# Women, preaching, praying, and prophesying



## Skyler

A friend of mine, in his research into the complementarian-egalitarian debate, lent me a book by John Bristow entitled "What Paul Really Said About Women". The first couple chapters were fairly easy for a less-studied individual to critically analyze, but I'm starting to run into a few more difficult questions.

1. What, exactly, is meant by "women are to keep silence in the church"? 

2. Is Paul really referring to public worship in 1st Corinthians 11? 

3. What connection does this have with the prophetesses in Acts 21:9?

4. In conjunction with #2, are women permitted to publicly pray and/or prophesy?

5. What does Paul mean by prophecy anyway? Is it just telling the future, or is there more to it than that?

Thanks in advance for your help.


----------



## Dearly Bought

If I recall correctly, I believe that O. Palmer Robertson addressed a lot of this rather well in _The Final Word: A Biblical Response to the Case for Tongues and Prophecy Today_. Get it. You won't regret it. If I have some time later, I may try to post a selection or two.


----------



## Skyler

Dearly Bought said:


> If I recall correctly, I believe that O. Palmer Robertson addressed a lot of this rather well in _The Final Word: A Biblical Response to the Case for Tongues and Prophecy Today_. Get it. You won't regret it. If I have some time later, I may try to post a selection or two.



Thanks Bryan. Looking on Amazon, it's only $7, so I'll probably pick that up.


----------



## Augusta




----------



## BobVigneault

Hold on Jonathan, I'm up in the attic looking for my 10 foot pole. Even if I find it I'm not sure I'll touch these questions but I would like to find that pole again.


----------



## lynnie

Amazon.com: Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism: John Piper, Wayne Grudem: Books

This is an essential reference book in my opinion. It is a collection of many scholarly articles and probably deals with many of the questions you raise. Been a while since I read through much of it, but it is an in-depth biblical exegesis of the complementarian position. And Grudem is a continuist so they must mention women prophets in there. I'll have to dig it out and look at it when I get time. But seriously consider a purchase; I think you will find it to be an excellent book and very helpful to any married couples you may deal with eventually.


----------



## Dearly Bought

Here's a helpful tidbit from Robertson's book:


> The phenomenon of prophecy in a new covenant context appears once more in Acts 21:8-11. Paul and Luke are staying at the house of Philip the evangelist, who is said to have 'four unmarried daughters who had the gift of prophecy' (verse 8). It should be remembered that Paul, who by this experience knew first-hand of the gift of prophecy as it was possessed by the four daughters of Philip, later gave approval to a woman's 'prophesying' in the church (1 Cor. 11:15).
> 
> But what is the nature of this 'prophesying' as done by the daughters of Philip? The verses immediately following clarify the question. The prophet Agabus comes down from Judea and speaks revelationally by the power of the Holy Spirit. He predicts that Paul will be arrested in Jerusalem, which of course no one could know apart from a revelatory communication from God. Once more it becomes clear that the idea of 'prophet' in the New Testament is the same as the idea of 'prophet in the Old Testament. Only by a direct revelation from God could Agabus have known that Paul was going to be arrested in Jerusalem.
> 
> It is in this context that the role of woman as 'prophetesses' in the New Testament church should be considered. A woman might be regarded as a 'prophetess' if she functioned as an instrument of divine revelation. If revelation were continuing today, then it might be expected that women as well as men might legitimately 'prophesy' in the church today.
> (O. Palmer Robertson, _The Final Word_, pages 13-14)








lynnie said:


> This is an essential reference book in my opinion. It is a collection of many scholarly articles and probably deals with many of the questions you raise. Been a while since I read through much of it, but it is an in-depth biblical exegesis of the complementarian position. And Grudem is a continuist so they must mention women prophets in there. I'll have to dig it out and look at it when I get time. But seriously consider a purchase; I think you will find it to be an excellent book and very helpful to any married couples you may deal with eventually.



Grudem can be pretty helpful when it comes to gender roles, but I would warn against adoption of his views on prophecy. Additional fallible revelatory acts of God today? No thanks.


> The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. (WCF I, vi)


----------



## DMcFadden

lynnie said:


> Amazon.com: Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism: John Piper, Wayne Grudem: Books
> 
> This is an essential reference book in my opinion. It is a collection of many scholarly articles and probably deals with many of the questions you raise. Been a while since I read through much of it, but it is an in-depth biblical exegesis of the complementarian position. And Grudem is a continuist so they must mention women prophets in there. I'll have to dig it out and look at it when I get time. But seriously consider a purchase; I think you will find it to be an excellent book and very helpful to any married couples you may deal with eventually.



If money is short and you don't mind a PDF, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood will permit you to download the whole book for free!

CBMW » Online Books

For that matter, they have 16 full length books with chapters by Grudem, Poythress, Piper, Kent Hughes, C.J. Mahaney, George Knight III, Schreiner, S. Lewis Johnson, Moo, Carson, Ortlund, etc. All of them are available in PDF form for FREE!


----------



## Iakobos_1071

Dearly Bought said:


> If I recall correctly, I believe that O. Palmer Robertson addressed a lot of this rather well in _The Final Word: A Biblical Response to the Case for Tongues and Prophecy Today_. Get it. You won't regret it. If I have some time later, I may try to post a selection or two.



glad you posted this.. I have been looking for books on this topic.. coming from a UPC family


----------



## Skyler

It's only $20, and in combination with that other book, I'm eligible for free Super Saver Shipping! 

So thanks for the link, but I think I'll go with the hard copy for now.


----------



## Neopatriarch

DMcFadden said:


> If money is short and you don't mind a PDF, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood will permit you to download the whole book for free!
> 
> CBMW » Online Books



Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth by Wayne Grudem is also a good book you can read online.


----------



## JBaldwin

lynnie said:


> Amazon.com: Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism: John Piper, Wayne Grudem: Books
> 
> This is an essential reference book in my opinion. It is a collection of many scholarly articles and probably deals with many of the questions you raise. Been a while since I read through much of it, but it is an in-depth biblical exegesis of the complementarian position. And Grudem is a continuist so they must mention women prophets in there. I'll have to dig it out and look at it when I get time. But seriously consider a purchase; I think you will find it to be an excellent book and very helpful to any married couples you may deal with eventually.



This book really helped me sort through this issue where a lot of other books only left me angry.


----------



## nicnap

BobVigneault said:


> Hold on Jonathan, I'm up in the attic looking for my 10 foot pole. Even if I find it I'm not sure I'll touch these questions but I would like to find that pole again.


----------



## Ivan

BobVigneault said:


> Hold on Jonathan, I'm up in the attic looking for my 10 foot pole. Even if I find it I'm not sure I'll touch these questions but I would like to find that pole again.



Bob, I think that pole is over there by your stack of Helen Reddy records. Yeah, to the left there.


----------



## Pilgrim

Ivan said:


> BobVigneault said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hold on Jonathan, I'm up in the attic looking for my 10 foot pole. Even if I find it I'm not sure I'll touch these questions but I would like to find that pole again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob, I think that pole is over there by your stack of Helen Reddy records. Yeah, to the left there.
Click to expand...


----------



## Classical Presbyterian

Are you only looking for references from the complementarian side?


----------



## Rich Koster

Skyler said:


> A friend of mine, in his research into the complementarian-egalitarian debate, lent me a book by John Bristow entitled "What Paul Really Said About Women". The first couple chapters were fairly easy for a less-studied individual to critically analyze, but I'm starting to run into a few more difficult questions.
> 
> 1. What, exactly, is meant by "women are to keep silence in the church"?
> 
> 2. Is Paul really referring to public worship in 1st Corinthians 11?
> 
> 3. What connection does this have with the prophetesses in Acts 21:9?
> 
> 4. In conjunction with #2, are women permitted to publicly pray and/or prophesy?
> 
> 5. What does Paul mean by prophecy anyway? Is it just telling the future, or is there more to it than that?
> 
> Thanks in advance for your help.



I'll take a run at #1. Women could be a disruption to meetings. Why? Because back then most of the men got the education and the women did not. So, if a woman didn't understand a point, as it says later in the text, she should ask her husband after meeting and not on the spot. They didn't have Bibles in hand, PA systems or recording devices to fall back on 2000 years ago, and a disruption could cause problems for the rest of the listeners.


----------



## Dearly Bought

Rich Koster said:


> I'll take a run at #1. Women could be a disruption to meetings. Why? Because back then most of the men got the education and the women did not. So, if a woman didn't understand a point, as it says later in the text, she should ask her husband after meeting and not on the spot. They didn't have Bibles in hand, PA systems or recording devices to fall back on 2000 years ago, and a disruption could cause problems for the rest of the listeners.



It's a fascinating answer which I bought for a long time. However, it has no solid evidence to support it. Check out page 242 of Grudem's Evangelical Femininism and Biblical Truth. I actually have studied under Craig Keener, one of the prominent egalitarian proponents of this interpretation. This was another case where I finally realized that the egalitarian interpretation of this passage was sustained more by Keener's brilliant mind and sharp scholarship rather than actual hard evidence. If you've ever seen his two-volume commentary on John, you'll understand how intimidating his footnotes can be. However, you'd be surprised to find out how little real evidence there is for so many of these commonly presented scenarios. The theory is concocted to fit the assumed egalitarian paradigm.


----------



## OPC'n

1. What, exactly, is meant by "women are to keep silence in the church"? *To be quite and listen to the male pastor. Also, forbids any type of teaching, instructing etc. Teaching children wouldn't be an issue since children should be in the worship service under the pastor's teaching too.*

2. Is Paul really referring to public worship in 1st Corinthians 11? *This chapter is about headship: Christ over the church and man over the woman. When women sing they sing under the headship of men. When they pray quietly, they pray under the headship of the man. The man can be their husband if the woman and if the woman isn't married then it is the pastor.*

3. What connection does this have with the prophetesses in Acts 21:9? *I believe, but not sure, that these women were spreaders of the Gospel...nothing more.*

4. In conjunction with #2, are women permitted to publicly pray and/or prophesy? *No, not during the worship service. Sometimes our pastor will have a woman pray if it is at a council meeting like the hospitality council that many of us are on. I never do.*

5. What does Paul mean by prophecy anyway? Is it just telling the future, or is there more to it than that? *I believe that you have to take it in context. Saul for example prophesied but he wasn't telling the future. I believe that when a man of God prophesied about the future, it was written down for use. Since the Gospel (or for Saul many parts of the OT) was set forth, these people only told or "prophesied" about what they heard of the Gospel or in other words spread the Gospel.*

I could be totally wrong, but I don't think so. Paul goes into too much detail about how women are to subjective to their husbands and men are to govern etc to then take a few verses and have him contradict himself...and not only himself but the order God set forth in the garden.


----------



## Rich Koster

I based my answer on the fact that the portion of the text in question here deals with disruptions, misuses and and proper order. The technology part is from secular history, but accurate. The education factor is from secular history also. I do agree that the balance varied between different cultures and social classes within them. Presuppositions can be right from time to time.


----------



## Dearly Bought

Rich Koster said:


> I based my answer on the fact that the portion of the text in question here deals with disruptions, misuses and and proper order. The technology part is from secular history, but accurate. The education factor is from secular history also. I do agree that the balance varied between different cultures and social classes within them. Presuppositions can be right from time to time.



The broader text deals with order in worship. The surrounding passage, however, is dealing with the proper role of male headship as a part of that order. Paul emphasizes that he is addressing all churches, not just one specific situation (v. 33-34). Furthermore, he appeals to the Old Testament for his principles of headship (v. 34). The vast difference in gender education that you suggest is a bit of a stretch. Check out page 288 of Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth.

Paul's point has to do with male headship, not problems with audible disruptions in a particular situation.


----------



## Rich Koster

Then what about "ask their husbands at home" ? Is it a disruption or a submission issue or both? Did the women interrupt the speaker or whisper to their husbands? Since we don't have the original letter to Paul, I'll hold to my view and you to yours. In either case he was instructing to clean up the mess in Corinth.


----------



## Dearly Bought

Rich Koster said:


> Then what about "ask their husbands at home" ? Is it a disruption or a submission issue or both? Did the women interrupt the speaker or whisper to their husbands? Since we don't have the original letter to Paul, I'll hold to my view and you to yours. In either case he was instructing to clean up the mess in Corinth.



We don't need a lost letter to Paul in order to understand this text. Paul gives a clear reason for his command for the women to ask their husbands at home: "For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church" (v. 35). The concern is not the level of audio disruption, but the gender of the speaker. There is a subversion of male headship in the congregation. This neglect of submission _is_ the disruption.


----------



## Rich Koster




----------



## lynnie

Ligon Duncan on this, quoting Piper/Grudem at the end....

CBMW » Women in the Church and Silence in the Church

Then turn forward three chapters to I Corinthians 14:26-40, and look very closely at verse 26. Write these words down if you're taking notes: teaching, revelation, tongue, interpretation. Top to bottom: teaching, revelation, tongue and interpretation. Listen to this. Paul says this (verse 26): "What is the outcome then, brethren? Edification." Now notice what Paul does: he begins to work through this list in the reverse. He starts with tongues and interpretation; then he moves to revelation; then he moves to teaching. It doesn't say anything about the psalm, presumably because there was no controversy about that: it was self-explanatory. So watch what he says: "If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and let one interpret; but if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God." So there he deals with the last two things: tongues and interpretation. Then "Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, let the first keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints." And so there he deals with the revelation. So he's dealt now with tongues and interpretation; he's dealt with revelation. 

Now what does he say next? Verse 34: "The women are to keep silent in the churches." Now what does that correspond to? It corresponds to teaching. So this is not a universal gag order on women. You know, when you walk through the doors on the way into the sanctuary, "Better zip it, honey. No more talking." That's not what Paul is talking about; he's talking about teaching in the gathered assembly of God's people. "Women are to keep silent in the churches for they are not permitted to speak, but they are to subject themselves, just as the Law says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home for it is improper for a woman to speak in church." 

What's Paul's proscription there? His proscription is against women teaching authoritatively in the church. And he even suggests that they ask their own husbands questions at home because you know how questions can be used to make a statement. I'm a seminary professor on occasion, and about half the questions I get are really comments. "I'd like to ask a question about that last, very fallacious statement that you just made." You know, and then you get the three-point rebuttal followed by the pseudo-question. Well Paul's saying here, nothing, nothing should be done which undercuts the authority of the elders teaching God's word in the church, and, therefore, women are not to be engaged in teaching in that way or challenging it in any inappropriate way. 

And notice what he says in verses 37 and 38. Once again, "Let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandments. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized." Once again, the Apostle Paul stresses that this is not an ad hoc directive, but it is something which is to be universally applied in the life of the church. 

Listen to how John Piper and Wayne Grudem summarized this answer to this question. "When Paul says in I Timothy 2:12, ‘I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent,' we do not understand him to mean an absolute prohibition of all teaching by women. Paul instructs the older women to teach what is good, then they can train the younger women. And he commends the teaching that Eunice and Lois gave to her son and grandson. Proverbs praises the ideal wife because she speaks with wisdom and faithful instruction on her tongue. Paul endorses women prophesying in a church and says that men learn by such prophesying. And that members should teach and admonish one another with all wisdom as you sing songs, hymns, and spiritual songs. And then, of course, there is Priscilla at Aquilla's side correcting Apollos. It is arbitrary to think that Paul has in mind every form of teaching in I Timothy 2:12. Teaching and learning are in such broad terms that it is impossible that women not teach men and men not learn from women in some sense. There is a way that nature teaches and a fig tree teaches and suffering teaches and human behavior teaches. If Paul did not have every conceivable form of teaching and learning in mind, what did he mean? Along with the fact that the setting here is the church assembled for prayer and teaching, the best clue is by coupling teaching with having authority over men. We would say that the teaching inappropriate for a woman is the teaching of men in settings or ways that dishonor the calling of men to bear the primary responsibility for teaching in leadership. This primary responsibility is to be carried by the pastors or elders. Therefore, we think it is God's will that only men bear the responsibility for that office."


----------



## JBaldwin

lynnie said:


> Ligon Duncan on this, quoting Piper/Grudem at the end....
> 
> CBMW » Women in the Church and Silence in the Church
> 
> Then turn forward three chapters to I Corinthians 14:26-40, and look very closely at verse 26. Write these words down if you're taking notes: teaching, revelation, tongue, interpretation. Top to bottom: teaching, revelation, tongue and interpretation. Listen to this. Paul says this (verse 26): "What is the outcome then, brethren? Edification." Now notice what Paul does: he begins to work through this list in the reverse. He starts with tongues and interpretation; then he moves to revelation; then he moves to teaching. It doesn't say anything about the psalm, presumably because there was no controversy about that: it was self-explanatory. So watch what he says: "If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and let one interpret; but if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God." So there he deals with the last two things: tongues and interpretation. Then "Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, let the first keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints." And so there he deals with the revelation. So he's dealt now with tongues and interpretation; he's dealt with revelation.
> 
> Now what does he say next? Verse 34: "The women are to keep silent in the churches." Now what does that correspond to? It corresponds to teaching. So this is not a universal gag order on women. You know, when you walk through the doors on the way into the sanctuary, "Better zip it, honey. No more talking." That's not what Paul is talking about; he's talking about teaching in the gathered assembly of God's people. "Women are to keep silent in the churches for they are not permitted to speak, but they are to subject themselves, just as the Law says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home for it is improper for a woman to speak in church."
> 
> What's Paul's proscription there? His proscription is against women teaching authoritatively in the church. And he even suggests that they ask their own husbands questions at home because you know how questions can be used to make a statement. I'm a seminary professor on occasion, and about half the questions I get are really comments. "I'd like to ask a question about that last, very fallacious statement that you just made." You know, and then you get the three-point rebuttal followed by the pseudo-question. Well Paul's saying here, nothing, nothing should be done which undercuts the authority of the elders teaching God's word in the church, and, therefore, women are not to be engaged in teaching in that way or challenging it in any inappropriate way.
> 
> And notice what he says in verses 37 and 38. Once again, "Let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandments. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized." Once again, the Apostle Paul stresses that this is not an ad hoc directive, but it is something which is to be universally applied in the life of the church.
> 
> Listen to how John Piper and Wayne Grudem summarized this answer to this question. "When Paul says in I Timothy 2:12, ‘I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent,' we do not understand him to mean an absolute prohibition of all teaching by women. Paul instructs the older women to teach what is good, then they can train the younger women. And he commends the teaching that Eunice and Lois gave to her son and grandson. Proverbs praises the ideal wife because she speaks with wisdom and faithful instruction on her tongue. Paul endorses women prophesying in a church and says that men learn by such prophesying. And that members should teach and admonish one another with all wisdom as you sing songs, hymns, and spiritual songs. And then, of course, there is Priscilla at Aquilla's side correcting Apollos. It is arbitrary to think that Paul has in mind every form of teaching in I Timothy 2:12. Teaching and learning are in such broad terms that it is impossible that women not teach men and men not learn from women in some sense. There is a way that nature teaches and a fig tree teaches and suffering teaches and human behavior teaches. If Paul did not have every conceivable form of teaching and learning in mind, what did he mean? Along with the fact that the setting here is the church assembled for prayer and teaching, the best clue is by coupling teaching with having authority over men. We would say that the teaching inappropriate for a woman is the teaching of men in settings or ways that dishonor the calling of men to bear the primary responsibility for teaching in leadership. This primary responsibility is to be carried by the pastors or elders. Therefore, we think it is God's will that only men bear the responsibility for that office."



This makes the most sense of any explanation of the text I've heard.


----------



## lynnie

I heard Ligon Duncan speak a couple years ago at the Philly PCRT. It was all about the Word of God and its perfection and power and sufficiency. I don't think I ever heard a sermon about scripture more powerful than his that day. You could tell how much he loved it. So I respect his opinion for sure.

Better find my head covering so I can prophesy this Sunday


----------



## JBaldwin

lynnie said:


> I heard Ligon Duncan speak a couple years ago at the Philly PCRT. It was all about the Word of God and its perfection and power and sufficiency. I don't think I ever heard a sermon about scripture more powerful than his that day. You could tell how much he loved it. So I respect his opinion for sure.
> 
> Better find my head covering so I can prophesy this Sunday



Yes, I respect his opinion as well. I've known the Duncan family for a long time. We were members of the same PCA church when Ligon was still in school in seminary.


----------

