I received this question from Don Johnson, who is reading my book.
Question: I am enjoying your book. I love your exposition of Eph 5. I have a question on 1 Cor 14. Before reading your book, I favored the idea that 1 Cor 14:34-35 is a quote from legalists at Corinth. The way I taught this is “the law/Torah says” is a ref. to the so-called Oral Torah of the Pharisees, which does limit women; and the 2 eta’s (sometimes translated as “or” but which I translate as “Bunk!”) in v. 36 which can be expletives of repudiation, per Nyland’s The Source New Testament (which she translates as “Utter Rubbish”) and others likewise.
Answer: Thanks for your thoughtful question. The repudiation of a false prophecy interpretation of 1 Cor 14:34-35 is, I believe, the most credible of the many attempted interpretations of these two verses viewed as a part of Paul’s original letter delivered to the church in Corinth. For a while I was a proponent of this view after I realized the anachronism of trying to interpret in a narrow sense the thrice-repeated unqualified prohibition of speech by women in 1 Cor 14:34-35. That was before I looked closely at the text critical question and realized how powerful the arguments for interpolation are.
1. 1 Cor 14:34-35 is not introduced in a way that would let readers know that the view of Paul’s opponents is being stated. This is particularly problematic since the view it expresses was the conventional wisdom of Paul’s day as expressed in Hellenistic and Jewish laws and oral traditions. Consequently, most readers would assume that it is the viewpoint of the author unless it had been specifically introduced as the view of Paul’s opponents.
2. “As even the law says” is something that normally would be heard as support for the prior statement, and so would tend to confirm that Paul approved the prior statement. For example, both Tertullian and Origen read verses 34-35 as Paul’s own statement even though they acknowledge the tension between them and other statements by Paul approving prophecy by women. My book discusses this on pages 219 and 264-65.
3. Nothing in verses 36-38 requires that these verses refute verses 34-35. Although four times in 1 Corinthians Paul uses eta to introduce a question that challenges an immediately preceding statement of something the Corinthians were doing, in each of these, the translation “or” fits the context adequately, and “or” is clearly the meaning of eta in the next verse (37), though here eta is not in a question.
4. Although Paul quotes and opposes slogans of his opponents repeatedly in 1 Corinthians, all the others are brief slogans. None is nearly this long, nor does any include a theological defense (“as even the law says”) or explication (verse 35). It seems implausible to me that the entirety of 14:34-35 was an identifiable slogan of Paul’s opponents. It is just too long to be a slogan.
5. Verses 34-35 interrupt the flow of Paul’s argument, introducing something extraneous to the topic of the entire chapter, which throughout is about prophecy and tongues. Furthermore, if my book’s analysis on pages 254-55 of the chiastic structure of 1 Cor 14:26-40 is correct, the inclusion of verses 34-35 also breaks the chiastic structure of this passage.
6. This interpretation does not explain why, as Fee argues on page 700 of his commentary on 1 Corinthians, the Western Church unanimously accepted verses 34-35 after verse 40 for at least 300 years while the rest of the church put them after verse 33. Bengel’s first principle applies: “The form of the text that best explains the emergence of all other forms is most likely the original.” No scribe of any surviving manuscript of any of Paul’s letters ever made an analogous change of the order of Paul’s argument in a passage this long. Only if these verses were written in the margin does it make sense that they would end up in these two locations. Consequently, only viewing verses 34-35 as an interpolation that was not originally in the text but was inserted into it later at different points by different scribes fulfills Bengel’s first principle adequately. This is why there is such broad support among textual critics that verses 34-35 is an interpolation, as shown by the scholars cited in my book’s footnote 39 on pages 226-27.
Only if verses 34-35 were originally written in the margin, possibly by the bearer of Paul’s letter, to make it clear to his readers that verses 36-38 were about this false prophecy would this interpretation provide an adequate explanation for the presence of verses 34-35 after verse 40 in the Western text-type tradition. Similarly, only their origin in the margin solves the objection that they interrupt the flow of Paul’s argument. It is highly unlikely, however, that Paul put them in the margin because there is not nearly enough room in a typical papyrus margin for that much text in Paul’s large letters, as Paul wrote in Galatians 6:11, “See what large letters I make when I am writing in my own hand” (NRSV, cf. 2 Thessalonians 3:17).
Without verses 34-35 in the text, however, it is doubtful that verses 36-38 could be plausibly attributed to such a particular false prophecy since they fit so well as a general repudiation of the sorts of disorder in worship addressed in verses 29-32, summed up in the climax of Paul’s chiastic structure in verse 33. Correspondingly, if Paul originally wrote 14:26-33 immediately followed by 36-40, it is only natural to view what he originally intended verses 36-40 to convey his general disapproval of disorder in the Corinthians worship. The view that verses 36-38 is Paul’s repudiation of a specific false prophecy is inherently speculative since nothing in the text identifies it as a quotation.
It is the combination of these weaknesses in the view that verses 34-36 repudiate a false prophecy that women be silent in church with the strengths of the interpolation view, as expressed in my book on pages 225-67, that caused me to abandon this interpretation in favor the interpolation view.
Dear Philip, a question please. In your opinion, does 1 Cor 11:18, “when you come together as a church” (same verb 17, 20, 33, 34) allow the possibility that 1 Cor 11:2-16 allows a wider circle of contexts than just the “First Day” or eucharist/agape? Were women able to pray and prophesy in other contexts than that envisaged in 1 Cor 11:17-34 “when you come together as a church” and in references to the “whole church” in 1 Cor 14?
The Bauer Arndt and Gingrich Greek Lexicon, page 795 lists the following meanings for this verb: “come together, lit. assemble, gather, with dative: come together with someone, assemble at someone’s house, come together to meet someone, ‘you hold your meetings to your disadvantage.'” The verb itself, then, can be used quite broadly from just two people coming together to a large group coming together. Its meaning must be derived from the context and, where appropriate, should be applied with common sense to our day.
1 Cor 11:33-34 “when you come together to eat” implies there may be times when believers come together but do not eat.
1 Cor 14:23 “when the whole church comes together” implies there may be times when believers come together, but not the whole church.
This verb occurs in this part of 1 Corinthians in 1 Cor 11:17, 18, 20, 33, 34; 14:23, 26.
So, does 1 Cor 11:18, “when you come together as a church†(same verb 17, 20, 33, 34) allow the possibility that 1 Cor 11:2-16 allows a wider circle of contexts than just the “First Day†or eucharist/agape?
The first thing is to deterine the relationship between 1 Cor 11:2-16 and 17-34. Paul praises the Corinthians in 1 Cor 11:2 but begins verse 17, “But in the following instructions I do not commend you….” Consequently, it is clear that the two sections are dealing with different issues. I argue that the first section deals with an issue that Paul had not addressed before but is a novel error that has surfaced in Corinth. That is why he can refer to the shame of what they are doing in verses 4-6 and 14 but in v. 2 he says, “you maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.”
Since the verb you mention “come together” does not occur in 1 Cor 11:2-16, we can only determine the setting by what Paul does state, namely that this shameful activity is being done by people praying and prophesying. Since prophesying is a public activity and is typically part of worship, Paul is clearly referring to a public gathering of believers in which prophesying takes place. This, however, is not restricted to just the “First Day” or eucharist/agape services, so we have no right to restrict its application to services only on the “First Day” or only to services in which there a eucharist/agape celebration.
If, however, you are only considering 1 Cor 11:17-34 (and not also including any possible application of 11:2-16), then it is clear that Paul is specifically writing about abuses in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. He specifically associated “when you gather together as a church” with, “When you meet together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat.” (v. 20) and proceeds to give regulations for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Nowhere in this passage, however is the Lord’s Supper restricted to the “First Day.”
Dear Philip
Your comments above confirm my own reading, thank you. I also agree with you that it is a reasonable assumption that the 1 Cor 11:2-16 issue/worship context, can (and in Corinth did) overlap with the 11:17-34 “when you come together as a church” “whole church” agape/eucharist context.
Just one question: You say “Since prophesying is a public activity and is typically part of worship, Paul is clearly referring to a public gathering of believers in which prophesying takes place.” I feel that your mention of prophesying as worship (not merely prediction) is correct, and supported by “prophesied with lyres, with harps, and with cymbals.”(1 Chr. 25:1-3) and perhaps Exodus 15:20 “Then Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a tambourine in her hand, and all the women went out after her with tambourines and dancing.” (at least as this verse was apparently interpreted by Therapeutae judging by Philo’s description of their 7th Week feast and vigil).
That is a fair conclusion. But I’m wondering how “public” is public? Anna’s prophesying is public and “praise” (Acts 2:36-38), but we do not know how “public” is the prophesying of Philip’s daughters in Acts 21. I wonder if it is correct to note the difference at Caesarea of “church” (Acts 18:22) and “house” (Acts 21:8), and infer that though “Paul is clearly referring to a public gathering of believers in which prophesying takes place.”, that this may be semi-public, for example a mid-week house meeting, rather than in the market place. I apologise if this question seems too obvious to ask. Just want to get your reading on how public is “public”. Can the context for prophesy extend from the temple court to just a few believers in a house? Or extend as it did with Therapeutae from the feast in Cont.Life, to the praise in angelic tongues of the daughters at the end of Test.Job. (I am not aware of any other 1stC source material for Jewish women prophesying outside NT and these two Therapeutae documents, you may know of other sources I do not)
Thank you for your time.
Steven
Thank you, Steven, for your thoughtful comments regarding prophecy and your question regarding prophecy, “how “public†is public?”
My father, J. Barton Payne, who probably studied prophecy as deeply as anyone has (evidenced by his books: The Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy, Biblical Prophecy for Today, Revelation in Sequence, The Theology of the Older Testament, and dozens of articles), often used “forth-telling” as a synonym for prophecy. “Forth-telling” implies an audience. Matt 18:20 states, “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” Consequently, it would seem to be illegitimate to restrict the prophecy of women to gatherings of the “whole church” or meetings “on the first day” or meetings where the Lord’s Supper is celebrated. Logically, if women are permitted to prophesy in the larger, more regular meetings of the church (which merely means “the assembly [of believers]”), how much more should they be permitted to prophesy in smaller gatherings of believers as well.
The two examples you mention bear this out. We do not know how large a group was present when Anna met the baby Jesus in the temple (Luke [not Acts] 2:36-38), and this was certainly not limited to a meeting of Christians for celebration of the eucharist.
Acts 21:8-9 says that Paul and presumably Luke “came to Caesarea and we entered the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, and stayed with him, and he had four unmarried daughters, who prophesied.” There was apparently room in the house not only for Philip, his four daughters, Paul, and Luke, but for other people as well since 21:12 states, “When we heard this, we and the people there begged him not to go up to Jerusalem.” Verse 10 explains, “While we were staying for some days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. And coming to us he took Paul’s girdle and bound his own feet…” “Coming to us” in this context seems to imply that the assemply took place in Philip’s house in Caesarea. This prophecy by Agabus exemplifies public prophecy in a house and strongly suggests that Philip’s daughters also prophesied at least in this same “public” house-space. Since a special visitor came to meet with assembled believers in Philip’s house, it is the most likely candidate for the setting of the reference to the church you mentioned in Acts 18:22, “When he had [Paul] landed at Caesarea, he went up and greeted the church and then went down to Antioch.”
You write, “I wonder if it is correct to note the difference at Caesarea of “church†(Acts 18:22) and “house†(Acts 21:8).” The above observations suggests that they are probably one and the same. Even if the setting was different, the parallels show that Philip’s house could have been the same location where Paul “greeted the church” in Acts 18:22.
So I agree with you that, yes, the public gathering of believers in which prophesying takes place “may be semi-public, for example a mid-week house meeting, rather than in the market place.”
Philip, many thanks.
Hi Philip,
Sorry, just coming back with a couple of quick follow-up Qs please:
1. If “prays and prophesies” (1 Cor 11:4,5) can be on other occasions than “when the whole church comes together” (1 Cor 14:23) then “head covered” 11:4 or “head uncovered” 11:5 (irrespective of what covering/uncovering meant) can also be on other occasions than “when the whole church comes together” (1 Cor 14:23), correct?
2. The audience, if any, for “prophesy” in Hebrew can be very informal:
* Num 11:26 Eldad and Medad prophesied “among the tents”, not “in the tabernacle” with the Seventy.
* 1 Sam 8:10 “The next day a harmful spirit from God rushed upon Saul, and he raved (hithnave’, prophesied) within his house while David was playing the lyre, as he did day by day. Saul had his spear in his hand…”,
..correct?
3. Therefore there is no need for prophecy to always be “in church”? The audience may only be a handful? Yes/No?
Many thanks again.
S
I am afraid, Steven, your syllogism is faulty at several points.
First, in 1. you assume without stated justification that the answer to when prophesying can occur will be equally appropriate to when head coverings can occur. In fact, we know from a large amount of manuscript evidence that a man wearing effeminate hair was regarded as shameful in any context, and we know from a huge amount of graphic evidence and some manuscript evidence that a woman wearing her hair down in public was shameful. Wherever the location of prophecy is identified in Paul’s letters, however, it is always in the context of Christian worship, and the nature of prophecy as the “forth-telling of a word from God†presuppose a message to an assembly (in most contexts explicitly including believers, no matter how few). Since the extent of the application (as regards occasion, location, and/or audience) in these cases does not appear to be the same, the transfer in your statement 1. from the location where prophecy occurs to the location where headcoverings occur appears inappropriate. It is not just that you do not mention that you intend to restrict the statement to headcoverings during prayer and prophecy in church, which could alleviate this problem, but that you appear in 3. to be moving to conclusions of what may transpire outside of church.
Second, one cannot assume that what Paul means by his use of a Greek word for prophecy is co-extensive with what Hebrew words for prophecy may mean.
Third, and most important, you appear to assume a definition of “church†limited to gatherings entailing the whole church by your statement in 1., “when the whole church comes together,†and your conclusion in 3., “Therefore there is no need for prophecy to always be ‘in church’,†as though smaller groupings are not “in church.†“Church†literally means “the assembly [of believers].†There is strong evidence that “church†refers primarily in the NT to gatherings of believers, and that Christ is there “in the midst†even if only two or three are gathered (Matt 18:20). The references to “the church in the house of…†support this, as do descriptions of relatively small gathering of believers where, e.g. Agabus’s prophecy of Paul’s imprisonment occurs. In my previous comment I argued that Agabus’s prophecy in the house of Philip the evangelist (Acts 21:8-12) strongly suggests that Philip’s daughters also prophesied at least in this same “public†house-space. Since a special visitor came to meet with assembled believers in Philip’s house, it is the most likely candidate for the setting of the reference to the church you mentioned in Acts 18:22, “When he had [Paul] landed at Caesarea, he went up and greeted the church and then went down to Antioch.â€
The combination of Paul’s repeated calls that “all†in the church “prophecy†in 1 Corinthians 14 and its specific application to both men and women in 1 Cor 11:2-16, indicates that he thinks primarily (if not exclusively) of prophecy as an activity in church, namely something done with other believers present, whether that gathering of the church be small or large. The explicit affirmation of women prophesying in church is one of many reasons to regard 1 Cor 14:34-35 as an interpolation that was not originally in the text of this letter. I deal with this in detail in my book and briefly in my separate post of October 16, 2009 on this web site, “Question: Why would 1 Cor 14:34-35 be an interpolation?â€
Hi Philip
Thanks for those comments.
1. FWIW there’s no syllogism in 1, since I was simply asking the question. No, I am not assuming (either without or without stated justification) that the answer to when prophesying can occur will be equally appropriate to when head coverings can occur. To me it is common sense that prophesying and head coverings are two sets of activities which would not have a hermetic overlap (cf. Petrarch’s Roman Questions on headcoverings, and Therapeutae prophecy contexts for starters).
2. Re. “the nature of prophecy as the “forth-telling of a word from God†presuppose a message to an assembly.” There is strong evidence that “church†refers primarily in the NT to gatherings of believers is evidently correct. But the extension of “only two or three” [witnesses] from Matt 18:16, 20 to define “in church” in 1 Corinthians is not tenable since Paul speaks of “when the whole church comes together” and the very words “whole church”; and “come together” indicate the existence of “not the whole church” and “not come together” contexts.
My fundamental question remains whether “prophecy” was possible in the “not the whole church” and “not come together” contexts. You seemed to allow earlier that it was, but are now, it seems, reluctant to allow that, can I ask, what has changed?
God bless
Steven
Thank you for your comment, Steven.
You write, “But the extension of “only 2 or 3†[witnesses] from Matt 18:16, 20 to define “in church†in 1 Corinthians is not tenable since Paul speaks of “when the whole church comes together,†and the very words “whole church†and “come together†indicate the existence of “not the whole church†and “not come together.â€
It is a non-sequitur to conclude that because Paul can speak of “when the whole church comes together,†that two or three believers (or by implication anything less than “the whole churchâ€) is not also “the church†gathered. While Matt 18:16 is specifically speaking about two or three witnesses, verse 17 states, “tell it to the church, and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.†It is after this reference to “the church†(where things are bound or loosed on earth and in heaven, v. 18) that Jesus states, “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.†This affirmation of the authority of small groups of believers since Jesus is in their midst following after statements about the authority of “the church†undermines the view that only “when the whole church comes together,†can it be regarded as “the church.â€
You write, “My fundamental questions remains whether “prophecy†was possible in the “not the whole church†and “not come together†contexts. You seemed to allow earlier that it was, but are now, it seems, are reluctant to allow that. Can I ask, what has changed?â€
What has changed is not my view that this should apply not only to gatherings of the whole church, but to all gatherings of the church, including gatherings of small groups of believers. What has changed is that you appear now to be arguing that prophecy is allowable to women only in small groups but not when “the whole church comes together.†This view is based on two errors. First, it equates in a restrictive way that the NT does not, “the church†with gatherings when “the whole church comes together.†Second, it appears to repudiate the most obvious application of Paul’s words (namely to public assemblies of believers). This most obvious application is supported by the rest of 1 Cor 11 being about the Lord’s Supper and 1 Corinthians 14’s various affirmations of “all†prophesying and by the ways in which 1 Corinthians 14 defines “prophecy†as public.
My earlier point, a point I have not changed, is that Paul specifically regulates the practice of prophecy by men and women in 1 Cor 11:2-16 in a letter to the church in Corinth (1 Cor 1:2), a letter intended to be read to that church. The most obvious application of these instructions is for public assemblies of the church. If Paul were referring only to private prayer there would be no need to regulate “head coverings,†which I argue in my book most naturally refers to hair covering the head in the case of both men and women. Both cases regard a “covering†that is “disgraceful.†There would be no disgrace if this were private. Garment coverings were not disgraceful for either men or women, but effeminate hair was disgraceful for man, and hair let down loose was disgraceful for women in that culture as is evident in literature and a wealth of graphic depictions.
Furthermore, many times in chapter 14, which is explicitly about assemblies of believers, Paul encourages “all†to prophecy. Since 1 Cor 11:2-16 had just regulated prophecy by men and women, Paul’s readership would naturally understand “all†to include men and women. 1 Cor 14:1 calls the Corinthians (not just the Corinthian men) to “earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy.†Verse 4 explains that the one “who prophesies edifies the church†(14:4). This defines the function of prophesy as “edifying the church.†This presupposes that prophecy is an activity in the church, namely in an assembly of believers. Verse 5 makes it explicit that this refers to all in the church: “Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy.†Verse 24 reinforces this, “if all prophesy [unbelievers are convicted] as does verse 26, “each one has a hymn, a teaching, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.†Verse 31 is also explicit, “For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged.†Again, prophesy is defined as an act for public learning and public encouragement. The imperative in verse 39 “So my brothers [a term Paul uses for all believers, not just male ones] earnestly desire to prophesy.â€
These statements that “all†and “each one†may prophesy, and, indeed, should “earnestly desire to prophesy†constitute part of the internal evidence that 1 Cor 14:34-35 is an interpolation that was not originally in Paul’s letter, but was added later. I argue this on important external manuscript evidence as well as extensive internal evidence in Man and Woman, One in Christ. I argue with extensive evidence that most text-critical scholars who have published their analysis of this passage regard it to be an interpolation.
Paul speaks of Phoebe as “deacon of the church at Chenchrea [the port of Corinth].†This specifies that there was a “church†in the area of the port of Corinth. Presumably, there were other house churches in other parts of Corinth. Some would have been larger than others, and their meeting would necessarily have varied in the number attending since Paul specifically mentions that outsiders or unbelievers might attend (verses 23-25). Whether the number was large or small, the same principles would apply. Paul encourages in “all†believers in such assemblies to prophesy.
Dear Philip
Your comments above confirm my own reading, thank you. I also agree with you that it is a reasonable assumption that the 1 Cor 11:2-16 issue/worship context, can (and in Corinth did) overlap with the 11:17-34 “when you come together as a church” “whole church” agape/eucharist context.
Just one question: You say “Since prophesying is a public activity and is typically part of worship, Paul is clearly referring to a public gathering of believers in which prophesying takes place.” I feel that your mention of prophesying as worship (not merely prediction) is correct, and supported by “prophesied with lyres, with harps, and with cymbals.”(1 Chr. 25:1-3) and perhaps Exodus 15:20 “Then Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a tambourine in her hand, and all the women went out after her with tambourines and dancing.” (at least as this verse was apparently interpreted by Therapeutae judging by Philo’s description of their 7th Week feast and vigil).
That is a fair conclusion. But I’m wondering how “public” is public? Anna’s prophesying is public and “praise” (Acts 2:36-38), but we do not know how “public” is the prophesying of Philip’s daughters in Acts 21. I wonder if it is correct to note the difference at Caesarea of “church” (Acts 18:22) and “house” (Acts 21:8), and infer that though “Paul is clearly referring to a public gathering of believers in which prophesying takes place.”, that this may be semi-public, for example a mid-week house meeting, rather than in the market place. I apologise if this question seems too obvious to ask. Just want to get your reading on how public is “public”. Can the context for prophesy extend from the temple court to just a few believers in a house? Or extend as it did with Therapeutae from the feast in Cont.Life, to the praise in angelic tongues of the daughters at the end of Test.Job. (I am not aware of any other 1stC source material for Jewish women prophesying outside NT and these two Therapeutae documents, you may know of other sources I do not)
Thank you for your time.
Steven
The Bauer Arndt and Gingrich Greek Lexicon, page 795 lists the following meanings for this verb: “come together, lit. assemble, gather, with dative: come together with someone, assemble at someone’s house, come together to meet someone, ‘you hold your meetings to your disadvantage.'” The verb itself, then, can be used quite broadly from just two people coming together to a large group coming together. Its meaning must be derived from the context and, where appropriate, should be applied with common sense to our day.
1 Cor 11:33-34 “when you come together to eat” implies there may be times when believers come together but do not eat.
1 Cor 14:23 “when the whole church comes together” implies there may be times when believers come together, but not the whole church.
This verb occurs in this part of 1 Corinthians in 1 Cor 11:17, 18, 20, 33, 34; 14:23, 26.
So, does 1 Cor 11:18, “when you come together as a church†(same verb 17, 20, 33, 34) allow the possibility that 1 Cor 11:2-16 allows a wider circle of contexts than just the “First Day†or eucharist/agape?
The first thing is to deterine the relationship between 1 Cor 11:2-16 and 17-34. Paul praises the Corinthians in 1 Cor 11:2 but begins verse 17, “But in the following instructions I do not commend you….” Consequently, it is clear that the two sections are dealing with different issues. I argue that the first section deals with an issue that Paul had not addressed before but is a novel error that has surfaced in Corinth. That is why he can refer to the shame of what they are doing in verses 4-6 and 14 but in v. 2 he says, “you maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.”
Since the verb you mention “come together” does not occur in 1 Cor 11:2-16, we can only determine the setting by what Paul does state, namely that this shameful activity is being done by people praying and prophesying. Since prophesying is a public activity and is typically part of worship, Paul is clearly referring to a public gathering of believers in which prophesying takes place. This, however, is not restricted to just the “First Day” or eucharist/agape services, so we have no right to restrict its application to services only on the “First Day” or only to services in which there a eucharist/agape celebration.
If, however, you are only considering 1 Cor 11:17-34 (and not also including any possible application of 11:2-16), then it is clear that Paul is specifically writing about abuses in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. He specifically associated “when you gather together as a church” with, “When you meet together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat.” (v. 20) and proceeds to give regulations for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Nowhere in this passage, however is the Lord’s Supper restricted to the “First Day.”
Thanks, Steven, for your thoughtful comments.
You ask, “I wonder if it is correct to note the difference at Caesarea of “church†(Acts 18:22) and “house†(Acts 21:8), and infer that though “Paul is clearly referring to a public gathering of believers in which prophesying takes place,†that this may be semi-public, for example a mid-week house meeting, rather than in the market place.”
Although it is not explicitly stated, several pieces of evidence suggest that the meeting place for both of these cases where Paul sought out the church in Caesarea was in Philip’s house.
Acts 18:22 states, “When he [Paul] had landed at Caesarea, he went up and greeted the church, and then went down to Antioch.” In this instance, “the church” identified Paul’s audience, namely the believers in Caesarea who gathered to be with Paul at that time. Nothing in the context indicates that “the church” was a location. One cannot “greet” a location. One only “greets” people.
Acts 21:8-14 RSV states:
On the morrow we departed and came to Caesarea; and we entered the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, and stayed with him. And he had four unmarried daughters, who prophesied. While we were stayiing for some days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. And coming to us he took Paul’s girdle and bound his own feet and hands, and said, “Thus says the Holy Spirit, ‘So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man who owns this girdle and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.'” When we heard this, we and the people there begged him not to go up to Jerusalem… And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased and said, “The will of the Lord be done.”
There is no indication in Acts 21:8-14 of a change in location from “the house of Philip the evangelist.” In particular, the reference to “a prophet Agabus came down from Judea. And coming to us he took Paul’s girdle…” specifies “coming to us.” This constitutes evidence that Philip’s house is probably where Agabus came. “We [Paul and his companion(s), including Luke] and the people there” confirms that this location, presumably Philip’s house, was large enough to accommodate them all. Philip’s house was thus probably the location to which a traveler coming all the way from Judea went to find Paul, where a church meeting including Agabus’s prophecy and exhortation took place. The reference to Philip’s four daughters who prophesied coming right after “we entered the house of Philip the evangelist” shows that the house would have to be big enough for them all to live there. Since Agabus apparently prohesied in that house, it would be odd if Philip’s own daughters never prophesied there.
Since this was the place where Paul and his companion(s) went to greet the church in Caesarea and since it also were Agabus went to find Paul, it was, most likely, the regular meeting place of the church in Caesarea. Since both Acts 18 and 21 describe Paul going somewhere in Caesarea to meet believers, and since Acts 21 specifies the location as Philip’s house, it is more likely that Paul’s earlier visit to the church in Caesarea in Acts 18 was to Philip’s house than anywhere else.
At the very least, it would be precarious to assume that Philip’s house was not the meeting place where Paul greeted the church at Caesarea in Acts 18:22. Consequently, one should not assume a difference in location between “church†(Acts 18:22) and “house†(Acts 21:8). Both passages deal with a public meeting of the church in Caesarea.
Hi Philip,
Sorry, just coming back with a couple of quick follow-up Qs please:
1. If “prays and prophesies” (1 Cor 11:4,5) can be on other occasions than “when the whole church comes together” (1 Cor 14:23) then “head covered” 11:4 or “head uncovered” 11:5 (irrespective of what covering/uncovering meant) can also be on other occasions than “when the whole church comes together” (1 Cor 14:23), correct?
2. The audience, if any, for “prophesy” in Hebrew can be very informal:
* Num 11:26 Eldad and Medad prophesied “among the tents”, not “in the tabernacle” with the Seventy.
* 1 Sam 8:10 “The next day a harmful spirit from God rushed upon Saul, and he raved (hithnave’, prophesied) within his house while David was playing the lyre, as he did day by day. Saul had his spear in his hand…”,
..correct?
3. Therefore there is no need for prophecy to always be “in church”? The audience may only be a handful? Yes/No?
Many thanks again.
S
Thank you, Steven, for these comments and questions.
Comment on point 1: Since Paul is talking about shameful demeanor in worship, he is clearly talking about public display. What is shameful in public may be unobjectionable in the privacy of ones home. It is true that Paul does not specify “the whole church†in this passage, and it is also true that gatherings for worship such as Paul has in mind in 1 Cor 11 would almost certainly have included “home-sized†church gatherings since home gatherings for worship are described in the NT. What is not warranted, however, is to imagine that Paul does not have a worship setting in mind as the context of 1 Cor 11:2-16 or that the worship setting can be regarded as something other than transpiring at “church,†namely within the assembly of believers. This is evident from “every man praying or prophesying ‘having down from the head’ disgraces his head,†“every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered,†and “we, the churches of God, have no such custom.â€
Comment on point 2: The passage you are referring to is not 1 Sam 8:10 but 18:10. Clearly Saul’s raving is not comparable to the kind of edifying prophesying that Paul refers to in 1 Cor 11-14. Consequently, it is irrelevant for determining the kind of setting Paul had in mind. Just because this Hebrew word for prophesy can be applied to a wide range of situations does not mean that all must apply in Paul’s use of a Greek word for prophesy in 1 Cor 11.
Comment on point 3: This point is stated broadly, but in light of its context you seem to be assuming that its answer will apply to 1 Cor 11:2-16. One should not assume that the broadest possible semantic range of meaning of a word will apply in any particular situation. Nor should one assume that the situations in which an activity can occur must all be considered as part of the situation being addressed in a particular reference to that activity. You ask whether the audience of prophesy may be only a handful. Theoretically, yes. Is such a small group what Paul has in mind in 1 Cor 11? He probably has in mind a typical church gathering in Corinth. We don’t know how big those were typically. Rom 16:1 refers to “the chuch of Cenchrea [the port of Corinth].†This shows that there were localized “churches†in Corinth. The churches in Corinth probably had recognized meeting places or homes where they would gather for worship, but they may have had worship in a variety of places. Could any of these have included worship of just a handful of people? There is no reason it could not. Is it likely that Paul had such a small group in mind when writing 1 Cor 11:2-16? Probably not.