Other Books at Freedom's Ring

Chapter 10

Spiritual Gifts

In chapter 12 Paul dealt with spiritual gifts. There is not even a hint in this chapter to suggest that those gifts mentioned were bestowed upon men only. There is no Biblical evidence to suggest that only men received the gifts of the spirit. Rather, we find clear evidence which proves that church members, male and female, had various gifts.

In 12:3 Paul says, "No man can confess Jesus as Lord, but in the Holy Spirit." No one would argue that the man here referred only to the masculine sex. Women also confess Jesus as Lord by the same spirit, and they do it in public assemblies of the church. I find it strange that a woman can stand on a podium beside a minister and confess to a congregation that she believes Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God, prior to baptism, but the same preacher never allows that same woman to stand before the same microphone and declare, after she is a Christian, that she believes that Christ is the Son of God and make a declaration of her growing faith before the same assembly. We let alien sinners do something in the assembly that we do not allow fellow saints to do. It is strange that a woman can violate our rendering of I Corinthians 14:34 before baptism but cannot give a public confession afterwards. No one would argue that the confession of Christ mentioned in Matthew 10:32 was a one-time, final confession. Nor do we argue that Timothy made only one confession of faith in his lifetime (I Timothy 6:12).

In 12:4-6, Paul speaks of diversities of gifts, ministrations and working. But it is the same spirit and the same Lord "working all things in all," not all men! Verse 7 says, "but to each one is given the manifestation of the spirit to the profit withal."

Would any Bible student rewrite this passage to fit the practice of the church this way: "but to 'men only' is given the manifestation of the spirit to profit withal?" Of course not. The "each" in verse 7 included women, as did the "each" in 11:21, who had abused eating and drinking at the time of the Lord's Supper.

In 12:11 Paul says, "But all these worketh the one and the same spirit, dividing to each one severally as he will." No person would dare change this scripture to read: "dividing to 'each man', or 'to each man only'."

In 12:12 Paul says, "the body is one and hath many members." We know that "many" includes men and women. "For we were all (men and women) baptized into the one body, and all (men and women) made to drink of the same spirit," verse 13.

In verses 27 and 31 Paul says, "Ye (men and women) are the body of Christ, and severally members one of another." "And God set some in the church; first apostles." One can argue that the original twelve were the only apostles or a select group of "ones sent out." One can also argue that Paul was an apostle "born out of due season." One might even argue that Barnabas was also an apostle, that is, one "sent out." (Acts 14:14.)

But no one can argue that the original twelve did not have a special office and a special mission. The word apostle comes from the Greek word "Apostolos," which means "one sent forth." The Greek "Apostolea" means "to send forth." The preachers of Romans 10:12 certainly became apostles in the general sense when they were sent out. Paul "sent" more than one ministering servant to perform a certain task (II Corinthians 12:17; I Timothy 4:12; Ephesians 4:21-22; Colossians 4:7-9; Philippians 2:19,28).

Anyone sent forth on a mission was an apostle. In I Corinthians 12:18 Paul says, "God set in the church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helps, governments, and divers kinds of tongues." Paul states that these "do not all have the same gifts," but he tells the Corinthian church, made up of both men and women, to "desire earnestly spiritual gifts," 14:1.

No one would argue that men only had the gift of prophecy. In fact, all evidence points to the contrary. Nor would one argue that the gifts of teaching, miracles, healing, tongues, or interpretation of tongues were limited to men only. Women certainly had speaking gifts, and they were given for the benefit of the church.

In chapter 13 Paul points out that the possession and exercise of these gifts, or even the willingness to give one's body to be burned, without love, was a waste of the gift or the sacrifice, for both men and women. These gifts were to be exercised in love by both men and women. The importance of love in the exercise of the gifts applied to the whole church. In fact, he tells the whole church, in the first verse of chapter 14, "to follow after love and to desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy." Those who would desire spiritual gifts, and especially the gifts of prophecy, were the same ones who were to follow after love in chapter 13. These Corinthian Christians include both men and women.

Paul argues that the gift of prophecy was greater than the gifts of tongues because, in its exercise, the church was exhorted, edified, and consoled (14:3-4).

In verse 5 he says, "I would that ye all [men and women] speak with tongues, but rather that ye [men and women] prophesy." The same "ye all" are the ones who were to follow after love. It had to include men and women. We should remind ourselves again that Joel said, "Your sons and your daughters will prophesy," and "I will pour up my spirit upon your handmaidens." We should also remember again that Philip had four daughters who prophesied and that husbands and wives prayed and prophesied together in chapter 11 in the assembly. With this in mind, one can begin to see more clearly that Paul was giving those instructions to both men and women in the exercise of the gifts to the benefit of the whole church.

In 14:9 he says, "So also ye [men and women], unless ye utter by the tongue speech easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? For ye [men and women] will be speaking into the air."

In verse 12, he says, "So also ye, since ye [men and women] are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye [men and women] may abound unto the edification of the church." In verse 20, Paul addressed the entire church. "Brethren [men and women], be not children in mind, in malice be ye [men and women] babes, but in mind be ye [men and women] men."

Verse 23 says, "If, therefore, the whole church [men and women] be assembled together and all [men and women] speak with tongues, and there come in men [men or women] unlearned or unbelieving, will they not say that ye [men and women] are mad?"

The "ye" in the Corinthian church were both men and women. Only by inserting "men only" after "ye" could anyone come up with any other interpretation, and Paul and the Holy Spirit certainly did not do that.

Verses 24 and 25 read, "But if all [men and women] prophesy and there come one who is unbelieving and unlearned, he is approved by all [men and women] and is judged by all [men and women]; the secrets of his heart are made manifest; and so he will fall down on his face and worship God and declare that God is among you [men and women] indeed."

Would anyone dare to change this scripture to read:

"But if all men and only men prophesy."

"He is approved by all men and only men."

"He is judged by all men and only men."

"Declaring that God is among you men and only you men indeed."

Verse 26 reads, "What is it then, brethren? When you come together, each one of you [men and women] hath a psalm, hath a teaching, hath a revelation, hath a tongue, hath an interpretation." Note: Brethren represents the whole church, the brotherhood of Corinthian Christians. Who was able to exercise these gifts in the assembly? The answer: "Each one of you." Each one assembled. Women did also assemble. Some have mistakenly argued that the pronouns in Chapter 14 were all masculine, thus the instruction was necessarily limited to men. But they don't limit the prohibition against stealing to men because of Paul's instruction in Ephesians 4:28, "Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labor, working with his hands that he may have whereof to give to him that need." There are many passages where masculine pronouns are used but which apply to men and women equally.

Someone might argue that women must have had only the gifts of knowledge, wisdom, faith, discernment of spirits, but no speaking gifts. Not so. We already know that the gift of prophecy was possessed by women. What good would the gift be if it could not be used to teach and edify? Of what value is an unspoken psalm? Certainly the women of the church enjoyed all the gifts, and this whole context proves they, not men only, exercised them in the assemblies.

In verses 27-36 Paul addresses three situations requiring "silence" during the exercising of these special gifts, or in a broader sense, any activity in the assemblies of the church which created confusion. First, there was the problem of the brethren exercising the gifts of tongues without an interpreter, thus creating a situation he addressed in verses 6-19. In verses 27-28 Paul said, "If any man speaketh in a tongue, let it be two at the most three, and that in turn; and let one interpret; but if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church, and let him speak to himself and to God." So, he commands silence in the absence of an interpreter. He also limits the number of tongue speakers to three in any single service. Those were to speak in order or in turn because all things had to be done unto edifying. There is not one suggestion that these tongue speakers or interpretors were limited to the male sex. On the contrary, the instruction to the "ye all" of this passage says that unless there is an interpretor, they were all (both men and women) to keep their silence.

Secondly, in verses 29-33, he addresses those who were prophesying, no doubt including both men and women who were prophesying in chapter 11:4-5. "And let the prophets speak by two or three, and let the others discern. But if a revelation is made to another sitting by, let the first keep silence. For ye all can prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be exhorted, and the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets; for God is not a God of confusion, but of peace." No doubt they were sons, daughters, and handmaidens of whom Joel and Peter spoke. He instructed the church to limit the number of those [men and women] prophesying in each service to three, and they were to speak one by one so the church could learn and be exhorted. "Others [men and women] were to discern." If one of these prophets were speaking and one standing by had a revelation, then the person prophesying was to keep his or her silence.

If we follow both Paul's commands faithfully and the necessary inference of limitations from this passage, then the church could never allow more than three people to speak or read the scripture to edify the church in any one service or any one Bible class. But we have "reasoned" that this "law" does not apply, and allow at times a half dozen or more to make known the mind and counsel of God in one service, and many more in a Bible class. Yet, we continue to selectively apply verse 34 on silence among women.

Paul did require silence in these two cases. He made it very clear that without an interpreter, tongue speakers were to be silent or hold their peace. If a more recent revelation came to one with the gift of prophecy, the ones assigned to prophecy must be silent or hold their peace. The reason for silence was to maintain order and eliminate confusion in the church. Another reason was that God would be honored, since He was not the author of confusion. Under such orderly arrangements, the church would be truly edified. If God gave women revelations, and I know of no one who claims He didn't, and if they were given while another prophesied, the Corinthians would have disobeyed God by refusing women the right to reveal His message.

The root Greek word for silence, in I Corinthians 14:34, is "sigao," which means "to be silent, or quiet, or to hold one's peace." The Greek word for muzzle is "phimoo." Paul did not muzzle the tongue speakers in the church when there were no interpreters present. He also said for those who prophesied to "hold their peace" if another Christian gets a revelation while they are speaking. But he did not muzzle them in the rest of the service. In verses 34 and 35, he does not muzzle wives in the church.

In view of all the instructions to the "whole church" which included all those who had gifts of the spirit, enjoyed by both men and women, it is impossible for me to reach any other conclusion from I Corinthians 14:34-35 than that this silence involved only husbands and wives. When will we admit that it is our "reasoning," our "binding," or our "loosing," which enables us to permit women to breach the "silence rule" according to some of our traditions and not other traditions? Can we not see the obvious inconsistencies? Perhaps there is security in our inconsistencies and we are simply afraid to turn the light of reason on some of them.

"For it is not permitted for them to speak." The Greek word for speak here is "laleo." Since this Greek word may also include the idea of babbling, prattling, chattering, etc., it could easily and logically prohibit wives from babbling and chattering in the assembly, as well as asking husbands questions.

The third problem that Paul addresses that required silence was apparently in cases of certain women who were speaking up and asking their husbands questions as they were speaking. They had discovered their new-found freedom in Christ very refreshing in a culture which had shackled them. In chapter 11, they had begun removing signs of respect for their husbands while they prayed and prophesied in the assembly. In this passage, apparently, some continued to fail to show proper respect for their husbands by asking them questions in public. They were not exercising silence and restraint as an indication of their submission to their husbands while their husbands were speaking. And so, Paul says, "Let the women (wives; gune) keep silent in the churches. For it is not permitted for them to speak, but to be in subjection as also saith the law. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home" (I Corinthians 14:34-35).

Let's insert "wives" for "women" in this passage. Remember the translators translated "gune" wife or wives at least thirty times in Paul's letters. The translators made the correct translation of "aner" and left no doubt which group of women was to be silent. It was those who had husbands. It clearly identifies those women he told to be silent, the ones who could ask their "own husbands at home." Now if we, being consistent and true to the context, also translate "gune" in this same passage to wives, it seems clearly to instruct not women, but wives! Not widows, but wives! Not divorcees, but wives! Not unmarried women or maidens, but wives were to hold their peace and ask, not men generally, but their "own" husbands at home.

If the silent rule is to all women, then it is also true that all women would have to wait until they got home to "learn anything" or "ask" questions. But this scripture applied only to wives who had "their own husbands at home." The rest would not be excluded from speaking, learning and asking questions, based on this command. No one can make the silent rule apply to all women and ignore the balance of the text or the context. The ones who were to be silent were those who had husbands at home and that silence related only to questions.

Some have argued that they had surveyed twenty-six English versions and "gune" was translated women in every one of them. Thus, any conclusion on mistranslation must be wrong. I surveyed the ten versions in my library and found that each translated "aner" as husband. So, the 26 translations could have been only half right, since they too, no doubt, translated "aner" as "husbands" consistently. But, the conclusion is quite clear, in spite of numerous mistranslations of "gune": these women were to ask "their own husbands at home." Only wives have husbands. Only wives are told to be silent here.

Paul is addressing a husband-wife problem here, not a man-woman problem. A wife, to be truly respectful and obedient, would also have to wait until she got home to ask her husband questions. To be absolutely Biblically correct, she couldn't even ask the question in the car in route. And, it is fair to ask, "If one is going to be an absolutist on part of this scripture, why not be an absolutist in all of it and impose a prohibition on asking questions on the way home?" Intellectual honesty will not allow us to have it both ways.

It should be noted here that, with the exception of very few small cults, no church requires silence of their women. They are permitted to sing, read responsively, make announcements from their pews, confess their faith, pray in unison, confess their faults, select songs to be sung, greet visitors, greet members, speak to their husbands, speak to their children, etc. No, we do not believe that women are to be silent in the church. We simply set the perimeters ourselves without Biblical directions, at what times and in what ways women can speak, and when women must be silent. Our "reasoning" becomes law. The Bible certainly does not specify when women are to be silent (mute), nor does it permit any of the above if it really means women are to keep silent (mute). If we follow the "mute" theory, women are not permitted to speak at all in the church. Who will dare to speak for God on which exception will be allowed?

This passage states that these wives (women) are to be silent. The same "silent" in the Greek of this passage is in verses 28 and 30. Christians with the gift of a tongue would not be prohibited from speaking in other ways, simply because that gift could not be exercised when interpreters were absent. Yet Paul, in this circumstance, said, "Let him keep silence in the church." We find no difficulty determining that such a one is only to be silent in regard to the using of the gift of a tongue. The silence is not imposed on such a one in reference to prayer, prophecy, singing, reading, announcing, administering baptism, making confession, testifying, waiting on the Lord's table, greeting people, etc.

In verse 30 the first prophet was to keep silent (in the church) if another Christian sitting by him received a revelation, but that in no way prohibited that Christian from speaking up in other ways during the service.

Now, what is the condition under which wives (women) were to keep silent or hold their peace in the church? It seems obvious that it was only when wives were interrogating their husbands. Paul did not believe that such public questioning by wives showed proper respect, or that it indicated submission to their husbands. It was, therefore, creating confusion.

"Let your wives keep silent in the churches" certainly corresponds to verse 28 when he commands tongue speakers to "keep silent in the church." This command would apply to "all the churches" just as the command to prophets would in verse 30. No one would conclude that these "holding your peace" commands applied in other activities in the worship service, such as speaking in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs; speaking in prayer; speaking in reading the scripture; preaching; teaching; speaking as in making comments at the Lord's table and in announcements. Why, then, would anyone conclude that wives would be required to keep silent, except in asking husbands questions or in other ways which might show lack of respect or embarrass their husbands in public, or babbling, thus creating confusion? It is in this kind of speech where they were to hold their peace, not in other ways. They were to wait until they got home to ask their husbands questions about their revelation or their interpretation? The silence instruction to her would necessarily be restricted to the subject addressed, interrogating her husband, and perhaps chattering or babbling.

The silence required in verses 28 and 30 was directed at a particular problem. If we will admit what the problem was in verses 34 and 35, we can see under what circumstances women were to keep silent. Again, we must re-emphasize that no one believes that a woman must be totally silent, or that she can't speak in the churches, or that she can't learn anything in the churches, or that she can't ask anything in the churches. Yet, Paul says very clearly, "if she would learn anything, let her ask her husband at home." If you took the scriptural absolute there, as many take the absolute on the silence regarding "certain" activities in the church, then the wife cannot learn anywhere but at home. It is obvious and clear that "If they would learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home," does not say she cannot inquire or learn anything while in church services. But they do learn, they do speak, they do ask questions in our assemblies. We have our man-made exceptions to this command on silence, speaking, and asking questions.

This passage says it is not permitted for women to speak. Yet we allow them to speak. We simply reason away these clear contradictions of the silent command to fit our doctrines and our traditions. We alter this command to fit our customs. There is no other explanation.

Had men been creating confusion by babbling and chattering or by interrogating other men or women in Corinthian assemblies, Paul no doubt would have told them to be silent, too. The principle of respect, order and peace which Paul emphasizes here would be applicable to any class, general assembly, prayer meeting, camp meeting or lectureship.

Paul says, "They are to keep silent, and it is not permitted for them to speak," but we "reason" that all kinds of exceptions are okay. But if she is to be silent, and is not to speak, then all of our exceptions are violations. The Bible does not command her to sing in an assembly or to pray in unison aloud in an assembly or to read responsively in the assembly. Yet, these are all speaking. The same Greek word that is used for "speak," to command her not to, is used to command someone to speak in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. If the command in I Corinthians 14:34-35 is absolute, we must conclude that women can't speak at all. Or, we must say which speaking is not allowed and vote on the exceptions. Our decisions will be based on our own reasonings and a vote by those in authority of each church. They decide when and where she can speak, because there is not the remotest command which allows her to speak in any of the exceptions. Our leaders "decide" when and where she speaks.

It is surprising that many refuse to, or can't, recognize these obvious inconsistencies between what they say this passage means on one hand, and what they practice, on the other. They actually try to argue that the Bible itself makes these special exceptions. It does not! Men do.

It is interesting that we reason that it is all right for women to violate the silence of I Corinthians 14:34 because Paul commanded the Ephesians and Colossians to teach and admonish one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. But we will not let them violate the same silence rule by reading the scripture commanded in Colossians 4:16. He did not tell men "only" to do the reading of these two letters any more than he told men "only" to sing in 3:16. Nor does it instruct men "only" to pray in Colossians 4:2. If teaching, admonishing, praising, praying and giving thanks in song were to be done by women as an exception to I Corinthians 14:34, why cannot women pray or read aloud in obedience to the above passages in public assemblies as an exception to the same passage? The Bible nowhere says "only men can read and pray in worship," nor does it teach anywhere that "only men can lead in prayer" or that "only men can lead the church in reading the scriptures."

We cannot logically argue that a woman can teach, admonish, quote scripture, and lead the congregation in prayer and thanksgiving when accompanied by music, but that she cannot do the same without music. Furthermore, there is no command that women sing, but there is one that tells them to be silent. We can't have it both ways. Either we make all women remain totally silent in all assemblies, or we confess that our exceptions are merely man-made laws and nothing else.

Paul says, in I Corinthians 14:35, "If they would learn anything"; the Greek for learn is "manthano." It means to increase one's knowledge and frequently to learn by inquiry or observation. What, then, was the learning which led Paul to tell the wives to be silent about and not to speak about? It seems clear it was restricted only to those matters about which they made public inquiry of their husbands in order to avoid confusion from a husband-wife confrontation in public worship. It certainly was not learning which came from songs, readings, sermons, announcements, testimonies, etc.

The instruction on silence was to wives. It is clearly limited to the things about which their husbands were talking and questions which could be answered at home. Widows and single women had no husbands at home to ask. By asking questions they did not shame their husbands, nor did they indicate insubordination. The only persons who could have been embarrassed would be the husbands whose wives were exercising their new-found freedom and not showing proper respect which God required them to show.

We claim men and women have an equal obligation to sing, to speak, to admonish, to teach with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, from Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3, in worship, and in violation of the silence rule. Why would they not have an equal obligation to fulfill Paul's command to the Thessalonian church in I Thessalonians 5:14 to "admonish the disorderly, to encourage the fainthearted, and to support the weak while extending longsuffering to all" in public? Such admonition, encouragement, and support were given in church services. Paul did not single out only men to do so, any more than he restricted women from exercising their gifts in public. If we can make an exception to the silence rule on singing, we can make an exception on all the above.