BDAG (a basic New Testament Greek dictionary) defines “reviling” (loidoria) as “speech that is highly insulting, abuse, reproach, reviling.” Normally it is not even subtle, but directly insulting (cf. Macrobius Sat. 7.3.2, trying to explain it in Latin). (It does not simply express disagreement.) It applies, for example, to people mocking Jesus during his passion (1 Pet 2:23) and the enemies of Jesus’s early followers insulting them and their movement (1 Tim 5:14; 1 Pet 3:9).

The verdict is consistent also with Paul’s list of death-worthy sins in Rom 1:29-32, which includes slanderers (1:30). The list in Rom 1 helps further set up Paul’s argument for why everybody needs God’s forgiveness and transformation; the list in 1 Cor 6 helps express Paul’s shock at how some of his converts are behaving.

One need not scan the internet very long, in various blogs, tweets and especially comments, to notice that reviling is a common pastime. Politics and even religious disagreements may generate heated passions, but the person who regularly reviles others falls short of Christian ethics. Like other sins on Paul’s lists, this is one he considers damnable. May we all learn to exercise restraint and, even when we are rightly passionate, to season our words with grace (Prov 15:1; Eph 4:29; Col 4:6). Or better yet, at some other times, to stay out of the fight altogether (Prov 17:27-28; 2 Tim 2:14, 23-26).

            Was Paul for or against Women’s Ministry?

            The question of women’s ministry is a pressing concern for today’s church. It is paramount first because of our need for the gifts of all members God has called to serve the Church; now the concern, however, has extended beyond the Church itself. Increasingly secular thinkers today attack Christianity as “against women” and thus irrelevant to the modern world.

            Yet the Assemblies of God and other denominations birthed in the Holiness and Pentecostal revivals affirmed women’s ministry long before the role of women became a secular or liberal agenda.[1] Likewise, in the historic missionary expansion of the nineteenth century, two-thirds of all missionaries were women. The nineteenth century women’s movement that fought for women’s right to vote originally grew from the same revival movement led by Charles Finney and others that advocated the abolition of slavery. By contrast, those who identified everything in the Bible’s culture with the Bible’s message were obligated to both accept slavery and reject women’s ministry.[2]

            For Bible-believing Christians, however, mere precedent from church history cannot settle a question; we must establish our case from Scripture. Because the current debate focuses especially around the teaching of Paul, we focus on his writing, after we have briefly summarized other biblical teachings on the subject.

Women’s Ministry in the Rest of the Bible

            Because Paul accepted as God’s word both the Hebrew Bible and Jesus’ teachings, we must briefly survey women’s ministry in these sources. The ancient Near Eastern world of which Israel was a part was definitely a “man’s world.” But because God spoke to Israel in a particular culture does not suggest that the culture itself was holy; the culture included polygamy, divorce, slavery, and a variety of other practices we now recognize as unholy.

            Despite the prominence of men in ancient Israelite society, however, God still sometimes called women as leaders. When Josiah needed to hear the word of the Lord, he sent to a person who was undoubtedly one of the most prominent prophetic figures of his day, namely Huldah (2 Kings 22:12-20). Deborah was not only a prophetess but a judge (Judg 4:4)–that is, she held the place of greatest authority in Israel in her day. She is also one of the few judges of whom the Bible reports no failures (Judg 4–5).

            Although first-century Jewish women rarely if ever studied with teachers of the law the way male disciples did,[3] Jesus allowed women to join his ranks (Mk 15:40-41; Lk 8:1-3)–something the culture could regard as scandalous.[4] As if this were not scandalous enough, he allowed a woman who wished to hear his teaching to “sit at his feet” (Lk 10:39)–taking a posture normally reserved for disciples. And disciples were teachers in training![5] To have sent women out on the preaching missions (e.g., Mk 6:7-13) might have proved too scandalous to be practical, but the Gospels nevertheless unanimously report that God chose women as the first witnesses of the resurrection, even though first-century Jewish men often dismissed the testimony of women.[6]

            Joel explicitly emphasized that when God poured out His Spirit, women as well as men would prophesy (Joel 2:28-29). Pentecost meant that all God’s people qualified for gifts of God’s Spirit (Acts 2:17-18), just as salvation meant that male or female would have the same relationship with God (Gal 3:28). Subsequent outpourings of the Spirit have often led to the same effect. 

Passages where Paul Affirms Women’s Ministry

            Paul often affirms the ministry of women despite the gender prejudices of his culture. With a few exceptions (some women philosophers), advanced education was a male domain. Because most people in Mediterranean antiquity were functionally illiterate, those who could read and speak well generally assumed teaching roles, and with rare exceptions, these were men.[7] In the first centuries of our era, most Jewish men, like Philo, Josephus, and many later rabbis, reflected the prejudice of much of the broader Greco-Roman culture.[8]

            Women’s roles varied from one region to another, but Paul’s writings clearly rank him among the more progressive, not the more chauvinistic, writers of his day. Many of Paul’s colaborers in the gospel were women.

            Thus Paul commends the ministry of a woman who brings his letter to the Roman Christians (Rom 16:1-2). Phoebe is “servant” of the church at Cenchrea. “Servant” may refer to a “deacon,” a term sometimes designating administrative responsibility in the early Church; in his epistles, however, Paul most frequently applies the term to any minister of God’s word, including himself (e.g., 1 Cor 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6; 6:4; Eph 3:7; 6:21). He also calls Phoebe a “succourer” or “helper” of many (16:2); this term technically designates her as the church’s “patron” or sponsor, most likely the owner of the home in which the church at Cenchrea was meeting. This entitled her to a position of honor in the church.[9]

            Nor is she the only influential woman in the church. Whereas Paul greets about twice as many men as women in Romans 16, he commends the ministries of about twice as many women as men in that list! (Some use the predominance of male ministers in the Bible against women’s ministry, but that argument could work against men’s ministry in this passage!) These commendations may indicate his sensitivity to the opposition women undoubtedly frequently faced for their ministry, and are remarkable given the prejudice against women’s ministry that existed in Paul’s culture.

            If Paul follows ancient custom when he praises Prisca, he may mention her before her husband Aquila because of her higher status (Rom. 16:3-4). Elsewhere we learn that she and her husband taught Scripture to another minister (Acts 18:26). Paul also lists two fellow-apostles,[10] Andronicus and Junia. Although “Junia” is clearly a feminine name, writers opposed to the possibility that Paul could have referred to a female apostle suggest that “Junia” is a contraction for the masculine “Junianus.” But this contraction is very rare compared to the common feminine name, and does not even occur in extant inscriptions from Rome; this suggestion rests not on the text itself but entirely on the presupposition that a woman could not be an apostle.

            Elsewhere, Paul refers to the ministry of two women in Philippi, who, like his many male fellow-ministers, shared in his work for the gospel there (Phil. 4:2-3). Because women typically achieved more prominent religious roles in Macedonia than in most parts of the Roman world,[11] Paul’s women colleagues in this region may have moved more quickly into prominent offices in the church (cf. also Acts 16:14-15).

            Although Paul ranks prophets second only to apostles (1 Cor. 12:28), he acknowledges the ministry of prophetesses (1 Cor. 11:5), following the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Exod. 15:20; Judg. 4:4; 2 Kings 22:13-14) and early Christian practice (Acts 2:17-18, 21:9). Thus those who complain that Paul does not specifically mention “women pastors” by name miss the point. Paul rarely mentions any “men pastors” by name, either; he most often simply mentions his traveling companions in ministry, who were naturally men. Given the culture he addressed, it was natural that fewer women could exercise the social independence necessary to achieve positions of ministry. Where they did so, however, Paul commends them, and includes commendations to women apostles and prophets, the offices of the highest authority in the church!

            While passages such as these establish Paul among the more progressive writers of his era, the primary controversy today rages around other passages in which Paul seems to oppose women’s ministry. Before turning there, we must examine one passage where Paul clearly addresses a local cultural situation.

Paul on Head Coverings

            Although Paul often advocated the mutuality of gender roles,[12] he also worked within the boundaries of his culture where necessary for the sake of the gospel. We begin with his teaching on head coverings because, although it is not directly related to women’s ministry, it will help us understand his passages concerning women’s ministry. Most Christians today agree that women do not need to cover their heads in church, but many do not recognize that Paul used the same kinds of arguments for women covering their heads as for women refraining from congregational speech. In both cases, Paul uses some general principles but addresses a specific cultural situation.

            When Paul urged women in the Corinthian churches to cover their heads (the only place where the Bible teaches about a woman’s “covering”), he follows a custom prominent in many Eastern cultures of his day.[13] Although women and men alike covered their heads for various reasons,[14] married women specifically covered their heads to prevent men other than their husbands from lusting after their hair.[15] A married woman who went out with her head uncovered was considered promiscuous, and was to be divorced as an adulteress.[16] Because of what head coverings symbolized in that culture, Paul asks the more liberated women to cover their heads so as not to scandalize the others. Among his arguments for head coverings are the fact that God created Adam first; in the particular culture he addresses, this argument would make sense as an argument for women wearing head coverings.[17]

Passages where Paul may restrict Women’s Ministry

            Because Paul in some cases advocated women’s ministry, we cannot read his restrictions on women’s ministry as universal prohibitions. Rather, as in the case of head coverings in Corinth above, Paul is addressing a specific cultural situation. This is not to say that Paul here or anywhere else wrote Scripture that was not for all time. It is merely to say that he did not write it for all circumstances, and that we must take into account the circumstances he addressed so we can understand how he would have applied his principles in very different sitations. (For instance, few readers today would advocate us going to Troas to pick up Paul’s cloak; we recognize that Paul addressed these words specifically to Timothy–2 Tim 4:13.)

Let Women Keep Silent (1 Cor 14:34-36)

            Two passages in Paul’s writings at first seem to contradict the “progressive” ones. We should keep in mind that these are the only two passages in the Bible that could remotely be construed as contradicting Paul’s endorsement of women’s ministry elsewhere.

            First, Paul instructs women to be silent and save their questions about the service for their husbands at home (1 Cor 14:34-36). Yet Paul cannot mean silence under all circumstances, because earlier in the same letter he acknowledged that women could pray and prophesy in church (1 Cor 11:5), and prophecy ranked even higher than teaching (12:28).

            Here knowing ancient Greek culture helps us understand the passage better. Not all explanations scholars have proposed have proved satisfying. Some hold that a later scribe accidentally inserted these lines into Paul’s writings, but the hard evidence for this interpretation seems slender.[18] Some suggest that Paul here quotes a Corinthian position (1 Cor. 14:34-35), which he then refutes (1 Cor. 14:36); unfortunately 14:36 does not read naturally as a refutation. Others think that churches, like synagogues, were segregated by gender, somehow making women’s talk disruptive. This view falters on two counts: first, gender segregation in synagogues may begin centuries after Paul, and second, the Corinthian Christians met in homes, whose architecture would have rendered such segregation impossible. Some also suggest that Paul addresses women abusing the gifts of the Spirit, or a problem with judging prophecies. But while the context does address these issues, ancient writers commonly used digressions, and the theme of church order is sufficient to unite the context.

            Another explanation seems more likely. Paul elsewhere affirms women’s role in prayer and prophecy (11:5), and the only kind of speech he directly addresses in 14:34-36 is wives asking questions.[19] In ancient Greek and Jewish lecture settings advanced students or educated people frequently interrupted public speakers with reasonable questions. Yet the culture had deprived most women of education, and considered it rude for uneducated persons to slow down lectures with questions that betrayed their lack of training.[20] So Paul provides a long-range solution: the husbands should take a personal interest in their wives’ learning and catch them up privately. Most ancient husbands doubted their wives’ intellectual potential, but Paul was among the most progressive of ancient writers on the subject.[21] By ancient standards, far from repressing these women, Paul was liberating them![22]

            This text cannot prohibit women announcing the word of the Lord (1 Cor. 11:4-5), and nothing in the context here suggests that Paul specifically prohibits women from Bible teaching. The only passage in the entire Bible that one could directly cite against women teaching the Bible is 1 Tim. 2:11-15.

In Quietness and Submission (1 Tim 2:11-15)

            In this passage Paul forbids women to teach or exercise authority over men. Most supporters of women’s ministry think that the latter expression means “usurp authority,”[23] something Paul would not want men to do any more than women, but the matter is disputed.[24] In any case, Paul also forbids women here to “teach,” something he apparently allowed elsewhere (Rom 16; Phil 4:2-3). Thus he presumably addresses the specific situation in this community; because both Paul and his readers knew their situation and could take it for granted, the situation which elicited Paul’s response is thus assumed in his intended meaning.

            Paul’s letters to Timothy in Ephesus provide us a glimpse of the situation: false teachers (1 Tim 1:6-7, 19-20; 6:3-5; 2 Tim. 2:17) were misleading the women (5:13;[25] 2 Tim 3:6-7), who were the most susceptible to false teaching only because they had been granted the least education. This behavior was bound to bring reproach on the church from a hostile society already convinced that Christians subverted the traditional roles of women and slaves.[26] So again Paul provides a short-range solution: “Do not teach” (under the present circumstances); and a long-range solution: “Let them learn” (1 Tim 2:11).

            Today we read “learn in silence” and think the emphasis lies on “silence.” That these women are to learn “quietly and submissively” may reflect their witness within society (these were characteristics normally expected of women). But ancient culture expected all beginning students (unlike advanced students) to learn silently; for that matter, the same word for “silence” here is applied to all Christians in the context (2:2). Paul specifically addresses this matter to women for the same reason he addresses the admonition to stop disputing to the men (2:8): they are the groups involved in the Ephesian churches. Again it appears that Paul’s long-range plan is to liberate, not subordinate, women’s ministry. The issue is not gender, but learning God’s Word.

            What particularly causes many fine scholars to question this otherwise logical case is Paul’s following argument, where he bases his case on the roles of Adam and Eve (1 Tim. 2:13-14). Paul’s argument from the creation order here, however, is one of the very arguments he earlier used to contend that women should wear head coverings (1 Cor 11:7-9). In other words, Paul sometimes cited Scripture to make an ad hoc case for particular circumstances that he would not apply to all circumstances. His argument from Eve’s deception is even more likely to fit this category. If Eve’s deception prohibits all women from teaching, Paul would be claiming that all women, like Eve, are more easily deceived than all men. If, however, the deception does not apply to all women, neither does his prohibition of their teaching. Paul probably uses Eve to illustrate the situation of the unlearned women he addresses in Ephesus; but he elsewhere uses Eve for anyone who is deceived, not just women (2 Cor. 11:3).[27]

            Because we do not believe that Paul would have contradicted himself, Paul’s approval of women’s ministry in God’s word elsewhere confirms that 1 Timothy 2:9-15 cannot prohibit women’s ministry in all situations, but addresses a particular situation.

            Some have protested that women should not hold authority over men because men are the “head” of women. Aside from the many debates about the meaning of the Greek term “head” (for instance, some translate it as “source” instead of “authority over”),[28] Paul speaks only of the husband as head of his wife, not of the male gender as head of the female gender. Further, we Pentecostals and charismatics affirm that the minister’s authority is inherent in the minister’s calling and ministry of the Word, not the minister’s person. In this case, gender should be irrelevant as a consideration for ministry–for us as it was for Paul.

Conclusion

            Today we should affirm those whom God calls, whether male or female, and encourage them in faithfully learning God’s Word. We need to affirm all potential laborers, both men and women, for the abundant harvest fields.

[1]See e.g., V. Synan, The Holiness-Pentecostal Movement in the United States (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 188-89.

[2]See S. Grenz and D. Muir Kjesbo, Women in the Church (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1995), 42-62; N. Hardesty, Women Called to Witness (Nashville: Abingdon, 1984); G. Usry and C. Keener, Black Man’s Religion (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1996), 90-94, 98-109.

[3]L. Swidler, Women in Judaism (Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow, 1976), 97-111; C. Keener, Paul, Women & Wives (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1992), 83-84. The one exception apart from Jesus’ disciples is Beruriah (second-century), who confronted prejudice from most male rabbis.

[4]See G. Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (Oxford: Oxford, 1989), 202; J. Stambaugh and D. Balch, The New Testament in Its Social Environment (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 104; W. Liefeld, “The Wandering Preacher As a Social Figure in the Roman Empire” (Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1967), 240. Critics often maligned movements supported by women (E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus [New York: Penguin, 1993], 109).

[5]To “sit before” a teacher’s feet was to take the posture of a disciple (Acts 22:3; m. Ab. 1:4; ARN 6, 38 A; ARN 11, §28 B; b. Pes. 3b; p. Sanh. 10:1, §8). On women in Jesus’ ministry, see especially B. Witherington, III, Women in the Ministry of Jesus, SNTSM 51 (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1984).

[6]Jesus’ contemporaries generally held little esteem for the testimony of women (Jos. Ant. 4.219; m. Yeb. 15:1, 8-10; 16:7; Ket. 1:6-9; tos. Yeb. 14:10; Sifra VDDeho. pq. 7.45.1.1; cf. Lk 24:11); in Roman law see similarly J. Gardner, Women in Roman Law & Society [Bloomington: Indiana University, 1986], 165).

[7]Although inscriptions demonstrate that women filled a prominent role in some synagogues (see B. Brooten, Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue: Inscriptional Evidence and Background Issues [Chico, CA: Scholars, 1982]), they also reveal that this practice was the exception rather than the norm.

[8]E.g., Philo Prob. 117; see further Safrai, “Education,” JPFC 955; R. Baer, Philo’s Use of the Categories Male and Female, AZLGHJ 3 (Leiden: Brill, 1970).

[9]See further Keener, Women, 237-40.

[10]Because Paul nowhere else appeals to commendations from “the apostles,” “notable apostles” remains the most natural way to construe this phrase (see e.g., A. Spencer, Beyond the Curse: Women Called to Ministry [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989], 102).

[11]See V. Abrahamsen, “The Rock Reliefs and the Cult of Diana at Philippi” (Th. D. dissertation, Harvard Divinity School, 1986).

[12]See, e.g., comments in C. Keener, “Man and Woman,” pp. 583-92 in Dictionary of Paul and his Letters (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993), 584-85.

[13]Jewish people were among the cultures that required married women to cover their hair (e.g., m. B.K. 8:6; ARN 3, 17A; Sifre Num. 11.2.2; 3 Macc 4:6). Elsewhere in the East, cf. e.g., R. MacMullen, “Women in Public in the Roman Empire,” Historia 29 (1980): 209-10.

[14]Sometimes men (Plut. R.Q. 14, Mor. 267A; Char. Chaer. 3.3.14) and women (Plut. R.Q. 26, Mor. 270D; Char. Chaer. 1.11.2; 8.1.7; ARN 1A) covered their heads for mourning. Similarly, both men (m. Sot. 9:15; Epict. Disc. 1.11.27) and women (ARN 9, §25B) covered their heads for shame. Roman women normally covered their heads for worship (e.g., Varro 5.29.130; Plut. R.Q. 10, Mor. 266C), in contrast to Greek women who uncovered their heads (SIG 3d ed., 3.999). But in contrast to the custom Paul addresses, none of these specific practices differentiates men from women.

[15]Hair was the primary object of male desire (Apul. Metam. 2.8-9; Char. Chaer. 1.13.11; 1.14.1; ARN 14, §35B; Sifre Num. 11.2.1; p. Sanh. 6:4, §1). This was why many peoples required married women to cover their hair, but allowed unmarried girls to go uncovered (e.g., Charillus 2 in Plut. Sayings of Spartans, Mor. 232C; Philo Spec. Leg. 3.56).

[16]E.g., m. Ket. 7:6; b. Sot. 9a; R. Meir in Num. Rab. 9:12. For a similar custom and reasoning today in traditional Islamic societies, see C. Delaney, “Seeds of Honor, Fields of Shame,” pp. 35-48 in Honor and Shame and the Unity of the Mediterranean, ed. D. Gilmore, AAA 22 (Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association, 1987), 42, 67; cf. D. Eickelman, The Middle East: An Anthropological Approach, 2d ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1989), 165.

[17]On Paul’s various arguments here, see more fully Keener, Women, 31-46; or more briefly, in “Man and Woman,” 585-86. For a similar background for 1 Tim 2:9-10, see D. Scholer, “Women’s Adornment: Some Historical and Hermeneutical Observations on the New Testament Passages,” Daughters of Sarah 6 (1980) 3-6; Keener, Women, 103-7.

[18]G. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 699-705. Fee may be right that the entire western tradition displaces this passage, but this might happen easily enough with a digression (common enough in ancient writing), and even in these texts the passage is moved, not missing.

[19]E.g., K. Giles, Created Woman: A Fresh Study of the Biblical Teaching (Canberra: Acorn, 1985), 56.

[20]See e.g., Plut. On Lectures 4, 11, 13, 18, Mor. 39CD, 43BC, 45D, 48AB; compare tos. Sanh. 7:10.

[21]One of the most progressive alternatives was Plut. Advice to Bride and Groom48, Mor. 145BC, who nevertheless ended up accusing women of folly if left to themselves (48, Mor. 145DE).

[22]For more detailed documentation, see Keener, Women, 70-100; similarly, B. Witherington, III, Women in the Earliest Churches, SNTSM 59 (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1988), 90-104.

[23]See further discussion in Keener, Women, pp. 108-9.

[24]For recent and noteworthy arguments in favor of “exercise authority,” see the articles by Baldwin, Köstenberger, and Schreiner in Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995).

[25]The Greek expression for the women’s activities here probably refers to spreading false teaching; see G. Fee, 1&2 Timothy, Titus, NIBC (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1988), 122.

[26]Given Roman society’s perception of Christians as a subversive cult, false teaching that undermined Paul’s strategies for the church’s public witness (see Keener, Women, 139-56) could not be permitted (cf. 1 Tim. 3:2, 7, 10, 5:7, 10, 14, 6:1; Tit. 1:6, 2:1-5, 8, 10; cf. A. Padgett, “The Pauline Rationale for Submission: Biblical Feminism and the hina Clauses of Titus 2:1-10,” EQ 59 (1987) 52; D. Verner, The Household of God: The Social World of the Pastoral Epistles, SBLDS 71 [Chico, CA: Scholars, 1983]).

[27]1 Tim 2:15 may also qualify the preceding verses; see Keener, Women, pp. 118-20.

[28]Catherine Clark Kroeger and others believe it implies “source,” Wayne Grudem and others that it implies “authority over.” With Gordon Fee, I suspect that ancient literature allows both views, but that Paul uses an image relevant in his day (see further Keener, Women, 32-36, 168).

Some value teaching but disregard prophecy (but 1 Thess 5:20!); some exalt tongues but resent teaching; and so forth. We need to appreciate all the gifts. By definition, gifts given by God’s grace are good. We just need to make sure that we use them in the right ways!

Purpose of gifts: Build up Christ’s body (1 Cor 12)

We should therefore keep in mind the purpose of gifts: to build up Christ’s body. God gives us gifts especially to minister to others. If we use them to boast of our superiority we abuse them. We dare not despise others’ gifts, no matter how small they seem. Nor dare we minimize the value of our own gifts.

In explaining this point, Paul waxes eloquent. Many Corinthian Christians unimpressed with Paul’s rhetoric, so he uses here the rhetorical technique called anaphora: three times he repeats but varies the same sort of expression: “varieties of … but the same” (12:4-6). Then he offers his thesis in 12:7: “But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good” (NASB). Then he again uses rhetorical repetition, linking diverse gifts with the phrase, “to another …” (12:8-10, varying the Greek terms for “another”). In 12:11, he returns to “the same Spirit,” as in 12:4, bracketing the entire section.

Then he elaborates on the point that the body works as one yet has many members (12:12, 14, 20, 27). He dwells on this point at length; dwelling-on-a-point was an approach that orators used when they wanted to reinforce a matter. Paul takes his body metaphor to grotesquely graphic lengths: we don’t want our eye or foot declaring independence from body! Today we might even think of tissues that become harmful to the rest of the body, as in the case of cancers or gangrene (cf. 2 Tim 2:17). God forbid that any of us should become gangrene to the rest of the body of Christ! We should use our gifts to serve the rest of the body, and also recognize that we ourselves need the rest of the body and its gifts.

We don’t routinely amputate members of our body because we think some less important than the others. We don’t tear out some members because we think, “That one’s dispensable! Oh, here, I’ve got two eyeballs, let me get rid of one!” We don’t normally regard any of our members as dispensable, because all of them have functions that contribute to the whole. Indeed, Paul says, we work harder to protect weaker members and to clothe the less public members (12:22-26).

Paul goes on to note gift-roles in 12:28-30. Of these, he ranks only the first three: apostles, prophets, and teachers. (Those of us who are teachers can let out a big cheer now!) The others are unranked, although Paul probably lists tongues last because of its abuse in Corinth (1 Cor 14).

The way of love (1 Cor 13)

1 Corinthians 12 and 1 Corinthians 14 are about spiritual gifts, and it’s no coincidence that 1 Corinthians 13 lies right between them. (Those of you who are good with math may have already noticed this pattern.) 1 Corinthians 13 is no mere abstract treatise on love, despite Paul’s use of epideictic rhetoric here to praise the character of love. 1 Corinthians 13 is showing why love is central in the proper use of spiritual gifts.

We should note the verses that frame Paul’s elaboration about love: 1 Cor 12:31 and 1 Cor 14:1. These verses are explicit that we can seek for spiritual gifts; it is not simply a matter of what we are born or born again recognizing, but we can pray for God to give us particular gifts (1 Cor 12:31; 1 Cor 14:1, 39). (God is, of course, sovereign in which ones he gives us, knowing what is best for the body as a whole; 12:7.) But Paul is also clear which gifts we should particularly seek. Love seeks the best gifts—best being defined by love as those gifts that build up the body.

Paul demonstrates that, without love, use of gifts is worthless. Gifts are valuable but we abuse them if we do not deploy them to serve and love. In 1 Cor 13:1-3, Paul declares that love greater than all God’s gifts to us; in modern terms, love rather than unmerited gifts is a sign of “spirituality.” (Even if love, too, is a fruit of God working within us; Gal 5:22; 1 John 4:19.)

Paul uses hyperbole, or rhetorical overstatement, here, to reinforce his point graphically. Even if I spoke in all tongues, communicating in all languages, I would be nothing without love! (Most Anglo Americans speak just one language. Most of my African friends speak three or four. But even if we spoke all languages …) Having all knowledge—a status that not even the world’s greatest scholars dare claim—and all faith so as to move mountains (a hyperbole borrowed from Jesus), would not grant us status before God. Even if we work hard to develop these gifts, these skills are gifts, not merits, and they are worthless without love.

The point, of course, is not that God’s gifts are bad. God’s gifts are by definition good. But if we use them only to honor ourselves and not to build up Christ’s body, if we deploy them selfishly rather than to serve lovingly, we miss the point for which God gave us the gifts. He gives us gifts so we can participate together as Christ’s body in building one another up, in being agents of God for one another.

In 1 Cor 13:4-7, Paul describes what love is like. Sometimes we think that Paul is merely praising love. He is praising love, but he is also implicitly reproving the Corinthians. Love is not jealous (zêloi; 13:4)—but the Corinthians are (3:3). Love is not arrogant (phusioô; 13:4)—but the Corinthians are (4:6, 18-19; 5:2). Love does not seek for oneself (ou zêtei ta heautês; 13:5); in 10:24 Paul exhorts the Corinthians to seek not for oneself but for others (i.e., not one’s rights but preventing others from stumbling).

Paul again waxes eloquent with rhetorical patterning in 13:7: four times he begins with panta (“all things”). Love, he declares, puts up with all things (13:7a). This evokes Paul’s earlier example of himself in 9:12: he puts up with all things (using the same term, stegô) to prevent others from stumbling.

(Continued in part 2)

Like the Spirit’s fruit, the gifts of the Spirit are also the Spirit’s work within us. These gifts empower us as individual members of Christ’s body to share with other members of Christ’s body. But because these gifts are for building up Christ’s body, and express our functions as members of his body, they, like the Spirit’s fruit, help us reflect the image of Christ. When we function together as Christ’s body, as his body we together reveal his image. Like the seed, the body members share the spiritual DNA of the one whose body we are. Whereas fruit reveals God’s character in each of us, gifts reveal Christ’s character in us especially corporately.

The fruit of the Spirit shows what God can do in us, and the gifts of the Spirit show what God can do through us. In both cases, it’s God’s work and he should get the glory (or again, in modern Western language, the credit).

If one had to choose, the fruit would be more important than the gifts, because in Galatians 5:22-23 (the passage that specifically articulates the fruit of the Spirit), the key and ultimate fruit is love (cf. the context of 5:14). In 1 Corinthians 13, Paul reminds us that the gifts (ministries to one another) without love are worthless (13:1-3), and that the gifts are partial and will be supplanted or fulfilled by what is complete when Christ returns. By contrast, love endures forever (13:8-13). We need gifts right now to build one another up, but when Christ returns we will no longer have this need.

Rating fruit above gifts does not diminish the present importance of the latter. The purpose of the gifts is to build up Christ’s body. Thus they offer a concrete way to express Christ’s love to one another. What can we offer to others more than Christ’s own work through us? We often think of gifts in a corrective context especially because we are thinking of Corinth, where Christians were abusing some gifts. Yet Paul lists gifts also in Romans 12:6-8 and (in a different sense) Ephesians 4:11 (cf. also 1 Peter 4:10-11), just in terms of mutual edification.

The two verses that frame 1 Corinthians 13 remind us how gifts are valuable when used in love: we should pursue the gifts that most build up the body (1 Cor 12:31; 14:1). Thus we do not say, “I value love, so I don’t need spiritual gifts.” Rather, we say, “I can serve others in love by pursuing the gifts that will build them up, and by sharing the gifts Christ has given me.”

Prophecy as positive confession?

Some may insist on prophesying only positively as a vestige of an emphasis on positive confession (a more distinctive emphasis in some earlier charismatic circles). When the New Testament speaks of “confessing” something other than sin, however (Mark 1:5; James 5:16; 1 John 1:9), it usually refers to Christ’s followers confessing Christ (e.g., Matt 10:32; Rom 10:9-10; Phil 2:11; 1 John 2:23; 4:2-3, 15; 2 John 7; Rev 3:5). The one exception familiar to me is a more specific confession of faith in Heb 11:13: some heroes of the faith confessed that they were outsiders to this world, because they awaited the promised New Jerusalem to come (11:16). If we examine biblical proverbs about the tongue together as a whole rather than speculating about some verses in isolation, it is clear that Proverbs also speaks not about “confessing” something to make it happen but about how we speak affects others and our relationships with them.

Of course we should speak and live like those who believe what God has spoken! And of course we should pray in faith in God’s grace and power—why waste words praying if we’re not trusting God to hear us? But that’s not the same as confessing something as an intended act of faith that God will do it and calling that prophecy. “Who speaks and it comes to pass, if the Lord has not commanded it?” (Lam 3:37). That limitation is surely implicit even in Mark 11:23 (“whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be removed and hurled into the sea,’ … it will happen for them”). If you don’t believe me, go test it empirically on some mountain and see what happens, especially if there’s not been any seismic activity there recently.

Faith is only as good as its object. God is absolutely trustworthy. His voice is absolutely trustworthy. Our hearing … well, most of us do need to mature in that. Our fallibility limits both our prophesying and our teaching. “For we know only partially and we prophesy only partially” (1 Cor 13:9).

When the Bible talks about humility, that principle should invite attention to being epistemically humble too. I was quite impressed with my knowledge in my 20s. I know far more in my 50s, but also am far more aware of how much I have yet to learn. Hopefully by my 200s, I will know fully as I am known; what I know now is very limited compared to that future knowledge.

Recognizing true prophecy

There are some who are specially gifted in hearing God’s voice, have cultivated that gift, and walk humbly before God. Mesfin, a brother from Ethiopia, did not know that I was a writer. Yet he prophesied to me about two big books that I would write, the second larger than the first. Since I was already working on my Acts commentary (which turned out to be 4500 pages) and could not imagine writing a book larger than that, I was confident that he was at least partly mistaken. Only later did I discover that my miracles book (merely 1100 pages) would be completed and published before the Acts commentary. Similarly, three people in Congo who did not know each other independently prophesied to Médine Moussounga, who later became my wife, that she would marry a white man with a big ministry. I am glad to be married to her, but my whiteness was not something that I arranged.

Conversely, on some major personal decisions (such as whom to marry), it is not always easy for us to hear God clearly. Sometimes, in fact, our personal biases can get in the way (e.g., as in whom to marry—did I mention that?) It helps when wisdom and whatever ways we have learned to hear the Lord line up. But the issue of personal guidance better belongs to a different post, so I mention it here just to reinforce what most of us already know: God is infallible, but God is not who we are.

True prophecy must be consistent with Spirit-inspired Scripture and led by the same Spirit who inspired Scripture. The biblical gift does not always tell people what they want to hear. If we’re just learning to hear God’s voice, if we don’t have mentors like Samuel or Elisha (who supervised some younger prophets in the OT), and if we don’t have the safety net of other first-generation hearers of God for peer review (as in 1 Cor 14:29), some messages remain fairly safe.

If it’s truly biblical, it’s good. (If you feel like God is telling someone that he loves them, there’s no risk of getting that one wrong.) If it’s an appropriately encouraging word spoken in a timely way, it’s good (Prov 15:23; 25:11). If it exalts Jesus and builds people up in faith in him, it’s good. If it draws people to Christ, it’s good. But of course, such words can be Spirit-led without even calling them prophecy, or without us always even being conscious that the Spirit’s fruit moves us to such words.

But for beginners in hearing God’s voice, such basic discernment is a great place to start, allowing us to “test” our own words (cf. 1 Cor 14:29). And for brothers and sisters striving to serve the Lord, most such words will indeed encourage and strengthen them. May we have encouraging words all the more!

Nevertheless, a rule that limits all prophecy, or even all exhortation, to what sounds encouraging runs the risk of missing larger divine warnings if judgment or suffering lies on the horizon (cf. Jer 28:6-9). This was a serious mistake of most prophets in Jeremiah’s day. “They have healed the wound of my people flippantly, declaring, ‘Peace! Peace!’—when there is no peace” (Jer 6:14; 8:11). Biblical prophets sometimes told people where their lost donkeys were. But we had better not lose sight of the bigger picture—because what lies on the horizon will impact many of us.

It also did not match all the prophecies I had given; for example, I had felt led to warn one Christian friend who was living unmarried with their partner that they knew better and that God was displeased. That is actually a very tame way of putting it. The message was more like, “Because you have esteemed the Lord lightly, you are lightly esteemed. Because you have dishonored the Lord, the Lord will dishonor you,” etc. I felt awful delivering that message to a friend, and I felt that I was not allowed even to stay for tea; I had to leave right after delivering the message. Had it been anything but that I felt the Lord leading me to do it, I would have talked it over with my friend in a friendlier way. (Soon after that they did quit living together—after the partner disappeared with some of my friend’s property.)

But some of the ideas about prophecy at this training school were formulated, I think, in understandable reaction against stories about a recent movement that abused prophecies and prophesied falsely and harmfully. In any case, one of the ideas was that you should never prophesy to individuals (despite how common that was in the Bible), and another was that prophecies should always be encouraging.

New Testament prophecy is for encouragement—always?

The administrator supported his position with 1 Cor 14:3, which declares that prophecy is for “strengthening, encouraging and comfort” (NIV), “edification and exhortation and consolation” (NASB), or “upbuilding and encouragement and consolation” (NRSV, a translation that didn’t yet exist back then). The second Greek term can include an appeal or (as in the NASB) exhortation as well as comfort, but the idea is generally positive. Paul probably did expect mostly positive prophecy for the Corinthian house church gatherings.

At the same time, the prophetic process could not have been entirely positive. Prophetically gifted persons were to collectively evaluate the prophecies (1 Cor 14:29), which would probably mean that not all prophecies would pass muster. Even when spoken in an encouraging way, such corrections may not have felt entirely positive to some of those whose prophecies were not confirmed by their peers. Often in 1 Corinthians, Paul himself corrects the church, and believes that his own (apostolic) authority is greater than that of the local church prophets (14:37-38). And ideally, prophecy included revealing people’s secret sins (1 Cor 14:24-25)—although one had certainly better be sure one has genuinely heard from the Lord before trying something like that. (Even if one is right about the sins, blurting them out is not always the most effective way to bring restoration; cf. Gal 6:1.)

A couple of the clearest samples of prophecy recorded in the New Testament are the letters to the seven churches in Revelation 2—3 (what “the Spirit says to the churches”) and Agabus’s prophecy to Paul in Acts 21:11. The prophecy in Acts 21:11 was that Paul was going to be bound in Jerusalem. This was not very encouraging news, but it was consistent with what the Spirit had been saying to Paul in other cities as well (20:23; cf. 21:4).

Two letters to churches in Revelation were quite comforting; both were to persecuted churches, although one was told that the Lord would deliver them from their trial, whereas the other (Smyrna, in Rev 2:10) was encouraged to be faithful to death. Meanwhile, the other five churches received varying degrees of reproofs, two or three of them rather severe. (As an aside, those who claim that prophecy should never claim, “Thus says the Lord,” also overlook these same most explicit passages of prophecy in the NT. But again, one had better be sure before one frames a message in those terms. The more we claim to speak for the Lord, the stricter our judgment if we are wrong; that is true even with the gift of teaching—James 3:1. Ouch.)

Guarding against immaturity

Some circles that insist that all prophecies must be positive may intend this limitation as a precaution against those who are immature in the gift harming people with harsh messages. If you’re going to make a mistake in a setting where prophecy can’t be quickly tested, it seems better for it to be harmless. To be truly harmless, though, it shouldn’t promise blessing to the wicked any more than God’s disfavor on the righteous (Prov 24:24; Isa 3:10-11). And Samuel was probably fairly immature in prophecy when, in his first experience of it as a boy, he was sent with a harsh message to the high priest who was raising him (1 Sam 3:11-14). Although Eli believed him (3:18), and I confess to envying Samuel’s clarity in hearing from God (3:19), I would not want to have been in Samuel’s sandals right then.

It is true that we should seek to encourage people with our words whenever possible—that is definitely a good rule of thumb for what is normal (cf. Prov 12:18; 15:1, 4; 25:15; Eph 4:29; Col 4:6). But if you’re going to be arrested in Jerusalem it might be helpful to know that in advance (Acts 21:11), and if your church’s lampstand is going to be removed if the church fails to repent of its lovelessness (Rev 2:5), it’s better to know that so we can respond. In fact, if we fail to warn people to turn from genuinely sinful ways, their blood is on our head (Ezek 3:18-20; 33:6-8; Acts 20:26-27).

Some people, however, may prophesy only positively as a way of expressing their faith. Is this biblical? I will address this question in part 2.