Sermon

1 Corinthians 14:26-40— Worship: Order and Ardor, Part Two

April 13, 2003

We continue to look at the New Testament picture of worship. In v. 26 we have a picture of the corporate worship of the church: “When you come together ….” We also notice that the worshippers come prepared to worship. It does not depend on the Pastor’s message or the choir but on a prepared people. Everyone has a hymn (psalmos), or a word of instruction (didache), a revelation (apokalypsis), a tongue, or an interpretation. All this is for the church’s edification.

In Corinth this was a formula for chaos. With the church coming together and so many bringing offerings for worship, there were, apparently, people talking over each other. To this ardor Paul adds order in v. 27. He offers a limit, though not a prohibition on tongues, by saying that two and at the most three might speak, and that only if there is proper interpretation. If no interpreter is present then the speaker is urged to “keep quiet” (sigao) and speak to himself and to God. What Paul is calling for in the believers is a self-sacrificial attitude. They are to put the needs of the church above their own needs and preferences.

As an equal opportunity apostle, in v. 29 Paul also places a limit on the exercise of prophecy. Two or three prophets should speak and others weigh carefully (diakrino) what is said. We do not have a carte blanche to believe or say whatever we want within the church. Our words are to be weighed by the congregation. As with tongues in v. 27, the ones prophesying are not to speak over each other, but if a revelation comes to one then the speaker should yield the floor (v. 30). Paul is, I think, addressing here the ones who prophesy in the church. They can all prophecy so that instruction (mathano) and exhortation (parakaleo) might be given (v. 31).

I think we need to make a clarification here between some terms.

First, we have the prophet. The prophet is an especially inspired messenger of God. There were prophets in the OT (like Isaiah and Jeremiah) and NT (like Paul and Agabus). In the NT prophets are often listed alongside apostles as having a special foundational role in the church (cf. 1 Cor 12:28; Eph 2:20; 4:11; 2 Peter 3:1; Rev 18:20; 21:14). But as with the role of apostle the role of prophet was limited to the beginning of the church. It does not continue. With the acceptance of scripture, the office of pastor-teacher continues but not apostle or prophet.

Second, we have the term “to prophesy.” This means to speak an inspired word from God for a particular situation.

Now the important distinction to draw is this: though it is likely that all prophets prophesied, it was also true that prophesying was not limited to the prophets alone. Prophesy could be done by any believer with that gift, not just those who had the role of prophet in the church.

Now it also seems that the prophets had a foundational role in the church of discerning whether what was spoken in the church was accurate and appropriate. Paul says this in v. 32: “The spirits of prophets are subject to (hupotasso; to submit) [the control of] prophets” (cf. 1 Cor 12:3; 1 John 4:1-3). Here we see an incredible care for right doctrine in the church.

In v. 33 Paul roots the order of the church’s worship in the very character of the God whom they worship. He is not a God of disorder (akatastasia; cf. Luke 21:9; James 3:16; 2 Cor 6:5; 12:20) but of peace.

At the end Paul appeals to the universal practice of the churches (cf. 7:17; 11:16).

Now in vv. 34-35 comes the real controversy of this passage. Even as Paul has laid down restrictions on speaking in tongues and prophecy, he also lays down restrictions based on gender (cf. 11:2-16). This was apparently another area of confusion and disorder in the church at Corinth.

Let’s look at what Paul says and then how this passage has been interpreted.

In v. 34 Paul says that women should be silent in the church (sigao, cf. v. 28). They should not speak but be in submission (hupotasso, cf. v. 34). Submission is not a dirty word for Christians. Believers submit to each other (Eph 5:21); wives to husbands (Eph 5:22); and all believers to God (James 4:7) and to civil authority (Rom 13:1). Paul says this is as the law says. What is the law? The OT? The law of Christ? We don’t know.

In v. 35 Paul urges that if women want to learn (manthano, cf. v. 31) they should ask their husbands at home. Then he says it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

What do we do with this passage? Do we reject it? Ignore it? Take it at face value? Offer it a meaningful interpretation?

Here are some of the interpretations offered:

1. Paul did not really write it.

It has been controversial down through the ages. In some ancient versions vv. 34-35 were placed after v. 40 perhaps denoting discomfort with the passage. This reading made it into the Latin vulgate. For this reason, some have argued that it is a textual interpolation. Paul did not really write it, but the author of the Pastorals included it (this also implies that Paul did not write the Pastorals).

But this passage appears in all manuscripts. It may be after v. 40 in a few, but it is in all. We cannot just use a “cut and paste” method with scripture like Jefferson did with his Bible (cf. Rev 22:18-19). We must accept that Paul wrote it.

2. Paul was quoting his chauvinistic opponents.

In this case the questions in v. 36 are rhetorical.

However, there is nothing here that indicates Paul is quoting his opponents. And what he says is in harmony with other teachings of Paul on the differences between men and women. Paul was not a modern feminist!

3. A hyper-literal reading: Paul was a patriarchal chauvinist.

Some conservatives might accept this and use this passage to say that only men can speak in church.

Some liberals might see this as one more reason to reject patriarchal Christianity.

4. Paul was addressing a specific problem with some women in Corinth and not offering a universal teaching for the church.

The problem is the introduction in v. 33: “As in all the congregations of the saints .…”

5. Paul was addressing not worship in general but a specific part of worship: the weighing of prophecies (See Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy, pp. 183-92).

The role of prophet, like elder, was a male role. Paul was not against women speaking (praying and prophesying) in worship (cf. 11:5, 10). Paul was guarding the complementary, gender based, distinctions in roles between men and women. It is not a put down to ask women to be silent, to learn at home, or to submit. All these things are demanded of others (men and women) in various contexts. Again, Paul’s concern is in creating order in the church to safeguard its integrity and witness. The Paul of 1 Tim 2:11-12 says the same thing.

This final option is my preference.

In v. 36 Paul challenges rebellion against this teaching. He claims that his words are the Lord’s command (note places where he only says he is expressing a personal opinion, cf. 7:12). Paul says to ignore this is to risk being ignored.

In v. 39 Paul appeals to order by preferring prophecy, but he does not completely extinguish ardor in tongues (cf. 1 Thess 5:19-21). His final appeal is for things to be done in a fitting (euskemonos) and orderly (kata tachsin) way.

Follow up questions:

1. How is this teaching relevant for today?

2. Do we lack order? Ardor?

3. How do we protect and bless the distinctions between men and women in the worship and practice of the church?

Jeffrey T. Riddle
Pastor, Jefferson Park Baptist Church

Reproduction Permission: Permission is granted to copy this material — in its complete text only — for not-for-profit use (sharing with a friend, church, school, Bible study, etc.). Other uses require written permission. This material may not be sold or included in publications intended for sale. Feedback is welcomed at jeffparkchurch@juno.com.

Sermon

1 Corinthians 14:26-40— Worship: Order and Ardor, Part Two

April 13, 2003

Jeffrey T. Riddle Pastor, Jefferson Park Baptist Church

Jeffrey T. Riddle
Pastor, Jefferson Park Baptist Church