To properly interpret the Bible, we must try to understand it as the original audience would have understood it. Words and phrases would have a meaning to the culture in which they were written that we miss with our Western world mindset and experiences.
Understanding where the stories of creation fit in the Ancient Near East is part of the conversation that we need to have when we look at the opening chapters in the Book of Genesis.
I will explain some of the creation stories in the Ancient Near East. Then look at how the story of Genesis is like and unlike those accounts.
Probably the most well known one is from Babylonia. It’s called Enuma Elish, which means “when on high.”
It starts with a watery abyss and talks us through the creation, first of the various gods of that society, but also then into the battle that leads to the creation of the world and humanity and so on.
It’s got all sorts of different motifs in it. Some of them are similar to the Bible, like starting with a deep, dark, watery abyss, and others are very different.
For example, in Genesis 1, there’s no battle going on there. But in the Enuma Elish, the world is created as the result of a war between the god Marduk and the sea god Tiamot.
There are quite a number of stories from Babylonia from early on, long before the 7th century BC, way back into the third millennium BC.
We have sources for creation and the creation not only of the gods, but also of humanity and of the world. There’s a Sumerian story as well that has both creation of man and the flood in the same story, much like we have in Genesis 1 through 11.
And then also from Egypt we have quite a number of different stories from different temple contexts, therefore, from different perspective of different gods in terms of how creation was done.
There we have various kinds of concepts that are very different from the Bible on the one hand. But then there are certain similarities, like one of them we do have a God speaking and the creation happens.
But then you have all sorts of other kinds. Sometimes people are made out of the tears of the god or various things along that line. So there’s lots of different kinds of stories from the Ancient Near East.
And then related stories, like from Ugaret in Northern Lebanon, which we have texts from there. And it talks about Baal and how he’s related to nature.
All this affects how they would understand in the Ancient Near Eastern world how a world is put together and how it works.
Some of the motifs associated with these mythologies come into background concepts that the ancient Israelites would have been familiar with because the ancient Israelites were Ancient Near Easterners too.
These creation stories explain how mankind was created so that man could replace lower gods who were responsible for working and, therefore, feeding the gods. And so man was created so that the lower gods don’t have to work, because they were complaining about the hard work.
We have the story of Adapa, of a particular primeval person. We have different kinds of things. We have Babylonian Noah-type stories with concepts of the flood and survival from the flood. And these early chapters of Genesis have a lot of different kinds of connections to things that were understood in the Ancient Near East.
In the Bible, what God is doing is he’s connecting to the Israelites in their world, but also taking them places they’ve never gone before in their understanding of who God is and how the world came into being.
Genesis 1-6 is not so much a historic account of HOW things were made, as a polemic against the other creation stories of the world the israelites lived in. It’s not the “HOW” that is important. It is the WHO – the one self-existent creator God, and the WHY.
This does not mean Genesis is not historic. The bible clearly teaches a literal six day creation, but the purpose of the first chapters is to reveal WHO God is as compared to the gods of the mytholgy of that time.
The way in which Genesis tells the story would not be unfamiliar to someone if they were familiar with some of these other accounts that exist in Ancient Near East, at least in terms of some of the motifs.
There would be a lot of things that’d be very similar. One of the things that would be very similar is how in the beginning with the watery deep.
But there are also in the Ancient Near Eastern context, you have to have not only the creation of the world, but before that, the creation of the gods. So you have theogony, creation of the gods. And that is something that the Bible just stamps out completely from any kind of concept.
“In the beginning, God created.” Genesis 1:1
As opposed to all other Near-Eastern mythologies, the God of the Bible has no creation. He is self-existent. That is how God identified himself to Moses. He said, “Tell them I am sent you.”
“And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you.” Exodus 3:14
The God of the Bible is unique in that he has no beginning and is the beginning of all things. We have the uncreated God as opposed to the creation of gods in the Ancient Near East mythologies.
Now, sometimes it’s said that these accounts outside the Old Testament are dealing with explaining the origin of things. They are a certain kind of story that etiology, which explains why certain things happen.
In those stories there is a lot of explaining of how did this come into being, how did that come into being. How was it arranged in such a way that the world actually works? Things along that line are very common in these stories.
And in the Bible, a big part of what God’s concern is to explain to us our world. Who are we and where’d we come from? How do we fit into what’s all around us, and what place are we supposed to take in it as far as God is concerned?
These stories frame the creation of humanity, explain where humanity fits in relationship to the gods, in relationship to the responsibilities that they have on earth.
In other creation accounts, man is a low being, often crude, sometimes even evil. Man is made to serve the gods. In return the gods provide for man.
One of the things that really stands out about the creation story in Genesis, in that regard, is that we’re created in the image and likeness of God, not just kings in our culture and not just the elite or anything, but all of humanity is created as God’s image and likeness and is meant to reflect who he is in the world and to handle the world in a way that’s pleasing to him. We’re put in charge.
In Genesis, man is completely different. He is made in God’s image. And God has need of nothing, so man is created not as a servant, but as a companion.
There is an exalted role for all people in the way that creation works in the Old Testament.
There are quite a number of accounts that talk about kings being the image of God, and so on. But the thing that stands out in the Bible is that people, just common people, are put here to be God’s representatives in the world, those who stand here for him.
In a lot of the Ancient Near Eastern accounts creation happens by doing battle between the gods in various ways. It’s got a name for it, the chaos battle, or battle of chaos. So you can bring order out of this by doing battle with this god of chaos.
There are reflections in the Bible of God being the one who can defeat all this chaos and so on, sometimes in relation to creation.
But in Genesis, what we have is an account that makes it very clear that God doesn’t have to do any battle here at all. God speaks and it happens.
Rather than creating through chaos, God brings order out of disorder. “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” Genesis 1:2
The earth was void, but it was not chaos. There was ‘the deep,” the water, but there was no sea god, no battle. The Spirit of God merely moved across the water and brought forth land and life.
This is an extreme contrast to the other creation stories of the area and what the israelites would have heard and believed before God revealed himself to them.
And things like the sun and the moon and the stars that are gods in the Ancient Near Eastern world, they’re just called the Big Light and the Little Light. They’re even demoted. They don’t even have the name of Shamash or something like that, the name of the sun god.
So it’s very clearly telling us these things that are so commonly thought of as gods are not, and there is no god that can stand against our God.
We see the influence of the other mythologies in the culture of the time and how the Bible addresses things like the sea monster gods.
We see references to the sea monster Leviathan, also called Rahab.
So like in Isaiah 27:1, the little apocalypse of Isaiah, it looks forward to the great final defeat of this great Leviathan, this evil monster.
Whereas in Psalm 74 and other places it refers to this Leviathan that’s been defeated in the olden days. It’s a way of talking about how God is the one who defeats evil and stands against those forces in the world.
The Introduction of Evil
One of the problems that you run into in the early chapters of Genesis is understanding how evil is even present when we come to Genesis 3 and where it’s come from. And there is, in the unwinding of the Genesis story, no backdrop for where this has come from. It just comes in.
What I think is happening in Genesis, in creation we don’t have a battle between God and the great monster, the chaos monster. What happens is in the Old Testament and in Genesis 1 through4, the battle doesn’t begin at creation. It begins with the fall. That is the battle of the ages that’s encountered there.
The serpent attacks the image of God, us, and in so doing he attacks God. And so the battle that we’re in the middle of is this force of chaos coming into the world. Sin, disruption, and corruption are introduced and that is a big part of who we are and that we struggle with in the world.
What happens in the early chapters of Genesis is that the Bible does something very different from what the Ancient Near Eastern world does.
It takes this battle and puts it right in our laps, and it says the battle came through the temptation and the fall, and now the battle is the great battle of the ages.
If you go through the Book of Revelation, Chapter 12, it talks about this woman who’s about to have a child, and it has all of this imagery from the Old Testament and how this great one is the dragon of old, this great evil one. And he gets defeated by this child who rules the nations with a rod of iron.
In Jewish circles, it’s called a Midrash, where it explains what’s going on in the ultimate day by talking about how that great evil that began back then and that great evil one, that’s all going to be destroyed, and we’re going to end up, eventually, in Revelation 21 and 22 with a new heaven and a new earth where that sort of corruption just does not exist.
This spiritual battle is really something that runs through the entirety of Scripture from start to finish. We’re in the middle of a great, big cosmic fray. It’s a brawl and we’re the territory under dispute, you and I and everyone in this world. It’s us as people because we were created as God’s image.
The attack was upon God because it was an attack upon the image of God. The battle starts in history in Genesis 3, and it will be consummated on the last day of history.
The portrayal of the battle is a different kind of battle than the battle we’re seeing in the Ancient Near Eastern text, which is between the gods, themselves.
Humanity is part of the battle because there might be one particular god who is the good god. For example, in Canaan, Baal was considered a good god. In the Old Testament, he’s evil. And he is.
Baal is defeating the great evil monster, Leviathan, in the Ugaritic material. And what happens is that because he defeats Leviathan, there is fertility and, therefore, prosperity in the world of mankind. So mankind is involved in a relationship to the gods, but the battle is on the divine level.
God was speaking into the world of the ancient Israelites in a way that really made sense, was true about what really happened and was put in such a way that they could really get the point. They could really see the power of this great evil, but the greater power of their great God.
Genesis, and the entire Old Testament, reflected and built upon the ancient mythologies that the Israelites were exposed to. It is put in a context they could relate to.
With the Leviathan figure, one wonders what kind of a beast is this? Is it a fish, since it is a sea monster? We have the image of Revelation of a dragon. What are we looking at when we talk about Leviathan? Do we know?
Actually have quite a few descriptions. He’s the great sea monster, and he has multiple heads according to Psalm 74. And these kinds of pictures come out in other literature of the Ancient Near East too. There’s a sense of this great evil power.
People all over the world knew about evil; they knew about the corruption, and they faced it. All of us do every day in our lives.
They had this picture of this great evil serpent. In fact, we have actually pictures of this great serpent with seven heads. And there’s a battle going on. This is actually in Ancient Near Eastern picture material, iconography.
And in this material, they will have, like, seven heads on this serpent. And maybe three of them are hanging down dead and four of them are still striking out. And, yes, they have pictures of this sort of thing.
The opening of Genesis is much more tranquil, in comparison to the chaos of the battle that is a part of the creation in these other stories. We’re starting in a slightly different place.
One thing that’s very clear from Genesis is that there’s only one God in the beginning. Then there’s a deep, dark watery abyss, but he doesn’t have to do any battle. He reshapes it by speaking and there is no battle that takes place. It’s very tranquil.
The Spirit of God is hovering over the waters, kind of as ready to do creative work.
Is there a conflict between Genesis Chapter One and Genesis Chapter Two?
One thing that you hear about that often comes up is the claim that the story in Genesis1 and the story in Genesis 2 are two very different stories of creation, that they don’t connect. And, in fact, some people will say that they’re even written by different authors.
There is an important shift between Genesis 1:1 through chapter 2, verse 3. And then there’s a particular expression: “these are the generations of the heavens and the earth” which is often translated “these are the accounts of the heavens and the earth.” And it refers to what comes out of, what generates from what’s already going before it.
We have tes whole cosmos, the whole universe in Genesis 1:1 through 2:3. And then Genesis 2:4 goes on and really zeros down into the work of humanity.
There’s an interesting thing that happens. In the first chapter, the name for God is Elohim. It’s the broad name for the great God. Then what happens in Chapter 2 is there’s a shift. We still use the name, Elohim, but along with it the name, Lord.
What happens is in Genesis 2:4, going from Elohim in the Chapter 1 story, it moves to Yahweh Elohim, and uses Yahweh Elohim throughout the account in Chapter 2.
The writer, and I do take it to be Moses, is actually telling the people of Israel, who are the recipients of this material, this story of this account.
He’s telling them the Yahweh who is the God delivering you from Egypt is the same God who created all that we have, all that we’re in the midst of here in this universe.
It is tying the history of Israel and the importance of Yahweh as the covenant God of Israel into who he really is. And he is the great Creator God.
In the context of the Ancient Near East, that’s a very important statement. In Chapter 2 when we go to Yahweh Elohim, we’re dealing with the personal covenant God who has relationship.
This explains, in part, the shift between the grand creation in seven days that we get in Genesis 1, and the more personalized focus on the creation of Adam and Eve as a development of being created in the image of God, but in very personal and in very direct relationship with God.
There are other things too that really distinguish Chapter 2:4 and following from Chapter 1.
The Chapter 2 account is really a much fuller, down to right in the soil kind of development of day six in Chapter 1.
An important feature of Chapter 1 is the seven-day element. One of the things that’s happening in Genesis 1 and we’re talking about etiology again, is explaining the creation and how the Sabbath is a mirror of what happened in the creation.
How did Jewish theology think about that in reading Genesis?
The fact that we have evening and morning suggests that we’re talking about the regular day, evening and morning at the end of the day and so on.
One of the things that stands out is that there is good reason to believe that these are actual literal days. But, on the other hand, there’s also this pattern in Scripture, this six-seven pattern where they use a lot of sixes with seven or seven patterns.
Like even in Proverbs Chapter 6, there’s six things the Lord hates, yes, seven. There’s these various kinds of combinations of six and seven patterns. And we have them not only in the Bible, but also in the Ancient Near Eastern world in a number of texts that we have.
The ancient Israelites would have been familiar with this pattern of sevens and six sevens.
One of the questions we have to ask is whether they would have understood this to be a literal six days and then the seventh day, or whether they were saying, “Oh, wow. This is the regular six-seven pattern and it’s a literary way of shaping the story.”
It’s kind of like you can tell the same story in different ways, so like we have the four different Gospels in the New Testament and they’re not all arranged the same. They tell the truth, each one. But they tell it and they shape it in such a way that makes particular points, too, in a certain way.
And we have the same thing in the Old Testament in other places, as well as in this place. We even have Psalm 104, another account of God’s creation that does the similar kinds of differences, but with a lot of parallels.
So the question becomes then, do we take these days as literal days, or do we take these as literary days?
When I read Exodus 20, I see a literal week. For this reason I believe that although the seven day creation week has literary significance, it is still a literal seven day week.
Exodus 20:8-11 “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”
We also see that on the seventh day, God rested. This is not because he was tired.
For God to rest means he has accomplished bringing order from disorder and now he takes his place on the htrone, ruling over his creation.
And what did God do on the eighth day? He rested.
But with the fall of man, disorder came back into the universe. The Bible is the story of how God created order, not from chaos, butfor he is not the God of chaos, but from disorder. It is the story of how disorder came into this world and how God will restore perfect order once more.
The life, death and resurrection of Jesus is the first big step in that restoration, as God has restored fellowship between himself and man. The church, as God’s ambassadors are part of the continuing work of restoration and Christ’s return at the end of history will make the completion of God restoring order.
Who was Melchizedek?
When we look at Melchizedek, he’s an interesting figure in the Bible. And Christians have had different interpretations as to who was Melchizedek.
Some Christians have thought of him as a historical figure, a Canaanite king priest who was living at the time of Abraham. Other Christians have interpreted Melchizedek just as a type. And other people have interpreted Melchizedek as an appearance of Christ, a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ, which we would call a Christophany.
In Genesis 14, we have an interesting passage which talks about four kings. These kings from the east had subjected the people of Canaan and were expecting the people of Canaan to pay tribute. And they didn’t pay the tribute, so the next year the kings from the east came to attack the Canaanite kings and subdue them and force them to pay tribute.
And this is where Abraham enters into the story because Lot, his nephew, was living in one of these cities, so when these four kings captured the five cities south of the Dead Sea, they took Lot and his family into captivity.
So Abraham gathers all of the men that were in his household that he had trained for war, 318 men, and he surprises the four kings and conquers them, and recovers his nephew, Lot, and his family.
When he comes back, all of a sudden, we have this person called Melchizedek, who’s described as the king of Salem, which is obviously connected with Jerusalem. And he’s presented as a king and priest.
Genesis 14:18 “And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. 19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: 20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.“
Melchizedek is the king of Salem, he’s the priest of the Most High God, the Creator God. It says in the text, he says, “Blessed be God, or El, creator of heaven and earth,” and he calls Him the Most High God.
So here we have a Canaanite king priest who is a worshiper of the one true creator God. And we shouldn’t be surprised by that. Jjust because, Abraham was a worshiper of the one true God, it doesn’t mean he was the only worshiper of the one true God. There were other people who worshiped the one true God.
Job for example, Melchizedek for example. Other people at that point in history were still worshiping, one, supreme being as the creator and God over everything and had not abandoned and fallen into polytheism.
These things have actually been clarified, by archeology in the last 100 years. In the 1920s, archeologists were excavating a site, called Ras Shamra, which turned out to be the ancient city of Ugarit.
And this city of Ugarit, flourished in the 12th century BC. And the archeologists uncovered hundreds and thousands of tablets that describe every area of Canaanite life, including their religion.
So we have many hundreds of tablets that describe the worship of Baal or Baal. The Canaanites worshiped, Baal. He is the god of lightning and thunder. He’s the West Semitic storm deity. He is the one who brings the rain, and he’s the one who brings fertility to the land.
What we see from these tablets is that there is an evolution, or maybe I should call it a devolution, to Canaanite religion. So what they show us is that at an earlier period, the Canaanites worshiped one true creator God.
They would not necessarily have known Him as Yahweh or had a relationship with Him like the people of Israel in the Old Testament, but they did worship one supreme transcendent being.
And in the period of time between Abraham, and the 12th century BC, their religion degenerated, and they abandoned the worship of one supreme God and began to worship many gods.
And so these texts that we have from Ugarit actually show us that the creator God, who’s called El, who’s called the Most High, has faded into the background and the chief god ruling all of the other gods is Baal the rain god.
So this fits perfectly with the data that we have in the Bible because in the Bible, in Genesis, we have a Canaanite king priest who is a worshiper of the one true creator God.
And what we see then in the next, from the period of Abraham, from maybe 2000 BC down to the 12th century BC, the Canaanites degenerate from worshiping one true creator God into worshiping all the forces of nature, particularly, the rain god.
Many people have not understood what the author to the Hebrews was trying to do. The author to the Hebrews, as well as David himself in Psalm 110, see Melchizedek as a model or pattern of the Messiah.
And the question is why is that? Simply because he’s both a king and a priest.
In Psalm 110, the Psalm is divided into two stanzas. In the first stanza, a divine declaration creates a king. In the second stanza, a divine oath creates a priest.
The king and the priest are the same person. And both stanzas show this coming descendant of David, this coming king priest as defeating and conquering the nations.
In the book of Hebrews, the author is seeing Melchizedek as a model or pattern of the coming Messiah.
So for example, in the book of Genesis, everybody has a genealogy, except Melchizedek. So he’s presented as if he just doesn’t have any father or mother. He’s presented as if he’s almost like an eternal person. And so, it’s not that Melchizedek was an eternal person. It’s the way the author of Genesis presents him.
It makes it feasible for him to be a model or pattern of the coming Messiah. And he is not a Christophany. He’s not a pre-incarnate, appearance of Christ.
He’s an actual, historical, individual or person. He was a king of a city in Canaan, probably around 2000 BC. And he was both king and priest.
Because Christians didn’t have very much information about the ancient near eastern background, they didn’t have very much information about the development of Canaanite religion, and because of the statements in the book of Hebrews, they misunderstood the author of the book of Hebrews to be suggesting that Melchizedek was a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ, which is not what the author to the Hebrews is actually saying.
And what’s important about Melchizedek is that he is the earliest figure that we have in the Biblical history of someone who is both king and priest. And so according to Psalm 110 and Hebrews 7, he is a model or pattern for the coming deliverer that finds ultimate fulfillment in Jesus Christ.
What Is The Gospel Of Jesus Christ?
The answer to that is that the gospel is best put in biblical terms. What the Bible says it is, the word itself is simply good news. God’s good news for man.
The Bible gives you various ways of describing or defining that good news in the simplest terms, in Paul’s language, it is the good news of God reconciling the world to himself and in through the person and the work of Jesus Christ, the son of God.
Paul also said, and I suppose this is the nearest thing you have in the New Testament to an actual definition of the gospel, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, that he was buried, that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.
Now, that’s the core of the good news. Data’s first of all, with a person, Jesus Christ. Who is he? That’s a question that comes up quite often in the gospel story of his life.
People ask everywhere he went, who is this? Who is this? And the Bible gives us the answer. This is in Peter’s words, the Christ, the son of the living God.
This is God’s son. Come into the world on a particular mission sent by his father to do something and that brings us to his work. His work was coming into the world to live and to die and to rise again from the dead.
Now, those are three important parts of the work of Christ. He came into the world with sin. He lived without sin and obedience to the law of God. He died for sin, a sacrifice to put away the wrath of God that was against our sin.
How do we know he actually succeeded in doing this? Well, he said he would give one indication, one sign, and that would be, he would rise the third day from the dad.
So that’s why Paul emphasized the person, Jesus Christ dying for our sins as the scriptures had said, and then rising again the third day as the scriptures had prophesied.
This is the heart of the gospel.
Now, why is this such good news and why is it so important? Well, it’s good news because according to God’s word, every one of us is born a sinner. We don’t need to be taught to sin. We send us naturally as breathing. It’s in our nature.
Every one of us knows from his own conscience. He’s a sinner, not just against all their man and women, but against God. Sin is the transgression or the breaking of the law of God and that brings the wrath of God.
The Bible tells us that God is angry with the wicked every day that the wages of sin is death. It also tells us that we can not do anything to save our ourselves or to change ourselves.
We may change our behavior, but we do not change our sales or our status in the sight of God. It takes divine intervention and that’s the importance of the gospel.
That’s the necessity of God sending his own son into the world and yet sending him as a man. He was born of a virgin without sin, but he was born. He was a real man.
Now here we have the glory of the person of Christ.
God and man two distinct natures, divine and human, not a mixture, God and man and yet one indivisible person. This is the savior, the importance, the necessity.
How do we know he succeeded? Did he actually put away sin? Is he able to save sinners? Is he able by his life and death to reconcile us to God?
Well, he said, I’ll prove it. I’11 rise from the dead, and that’s exactly what he did.
So what’s the significance of that? For us, Paul puts it like this. God made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that is he bore our sin in his own body on the tree, having lived a perfect life and met our obligation to the precept of God’s law, he died an atoning death and paid the penalty for our breach of God’s law.
Now the other side is God makes us to be the righteousness of God in him as he imputed. That’s the biblical word, laid to the charge of Christ our sin. So he lays to our kind, his righteousness, all the merit of his life, all the merit of his death.
How do we obtain this? The Bible says we are justified by faith, by faith in Christ. Jesus said, come onto me. He said that whosoever believeth in him, not just about him, but in him hath everlasting life. That in a nutshell is the gospel.
What Is An Asherah Pole?
An Asherah pole is a sacred tree or pole that stood near Canaanite religious locations to honor the Ugaritic mother-goddess Asherah, consort of El.
The relation of the literary references to an Asherah and archaeological finds of Judaean pillar-figurines has engendered much debate. The ashram were also cult objects related to the worship of the fertility goddess Asherah, the consort of either Ba’al or, as inscriptions from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom attest, Yahweh, and thus objects of contention among competing cults.
The insertion of “pole” begs the question by setting up unwarranted expectations for such a wooden object: “we are never told exactly what it was”, observes John Day.
Though there was certainly a movement against goddess-worship at the Jerusalem Temple in the time of King Josiah, it did not long survive his reign, as the following four kings “did what was evil in the eyes of Yahweh“.
Further exhortations came from Jeremiah. The traditional interpretation of the Biblical text is that the Israelites imported pagan elements such as the Asherah poles from the surrounding Canaanites.
In light of archeological finds, however, modern scholars now theorize that the Israelite folk religion was Canaanite in its inception and always polytheistic, and it was the prophets and priests who denounced the Asherah poles who were the innovators; such theories inspire ongoing debate.
Asherim are mentioned in the Hebrew Bible in the books of Exodus, Deuteronomy, Judges, the Books of Kings, the Second Book of Chronicles, and the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Micah.
The term often appears as merely אשרה, referred to as “groves” in the King James Version, which follows the Septuagint rendering as ἄλσος, pl. ἄλσοη, and the Vulgate lucus, and “poles” in the New Revised Standard Version; no word that may be translated as “poles” appears in the text.
Scholars have indicated, however, that the plural use of the term provides ample evidence that reference is being made to objects of worship rather than a transcendent figure.
The Hebrew Bible suggests that the poles were made of wood. In the sixth chapter of the Book of Judges, God is recorded as instructing the Israelite judge Gideon to cut down an Asherah pole that was next to an altar to Baal.
The wood was to be used for a burnt offering. Deuteronomy 16:21 states that YHWH hated Asherim whether rendered as poles: “Do not set up any [wooden] Asherah [pole] beside the altar you build to the LORD your God” or as living trees: “You shall not plant any tree as an Asherah beside the altar of the Lord your God which you shall make”.
That Asherahs were not always living trees is shown in 1 Kings 14:23: “their asherim , beside every luxuriant tree.”
However, the record indicates that the Jewish people often departed from this ideal. For example, King Manasseh placed an Asherah pole in the Holy Temple. King Josiah’s reforms in the late 7th century BC included the destruction of many Asherah poles.
Exodus 34:13 states: “Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles.”
Asherah poles in biblical archaeology
Some biblical archaeologists have suggested that until the 6th century BC the Israelite peoples had household shrines, or at least figurines, of Asherah, which are strikingly common in the archaeological remains. Raphael Patai identified the pillar figurines with Asherah in “The Hebrew Goddess.”
Will The Earth Be Destroyed With Fire?
Many people read 2 Peter 3:7 and 2 Peter 3:10 to mean God will burn up the Earth with fire.
2 Peter 3:7 King James Version (KJV) “But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.“
“Heavens and the earth” refer not to the literal planet in this verse, but to the Jewish leadership and the people. This is purely apocalyptic language that was so common in Jewish literature.
To understand what Peter is saying, one must understand the nature of apocalyptic language.
Apocalyptic language uses superlatives and metaphors to describe natural events and their supernatural causes. It uses poetic hyperbole and picturesque exaggerations.
Discussing the use of apocalyptic language, the Jewish philosopher Maimonides says:
The very same thing happens to the ordinary reader of the Prophets: some of their words he does not understand at all . . . the metaphor frequently employed by Isaiah, and less frequently by other prophets, where they describe the ruin of a kingdom or the destruction of a great nation in phrases like the following: the stars have fallen, the heavens are overthrown, the sun is darkened, the earth is waste and trembles and other similar metaphors.
Resurrecting the Past: A Case for Fulfilled Prophecy, 120 min., Zephon Ministries, 2016, DVD.
This same type of language is used in other forms of literature in the Bible, in addition to its use in prophecy. For example: “Yet I destroyed the Amorites before them, though they were tall as the cedars and strong as the oaks (Amos 2.9).”
“The elements shall melt with fervent heat …” 2 Peter 3:10
2 Peter 3:10 “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.“
2 Peter 3:12 “Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?”
2 Peter 3:10 says the elements were going to burn. THE ELEMENTS! The Greek word for elements (στοιχεία or stoicheía ) in the Bible is used 7 times. It always, ALWAYS, refers to the Temple worship and the Jewish religious practices. Those elements of temple worship were burned in 70 AD. 2 Peter 3:7 has been fulfilled.
Galatians 4:3 “Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements (stoicheía) of the world.”
Galatians 4:9 “But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements , (stoicheía), whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?“
Galatians 4:9 makes it very clear the elements Paul is referring to is the Old Testament Law and the Jewish Talmud.
Colossians 2:20-22 “Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments, (stoicheía), whereunto of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using; after the commandments and doctrines of men?“
In the NASB, Colossians 2:20-22 says, “If you have died with Christ [a]to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch! which all refer to things destined to perish with use in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men?“
So we see again, the “elements” referred to in the New Testament are the Jewish laws and practices.
Colossians 2:8 “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles, (stoicheía), of the world, rather than according to Christ.”
The elements that were going to burn in 2 Peter were the elements of Jewish worship. This happened in 70 AD when the Roman armies burned Jerusalem and the temple.
With the destruction of the temple, the Old Covenant practices were finished once and for all. Christians live under the New Covenant.
For forty years, the Old and New Covenant practices co-existed in Israel. Christians still went to the temple to worship at this time.
Paul gave many warnings for the Christians not to return to the Jewish religious practice or to place themselves back under the Mosaic Law.
Peter was warning that these elements were going to be destroyed, just as Jesus proclaimed on the Mount of Olives in 30 AD.
The Bible is clear, Earth will never be destroyed, burned in fire, or replaced.
The Bible teaches that God created the earth to be inhabited forever.
- “ The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein for ever. ”—Psalm 37:29.
- “ Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever. ”—Psalm 104:5.
- “ One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever. ”—Ecclesiastes 1:4.
- “ For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else. ”—Isaiah 45:18.
If a nation is destroyed, the Bible often refers to that as the destruction of heaven and earth.
The Babylonians conquered Israel in the sixth century BC. Jeremiah described it like this:
Jeremiah 4:23-26 “I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by his fierce anger.“
Ezekiel 32:7-9 describes the defeat of Egypt by Babylon.
“And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light. All the bright lights of heaven will I make dark over thee, and set darkness upon thy land, saith the Lord God. I will also vex the hearts of many people, when I shall bring thy destruction among the nations, into the countries which thou hast not known.”
And in Isaiah 13:9-13 concerning the fall of Babylon in 539 B.C., the Bible says, “Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it. For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine. And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible. I will make a man more precious than fine gold; even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir. Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the Lord of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.”
Now, do we believe the earth actually moved “out of her place” in 539 BC? Of course not, but to the Babylonians, it certainly would have felt that way.
Describing the fall of Edom, the Bible says the heavens will be dissolved and rolled together as a scroll.
Isaiah 34:4-5 “And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree. For my sword shall be bathed in heaven: behold, it shall come down upon Idumea, and upon the people of my curse, to judgment.“
Revelation 6:12-14 uses the same language as these Old Testament passages.
“And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.“
Considering God’s promises that the Earth would always remain and the use of apocalyptic descriptions throughout the Bible, there is no exegetical or scriptural reason to believe that Peter is saying the literal earth and sky will be literally destroyed with fire.
Are women to remain silent in the church? 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
Are women to remain silent in the church?
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 cannot be used legitimately to prohibit women who are called, gifted, and qualified from exercising a ministry which includes public speaking. Paul did not silence the Corinthian women who prophesied and prayed aloud in church meetings.
New Testament women prophesied (Acts 2:18; 21:9; 1 Corinthians 11:5).
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”
This verse has been used over the years to cause division and hurt in churches. Churches have split over this verse.
Sadly, few understand why this verse is in their Bible and its proper application. Understanding the context of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians will help us get a better grasp of its content.
The first letter from the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians is a response to a letter he received concerning problems in the church. In several places within the letter, Paul is quoting what the Corinthian leaders have said and responding to their errors.
For example, in 1 Corinthians 10:23, the KJV says, “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. “
The CEV and NLT translate the same verse, “ Some of you say, “We can do whatever we want to!” But I tell you not everything may be good or helpful.”
The big difference is the CEV and NLT show clearly that Paul was responding to claims the Corinthian leaders were making.
In 1 Corinthians 6:13, the New International Version (NIV) says, “You say, ‘Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.’ ” And Paul responds to this claim, “The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.”
The KJV says in 1 Corinthians 15:32-33 “If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we die. 33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.”
Paul’s words only makes sense if we notice the quotes being used—first from Epicurus, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die,” and second from Menander, “Evil communications corrupt good manners.”
The Corinthians had been influenced by the thinking and philosophy of the Epicureans. Paul had to correct their misconceptions.
The Epicurian dictum noted above is a prime example. Since the philosophers of the time also believed in the immortality of the soul, they argued that the body was merely a vessel for the much more important soul.
Many in the church were living lasciviously, saying how you lived in the flesh was not important since God would destroy the flesh. Only your spiritual condition was important in their thought. Paul exposes their error by quoting them and refuting their assertion.
The KJV merely says, “Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.”
The KJV is not wrong in its translation, but because the Greek language does not have quotation marks, it is not always obvious where Paul is quoting the Corinthians’ statements and where he is responding. The modern translators have added the “you say” and quotations to help the reader understand this.
There are several places in the first letter to the Corinthians where Paul is doing this including 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.
“Modern interpreters recognize that Paul cites the Corinthians’ own words in trying to conform their thinking and behavior to the wisdom of the cross.” —David Garland, George W. Truett Theological Seminary, Baylor University
“Watson and Culy have written a very interesting and timely volume on 1 Corinthians that advances our understanding of both how quotations were indicated and functioned in the ancient world and how Paul and the Corinthians were dealing with issues of ancient and contemporary relevance. This is a volume that will be attractive to New Testament scholars and to those simply interested in the issues discussed.” —Stanley E. Porter, President, Dean, and Professor of New Testament, McMaster Divinity College
At first glance, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 seems clear: women are not permitted to talk in congregational meetings and must be silent. This is the stance that many have taken throughout much of the Church’s history.
“From Tertullian to Thomas Aquinas, commentators concluded that women could not even sing or pray audibly among men. Although the Reformers relaxed some of these restrictions, as late as the 1890s certain Presbyterians still forbade women’s singing in the context of church worship.” (Grenz 1995:121)
When the church began on the Day of Pentecost, women, as well as men, came into it in great numbers (Acts 5:14). There were no distinctions made in conditions of membership between the sexes. Furthermore, the importance of women to the whole church is reflected by the concern which the early church had for widows who needed care and help (Acts 6:1-6).
The good works of women are frequently mentioned in Scripture. Dorcas is cited as an example of faithful, loving service (Acts 9:36-39).
Lydia is shown to be a woman of great hospitality, “constraining” Paul and his company to abide in her house (Acts 16:1-15). Phoebe is described as a “servant of the church that is in Cenchreae” (Romans 16:10).
1 Cor 14:26 “How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.”
Silence is called for three times in 1 Corinthians 14: in verses 28, 30 and 34.[5] In 1 Corinthians 14:28 and 30, silence is called for in specific situations to regulate congregational contributions to the meetings. (The “silence” in verses 28 and 30 is not gender specific.)
It is very likely that the silence called for in verse 34 is also addressing a specific situation and is not meant to be a blanket statement to silence all women for all time in church meetings.
In fact, Paul’s intention could not have been to silence women at all times during church meetings. In 1 Corinthians 11:5 Paul acknowledges, without disapproval, that women prophesied and prayed aloud in church.
Paul not only approved of praying and prophesying by women in the assembly but he encouraged it! Reading 1 Corinthians 11:10 with the literal, active voice (“has authority”) instead of the presumed, passive voice (“sign of authority”), Paul states that a woman has authority (has the right!) to pray and prophesy. (Hicks 1990)
If Paul condones verbal ministry from women in chapter 11 it is very unlikely that he censures it in chapter 14.
Notice what follows 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. “What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. Let all things be done decently and in order.” 1 Corinthians 14:36-40
The Greek reads in verse 36, ” 36 ἢ ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθεν, ἢ εἰς ὑμᾶς μόνους κατήντησεν; ”
Notice the ” ἢ .” According to Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, ἢ means nonsense. ἤ (B), an exclamation expressing disapproval, ἢ ἢ σιώπα Ar.Nu. 105; ἢ ἤ· τί δρᾶς; E.HF906 (lyr.), cf. Suid.
Greeks use the symbol ἢ to indicate the refutation of the previous passage. This is used many times by Paul to show that the previous statement is false and gives his opinion after it. In English translations it should be translated as ‘Nonsense!’.
For example, 1 Cor. 6:1,2 “Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? (Nonsense eta) Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?“
In 1 Corinthians 14:34 ,Paul is saying “What???” or “Nonsense” to their claim that women must keep silent in the church.
Notice also, verse 34 says, “ they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. ” Yet nowhere in the Old Testament do you find this command.
The Corinthians are quoting the Talmud and claiming it is the law. Other places Paul rebukes men for making the traditions of men equal to scripture. No way would Paul have made such a false statement as verse 34.
First Corinthians was written in response to a verbal report from Chloe’s people (1 Cor. 1:11), and in response to a letter Paul had received from the Corinthians asking his advice (1 Cor. 7:1).
At times it is evident in his letter that Paul is quoting from the Corinthian’s letter as he deals with its contents. Some of these quotes include, “It is not good for a man to touch a woman” (1 Cor. 7:1); “We all possess knowledge” (1 Cor. 8:1); “There is no resurrection” and “Christ has not been raised” (1 Cor. 15:12, 14).
Scholars believe that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 may also be a quote. This would account for the way it does not seem to fit with what Paul is saying in the surrounding verses.
1 Corinthians 1:10 tells us that there were competing factions in the Corinthian church (cf. 1 Cor. 11:18-19). It is possible that one of these factions was trying to silence women in church meetings. This would have been a real concern for Chloe!
Paul quotes the faction’s injunction for women to be silent in 14:34-35, and then reprimands the faction, which includes men, with, “What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? ” (1 Cor. 14:36).
The Greek adjective monous, which occurs in verse 36 and is translated as “you only” in the KJV, is grammatically masculine. According to Greek grammar, this adjective cannot refer only to women. The masculine gender in verse 36 does not seem to follow logically after 14:34-35 and its instructions to women. (Flanagan 1981)
The view that 14:34-35 is a non-Pauline quotation is one of the few which offers a plausible explanation for the jarring change of tone which verses 34-35 bring into the text, and the subsequent abrupt change of topic, tone and gender in verse 36.
If this explanation is the correct one, then Paul is not silencing women in 14:34-35. Rather, Paul quotes and then rebukes the people who are trying to silence the women.
CHLOE OF CORINTH
One woman who may have ministered in the church at Corinth was Chloe. In the opening chapter of 1 Corinthians, Paul writes that he has learned that there are problems and factions within the Corinthian church from some people who had come from Chloe (1 Cor. 1:11). These people somehow belonged to Chloe. They may have been members of her household and members of her church.
Chloe had probably sent these people to Paul. Sending a delegation is clearly something only a person functioning as a leader can do. Considering the purpose of the delegation, it seems that Chloe was a church leader. Perhaps Chloe’s people did not just bring a verbal report to Paul about the problems in the Corinthian church, perhaps they also brought the letter which Paul responds to in 1 Corinthians.
In New Testament times, most Christian congregations met in homes, and some house churches were hosted and led by women. Nympha was the host of a house church (Col. 4:15), and so was Priscilla, with her husband Aquila (1 Cor. 16:19). It is unlikely that Paul would restrict Christian women from ministering in their own homes, especially as the New Testament provides ample evidence that Paul greatly valued the ministry of many of his female colleagues. Knowing that some early churches were hosted and led by women, makes the interpretation that women were not permitted to speak in church meetings unlikely.
Men and women both have gifts they may and should share with the church.
MEN & WOMEN ARE MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD
Both men and women are made in the image of God, not just men. When we silence the woman, we are missing out on the image of God as it is reflected in the female. God’s image is shown both in men and women and in their differences.
Genesis 1:27 “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”
Matthew 19:4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ’made them male and female,’”
Mark 10:6 “But at the beginning of creation God ’made them male and female.’”
Men and Women Are Dependent upon Each Other
Inspiration clearly stresses the mutual dependence of men and women in Christ. Paul says, “Nevertheless, neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:11). Neither is complete without the other.
Women Rule the Household
The New Testament authorizes women a domain of authority within the home. Younger widows are advised to marry, bear children, and “rule the household” (1 Timothy 5:14).
Lenski says: “To rule the house” means as the wife and mother in the home, to manage the household affairs. This is the domain and province of woman, in which no man can compete with her. Its greatness and its importance should ever be held up as woman’s divinely intended sphere, in which all her womanly qualities and gifts find full play and happiest gratification (1961, 676).
This does not indicate, of course, that woman’s authority in the home equals the man’s. He is the head of the wife and she is to be willingly in subjection to him (Ephesians 5:22, 23). Yet, he should lovingly allow her the freedom to exercise authority in the management of domestic matters, for God has ordained it.
A historian has noted: “The way in which the Church began to lift woman up into privilege and hope was one of its most prompt and beautiful transformations from the blight of paganism. Too long in the darkness, she was now helped into the sunlight “(Hurst 1897, 146).
Such a transformation impressed even the heathen world; Libanius, a pagan writer, exclaimed: “What women these Christians have!”
The Divine Subordination of Woman
By divine design, man is to be the “head” of woman—in society, in the church, and in the home (1 Corinthians 11:3; Ephesians 5:22-24). This graduation of authority rests on two bases: first, the original constitution of the sexes as created, and, second, woman’s role in the fall.
Concerning the former, the Bible teaches:
Woman was made as a help for man—not the reverse (Genesis 2:18, 20).
Paul wrote: “For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man: for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man” (1 Corinthians 11:8, 9).
And again, “For Adam was first formed, then Eve” (1 Timothy 2:13).
As to the woman’s role in the fall, she believed Satan’s lie that she might become as God, and hence, was “beguiled” (Genesis 3:13; 2 Corinthians 11:3) or “deceived” (1 Timothy 2:14); whereas Adam, laboring under no such deception (1 Timothy 2:14), merely sinned due to his weakness for the woman (Genesis 3:12). Accordingly, woman’s subjection was increased after her fall (Genesis 3:16).
These facts do not suggest that woman is inferior to man, but they do mean (to those who respect the testimony of Scripture) that she is subordinate in rank to man.
It ought to be emphasized that as Christ’s subjection to the Father involved no deprivation of dignity (Philippians 2:5-11), so there is none in woman’s subjection to man. So, as we shall presently observe, because of these historical facts, the sphere of woman’s activity has been divinely circumscribed.
New Testament women prophesied (Acts 2:18; 21:9; 1 Corinthians 11:5). 1 Corinthians 11:5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head
It is assumed that prophesying was preaching, hence, women of the first century preached. The word “prophesy” is from two Greek roots, pro (forth) and phemi (to speak). It is a very general term and may mean “to teach, refute, reprove, admonish, comfort” (Thayer 1958, 553; cf. 1 Corinthians 14:3). It can simply suggest the idea of “giving thanks and praising God” (1 Chronicles 25:3). The meaning of the word in a given situation must be determined by the context as well as other information in the Scriptures.
Paul limits the extent of a woman’s forth-speaking (teaching, etc.) when he writes: “I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness” (1 Timothy 2:12).
The negative conjunction, oude (nor), here is explanatory in force, revealing that the kind of teaching prohibited by the apostle is that which assumes dominion over the man (Lenski, 563).
Certainly women may teach (cf. Titus 2:3); they may, in certain ways, even teach men. There is a reciprocal teaching in singing (Colossians 3:16), and privately, in conjunction with her husband, Priscilla was involved in teaching Apollos (Acts 18:26).
But a woman may not assume the position of teacher, with the man subordinated to the role of student, without violating a New Testament command.
1 Timothy 2:8-15 “ I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”
CONCLUSION:
God’s women make a vital contribution to the kingdom of Christ on earth. Whether they are continuing steadfastly in prayer (Acts 1:14), doing good works and almsdeeds (Acts 9:36), showing hospitality (Acts 12:12; 16:14; 1 Timothy 5:10), teaching the word in harmony with divine authority (Acts 18:26; Titus 2:3, 4), being good wives (Proverbs 31:10ff), rearing godly children (2 Timothy 1:5; 3:14, 15), or accomplishing various other commendable tasks, let us “rise up and call them blessed.”
The summaries presented in this article are just a sample of some of the better-known interpretations of 14:34-35. Still more interpretations have been proposed by respected scholars. Because of this vast variety of interpretations, it is difficult to know precisely how to apply these verses, especially in the context of the contemporary church.
One thing is certain, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 cannot be used to completely silence women from speaking in church meetings, as Paul condones the verbal ministries of prayer and prophecy from women. Taking into account that Paul condones women who prophesy, it is difficult to see how 14:34-35 can be used to exclude women from other equally influential and authoritative speaking ministries in the church.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 cannot be used legitimately to prohibit women who are called, gifted, and qualified from exercising a ministry which includes public speaking.
Paul did not silence the Corinthian women who prophesied and prayed aloud in church meetings.