what did the apostle paul mean by,let your women keep silence in the church? by by marshall...

8/7/2019 What Did the Apostle Paul Mean By,Let your women keep silence in the church? by By Marshall Rusty Entrekin

1/45


2/45

biblical writer. Sometimes, upon further study, even expert translators realize that theyhad initially missed indicators of meaning in a difficult passage.

For some time now, persuaded by a good friend who has written on this subject, I have

held to the position that women should not speak publicly in church. This position isbased on I Corinthians 14: 34-37:

34 34 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.

35 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for

it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

36 36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto youonly?

37 37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let himacknowledge that the things that I write unto you are thecommandments of the Lord.

In most modern churches, not only the women, but also most of the men have to besilent, so this passage does not attract as much controversy as it might. In churchessuch as ours that practice participatory meetings based on I Corinthians 14:26-40,however, it is of great relevance. Although I was intellectually persuaded that myfriends interpretation was probably right, I had nagging doubts about it.

This was because in I Corinthians 11, Paul does not speak disapprovingly of a womanprophesying in what most commentators take to be a church setting, as long as she hasa covering on her head. John Calvin offered a possible explanation for this in hisCommentary on 1 Corinthians 14:

It may be replied, that the Apostle, by here condemning the one, does notcommend the other. For when he reproves them for prophesying with their head

uncovered, he at the same time does not give them permission to prophesy in

some other way, but rather delays his condemnation of that vice to another

passage, namely in 1 Corinthians 14.

Still, it seemed odd to me that Paul would not express his disapproval of this practiceright away, if it was so objectionable to him, but would wait until chapter 14 to expresshis disapproval of it. It is possible that the apostle was referring to women prophesyingin contexts outside of the church meeting, but, as I already mentioned, mostcommentators do not see it that way, and because of reasons that I will explain later,this interpretation did not seem as likely to me, either.

Secondly, this passage is one of the most controversial in the New Testament, and Ihad heard arguments against this strict interpretation that, although they were not


3/45

conclusive, raised further doubts.

Lastly, although my wife and I were intellectually persuaded of this interpretation, I wasdismayed as she struggled with deep feelings of low self worth because of it. I would

remind her that she is of such worth that God gave His Son for her, and of the closerelationship that Jesus had with women such as Mary and Martha. Although thisinterpretation seemed to be having an oppressive effect on her, the last thingthat I oranyone else I knew who held to this position wanted was to be oppressive. They weresimply good, loving people who felt duty bound to obey what they thought the Biblecommanded, just as we did.

A Command Meant to be Obeyed

Our desire to be obedient to this passage was strengthened by the fact that Paulswords here are quite firm. He gives not one, but five reasons why this command shouldbe obeyed:

The first is "for it is not permitted unto them to speak. The perfect tense ofthe Greek verb translated "permitted" indicates that Paul was being quiteemphatic.

The second is "but they are commanded to be under obedience". Thisverb is also in the perfect tense, again signifying that Paul was being very

emphatic.

Pauls third reason reinforces the second, "as also saith the law." This isfollowed by a reply to a possible objection, "And if they will learn any thing,let them ask their husbands at home".

The fourth is "for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

And the fifth is because "the things that I write unto you are thecommandments of the Lord."

And so there is no doubt that Paul wanted this command for women to be silent to be


4/45

obeyed!

Butin order to obey it accurately, we must make certain that we understand it correctly!In this case, it is particularly important, especially if we are going to teach others how toobey it. This is because how we interpret it has a very important effect on halfof Godspeople! In our opening story, when Stan Laurel misunderstood a similar command, itmade for comedy. But if Gods people misunderstand Pauls command, the result is notso funny, when we consider the potentially vast impact of that error. Whatever view weadopt, we must not enter into it carelessly or lightheartedly.

Just as Stan mistook Ollies words, could my wife and I have misunderstood the ApostlePaul? Was Paul merely forbidding the women from speaking disruptively? As Ipondered this question, I knew that determining the answer to it would require time-consuming study, which would involve close examination of the relevant Greek words,the Greek grammar, and the context of the passage. With a struggling new businessand seven children to provide for, that was a luxury that was hard to justify, so I put it offfor a long time.

Recently however, even my fifteen and nine year old daughters began to question thisinterpretation. That was the final prod which motivated me to take the time to study andmeditate on this passage in depth.

Surely, when any scripture passage has a great and controversial impact on Godspeople, it can be beneficial to study the Greek words, the grammar, and the contextcarefully, to make certain that we understand it correctly. Otherwise, how can we becertain that we know the plain meaning of the passage?

What I learned from this study was very edifying to me! I hope that you will find it to beof benefit as well.

Various Interpretations of this Passage

We must not approach this passage (or any other scripture passage) with the motive oftrying to explain it away. Instead, we should study this passage, and any difficultpassage in scripture, with the honest desire to more fully understand it. If a fullerunderstanding honestly compels us to adopt an interpretation different from the one thatwe previously held, then that, on the other hand, is a good thing.

Some have claimed that verses 34 and 35, which are generally regarded as canonical,are an interpolation (addition) by a scribe. However, although these two verses areindeed placed at the end of the chapter in some ancient manuscripts, they arepresentin all of them. In light of such massive manuscript evidence, verses 34 and 35 seem torightfully belong in the inspired text. Furthermore, in the spring 1999 edition of theBiblical Theology Bulletin, D.W. Odell-Scott pointed out that in manuscripts where these


5/45

verses are placed at the end of the chapter, there is a resulting textual incoherence,because verse 36 is then left standing alone. Despite the attempts of some to make itdisappear, this difficult passage just wont go away!

Others say that Pauls command only had application to the Corinthian cultural situation.However, could not this claim be made in regard to any scripture that we areuncomfortable with? Furthermore, it is plain contextually, by statements like as in all ofthe churches of the saints, that the instructions Paul is giving have universalapplication.

Still others assert that in verses 34 and 35, Paul is quotingthe words of some people inCorinth that he disagrees with. In this scenario, he follows the quote with the words,What! Did the word of God originate with you? However, this interpretation is pureconjecture, since the apostle gives us no clear indications that he is quoting someone.Steve Atkerson has pointed out that contrary to the mistaken assertions of some, theGreek letter aytadoes not indicate that verses 34 and 35 are quotes[http://www.ntrf.org/silent2.html]. Instead, Pauls What! seems to be directed at thosewho would disagree with the firm command he has just given.

Some have conjectured that the men and women were sitting on opposite sides of themeeting hall, and the women were shouting questions to their husbands. Although Paulmay have been forbidding disorderly speech, there is no scriptural, archeological, orancient literary evidence I am aware of which indicates that the practice of the firstcentury church was to segregate the men and women (if you are aware of such, pleaselet me know). Furthermore, the early church met in homes. It is hard to imagine such astrict segregation in the casual atmosphere of a home meeting! However, many of thewomen might have voluntarilysat together and apart from their husbands. That wouldpartly explain this passage, but it would not explain all of it, because Pauls prohibitionseems to cover much more than just the asking of questions. Furthermore, Paul wrote,let them ask their own husbands at home, indicating that some of the women wereasking questions of people besides their own husbands.

Lastly, another interpretation is the idea that Paul is merely forbidding the women fromopenly questioning or judging a prophecy spoken by a man. However, this idea hasdifficulties, too, not the least of which is the fact that the apostle closes his commandwith the observation, For it is a shame for women to be speaking in church, astatement which seems to be much broader in scope than questioning or judgingprophecy.

Besides the interpretations listed above, all of which present difficulties, we are left withonly two other reasonable explanations I am aware of, which I will discuss after a fewbrief introductory comments.


6/45

A Limited Silence

To begin with, it is obvious Paul meant that when the church comes together, thewomen should be silent only at certain times. Most church historians agree that in theearly church, the Lords Supper was celebrated each week in the context of a full meal,and was a time of wonderful fellowship. Surely Paul was not prohibiting the women fromspeaking to others during that time, except, perhaps, at certain points, such as when itwas time for someone to explain the significance of the bread and wine. And so reasondictates that the times when silence is called for are those periods that are devoted topublic speaking and reverence before God.

Nearly all of those who believe that women should not speak publicly in church allowthem to sing with the men. Most of them also would allow a woman to call down anunruly child. And so it is obvious that this was a limited silence. The important thing that

we need to determine is, what was the scope of it?

Two Likely Meanings

A Greek word can mean different things depending on the context, just as an Englishword can. Sometimes there are fine shades of meaning in the Greek, just as there arein English. This, of course, is why we have multiple definitions for many words in Greeklexicons. To argue that laleo, the Greek word meaning to speak,means all speech ofany form, or that sigaojust means be mute is to over-simplify things and to gloss over

this fact.

For reasons which I will further explain, it has seemed to me for some time now that theapostle Paul must have had one of two different shades of meaning in mind when hewrote 1 Corinthians 14:34-37:

1) 1) Silence in regard to public speech: A woman should not publiclyaddress the church at all during the meeting time. Although nearly allEnglish translations can be understood in the sense of #2 below, this iswhat many think the plain meaning of this passage seems to be, as it isusually translated into English.

But that, of course, should not be the ultimate determining factor for us.The most important question is, what was the plain meaning of thispassage in the Greek language in which it was written? That is what I setout to learn when I began to study this passage, and I will try to explainthe conclusion I came to in a way that the average Christian with noknowledge of Greek can understand and evaluate.


7/45

2) 2) The other meaning that Paul may have had in mind is silence in

regard to disruptive speech: Women should not talk in a disruptive wayduring the meeting. For instance, suppose that a missionary revisited a

church that he had planted. When the meeting began, he noticed thatsome of the ladies, not wanting to stop their enjoyable conversations,were continuing to talk, ignoring the speakers and church leaders. I cantestify first hand that I have seen this happen in church, and it really isquite shameful. It reflects a disdain for the important spiritual matters athand, a rebellious nature, and a lack of reverence, for the Lord is presentwhen His people meet. In a follow-up letter to the church, we would not besurprised for that missionary to get very firm and say something like, Justas in all other churches, your women should be quiet during the meetings!They are not permitted to be talking. Instead, they should be submissive,as the Bible also says. If they have any questions, they should ask theirown husbands at home. For it is shameful for women to be talking inchurch!

If this interpretation is correct, then the Greek word sigaoshould beunderstood in the sense of keep quiet rather than keep silence. TheGreek word laleinshould be understood in the sense of to be talkingrather than to speak.

But which interpretation is the right one?

I dont think that in the matter of practical instructions for church meetings, our Lordwould leave us with no way of determining the meaning of an inspired writer ofscripture. If we are responsive to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and carefully study thegrammar, the context, and the NT usage of the Greek words in a passage, we shouldbe able to find indicators of the intent of a writer.

To begin with, the Greek word translated keep silence in verse 34 is sigatosan, whichis the present active imperative form of the Greek word sigao. A present activeimperative is a command to continue an action, such as keep sweeping! Because thecommand for the women to be silent is in the present active imperative, it carries with itthe idea of "keep quiet."

This continuous sense could be understood in three different ways:

1) 1) Continue being silent during the meeting.

2) 2) Continue the church custom of being silent.


8/45

3) 3) Get quiet and keep quiet.

Note that all threeof the above could refer to silence in regard to public speaking, orsilence in regard to disruptive speech. Paul also used the present active imperative formof sigaotwice in the nearby verses:

28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let himspeak to himself, and to God.

29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.

30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.

Where Paul commands the tongue speakers to be silent, his meaning is (1): continuebeing silent during the meeting.

Where Paul commands the first prophet to be silent, his meaning is (3): Get quiet andkeep quiet.

The first thing that we notice in regard to Pauls usage ofsigaoin these two verses wasthat he is not prohibiting all forms of speech. For that matter, he was not evenprohibiting all forms of public speech, for he did not forbid the tongue speakers andprophets from speaking publicly in other ways. It was OK for them to speak publiclyagain, provided they did not give a message in tongues or another prophecy while asecond prophet was speaking. Therefore, sigaomeant silence in regardto tonguespeaking and in regard toprophecy. This confirms our earlier observation that sigaois alimited silence, and it leads us to ask the crucial question, what is Paul commanding thewomen to be silent in regardto?

Examining how sigaois used in the rest of the New Testament can help us to determinethis.

The New Testament Usage of Sigao

The Greek lexicon of Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich (BAG) is widely recognized as one ofthe most authoritative works of its kind. According to BAG, sigaocan have the variousmeanings of:

1. Be silent, keep still2. Say nothing, keep silent3. Stop speaking, become silent4. Keep secret, conceal

Sigaoonly occurs eight other times in the NT. Aside from Paul, Luke is the only other


9/45

New Testament writer who uses this word. Luke and Paul were contemporaries whospent a great deal of time in each others company, so it is likely that they both used theword in the same way. This means that Lukes usage of the word can help usunderstand Pauls usage of it as well. With that said, lets look at each occurrence of

this word in the NT.

In two verses in the NT, sigaohas the meaning of, "kept secret":

Luke 9:36 And when the voice was past, Jesus was found alone. And they kept itclose and told no man in those days any of those things which they had seen.

Romans 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my

gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the

mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

In these two verses, we again see that sigaois a limited silence. It does not convey theidea of silence concerning all things; just silence in regard to not divulging a particularsecret.

All of the other occurrences of sigaoconcern public assemblies, so they have greatrelevanceto understanding the meaning of this word as it used in 1 Cor. 14:34.

Luke 20:26 And they could not take hold of his words before the people: and theymarvelled at his answer, and held their peace.

Acts 12:17 But he, beckoning unto them with the hand to hold their peace,

declared unto them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. And he said,Go shew these things unto James, and to the brethren. And he departed, and went

into another place.

Acts 15:12 Then all the multitude kept silence and gave audience to Barnabas

and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the

Gentiles by them.

Acts 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men

andbrethren, hearken unto me:

The last two occurrences of sigaoin the NT (other than 1 Corinthians 14:34), are ofparticular importance to this subject, because they are in the immediate context of theverses that we are considering:

1 Corinthians 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the

church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.


10/45

1 Corinthians 14:30 Ifany thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first

hold his peace.

From this complete listof all of the NT verses containing the word sigao(outside of the

disputed verse), we can make several observations:

1. As we have already noted, in the last two verses listed above, Paul doesnot mean that a speaker in tongues or a prophet cannot address thecongregation again later in the meeting. He only means that they shouldstop talking in a particular way. In fact there is nothing to indicate that thatthe first prophet who speaks may not give another prophecy later in themeeting. He is only instructed to be silent so that a different prophet whoalso receives a revelation will have the opportunity to speak.

2. Outside of the disputed verse, wherever sigaois used in the NewTestament concerning a public meeting, it refers to the respectful silencerequired for unhindered public speaking. In this regard it is very similar tothe English word quiet. When we use this word in a phrase such as bequiet, we usually do not mean that none of those in the audience arepermitted to speak publicly. Instead, we use the word to bring order to anoisy crowd, and to request that disruptive speech and chattering stop.Outside of 1 Corinthians 14:34, that is exactly the way that sigaois used inallof the other NT passages that refer to public speech.

3. 3. If, in verse 34, sigaodoes not only refer to being respectfully silentwhile someone is speaking publicly, but also to a complete ban on publicspeaking, then this is the only place that the word is used in such acomprehensive sense in the entire New Testament.

If Paul had wanted the women to be completely silent, there is another Greek word,siopao, that he could have used. It also means to be silent, but it seems to be the NewTestament word of choice to indicate complete absence of speech, including publicspeech. Here are some instances where siopaois used in exactly that way:

Luke 1:20 And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day

that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which

shall be fulfilled in their season.

Luke 19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should

hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

Matthew 26:63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said

unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the

Christ, the Son of God.


11/45

Mark 3:4 And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or

to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.

Acts 18:9 Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but

speak, and hold not thy peace:

And so we conclude that the Greek word sigaoindicates a limited, not a completesilence, and that outside of the disputed verse, it always refers to the respectful silencerequired for unhindered public speaking when it concerns public meetings.

The New Testament Usage of Laleo

Next, let's look at laleo, the word translated "to speak" in "they are not permitted tospeak."

Thayer writes that laleohas the following range of meanings:

1) to utter a voice or emit a sound2) to speak

2a) to use the tongue or the faculty of speech

2b) to utter articulate sounds

3) to talk4) to utter, tell

5) to use words in order to declare one's mind and disclose one's thoughts5a) to speak

BAG lists a similar range of possible meanings.

A quick computer survey of all of the 271 instances of this word in the New Testamentalso confirms that laleohas a very broad range of possible meanings, just as theEnglish word talkdoes. Just like the English word talk, wherever laleois used, we mustdetermine its precise meaning by the immediate context.

Another word that is commonly used to refer to speech in the NT is the word lego. Whydid Paul not use it instead?

W.E. Vine points out the primary difference between laleoand lego:


12/45

In comparison with laleo, lego refers especially to the substance of what is said,laleo, to the words conveying the utterance.

Regarding this, Dr. Spiros Zodhiates writes,

The reason he [Paul] used laleo and not lego [when discussing tongues] is because laleo refers tothe mere utterance of sounds without the speaker necessarily knowing what he is saying or others

understanding.Legoon the other hand is saying something which is the product of onesthought.

Although Dr. Zodhiates was discussing why Paul chose laleoto refer to speaking intongues, it is easy to see how the word would also be appropriate for referring tospeaking in a disruptive and noisy fashion. The translators of the World English Bible, infact, translate laleoas to chatter in verse 35:

If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home,for it is shameful for a woman to chatter in the assembly.

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament also confirms the above observationsregarding laleo:

This word, like lull, imitates childish babbling, and thus means to prattle, to

babble. It is also used for the sounds of animals and musical instruments. Asregards speech, it may denote sound rather than meaning, but also the ability to

speak. In compounds the meaning is always to prattle. [Little Kittel, p 506].

Along similar lines, the translators of the Bible in Basic English render laleoas talking:

14:35 And if they have a desire for knowledge about anything, let them put

questions to their husbands privately: for talking in the church puts shame on a

woman.

Laleois used to refer many times in the New Testament to the speaking thatoccurs during conversation, rather than to public speech.


13/45

If laleoonly referred to public speech, then the following verse regarding the prophetessAnna would cause problems for those who believe that a woman should not publiclyaddress men, since scripture seems to speak approvingly of her actions:

Luke 2:38 And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord,

and spake (laleo) of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.

To be sure, laleois often used to refer to public speech in the NT, so New Testamentusage of this word does not at all preclude the possibility of this. However, althoughlaleois less often used to refer to conversational talk, it is still used that way many timesin the NT, so this may have been what the apostle Paul had in mind. Here are most ofthe examples in the NT in which laleorefers to conversational speech:

Luke 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while

He talked with us by the way, and while He opened to us the scriptures?

Matthew 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak,

they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

Matthew 12:47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren

stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

Mark 5:36 As soon as Jesus heard the word that was spoken, he saith unto theruler of the synagogue, Be not afraid, only believe.

Mark 9:6 For he wist not what to say; for they were sore afraid.

Luke 7:15 And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he delivered

him to his mother.


14/45

Luke 11:14 And he was casting out a devil, and it was dumb. And it came topass, when the devil was gone out, the dumb spake; and the people wondered.

Luke 12:3 Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in thelight; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed

upon the housetops.

Luke 22:60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately,while he yet spake, the cock crew.

John 4:26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am [he].

John 4:27 And upon this came his disciples, and marvelled that he talked with

the woman: yet no man said, What seekest thou? or, Why talkest thou with her?

John 9:37 And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that

talketh (laleo) with thee.

Acts 22:10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise,

and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told (laleo) thee of all things whichare appointed for thee to do.

Acts 23:18 So he took him, and brought [him] to the chief captain, and said, Paulthe prisoner called me unto [him], and prayed me to bring this young man unto

thee, who hath something to say (laleo) unto thee.


15/45

1 Timothy 5:13 And withal they learn [to be] idle, wandering about from house

to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking (laleo)

things which they ought not. [Here I think the word definitely refers to chatter,

and godless chatter at that.]

James 1:19 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow

to speak, slow to wrath:

1 Peter 3:10 For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his

tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak (laleo) no guile:

Revelation 17:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven

vials, and talked (laleo) with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto

thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:

Revelation 21:15 And he that talked (laleo) with me had a golden reed to

measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof.

And so disorderly conversation is certainly one of the meanings that the apostle Paulcould have had in mind when he used the word laleo. As we will see later, the tense oflaleoas it is used in I Corinthians 14:34 gives us good reason to believe that this isexactly the case.

Pauls Usage ofAdelphoiin 1 Corinthians

Now lets examine Pauls usage of another important Greek word in I Corinthians, theword adelphoi, translated brethren. This word is important, because if the argumentthat women should be silent in regard to public speech is going to hold water, adelphoihas to refer to men only in 1 Corinthians 14:26. This is because in 14:31 Paul says, F or


16/45

ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. Thecontext here undoubtedly indicates that Paul is referring to public prophesying.

Unfortunately for the silence-in-regard-to-public-speech argument, in every other place

in 1 Corinthians in which the church is being addressed, the apostle Paul is includingthe women when he uses this word. There are only 28 occurrences of this word in 1Corinthians, so it will not be difficult for us to examine all of them. To begin with, letslook at every verse outside of chapter 14 where Paul uses this word to address thechurch. In a few of these verses, men are mentioned as a subgroup of the brethren, butit is still clear that Paul is addressing the entire church.

1 Corinthians 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus

Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and [that] there be no divisions among

you; but [that] ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the samejudgment.

1 Corinthians 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, bythem [which are of the house] of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

1 Corinthians 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise

men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

Here "wise men" are mentioned as a small subgroup of the brethren. But Paul issharing something that he desires all of those in the church to be aware of, sothere is no reason to think that by "brethren," Paul does not have the entirechurch in mind.

1 Corinthians 2:1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with

excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.

1 Corinthians 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but

as unto carnal, [even] as unto babes in Christ.

1 Corinthians 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to

myself and [to] Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think [of

men] above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one againstanother.

1 Corinthians 7:24 Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide

with God.

1 Corinthians 7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that

both they that have wives be as though they had none;


17/45

Read in isolation from the context, verses 7:24 and 7:29 might seem to beexceptions. But both verses are in the context of instructions given to both menand women, including virgins and widows, so there is no compelling reason tothink that Paul is not addressing both men and women with his use of the word

"brethren."

1 Corinthians 8:12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and woundtheir weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.

1 Corinthians 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be

ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passedthrough the sea;

1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me inall things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them] to you.

1 Corinthians 11:33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together toeat, tarry one for another.

1 Corinthians 12:1 Now concerning spiritual [gifts], brethren, I would

not have you ignorant.

1 Corinthians 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel

which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein yestand;

1 Corinthians 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot

inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

1 Corinthians 15:58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast,

unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as yeknow that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

1 Corinthians 16:15 I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of

Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and [that] they have addictedthemselves to the ministry of the saints,)

And so we see that outside of 1 Corinthians 14, in every place where the church isaddressed by the word adlephoi, the women are included. Now lets look at eachoccurrence of the word adelphoiin chapter 14. In all of these, the church is beingaddressed.

1 Corinthians 14:6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with


18/45

tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by

revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?

The ASV translation of 1 Corinthians 14:20 might lead some to believe that this is one

instance where adelphoirefers only to the men:

1 Corinthians 14:20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit

in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.

However, the Greek word translated men here is the word teleioi, which means fullgrown or mature. It is translated men here in the AV because it has a masculinegender, but this is probably not because Paul was excluding the women. It wasprobably for reasons of grammatical correctness only; the word needed to be inagreement with the masculine gender of adelphoi. Besides that, just as we often meana group consisting of men and women when we use the words man and mankind inEnglish, it was also common in Greek to use the masculine form of a word whenreferring to a group consisting of men and women. That is why most modern translatorsdo not translate teleioimen in this verse. Greens Literal Version translates it mature,as does the Modern King James, the New King James, the NASB, and the RSV.Youngs Literal Version translates it perfect, and the NIV adults. Certainly, noconvincing argument can be made on the basis of the gender of teleioialone.

1 Corinthians 14:26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together,

every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a

revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

1 Corinthians 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid

not to speak with tongues.

Nowherein 1 Corinthians 14 does the apostle inform us that he is switching gears andaddressing only the men with the word adelphoi. Although this conjecture seems veryunlikely, it must be affirmed if one is to maintain the silence-in-regard-to-public-speakingposition.

Now lets look at the all of the places in 1 Corinthians 14 where Paul uses the wordadelphoi, but not to address the church. Even in most of these, women are notexcluded.

1 Corinthians 6:5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise

man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his

brethren?

1 Corinthians 6:8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.


19/45

1 Corinthians 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred

brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but

some are fallen asleep.

1 Corinthians 16:20 All the brethren greet you. Greet ye one another

with an holy kiss.

That covers 25 of the 28 occurrences of the word adlephoiin 1 Corinthians. Theremaining three verses are the only ones in I Corinthians where it may be argued thatthe word adelphoidefinitely excludes women:

1 Corinthians 9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as do

other apostles and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

1 Corinthians 16:11 Let no man therefore despise him, but conduct him

forth in peace, that he may come unto me; for I look for him with the

brethren.

1 Corinthians 16:12 Now concerning our brother Apollos: I greatly

desired that he should come unto you with the brethren, but it was not at

all his will to come at this time; but he will come when it shall beconvenient.

Note that in noneof these last three occurrences of the word brethren is the churchbeing referred to.

And so there is overwhelming evidence that when the word brethren is used toaddress the church in 1 Corinthians, it includes the women.

In response to this, it has been argued that Paul is addressing the women under theheadshipof the men by using the word brethren. The problem with this is that Pauldoes not exclude the women in his opening address to the church:

1 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the

will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,

2 2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that aresanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every

place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and

ours:

This certainly includes the women. Since the letter is written to both men and women,the word brethren, which Paul uses qu ite frequently to refer to those he is writing to,


20/45

obviously must include the women.

Secondly, Paul seems to have no hesitation about addressing women directly, even byname, in his epistles. In Philippians 4:1-3 he uses the term "my beloved brethren," and

then addresses two women by name in the very next verse:

I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind inthe Lord.

If, for purposes of headship, Paul preferred to address the women through the men, thiswould be an exception to that rule. He could have written, Please beseech Euodias andSyntyche, but instead he wrote, I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche.

Thirdly, in addition to the New Testament usage, there is solid extra-biblical evidencethat adelphoican refer to females as well as men. There is an excellent article byGeorge Davis and Michael Clark entitled, Brotherhood: Male and Female Created HeThem, athttp://www.awildernessvoice.com/brotherhood.html , which further discussesthe meaning of adelphoi. In it, the authors quote Michael Perkins, who wrote,

"It (adelphos) can literally be translated 'from the same womb' and wasoften used of twins, INCLUDING brother/sister pairs. That's why I

abandoned the use of 'brothers/ brethren' a few years ago and began to use

'siblings'... adelphos (comes from delphos: 'womb') literally means 'fromwomb', but is normally considered to be, 'son of the same mother'.

HOWEVER...

Euripides uses adelphoin (masculine genitive/dative dual) in Electra 420-

410 BC (line 536), 'the foot ofbrother and sister would not be the same

in size, for the male conquers.'

Here, Euripides uses a masculine plural word that has for centuries been

considered to ONLY refer to males. The only significance to his using theDUAL is that it's clear he is referring to two siblings. However, the other

contextual information, 'the male conquers' makes it absolutely evident

that one of these siblings is female. This provides incontrovertible

extra-biblical evidence that completely dispels the myth that because

adelphoi(n) is masculine, it can only refer to males."

But there is more extra-biblical evidence than that. Acknowledging that adelphoicanrefer to both men and women, Wayne Grudem writes in What's Wrong with Gender-Neutral Bible Translations?:

Up to this point I have listed numerous examples of inaccurate translations
http://www.awildernessvoice.com/brotherhood.htmlhttp://www.awildernessvoice.com/brotherhood.htmlhttp://www.awildernessvoice.com/brotherhood.htmlhttp://www.awildernessvoice.com/brotherhood.html


21/45

in the NRSV and other gender-neutral versions. A different matter arises,

however, with the plural form of the Greek word adelphos, "brother."

Although in many cases the plural word adelphoi means "brothers," and

refers only to males, there are other cases where adelphoi is used to mean"brother and sister" or "brothers and sisters." Consider the following

quotations from Greek literature outside the New Testament:

1. That man is a cousin of mine: his mother and my father were

adelphoi (Andocides, On the Mysteries 47 [approx. 400 B.C.]).

2. My father died leaving me and my adelphoi Diodorus and Theis

as his heirs, and his property devolved upon us (Oxyrhynchus

Papyri 713, 20-23 [97 A.D.; Diodorus is a man's name and Theis isa woman's name]).

3. The footprints ofadelphoi should never match (of a man and of

a woman): the man's is greater (Euripides,Electra 536 [5th cent.

B.C.]).

4. An impatient and critical man finds fault even with his own

parents and children and adelphoi and neighbors (Epictetus,

Discourses 1.12.20-21 [approx 130 A.D.]).

In standard English, we just don't say, "My brothers Dave and Jenny." So

the Greek plural adelphoi sometimes has a different sense from English"brothers." In fact, the major Greek lexicons for over 100 years have said

that adelphoi, which is the plural of the word adelphos, "brother,"

sometimes means "brothers and sisters." (so Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker, 1957 and 1979; Liddell-Scott-Jones, 1940 and as early as 1869).

One other important factor is that the masculine adelphos and the feminineadelph_ are just different forms (masculine and feminine) of the same

word adelph-. But the plural form of this word would be adelphoi when

talking about a group of all men, and it would also be adelphoi when

talking about a group of both men and women. Only the context could tellus whether it meant "brothers" or "brothers and sisters." This makes Greek

different from English, where bro- and sis- are completely different roots,

and we wouldn't call a mixed group of men and women "brothers." (Theroot adelph- is from a-, which means "from," and delphus, "womb"

(Liddell-Scott-Jones, p. 20) and probably had an early sense of "from the

samewomb.") [http://www.cbmw.org/resources/articles/genderneutral.html]


22/45

Confirming these observations, Thayer writes that adelphoimay refer to a fellowbeliever, united to another by the bond of affection.

Likewise, W.E. Vine writes that the word can mean believers, apart from sex [p147].

And so we conclude that outside of the disputed verse, when the word brethren isused to address the churchin 1 Corinthians, it always includes the women. In myopinion, this deals a crushing blow to the silence-in-regard-to-public-speech position,because while directly addressing the brethren in this passage, Paul writes, For yemay all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.

What do the Context and Grammar of I Corinthians14:26-40 indicate regarding this silence?

There is more than the New Testament usage of these three important Greek words tolead us to believe that Paul was not prohibiting the women from praying or prophesyingpublicly in church. The grammar and the context all point to that conclusion, too:

1. 1. Laleois in the present active infinitive form lalein, whichindicates action that is in progress or is prolonged (HuberDrumWright, An Introduction To New Testament Greek, p. 75).Although it is translated to speak, which sounds more natural inEnglish, more accurate translations are they are not permitted to

be talking, and for it is a shame for women to be talking in thechurch. If Paul had wanted to forbid individual acts of publicspeaking, as opposed to conversational talk or frequent publicspeaking, he could have used the much more commonly usedaorist active infinitive.

Admittedly, the tense could indicate that Paul was prohibitingwomen from engaging in public speech on a regular basis inchurch. Even this would make allowance for occasional acts ofpublic speech. But it is not likely that Paul was doing this, for two

reasons:

a. a. Paul uses lalesai, the aorist active infinitive form oflaleo, in 1 Corinthians 14:19 to refer to public speakingin the church: Yet in the church I had rather speak fivewords with my understanding, that by my voice I might


23/45

teach others also, than ten thousand words in anunknown tongue. If Paul wanted to forbid women fromengaging in individual acts of public speech such asthis in church, why did he not use lalesaiagain?

b. b. Paul also used the present active infinitive in 1Timothy 2:12, where he wrote that he did not permit awoman to be teaching a man. But there the wordwoman is singular. In 1 Corinthians 14:34, however, itis plural, indicating that Paul did not want multiplewomen to be talking at once. We will discuss this inmore detail shortly.

Laleois used two other times in the present active infinitive form in1 Corinthians 14, where it literally means,

and I wish you all to be speaking with tongues (verse 5)

and to be speaking with tongues do not forbid. (verse 39)

In each of these instances, laleindenotes the prolonged ability tospeak with tongues, but does not necessarily refer only to speakingin tongues publicly. Paul wanted them all to have the ability tospeak with tongues. But if there was no interpreter, they were not tospeak publicly, but to themselves and to God. Therefore, it cannotbe argued on the basis of these two instances that laleinmust referto public speech.

The present active infinitive is not used with the other instances oflaleoin chapter 14, all of which involve public speech.

2. 2. Likewise, as we mentioned above, in the Greek "women" isplural in verse 34. It is also plural in verse 35 in the TextusReceptus and Byzantine majority texts. This is reflected in the AV(King James Version) translation: "for it is a shame for women tospeak in the church." This is exactly what we would expect Paul tosay if he were prohibiting the women from conversing with eachother in a disruptive way when someone else is speaking publicly.

Of course, this begs the question: Men should not engage indisruptive speech either during the meeting. So why did Paul singleout the women?

The likely answer is quite simple. Paul was having a problem with


24/45

the women talking in church at Corinth, but not the men!

Obviously, he would not have approved of the women conversingout loud when someone was speaking. But he also would not have

approved of a woman competing with a male teacher during themeeting:

1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to

usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Each of these things seems to have been a problem in some of thechurches. Evidently, some of the women, enjoying for the first timein their lives the liberty of NT priesthood, were going to extremesand abusing their new-found freedom by trying to "take over"teachings, by usurping pastor-teachers, disregarding headcoverings, and conversing during the meetings. It is less likely thatthis would have become a problem if the women were not allowedto contribute revelatory insights, such as tongues, a word ofknowledge, or prophesy, during the church meetings. Instead, itseems more likely that some of these women took their liberty andran as far as they could with it! Paul got very firm with them, as wehave already stressed. He commanded them to act in cognizanceof, and to be in subjection to, the principles of creation and of order.

3. In I Corinthians 11, Paul teaches that a womans head should becovered, and a mans head uncovered, when praying orprophesying. There is little doubt that the women in some of theearly Christian communities covered their heads with garments.Vincent writes: "In the sculptures of the catacombs the women havea close-fitting head-dress, while the men have the hair short."

In On The Veiling of Virgins, Tertullian, arguing that both marriedwomen and virgins should cover their heads in church, wrote,

The region of the veil is co-extensive with the space covered by the

hair when unbound; in order that the necks too may be

encircledTo us the Lord has, even by revelations, measured thespace for the veil to extend over. For a certain sister of ours was

thus addressed by an angel, beating her neck, as if in applause:


25/45

"Elegant neck, and deservedly bare! it is well for thee to unveil

thyself from the head right down to the loins, lest withal this

freedom of thy neck profit thee not!" - CHAP. XVII

Chrysostom, in his Homilies on 1 Corinthians, wrote,

For this cause He left it to nature to provide her with a covering,that even of it she might learn this lesson and veil herself.

If alternate translations of this passage lead us to believe that longhair was the covering that Paul was referring to, a woman withshort hair would still be expected to don a head covering beforepraying or prophesying publicly in the presence of men. In light ofthat, these commands seem to make the most sense whenunderstood in a public rather than a private context, for severalreasons:

First of all, in even the strictest Middle Eastern countries today,when women are in private gatherings (even private gatheringsthat include men) or in public womens meetings, headcoverings usually come off. Take the following report from theUK Observerregarding current practices in Kabul, for instance:

The burqa has no longer been compulsory since they [the

Taliban] fled Kabul, but women of marriageable age stillwear it all the same. In the streets of the city last week it was

almost impossible to see a single adult woman who had castit off.

In private, where they feel comfortable, women will lift theirveils, even in the presence of men. And they are confident

enough to do so in places where there is a large female

presence - in government offices like the Ministry of Labour

and Social Affairs, or in the offices of the women'sassociations or schools. When they enter a building the burqa

is hauled off with a quick flick and put into a handbag. When

they leave it is slipped on again. [Peter Beaumont, SundayDecember 30, 2001 The Observer]

It seems likely that the early Christian women behaved in asimilar fashion in regard to head coverings, and removed theirhead coverings at home and during private gatherings whenmen were present, as well as in public gatherings where onlyother women were present.


26/45

I dont think that women praying or prophesying without ahead covering would have been an issue at all were it not forthe fact that they were doing this during the church meetings,in the presence of men. It seems likely that the women, who

were accustomed to removing their head coverings duringhome gatherings with family and friends, were taking theliberty to carry this custom over into home church meetings,which are more public in nature.

It could be argued that Paul was encouraging women to covertheir heads in private times of prayer and prophecy when menare present, just as men today remove their hats before prayingat the dinner table. But although such behavior seemsappropriate, it really is difficult to imagine the apostle being soconcerned about enforcing this formality over private gatherings.Instead, his primary concern in these chapters of 1 Corinthiansis the church meeting.

Secondly, in 1 Thes 5:17, the apostle Paul instructed us toPray without ceasing. In light of that, what are we to make ofthe command for men to pray without a head covering on, andwomen to pray with one on? It would be impractical for a womanto keep her head covered at all times. Likewise, it would also beimpractical for a man to remove a head covering in bitter cold orin the raging sun. This is further evidence that Paul was talkingabout public prayer and prophecy in church.

In support of this, a womans head covering is a sign that shehas authority on her head. (I Cor. 11:10). Of what use is a signof authority if it is worn in private? To be sure, the head coveringshould be worn because of the angels, but would the angels beoffended if a woman was not wearing a head covering whilepraying and washing the dishes in the privacy of her home?Such an idea seems impractical.

And so given the fact that Paul seems to be speaking in regardto women prophesying and praying publicly in church (and mostcommentators agree with this idea), the vital question comes tomind, Why would Paul go into such great detail explaining theproper way to do something that he was just about tocompletely forbid?

To this, it can conceivably be argued that Paul would haveapproved of women praying and prophesying privately in church


27/45

in the presence of men, during the fellowship of the LordsSupper meal for instance, but not publicly in church.

No doubt, private prophecy took place during NT church

meetings, and it is certain that both male and female prophetsparticipated in this. This is made evident by verses 23-25:

23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place,

and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that areunlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

24 But ifall prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or

one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:

25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and sofalling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God

is in you of a truth.

The hypothetical unbeliever who visits the church is male. Butnotice how Paul uses the term "the whole church" and follows itwith "but if all prophesy." This must include the women, and the fruitof it is repentance.

Obviously, Paul musthave had prophecy outside of the officialmeeting in mind when he said but if all prophesy, since only twoor three prophets were allowed to speak during the time for publicsharing of spiritual gifts. But it was not private, because thehypothetical visitor is male, and other church members, both maleand female, would still be present during the times of fellowshipbefore and after the public meeting.

However, although the women must have prophesied during thefellowship times before and after the offical church meetings,claiming that women were not permitted to prophesy publicly duringthe official meeting raises some problems.

To begin with, in 2 Kings 22:14, we read that Huldah theprophetess addressed five leading men at once with a prophecy:Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam, Achbor, Shaphan, and Asahiah.Scripture seems to speak approvingly of her actions. This raisesthe question, How many men have to be present when a woman isprophesying before she is forbidden to speak? In many smallhome gatherings during NT times, there were probably often nomore than five grown men. That is the case with many homechurch meetings in modern times, too!


28/45

But the strongest argument that women were indeed allowed toprophesy during the offical meeting time is one that we havealready mentioned: If adelphoi includes the women, then you canall prophesy one by one must also include them. And the context

of this verse concerns the official meeting time, the time for mutualpublic edification. Since Paul limits the number of prophets who canspeak during this time to two or three, he must have meant that thateveryone could prophesy one by one over the course of manymeetings.

Lastly, Paul concludes his argument for head coverings in 11:16with But if any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no suchcustom, neither the churches of God. Pauls use of the wordchurches, which has the primary definition of assemblies, lendsweight to the idea that he is speaking of a custom adhered toduring church assemblies. To avoid confusion on this matter, Paulcould have said, neither do the other saints of God, but instead hechose to say, neither the churches of God.

3. 4. The Corinthians were busting at the seams with spiritual gifts, andtheir meetings were quite disorderly and confusing. Pauls overarchingconcern in this passage is that everything be done in an orderly andedifying way:

4.

26c: Let all things be done for edification. (26c)

33: for God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as it is in all

churches of the saints.

40: Let all things be done decently and in order.

The idea of Paul commanding the women not to engage in disruptivespeech fits with this.

5. 5. Lets appeal to "nature itself" here, as Paul does in chapter 11 whenhe argues that a woman should have long hair. Which do people naturallyfeel is shameful: A woman making a respectful and insightful comment


29/45

that is accord with scripture, or women carrying on a conversation whilesomeone is trying to teach? Isn't it our natural inclination to regard thesecond as shameful, but not the first? Isnt it also our natural inclination to

judge that not allowing the women to utter so much as a peep of public

speech in church is overly harsh?

6. 6. In 1 Corinthians 11, where Paul instructs women to wear a headcovering when praying or prophesying, and in 1 Timothy 2:12, where Paulstates that he does not allow a woman to teach or to usurp authority overa man, he appeals to the created nature of men and women as

justification for this. This is to be expected when we encounter a veryrestrictive command that deserves an explanation. But we see no suchexplanation here, although, if Paul were commanding the women not tospeak publicly at all during the meeting, that would be a muchmorerestrictive command. There is no attempt to explain the reasons for thiscommand; apparently, Paul assumed that they would be obvious to hisreaders. The absence of such an explanation lends weight to the idea thatPaul is only prohibiting disruptive speech.

7. 7. Beyond the immediate context of this passage, we should alsoconsider the context of the New Testament as well. The New Testamentteaches us that in Christ there is neither male nor female (Gal 3:28), thatmen and women are heirs together of the grace of life (1 Peter 3:7), andthat women as well as men are priests unto God and his Father(Revelation 1:6). Although the New Testament clearly teaches that thehead of woman is man (1 Cor 11:3), it also teaches for as the woman isof the man, even so is the man also by the woman (I Cor 11:12).Although it teaches that wives should submit themselves to their ownhusbands (Eph 5:22), it also teaches Yea, all of you be subject one toanother, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, andgiveth grace to the humble (1 Peter 5:5). The idea that Paul did not permitthe women to utter so much as a prophecy or a prayer in church seemsvery difficult to reconcile with the New Testament teaching that women arealso priests unto God.

The Differences between Prophecy and Teaching

Verse 31 indicates that there are didactic (teaching) elements to prophecy, becauseprophecy results in learning:


30/45

For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.

In light of this, some argue that since Paul forbade a woman to teach a man in 1Timothy 2:12, a woman must not prophesy publicly in church. However, the offices of

prophet and teacher are not synonymous:

1 Corinthians 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles,

secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts ofhealings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some,

evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

Generally speaking, prophecy, by nature, is revelatory and spontaneous; it does notcome from study or forethought, (although it may build on this) but is revealed directlyfrom the Spirit of God. Teaching, on the other hand, is based on prior learning andexperience.

However, a teacher should be guided by the Spirit of God in how he utilizes his learningand experience to instruct. And so prophecy and teaching, although distinct spiritualgifts, overlap in function:

As the above illustration indicates, the boundary between prophecy and teaching ismore like a "zone" than a line. But must this be used as a reason to be more restrictive?Remember, when we encounter areas where the Lord has not given us specificinstructions, but has given us the freedom to choose what is best, love abounding inknowledge and depth of insight should be our guide. This is an area where eachchurch can exercise their freedom to choose what is best, given their local culture. Inlight of that, in many cultures, the overlap between teaching and prophecy should bereason for churches to be less, not more restrictive in what they permit a woman to

share in church.

A word of knowledge, and a word of wisdom, although they contain didactive elements,are essentially revelatory, and thus prophetic in nature. Because of this, I believe that awoman, if she exercises careful discernment, may be able to share such a messagewithout making a teaching of it.


31/45

For instance, a woman could say, as you were speaking, it occurred to me that orwhile I was reading this scripture and praying, the Lord seemedto reveal to me that.There is subtle difference between this sort of message and a teaching. It is revelatoryrather than didactic.

Of course, there is no subtle distinction between the Thus sayeth the Lord kind ofprophecy and a teaching. Here, provided the prophesy is genuine, God is speakingdirectly through his chosen mouthpiece.

But although there is an overlapping zone between prophecy and teaching that leavesroom for freedom, we should also recognize that there is a limitto that zone, and that itispossible for a woman to cross over that limit into forbidden territory.

The Church Fathers

The earliest comment that I have been able to find in the writings of the ChurchFathers on this subject was made by Tertullian, around AD 206:

"It is not permitted for a woman to speak in the church" (The Veiling of Virgins

IX).

Those Church Fathers who spoke on this subject did not believe that women shouldspeak publicly in church. I have been asked, in essence, How can you justify staunchly

defending the early creeds, and yet disagree with some of the Church Fathers on thissubject?

To begin with, most evangelicals and protestants disagree with manystatements of the Church Fathers, where scripture plainly conflicts withthem. As early as the beginning of the second century, the gospel oncefor all delivered to the saints began to be diluted with a works -based,earn your salvation mentality. This is plainly reflected in many of thewritings of the Church Fathers. A shift from the plurality-of-elders kind ofchurch government established by the apostles to a monarchial episcopy(church government by city-wide bishops) had begun by this time as well,and most Protestants reject the validity of that, too.

An example from the Old Testament can shed some light on how this canhappen. In Exodus 30:8-9, Moses wrote,

8 And when Aaron lighteth the lamps at even, he shall burn incense upon

it, a perpetual incense before the LORD throughout your generations.


32/45

9 Ye shall offer no strange incense thereon, nor burnt sacrifice, nor meat

offering; neither shall ye pour drink offering thereon.

And yet, in Leviticus 10:1 we read,

1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them hiscenser, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered

strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.

Nadab and Abihu attempted to start a new custom offering strange fire

before the Lord even while Moses and their father Aaron were still

alive! Clearly, there are fallen aspects of human nature that motivate

men to do such things. Given these, it did not take long at all for people

to add their own practices to those of the Lord, or even to replace those

of the Lord with their own.

Plainly, the Church Fathers were men just like us, and capable ofmaking errors. This is evidenced by the fact that they differed fromone another in their interpretation of certain Bible passages. Giventhis observed tendency in the church Fathers to sometimes placeman-made traditions above the word of God (a temptation we allmust fight against), it seems all the more likely that they wereinfluenced by common prejudices of their day regarding women.Tertullian, for instance, expressing a view of the female sex thatmost of us would consider extremely condemning of women, wrote:

God's sentence hangs over the female sex, and His punishment

weighs down on you. You are the devil's gateway. You firstviolated the forbidden tree and violated God's Law. You shattered

God's image in man. And because you merited death, God's Son

had to die.

It is said that the young Byzantine Emperor Theophilus, whileinterviewing an attractive and intelligent young woman namedCasia as a potential bride, lamented to her that it was throughwomen that evil had entered the world. She responded that it wasalso through women that good (referring to Christ) had entered theworld. [Byzantium, p. 79, Time-Life Books]

Surely, the male sex bears guilt for the fall of man, too!Thepunishment inflicted on the man was just as harsh as that inflictedon the woman.Gods call to Adam, Where art thou? indicates thatas the head of his family, Adam was held accountable for theactions of his family. In fact, scripture teaches that although theyounger (and therefore more ignorant) woman was deceived by the


33/45

serpent, the man was not. However, Gods judgment of Eve wasnot unjustified, because Eve allowedherself to be deceived in orderto gratify her desires.

Secondly, not all of the Church Fathers wrote on this subject, atleast in extant documents that are known to us, so they may nothave all held to this opinion.

Thirdly, although we should carefully consider the opinions of theFathers and hold them in respect, we must nevertheless placescripture above what they teach.

Lastly, a creed determined by an early church council is acorporate judgment of the Ecclesia concerning matters foundationalto the Christian faith. Jesus granted authority to even localchurches to meet for purposes of church discipline. How muchweightier then, is the judgment of a provincial council, and weightierstill the judgment of an international council such as the Council ofNicea! Such judgments are of an entirely different character, and ofmuch weightier consequence, than an interpretative opinionexpressed by one writer regarding an issue unessential tosalvation.

Does the word them in it is not permitted unto themto speak mean that Paul musthave been addressing the men only?

Some argue that since Paul uses the word them in for it is not permitted unto themto speak, he must have been addressing only the men in 1 Cor. 14. This argumentwould carry more weight, were it not for two very important facts:

To begin with, the letter of 1 Corinthians is addressed unto the church of God which isat Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called [to be] saints, with all that inevery place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours.

This certainly means that the letter is addressed to the entire church, not just to men.

Secondly, there is at least one example in 1 Corinthians where Paul uses the wordthem to refer to a subgroup which is definitelyamong the people he is addressing!

1 Corinthians 7:8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows, It is good

for them that they remain even as I.


34/45

Here, Paul uses the very same Greek word that is translated them in 1 Cor 14:34 (butin the masculine gender). This means that Paul was probably addressing the entirechurch, including the women, in 1 Corinthians 14, but used the word them to refer tothe women as a subgroup.

It is also worthy of note that although Paul is speaking to a group consisting ofunmarried men, unmarried women, and widows in 1 Corinthians 7:8, he uses themasculine form of the word translated them, autoin, to refer to them. Likewise, as wehave already seen, where the masculine word adelphoiis used to address the church in1 Corinthians, it includes the women.

Do the words your women indicate that Paul is addressing only themen?

Steve Atkerson writes,

Interestingly, the textus receptus adds the word your before women in

14:34, further evidence that the term brothers throughout 1Co 14specifically refers to the men and not the women.

[http://www.ntrf.org/silent2.html]

The idea behind this argument is that by your women, Paul means the women (orwives) who belong to you men (or husbands). Of course, this is by no means a

conclusive argument, because it is also possible that your women simply means thewomen (or wives) belonging to the church. Given the fact that this letter is addressed toboth the men and women at Corinth, and the fact that when adelphoiis used to addressthe church in the rest of this letter, it includes the women, this seems most likely. Also,in the Greek, the word your is not in some important manuscript traditions.

However, if Paul wasaddressing the husbands to tell them that their wives shouldbehave, this does not necessarily mean that he had been addressing only the menthroughout the chapter. He could have momentarily turned his attention to the men. Inaddition, as we are about to see, this idea that Pauls command primarily concerned thewives in the church, which has much merit, does much to undermine the idea that

women, as a gender class, cannot speak publicly in church.

Paul Primarily Had Married Women in Mind

Since Paul wrote, let them ask their own husbands at home, it is obvious that he


35/45

primarily had married women in mind. Evidently, they were the ones who were doingmost of the talking. Paul knew that some of them might ask questions of a husband or afriend sitting by, thinking that to be a legitimate reason to ignore his command.

The phrase, they are commanded to be under obedience, as also sayeth the lawsupports this idea that Paul was primarily correcting the married women, since the versemost often cited to support this, Genesis 3:16, has to do with the relationship between ahusband and wife.

In the New Testament, the Greek word guneis translated wives rather than womennearly half of the time. The translators of the AV rendered it women in verse 34.

By contrast, the Greek word aneris translated men three quarters of the time.However, in the AV, it is translated husbands in verse 35. So why did the translators ofthe AV translate guneas women but aneras husbands?That is a very strange (andseemingly inappropriate) inconsistency, and it evidently led the translators of theWesley and Weymouth New Testaments to translate this word as married womenrather than women:

Let married women be silent in the Churches [Wesley NT]

Let married women be silent in the Churches [Weymouth NT]

(The translation of guneas women at the end of verse 35 appears to be more justifiable, however.)

The significance of this is that Paul was apparently writing in response to the disorderlyactions of a subgroupof women in the churches, not to prohibit an entire gender classfrom engaging in public speech. But why did Paul need to specifically address actions ofthe wives?

Surely it was not because wives are more inclined to public speech than single womenand widows! Lets not forget that before the advent of birth control, most women borechildren until menopause. Since there was no Sunday School or Childrens Church inthe apostolic church, the little ones were probably present with their mothers during themeetings. If anything, having to keep a constant eye on their little ones would havemade them less inclinedto public speech. However, it would have made them moreinclinedto chatter with other wives and to ask questions, since their children would havemade it so challenging for them to focus on what was being taught. In our participatorymeetings, I have observed this tendency first hand, especially with my own wife, sincewe have seven children. My wife often finds it difficult to concentrate on the meetingbecause of the demands of the children. When a noisy child forces her and another wifeinto the hallway, it is naturally tempting to talk rather than try to listen. The example weare about to quote will further serve to illustrate this.


36/45

And so although the command to keep quiet in the churches applies to a ll women inall of the churches of the saints, this helps us to recognize that the scope of thatsilence probably concerned disorderly speech.

Some Examples

The following quote describes women who, like most of the women at Corinth, grew upwithout formal classroom schooling. It helps us to understand the kind of situation thatPaul might have been addressing at Corinth:

My mother used to compare the situation in Corinth to the one she and my

father faced in northern China. Back in the 1920s when they were first to

bring God's message to that forgotten area, they found women with boundfeet who seldom left their homes and who, unlike the men, had never in

their whole lives attended a public meeting or a class. They had never

been told as little girls, "Now you must sit still and listen to the teacher."Their only concept of an assembly was a family feast where everyone

talked at once.

When these women came to my parents' church and gathered on the

women's side of the sanctuary, they thought this was a chance to catch up

on the news with their neighbors and to ask questions about the story ofJesus they were hearing. Needless to say, along with babies crying and

toddlers running about, the women's section got rather noisy! Add to thatthe temptation for the women to shout questions to their husbands across

the aisle, and you can imagine the chaos. As my mother patiently tried totell the women that they should listen first and chitchat or ask questions

later, she would mutter under her breath, "Just like Corinth; it just couldn't

be more like Corinth." [Kari Torjesen Malcolm, *Women at the

Crossroads* pp. 73-74].

Interestingly, writing four centuries after the apostle Paul penned 1 Corinthians, in hisNinth Homily on 1 Timothy, John Chrysostom bemoaned the fact that women werechattering in his church. Holding up the women of the apostolic age as an example, he

exhorted the women in his congregation to refrain from disorderly speech:

Then indeed the women, from such teaching, kept silence; but now there is

apt to be great noise among them, much clamor and talking, and nowhere

so much as in this place. They may all be seen here talking more than inthe market, or at the bath. For, as if they came hither for recreation, they

are all engaged in conversing upon unprofitable subjects. Thus all is


37/45

confusion, and they seem not to understand, that unless they are quiet,

they cannot learn anything that is useful.

In modern times, I have at times observed a tendency among some of the wives in our

participatory meetings to do the same thing. A private, loving reminder of Pauls wordsfrom their husbands was all that it took to bring it to an end.

Of course, if there is a greater general tendency among women than men to converse inchurch, it would be very wrong to prejudicially assume that every woman is like this, forthere are also women who are admirably disciplined in their speech, and there are menwith uncontrolled tongues. Likewise, we recognize that men are generally more likely toattempt to dominate or lord it over Gods people than women, but it would be wrongto color all men this way, or to think that a woman is incapable of such behavior.

Putting Things into Perspective

Although these things lead us to conclude that women are permitted to pray andprophesy in church, we must also integrate this into the whole counsel of scripture. Wemust not think that distinctions of behavior and dress according to gender are foreign tothe Scriptures. Deuteronomy 22:5 tells us

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a

womans garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Likewise, the New Testament prescribes different behavior patterns in church for men

and women. As we have already seen, a womans head is to be covered (with agarment, or, according to alternate translations, long hair) when she prays orprophesies in church. In I Timothy 2:11-15, Paul wrote,

11 11. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the

man, but to be in silence.13 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.14 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was

in the transgression.

15 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if theycontinue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Verse 11 indicates that the context being referred to is when a man is teaching. Awomans primary demeanor when a man is teaching should be peaceful, uncontentious,and submissive. The Greek word translated silence here, in both verses 11 and 12, ishesuchia.


38/45

Thayer defines hesuchiaas:

1) quietness

1a) description of the life of one who stays at home doing his own work, and does not officiously

meddle with the affairs of others

2) silence

It is the same word that Paul used just a few verses earlier, in I Timothy 2:1, when hewrote:

1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers,

intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

2 2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead aquiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

Here, the word does not mean completely refraining from speech. It means a peacefullife free from persecution.

This word is used in only two other places in the New Testament:

Acts 22:2a And when they heard that he spoke in the Hebrew tongue to

them, they were the more silent.

Here, the word does indicate silence, or possibly peacefulness. It is not a completesilence, but rather more silence.

2 Thessalonians 3:12 Now those who are such, we command and exhort

by our Lord Jesus Christ that they work with quietness and eat their ownbread.

Here hesuchiaseems to mean working without grumbling, complaining, or causingtrouble.

Although Pauls use of this word in his commandment does not confine a woman toabsolute silence when a man is teaching, it does indicate that her overall demeanorshould be peaceful, quiet, and uncontentious. Observing this principle must be difficultat times, especially when one considers how human and prone to mistakes we men canbe. However, it can reap joyous rewards for women. Few women like the idea of men orhusbands who are timid leaders. As Jonathan Lindval noted in a letter to me, byobserving this principle, women will create a leadership vacuum that men will feel


39/45

compelled to step into. Thus, through obedience to the scriptures, women can wiselyhelp to mold the men of their church, and their own husbands, into bolder leaders.

There seems no escaping the fact that the Apostle did not permit a woman to teach a

man publicly in church. There is little doubt that he wanted Timothy to imitate thispractice.

It must also be observed that the two reasons Paul gave for this prohibition were basednot on cultural conditions, but on the created order and the circumstances of the fall.Paul found those reasons to be compelling even aftermen and women had embracedChrist as their Savior. These are facts that must not be ignored by anyone desiring tocome to honest conclusions regarding this passage.

However, although there is no doubt that Let the woman learn in silence with allsubjection is a command, the statement that immediately follows it is not a command,but an example. It reads, I do not permit a woman to teach rather than a womanshould not teach. If we make a rigid command out of it, we are going beyond scripture.As Proverbs 30:5-6 teaches:

5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust

in him.

6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found aliar.

Pauls example is a practical application of scriptural considerations, and it obviouslyshould be imitated. In fact, Paul wrote, Those things, which ye have both learned, andreceived, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you. (Ph.4:9). However, Paul refrains from going so far as to commandthat women should notteach men in his letter. Why?

What is the difference," someone might naturally ask, between an example meant tobe followed and a command? The difference is that although Pauls example modelswhat should be done in the absence of special circumstances, it does seem to makeroom for some exceptions. Although the reasons Paul gave for not permitting women toteach men in church are valid considerations, he seems to make allowance foroverriding considerations in some situations. Lottie Moon may have encountered justsuch circumstances during her Christian work in China. In a letter written February 9,1889, and apparently intended for publication in the SBCs Foreign Mission Journal, shewrote:

Feb. 9, 1889

Recently, on a Sunday which I was spending in a village near Pingtu city,


40/45

two men came to me with the request that I would conduct the general

services. They wished me to read and explain, to a mixed audience of men

and women, the parable of the prodigal son. I replied that no one should

undertake to speak without preparation, and that I had made none. (I hadbeen busy all the morning teaching the women and girls.) After awhile

they came again to know my decision. I said, "It is not the custom of the

Ancient church that women preach to men." I could not, however, hindertheir calling upon me to lead in prayer. Need I say that, as I tried to lead

their devotions, it was hard to keep back the tears of pity for those sheep

not having a shepherd. Men asking to be taught and no one to teach them.

We read of one who came forth and saw a great multitude, and he hadcompassion on them because they were as sheep not having a shepherd.

"And how did he show his compassion?" He began to teach them many

things.

Miss Moon was admirably right in her desire to remain faithful to t

what did the apostle paul mean by,let your women keep silence in the church? by by marshall...

Documents