Today’s biblical contradiction involves an infamous text–or a famous one, if you’re a sexist. Today we pull no punches. In dealing with previous passages, I’ve often suggested that the essence of a paradox is that we cannot choose between them. Today is different. Today it is necessary to take a stand. In the immortal words of Rush, “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.”
Here’s the first text:
33bAs in all the churches of the saints, 34women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. 35If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. (1 Cor. 14:33b-35, NRSV)
This text has been used as a weapon for as long as women have tried to participate actively in their churches–2000 years, apparently. It couldn’t be clearer if it tried. There are no mysteries hidden in translation, no words with significant multiple meanings. On what authority can a member of a church set aside biblical authority in a church?
On biblical authority, of course. Here’s our second passage–same testament, same book, only three chapters previous:
4Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head disgraces his head, 5but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head—it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved. (1 Cor. 11:4-5, NRSV)
Now, this isn’t quite the same sort of contradiction as Proverbs 26:4-5. It’s going to take a bit of biblical triangulation to work this out. While this second passage does put a limitation on a woman’s ability to prophesy, at the same time it clearly authorizes women’s prophesying in general. But if you’re trying to maintain biblical inerrancy, you do have a tiny bit of wiggle room. I see one possible move in this game of chess: 1 Corinthians 11:4-5 authorizes a woman to prophesy–just not in church.
This is not a prima facie silly move. The Greek word for church is ekklesia. In the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, this is not a technical term for a particular kind of gathering, but is used to translate very general words like qahal, “assembly.” So the Hebrew Bible provides no restricting evidence for where prophesy may or may not happen; the answer appears to be, “Wherever God darn well feels like it.” However, in the New Testament, ekklesia is a technical term for a gathering of Christians, whether in a house, a field, or a dedicated building, for the purpose of worship. Maybe prophesying in the New Testament can take place outside the ekklesia. As I said, it’s not a silly thing to propose. In Revelation the “two witnesses” who precede the Endtimes are said to prophesy in public, not in the ekklesia (Revelation 10:11). But they are very special prophets. This is not day-to-day prophesy–and let’s be clear, for Paul in 1 Corinthians, prophesy is very much a daily occurrence.
We have to look at the rest of what Paul says in this one letter to establish where women can prophesy. And to do that, we’re going to closely read some of the most famous words Paul wrote. You’ve probably heard them if you’ve ever been to a wedding in a church:
13If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. (1 Cor. 13:1-3, NRSV)
This doesn’t resolve anything yet. Speaking in tongues is church activity, but giving away possessions happens outside church, at least partially. Let’s keep going, skipping ahead to the beginning of 1 Corinthians 14–yes, back to the infamous chapter:
14Pursue love and strive for the spiritual gifts, and especially that you may prophesy. 2For those who speak in a tongue do not speak to other people but to God; for nobody understands them, since they are speaking mysteries in the Spirit. 3On the other hand, those who prophesy speak to other people for their building up and encouragement and consolation. 4Those who speak in a tongue build up themselves, but those who prophesy build up the church. 5Now I would like all of you to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. One who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up. (1 Cor. 14:1-4, NRSV)
This passage is decisive. Not only is ekklesia a technical term for Paul, but so is prophēteuō, “to prophesy.” Prophecy is distinct from speaking in tongues and, indeed, superior to it; it is clearly a liturgical activity whose purpose is to “build up the church.” Is it possible to build up the church by speaking in God’s name only outside the church? Perhaps some folks can imagine such an activity, but it’s a frankly perverse reading of this passage.
The conclusion is clear: Paul authorizes women to speak in God’s name during church services, provided they wear a head covering. It’s not ideal, but it flatly contradicts the first passage we looked at, later in 1 Corinthians 14. So what happened?
The most common suggestion among biblical scholars is that the first passage was written by a later follower of Paul, the same sort of follower who wrote Colossians and Ephesians, both of which definitely subordinate woman so radically that the idea of them prophesying in church becomes impossible. This adds levels to the Bible, so that it’s not one flat landscape. But I don’t think it matters whether or not 1 Corinthians 14:33b-35 is from Paul or not. The bald contradiction is what produces levels, and those levels call out for a choice.
To return for a moment to the first biblical contradiction we considered, Proverbs 26:4-5 (NRSV):
4 Do not answer fools according to their folly,
or you will be a fool yourself.
5 Answer fools according to their folly,
or they will be wise in their own eyes.
I suggested then that the tension is the point. But there’s another way of looking at it. The two verses only make sense in context, and that context is provided by the social situation. If the fool you’re addressing is the sort who will listen only to himself, don’t bother to respond. If the fool is just a good-natured lunkhead, do respond, because you might make him a little bit smarter. You have to choose which one to apply; the Bible doesn’t answer that for you.
So also here. We have to decide which of these paradigms we will apply: whether women can speak in church, or not. Fans of biblical inerrancy will have to read something new into the text to turn off the contradiction, to level it, because otherwise there it sits. But that will come from outside the Bible, not from inside it. It will be their choice. The Bible does not read us; we read it.
The rest of us can take advantage of the unevenness that biblical contradictions provide us with. And, as I hope you’re beginning to see, there’s a lot of unevenness, a lot of choices to make.
Now, we need to talk about those head coverings…
Stewart Moore: Stories 
Leave a comment