Women Speaking in the Church

By John H. Fish III [1]

The Relationship of 1 Corinthians 11:5 and 14:34–36

The restrictions found in the New Testament on the ministry of women in the church pose a problem to many different contemporary groups. 1 Corinthians 14:34–36 commands women to be silent and not to speak in the church, not even to ask questions. 1 Timothy 2:12 says that they are not to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. Secular feminists say that these verses prove that Paul is a misogynist, a hater of women, and that the entire Bible reflects a patriarchal bias against women. Evangelical feminists look at them as contrary to the essential message of the Bible that men and women are fully equal, both created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27), and both equally redeemed so that in Christ there is no longer male or female (Gal. 3:28). Conservative Christians who recognize that God has distinct roles for men and women also have some problems with these restrictions. They may be an offense and a stumbling block to non-Christians who get side tracked over what the Bible says about women rather than what it says about Jesus Christ and the gospel. Furthermore, the prohibition against speaking and the command to be silent seem to be absolute. Yet it appears that 1 Corinthians 11:5 gives women permission to pray and prophesy as long as their head is covered. How can these two statements be reconciled?

These problems are too great to deal with in one article. It is the purpose of this paper to reconsider the issue of whether women are really to be silent in the church. Does 1 Corinthians 11:5 open the door to some vocal participation of women in which they may speak in a way that does not violate 1 Corinthians 14:34 or 1 Timothy 2:12? Is it possible for them to pray or give a word of testimony as long as they are not teaching? Is a vocal word of praise to God by a woman out of place at the Lord’s Supper? This is a very practical and important question for any church which has the kind of open service indicated in 1 Corinthians 14:26 where various believers may be led by the Spirit to take part.

Because this has become an emotional and even divisive issue for many Christians and churches, it may be helpful to state the overall approach of this article. I will state my basic assumptions and general viewpoint of the relationship between men and women as taught in the Bible. I will then look at the nature of the problem which exists in harmonizing the Scriptures before us. Most of the literature in the last generation assumes that 1 Corinthians 11:5 gives permission for a woman to pray or prophesy. The restrictions of 1 Corinthians 14:34–36 are therefore qualified in the light of this right to pray and prophesy. But there is no consensus on the interpretation of this latter passage. Indeed many of the interpretations that have been suggested are forced and unnatural. They are only adopted because the command for silence is considered unacceptable or because one must do something to harmonize this passage with the assumed permission to pray and prophesy. But this very assumption that women are given permission to pray and prophesy in 11:5 is highly questionable. This article will show that Paul did not intend for women to pray or speak in the church. 1 Corinthians 11:5 is to be interpreted in the light of the clearer and more direct statement of 14:34–36 and not vice-versa. The practice of women being silent in the assembly is therefore not just Brethren tradition. It is the teaching of the inspired apostle which was intended to be the norm and practice of the church throughout this age.

Assumptions

First, women are not inferior to men. They are equal in Christ and have the same standing, privilege, and importance before God (Gal. 3:28).

Second, the ministry of women in the New Testament is a very important and positive one. Women were not relegated to the kitchen and nursery, but exercised every spiritual gift men exercised except for the gift of apostleship. They were active in evangelism, teaching, pastoral care, and hospitality in the New Testament.

Third, the equality of person and position between women and men does not preclude different roles or functions. Related to this is the fact that equality does not preclude subordination. God the Father and God the Son are equal, yet the Son is subordinate to the Father and fulfills a different role in the economy of divine redemption (John 5:22–23, 30; 10:30; 14:28; 1 Cor. 11:3).

Fourth, the Scriptures are inspired, authoritative, and do not contradict them- selves in their teaching on women. However, there is a tension produced when the Scriptures teach both the essential equality of men and women and at the same time functional differences with women subordinate to men in the home and the church. It is difficult for us to keep both equality and subordination in balance. Earlier centuries have sometimes emphasized subordination to the point where women were not allowed to be educated or have any individual rights apart from their husbands. The present era is sometimes emphasizing equality to the point of denying any differences between the sexes. But these two lines of teaching do not contradict each other, and both must be maintained in tension without allowing one to swallow up the other. We see many far-reaching and important ministries for women in the New Testament. But we also see restrictions. 1 Corinthians 14:34–36 and 1 Timothy 2:8–15 require the silence of women in the church.

The Problem

It is easy to look at one passage of Scripture and say that the biblical teaching is clear. If we only consider 1 Corinthians 14:34–36, we may say that those that allow any vocal participation by women in the church are unbiblical and reject the Word of God. Others look at 1 Corinthians 11:5 and it seems that Paul gives permission for women to pray and prophesy if their heads are covered. It would be illogical for him to say that it is wrong for women to pray or prophesy with their head uncovered when it is wrong for them to do it at all.

There is clearly an interpretational difficulty here which must be resolved in some way. There are only two basic choices. One possibility is to conclude that the two chapters are talking about different situations. One could be talking about a church meeting and the other a non-church meeting. There would be no contradiction because we are dealing with apples and oranges. On the other hand, if both passages are dealing with the church, then one passage must be taken as the norm and the other interpreted in the light of it. Either 11:5 is the clear permission and 14:34–36 must be qualified in the light of it, or 14:34–36 is the primary passage and 11:5 must be explained so that women are really not permitted to pray or prophesy.

Recent commentators have been reluctant even to consider the latter possibility. There were older writers who did take 1 Corinthians 14 as primary. [2] Today there are very few. Most conservative evangelicals assert that 11:5 clearly gives permission for women to pray and prophesy. Very few reasons are given to support this. The conclusion is simply assumed to be self-evident.

For many conservative evangelicals this is a minor matter. They are firm in their commitment to male leadership in the church and in the home. They are firm in their conviction that women are not to teach or preach in the church. To allow a woman to pray in the church seems to be a relatively small thing. The nature of the problem for the Brethren Assemblies, however, is different because of the centrality of the Lord’s Supper and the way it is celebrated. Most Assemblies break bread every week in a relatively unstructured or unplanned meeting which lasts for an hour or more. Various individuals lead in giving out a hymn, praying, giving a word of praise or thanksgiving, or expounding a passage of Scripture that relates to the person or work of Christ. For women to take part vocally means that they assume a central role in the worship of the church. Thus, what is a more conservative position in many evangelical churches becomes a more radical position in the Assemblies.

It is undoubtedly true that some are traditionalists and decide an issue like this on the basis of the practice they are accustomed to and are comfortable with. Few, however, who want to be careful students of the Bible would care to consider themselves in this category. Each new generation must examine the Scriptures for themselves and gain their own convictions as to what they teach.

The View that Women May Pray and Prophesy

If 1 Corinthians 11:5 gives permission for women to pray and prophesy, how can we understand 1 Corinthians 14:34–36? The following discussion of different views is not intended to be exhaustive. It does present the major positions which are offered today. To some readers the number of viewpoints and the length of the discussion might seem wearisome. What I am trying to show, however, is that there is no satisfactory explanation of 14:34–36 if it is assumed that women can pray and prophesy in the church. All attempts at interpreting these verses from this viewpoint have failed. It is not the ingenuity which has been expended which is at fault. Rather it is the starting point itself, that 11:5 gives permission to pray and prophesy, which leads to this dilemma.

1 Corinthians 11:5 is not a Church Meeting

Presentation of the View

The simplest resolution to the problem of the two passages is the view that chapter 11 does not refer to the meeting of the church. Chapter 14 says that women are to keep silent “in the churches” (14:34). There are many other situations where women can legitimately speak: in women’s meetings, children’s meetings, private meetings in the home, evangelistic meetings, etc. If chapter 11 is referring to these occasions, then there is no contradiction with chapter 14 and no real problem.

In favor of this view, consider the following: While chapter 14 expressly says “in the churches,” chapter 11 does not. Grosheide says that “in our context [chapter 11] there is not the slightest indication that the church is meant.” [3]

Chapters 8–10 have been dealing with private matters: may a Christian buy and eat meat which has been sacrificed to idols; may he eat such meat in a pagan feast; may he eat at a friend’s house when the food has been sacrificed to idols? It is clear that 11:17–14:40 are dealing with the meeting of the church, but it is not until 11:17, 18, and 20 that there is specific reference to Christians coming together. One can easily infer that 11:2–16 with no mention of the church meeting is still referring to private matters.

The word “first” (πρῶτον, prōton) in 11:18 indicates that the following verses are the first things that he deals with in connection with the gathering of the assembly. [4]

Finally, the activities of prayer and prophecy do not require the assembly of the church. Too often the contrary is assumed. [5] Both prayer and prophecy were activities which were appropriate for the church as is seen in chapter 14, but they are not necessarily confined to the church. This should be obvious for prayer. In Acts 21:9 Philip’s four daughters are called prophetesses, and Agabus came and delivered a personal prophecy dealing with the future of Paul (Acts 21:10–14). Just as Zacharias prophesied in his home among relatives and neighbors concerning the future of John the Baptist (Luke 1:67), it is not unreasonable to hold that Christian prophets could prophesy in the same setting.

Objections to the View

In spite of the attractiveness of this position which so easily solves the difficulty of the relation between chapters 11 and 14, I am unable to accept it. First, the phrases “Now I praise you” (11:2) and “I do not praise you” (11:17) give a structural clue that these sections are related and that the new division of the book begins in verse 2. Verse 17 specifies that this is when the church comes together.

Second, while it is possible that Paul continues to deal with private matters as he has in chapters 8–10, there is nothing to indicate this in 11:2–16. Rather here is a meeting of Christians in which men and women are present, prayer and prophecy take place, and the women are to be covered. This certainly appears to be a church. Would the veil have been that important for private or family prayer in the home?

Finally, the most important indication is probably in verse 16. “But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.” Paul specifically refers to the practice of other churches. He does not say “other Christians” which he might have if he were dealing with private matters in the home or the family. He does not say “the church” as if he were dealing with the church as a whole or Christians in general. He says “churches.” This would indicate that he means the local congregations or gatherings of believers in a church setting.

1 Corinthians 14:34-36 is not Authentic

Another approach which resolves the problem in a way that there is no real tension in Paul’s teaching is to say that these verses were not written by the apostle Paul. There are two distinct approaches to this, and they should be clearly differentiated. One is the literary-critical approach, and the other is the text-critical approach.

The Literary-Critical Approach

Presentation of the view.. Literary criticism may deal with stylistic matters that relate to diction, rhythm, and sentence structure, or it may look at the larger aspects of the overall structure of the book. [6] On the basis of a literary analysis Hans Conzelmann in the Hermeneia series on First Corinthians says that 1 Corinthians 14:33b–36 interrupts the context, contradicts 1 Corinthians 11:5, and contains linguistic peculiarities different from Paul’s normal writings. [7] It is therefore an interpolation, a comment added to the text by a later writer and not originally written by the apostle Paul.

Critique of the literary-critical approach. Evangelicals have found literary criticism a helpful tool in interpretation when it comes to the analysis of the form and structure of a passage. But too often it has been used as a subjective and arbitrary tool to dissect and chop up a biblical book. Contradictions, differences of perspective, and differences of style are said to indicate different sources and different authors. Evangelicals cannot hold to a biblical view of inspiration and at the same time accept an approach which assumes that the Bible is full of contradictions and errors. Every manuscript of 1 Corinthians contains both 11:5 and 14:34. Many writers say things which are in apparent tension with one another, and to dismiss 14:34 as non-Pauline apart from any textual evidence is arbitrary.

What Conzelmann calls a peculiar linguistic usage [meaning it is not used by Paul] is found in 1 Timothy 2:12. [8] This verse is also similar to 1 Corinthians 14:34 in its restriction of women’s vocal participation in the church.

Nor must these verses be considered an interruption of the passage. They can be considered as an additional statement of what is proper and orderly in the meeting of the church.

The Text-critical Approach

Presentation of the view. The approach which rejects these verses on textual grounds must be sharply distinguished from the literary-critical approach. Textual criticism is a necessary discipline for the biblical scholar simply because we do not have the original manuscripts, and the manuscripts which we do have differ among themselves. Many who have held to a high view of inspiration and inerrancy have rejected certain verses which are found in some translations or manuscripts, but are not found in the best manuscripts of the New Testament. What the inspired biblical authors originally wrote is here distinguished from what was added by later scribes. [9]

Some have rejected 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 on the basis of textual criticism. Indeed, the textual basis for rejecting these verses is very slight, and the great majority of commentators and editors of the Greek New Testament have included them. One might even suspect that the tendency in recent times to reject these verses as Pauline stems more from a feminist bias against their contents rather than from the weight of the evidence. However, the acceptance of this position by Gordon Fee, an evangelical who is an acknowledged expert in the field of New Testament textual criticism, in the New International Commentary on 1 Corinthians, will give it greater credibility. [10]

Critique of the text-critical approach. What needs to be clearly noted, however, is that every single manuscript of the New Testament contains these verses in their entirety. The only textual basis for this position is that there are three bilingual Greek and Latin manuscripts which transpose verses 34–35 to the end of the chapter after verse 40. In addition, there is one twelfth century Greek manuscript, two Latin mss. from the ninth century, and two church fathers which support this transposition. It must be admitted that this is rather slight evidence in comparison to the dozens of manuscripts which include the verses after verse 33. Further, these manuscripts which transpose them are all of a single text type, the Western. This is the text type which is prone to take the greatest liberties with the text. Hort long ago said:

The chief and most constant characteristic of the Western readings is a love of paraphrase. Words, clauses, and even whole sentences were changed, omitted, and inserted with astonishing freedom, wherever it seemed that the meaning could be brought out with a greater force and definiteness. [11]

I would think that one would hesitate to give too great a credence to the fact that such a text type should transpose a few verses.

What is it then that so convinces Fee that he rejects these verses as written by the apostle Paul? Basically, he cannot find an adequate explanation as to why western scribes would have transposed these to a position after verse 40. [12] Notice how subjective and insubstantial this argument is. For instance, Fee himself does very little to resolve the greater problem of why these verses are found in every single manuscript of the New Testament if they were not originally written by Paul. He suggests in a footnote the possibility that they were added at the end of the first or the beginning of the second century. [13] This leaves a period of forty to fifty years in which he would have to say no manuscript of 1 Corinthians contained these words. Does he assume that there were no copies of the book made or circulated in this period? Has the original left no descendents? How has what Fee considers to be a secondary reading become so widespread and universal without a single manuscript representing the original? One is disposed to think that the reason Fee finds his inability to explain the origin of the western reading so decisive lies more in his own subjective viewpoint rather than in the weight of the evidence itself. It could be that a scribe (and it would only take one) felt that the passage read more smoothly if the different subjects of tongues (verses 27–28), prophecy (verses 29–32, 37–38), and women speaking (verses 34–36) were all kept separate. [14]

The investigation of the internal evidence is a secondary matter which Fee takes as confirming the external evidence. [15] Here he argues that the passage makes better sense without verses 34–35, that they contradict 11:2–16, and that there are some stylistic differences in these verses with Paul’s writings.

It is not enough, however, to say that the passage makes sense when you omit verses 34–35. The question is whether they make sense in the argument when they are included. One of the points that Paul is making is that all things are to be done properly and in an orderly manner (14:30). If the women were not to speak in the church, then women’s verbal participation would be another case of lack of proper order in the church in addition to uninterpreted tongues, several people speaking at one time, or too many prophets or tongue speakers speaking in a meeting. If it is so obvious that the passage reads better without these verses, why is it that Fee and Conzelmann omit different verses (the former omitting only verses 34–35, while the latter makes it verses 33b–36)?

If 14:34–35 is so clearly in contradiction to 11:5, then we must conclude that it was a dull interpolator who introduced them in the first place so close to the previous passage. It should be noted, however, that the basis of saying there is a contradiction is the assumption that 11:5 gives permission for women to pray and prophesy in the church.

Fee notes that 14:34 is an unqualified prohibition which precludes all forms of speaking out in public. [16] We would prefer to say speaking out “in the church” since this is what Paul specifies in verse 34, and there is nothing in the chapter to indicate that all speaking in public is in view.

We would also agree with Fee that expositors have been unable to give a satisfactory interpretation of chapter 14 if chapter 11 really does give women permission to pray and prophesy. He says that most interpretations engage much of their energy in “getting around” the plain meaning of 14:34–35 in order to harmonize it with 11:5. [17] If chapter 11 does not give women permission to speak, then not only is there no problem with a contradiction, but Paul’s teaching here is also in harmony with the limitations he places on women’s ministry in the church in 1 Timothy 2.

1 Corinthians 14:34-36 is an Opinion of the Corinthians which Paul Rejects

Statement of the View

If 1 Corinthians 14:34–36 must be accepted as part of the text written by the apostle Paul, another way of dismissing their teaching has been by saying that they do not represent Paul’s own viewpoint. It is a deviant teaching quoted by Paul disapprovingly. [18]

Bilezikian, who is an evangelical feminist, finds these verses shocking, “the most surprising statement of the whole epistle.” [19] They are indeed a most difficult pill to swallow for a feminist. What is more difficult for evangelical feminists is to explain them in such a way that they do not undermine their whole feminist theology. Bilezikian’s solution is to say that Paul is only quoting a view of the Corinthians which he rejects.

It is acknowledged by many commentators that there are statements in 1 Corinthians which appear to be slogans of the Corinthians used to justify a position which Paul opposes. In 6:12 and 10:23 the statement “All things are lawful for me” appears to be such a slogan. So is 6:13, “food is for the stomach, and the stomach is for food,” and 8:1, “we all have knowledge.” [20] But we are again faced with the problem of subjectivism. How can we avoid the subjective bias of rejecting any teaching we do not like by simply asserting that it was a false view of the Corinthians which Paul rejected? [21]

Walter Kaiser seeks for more objective standards when he cites three criteria suggested by Sir William Ramsay. We may be sure of the presence of a quotation “whenever (Paul) alludes to their knowledge, or when any statement stands in marked contrast either with the immediate context or with Paul’s known views.” [22]

The first criterion, an allusion to the readers’ knowledge, seems arbitrary. In 1 Corinthians alone Paul appeals to the knowledge of the Corinthians in 3:16; 5:6; 6:2, 3, 9, 15, 16, 19; 9:13, 24; 12:2 and 16:15. In these passages he is simply referring to something which was commonly accepted by both him and them. In reality, both Kaiser and Bilezikian reject 1 Corinthians 14:33b–36 because it appears to them to contradict the immediate context and Paul’s teaching elsewhere.

Three arguments are used to support this position. First it is said that 1 Corinthians 14:33b–36 contradicts Paul’s known teaching. Bilezikian, who sees Galatians 3:28 as establishing egalitarianism and 1 Corinthians 11:4–5 as giving clear permission for women to pray and prophesy on an equal standing with men, says:

This statement creates such a massive contradiction within the Epistle itself, it is so much out of character with Paul, it so blatantly revokes clear statements of egalitarian participation that a multitude of attempts have been made to resolve the scandal it provokes. [23]

He rejects all attempts to harmonize these verses with 11:5 and concludes that “only a state of mental dissociation could explain an authorial inconsistency of such proportions.” [24]

A second argument is based on the phrase in 14:34, “just as the Law also says.” Paul would not appeal to the law to justify a Christian practice. This is rather Judaizing legalism. [25] In addition, there is no statement in the Old Testament which says that women are to be silent because they are subordinate. What is referred to is traditional Jewish teaching under the designation “the law.” This is the teaching of the rabbis, not the apostle Paul. [26]

Thirdly, it is said that the context of verse 36 indicates a sharp break with the preceding statement. [27] The Greek word ἤ [ē, “or”] which begins this verse is said to be a disjunctive particle which has the impact of an emphatic repudiation of what precedes. [28] Bilezikian paraphrases this word with the colloquial equivalent, “Bunk!” It is an attack on male Corinthians, reproaching them for their silencing of women and their attack on his own apostolic authority. He paraphrases verse 36:

Since when have you become the source of divine revelation so that you make your own rules? Or are you the exclusive recipients of a divine revelation that the rest of us should know about? [29]

Critique of this View

It should not be a surprise that this interpretation or solution to the problem has been accepted by very few scholars. [30] Not only is it not self-evident that Paul is citing a position which he rejects, the specific arguments which are used are unconvincing.

It is not just that these verses appear to contradict 1 Corinthians 11:5. I would agree that it is very difficult to explain 1 Corinthians 14 given the premise that Paul there gives women permission to pray and prophesy. Bilezikian’s problem is that he views the whole Bible through feminist eyes. It should be no surprise then that he finds these verses offensive and contradictory to the rest of Scripture (as he views Scripture). The problem is that no one except militant feminists see the Bible as teaching feminism, and even many feminists are agreed that the Bible does not teach this position. Clark Pinnock, who is no traditionalist, examines a number of different authors, both feminists and non-feminists, who agree that our present Bible does not teach a feminist position. They furthermore acknowledge that it cannot be made to support feminism unless it is first edited along feminist lines. [31] He concludes that “the adjective biblical clashes with the noun feminism in the term biblical feminism. If it is the Bible you want, feminism is in trouble; if it is feminism you desire, the Bible stands in the way.” [32]

We would agree that there is a difficulty in reconciling 1 Corinthians 11:5 and 14:34–36. What we reject in the position now under consideration is the assumption that these verses contradict the rest of Scripture concerning the subordination of women to men in the home and the church. The teaching of 1 Corinthians 14 is not only similar to that of 1 Timothy 2, it also is in harmony with 1 Corinthians 11:3, Ephesians 5:22–33, and Colossians 3:18–19.

The arguments based on the reference to the law in 14:34 and the Greek word ἤ [ē, “or”] in verse 36 are built on mistakes. Paul never uses the term “law” to refer to traditional Jewish teaching. The specific reference to “the Law” as is found in 14:34 must refer to the Mosaic law or the Old Testament. Nor is it true that he always looks at the law in a negative sense. In 1 Corinthians itself he cites the teaching of the law as authoritative in 9:8–9 in its teaching on the right of Christian workers to financial support for their ministry. In chapter 14 itself he cites the law (i.e. the Old Testament) in its teaching about tongues (14:21).

Nor does Paul say that the law itself says that a woman must be silent. He cites the law in 14:34 as saying that women are to be in subjection. The teaching he refers to is not Genesis 3:16 which is based on the fall, but the teaching of Genesis 2:18–25. There the fact that the woman was created after the man, from the man, and for the man indicates her subordination to the man. She was created to be his helper to assist him in fulfilling the role God had called him to. It is Paul himself in 1 Corinthians 11:8–9 who uses this teaching of Genesis to support his argument that the man is the head of the woman.

Finally, Bilezikian’s interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:36 is based on a false understanding of the particle ἤ [ē]. It is argued that this word indicates that Paul is contradicting or refuting the previous statement. [33] While Bilezikian makes an attempt at a word study of ἤ [ē], his analysis of the passages involved is quite superficial.34 Paul’s use of the word ἤ [ē] shows that it does not contradict a previous statement. There are numerous instances where this is absolutely clear. In 1 Corinthians 10:22 Paul says “Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy?” These words do not refute, rebuke, or contradict the previous statement. Verse 21 says, “You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.” Verse 21 is clearly Paul’s teaching opposed to the practice of some of the Corinthians. If they wish to reject it, he gives an additional argument in verse 22. Understood in this way, 1 Corinthians 14:36 does not repudiate verses 34–35, but is a rejection of the Corinthian’s practice. In Romans 3:29 Paul says, “Or is God the God of Jews only?” The previous statement in verse 28 is, “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.” Would anyone dare say that Paul is rejecting justification by faith because he uses the word ἤ [ē] in verse 29? He is rather stating what would be true if verse 28 were not true. God would not be the God of all men. [35]

Summary of the Discussion to this Point

The interpretations listed so far assume in effect that there is no need to harmonize 1 Corinthians 11:5 and 14:34–36. Either they refer to different situations and are therefore mutually compatible; or they are contradictory, but for one reason or the other do not both represent Paul’s teaching and therefore do not need to be reconciled. The next view admits that Paul is the author of both statements, but maintains that they represent contradictory views which cannot be reconciled.

1 Corinthians 14:34-36 is not Authoritative

Statement of the View

Paul Jewett in his book Man as Male and Female shows the tremendous price some evangelical feminists are willing to pay to hold to their feminism. [36] Jewett, a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, has been over the years, before his recent death, a noted evangelical theologian and a defender of the faith. His view of the relation between 1 Corinthians 11:5 and 14:34–35 is a miniature of his larger view of the biblical teaching on women.

He says that 1 Corinthians 11:5 plainly allows a woman to lead the congregation in prayer and exhort the members with a word of prophecy if she covers her head. [37] This is contradicted by 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 where women are to keep silent in the church as an expression of their submission.

On a larger scale this tension, or rather contradiction according to Jewett, is found throughout Scripture. He bases his feminist perspective of complete equality with no subordination of women to men on three pillars. 1) The first is the creation narrative in Genesis 1. Man was originally created in the image of God as male and female (Gen. 1:27). The divine image is man in fellowship, and the primary form of that fellowship is that of male and female. [38] There is no hint here of any hierarchical relationship in which the woman is subordinate to the man. [39] 2) The second basis for equality is Jesus’ view of women. He spoke of women and related to women as being fully human and equal in every way to men. [40] 3) Galatians 3:28 is the final pillar, the “Magna Carta of humanity.” [41] Paul’s great declaration that in Christ there is neither “male nor female” establishes the essential equality of the sexes.

At the same time Jewett allows that many Scriptures teach a hierarchical relationship between man and woman. Genesis 2 gives a second account of the creation of man which allows, if it does not actually imply, that the woman is subordinate to the man. [42] Paul clearly thought of women as subordinate in 1 Corinthians 11 and 14, Ephesians 5:22–33, and 1 Timothy 2:11–15. To his credit as an exegete, Jewett is unwilling to water down or dismiss these passages as merely expressions of social or cultural convention. What he is left with is a blatant contradiction in the teaching of Scripture. Subordination and equality are mutually exclusive. [43]

Jewett’s view of Scripture is fundamental to his thinking at this point. Scripture has a human as well as a divine quality. [44] Paul was not only an inspired apostle, he was also a converted rabbi, a rabbi who carried with him some of his pre-conversion baggage.

So far as he thought in terms of his Jewish background, he thought of the woman as subordinate to the man for whose sake she was created (1 Cor. 11:9). But so far as he thought in terms of the new insight he had gained through the revelation of God in Christ, he thought of the woman as equal to the man in all things, the two having been made one in Christ, in whom there is neither male nor female (Gal. 3:28). [45]

Critique of this View

The real issue here with Jewett is not one’s interpretation of this or that verse. The real issue is the authority of the apostle in his teaching on women. Are Paul’s writings Scripture, and is Scripture inspired and authoritative? Can Scripture be broken (John 10:35)? Jewett, in effect, pits Scripture against Scripture, rather than interpreting Scripture by Scripture. He does this because he has abandoned an evangelical view of Scripture.

Evangelicals hold to the inspiration and authority of the Bible. All Scripture is “God breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16). Any debates among evangelicals over inerrancy should not obscure the fact that even those who contend that there are errors in Scripture confine them to insignificant matters of history and geography or to matters which do not affect the message and teaching of Scripture. In other words, it is the common belief of evangelicals that Scripture is the infallible rule of faith and practice. It is inerrant in all that it teaches.

Jewett has passed beyond the evangelical view of Scripture. He is actually saying that an apostle of Christ is wrong in what he is teaching. This is in effect what the liberals do when they pick and choose what they want to from the Bible. A liberal may say that he believes that God is love. He gets that from the Bible. But he rejects the God of the Old Testament, the God who judges sin. Jewett may be more conservative and believe more of the Bible than liberals do, but he is no different in his method. He places himself over the Scriptures to pick and choose what he likes.

This shows the extent that some are willing to go to maintain their feminism. We cannot accept contradictions in the Bible and still have an inspired or authoritative Scripture.

The Silence of 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 is a Qualified Silence

The interpretations which have been discussed above either assume that no harmonization between 1 Corinthians 11 and 14 is needed or no harmonization is possible.

There are a number of attempts at harmonization which are based on the assumption that 1 Corinthians 11:5 is the norm and women have the right to pray and prophesy in the church. The silence in 1 Corinthians 14:34–36 must be qualified in the light of this right.

The Silence is Required by the Historical Conditions at Corinth

There are a number of approaches which see the command for silence as based on the specific circumstances of the church at Corinth. Some say that it was not intended to be a universal command to all the churches or to apply to all women throughout the history of the church. Howard says,

It must be questioned whether the situation of the Corinthian church at this time, with its gross irregularities and many problems and disorders, can in any sense be considered normative for any period of the Church’s history. .. . It must be doubted whether his specific remedies for local disorder, any more than the disorganized life and disgraceful conduct of the Corinthian church itself, were ever intended to be literally applicable to other congregations. [46]

Disorderly conduct required the silence of women. Others suggest that women were interrupting the teaching session of the church which was normally conducted as a discussion by asking questions. [47] If the men and women were sitting on different sides of the room as in the Jewish synagogues, this would be a particular problem. It is also possible under these circumstances that the women were not paying attention to the meeting, but were chattering among themselves. [48] Scanzoni and Hardesty assert,

Obviously these women were interrupting the meetings with questions. Inquirers, converts from paganism, uneducated women--they probably had many questions more appropriate for a catechetical situation. [49]

Doctrinal error required the silence of women. R. P. Martin suggested that “women members of the Corinthian congregation were laying claim to a teaching at odds with the Pauline and apostolic proclamation.” [50] They were introducing fresh revelations that they were not willing to have assessed and corrected by the assembly and judged according to apostolic standards. [51]

Critique of these views. This type of interpretation is dangerously arbitrary and speculative. It reconstructs the background of the passage and then suggests that this hypothetical background is the reason why Paul requires the silence of women. At the same time it ignores the reason he does give. It puts words into his mouth that are not there and ignores the words that are. Paul cites as his reason the teaching of the Law that women are to be in subjection. He is basing his teaching on a principle of Scripture which is of enduring validity. He indicates in verses 33 and 36 that the practice of women speaking at Corinth was an aberration, contrary to the practice of all of the churches.

Carson notes in addition that these approaches are unbearably sexist.

They presuppose that there was a major heresy in which one of the following was true: (a) only women were duped, yet Paul arbitrarily silences all the women, regardless of whether they were heretics or not; (b) both some men and some women were duped, but Paul silences only the latter, thus proving to be a chauvinist; or (c) Paul was entirely right in his ruling, because all the women and only women in all of the Pauline churches were duped--which perhaps I may be excused for finding hard to believe. .. . The truth of the matter is that this passage raises no question of heresy, but if it did, some explanation would still have to be given for the fact that Paul’s response silences women, not heretics. [52]

The cultural situation of the Corinthians required the silence of women. Others acknowledge that Paul did restrict the vocal participation of women in Corinth, but they argue that it was not because of any divine requirement that made this the rule for all churches at all times. It was out of consideration for others that such restrictions were given. In spite of the equality between men and women in Christ (Gal. 3:28) and the permission for women to speak in 1 Corinthians 11:5, the open expression of this Christian freedom might bring the gospel into disrepute. [53]

Paul indicated in 1 Corinthians 9:19–23 that he had restricted himself and adapted his own life in many ways to the customs and culture of those to whom he ministered in order to win them to Christ. In chapter 10 he urged the Christians not to exercise their liberty to eat meat offered to idols if it would offend another and cause him to stumble. Slaves were urged to be submissive to their masters and even honor them. No one would argue that slavery was a divine institution or that it was really God’s will for human beings to be slaves. But if the Christian church had sought a social revolution in this area, it would have sidetracked men from the main issue of their relationship to God, and the gospel would have been brought into disrepute (1 Tim. 6:1). The church therefore accommodated itself to the cultural situation of the day, until it was in a position to overthrow the sinful subjugation of men and fully implement the Christian principle of equality between men. The instructions to slaves to obey their masters was just for those cultures where slavery existed, but the institution of slavery itself could be (and should be) abolished without violating God’s will.

So, it is argued, the instructions for women to be silent in the church are an accommodation to a society where the men were dominate and where it would have been an offense for women to be speaking. “For him to have advocated social and political changes in sexual relationships would have distracted his converts from the central message of the gospel--mutual subjection out of love for Christ.” [54] The command for silence was therefore given in the context of a specific cultural situation which no longer applies today.

Among those who take the command for silence as a cultural accommodation, there is a subview which tries to account for the permission for women to speak in 11:5 by saying that there was a difference between public and private church services. Scanzoni and Hardesty make this distinction:

Indications throughout the New Testament as well as other early church writings show that meetings were divided into two parts. The first half was open to anyone who wanted to come and hear the gospel. This is sometimes called the “mass of the catechumens” because, just as in liturgical churches today, it was devoted to the reading of Scripture and discussing it, praying, and perhaps singing. Catechumens [those receiving basic instruction in the Christian faith] were those interested in becoming Christians but who were barred from the second half of the service, the “mass of the faithful” who were permitted to take Communion. [55]

Chapter 11, which also mentions the Lord’s Supper, refers to the meeting that was just for Christians. Here the freedom of women to pray and prophesy was accepted and would not offend anyone. Chapter 14 refers to the public service where unbelievers might be present (cf. 14:23–25). It was in order not to offend them that women were not to speak.

Critique of the cultural interpretation. This cultural type of interpretation, like the previous one, also gives a speculative reason why Paul gives these instructions and ignores the specific reason that is in the text.

Paul does not say that the command for women to be silent or subordinate is because of the cultural situation of the day. He says that it is because of the subjection required by the law. We may note the parallel in 1 Timothy 2:11–15 where the reason women are not to teach is based both on creation (“For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve” [v. 13]) and on the fall (“And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression” [v. 14]).

This view fails to show that the culture of Corinth actually did require the silence of women in religious services. Greek religion was full of priestesses who spoke and prophesied. Further, the assertion that there were two kinds of church services is totally anachronistic. What indications are there in the New Testament that the church service was in two such parts? Scanzoni and Hardesty give no evidence whatsoever. Schaff, the noted church historian, says that this division of the church services began in the middle of the second century and the earliest witness for it is Tertullian (who was not born until around the year 150 and who could not have written until well over a hundred years after Paul wrote his letters). [56]

The view of Gerald Almlie. Attempts have been made to support this distinction of meetings on a more exegetical basis. Gerald Almlie in a 1982 article tries to show essential differences between 1 Corinthians 11 and 14 with the assumption that they point to two types of church meetings. [57] He tries to show that chapter 11 and chapters 12–14 are separate unities. He then points to certain contrasts. Women were given permission to pray and prophesy in 11, but prohibited in chapter 14. Men and women were seated together in 11, but separately in 14. Unbelievers were not present in 11, but were in 14. Finally, he maintains that all of the activities of the church (cf. Acts 2:42) could not take place in one meeting.

Critique of Almlie’s view. However, these contrasts are not so certain as Almlie would make them. In effect he starts with a hypothesis that assumes that there were two separate meetings. This hypothesis allows him to explain the permission for women to speak in chapter 11 and the prohibition in chapter 14. Starting with this assumption, he then is able to find differences between the chapters. But this is far from a demonstration.

We do not have enough evidence to know all of the historical details of how the meetings were conducted. We do not know if the Lord’s supper and the teaching of the apostles were conducted at the same time with one activity flowing into the other, or if there was a break between them so that they were considered as separate things. [58] We do not know that the women sat with the men at the Lord’s supper in Corinth, but separately at the teaching meetings. [59] We do not know that unbelievers were excluded from the Lord’s supper, but were allowed to be present at the teaching meeting. [60] Even if there were separate meetings for teaching and the Lord’s supper, we do not know that there were different arrangements for the participation of men and women unless we assume that 1 Corinthians 11:5 gives permission for women to speak, while 14:34–36 prohibits it. It is this very assumption that we are questioning in this paper. The hypothesis of two separate meetings can harmonize the two passages, but the supporting evidence for it is lacking.

The parallel of wives’ submitting to their husbands and slaves’ submitting to their masters must likewise be read into the text. It ignores the fundamental difference that slavery was never ordained by God, whereas marriage was created by God, and the relation of the sexes was established by God before the fall. The woman was created by God after the man, from the man, and for the man to be his helper (Gen. 2:20–23). This is the argument which the apostle Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 11:8–9 and 1 Timothy 2:13. It is an argument based on creation and the continuing relationship between the sexes. Slavery is one of the indications of sinful man’s inhumanity to man. It is never commanded or endorsed in Scripture. It is rather regulated the way divorce was in the Old Testament, because of the hardness of men’s hearts. [61]

Silence is Required where Women would be Exercising Authority over Men in the Church
There are many evangelical scholars who are not feminists. They recognize that men and women are fully equal in their person and in their standing before God. But they also recognize that God has given different roles to each sex. He has made the man the head of the woman in both the home and the church. Women are to be submissive and are not to exercise authority over men in these areas. This is not because women are inferior, but because God from creation intended this relationship.

How this submission actually works out needs to be determined by Scripture. A large number are convinced that 1 Corinthians 11:5 gives permission for women to pray and prophesy and that the silence of 14:34–36 must therefore be qualified. Paul does not demand absolute silence, but only silence where submission requires it. Speaking in which there is no exercise of authority over men is therefore permitted. Paul allows women to pray and prophesy because these are not authoritative activities.

There are two ways in which the silence of 1 Corinthians 14 is qualified. One approach says that what is prohibited specifically is women teaching. Another says that it is the evaluation or judgment of prophecies mentioned in 1 Corinthians 14:29 which the apostle has in mind.

Women may not teach. Leroy Birney is representative of those who would confine the silence to teaching or authoritative direction. [62] He argues that this is not only supported by the permission of 1 Corinthians 11:5, but also by the broad teaching of Scripture. The law which required the woman to be submissive to man did not forbid her to praise and prophesy publicly in the presence of men, cf. Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Mary, and Anna. [63] Women prophesied at the beginning of the church on the day of Pentecost. [64] In addition, the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers is violated if we limit prayer and speaking of praise to God in the church-meeting to male believers only. [65]

Birney holds that prayer and praise are qualitatively different from teaching because they do not involve the exercise of authority. Prayer is spoken to God and not to men, and it would be wrong for either men or women to use prayer as a mode to teach or preach. Prophecy “is not premeditated authoritative teaching, but the sharing of a thought, praise, or testimony at the impulse of the Spirit in a way spiritually beneficial to those present.” [66] Thus, there is nothing in the nature of prayer or prophecy which violates the principle of submission.

Critique of Birney. Birney’s argument rests on three fallacious assumptions. The first is that 1 Corinthians 11:5 gives explicit permission for women to pray and prophesy. The second is that if women may pray and prophesy, they must be able to pray and prophesy in the church because both of these are normal church meeting activities. [67] By the same reasoning he would have to conclude that if women are ever allowed to teach, they may teach in the church since teaching is also a normal church meeting activity (1 Cor. 14:19).

The third fallacy is the assumption that prayer and prophecy are not authoritative. While it is true that one does not pray or give praise to man but to God, in public prayer or praise one is leading the rest of the congregation. In 1 Corinthians 14:14–16 Paul indicates that other believers should respond with an “Amen” when someone leads the congregation in prayer or praise. Thus while one directs his prayer or praise to God alone, he also is directing the rest of the congregation.

Furthermore, to say that prayer is not like teaching ignores the rich doctrinal prayers of Paul which contain some of his most important teaching statements. For instance, in Ephesians 1 Paul begins in 1:3–14 with his customary statement of thanksgiving and praise to God, and yet every clause is a profound doctrinal statement relating to such doctrines as election before the foundation of the world, predestination to adoption as sons, redemption through the blood of Christ, the forgiveness of sins, the mystery of His will, the dispensation of the fulness of times, the summing up of all things in Christ, the inheritance of believers, God’s sovereign purpose working all things according to the counsel of His will, as well as the sealing and earnest of the Holy Spirit. This thanksgiving is followed in 1:15–23 with the prayer “that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him, that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe, etc.” This is just a sample of numerous prayers of Paul which could be cited for their doctrinal, teaching content. Prayer may be a different mode of expression, but it is not less doctrinally oriented than teaching.

To say that prophecy is not authoritative is to ignore the New Testament view of prophecy. Birney’s definition of prophecy as simply “the sharing of a thought, praise, or testimony at the impulse of the Spirit in a way spiritually beneficial to those present” [68] is arbitrary and seems to be based on 1 Corinthians 14:3, “One who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation.” He seems to imply that the kind of prophecy which predicts future events or reveals new truth would be authoritative, but the prophesy of 1 Corinthians 14:3 is simply a Spirit prompted word which edifies or exhorts or consoles.

This verse, however, simply gives some of the benefits or results of prophecy. It does not define what the gift is. In 1 Corinthians 12:28 Paul places prophets in the second position of spiritual gifts, right between apostles and teachers (cf. Eph. 4:11). In Ephesians 2:20 he says that the church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. The word order with apostles mentioned first would indicate that it is New Testament prophets which are in view. The point of 1 Corinthians 14 is that the gift of prophecy is superior to the gift of tongues in the church for instruction, edification, and conviction. Modern definitions of prophecy which simply define it as an un-preplanned word of praise or exhortation demean the importance of this spiritual gift in the New Testament church.

A modern view of prophecy. To maintain this non-authoritative nature of prophecy, modern authors have to insist that the prophecy of the New Testament was different from that of the Old Testament. Old Testament prophets spoke an inspired, authoritative message from God. What they spoke was “Thus saith the Lord.” Prophecy was not of human origin but “men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Pet. 1:21). One cannot hold that New Testament prophecy is such inspired, authoritative speech and at the same time hold that women may prophesy because it is not authoritative.

This distinction between New Testament prophecy and Old Testament prophecy is argued strongly by Wayne Grudem, an evangelical professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, in a doctoral dissertation developed at Cambridge University and again in a later more popular publication. [69] He admits that prophecy is essentially based on a revelation from God. [70] However, he distinguishes two different types of prophecy which have different levels of authority. Old Testament prophecy possessed divine authority for the actual words while that of the New Testament only possesses divine authority for the general content.

The Old Testament prophets spoke the very words of God. Their message was, “Thus saith the Lord.” To disobey their message was to disobey God. If a prophet said anything which was contrary to the commandments of God given through accredited messengers (like Moses) or if his prophecy did not come to pass, he was a false prophet and was to be executed (Deut. 13:1–5; 18:20–22). There were false prophets in the Old Testament, and they were to be judged to determine if they were really from God. But if a prophet was accepted from God, then every detail of his message was to be accepted. One could not evaluate what he said to sort out the good from the bad. [71]

The New Testament prophets, however, according to Grudem, were to be evaluated (1 Cor. 14:29). They received a revelation from God which they expressed in human words as best they could. The New Testament prophets were less authoritative and could even be wrong. One could say, according to this view, that the Old Testament prophets received a revelation from God and were inspired, while New Testament prophets received a revelation, but were not inspired.

Grudem’s support for this position is seen in 1 Corinthians in the following verses: (1) In 1 Corinthians 14:29 the prophet’s words could be challenged and questioned, accepted or rejected. Every word was not from God, only the general content of the message. “There is no indication that an occasional mistake would make him a ‘false’ prophet.” [72] (2) In 14:30 the fact that one prophet would be forced to stop so that another could speak would indicate that his prophecy might be lost forever and never heard by the church. This does not seem to be a matter of major concern to Paul and indicates that there could be revelation which was not of great importance. (3) 1 Corinthians 14:36 indicates that no prophet at Corinth could establish a norm for church worship contrary to the one Paul had just laid down. “They are unable to challenge Paul’s rules or propose new ones. So vs. 36 makes it very unlikely that anyone at Corinth, even any prophet, was thought to speak with absolute authority.” [73] (4) 1 Corinthians 14:37–38 indicates that the prophets at Corinth did not have a status equal to his own. They “were not and could not have been sufficiently authoritative to show Paul to be wrong.” (5) Finally, since women could not speak authoritatively (1 Cor. 14:34–36), but could prophesy (11:5), this prophecy could not have had the authority of the very words of God.

Critique of this view of prophecy. Once again an essential argument is built on the false assumption that women were given permission to pray and prophesy in the church. This along with Grudem’s particular interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:34–36 will be considered in the following sections.

The third and fourth arguments seem to assume that a person only speaks with authority if he has the ability to contradict a teaching of an apostle. This is a denial of the unity of divine truth. The apostles did have a unique place in the church. They were limited in number, and the prophets were not their equals. Their doctrine was the norm and standard for the church, and it was impossible that there could be a genuine revelation from God contrary to their teaching.

In response to Grudem’s second argument, we would admit from 1 Corinthians 14:30 that there may be priorities in the revelations God has given. But that does not mean that any of the revelations would forever be lost. The point of the chapter has to do with order in the church meeting and how these messages from God are communicated. Just as the apostle Paul did not and could not communicate all that God had revealed to him in one meeting, so the prophets might have to sit back and speak on another occasion.

The most important argument of Grudem really centers on the fact that the prophecies at Corinth needed to be evaluated. But was this not needed because of the possibility of false prophets in the church, and was this not identical with the situation in the Old Testament where there were also false prophets who needed to be identified and rejected? Furthermore, is there not an identical need to evaluate teaching just as the Bereans evaluated the apostle’s message (Acts 17:11)? If teaching is authoritative (as Grudem admits) and it needs to be evaluated, then how can prophecy which involves the communication of a new revelation from God be less authoritative?

John says that there are many false prophets and the spirits need to be tested to see whether they are from God (1 John 4:1). There could have been such false prophets at Corinth, and Paul tells the believers to evaluate all prophets. The basis for such an evaluation is what they teach about Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 12:3). This seems very much like what is said in Deuteronomy 13:1–5 and 18:20–22.

Nor is it true that one could pick and choose from the message of the prophets in the New Testament, but had to accept everything from the Old Testament prophets. [74] False apostles at Corinth disguised themselves as apostles of Christ and servants of righteousness, just as Satan disguises himself as an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:13–15). It is to be expected that a false prophet like this might teach a great deal of truth. The error might be only a small fraction of his teaching and yet be the kind of error which undermines the whole truth. [75]

Grudem’s contrast between the Old Testament prophet and the prophet of the New Testament is overdrawn. It was possible for an Old Testament prophet to lie. In 1 Kings 13 the old prophet from Bethel came to the man of God from Judah who had prophesied against Jeroboam and lied to him telling him that an angel had told this man of God to stay there and eat bread and drink water (v. 18). This was contrary to what God had already told this prophet from Judah, and he should have rejected this other prophet’s message (v. 17). What is significant is that in 13:20–22 the lying prophet from Bethel did receive a message from God and prophesied the death of the one who had been disobedient. There is no essential difference in the need to evaluate the message of the prophets in either testament.

The whole assumption of non-authoritative prophetic revelation is without foundation. It is used to support the idea that women may prophesy in 1 Corinthians 11:5 without violating 14:34. This requires the minimizing of the nature of the prophetic gift in the New Testament and the driving of a wedge between the prophecy of the Old Testament and that of the New. We cannot accept either of these positions.

Women may not evaluate prophecy. A novel interpretation which is being accepted today is that which seems to have been first suggested by Margaret Thrall and then developed by James Hurley and Wayne Grudem. [76] 1 Corinthians 14:29 is taken to be the topical statement which is developed in the following verses. “And let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment.” Verses 30–33a deal with prophets speaking in the church, while 33b–36 take up the matter of the evaluation of the prophets’ message. Women were permitted to prophesy according to 11:5, but the public evaluation of prophecies which took place afterwards in the church involves the exercise of authority. It is this which is prohibited in 14:34–36.

There are three lines of argument which are used to argue for this. First, the words “to be silent” and “to speak” are often restricted or limited by the context. The New Testament writers do not feel the need to make a pedantic qualification to specify the particular kind of silence which is in view. [77]

Second, these verses cannot be taken as an absolute prohibition of women speaking in the church. The dominating reason for this is that 11:5 clearly allows women to pray and prophesy. Additional arguments are: 1) In chapters 12–14, where Paul discusses spiritual gifts, he emphasizes the fact that every member of the congregation has a spiritual gift which may be used for the common good. In 14:26 the words “each one” (ἕκαστος, [hekastos]) indicate that each one may take part in the public worship. For Paul “now suddently [sic] to add a postscript revealing that he really had meant to talk only about one half of the congregation (the men) would make 12.1-14.33a deceptive and misleading in the extreme.” [78] 2) Verse 26 indicates that prophecy and tongues might be discussed, but there is no hint of a separate third topic, that of women speaking. 3) There is no reason for the prohibition of women speaking in the church. It is not required to promote edification in worship, nor is it consistent with Paul’s thought elsewhere.

The third line of argument comes from the structure and flow of argument of the passage. Grudem and Hurley feel that their outline gives a neat and logical development to the thought of the passage which is in harmony with the immediate as well as the larger context. The outline can be summarized as follows: [79]

V. 26 I. General Statement: Let all things be done for edification

V. 27 A. Specific Example 1: Tongues

1. Restriction in number: two or three
2. There must be interpretation [To insure edification]

V. 29 B. Specific Example 2: Prophets

1. Restriction in number: two or three
2. Let the others weigh what is said [To insure edification]

Vv.30–36 C. A Postscript to B

Vv. 30–33a 1. Regarding prophets speaking

Vv. 33b–34 2. Regarding the weighing of their words

Critique of this view. In evaluating these arguments, we may admit that commands for silence may be limited by the context. But it is not anything in the context of chapter 14 that drives these authors to restrict the prohibition of verses 34–36. The wording in this chapter is plain enough and does make sense. The overriding consideration is that 11:5 must give permission for women to do what appears to be prohibited here. The next section of the paper will deal with that assumption.

The second argument for restricting 14:34–36 comes from a misunderstanding of Paul’s statements that each one in the church is spiritually gifted (chapter 12) and that each one may speak in the worship (14:26). The fact that each one possesses a spiritual gift does not mean that all gifts are speaking gifts. 1 Peter 4:11 seems to divide spiritual gifts into the two categories of speaking gifts and serving gifts. This would mean that many could exercise their gift without ever speaking in the church. Admittedly many women have speaking gifts, but this does not mean that these gifts must be exercised in the church meeting. What if a woman has the gift of teaching? Grudem and Hurley would concede on the basis of 1 Timothy 2:12 that women are not to teach in the church. They would further have to admit on their own premises that 14:26 does not mean that each and every person in the congregation can speak a psalm, a revelation, a tongue, an interpretation. The verse also says, “Each one has a teaching.” The “each one” in this statement must mean only “each of the men.” This does not mean Paul is deceptive and misleading in 14:26. It only means that he does not need to make a qualification of a statement which is sufficiently clear from the context. The teaching of 14:34–36 and 1 Timothy 2, as well as the recognized practice of all the churches, gives the Corinthians that qualification.

Their third argument relating to the structure of the passage gives a neat outline, but in reality the outline is artificial and is imposed on the text. There is nothing that makes it obvious that Paul’s command for silence is only in relation to the weighing of the words of the prophets. He could have made the point clear by saying “let the women keep silent in the evaluation of prophecies.” We would grant that such restrictions do not have to be made explicit when they are sufficiently clear to the readers. But how can anyone claim that anything is clear which no one in the church dreamed of for 1900 years? No one interpreted these verses as pertaining to the evaluation of prophecy until quite recently. The history of interpretation shows that this explanation of the verses is unnatural and unobvious. Verse 29b is too small a phrase, and there are too many verses in between to make this view readily apparent. Fee says that “one wonders how the Corinthians themselves could have so understood it.” [80]

Further, there is nothing in chapter 14 that would indicate that the command for silence does not also apply to tongues. The vocabulary of “silence” and “speaking” are used for this gift (verses 27–28) just as they are for prophecy (verses 29–30).

This interpretation results in the strange conclusion that women may prophesy in the church, but not evaluate prophecies. Prophesying is not an authoritative activity, but the evaluation of prophecy is. How can that which is important enough to be evaluated be considered non-authoritative? If prophecy is totally non-doctrinal, why does it need to be evaluated?

Finally, this interpretation divorces 1 Corinthians 14:34–36 from the similar passage in 1 Timothy 2:12–14. There the basis of women being silent and not teaching is that they are not to exercise authority over men. This is essentially the same as 1 Corinthians 14:34 where the subjection of women taught in the law requires silence. If 1 Timothy 2:12 is a general instruction for the whole church meeting, then how can 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 be restricted simply to the evaluation of prophecy?

Hurley and Grudem have given us a forced interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14 in order to make it harmonize with chapter 11. It is strange that so many good scholars are willing to go to this extreme in their exegesis.

Conclusion

It is clear that when 1 Corinthians 11:5 is accepted as giving permission for women to pray and prophesy in the church, there is no consensus as to how 14:34–36 should be interpreted. In fact, the widely diverging viewpoints should make us suspicious of the whole approach. The fact is that these verses are not difficult in themselves. They are basically clear and easily understood. The long history of interpretation which understood them in a more absolute sense as prohibiting the speaking of women in the church was not because of male bias. It was because this is the simplest way to understand Paul’s words. I would suggest that all attempts to explain them away have failed. Perhaps it is the assumption that 11:5 gives permission for women to pray and prophesy which is the error. We will attempt to show this in the following section.

Women May Not Pray and Prophesy

Until the twentieth century it was a common interpretation that 1 Corinthians 14 in its prohibition of women speaking was the normative passage, and chapter 11 was to be interpreted in light of it. Calvin says,

When the apostle disapproves of the one thing here, he is not giving his approval to the other. For when he takes them to task because they were prophesying bare-headed, he is not giving them permission, however, to prophesy in any other way whatever, but rather is delaying the censure of that fault to another passage (chapter 14.34 ff). [81]

This is largely rejected today because chapter 11 is considered to give clear permission for women to speak. Most would consider this to be self-evident. It seems rather silly to say that a woman cannot pray or prophesy with her head uncovered when she cannot pray or prophesy in the church at all. If I say that a person may not drive my car without a seat belt, I imply that he may drive it with one.

If, however, it can be shown that the assumption that 11:5 gives permission cannot be established, then the case that 14:34–36 must be modified falls apart.

1 Corinthians 11:5 Does Not Give Permission to Pray and Prophesy

No Specific Permission is Given

This is important to note. Paul says, “Every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying, disgraces her head.” It is assumed that the converse is true, i.e., “It is proper to pray or prophesy if the head is covered.” Logically, however, the converse of a statement is not necessarily true. [82] For permission to be valid, it needs to be specifically stated. In 1 Corinthians 7:1 Paul says that it is good for a man not to touch a woman. This does not mean that the converse is true; it is bad for a man to touch a woman. Martin observes:

All this might seem to savour of sophistry, were it not for the fact that minutes later (some 15 minutes, reading at a speed of 120 words a minute) Paul makes a statement that shows that the converse was not in his mind; it is the unambiguous statement: “let the women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted to them to speak” (1 Cor. 14:34). [83]

The following examples illustrate the point. A camp director might make a rule, “No skinny-dipping after lights out.” It is obvious that some of the campers have sneaked out after lights out and gone swimming in the raw. One cannot assume, however, on the basis of the director’s statement that such an activity would be permitted in a Christian camp before lights out. One might also say that a woman who gets drunk when she is pregnant dishonors God. One cannot assume that it is permissible for her to get drunk if she is not pregnant. I might also say that it is wrong to go through a red light while speeding. This does not mean that you have permission to go through the light if you are not speeding. [84]

In each of these statements there are two parts. One or both of them may be a problem. The form of the statement itself is not determinative. One simply cannot assume that the converse of Paul’s statement forbidding praying and prophesying with the head uncovered gives permission to do it with the head covered. Certainly it would be very unclear for Paul to phrase his permission this way when he is going to say three chapters later that women may not speak in the church.

The Context of 1 Corinthians 14 Precludes a Woman Prophesying

Logical inferences from 1 Corinthians 11:5 cannot decide the issue. What is clear is that the context of 1 Corinthians 14 specifically deals with two subjects, speaking in tongues and prophecy. The subject of the verses immediately preceding 14:34–36 concerns speaking in tongues and prophecy (14:26–33). The verses which follow (14:37–39) also deal with prophecy and tongues. One would think that when Paul says that women are not to speak, the very least that he means is that women may not speak in tongues or prophesy.

Furthermore, the vocabulary used in verse 34 is also used in the context for both tongues and prophecy. The word “speak” (λαλέω, laleō) is used in verse 27 for speaking in tongues and in verse 29 for prophecy. The word “silent” (σιγάω, sigaō) is used in verse 28 for speaking in tongues and in verse 30 for prophecy. It is only special pleading that qualifies 1 Corinthians 14:34 in a way that allows women to pray or prophesy. The subject matter and vocabulary of the chapter would indicate that a woman may not prophesy in the church.

If a Woman May Not Prophesy, then 11:5 Cannot Mean that Women Have Permission to Pray and Prophesy

You cannot infer a permission for something in 11:5 which is clearly prohibited in 14:34. Paul does not give permission for women to prophesy. But if he does not give permission to prophesy in this verse, neither does he give permission to pray. So much of the argument is built on the inference that there is a permission here. Yet this assumption is seen to fall apart.

The Main Problem of Chapters 11 and 14

The main problem in each of these chapters should be noted. In chapter 11 Paul is principally concerned with the wearing of the head covering. Women praying and prophesying are only mentioned incidentally. In chapter 14 he is concerned about the exercise of spiritual gifts in the church and the conduct of ministry in the church. He specifically brings up the subject of the vocal participation of women and says that they are to be silent. We should place the emphasis on the chapter which deals with the subject of women speaking, not on the chapter which mentions women praying and prophesying as a casual remark.

Women Praying and Prophesying in 1 Corinthians 11:5

It may be asked why Paul mentions prayer and prophecy in 1 Corinthians 11:5 when women are not permitted to do either with or without the head covered. There are several considerations which must be noted. We may assume that women were praying and prophesying in Corinth, and they were doing so with their heads uncovered. There were thus two potential issues involved. May women pray and prophesy? Must women have their head covered?

We should also note that in chapters 7–16 Paul is replying to a letter from Corinth in which specific issues had been raised. 1 Corinthians 7:1 says, “Now concerning the things about which you wrote.” This is followed by the repeated phrase “now concerning” which introduces new subjects in the following chapters (7:25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1). Paul deals with one subject after another. In chapter 11 he first answers questions concerning women’s head coverings. Nothing is said about the speaking as to whether it is permitted or not. In chapter 14 he does deal with women speaking and specifically forbids them to speak at all.

It should also be noted that what Paul does here with these issues is not unlike what he does in chapters 8–10. There the subject is the eating of meat offered to idols. In chapter 8 he responds to the assertion that a Christian has liberty to eat meat which has been sacrificed to idols because he knows that idols are not true gods. Paul insists that knowledge and liberty are not the whole picture. Our liberty should not be the occasion of causing a weaker brother to stumble and sin. If he follows our example without understanding the truth that gives us liberty and if he acts contrary to what he believes to be true, he sins against his own conscience.

1 Corinthians 8:10–11 deals with the application of this principle to a specific issue, dining in an idol’s temple. “For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol’s temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined.” One could easily conclude from this verse that a Christian not only has liberty to eat meat offered to idols, he also has the right to dine in an idol’s temple itself. What is wrong is not the act itself, but the fact that it might cause a weaker brother to stumble.

Chapter 10 further applies the principles previously discussed. But here Paul indicates that a Christian should not participate in an idol feast at all (10:14–22). One may eat meat purchased in the market place even if there is a possibility that it has been sacrificed to idols (verse 25). One may participate in a dinner at the home of an unbeliever where meat sacrificed to idols is served, provided this action does not offend the conscience of a weaker Christian and cause him to stumble (verse 23–33). But one may not go to an idol temple and participate in the feast. “What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons” (verses 19–21).

One might infer from 8:10 that dining in an idol temple is a matter of liberty, just as one might infer from 11:5 that women may pray and prophesy if their heads are covered. However, both inferences are wrong. In 10:21 Paul says that you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons, and in 14:34 he says that women are not to speak in the church at all. [85]

We have to be careful of thinking that because we would not phrase a statement a certain way, the apostle Paul would not. In taking a double issue and dealing with each part separately in chapters 11 and 14, he is consistent with his methodology in chapters 8 and 10.

Conclusion

The apostle Paul was not always clear in his writings, and even Peter admitted that some of the things he said are hard to understand (2 Peter 3:15–16). One of these relates to women speaking in the church. What he apparently permits in 1 Corinthians 11:5 he prohibits in 14:34–36. We cannot assume that the apostle is contradicting himself. One passage has to be qualified in the light of the other.

We have examined the current approach of many evangelicals which takes chapter 11 as the norm and tries to qualify the restriction on women’s speaking in the church in the light of it. This has resulted in a multitude of different interpretations of chapter 14 which contradict and refute one another. This very struggle and the lack of consensus in dealing with a passage which is basically clear suggest that it is the approach itself which is at fault.

We have shown that 1 Corinthians 11:5 does not give permission for women to pray and prophesy in the church. Prophecy is one of the the things prohibited in 14:34, and both prayer and prophecy do involve the exercise of authority.

The end of the twentieth century has seen a strong force in the woman’s movement. The kind of teaching Paul gives in the passages we have considered is not popular among non-Christians, and even many believers have problems accepting the Scriptural teaching. It is important that our thinking and our Christian practice be based on biblical teaching and not simply reflect the spirit of our age. Given time, the extreme feminist position among evangelicals will fall because it is so at variance with Scripture. The problem of the reconciliation of 1 Corinthians 11:5 and 14:34–36, however, will always remain with us. It is the kind of interpretational problem for which there are no easy answers. But it may be true that the assumption that 1 Corinthians 11:5 gives women permission to pray and prophesy will not be able to stand the test of time. It simply results in too many forced and unsatisfactory interpretations of 1 Corinthians 14:34–36.

Notes

1. Jack Fish is a faculty member at Emmaus Bible College.
2. e.g., John Calvin, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, eds. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, trans. John W. Fraser (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), 231; E. B. Allo, Premire Épitre aux Corinthiens, ÉB (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1934), 258–59; Charles Hodge, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969 [1864]), 208–209.
3. F. W. Grosheide, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), 251. Cf. also: W. E. Vine, 1 Corinthians (London: Oliphants, 1951), 147, for a similar view.
4. Philipp Bachmann, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther, 3 Auflage, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, herausgegeben von Theodor Zahn (Leipzig: A. Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1921), 347. There is a slight difference between the view of Grosheide and that of Bachmann which affects to some extent the way they present their case. Grosheide takes this passage as referring to public meetings outside of the church. Bachmann relates it to worship in the home. These differences are immaterial for our purposes.
5. No one disputes that prayer and prophecy were taking place in 1 Corinthians 11. The issue is where. To assume that prophecy can only take place in the church is to assume that Philip’s daughters prophesied in the church. This is also to assume that it is proper for women to speak or prophesy in the church. But this is only to assume the point at issue. It is not evidence or argument.
6. Cf. William A. Beardslee, Literary Criticism of the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970), 2.
7. Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, Hermeneia, trans. James W. Leitch (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975 [1969], 246.
8. Ibid., Paul uses the verb ἐπιτρέπω [epitrepō], “to permit” in both passages. Conzelmann can deny that Paul ever used this verb only by denying that Paul wrote 1 Timothy.
9. Two examples which have found their way into our King James Bible may be used as illustrations. In Acts 9:6 the question which Paul asked, “And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” is found in no Greek manuscript. It was in the Latin Vulgate on the basis of the parallel passage in Acts 22:10. Erasmus, who edited the first published Greek New Testament, frankly interpolated it from the Latin. His edition was the basis for the long accepted Textus Receptus from which the King James was translated. To reject these words in Acts 9 is not to reject what the inspired writer wrote, but what a later scribe added in Latin. A verse omitted by Erasmus from his first edition because it was found in no Greek manuscript was 1 John 5:7, “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.” Even though this is a doctrinally correct statement in support of the Trinity, it was not written by the apostle John. Under pressure Erasmus agreed to include it in future editions of his Greek text if any Greek text containing it could be found. One was produced specifically for this occasion, and this verse eventually found its way into the Textus Receptus and the King James. To reject it is not to reject the doctrine of inspiration, nor the doctrine of the Trinity.
10. Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NIC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 699–708.
11. B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek with Notes on Selected Readings (reprint ed., Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1988 [1882]), 122.
12. Fee, 700.
13. Ibid., 699, n. 6. The suggestion is made that these verses were a gloss oginally written in the margin and given to check a rising feminist movement, (1 Timothy 2:9–15; 5:11–16). Does this indicate that Fee takes 1 Timothy as a later writing not written by the apostle Paul? He suggests as another possibility that they were written to reconcile 1 Corinthians 14 with 1 Timothy 2. This statement at least acknowledges that 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 is harmonious with 1 Timothy 2. But even if they were omitted, it is difficult to see what in the rest of 1 Corinthians 14 would be incompatible with 1 Timothy 2.
14. cf. Donald A. Carson, “‘Silent in the Churches’: On the Role of Women in 1 Corinthians 14:33b–36, ” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, eds. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1991), 142.
15. Examining the internal evidence, textual critics ask which reading the author is most likely to have written.
16. Ibid., 706.
17. Ibid., 702.
18. Gilbert Bilezikian, Beyond Sex Roles: A Guide for the Study of Female Roles in the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), 146.
19. Ibid., 144.Bilezikian, p. 248, lists in addition 1:12; 6:13b; 6:18; 7:1; 8:4; and 8:8. In 1:12 Paul specifically indicates that the Corinthians were saying, “I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ.” It is more problematical to identify which of the other statements come from the Corinthians. For instance, although Bilezikian includes as a slogan 6:13, “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food--and God will destroy both one and the other,” it is not at all clear that the expression “and God will destroy both one and the other” is part of the slogan. It is more likely a part of Paul’s refutation of the argument that sex is a natural function of the body just like eating. Paul rejects the parallel by saying that the stomach and foods are temporary, but the body will not be destroyed. The problem is made more acute by the probability that some of these statements originally came from Paul himself and were pressed by the Corinthians to a wrong conclusion. The statement in 6:12 and 10:23, “all things are lawful for me,” appears to be one of these. A statement used by Paul to express the true freedom of the Christian was twisted by some of the Corinthians to justify antinomianism.
20. Donald Carson notes that “during the last decade and a half, one notable trend in Corinthian studies has been to postulate that Paul is quoting the Corinthians in more and more places--usually in places where the commentator does not like what Paul is saying!” Carson, “Silent in the Churches,” 148.
21. Walter Kaiser, “Paul, Woman and the Church,” Worldwide Challenge (Sept., 1976): 11.
22. Bilezikian, 145.
23. Ibid., 146.
24. Ibid., 149.
25. Joyce Harper, in a C.B.R.F. Occasional Paper, cites John Anderson, a missionary from the open assembly in Rhynie, Scotland who sailed for China in 1889, as giving this argument. Unable to find any law in the Old Testament corresponding to 1 Corinthians 14:34–35, he searched the Babylonian Talmud, that massive compilation of traditional Jewish teaching, until he found similar statements. He concluded that these verses represented the kind of man-made traditions opposed by both our Lord and the apostle Paul. (Joyce Harper, “Women and the Gospel,” Christian Brethren Research Fellowship Occasional Paper, No. 5 [1974], 14–15). The implication of this argument is that Christian teaching must of necessity be different from any Jewish belief or teaching. This is a dangerous assumption. Similarities with Judaism do not make Christianity Judaistic any more than similarities with apes make man just another animal. It is often the differences which are crucial. One may accept the limitations Paul places on the ministry of women and still hold that his emphasis on the equality of men and women in Christ, the ability of women to learn, and the importance of their legitimate ministries sharply distinguish him from the traditional rabbinic teaching. Bilezikian finds additional evidence of Judaic origin in other phrases in these verses such as “the churches of the saints,” the indefiniteness of the statement “they are not permitted to speak,” the implication that women were not qualified to learn in the assembly, and the assumption that all women in attendance were married. Bilezikian, 148–150.
26. Ibid., 151.
27. Ibid., Bilezikian also says that in 1 Corinthians more than in any of his other epistles, Paul uses ē to introduce rebuttals to statements preceding it.
28. Ibid., 152.
29. I do not know of a single commentary which adopts this viewpoint.
30. Clark H. Pinnock, “Biblical Authority & the Issues in Question,” in Women, Authority & the Bible, ed. Alvera Mickelsen, (Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter Varsity Press, 1986), 52.
31. Ibid., 58.
32. It may be that this interpretation is ultimately based on a misreading of Thayer’s Lexicon. At least Walter Kaiser in a later article which appeared in Christianity Today shows his acquaintance with Thayer and cites it in his argument. (Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. “Shared Leadership or Male Headship,” Christianity Today [October 3, 1986]: 12-I). Thayer under the particle ἤ 1c says that it is a disjunctive conjunction used “before a sentence contrary to the one just preceding, to indicate that if one be denied or refuted the other must stand.” (James Henry Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Fourth ed. [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1901], 275). Thayer does not mean that verse 36 must be contrary to the preceding statements. He paraphrases his meaning using Matthew 20:15 as an illustration (“Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own?”). He says that in the rest of the verse the word ἤ means “or, if thou wilt not grant this, is thine eye etc.” The word “or” is used as an additional argument if the readers do not accept the first one. But there is no indication that the first argument is invalid or unacceptable. Paul is saying that if the Corinthians reject his teaching in verses 34–36 that women are to be silent in the church, they are putting themselves in a minority. They are adopting a position contrary to all of the other churches, and they are acting as if they were the only ones who had received the revelation of God.
33. Carson comments on the dogmatism that accompanies this superficiality. “All scholars make mistakes, I no less than others. But the sheer vehemence that has surrounded the treatment of this particle in recent years attests that we are facing more than an occasional lapse of exegetical judgment. We are facing an ideology that is so certain of itself that in the hands of some, at least, the text is not allowed to speak for itself.” Carson, 151.
34. There are numerous verses that could be cited to illustrate this very point. Cf. 2 Corinthians 11:7.
35. Paul Jewett, Man as Male and Female (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975).
36. Ibid., 114.
37. Ibid., 49.
38. Ibid., 50.
39. Ibid., 86. Cf. 94, “It was not so much in what he said as in how he related to women that Jesus was a revolutionary. .. . He treated women as fully human, equal to men in every respect; no word of deprecation about women, as such, is ever found on his lips” [italics in original].
40. Ibid., 142.
41. Ibid., 50.
42. Virginia Ramey Mollencott in the forward to Jewett’s book (p. 8) says that “he is the first evangelical theologian to face squarely the fact that if woman must of necessity be subordinate, she must of necessity be inferior.”
43. Ibid., 134.
44. Ibid., 112.
45. J. Keir Howard, “Neither Male nor Female: An Examination of the Status of Women in the New Testament,” The Evangelical Quarterly, 55(1985): 32.
46. Ibid., 38. Cf. F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, NCB, (London: Oliphants, 1971), 135.
47. Liddell and Scott list as the meaning of λαλέω “to talk, chat, prattle”. They cite as an example the chattering noise made by locusts. Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, new ed., rev. and ed. by Henry Stuart Jones and Roderick McKenzie, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940), 1025–26. Barrett suggests as a possibility that Paul had been informed of feminist pressure (possibly of feminine chatter) which was contributing seriously to the disorder of the Christian assembly in Corinth. He, therefore, took energetic measures to stamp it out. C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), 332.
48. Letha Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty, All We’re Meant to Be (Waco, Tex.: WordBooks, 1974), 69. Here the additional suggestion is made that the Corinthian women were uneducated.
49. R. P. Martin, The Spirit and the Congregation: Studies in 1 Corinthians 12–15 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 88.
50. Ibid., 87.
51. Carson, 147.
52. Richard and Joyce Bouldrey, Chauvinist or Feminist? Paul’s View of Women (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976), 56.
53. Ibid., 58.
54. Scanzoni and Hardesty, 68.
55. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 8 vols., 5th ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963 [1889]), 2:232.
56. Gerald L. Almlie, “Women’s Church and Communion Participation: Apostolic Practice or Innovative Twist?” Christian Brethren Review, 33 (Dec., 1982): 41-55.
57. Almlie, p. 50, attempts to distinguish between the disciples coming together to break bread in Acts 20:7 and Paul preaching to the people. He says that the genitive absolute (συνηγμένων ἡμῶν κλάσαι ἄρτον [when we were gathered together to break bread]) is an attendant circumstance. It should not be translated “when we were gathered together,” but simply, “we came together to break bread. Paul preached to the people.” This, however, misunderstands the participle of attendant circumstance. There is still a logical relationship between the participle and the main verb (cf. Ernest De Witt Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek, 3rd ed. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1898), 175–176. Almlie is again reading his hypothesis into the text without any specific evidence to support him.
58. Almlie assumes that since the Lord’s supper was a communal meal, men and women sat together, p. 48. Then he says that “Paul’s prohibition (1 Cor. 14:34–35) is widely explained as being prompted by the eastern custom of seating the sexes separately during meetings” (p. 48). Notice that this is just a hypothesis and is nowhere stated in the text.
59. Even Almlie’s language admits this. He says that unbelievers were not present each time at the Lord’s supper (p. 46). But that implies that they could have been present some times. He then says that unbelievers could attend the teaching meeting (1 Cor. 14:23–25) [Italics mine.] Both of his statements say the same thing. Unbelievers might be at the meeting, but this was not necessarily so.
60. cf. James B. Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 158.
61. Leroy Birney, “The Role of Women in the New Testament Church,” C.B.R.F. Occasional Paper Number 4 (1974), 14.
62. Ibid., 15.
63. Ibid.
64. Ibid., 18-19.
65. Ibid., 16.
66. Ibid., 11.
67. Ibid., 16.
68. Wayne A. Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in 1 Corinthians (University Press of America: Lanham, Md, 1982); The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1988).
69. The Gift of Prophecy in 1 Corinthians, 140. Subsequent references to Grudem are to this volume.
70. Ibid., 19.
71. Ibid., 73-74.
72. Ibid., 71.
73. Grudem also argues from 1 Thessalonians 5:19–21 that since prophecies were to be evaluated to sort the good from the bad, the Thessalonians could not have regarded these prophecies as absolutely authoritative words of the Lord. Here again we would say that Grudem is simply taking these verses to mean what he wants them to mean. “Do not quench the Spirit” would apply to the exercise of all spiritual gifts and not just the gift of prophecy. “Do not despise prophetic utterances” does indicate that this gift was being depreciated. Perhaps the situation was like Corinth where the gift of tongues was being exalted. “Examine everything; hold fast to that which is good” does not indicate we should selectively accept the prophet’s message. It is the same principle of Isaiah 8:20, “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.” Everything is to be evaluated according to the Word of God. This is true of the message of the prophets, the teachers, and the apostles. Only that which passes this test is to be accepted.
74. The Roman Catholic church agreed with the Reformers on the great doctrines of the ancient church concerning the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the two natures of Christ, the sinfulness of man, and the atoning work of Christ. They even accepted faith in Christ as necessary for salvation. Their demand, however, for good works as a necessary requirement for acceptance by God made their gospel like that of the Galatian heresy: “another” gospel which is not really “another” (Gal. 1:6–7).
75. Margaret E. Thrall, I and II Corinthians: CBCNEB (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), 102; James B. Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 188–94; Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in 1 Corinthians, 239–55.
76. Grudem, 242–243.
77. Ibid., 247.
78. cf. Grudem, 245–46, 250–51; Hurley, 188–89.
79. Fee, 1 Corinthians, 704.
80. John Calvin, The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, 231.
81. cf. William J. Martin, “1 Corinthians 11:2–16: An Interpretation,” in Apostolic History and the Gospel, eds. W. Ward Gasque and Ralph P. Martin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 240.
82. Ibid.
83. This last illustration comes from John W. Robbins, Scripture Twisting in the Seminaries: Part I: Feminism (Jefferson, Md.: The Trinity Foundation, 1985), 26. The title of this book is extremely relevant, for the problem of twisting Scripture to support unscriptural theological views is by no means uncommon. The title is even pertinent to the issue of feminism where there is often an attempt to support views from Scripture which are far from the biblical teaching. Robbins, however, has aimed his theological cannons at the wrong enemy. Those whom he attacks are James Hurley, George Knight, and Susan Foh. All are conservative Presbyterians who oppose feminism. They all are orthodox in their doctrine and believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. Their “heresy” is that in attempting to resolve the issue of the relationship of 1 Corinthians 11:5 and 14:34–36, they do not come up with the view of Calvin and Hodge. Just because we might disagree with someone over an issue like this, he or she is not necessarily a “scripture twister” or a “heretic.”
84. Almlie asks why Paul’s methodology in chapters 8 and 10 requires his treating women’s participation the same way, “Women’s Church and Communion Participation,” CBR 33 (1982): 43. Of course, he is right. Because Paul did this on one occasion, this does not require him to do so again. We are simply saying that this is a possibility. The support is found in the evidence of chapter 14 as given above.