from God were shouting out randomly, even if what was said could not be heard above the din, and apparently no one was evaluating what was being offered as prophecy. The meetings in Corinth were characterized by chaos, and no one was being edified or instructed (see verses 5, 12, and 19). To remedy this, Paul instructs a number of groups to “be quiet” at certain times and under certain conditions: • Verses 27–28a, Those who would speak in a tongue must “keep silent” if someone else is speaking or if there is no one to interpret what is said. • Verses 29–31a, A prophet must “be silent” if someone else has the floor. • Verses 34–35, The women should “keep silent” to show proper submission. The command for women to remain silent in the church service is, as commentator Albert
1 Coríntios 14
Constable adds this note - "This is the view of Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, pp. 136-37; Morris, pp. 201-2; Robertson and Plummer, p. 325; James B. Hurley, Man and Woman In Biblical Perspective, pp. 188, 190; and others including myself.") (1 Corinthians 14 Commentary) Robertson and Plummer - The women might urge that they did not always understand the prophesying: might they not ask for an explanation. Asking to be taught was not self-assertion but submissiveness. But the Apostle will not allow this: questions may be objections to what is preached, or even contradictions of it (1 Corinthians 14 Commentary) Robertson and Plummer on improper - A strong word, used of women being clipped or shorn (1 Cor 11:6) - comp. Eph. 5:12+; Titus 1:11+—the only other instances in the N.T. It is really a scandalous thing for a woman to address the congregation or disturb it by speaking. (Ibid) Improper (150) aischros from aischos = baseness, disgrace) refers that which is indecent, dishonorable, "ugly", socially or morally unacceptable, shameful or base. (See related combined word aischrokerdos) Aischros was a term especially significant in an honor-shame oriented society and was used generally in reference to that which fails to meet expected moral and cultural standards. Plutarch wrote that not only the arm but the voice of a modest woman ought to be kept from the public, and she should feel shame at being heard, as at being stripped NIDNTT - The root aisch- refers originally to that which is ugly and disgraceful. aischuno (the verb form) (Homer onwards) thus meant originally to disfigure, make ugly. The verb is found in Greek literature almost exclusively in the middle or passive with the meaning to feel shame, be ashamed, or to be confounded, be disconcerted. (Brown, Colin, Editor. New International Dictionary of NT Theology. 1986. Zondervan) NET Note has a lengthy technical note - Some scholars have argued that vv. 34–35 should be excised from the text (principally G. D. Fee, First Corinthians [NICNT], 697–710; P. B. Payne, “Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus, and 1 Cor 14.34–5,” NTS 41 [1995]: 240–262). This is because the Western witnesses (D F G ar b vgms Ambst) have these verses after v. 40, while the rest of the tradition retains them here. There are no MSS that omit the verses. Why, then, would some scholars wish to excise the verses? Because they believe that this best explains how they could end up in two different locations, that is to say, that the verses got into the text by way of a very early gloss added in the margin. Most scribes put the gloss after v. 33; others, not knowing where they should go, put them at the end of the chapter. Fee points out that “Those who wish to maintain the authenticity of these verses must at least offer an adequate answer as to how this arrangement came into existence if Paul wrote them originally as our vv. 34–35” (First Corinthians [NICNT], 700). In a footnote he adds, “The point is that if it were already in the text after v. 33, there is no reason for a copyist to make such a radical transposition.” Although it is not our intention to interact with proponents of the shorter text in any detail here, a couple of points ought to be made. (1) Since these verses occur in all witnesses to 1 Corinthians, to argue that they are not original means that they must have crept into the text at the earliest stage of transmission. How early? Earlier than when the pericope adulterae (John 7:53–8:11) made its way into the text (late 2nd, early 3rd century?), earlier than the longer ending of Mark (16:9–20) was produced (early 2nd century?), and earlier than even “in Ephesus” was added to Eph 1:1 (upon reception of the letter by the first church to which it came, the church at Ephesus)—because in these other, similar places, the earliest witnesses do not add the words. This text thus stands as remarkable, unique. Indeed, since all the witnesses have the words, the evidence points to them as having been inserted into the original document. Who would have done such a thing? And, further, why would scribes have regarded it as original since it was obviously added in the margin? This leads to our second point. (2) Following a suggestion made by E. E. Ellis (“The Silenced Wives of Corinth (1 Cor. 14:34–5),” New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis, 213–20 [the suggestion comes at the end of the article, almost as an afterthought]), it is likely that Paul himself added the words in the margin. Since it was so much material to add, Paul could have squelched any suspicions by indicating that the words were his (e.g., by adding his name or some other means [cf. 2 Thess 3:17]). This way no scribe would think that the material was inauthentic. (Incidentally, this is unlike the textual problem at Rom 5:1, for there only one letter was at stake; hence, scribes would easily have thought that the “text” reading was original. And Paul would hardly be expected to add his signature for one letter.) (3) What then is to account for the uniform Western tradition of having the verses at the end of the chapter? Our conjecture (and that is all it is) is that the scribe of the Western Vorlage could no longer read where the verses were to be added (any marginal arrows or other directional device could have been smudged), but, recognizing that this was part of the original text, felt compelled to put it somewhere. The least offensive place would have been at the end of the material on church conduct (end of chapter 14), before the instructions about the resurrection began. Although there were no chapter divisions in the earliest period of copying, scribes could still detect thought breaks (note the usage in the earliest papyri). (4) The very location of the verses in the Western tradition argues strongly that Paul both authored vv. 34–35 and that they were originally part of the margin of the text. Otherwise, one has a difficulty explaining why no scribe seemed to have hinted that these verses might be inauthentic (the scribal sigla of codex B, as noticed by Payne, can be interpreted otherwise than as an indication of inauthenticity [cf. J. E. Miller, “Some Observations on the Text-Critical Function of the Umlauts in Vaticanus, with Special Attention to 1 Corinthians 14.34-,” JSNT 26 [2003]: 217–36.). There are apparently no MSS that have an asterisk or obelisk in the margin. Yet in other places in the NT where scribes doubted the authenticity of the clauses before them, they often noted their protest with an asterisk or obelisk. We are thus compelled to regard the words as original, and as belonging where they are in the text above. 1 Corinthians 14:36 Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? came Isa 2:3 Mic 4:1,2 Zec 14:8 Ac 13:1-3 15:35,36 16:9,10 Acts 17:1,10,11,15 18:1-17 2Co 10:13-16 1Th 1:8 or 1Co 4:7 1 Corinthians 13 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries PAUL'S RHETORICAL REMINDER OF HIS APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? - Two pointed (somewhat sarcastic) rhetorical questions to those Corinthians who were puffed up (1 Cor 4:18-19+, 1 Cor 5:2+, 1 Cor 8:1+, 1 Cor 13:4+) and fleshly (1 Cor 3:1-3+) Both questions call for a resounding "No!" Were they the "inventors" of the Christian message? Of course not. Paul's teachings came from the Spirit (cf 2 Pe 1:21+). Robertson and Plummer - The meaning is, ‘Were you the starting-point of the Gospel? or were you its only destination? Do you mean to contend that you have the right to maintain these irregularities? women discarding veils in public worship, people getting drunk at the Supper, people speaking in Tongues and no one interpreting, prophets refusing to give place to one another, women claiming to prophesy and ask questions in public worship? If you defend such scandals as these, one can only suppose that you claim to be the Α and Ω of the Gospel, the fount and reservoir of all Church teaching, the starting-point and the goal of all Church discipline (1 Corinthians 14 Commentary) Pulpit Commentary - An indignant exclamation. Came the word of God out from you? Are you the authors of the Christian system, that you are to lay down rules about it? No rebuke was too strong for the pretensions of these Corinthians. Or came it unto you only? Is no one to be considered but yourselves? Have you no respect for Christian custom? end that when you were by no means the first Gentile Church in Europe (1 Thessalonians 1:8)? (1 Corinthians 14 Commentary) Jack Hunter & Albert McShane - This long section (12:1-14:40) is brought to a conclusion with the reminder of apostolic authority. The apostle is aware of the opposition his counsel will engender in those who will want to discount all that he has set before them. So he will now challenge them in relation to the word of God. When he mentioned "the law" in v. 34, he was drawing attention to it as the word of God, and to God Himself as the ultimate source of that authority which demands obedience from His people. There are always those people and those churches who are prepared to make His word mean what they think it should mean, and thus show themselves to be wiser than God. The first question refers to the source: did the word of God originate with them? If the giver of it, they could determine its meaning. Were they the fount of revelation? Being the first of the churches to depart from the word of God, especially in relation to women taking part (the immediate context), they were setting themselves up as a superior authority, so the apostle censures them. The second question refers to the singular reception of the word of God. Were they the sole recipients and repositories of such a revelation that they could introduce such practices? Could they act on their own and ignore other churches? This was arrogance indeed. Independent authority was not invested in them. Yet, today, we have the same attitude, and the same claim to be progressive and liberated. But it is progressing away from the word of God; liberation from obedience to it. (What the Bible teaches – 1 and 2 Corinthians) 1 Corinthians 14:37 If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment. anyone 1Co 8:2 13:1-3 Nu 24:3,4,16 Ro 12:3 2Co 10:7,12 11:4,12-15 Ga 6:8 Let him recognize 1Co 7:25,40 Lu 10:16 1Th 4:1-8 2Pe 3:1-2 1Jn 4:6 Jude 1:17 1 Corinthians 13 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Related Passage: 2 Peter 3:1-2 This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, 2 that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles. AFFIRMATION OF PAUL'S DIVINE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY If anyone (present tense - continually) thinks (considers, claims - dokeo) he is a prophet (prophetes) or spiritual (pneumatikos), let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment (entole)- Let him recognize (epiginosko = fullness of knowing) is a command in the present imperative (see our need to depend on the Holy Spirit to obey) calling for them to continually "take knowledge" of what he was writing which from from the Lord. Paul is in essence claiming His words are God's words (see verbal plenary inspiration) Spiritual could refer either to filled with/controlled by the Spirit or spiritually gifted and this is an interesting statement in view of the fact that he has already stated he could "not speak to you as to spiritual (pneumatikos),men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ..." (1 Cor 3:1-3+) The proof of their authenticity (as prophet or spiritual) would be shown in whether they would submit to the apostolic authority of Paul and God's Word. Robertson and Plummer on if anyone thinks - It is what the man is in his own eyes that is the point here....‘Let him prove his own inspiration by fully recognizing my absolute authority.’...He is conscious that what he says does not come from himself; he is the mouthpiece of Christ: 1 Cor 2:10–16, 1 Cor 7:40; 2 Cor. 13:3; cp. 1 John 4:6+. Things which I write "covers all that he has been saying about disorders in public worship (1 Cor 11–14.). His indignation in 1 Cor 14:36 is provoked by all these irregularities. It is a mistake to limit either to the question of women speaking in Church." (1 Corinthians 14 Commentary) Pulpit Commentary - Test your pretensions by the capacity to recognize that I have been speaking to you what Christ approves and requires (1 Corinthians 14 Commentary) 1 John 4:6+ We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. HCSB - Those who were truly prophets would discern that Paul's principles for the orderly exercise of prophetic gifts were consistent with the Lord's commandment. (HCSB Study Bible)