August 20th to 26th
Discussion Questions
Old Testament
-
If God knows everything why did He ask Satan where he had been? Job 1:7.
-
Why did God give Satan power over all that Job had--even the power to kill Job’s children? Job 1:12, 19.
New Testament
-
Chapter 13 of 1 Corinthians is often referred to as the “Love Chapter.” The King James Version translates “love” as “charity.” Does that choice of words here change the meaning?
-
Does 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 mean that women should not speak in church services today?
Notes and Commentary
Old Testament
If God knows everything why did He ask Satan where he had been? Job 1:7.
God knows the answer. He asks the questions to force Satan to say what God already knows. Satan’s response is that he has been walking back and forth on the earth. Satan is describing his nature, which is always seeking his prey. The description in 1 Peter 5:8 (WEB) is more to point: “Your adversary, the devil, walks around like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.”
[John Gill’s Expositor] This question is put, not as ignorant of the place from whence he came; for the omniscient God knows all persons and things, men and angels, and these good and bad, where they are, from whence they come, and what they do, see Ge 3:9; 4:9 but it is put either as being angry with him, and resenting his coming among the sons of God, and chiding him for it, as having no proper business there, like the question in Mt 22:12, or rather in order to lead on to another, and to bring out from him what he intended to have expressed by him, of what he had seen and taken notice of in the place from whence he came, and particularly concerning Job: how God and spirits converse together we are not able to say; but no doubt there is a way in which God talks with spirits, even with evil ones, as well as good ones, and in which they speak to him; and so this does not at all affect the reality of this narrative.
[Matthew Henry’s Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible] He (God) knew very well whence he came, and with what design he came thither, that as the good angels came to do good he came for a permission to do hurt; but he would, by calling him to an account, show him that he was under check and control... The same question was perhaps put to the rest of those that presented themselves before the Lord, "Whence came you?" We are accountable to God for all our haunts and all the ways we traverse.
Why did God give Satan power over all that Job had--even the power to kill Job’s children? Job 1:12,
Job’s ordeal is necessary to prove the essential point of this book.
[Luther’s Commentary on Selected Bible Passages] The book of Job deals with the question, whether misfortune can come to the righteous from God. Job stands fast, and holds that God chastises even the righteous without reason, to His praise, as Christ also says, in John 3:9, of the man who was born blind.
[Geneva Bible Translation Notes] God does not give Satan power over man to gratify him, but to declare that he has no power over man, but that which God gives him.
[Kretzmann Popular Commentary] Satan thereby received permission to deprive Job of all his property, of all his immense wealth; but he was not allowed to touch the person of Job. The obvious intention of the Lord, in granting this permission to Satan, was to test the integrity and the piety of Job, to prove his sincerity over against the devil’s sneering insinuations. It was a phase of the battle of light with darkness.
[The New John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible] (Job 1: 12. “And the Lord said unto Satan, behold, all that he hath is in thy power”) This he said not as angry and displeased with Job, or as entertaining any ill opinion of him through the suggestions of Satan, nor as gratifying that evil spirit; but in order to convince and confound him, and to try the grace of Job, that he might shine the brighter; and it may be observed, that the Lord alone had the sovereign dispose of all that Job had, and that Satan could have no power over him or his, but what was given him: (“only upon himself put not forth thine hand”) thus the Lord restrained Satan, who could do nothing without his leave, and limits and bounds the present affliction of his servant to his family and estate; reserving his person and the health of it for another temptation and trial:
[Matthew Henry’s Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible] The permission God gave to Satan to afflict Job for the trial of his sincerity. Satan desired God to do it: Put forth thy hand now. God allowed him to do it: "All that he has is in thy hand; make the trial as sharp as thou canst; do thy worst at him."
-
1. It is a matter of wonder that God should give Satan such a permission as this, should deliver the soul of his turtle-dove into the hand of the adversary, such a lamb to such a lion; but he did it for his own glory, the honour of Job, the explanation of Providence, and the encouragement of his afflicted people in all ages, to make a case which, being adjudged, might be a useful precedent. He suffered Job to be tried, as he suffered Peter to be sifted, but took care that his faith should not fail (Luke xxii. 32) and then the trial of it was found unto praise, and honour, and glory, 1 Pet. i. 7. But,
2. It is a matter of comfort that God has the devil in a chain, in a great chain, Rev. xx. 1. He could not afflict Job without leave from God first asked and obtained, and then no further than he had leave: "Only upon himself put not forth thy hand; meddle not with his body, but only with his estate." It is a limited power that the devil has; he has no power to debauch men but what they give him themselves, nor power to afflict men but what is given him from above.
New Testament
Chapter 13 of 1 Corinthians is often referred to as the “Love Chapter.” The King James Version translates “love” as “charity.” Does that choice of words here change the meaning?
The word translated as either “love” or “charity” in 1 Corinthians 13:1 comes from the Greek word, “agape.” It is one of the several Greek words often translated into the single English word, “love.” A more complete definition is “brotherly love, affection, good will, love, or benevolence, or charity.”
Agape was essentially a new Biblical and ecclesiastical word at the time of the New Testament. That is, this form of the word was not in common usage in contemporaneous secular works. The word, agape, is found mainly in Paul’s letters in the New Testament. Jesus used the word twice in the Gospels When Jerome came to translate the Greek Testament into Latin, he found in that language no word to represent agape. “Amor” was not right. So Jerome fell back on “dilectio” and “caritas,” words which, however, in their original meanings were too weak and colorless to represent agape adequately. For reasons not readily apparent, Jerome chose to render agape as “caritas” in 1 Corinthians 13. When subsequently translated, the Latin word “caritas” became the English word “charity.” Caritas, however, never really denoted what charity denotes today; namely, giving things away for free. When agape is translated by "charity" it means either:
-
a disposition in man which may qualify his own character (1Co 8:1) and be ready to go forth to God (1Co 8:3) or to men; or
-
an active and actual relation with other men, generally within the church (Col 3:14; 1Th 3:6; 2Th 1:3; 1Ti 1:5; 4:12; 1Pe 4:8; 5:14), but also absolutely and universally (1Co 13). In the earlier epistles it stands first and unique as the supreme principle of the Christian life (1Co 13), but in the later writings, it is enumerated as one among the Christian virtues (1Ti 2:15; 2Ti 2:22; 3:10; Tit 2:2; 2Pe 1:7; Re 2:19).
[Matthew Henry’s Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible] Here the apostle shows what more excellent way he meant, or had in view, in the close of the former chapter, namely, charity, or, as it is commonly elsewhere rendered, love--agape: not what is meant by charity in our common use of the word, which most men understand of alms-giving, but love in its fullest and most extensive meaning, true love to God and man, a benevolent disposition of mind towards our fellow-christians, growing out of sincere and fervent devotion to God. This living principle of all duty and obedience is the more excellent way of which the apostle speaks, preferable to all gifts.
Does 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 mean that women should not speak in church services today?
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (WEB). As in all the assemblies of the saints, [34] let your wives keep silent in the assemblies, for it has not been permitted for them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as the law also says. [35] If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is shameful for a woman to chatter in the assembly.
There is some disagreement among modern Christians as to the meaning of this passage. Adam Clarke’s commentary argues that in the New Testament Church both women and men have the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. As such, both men and women may prophesy (i.e. teach). He maintains the rule is really to prevent public disputes or altercations between men and women, in public. Questions that might lead to disputes should be saved for discussion at home, between husband and wife. Kretzmann Popular Commentary sets out a different interpretation. According to the plain words of the scripture, women are to “keep silence in the congregations; they shall take no part in public teaching in the church, they shall not be given authoritative direction.” However, he admits women should be allowed to teach in the schools.
Burkitt’s commentary allows an exception for women in church only for “singing of psalms and prayer, but their speaking by way of teaching and prophesying is there forbidden.”
The Peoples New Testament commentary suggests the prohibibion against women speaking in the church was applicable only to the Greek churches that Paul was addressing, due to specific circumstances in those churches.
Some more modern commentators recommend ignorning these verses, either on grounds of tradition, common sense, or the inclusion of the verses in the Bible being a transcription error (see the articles of Joseph Tkach,
on page 1↓, and Spirit & Truth Fellowship International,
on page 1↓).
Some modern sources also point out that the Greek women to whom Paul was referring were uneducated. Paul’s prohibition against women speaking was really a prohibition against stupid or disruptive statements and questions, and thus did not have a universal application to all churches for all time (see the footnotes in the article of Joseph Tkach, attributed to Craig Keener,
on page 1↓, and Craig Blomberg,
on page 1↓).
[Adam Clarke’s 1810/1825 commentary and critical notes on the Bible] This was a Jewish ordinance; women were not permitted to teach in the assemblies, or even to ask questions. The rabbins taught that "a woman should know nothing but the use of her distaff." And the sayings of Rabbi Eliezer, as delivered, Bammidbar Rabba, sec. 9, fol. 204, are both worthy of remark and of execration; they are these: yisrephu dibrey torah veal yimsaru lenashim, "Let the words of the law be burned, rather than that they should be delivered to women."
This was their condition till the time of the Gospel, when, according to the prediction of Joel, the Spirit of God was to be poured out on the women as well as the men, that they might prophesy, i.e. teach. And that they did prophesy or teach is evident from what the apostle says, 1Co 11:5, where he lays down rules to regulate this part of their conduct while ministering in the church.
But does not what the apostle says here contradict that statement, and show that the words in chap. 11 should be understood in another sense? For, here it is expressly said that they should keep silence in the church; for it was not permitted to a woman to speak. Both places seem perfectly consistent. It is evident from the context that the apostle refers here to asking questions, and what we call dictating in the assemblies. It was permitted to any man to ask questions, to object, altercate, attempt to refute, &c., in the synagogue; but this liberty was not allowed to any woman. St. Paul confirms this in reference also to the Christian Church; he orders them to keep silence; and, if they wished to learn any thing, let them inquire of their husbands at home; because it was perfectly indecorous for women to be contending with men in public assemblies, on points of doctrine, cases of conscience, a woman received any particular influence from God to enable her to teach, that she was not to obey that influence; on the contrary, she was to obey it, and the apostle lays down directions in chap. 11 for regulating her personal appearance when thus employed. All that the apostle opposes here is their questioning, finding fault, disputing, Jewish men were permitted to do in their synagogues; together with the attempts to usurp any authority over the man, by setting up their judgment in opposition to them; for the apostle has in view, especially, acts of disobedience, arrogance, woman would be guilty who was under the influence of the Spirit of God.
[Kretzmann Popular Commentary] Both Greek and Roman as well as Jewish custom forbade the public appearance of women, especially their participation in public speaking. It seems that the Christian women of Corinth had a wrong idea of the meaning of Christian liberty, assuming that the ancient distinction made by God had been abrogated. But this rule made by God, that man is the head of woman, holds good for all time and under all circumstances. It is not a question of superiority or inferiority, but of headship and of government in the affairs of the church. Let women keep silence in the congregations; they shall take no part in public teaching in the church, they shall not be given authoritative direction. The public speaking and teaching in the congregation on the basis of the Word of God is a ruling and governing which is at variance with the position which God has given to woman, not only since the Fall, but before as well. And a Christian woman, knowing the high esteem in which she is otherwise held according to the Word of God (cp. Eph. 5, 22-33), will not attempt to break this rule, Gen. 3, 16, but will gladly acquiesce in His will, knowing that it is not permitted her to be a teacher in the public worship of the congregation, 1 Tim. 2, 12, but to be under obedience, leaving the leadership, the teaching, and the government to the men. Christian women are thereby not excluded from learning, they are rather encouraged to take an intelligent interest in the work of the congregation; they should freely ask questions and discuss matters of the kingdom of God at home, with their husbands. And far from occupying a position of dishonor by this ruling of God, Christian women know that it is disgraceful, it shocks moral feeling, if women aspire to, and assume, equal footing with men in public speaking and teaching, and in church leadership. Note: Here, as in the parallel passages, the apostle refers to public teaching before the whole congregation; the work of women teachers in schools and high schools is here not condemned, and in other passages, Titus 2, 3; Acts 18, 26, is rather, by implication, commended.
[Burkitt’s Expository Notes, 1700] A farther rule is here given by the apostle for maintaining decency and order in the public assemblies; namely, that the women should never presume to speak or utter any thing as public teachers in the congregation; no, nor so much as ask any question publicly. Almighty God having by his law made subjection (not public instruction) their duty, of which silence is a token. Here observe, That it is not the women’s speaking in the public assemblies, when they join with the congregation in singing of psalms and prayer, but their speaking by way of teaching and prophesying that is there forbidden. Note farther, That the means of instruction were not denied the women; at home they might put forth questions to their husbands, for their own information and satisfaction; but to do any thing like this publicly was a shame, or indecent thing, both to the church, the husband, and herself. Still observe, How the God of order calls for order, and delights in decency, especially in places where his religious worship is celebrated. He has unworthy thoughts of God that thinks him either a patron of, or pleased with, any disorder, either in civil affairs, or religious services.
[The People’s New Testament] Let your woman keep silence in the churches. This, in view of other portions of the Scriptures, is confessedly a difficult passage. We have the same teaching in 1Ti 2:11,12. On the other hand, Deborah was a judge and a prophetess (Jud 4:4); Huldah was a prophetess (1Ki 22:14); Joel predicted that in the Christian dispensation "the sons and ’daughters’ should prophesy" (Joe 2:28), and Peter declared that this was fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost (Ac 2:4). In addition, the daughters of Philip prophesied (Ac 21:9), and Paul gives directions concerning women prophesying in 1Co 11:5. Probably these apparent discrepancies may be reconciled as follows: (1) Paul’s prohibition of speaking to the women is "in the churches"; that is, in the church assemblies when "the whole church is come together into one place" (1Co 14:23). It is an official meeting of the church. "Church" in the New Testament always means the "ecclesia". It does not apply to such informal meetings as the social or prayer-meetings, but to formal gatherings of the whole body. (2) It may be that even this prohibition was due to the circumstances that existed in Ephesus, where Timothy was, and in Corinth, and would not apply everywhere. If so, it applies wherever similar circumstances exist, but not elsewhere. Both were Greek churches. Among the Greeks public women were disreputable. For a woman to speak in public would cause the remark that she was shameless. Virtuous women were secluded. Hence it would be "a shame for women to speak in the church" assembly. It is noteworthy that there is no hint of such a prohibition to any churches except Grecian. Wherever it would be shameful, women ought not to speak.
[Joseph Tkach] If we take this literally, it would mean that women are not allowed to sing in church nor respond when the pastor asks for comments or questions from the audience. Moreover, it would contradict what Paul said in chapter 11, where he said that women could pray and prophesy in church if they had the appropriate attire.
Common sense, church custom, and good principles of biblical interpretation all say that we should not take these verses literally—and almost no one does. Paul is not making a blanket prohibition that says that women can never speak in church. Rather, he was addressing his comments to a certain situation, and his comments are limited in some way. The question is, What are the limits of Paul’s prohibition? In the following paper, the doctrinal review team examines the context and looks at the details of these verses. Tkach’s article contains these two interesting footnotes:
-
-
Craig Keener notes, “Whereas questions at public lectures were expected, ancient literature testified that unlearned questions were considered foolish and rude—and women generally possessed inadequate education and were most often unlearned” (51). Noisy or disorderly women would not be considered “in submission,” even if they were not breaking any particular command. “It would be particularly embarrassing to a husband for his wife to transgress social boundaries and question him in public. This behavior still makes persons uncomfortable in cultures that have an unwritten rule between spouses that one does not shame or embarrass the other in public” (David Garland, 1 Corinthians [Baker, 2003], 670).
-
[Craig] Blomberg writes, “If one of the cultural explanations for Paul’s silencing the women is accepted, then contemporary Christians will silence women only where comparable problems—lack of education, interfering chatter, or the promotion of false teaching—still exist. And they will impose silence on men who fall victim to one of these problems as well” (286).
[Spirit & Truth Fellowship International]
There is good evidence that these two verses were not part of Paul’s original writing, but were added to the text by scribes or copyists... One thing that Christians can be thankful for is that when something is wrong with Christian doctrine, the spirit of God usually moves powerfully in people to overcome the problem. That certainly is the case when it comes to 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 35 and women being silent in the congregation. Perhaps no supposed command of God is as regularly ignored as this one. In churches and fellowship halls around the world, in denomination after denomination, women speak up. Even in many denominations that do not allow women to teach the congregation, they are allowed to contribute before or after the sermon.
Random Quotes
"For many are called, but few are chosen."
— Jesus Christ, Matthew 22:14 (King James Version)
"User, n. The word computer professionals use when they mean ’idiot.’"
"If you would like a transcript of this program, write down every word you hear."
— attributed to the Rush Limbaugh radio show
"An ignorant person is one who doesn’t know what you have just found out."
— Will Rogers (1879-1935) "
Better to be coughin’ than be in a coffin."
"Don’t speak until you are sure you have something to say, and know just what it is; then say it, and sit down."
— Dale Carnegie (1888 – 1955), Public Speaking and Influencing Men in Business, p 14 (1945)
Notes:
© Tom Truex 2014, Davie, FL