Women and Christian Ministry

What about these difficult verses?

1 Corinthians 14:34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

1 Corinthians 14 is about the exercise of spiritual gifts in the church meetings. Let's go back to verse 26: What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation.

brothers and sisters:

This is often translated 'brothers' or 'brethren', but the Greek is adelphos - from the same womb

 - i.e. siblings, so this clearly includes women.

… each of you has … There was freedom for participation by any member of the congregation:

We see  the same later in verse 39: Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy.

(See also 1 Corinthians 11:5 but every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered ... Whatever we think about the head covering, this clearly shows that Paul expected women to pray and prophesy in the meetings.)

1 Corinthians 14 continues: 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God. 29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32 The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people

you can all prophesy in turn: Again we see that all can participate so what can the next two verses possibly mean?

34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

'Remain silent' here literally means 'not speak at all', so it's very different from the verses we looked at in 1 Timothy 2, but this totally contradicts what Paul has just been saying!

 We don't have to look very far to find another use of the same Greek word because Paul has used it twice already in this same passage:

v.28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church …

v.30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop.

Both these are the same Greek word as v.34 (to stop speaking, remain silent etc.), but notice that, in both these cases, there is a clear condition under which the speaker should remain silent and an obvious reason why they should. In both cases it's about orderly worship as Paul says in verse 33: For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. He has a clear reasoned argument, and he appeals to our understanding.

Now we see right away the difference in v.34: there are no conditions given under which women should remain silent, and there is a total absence of reasoned argument! The only appeal is to the 'law'! Why this change of style? All of Paul's teaching to this point has invited us to think about what he is saying and use our judgement.

For example: 1 Corinthians 14:20 Brothers and sisters, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults. He asks us to think about the exercise of gifts and see that what he's saying makes sense.

Furthermore, when does Paul ever appeal to the law? This is the same apostle whose whole ministry and teaching has stressed that we are not under law but under grace! Paul often quotes the Old Testament in his teaching but always to illustrate his point or strengthen his argument by reference to the scripture not to impose some moral teaching. We have examples of this in the same letter and even in this same chapter:

1 Corinthians 9:8 Do I say this merely on human authority? Doesn’t the Law say the same thing? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it about oxen that God is concerned?

1 Corinthians 14:21 In the Law it is written: “With other tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.”

 In both these cases Paul uses the word 'Law' to mean the Old Testament Scriptures and quotes the verses he's referring to. More commonly, he uses the word 'Scriptures': Romans 4:3, 9:17, 10:11, 11:2, Galatians 3:8, 3:16, 4:30,

1 Timothy 5:18 and, again, never to impose the law but only to illustrate or emphasise his point.

In every case, Paul quotes the passage he is referring to! However, in 1 Corinthians 14.34, where is the quotation?

So, I'm convinced that verses 34 & 35 are not the apostle's teaching! I do agree that they are part of the original text. (Scholars have considered the idea that they were added later but concluded that they were part of Paul's letter.)

However, Paul quoted these verses in order to dismiss them as false teaching!

v.36: What? came the word of God out from you? or came it to you only? (King James Version).

This may seem controversial and a big step for many of us, but notice that I've argued entirely from the context and from Paul's own teaching and normal practice.

It's possible that these two verses (1 Corinthians 14:34,35) are an account of one of the questions that they had asked Paul about (1 Corinthians 7:1 Now for the matters you wrote about ...), or that these were ideas that he knew were circulating in the Corinthian church.

As I've said, this is a big step, so let me outline again my reasons for concluding that this was Paul's intention:

1) Verses 34 & 35 contradict what Paul has just been saying. (We could only deny that if we don't take his teaching in verse 26 seriously: What ... brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation.)

2) The change of style from reasoned argument to dogmatic assertion citing 'the law'.

3) The lack of any quotation from scripture in the context, contrary to Paul's normal practice.

(In fact, we can't find such a verse or any such teaching in the Old Testament).

4) Paul's questioning in verse 36: Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? This verse implies a disagreement! Obviously, there is a doctrine being spread among the Corinthians which is not in line with accepted practice, and verses 34 & 35 are clearly in opposition to his own teaching.

We can also think intelligently about verse 35: to ask her own husband at home might make some sense if he happens to be knowledgable and spiritual, but what if he isn't? It contradicts common sense; and the harsh words:

'it is disgraceful etc.' are hardly in keeping with Paul's teaching about love and respect in chapter 13. It seems likely that, if this is a quotation from 'the law', it's from some rabbinical law or rules that were prevalent in the synagogue.

Paul challenges the Corinthians in several ways::

1. v.36 Or did the word of God originate with you? The word of God originated with the 12 apostles and they approved of women exercising gifts (Acts 2:17,18). He tells the Corinthians that they are departing from a practice which has been associated with the gospel from the beginning.
    
2. Or are you the only people it has reached? This is what all the other churches are doing, so why are you the only ones teaching something different? (I suggest that v.33b: 'as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people' applies to the whole passage from v.26 not just to v.33.)
    
3. v.37 If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. Paul appeals to their own judgement and spiritual discernment to recognise his teaching in the rest of the chapter rather than the contradictory ideas in verse 34 & 35.
    
4. v.38 But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored. He underlines this last point with a strong rejection of any who continue to disagree.
    

No one could possibly believe that Paul himself would say that women should not speak in meetings unless they had not taken the rest of the letter seriously! It would have been obvious to the Corinthians that he was correcting a false teaching. I suspect that the misunderstanding of his teaching originated later when there was less freedom of the Spirit and church leaders interpreted Paul's letters in line with their own prejudices. Also, legalistic and literalistic churches never fully accepted Paul's emphasis on grace and liberty, or they would have seen that he would never appeal to 'the law' in such a way.