Vol. 7 No. 5 -- May 1996

In This Issue...

Return to Home
Turn to Bible Page
Turn to Seek The Old Paths
Turn to East End Church of Christ



The Constituent Parts Argument And Female Translators

Tom L. Bright
        In a recent issue of one of our well respected papers, there appeared an Associate Editorial entitled "The Constituent Element Argument and the Female Translator." The purpose of this article was to show that it was scriptural to use female translators in a public worship assembly with males present.
        The author is a personal friend of mine whom I have long respected. We have stood together in fighting the liberalism in northeast Oklahoma in the early 1980's. I have worked with him in three schools of Biblical Studies. Thus, this is not written with a vendetta against the author of the previously mentioned article. It is written simply because I do not agree with his conclusions.
        My friend argued from the concept of "All total situations the component parts of which are scriptural are total situations which are scriptural." To state it in simple terms, we quote him again, "...when you prove all the parts of a practice to be scriptural you have proved the whole practice to be scriptural." In the article, he gave examples of his line of argumentation. These included the ability to identify the scriptural authority for the plan of salvation, the Lord's church, the worship of the church, Bible classes, "located preachers," child care agencies, and church cooperation.
        This "component part argument" is used because there is no specific statement or example wherein a woman stood before a mixed (containing Christian men and women) worship assembly and with her lone voice, spoke in such a way that she imparted spiritual instruction. If such could be found, it would solve the question once and for all. But such is not the case.
        Please let it be understood, we do not disagree with the concept of the "component part argument." If used correctly, it is a valuable tool. However, it can be misused as we shall see.
        In this article, he presented five basic "component parts" to establish the authority for women translators. Let it be noted again, we do not disagree with the "component parts" argument. However, we do affirm the "component parts" in this instance do not warrant the conclusions reached.
        These five "component parts" are here listed for the reader's convenience. They are as follows:
        (1) The New Testament authorizes a female to assemble with the saints and to hear the Bible taught (Acts 20:7).
        (2) By the fact that the New Testament was originally written in Greek, a female is authorized to mentally receive and intellectually process the words of the Bible lesson and to translate it into other words (Acts 17:11; I Thess. 5:21).
        (3) The New Testament authorizes a female to speak and teach in an assembly containing men (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16).
        (4) The New Testament authorizes a female to speak alone. She may confess her faith in Christ or her sins to an audience containing men (James 5:16; I John 1:9; Rom. 10:9-10).
        (5) The New Testament authorizes a female to speak words to a man, which words are necessary for him to understand if he is to comprehend the way of the Lord more perfectly (Acts 18:26).
        Let us summarize these five component parts: (a) a woman may assemble and hear the Bible taught, (b) she is permitted to mentally receive and intellectually process the words of the lesson and translate it into other words, (c) she is authorized to speak and teach in a mixed assembly (Eph. 5 & Col. 3), (d) she may "speak alone," which is proved by her right to confess her faith or her sins in a mixed worship assembly, (e) she may speak words to help a man to understand the lesson if he is to comprehend the way of the Lord more perfectly.
        Now, based on these component parts, it is affirmed we have authorization for a woman to stand in a mixed worship assembly and translate from one language to another. Let us see if this is the case.
        The question is then posed, "Which one of these component parts is not authorized by the New Testament?" I suggest that these "component parts," as they are stated, are authorized. It is my contention, however, the above component parts do not "come together" to authorize the use of women translators.
        Let us now turn our attention to the individual component parts as presented by my good friend.
        With the first component part, we have no disagreement. The truth of it is obvious.

SECOND COMPONENT PART

        The second "component part" reads, "By the fact that the New Testament was originally written in Greek, a female is authorized to mentally receive and intellectually process the words of the Bible lesson and to translate it into other words (Acts 17:11; I Thess. 5:21)." I assume the words "...translate it into other words" in this sentence refers to translating it for herself, not orally in a mixed worship assembly. If the idea of oral translation in a mixed worship assembly is intended, this would be affirming the very thing that has not been proven. I do not think my friend would be guilty of that.
THIRD COMPONENT PART

        The third component part reads, "The New Testament authorizes a female to speak and teach in an assembly containing men (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16)." The first thing we ask is: "Are the words 'speak and teach,' as used in this component part argument, used in the same way Paul used them?" We suggest the word "speak" is being used in two different ways.
        Let us look at the two passages. In Ephesians 5:18-19, Paul wrote, "And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord." In Colossians 3:16 we read, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord." We have long affirmed these two passages are parallel. Thus, "...be filled with the Spirit" is parallel to "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom." Likewise, "speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs" is equal to "teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs."
        In these two passages, it is clear that "speaking," "teaching," and "admonishing" are authorized. Furthermore, based upon the phrases "speaking to yourselves" (Eph. 5:19) and "one another" (Col. 3:16), we clearly see the concept of reciprocity (mutual exchange, that is, the thing commanded is to done by each one to the others). Therefore, we conclude that component part number three is correct -- a female is authorized to speak and teach in an assembly containing men.
        But there is a problem with this conclusion. Unless the thing authorized is restricted or modified in some way, this deduction places the apostle Paul in a position in which he contradicts himself! In 1 Timothy 2:12, Paul wrote "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." Here a woman is forbidden to "teach" (Gk. didasko) a man. But in Colossians 3:16, he commands a woman to teach (didasko) in a specific circumstance in which reciprocity is to exist, which situation implies the presence of men -- thus Paul commanded a woman to teach men!
        Is this a contradiction? Of course not! In the Colossian passage, the teaching (didasko) is qualified and limited by inspiration. The Holy Spirit said the "teaching" (didasko) is to be done by "singing" psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. If it is not so limited, then we have inspiration contradicting inspiration -- and the Bible falls! However, all concerned have long advocated that the Bible is free of contradiction.
        Since the two passages are parallel, we see that "speaking to yourselves" is parallel to "teaching and admonishing one another." Now, since the "teaching and admonishing" (Col. 3:16) is qualified and limited by inspiration, so is "speaking" (Eph. 5:19).
        If this "component part," together with all the others, proves a women can scripturally translate in a mixed worship assembly, then it proves too much. The argument is, these two passages allow a woman to "speak." But the word "speak" as used in the component part is used in the sense of "talking" (non-singing). Did Paul authorize the woman to "speak" (non-singing)? I suggest that if we can make the "speaking" in these passages to mean "talking" (non-singing), then it also proves that a woman can sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs by simply talking (non-singing).
        A question is in order. For a woman to be scriptural, must she remain within the limitations of Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16? All will answer in the affirmative. Now, can we claim the authorization to speak (singing) with reciprocity allows a woman to speak (non-singing) without reciprocity?
        We have long used these two passages (Eph. 5:18-19 and Col. 3:16) to show the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship is unauthorized. We affirm that mechanical instruments of music are sinful, not because they are specifically prohibited by the two passages, but because they are not authorized by them. Our argument is that only singing (a capella) is authorized in the passages.
        Based on these two passages, can one "whistle" psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs in a worship assembly and be pleasing to God? I think all would answer in the negative. Why? Because "whistling" is not authorized.
        With the two passages as a basis, would it be scriptural to sing country western, hard rock, or acid rock in our worship to God? All concerned would immediately respond, "No, only psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs are authorized." Any song that is not a psalm, hymn, or a spiritual song is not authorized.
        Now, the argument is made that these two passages allow a female to speak as a translator in a worship assembly containing men. But inspiration says that when this "speaking and teaching" is done, there is to be a reciprocity and that it is to be done by singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Does this "speaking and teaching by song" authorize speaking in a manner other than singing? Is speaking and teaching by song, with reciprocity, the same as speaking (not singing) as a translator where there is NO RECIPROCITY?
        There is a vast difference between speaking to one another (reciprocity) in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs and speaking (non-singing) where there is no reciprocity. This is evident.
        In the same issue of the good paper in which the article we are considering appeared, there was another article entitled "Answering Questions About Women Translators." In this article, the author set forth answers to various arguments that have been or might be presented against the use of women translators in a mixed worship assembly. In response to the question, If she failed to speak what the missionary uttered, would there be any teaching? he answered, "Here the use of the word 'teach' in more than one sense results in what logicians call a verbal dispute, a dispute which obscures consideration of the real issue at hand because the disputants are employing a key term (in this case 'teach') in different senses." I suggest that we have the same thing here, "a verbal dispute."
        The word, as used in the article under consideration, was not used in the same sense as Paul used it in Ephesians 5:19. Can we take the word "speaking" (as used by Paul), and use it in the sense of "non-singing?" Can we use the word "speaking" in the sense of "non-reciprocity" when Paul definitely used it in that context?
        We were told in the article under consideration, "Before anyone can find a constituent element argument wrong, one must: 1) show that a necessary component part of the whole practice is wrong, or 2) a necessary component part has been omitted." I suggest we have shown that this third component part does not prove that which is affirmed.

THE FOURTH COMPONENT PART

        The fourth component part reads, "The New Testament authorizes a female to speak alone. She may confess her faith in Christ or her sins to an audience containing men (James 5:16; I John 1:9; Rom. 10:9-10)." The focus is on the thought of a female speaking alone in an audience containing men. This supposedly allows for the woman to do the speaking in the work of translation in a mixed worship assembly.
        Now, is it the case the authorization to "speak alone" in confession of faith in Christ or confession of sins (in an audience containing men) authorizes a woman to stand in a mixed worship assembly and translate the words of a preacher? Is this speaking restricted or unrestricted? None would dare argue it was unrestricted. It is restricted here, just as in Ephesians 5:19.
        By taking the same "constituent arguments," changing only a few words, we can prove that a woman can sing a solo in a mixed worship assembly.
        (1) The New Testament authorizes a female to assemble with the saints and to hear the Bible taught (Acts 20:7).
        (2) By the fact that the New Testament was originally written in Greek, a female is authorized to mentally receive and intellectually process the words of the Bible lesson and to translate it into other words (Acts 17:11; I Thess. 5:21).
        (3) The New Testament authorizes a female to speak (by singing) in an assembly containing men (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16).
        (4) The New Testament authorizes a female to speak alone. She may confess her faith in Christ or her sins to an audience containing men (James 5:16; I John 1:9; Rom. 10:9-10).
        (5) The New Testament authorizes a female to speak words to a man, which words are necessary for him to understand if he is to comprehend the way of the Lord more perfectly (Acts 18:26).
        Now, which of those "constituent arguments" is not authorized by the New Testament? When taken as stated, they are all authorized by the New Testament. But all would agree, these five component parts do not come together to authorize a woman singing a solo.
        Without doubt, you have already focused on the problem. One will say, "You have used the word 'speak' in two different ways." Indeed I have, but if it is legitimate for my friend to do it, it is reasonable for me to do the same. In my example, we have an example of "a verbal dispute." The word "speak" is used in two different ways.
        Since a woman can speak alone to a mixed worship assembly, would this authorize a woman to simply read, word for word, a manuscript prepared by a man? Let us suppose the author was standing next to the woman translator, but had lost his voice, could she read a manuscript he had prepared? Under the same conditions, could she translate a written manuscript?
        Friends, it is obvious that confessing one's faith in Christ or confessing one's sins in a mixed worship assembly is not the same as speaking as a translator in the same mixed assembly. Though she might "speak alone," this is far from "translating" a sermon or lesson (in which teaching is done).

THE FIFTH COMPONENT PART

        The fifth "component part" reads, "The New Testament authorizes a female to speak words to a man, which words are necessary for him to understand if he is to comprehend the way of the Lord more perfectly (Acts 18:26)." Let us look closely at this.
        The contention is that since Aquila and Priscilla took Apollos aside and expounded (to set forth, declare, explain) to him the way of the Lord more perfectly, this (along with the other component parts) authorizes a woman to translate (speak words to a man, which words are necessary for him to understand if he is to comprehend the way of the Lord more perfectly) in a mixed worship assembly.
        We ask, "Is it the case this (example of Aquila and Priscilla taking Apollos unto themselves and expounding unto him the way of the Lord more perfectly) authorizes a female translating (speak words to a man, which words are necessary for him to understand if he is to comprehend the way of the Lord more perfectly) in a mixed worship assembly?" Undoubtedly there is a vast difference between the two scenarios.
        There is another question raised by this argument. Is the instance of a private meeting the same as a public worship assembly? Are the actions allowed in a private meeting authorization for actions that may be performed in a public worship assembly? If so, then this proves that a woman can expound in a public worship assembly.
        Yet another question that must be considered is, "Does this incident authorize a female to speak words to men which are necessary for them to comprehend the way of the Lord more perfectly in a mixed worship assembly, as a translator?" Can we say this incident, 1) a private meeting in which three people were involved, 2) in which a woman was one of two who expounded the word of God to the third party in such a manner that he (third party) could better understand the word of God, AUTHORIZES 3) a woman to translate in a mixed worship assembly (a public meeting), 4) in which meeting she is not permitted to "expound" (as Priscilla did) as she speaks "words to a man which are necessary for him to comprehend the way of the Lord more perfectly?"
        It seems, therefore, if this passage is used as a "component part," connected with all of the other "component parts" to justify women translators in a mixed worship assembly, then an argument could be made for her to set forth, declare, explain, to explain by means of abstraction, to set forth point by point, to lay open the meaning of, to clear of obscurity, and as Webster says, "to expound a text of Scripture" by speaking in a mixed worship assembly.
        In his commentary on Acts, brother Boles stated that Aquila and Priscilla "taught Apollos the gospel." Did they teach Apollos? If so, then if Priscilla's speaking in a private meeting allows a woman to speak as a translator in a public worship assembly, it also allows her to expound (teach) as a translator.
        It is straining what Acts 18:26 teaches by taking what Aquila and Priscilla did in a private situation and use it as proof (component part) that a woman can translate in a mixed worship assembly. If she can be instrumental in setting forth point by point, declaring, explaining, to lay open the meaning of, in a gathering such as found in Acts 18:26, and if that same gathering is proof of a woman translating in a mixed worship assembly, they why can she not do all that the word "expound" means?
        Surely we will all agree the issue of "Women Translators" in a mixed worship assembly is one that needs to be studied. It needs open and frank discussion. However, as Christians, we should approach such a study with an attitude of nor trying to "win an argument," but seeking a "Thus said the Lord."
        Inflammatory language should not be brought into this discussion. We must deal with the issue in an open, honest, and forthright manner, not as children "fussing" over a favorite toy. Brethren, much is at stake here.
        May we all have in our hearts the same words Eli told Samuel to say, "Speak, Lord; for thy servant heareth" (1 Samuel 3:9).

Box 218511 Houston, TX 77218

Return to Table of Contents




Editorial...

Garland M. Robinson
        This issue of Seek The Old Paths is devoted to the continuing study of "women interpreters/translators."
        There is some discussion ongoing with regards to the words "interpreter" and "translator." Some contend that a woman can be used in a public role before a mixed worship assembly (where men are present) in the capacity as a "translator" but cannot be so used in the capacity as an "interpreter." The article on page ??? addresses itself to a study of these two words.
        It's interesting however, that no where in the Bible is an interpreter ever called or referred to as a translator. In the Bible, the only time the words "translate, translated or translation" are used has no connection to the concept of communication from one language to another. The word "translate" is used in speaking of Enoch being translated to heaven without seeing death and those who obey the Gospel being translated from the power of darkness into the kingdom of God's Son.
        The words "interpret, interpreter, interpretation" on the other hand, are used in connection with interpreting dreams and interpreting from one language to another.
        The front page article of this month's Seek The Old Paths examines an argument set forth by proponents of women interpreters known as the "Constitute Element Argument." This article explains exactly what this is. Let me join with brother Bright in saying that we do not object to this line of argumentation. But as is pointed out in the article under review, "Before anyone can find a constituent element argument wrong, one must: 1) show that a necessary component part of the whole practice is wrong, or 2) a necessary component part has been omitted." I submit that the five component parts set forth to prove Biblical authority for the use of women interpreters fails on both counts. 1) The five points listed authorize far more than the Bible authorizes. As they are listed and used together, I see absolutely no valid reason why we cannot have women preachers today. This obviously shows that one or more of the "component parts of the whole practice is wrong." And, 2) it also shows that at least one necessary component part has been omitted. One of the certain functions inherent in one serving as an interpreter/translator is that one is imparting (passing on, giving) spiritual instruction to the audience. This is true whether the interpreter be a man or woman. Where the spiritual instruction originates is immaterial. All authorized spiritual instruction originates from God, the author. Where then, is the component part that takes into consideration that a woman, using her voice when all others are silent, reads scripture or otherwise engages in didactic (spiritual instruction, teaching) discourse to the assembly of saints with men present? It's missing in the listing of these five! No component part, either alone or put together with other parts, can violate the Word of God on the public role of women in the church. This is the very thing forbidden in 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2.
        On another matter. We have received a couple of inquiries concerning brother Guy N. Woods' letter we printed in our January, 1996, issue. The question was, "Do you endorse the use of women being used to 'sign' for the deaf?" In the editorial of the January issue, I made no comment one way or the other in respect to the question of women being used to "sign" for the deaf in a mixed worship assembly. That was not the point or question at hand in printing brother Woods' letter. As I mentioned in that editorial, we were not running brother Woods' letter to prove he was on "our side." His letter was printed to simply "set the record straight" as far as what brother Woods believed on the subject of using women to audibly translate before a worship assembly with men present. He had been used as somewhat of an authority as endorsing women interpreters, so when his letter came to light we felt it only appropriate that it be made known exactly what he believed. That's all. I believe, as do many others, that the question of women "signing for the deaf" and women "using their voice to interpret" in a public worship assembly stands or falls together. It would seem only fair and consistent that they are the same. Whether she uses her voice or her hands and fingers makes no difference. She is in an authoritative role in this capacity in a mixed worship assembly. Such is forbidden in the scriptures.

Return to Table of Contents




Does First Corinthians Chapter Fourteen Address Today's Assemblies Of Saints?

Charles A. Pledge

This matter of interpreters resolves into an authority question. First, where is biblical authority for involving a woman in a role restricted to males in Scripture? Second, how may a woman address a mixed audience in any manner where God has restricted the participation to males without countermanding God's will?

        We do not believe the caption misrepresents the thrust of the teaching of many gospel preachers and others. Numerous are those who affirm that at least parts of the fourteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians do not apply today.
        These parts are usually identified, in addition to the miraculous gifts, to the part regulating the woman in the assembly. All else aside, this is the part of the chapter about which all the differences lay between those who use women interpreters and those who refuse to use women interpreters in the assembly of saints. In fact, this is the critical part of Scripture the advocates of women interpreters among men wish would go away.
        Many argue that this chapter cannot apply to our modern worship assemblies of the church because the woman is forbidden to utter a sound. Because the woman is commanded to sing, this chapter, they argue, is not applicable today.
        Most who use this argument will still use portions of the chapter in application to worship assemblies, especially verse 40 which says, "Let all things be done decently and in order."
        Does the Keep Silence statement of 1 Cor. 14:34-35 apply today as it did in the first century? Many are convinced, by good reasons, it does with equal force.
        The Corinthians had many spiritual problems, among which was the problem of leadership (1 Cor. 11:1-12). It would appear that some had a modern concept of leadership; that men and women had been created equal in that aspect of life. Paul introduces that subject and shows the proper place of both man and woman in leadership. It is a submissive role -- man to Christ and woman to man.
        In chapter fourteen, this problem is again raised. This time, the woman appears to be submissive in her role but she interferes with God's arrangement of authority in the worship assembly. In fact, it appears perhaps some men were also interfering with that arrangement.
        In the life and work of the church there are two kinds of teaching; the formal and the informal. In the informal teaching arrangement, two or more individuals study a matter by open discussion and do so without a Class-Teacher arrangement. In this type of study there is no human authority figure who is over the study or discussion. All participants discuss and share with one another in this study. It is a period of learning without a formal structure. No authority figure presides over the group save the Lord who is supposed to be over all of us.
        The formal study is very different. There is a teacher or speaker who directs and controls the study. It is the formal discourse. If it is a Bible class study, the purpose is to involve as many as possible in participation to further learning. The Bible class is not any part of the worship assembly.
        When this formal discourse (preaching/teaching) is in the worship assembly, God has forbidden the woman to utter not a sound in the sense of speaking. She may not whisper to her husband an explanation of what is said. She may not ask a question of the speaker. She may not read the Scripture for the speaker. She is commanded to utter not a sound of speech. This is the force of the word translated silence in verse 34. Paul said: "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." The word silence is from the Greek lalien meaning to utter not a sound; to not speak at all.
        The context must determine the application of the statement. In the same context, one who had the gift of languages was also commanded to keep silence (v.28). In this context, a prophet was also commanded to keep silence if another was speaking (v.30). (Peace is translated from the same word as silence.)
        Three categories of individuals are commanded to utter not a sound of speech: 1) one exercising the gift of language; 2) a prophet, and 3) women. This utter not a sound is in a specific context. The context is that of a male delivering a formal discourse in the worship assembly of the saints.
        The context does not preclude women singing as some argue. If it forbad a woman to sing, the prophet and one who spoke in languages were forbidden to sing. It does not preclude any person from doing what that person is authorized to do in other acts of worship. It only forbids from doing that which in this context is forbidden; to interrupt God's arrangement of authority.
        The one delivering a formal discourse is the authority figure. Space forbids the development of that concept in Scripture but all who have studied the structure of authority in Scripture generally agree so there is no need to develop this argument.
        This delivery of formal discourse in the worship assembly is strictly regulated by God in order to preserve decency and order in the worship. Paul concluded this idea in verse 40 when he said, "Let all things be done decently and in order." That is, let the authority structure ordained by God be unmolested. Let the language speakers and the prophets, and the women keep their silence and allow the speaker to continue without interruption.
        The problem that arises, so some say, is the fact God commanded interpretation to be done when a language was spoken that some could not understand (v.27). This must be viewed as a delegated authority role authorized by God. Implied in this context is that this role of interpretation was restricted to males. Why this conclusion?
        In spite of the command to interpret, the woman was commanded to utter not a sound of speech in this context of formal discourse. She was forbidden to even ask a submissive question. Why?
        This part of the worship is restricted strictly to male participation, and that in a decent and orderly fashion of submission to the authority of the moment, the one delivering the discourse. Someone must be in authority, and God has designated that one. It is a male.
        Because the interpreter is involved in the formal discussion, therefore the teaching in a delegated authority role, the woman is forbidden to be involved in this process even to the extent of asking a submissive question.
        If the woman may not utter a sound of speech in this context of action, but interpretation must accompany the speaking in different languages, we must conclude the woman may not speak a word in this action in the worship assembly.
        This is why those who wish women to be involved in authority roles in the worship service do not want 1 Corinthians chapter fourteen to be applicable today. Many, we think, probably accepted this view because it was easier to handle in debate than to face the difficult questions raised if we view this chapter as applicable to modern worship assemblies of the saints.
        This matter of interpreters resolves into an authority question. First, where is biblical authority for involving a woman in a role restricted to males in Scripture? Second, how may a woman address a mixed audience in any manner where God has restricted the participation to males without countermanding God's will?
        If those who disagree with us in the use of women interpreters in the worship assembly will discuss this chapter fully, they must answer the two questions involving authority.
        Let us look at a simple syllogism involving the instruction of this chapter.
        1. All those who are forbidden to speak authoritatively during the worship assembly are those who are forbidden to interpret to others the formal discourse of others (v.28).
        2. Women are those who are forbidden to speak authoritatively during the worship assembly (v.34).
        3. Therefore women are those who are forbidden to interpret to others the formal discourse of others.
        Many who use women interpreters argue that the assembly of chapter fourteen was not identical to ours today because of the presence of miraculous gifts in the assembly. If that be the case, we would have to go beyond the New Testament to find an identical assembly because miraculous gifts were present in all the churches in the New Testament that we know anything about. If this be the case, then we are left without a standard for worship, other than our conscience and intellect, when we accept their argument against this chapter's applicability.
        Let anyone who uses the Constituent Element Argument, use it properly so as to actually prove what they contend for without proving too much. To date, the missing component of this argument used by them is: where may a woman address a mixed audience in the formal discourse context of a worship assembly? Singing, confessing faith, or confessing sins apart from that context does not prove she may be involved in the context of a formal discourse in the worship assembly. If it does, it also proves she may preach to men.
        The necessary conclusion to the use of the Constituent Element Argument that appeared in the February, 1996 issue of Contending For The Faith was that women preachers are authorized. Of course there is nothing wrong with using the Constituent Element Argument as evidence or proof in an argument. But any argument, to be both true and valid, must be used correctly with true premises. The brother left out a necessary component in his use of the argument and consequently proved too much. His components used were too general and proved far more than he would agree is authorized by Scripture.
        An impartial investigation of 1 Corinthians 14 indicates that, apart from the miraculous, the same principles apply equally to our modern worship assemblies as to the first century assemblies of the saints.

7 West Colorado, Sheridan, WY 82801- 5135

Return to Table of Contents




Women Translators

Roger D. Campbell
        In September, 1995, brother David Lemmons led a group of preachers in Jonesboro, Arkansas, in discussing the use of women as translators. Before leading that discussion, brother Lemmons wrote to me and asked me to give him my thoughts about using woman as translators so that he might share them with the brethren who would be present at the meeting. He indicated that he had quite a bit of Bible material concerning that topic, but thought it might be good to hear from one who speaks two languages other than English and has often worked as and with a translator. In response to David's request, I E-mailed him the following comments.
        What is it like to work with a translator? It is certainly "different" from the way that most preachers are used to teaching or preaching. Having worked with translators and having served as a translator (with the English, Chinese, and Russian languages), I have been able to gain first-hand experience in the process of translating.
        I am by no means a language or Bible expert, but I can be a witness for what happens when lessons are translated. My experience in working with translators includes: 1) Translating oral lessons from English to Chinese, 2) Translating oral lessons from Chinese to English, 3) Translating my own oral lessons from English to Chinese or vice versa, 4) Preaching oral sermons that were translated into a language that I did not know, 5) Preaching oral sermons that were translated into a language that I did know, 6) Listening to hundreds of sermons translated when I knew both languages and, 7) Translating private studies from English to Russian and vice versa.

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON TRANSLATORS:

        1. A translator is not an expedient, but a necessity. If the speaker does not know the language of the listeners, then it is essential to have the message translated: "But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church...let all things be done decently and in order" (1 Cor. 14:28,40).
        2. If the speaker does not know both languages (i.e. if he does not understand the language into which his lesson is being translated), then he is unable to know if his translator "does a good job" or not. Many have praised their translators, calling them "good," but really they have no idea how effective their translation was. That is why it is essential to have someone translate in whom you have total confidence in both their language skills, honesty, and to some extent, their knowledge of the Bible. Someone might translate in a very rapid fashion, giving the impression of being effective, but if the translation is not accurate, he would not be a "good" translator. I guess what I am saying by all this is we need to be more careful in labeling folks as "good translators."
        3. In the same context, I have heard it said by Americans who speak no Russian at all, that they are going to train translators. If they mean pay for them to take language classes to sharpen their language skill, fine. But if they mean that they themselves, not knowing the foreign language, will train them to translate, it is not possible.
        4. When speaking of women translators, let us state the issue clearly. It is not just the general question, "Is it alright for women to translate," that needs to be addressed. I don't know of anyone who would object to women translating when only women were present. In our work in the Ukraine we use sisters as translators when a women teaches a group of women. No, the actual question is, "Is it in harmony with the Scriptures for women to translate in a public assembly when men are present?" (I use the word "men" instead of "males" in order to point out that we are not talking about translating when small boys or male babies are present). My personal study of the New Testament, coupled with what I have done and seen in hundreds of translated lessons, has led me to the conclusion that no, it is not in harmony with the Scriptures for a women to translate in the capacity that I noted above. I believe that she would be in violation of what the Holy Spirit teaches in 1 Timothy 2:11,12 and 1 Corinthians 14.
        5. I commend the following materials for your consideration on this subject:
        Articles by Wayne Jackson in past issues of Christian Courier; Tract written by Holger Neubauer and Kerry Duke (P.O. Box 865, Cookeville, TN 38503); Article by Joe Ruiz (In Hammer and Tongs, May-June 1994); 2 Articles by Alan Adams (In Banner of Truth, July-August 1994, November 1994).

SUNDRY POINTS TO CONSIDER ABOUT WHAT A TRANSLATOR DOES IN THE PROCESS OF COMMUNICATION:

        1. Often makes announcements: The speaker says, "Tell them about our activities tomorrow" and then the translator announces things in their own words.
        2. Reads the Bible to the assembled group. Often an English speaker who has a 45 minute lesson will not quote any verses is English (What is the point to read or quote in English if no one will understand and it takes up 15 of the 45 minutes?). Instead, he will tell his translator to read them. So, in the case of a female translator, what do you have? A woman leading the assembly by reading the Scriptures.
        3. Corrects the speaker's unintentional mistakes, and the speaker never knows it. Example: The speaker unintentionally says that on the day of Pentecost 5,000 were baptized. The translator catches the mistake and correctly says 3,000. What has the translator done? Taught what the Bible says. Example: Speaker intends to say Acts 20:7 records that the disciples came together to break bread on the first day of the week. However, he says that Acts 7:20 records it. The translator notices the mistake and correctly says in the foreign language Acts 20:7. The translator thus serves as a teacher along with the speaker.
        4. Sometimes explains the message. This is sometimes absolutely necessary. Example: Suppose you go to Taiwan and preach on the church. You emphasize that the word "church" is singular in Matthew 16:18, saying that Jesus promised to build only one church. However, in the Chinese language, the word for "church" and "churches" is one and the same (no distinction in plural and singular). Question: what does the translator do? In all cases that I can remember he has said what the American said about the singular, and then the translator explains to the audience that the speaker is making an argument based on the Greek or English text. Example 2: Same situation when American speaker emphasizes that the word "elders" is in the plural in Acts 14:23 and 20:17. In Chinese, the word is not in the plural. What does the translator do? He explains what the speaker is saying, and usually the speaker does not have any idea what the translator said.
        5. The translator, in part, controls the assembly (how the message is received) by tone of voice, gestures, volume of speech, speech patterns, facial expressions, and perhaps other things.
        6. In many cases, how the translator goes, so goes the tone for the entire sermon or assembly. Is that the kind of position that we want women in?
        7. Based upon the above factors and the entire situation in the translation process, it is my conclusion that a translator is definitely in a position of authority and is serving as a teacher when he/she translates. Thus, I believe for women to serve as translators when men are present does put her in violation of 1 Timothy 2:11,12 and 1 Corinthians 14.

CLOSING CONSIDERATIONS:

        1. It has been said by some who advocate the use of women translators that it would be better to use a man if one is available. Why? If the women are authorized to do it and are just as qualified or even more capable, why say it is better to use a man? Example: both men and women are authorized and capable of teaching small children. Do we say, "It would be better to have a man do it?" No, because women usually do a better job, we have them teach the children.
        2. Some have argued in favor of using women translators based upon the necessity of having "someone" do it; and, if she doesn't, then there would be no one else. It is a fabulous goal to strive to teach the lost, but the end result does not justify an unscriptural means. Consider: a congregation exists but has no brother who is capable of preaching. However a sister in the church there is quite effective in public speaking. Do we have her preach because "someone" has to do it and people can't be saved without hearing? No, 1 Tim. 2:11,12 forbids it.
        3. Some have argued that a woman translator serves in the way that a microphone does. I don't think that is the case. If we say that she is simply repeating what she heard or what was said, and thus she is authorized to translate, suppose that instead of repeating to the audience what she heard from the American preacher, she simply stands up with an English Bible and translates what she heard/read from Paul or Jesus? Are we ready for her to do that? Or, suppose she just reads it out of the Bible in her own language? Or, why not just have the American write out the sermon, have her stand up and translate it? Are we ready for that? It does not appear to me that the "microphone" argument justifies what a woman translator does.
        4. Suppose the situation was reversed. Instead of women translators being used on foreign soil, suppose we bring them to our U.S. assemblies. Many great men have preached with women translators, but what if they did so, not "over there," but somewhere in the "Bible belt" in the U.S.? I am not sure these men would be "for" women translators if they translated before hundreds of sound brethren in the good ole USA.
        Let us all heed the words of the Lord Jesus, "search the scriptures" (John 5:39).

Missionary in the Ukraine

Return to Table of Contents




"Interpretation DOES NOT STOP
With The Translation Of A Word"

Ron Cosby

It is essential to have someone translate in whom you have total confidence in both their language skills, honesty, and to some extent, their knowledge of the Bible.

        In defense of women translators, a good friend spoke of the nuances between translation and interpretation, saying, "Technically, interpretation is a more general term; its definition encompasses more than the definition of the word translation....interpretation does not stop with the translation of a word or many words of the Hebrew and Greek scriptures or any other language [emp. mine, rc]." As you can see, the title of this article comes from his statement, and it puts us in a quandary, since its author uses the concept to justify the use of women translators in the worship assembly. According to our friend, interpretation is always equal to expounding a message, thus it always goes beyond translation. He gave us two passages to boaster his assertion: Luke 24:27 and Nehemiah 8:7-8. Armed with his definition, our writer concludes that the female can translate in the worship assembly but she cannot interpret.
        Though we do not deny the varying shades of meaning in some passages, our friend has overstated his case. It is incorrect to leave the impression that "interpretation does not stop with the translation of a word." Sometimes it does. If we can produce just one example where the word interpret is used with the connotation that our writer denies, his argumentation falls to the wayside. Following are a few examples where interpret carries just such a meaning.
        Lexicons define Emmanual as "God with us." Now note Matthew 1:23, replace interpreted with translated and the verse means the exact same thing. "They shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted [translated] is, God with us." Another example is John 9:7. Here again, replace interpretation with translation. "Wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation [translation], Sent.)." As you can see, at times, these two words have the same meaning.
        Actually, the English word translate and its various forms are found only three times in the KJV (2 Sam. 3:10; Col. 1:13; Heb. 11:5), and no form of the word is ever used in reference to languages in either the New or Old Testament. In the Bible, translators are always referred to as interpreters.
        Turning to the Old Testament, we see that, contrary to our friend's statement, interpretation does stop with the translation of a word or many words of other languages. In Genesis 42:23, Moses refers to Joseph's translator as an interpreter. "And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter ." Here is the sentence in the LXX: "autoi de ouk hdeisan oti akouei Iwshf o gar ermhneuth ana meson autwn hn." According to our friend's definition of interpreter, this should have said, "he spake unto them by a translator." With the addition of this verse to what we have already provided, both Testaments cast doubt on the single definition concept put forth by our writer.
        One more source: According to Josephus, Ptolemy authorized seventy-two Jewish elders to interpret the law. This commission to interpret produced the LXX translation, which was used by the Lord and called the word of God. Note how Josephus uses interpretation to only mean translation. "He then made haste to meet the elders that came from Jerusalem for the interpretation of the laws; and he gave command, that everybody who came on other occasions would be sent away, which was a thing surprising, and what he did not use to do." Here are the above italicized words in the Greek: "thn ermhneian twn nomwn" (Jos. Ant. 12,87). The seventy simply translated the Hebrew into Greek; they did not expound; yet, the word interpretation is used.
        Our good friend may respond and tell us that he was only speaking of the Greek word diermhneuw. However, it too, at times, is used in the more narrow sense of translate. Peter interpreted (translated) the Hebrew word Tabitha into the Greek word Dorcas (Acts 9:36). Here is the passage in full: "Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Dorcas: this woman was full of good works and almsdeeds which she did." One Hebrew word translated for one Greek word. Both Tabitha and Dorcas mean gazelle in the English (Thayer, #s 5000 and 1393).
        No doubt, interpret, at times, may carry the broader meaning (Luke 24:27), but not all the time (Acts 9:36). Since we have produced at least one verse that uses interpret in the narrow sense of translate, our friend's contention for female translators fails to be sustained by the definition argumentation.
        Paul uses interpret[er] five times in 1 Corinthians 14. Which definition does it carry? Does it have the broad meaning? Or, does it have a narrower connotation? We suggest that it has the more narrow definition of translate.
        The reason we say this is this: It makes no sense that the Holy Spirit would give the one speaking in tongues what to say and then inspire the interpreter to expound to other listeners what was said. This explaining would supply the second group more information than that given to the first hearers. However, both groups needed the same set of instructions. Instead, the one speaking in tongues would expound a message in the language the Holy Spirit had given him; the interpreter would simply translate. Else, one group was provided a greater learning opportunity solely on the grounds that they spoke in another language. In our view and within the meanings of the words, the interpreter of 1 Corinthians 14 simply translated what the first speaker said.
        With this understanding before us, we conclude that Paul forbid women the exercise of spiritual gifts in the worship assembly, including the gift of interpretation (translation) (1 Cor. 14:34). Now, if God forbid Spirit-gifted women from doing such, it only makes sense that He would not allow those with lesser ability to do what He forbid the former.

P.O. Box 519, Disney, OK 74340

Return to Table of Contents




The Component Parts Fallacy

Robin W. Haley
        Let me state at the outset that the use of a "component parts" or what is also called a "constituents" argument can be a valid form of argumentation if defined correctly. But there has recently been a so-called "component" or "constituent" argument put forth in an attempt to justify an unscriptural practice. Readers of this publication certainly are familiar with the question of unauthorized use of women to orally translate a sermon being preached by a man to an audience which includes men. This practice is at least partially "justified" on the basis of a "component parts" argument, but as I hope the chart which accompanies this brief article shows, their's is a faulty argument. Basicly, the error lies in the fact that the "constituent" or "component parts" argument made by those in favor of using women in a public leadership role is too broadly worded.
        You will please note from the chart that it is readily admitted that a woman has authority from the Lord to be in an assembly, listen to the lesson presented, speak in the assembly, speak alone in this assembly, speak to the mixed audience assembled there, and even take part in giving spiritual instruction. All of these actions are authorized. But we must take care how we "put these all together." If we build them in the wrong fashion, we will be producing a new, unauthorized practice, thus abusing what God has authorized. Those in favor of using women in this leadership role will conclude from the "components" listed above that she may thus speak...alone...a translated message to men. They have gone too far in that they have allowed a much too broad application of these components. The apostle Paul has clearly stated the limits within which a woman may speak...in an assembly...to men...with spiritual instruction. Clearly, the limitation is that such speaking must be either of her faith, her fault or her singing. None of these alleged "constituents" allow her to teach in a non-melodic fashion over men, regardless of any so-called "present, controlling male." There will be more of these charts to come. Please read and consider them.

COMPONENTS

THEN:

{PLEASE NOTE THAT IT IS ADMITTED THAT FEMALE TRANSLATORS IMPART SPIRITUAL INSTRUCTION!}

The REAL Question: HOW?
NONE OF THESE INVOLVES/INCLUDES DIDACTIC INSTRUCTION!

912 E. Teresa, Sapulpa, OK 74066

Return to Table of Contents




MAILBAG....

        "We appreciate the work that you do with S.T.O.P. We all enjoy it very much here at Wards Chapel. Keep up the good work. May God bless! ...James Cossey, Manchester, TN. "We enjoy S.T.O.P. and appreciate your stand for the truth and your efforts in writing and editing S.T.O.P." ...S. W. Barnett, Savannah, TN. "I study my Bible and read several of the best publications in the brotherhood: S.T.O.P., Contending For The Faith, Banner of Truth, Yokefellow and Plumbline. There has been so much written about women interpreters, including your editorial in the Feb/96 issue of S.T.O.P. I think I have the answer from God's Word (the only place to get a good answer for any problem). Those of you (whoever they may be) who plan lectureships, meetings or workshops who wish to use a speaker who does not speak English (or whatever language is spoken in the locale of the gathering), find a man who can interpret for him, or else if there is no man who can interpret, follow I Cor. 14:28 and don't let him speak. Paul very plainly says if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church. That's God's word, his decision in the matter, given by inspiration through the apostle Paul. Please pass this insight on to those who are still struggling over this" ...Betty Woodruff, Orlando, FL. "Remove my name from your mailing list, I do not care to receive any more of your literature. Why not spend your time, energy and money to preach the gospel to a lost and dying world. We've forgotten why we're saved, too much nit picking" ...Bertha Pridgen, Lecanto, FL. [Editor's note: Keeping the saved saved and calling the erring back to faithfulness in the Lord's church is just as much a part of preaching the gospel as evangelizing those who are not Christians. The major cause of the problems we have in the church today is because preachers and elderships have not fulfilled their duty in preaching the "whole counsel" of God to both the lost and the saved. It's impossible to "preach the gospel" and leave people alone. The gospel disturbs people because their thinking and lifestyle is contrary to the righteousness of God. "Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest" (Matt. 9:38). May those who love the truth and preach it to everyone increase more and more.] "I appreciate the work you are doing" ...Wayne Jackson, Stockton, CA. "Please, please keep sending us S.T.O.P. as it is the best publication of its kind we receive. My wife and I eagerly look forward to reading it each month, it keeps us informed of some of the liberal trends in the brotherhood. The church in Australia needs this kind of publication. We sincerely appreciate the soundness and your stand for the truth, we are encouraged greatly to know there are many faithful brethren who are not afraid to speak out and refute error. Keep up the good work, and may God bless all who contribute to this. May you never stray from the stand you now take in Seeking the Old Paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. Thank you for sending S.T.O.P." ...Jim & Barbara Backhouse, Tasmania, Australia. "I certainly enjoy S.T.O.P. Thanks for being so kind as to send it to me. I share them with others and they enjoy it also" ...Mrs. Paul Kinslow, Cookeville, TN. "Due to the 911 my address has changed. I do not want to miss any of your papers. I do so enjoy reading a good and true Christian paper. Keep up the good work" ...Edner Burns, Florence, MS. "Please send me your monthly paper. I'm an elder at Mentor Church of Christ and am very concerned with the changes going on" ...Leroy Toothman, Painesville, OH. "I really enjoy your publication" ...Jan Cisco, Gallipolis, OH. "Your papers have strengthened my spiritual life by the knowledge I get from the scriptures you present. It will not help me if you delete my name from the mailing list. I know very well that it costs to mail your paper to receipients all over the world. It is a great sacrificial work to do it free of charge. But the truth is, you have helped many poor people unaware and I am not an exception. It is also true that receipients must support financially to keep your work moving, especially postage. I will like to help when me money matters improve. I am unemployed for nearly 10 years. Devaluation of Ghana currency is another headache. All the same, I know I must help and it will help others too. But if I do not get money for the postage, please do not cancel my name from the list. It cost to save life and that is just what you are doing. If you include my name in this year's programme, I will like it very much" ...Emmanuel P. K. Nodjo, Ghanna, West Africa. "I appreciate the good work you do. It is my sincere prayer that 1996 wil be a great year for you" ...DuWayne McNaughton, Weaver, AL. "Thank you so much for this wonderful publication. I look forward to receiving it each month with much anticipation" ...Donna Lawter, Douglasville, GA. "We enjoy your publication very much" ...John T. Lewis, Lone Grove, OK. "Keep up the good work with S.T.O.P. and all that you do" ...Freddie Clayton, Dunlap, TN. "I have enjoyed S.T.O.P. I would like for you to continue sending it to me. I will pass it on to others" ...Loyd Richerson, Odessa, TX. "Thank you for your Biblical stand for truth. We enjoy receiving S.T.O.P." ...Patricia Caldwell, Jackson, TN. "We enjoy reading S.T.O.P." ...Ronald Keever, Kennewick, WA. "Thank you for the fine work. We are behind you 100%" ...Martin Bedford, Tucson, AZ. "During my visit to the FHU lectures, I obtained a copy of S.T.O.P. I was impressed by the approach to some of the present day issues that trouble the church. I would like to be added to your mailing list. I look forward to the coming issues" ...Jim Hogan, Trenton, GA.


CORRECTION made below
        We wish to make a correction of a typing error that appeared on the front page of the April 1996 issue of Seek The Old Paths. In the first paragraph, on the 12th line, the word "not" was inadvertently left out that gives the opposite meaning of what was intended. The sentence should read, "In this study, we want to help our friends understand why we do 'NOT' use mechanical instruments of music in worship." Though the absence of the word "not" affects the meaning of this sentence, it is obvious that the content of the whole article was not affected. However, we wanted to acknowledge this error and correct it anyway.

Home | Table of Contents | Bible Page
Seek The Old Paths | East End Church of Christ
Lectureship Books

This page has been turned to lots of times since 8/12/96.


the end