A Biblical View of Women in the Ministry, Part 3: The Speaking of Women and the Prohibition of the Law

By H. Wayne House

[Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology, Dallas Theological Seminary]

Paul began 1 Corinthians 14:33b–35 with a reference to the universal practice of the Christian church regarding the proper function of women in the local meeting of Christians.[1] The churches agreed on these points: women are to be silent (σιγάτωσαν) at church meetings, are not to speak (λαλεῖν), and are to submit themselves (ὑποτασσέσθωσαν).

Paul’s two reasons—the practice of the churches and the Law—demonstrate he was not expressing personal opinion as he did in 1 Corinthians 7:6. Instead he appealed to guides that should convince the Corinthians to follow his directions. The words ὡς ἐν πάσαις ταῖς τῶν ἁγίων (“as in all the churches of the saints”) have a close logical arrangement[2] with verse 36, “Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?”

The Corinthians were not to be so proud in their interpretation and application of Christian truth as to suppose they might operate in conflict with the rest of the Christian world. Paul desired all Christians to conform to certain Christian practices (1 Cor 11:16; 14:33b, 36; 1 Tim 2:8). To think that the prohibitions Paul gave applied only to the Corinthians is out of harmony with Paul’s appeal that they conform to the rest of the Christian church. The idea that today one may frivolously go against the last two thousand years of Christian teaching (but for heretical movements) on the subject of women, because of the current Zeitgeist may be tantamount to having the attitude found among the Corinthians.

So these injunctions from the apostle are not merely a personal whim of his or of the church, nor are they based on custom. Instead, Paul said they are in agreement with the Scriptures (καθὼς καὶ ὁ νόμος λέγει).

What Is the “Law” in Paul’s Discussion?

What exactly is the law to which Paul refers? Several writers (Barrett, Meyer, Orr, Godet)[3] consider this a reference to Genesis 3:16. Bruce believes that the reference in 1 Corinthians 14:34 is to the creation narratives of Genesis 1 and 2.[4] Probably Lenski’s view is best that Paul is using the entire teaching of the Torah as the basis of his position on female subordination, with the creation narratives providing the divinely ordained starting point.[5]

Regardless of the way one views the Old Testament foundation on which Paul formed his argument, one point is clear. Paul was not unconsciously parroting Jewish tradition. He perceived his teaching (that women are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission) as Christian teaching, though backed by the Law. In verse 37 he affirmed that all the things he had written were a “command” of the Lord. Whether one should see this as a reference to all of chapter 14 or to only verses 33b–37[6] is difficult to determine, but either way the command includes the teaching on women.

Women[7] are commanded to be silent. This silence is not intended to inhibit their learning of Christian truth, since they may learn[8] from their husbands at home (v. 35). They are not to be vocal in the assembly; to be otherwise would be unsubmissive. Since this passage prohibits women from speaking in the church, on the surface this apostolic dictum appears contrary to the teaching in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16, which refers to women praying and prophesying.

Arguments on the Silence of Women

Several explanations have been offered to alleviate the apparent discrepancy between 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 and 14:33b–35 and to define the nature of speaking in the latter passage. Many critics seek to alleviate the problem by dismissing the latter passage as an interpolation, either by the pseudonymous author of the Pastoral Epistles or by one influenced by the 1 Timothy 2 passage.[9]

Discussing these critical views in any depth is beyond the purview of this article, but a brief treatment may be helpful. One line of argument includes the following assertions. (1) Verses 34–35 belong after verse 40, as in some manuscripts. (2) The verses are unnecessary in the context; verse 36 easily joins with verse 33b.[10] (3) Verses 34–35 conflict with Paul’s teaching on women in 1 Corinthians 11:5 and 13. (4) Verses 34–35 depend on 1 Timothy 2:11–12 or at least on the concerns of a Pauline school reflecting opposition to women speaking.[11]

Another method of alleviating the supposed conflict is to view 14:33–34 as referring to a church setting.[12] For example Grosheide says that though the praying and prophesying of 1 Corinthians 11 is undoubtedly public, there is no indication that they occur in the official services of the church, whereas the speaking in 1 Corinthians 14:33b–35 clearly is.[13]

This view has considerable difficulty. First Corinthians 11:2–16 assuredly is an outgrowth of Paul’s theme on abusing freedom in Christ, as Alexander has maintained, and this is most likely also true of verses 17–34 as well as much of the other portions of 1 Corinthians. The use of ἐπαινῶ (“I praise”) in verse 2 and οὐκ ἐπαινῶ (“I do not praise”) in verse 17 ties together these two pericopae structurally. They serve as a unit even as chapter 10 does. Contrary to Grosheide, the question of praying and prophesying is more naturally seen within a public worship setting in a letter addressing Corinth’s worship problems. Also since the instruction deals with the need to conform to the practices of the other Christian congregations, this is certainly an issue of public worship.

The Nature of Speaking in 1 Corinthians 14:33b-35

The meaning of λαλέω (“to speak”) has also served as a point of contention in the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:33b–35. The prohibited speaking is viewed by exegetes as inspired speaking (prophecy or tongues), disruptive talk (chattering or asking questions during worship), exerting authority over husbands by contradicting them, judging of the prophets, or all speaking in general.

Inspired Speaking

Dillow says that women were not permitted to exercise the gift of tongues in the Corinthian church, and he adds that a majority of tongues-speakers today are women who are thus violating this passage.[14]

True, verses 34–36 follow a lengthy presentation on speaking in tongues, but it is incorrect to restrict λαλέω to that phenomenon. The more immediate context is self-control and judging prophets. The meaning of the prohibition, however, must be broader since it stems from the teaching of the Law regarding women. Paul allowed inspired utterance in Corinth if it were done under prescribed guidelines (11:2–16), so surely he would allow it here if it were done under the guidelines for tongues prescribed in this passage.[15] The Law required women not to occupy authority over men, but since inspired utterance did not involve this authority,[16] the prohibition must have been intended to curb a noninspired usurpation by women.

Disruptive Talk

Blackwelder views the speaking as disruptive questioning of husbands by their wives. He adduces several arguments for this. First, Paul used λαλέω (“to speak”) rather than λέγω (“to say”), the former meaning merely to utter sounds. Second, Paul used the present infinitive, signifying continuous action, meaning that they were not permitted to continue “la-la-ing” (Blackwelder’s depiction of chatter). Third, the command not to ask husbands in church carries with it the permission to ask at home. Fourth, the situation in the church calls forth the injunction, that is, women were disturbing the church service in trying to ask questions of their husbands.[17]

The suggestion that λαλέω means to chatter or to ask questions is supported by the probable situation in the church meetings. It is likely that women and men were seated separately in worship, similar to seating in the synagogue.[18] But this view does not accord with the apostle’s development from the Law and so it is probably too narrow an interpretation of the prohibition. Paul’s rule does not seem to be directed at particular disruptions in the Corinthian assembly.

Women are to be silent, Paul wrote, because they are women, not because they are disorderly. Such practice of women speaking is contrary to the practice of the churches (14:33b) and is contrary to the Law of God which commands female subordination.[19] To be subordinate women are to be silent, as the Law says. If they violate this teaching of the Law, it annuls the Law which commands subordination,[20] and this is a reason for shame (αἰσχρὸν, v. 35).

Moreover, the mention of λαλέω as a reference to disruptive chatter does not agree with the use of the term elsewhere in the New Testament. Λαλέω is used of chatter in classical times, but in the New Testament period it was synonymous with λέγω.[21]

On the surface, one might think the meaning of λαλέω is determined by Paul’s instruction that the women ask their husbands at home, in view of the logical converse that the women not ask them in church. But other factors need to be considered. Bruce says, “It is doubtful, however, whether such expressions as they are not permitted to speak and it is shameful for a woman to speak in church can be understood to mean no more than this.”[22] Verse 35 is probably not included to define λαλέω exactly, but to counter a possible objection.[23] Godet probably has the right idea:

The particle εἰ δέ, and moreover if, which begins ver. 35, introduces, not a simple explanation, but a gradation: “And even if they would learn something, they ought to abstain from asking in the congregation; they should reserve their questions to be submitted to their husbands in private.” The form εἰ δέ, and if, is therefore founded on the fact that questioning was the case of least gravity, the one which seemed most naturally to admit of exception. But this very exception Paul rejects; for he knows how easily, under pretext of putting questions, women could elude the prohibition which forbade their public speaking.[24]

Exerting Authority over the Man

Related to the previous suggestion is the view that the speaking is aimed at a specific group of women within the Corinthian church who because of their liberated status in Christ sought to exert authority over their husbands in the meetings of the church by contradicting them.[25]

This suggestion that Paul was specifically dealing with a feminist group at Corinth is a tenable postulation. But that his admonitions are thus localized does not follow. He presented the need for the Corinthians to conform to the other churches in this practice (14:34b).[26] The prohibition against speaking (ἐπιτρεπέται and ὑποτασσέσθωσαν) reveals an established practice.[27] Also his mention of the Law discloses the theological dimension of his command; his teaching is not merely to curb a current sociological crisis.

Judging the Pophets

A variation of the “asking questions” position is posited by Seeberg. He takes λαλέω as “critical discussion of passages from the prophets…. Questions asked for the purpose of achieving deeper comprehension and of obtaining additional elucidation and confirmation of things heard.”[28]

This approach is also proffered by Hurley, who says that since Paul commanded the prophets to evaluate their messages to make sure no false doctrine was present, and since women were among the prophets, then a problem of subordination to men arose.[29]

This view of Seeberg and Hurley has much to commend it. Certainly the context allows for the speaking to be evaluation of prophetic utterance. Seemingly after the prophets spoke; other prophets would judge the utterance. If this position is correct, then women were disallowed this opportunity, for this would put them over the male prophets.

Paul’s Meaning in 1 Corinthians 14:33b-35

Each of the foregoing interpretations has merit, but all of them are too narrow for Paul’s use of λαλέω in 1 Corinthians 14:33b–35. Both Grosheide[30] and Bruce[31] say that λαλέω almost certainly means more than simply speaking during a service. Yet these interpretations put the emphasis on prohibition of disorder in the Corinthian assembly by loud talking, tongues-speaking, or asking questions of or arguing with husbands. Paul, rather, puts the emphasis on God’s intention for women in general, namely, subordination to men. The term λαλέω seems to be a general prohibition including all the alternatives that have been offered.

Lest the Corinthians move to the extreme of believing that learning is forbidden women, or because they initiated the contention in their letter, Paul wrote they could learn from their husbands at home.[32]

This is not to imply that only married women fit the prohibition. As Schmiedel poses, “Should Paul always have been so mindful of the scrupulosity of his expositors?”[33] One should understand that the unmarried women have both fathers or older women (Titus 2:3–5) of whom they may ask questions.[34]

This instruction is intended by Paul for all churches and apparently was practiced by them; the Corinthians were commanded to get in line with the other people of God. The transcultural nature of the apostolic teaching is that it is based on the Old Testament’s view of female subordination. For the Corinthian women to act in disharmony with God’s revelation was shameful.

Clearly the speaking is one that caused women to have an insubordinate role over men in the congregation, or as Godet says, “The term speaking in the church, especially in a chapter where it is applied throughout to the glossolaletes and prophets, can only designate a public speaking, which has for its end to teach and edify.”[35]

One might counter that this would be in contradiction to 1 Corinthians 11:2–16, where Paul allowed women to pray and prophesy if their heads were covered. But in that passage the women were speaking divine utterances, whereas in 14:33b–36 they were not. Those who spoke under divine control were not expressing their own authority[36] and so were not in violation of the Law. In denying public address to women Paul a fortiori denies also judging prophets and publicly disagreeing with their husbands. So then any public speaking other than a divine utterance would be in violation of Paul’s prohibition in 1 Corinthians 14:33b–36.

The Role of Women according to 1 Timothy 2:8-15

The teaching of Paul in 1 Timothy 2:8–15 seems to have more in common with 1 Corinthians 14:33b–35 than with 1 Corinthians 11:2–16. Whereas 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 recognizes the prophetic function of women under the control of the Spirit, 1 Timothy 2:8–15, along with 1 Corinthians 14:33b–35, prohibits vocal expression or position of leadership over men in the congregation. These two passages have similar emphases. The overriding thrust of the letter to Timothy is proper behavior in church meetings (3:15),[37] specifically praying and speaking, as in 1 Timothy 2:8–15. The same is true of the Corinthian passage (14:33b–35). While writing to Timothy, Paul was addressing needs of the church in general.

The Setting of the Pericope

The setting of the Pauline injunctions in 1 Timothy 2:8–15 is public worship, a view held by most expositors.[38] This is bolstered by the phrase ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ (“in every place”), probably referring to different church localities,[39] or to the several house churches in Ephesus.[40]

Men Praying in the Assembly

In view of Paul’s exhortation in verses 1–7 to pray, he instructed the men[41] of the congregation to pray in an exemplary manner (χωρὶς ὀργῆς καὶ διαλογισμοῦ). From this he then turned to the women at Ephesus with specific commands on teaching and authority. Roberts has argued that women are excluded from the public prayer because of Paul’s use of ἀνήρ (“male”) rather than the generic ἄνθρωπος (“man,” which would have included both sexes). Roberts says this is the correct understanding since Paul applied the same limitation to teaching by women.[42]

Roberts’s position on the use of ἀνήρ appears substantial. Paul’s use of ἀνήρ, however, did not preclude the option of women praying in the Corinthian assembly any more than the use of ἀνήρ in 1 Corinthians 11:4 precluded the praying of women (γυνή) in 1 Corinthians 11:5 from praying, except that the latter was prayer and prophecy (divine revelation) and women were given explicit permission in that instance.

The second argument of Roberts, that the limitation to a woman’s teaching proves that she should not pray publicly, is uncertain. This limitation is similar to 1 Corinthians 14:36 where women are forbidden to ask questions. If a woman cannot speak publicly, then logically she cannot pray in public, though admittedly this argument is not as convincing as the former. The apostle’s reference to teaching is explicit and is fostered by direct reference to Scripture, while the question of women not praying is an inference.[43]

The Prohibition against Women Teaching

Arguments for limited application of Paul’s teaching. Whether Paul’s comments in 1 Timothy are to be taken as applicable to only a local problem at Ephesus or the entire Christian church is of considerable import to current discussions on the role of women in the church. Some have argued recently that Paul was addressing a feminist problem at Ephesus where certain women either were teaching unorthodox views in the congregational meetings or at least were deceived by them. In view of this, Paul, it is said, forbade women at Ephesus temporarily to participate vocally in the church meetings, either in teaching and preaching or in discussion.[44]

Several lines of argument are used to substantiate this position. First, Paul’s use of ἐπιτρέπω in 1 Timothy 2:12 is to be interpreted as an opinion and as a temporary, localized injunction. Under different circumstances women would be allowed to teach in the congregational meetings. It is argued that if Paul intended his instruction on this subject to be universal and permanent he would not have used the first person singular present active indicative. Payne voices this view:

Since in 1 Tim 2:12 Paul uses his typical verbal form for giving his own personal position (first person singular present active indicative) and since he neither claims that his position is from the Lord nor that the same restrictions on women should apply in all the churches, it would seem to be the most natural reading to understand ἐπιτρέπω in 1 Tim 2:12 as referring to the particular situation in Ephesus to which Paul was speaking without necessarily being applicable in all times and places.[45]

The contention is also advanced that Paul meant timeless rule he would have included phrases like ὑπέρ πάντων (“for all”) as in 1 Timothy 2:1 and ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ (“in every place”) in 2:8.[46]

Second, teaching (διδάσκω) is not to be restricted to any particular church office but is for all believers in general. Priscilla is cited as an example of a woman functioning as a teacher.[47]

Third, the prohibition is considered temporary because of the meaning of αὐθεντεῖν. Payne argues that the term means “to dominate” or “to lord it over” men in the church. This is in contrast with the “quietness” advocated in 1 Timothy 2:11–12 and is in agreement with ὑποταγῇ in 2:11. Women are not denied authority over men; they are simply not to dominate men.[48] Hommes concurs with this view saying αὐθεντεῖν means “to be bossy.”[49]

Fourth, tied to the meaning of αὐθεντέω in verse 12 is whether one should understand the teaching and exercising authority as one function or two? Philip Payne sets forth the question:

Perhaps the single most crucial question for a proper interpretation of 1 Tim 2:12 is whether the conjunction was intended to separate two distinct prohibitions or to join together two parts of one interrelated prohibition. Does it separate two distinct prohibitions, first teaching, and second domineering men? Or does it join together two parts of one interrelated prohibition such as: “to teach a man in a domineering way?”[50]

Payne continues his discussion by asserting that the apostle Paul used οὐδέ in his epistles to join together closely related items and concludes that in so doing the apostle desired to “make specific a single coherent idea,”[51] namely, “teaching in a domineering manner.”

Fifth, Paul’s use of γάρ (“for”) should be taken not as a causal conjunction but as explanatory. “If γάρ in 1 Tim 2:13 is explanatory, not illative, the actual reason Paul was prohibiting women in Ephesus from teaching is not that Eve was formed after Adam or that she was deceived by Satan, but that some women in Ephesus were (or were on the verge of becoming) engaged in false teaching.”[52]

Sixth, Spencer says that the women in the Ephesian church who were either teaching error or were captivated by it leads to the conclusion of a temporary and localized injunction. Paul’s purpose in 1 Timothy was to warn against unorthodox teachings toward which the Ephesian women were inclined.[53] This may be seen partially from Paul’s use of γυναικάρια in 2 Timothy 3:6 of weak women who were deceived and were listening to the wrong persons. In view of this some men were reacting to the false teaching from these women by not allowing women to teach at all.[54] In view of this consequence Paul slowed down the move toward the full equality he would have otherwise desired.[55]

Answers to feminist arguments. Unquestionably ἐπιτρέπω may carry the connotation of a temporary injunction, but does it? Paul’s use of the first person present active indicative is not always accompanied with qualifying phrases when he wrote something other than an opinion. In Romans 12:1 he wrote, “I urge (παρακαλῶ) you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices” (NIV). Here Paul did not use the first person to restrict action necessarily. He used it to express personal appeal or authority,[56] and this was certainly appropriate if not demanded in his letter to Timothy.[57]

Payne’s contention that teaching was open to all believers in general betrays a misunderstanding of the nature of teaching in the first-century church. Teaching in the first century involved more than conveyance of information. (Possibly this was part of what Priscilla and Aquila did to Apollos; the verb is ἐξέθεντο from ἐκτίθημι, “to set forth or explain,” not διδάσκω, “to teach,” in Acts 18:26.) Early Christian teaching, built on the Jewish model, involved more than imparting information or alternate views. The teacher gave his personal direction and exercised authority over the learner. The teacher expected the student to accept his teaching. Also the authority the teacher had over the learner came from a relationship of the two. Teachers were either heads of communities or masters who took in disciples. The teaching was accompanied by correction of those who were not following the accepted teaching (cf. 1 Tim 4:11; 4:16–5:2; 2 Tim 4:1–4; Titus 2:15; 3:8–11).[58] Jungkuntz presents the correct perception on teaching in the New Testament. He comments that teaching is not the conveyance of information but was an expression of authority: “It was a governing function which took place within a committed relationship of headship and submission and which was accompanied by the correction of individuals who were not following the accepted ‘teaching.’“[59]

Consequently the teaching of doctrine in Christian congregations is reserved for men, to whom God has given authority to represent Him in spiritual matters dealing with leadership.

Paul emphasized the importance of the prohibition on teaching by putting it in the emphatic position in verse 12. Some have understood διδασκεῖν as taking ἄνδρας along with αὐθεντεῖν,[60] but this is unnecessary, even if grammatically possible. Women simply are not allowed to teach, for that would give them authority over men in the congregation. The explanation alleviates any problem with teaching females. Elsewhere Paul allowed older women to teach younger women (Titus 2:3), presumably in private.

The contention that αὐθεντεῖν means to dominate is a stronger argument than the previous two. The word is a hapax legomenon in the New Testament. Bauer’s lexicon (in translation) allows “domineer” as a possible meaning (apparently the English translators understood herrschen to be the same as beherrschen, an uncertain conclusion), but “have authority” is given first. Even if one understands “dominate,”[61] it does not necessarily carry negative meaning. Knight, who has made a thorough study of all the occurrences of αὐθεντέω in extant Greek literature, confirms the rendering “have authority” as the natural meaning.[62]

Payne’s essay on οὐδέ is an attempt to analyze the various Pauline passages in which that Greek conjunction occurs and to classify them in order to understand how the conjunction is to be understood in 1 Timothy 2:12. However, he develops a thesis far beyond the evidence adduced. The examples he cites for the so-called “single concept” use of οὐδέ simply do not teach the idea of “teaching in a domineering way.” Payne’s conclusion that οὐδέ indicates a single coherent idea does not naturally follow from his argument that οὐδέ joins “two closely related items.” No hendiadys is present in the Pauline construction “teach nor exercise authority.” As Edgar says,

If the single concept in 1 Tim 2:12 is authority (specifically the prohibition of women exercising authority over a man) then the construction “reinforces or makes more specific” the prohibition of a woman having authority over a man. A study of oude reveals that this is precisely the meaning of the construction in 1 Tim 2:12 and that the adjectival or hendiadys relationship (teach domineeringly, or teach authoritatively) is incorrect.[63]

Edgar identifies 144 occurrences of οὐδέ in the New Testament, and suggests that it carries the idea of “more than a negative,” often being translated “not even.”[64] When used with correlative ideas the relationship is not adjectival (a hendiadys), as Payne suggests, but is used for “reinforcement or intensification of a concept to which both elements relate.”[65] For example in Matthew 25:13, “you do not know the day nor [οὐδέ] the hour,” does not mean “you do not know the hourly day, or the hour type of day,” but instead means “you do not know the day nor even the hour.” The “second concept is not eliminated as a separate concept…but reinforces and intensifies the overall thought.”[66]

Edgar says that of the 109 non-Pauline uses only 14 could be forced into a hendiadys, but they are better understood as intensive uses,[67] such as Matthew 6:20, “where thieves neither break in nor steal.” Surely this does not mean “where thieves do not make a stealing type of break in.”[68]

Paul’s writings contain 35 instances of οὐδέ and these are consistent with the non-Pauline uses. For example 1 Timothy 6:16 does not mean that “no man has seen God with an “able kind of seeing.” It clearly means that “no man has seen God, nor is able to see God.” Here are two similar ideas in which the latter statement reinforces the former. This is an intensification, not a hendiadys. Such is the proper sense of “I do not permit a woman to teach nor to exercise authority over a man” in 1 Timothy 2:12.

Edgar concludes, “The evidence is amazingly one-sided. There is not one instance of the 143 occurrences…which functions as a hendiadys.”[69] In examining the New Testament occurrences, this writer concurs with Edgar that evidence of οὐδέ as joining similar ideas is essentially to reinforce the concepts; special pleading is required in order to see most if not all of them, especially 1 Timothy 2:12, as examples of a hendiadys.

Payne’s claim for an explanatory γάρ is difficult to understand. First, the usage is uncommon,[70] so good reason would need to exist in the context if it is to be preferred over the causal γάρ. Second, the move from the command or prohibition to the reason for the command or prohibition is common in Paul,[71] and naturally occurs with γάρ. Third, Payne admits Paul is giving a reason for his prohibition. The force of the explanatory γάρ is to explicate a previous statement, which verses 13–14 do not. It is better to understand γάρ as introducing the reason Paul gave his previous prohibition.

False teaching did exist at Ephesus, as Spencer says, though one has difficulty in understanding its nature and the number of people giving it.[72] If false teaching per se were Paul’s concern in 2:8–15, certainly he would have also prohibited men from such teaching. But the emphasis is not on women teaching false doctrines, but on women teaching men. Paul’s reasoning against women teaching men, then, does not come from a feminist problem (though this may have been a cause) but was based on his understanding of Scripture.

The origin of Paul’s teaching. Paul derived his thinking from the Creation and Fall narratives of Genesis. Genesis 2 and Paul’s understanding of it has already been investigated in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16. Paul’s first basis for denying women authority over men is that Adam was created first (1 Tim 2:13). The second basis of his teaching is that Eve was deceived whereas Adam was not (Gen 3:6). This presentation of Paul is transparent. Women are to subordinate (ὑποταγῆ) themselves and are not to seek the place of men (αὐθεντεῖν) in the congregation.[73] The way in which a woman is to learn (versus teach) is in quietness (ἡσυχία). Alexander says,

This term [ἡσυχία] is employed elsewhere in the New Testament to stress an external quiet demeanor, as in Acts 22:2 when the Sanhedrin becomes quiet to hear Paul’s address or in 2 Thessalonians 3:12 where busybodies are exhorted to work in a quiet fashion and to eat their own bread. The implication of the word is that women should learn quietly, not talking, but listening.[74]

The idea of quietness is very similar to Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 14:33b–35. Paul’s proof for his instruction (γάρ) resides in the teaching of the Law, probably referring to Genesis 2 (some think Gen 3:16).[75] As in 1 Corinthians 11:9, so in 1 Timothy 2:12 man’s priority in creation is the basis of his authority. Furthermore the woman sinned by being deceived (v. 14), unlike the man whose eyes were apparently wide open (though Trible has implied Adam may have been in a daze).[76] To Paul this excludes a woman from teaching doctrine in the congregation, lest she fall and lead men astray as did her mother Eve.

Notes

1. Scholars dispute the paragraphing. B. F. Westcott and F. Hort (The New Testament in the Original Greek [New York: American Book Co., 1881], p. 397) concur with the Textus Receptus (The New Testament according to the Received Text [London: British and Foreign Bible Society, 1962], p. 256) in ending the sentence and verse 33 with ἄγιον; whereas the United Bible Societies text (The Greek New Testament, Kurt Aland, et al. eds. [New York: United Bible Societies, 1966], p. 611) and the text edited by Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland (Novum Testamentum Graece [Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1979], p. 466) begin a new paragraph with ὡς ἐν πάσαις. There is awkwardness in the repetition of ἐκκλησίας but Jean Héring (The First Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians [London: Epworth Press, 1962], p. 154), Hans Conzelmann (1 Corinthians, Hermeneia Series [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975], p. 246), and F. F. Bruce (1and 2 Corinthians, The New Century Bible [Greenwood, SC: Attic Press, 1971], p. 136) rightly avoid this problem by taking the first usage as a reference to the people of God and the latter to the local meeting. The mention of the universal practice of the churches makes considerably more sense in reference to verses 34–35 than it does to the peace of God in verse 33a. Arguing against this is Frederik Willem Grosheide, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians , The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1953), p. 341; and William F. Orr and James Arthur Walther, 1 Corinthians, The Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1976), pp. 311-12.
2. F. Godet, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians , trans. A. Cusin (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1890), p. 309.
3. C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians , Harper’s New Testament Commentaries (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1968), p. 330; Orr and Walther, 1 Corinthians, p. 312; Godet, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians , p. 308; Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Critical and Exegetical HandBook to the Epistles to the Corinthians (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, Publishers, 1884), p. 333. Bruce discounts the view that Genesis 3:16 is the source. “This is unlikely, since in MT and LXX Gen 3:16 speaks of the woman’s instinctive inclination or passionate desire towards her husband, of which he takes advantage so as to dominate her” (Bruce, 1and 2 Corinthians, p. 136). However, Bruce may have the wrong understanding of the woman’s desire in Genesis 3:16. The desire may not be that of passion but a desire for dominion over men (Susan Foh, “What Is the Woman’s Desire?” Westminster Theological Journal 37 [Spring 1975]: 377-78). Likewise, Clark disagrees that Genesis 3:16 is the basis of authority for 1 Corinthians 14:34, because it “would be the only place in the New Testament where the ‘curses’ of the Fall were appealed to as a basis for Christian conduct, direction, or teaching” (Stephen B. Clark, Man and Woman in Christ [Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1980], p. 187).
4. Bruce, 1and 2 Corinthians, p. 136. His position has the advantage of a previous use of Genesis 2 by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:7–9. But in these verses the apostle gave specific information tying his argument to Genesis 2, whereas 1 Corinthians 14:34 speaks in general terms about female subordination.
5. See R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Firstand SecondEpistles to the Corinthians (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1963), p. 616. Adolf Schlatter sees the reference possibly to Miriam’s punishment in return for her rejection of Moses’ authority (Schlatter, Paulus der Bote Jesu [Stuttgart: Calwer Vereinsbachhandlung, 1934], p. 388).
6. Clark says that it “seems unlikely that the Lord would instruct his disciples about order in assemblies containing prophecy and tongues-speaking” (Man and Woman in Christ, p. 188).
7. One probably should understand the women in the Scripture at hand as married women (though the teaching almost certainly applies to the unmarried as well) since verse 35 says that they should inquire of their own husbands at home.
8. James B. Hurley says, “His aim in v. 35 is not to prevent learning but rather to prevent a wrong exercise of authority…. Lest the Corinthians move to the extreme of believing learning is forbidden women or because they initiated the contention in their letter, Paul says they may learn from their husbands at home” (“Did Paul Require Veils or the Silence of Women? A Consideration of 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 and 1 Corinthians 14:33b–36, ” Westminster Theological Journal 35 [1973]: 217-18).
9. For these arguments see Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, p. 246; Johannes Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1910), p. 342; and C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians , p. 332. Robert Jewett sees 1 Corinthians 14:33b–35 as being only one part of considerable redactional work done by a later Pauline school on 1 Corinthians, reflecting their concerns at that time (“The Redaction of 1 Corinthians and the Trajectory of the Pauline School,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Supplement 44 [December 1978]: 571).
10. The first two arguments are interrelated. The fact that some considered them awkward probably gave rise to the textual problems. First Corinthians 14:34–35 is found after verse 40 in D, G, and several Latin manuscripts, and also in Ambrosiaster. These witnesses are not substantial in view of the verses’ attestation in the rest of the ancient texts representing the Eastern and Alexandrian church centers, which in addition are in Greek; no manuscripts that this author could discover omit them altogether. Even Kuntz, who apparently rejects their authenticity, says that the Western position is “an unsuccessful attempt at removing the hitch,” which “witnesses to the early existence of the insertion” (cited by Bruce, 1and 2 Corinthians, p. 135). Bruce Metzger says of verses 33b–35 : “Several witnesses, chiefly Western, transpose verses 34–35 to follow ver. 40 (D F G 88* itd,g Ambrosiaster Sedulius Scotus); in codex Fuldensis they were inserted by Victor of Capua in the margin after ver. 33, without, however, removing them from their place farther down. Such scribal alterations represent attempts to find a more appropriate location in the context for Paul’s directive concerning women” (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament [New York: United Bible Societies, 1971], p. 565). The hitch mentioned by Kuntz gives the traditional reading greater credibility, as does also the fact that the Western family includes the verses even though they are transposed. Cf. Neil Lightfoot, “The Role of Women in Religious Services,” Restoration Quarterly 19 (1976): 131-32, and Hurley, “Did Paul Require Veils or the Silence of Women?” p. 216. The view that verses 34–35 are inappropriate to the context or flow of the passage is questionable. In reality the verses do not necessarily interrupt the movement of the passage. They speak further to the problem of proper order in the church meeting, as Héring elucidates: “The Apostle has just restated the principle of decorum, which must be observed in Church gatherings (14:33a). So it is quite natural that he should go a step farther and reduce to silence the women who, contrary to Jewish and Greek custom, wished to take part in discussions” (The First Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians , p. 154). In his recent work Gordon Fee argues, primarily on intrinsic evidence, that the pericope is non-Pauline (The First Epistle to the Corinthians , The New International Commentary on the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman’s Publishing Co., 1987]).
11. The last two criticisms may be eliminated by a proper understanding of the text. Discussion in the previous article in this series demonstrates that there is only an apparent discrepancy between 11:5 and 13, and that the verses are the work of the apostle, not some later redactor(s). Barrett claims that the words arose in a time when good order was more important than freedom of the Spirit (A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians , p. 332). Apparently he refers to a postapostolic period. The concern for this kind of order and unity, however, is found throughout 14:26–40. Verses 35–36 fit quite well into the theme of the section.
12. Grosheide, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians , pp. 341-42. Gordon Clark says, “What Agabus did hardly fits into a worship service; and exegesis cannot deny that Philip’s daughters prophesied, like Agabus, when no church service was in progress” (“The Ordination of Women,” The Trinity Review 17 [January-February 1981]: 3-4). Ralph Alexander argues that “verses 2–16 appear to be an outgrowth of the previous discussion on Christian freedom and not related to the aspect of church worship” (“An Exegetical Presentation on 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 and 1 Timothy 2:8–15” [Paper presented at the Seminar on Women in the Ministry, Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, Portland, OR, November 1976], p. 4).
13. Grosheide, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians , pp. 341-42.
14. Joseph Dillow, Speaking in Tongues: Seven Crucial Questions (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975), p. 170. Orr also considers this probable (Orr and Walther, 1 Corinthians, p. 313). Frederick Dale Bruner says that verses 33b–38 concern specifically the “glosso-lalic” participation of women in the congregational meetings. This is in contrast to the more intelligible contributions of 1 Corinthians 11:5 (A Theology of the Holy Spirit [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970], p. 301).
15. H. Wayne House, “Tongues and the Mystery Religions of Corinth,” Bibliotheca Sacra 140 (April-June 1983): 134-50.
16. Héring, The First Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians , p. 154; Hurley says, “It is clear from chapter 11 that Paul did not understand charismatic prayer or prophecy from women as violations of this order, as these involve no direct authority on the part of the speaker” (“Did Paul Require Veils or the Silence of Women?” p. 217).
17. Boyce W. Blackwelder, Light from the Greek New Testament (Anderson, IN: Warner Press, 1958), p. 56; Lenski concurs with this interpretation and continues, “The fact that the asking of questions in the open assembly is practically equivalent to speaking publicly before the congregation…. Paul supports the order that women should ask at home” (Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Firstand SecondEpistles to the Corinthians, p. 618). Cf. Héring, The First Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians , p. 154; and Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Epistles to the Corinthians, p. 334.
18. N. J. Hommes, “Let Women Be Silent in Church,” Calvin Theological Journal 4 (April 1969): 7-16; Hurley, “Did Paul Require Veils or the Silence of Women?” pp. 217-18.
19. Cf. Clark, Man and Woman in Christ, pp. 185-86.
20. See Fritz Zerbst, The Office of Women in the Church (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1955), pp. 48-49, for a discussion of “shameful.”
21. Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 464. Lalevw is used in Hebrew 12:25 with God as the subject.
22. Bruce, 1and 2 Corinthians, pp. 135-36 (italics his).
23. Hurley, “Did Paul Require Veils or the Silence of Women?” pp. 217-18.
24. Godet, Commentary on St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians , pp. 312-13.
25. Ibid., p. 313; Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians , p. 332.
26. Groshiede, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians , p. 342; John Calvin wrote that the prohibition should probably not be enforced in well-organized churches (The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians , Calvin’s Commentaries [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1960)], pp. 306-7).
27. “The passive points back to an already valid regulation, such as we find in 1 Tim 2:12” (Johannes Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief, cited in Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, p. 246. Walther says, “The linear jussive suggests that this is the expected condition rather than that Paul is proposing any radical regulation” (Orr and Walther, 1 Corinthians, p. 312).
28. R. Seeberg, Über das Reden der Frauen in den apostolischen Gemeinden, cited in Zerbst, The Office of Women in the Church, p. 46.
29. Hurley, “Did Paul Require Veils or the Silence of Women?” p. 217; Neil R. Lightfoot, The Role of Women: New Testament Perspectives (Memphis: Student Association Press, 1978), p. 134.
30. Grosheide, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians , p. 342.
31. Bruce, 1and 2 Corinthians, pp. 135-36.
32. “His aim in v. 35 is not to prevent learning but rather to prevent a wrong exercise of authority. It helps the modern reader to understand that men and women were separated in the synagogues. It is very likely that the pattern was followed by the new church at Corinth. The women were therefore unable to reach their husbands to talk with them during the service itself, to say nothing of the disturbance which this talking might have caused. Paul’s instructions are thus geared to the situation which existed. They prevent a wrong use of authority but guard the instruction of the women, with which Paul was vitally concerned” (Hurley, “Did Paul Require Veils or the Silence of Women?” pp. 217-18). Cf. Zerbst, The Office of Women in the Church, p. 48.
33. P. W. Schmiedel, Der Briefe an die Korinther, Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament, cited in Zerbst, The Office of Women in the Church, p. 48.
34. Conzelmann, 1and 2 Corinthians, p. 246; Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Firstand SecondEpistles to the Corinthians, p. 618.
35. Godet, Commentary on St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians , p. 313.
36. Hurley, “Did Paul Require Veils or the Silence of Women?” p. 217.
37. Clark, Men and Women in Christ, p. 192.
38. Cf. Douglas Moo, “1 Timothy 2:11–15: Meaning and Significance,” Trinity Journal 1 (1980): 62; Grant Osborne, “Hermeneutics and Women in the Church,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 20 (December 1977): 346.
39. Alexander, “An Exegetical Presentation on 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 and 1 Timothy 2:8–15, ” p. 11; A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 6 vols. (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), 4: 569; cf. Neil R. Lightfoot, “The Role of Women in Religious Services,” Restoration Quarterly 19 (Third Quarter 1976): 131-32.
40. Moo, “1 Timothy 2:11–15: Meaning and Significance,” p. 62, n. 2; C. Spicq, Les E’pitres Pastorales, 4th ed. (Paris: Gabalda, 1969), p. 372.
41. Τοὺς ἄνδρας should be rendered “men,” not “husbands.” Certainly not just husbands are to pray in congregational worship. If Paul had meant husbands one would think he would have used something like ἰδίους τοὺς ἄνδρας; see, for example, Ephesians 5:22 (Alexander, “An Exegetical Presentation on 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 and 1 Timothy 2:8–15, ” p. 12).
42. J. W. Roberts, Letters to Timothy (Austin, TX: Sweet Publishing Co., 1961), p. 21.
43. Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann (against Roberts) argue that the force of the argument is probably for women to be allowed to pray. They take ὡσαύτως (“likewise”) with βούλομαι (“I wish”) and προσεύχεσθαι (“to pray”). The “likewise” then makes the statement to the women in verse 9 parallel to the statement to the men in verse 8. It would read “Likewise also I desire the women to pray” (The Pastoral Epistles, Hermeneia Series [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972], p. 45).
44. Philip Payne, “Libertarian Women in Ephesus: A Response to Douglas J. Moo’s Article, ‘1 Timothy 2:11–15: Meaning and Significance,’“ Trinity Journal 2 (1981): 185-97; Aida Besançon Spencer, “Eve at Ephesus,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 17 (Fall 1974): 215-22; Letha Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty, All We’re Meant to Be (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1974), pp. 70-71.
45. Payne, “Libertarian Women in Ephesus,” p. 171.
46. Ibid.
47. Ibid., p. 174. Hommes argues that teaching should be understood as referring to dialogue, not monologue (“Let Women Be Silent in Church,” pp. 7-16).
48. Payne, “Libertarian Women in Ephesus,” p. 175.
49. Hommes, “Let Women Be Silent in Church,” pp. 18-20.
50. Philip Barton Payne, “Οὐδέ in 1 Timothy 2:12” (unpublished paper), p. 1.
51. Ibid. Payne also considers οὐδέ to be used to join roughly equivalent expressions, to specify with greater clarity the meaning of one word or phrase by joining it with another word or phrase, or to join naturally paired expressions.
52. Payne, “Libertarian Women in Ephesus,” pp. 175-77.
53. Spencer, “Eve at Ephesus,” p. 216.
54. Ibid.
55. Ibid.
56. Moo, “The Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11–15: A Rejoinder,” Trinity Journal 2 (1981): 200.
57. See Clark, Man and Woman in Christ, p. 200.
58. Ibid., pp. 196-97.
59. Theodore Jungkuntz, “The Question of the Ordination of Women,” The Cresset 42 (December 1978): 18.
60. See Moo, “The Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11–15: A Rejoinder,” pp. 201-2.
61. Carroll D. Osburn, “=ΑΥΘΕΝΤΕΩ (1 Timothy 2:12),” Restoration Quarterly 25 (First Quarter 1982): 1-12. Osburn has taken too restrictive a meaning for the term, in this writer’s opinion.
62. George W. Knight III, “=ΑΥΘΕΝΤΕΩ in Reference to Women in 1 Timothy 2:12, ” New Testament Studies 30 (January 1984): 143-57. A recent study by Leland Wilshire seeks to modify some of Knight’s conclusions based on the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae computer project at the University of California at Irvine. The research, however, in no way contradicts the basic theme of Knight’s work that αὐθεντέω means “exercise authority,” not “domineer” in 2 Timothy 2:12. See especially the last paragraph of Wilshire’s article on page 131, the last full paragraph on page 130, and Wilshire’s recognition throughout most of the article of the importance of the papyri, which seems to butress Knight’s position, and the basic consistency of the early church fathers on understanding αὐθεντἐω as “exercise authority.” (Leland Edward Wilshire, “The TLG Computer and Further Reference to ΑΥΘΕΝΤΕΩ in 1 Timothy 2:12, ” New Testament Studies 34 [1988]: 120-34).
63. Thomas Edgar, “1 Timothy 2:12: An Analysis of Restrictive Interpretation,” (unpublished paper), p. 3.
64. Ibid., p. 8.
65. Ibid., p. 10.
66. Ibid. Other examples of this, among many, are Matthew 6:26; 12:4, 19; 24:36; Luke 12:27, 33; 16:31; John 1:13, 25; 6:24; 8:11; Acts 7:5; 9:9; 16:21; 17:25; Hebrews 9:12; 1 Peter 2:22; Revelation 5:3; 7:16; 20:4; 21:23 .
67. Matthew 6:20, 28; 13:13; 16:9; Mark 4:22; 8:17; Luke 8:17; John 14:17; Acts 8:21; 16:21; 24:18; Hebrews 10:8; 13:5; 1 Peter 1:8.
68. Edgar, “1 Timothy 2:12: An Analysis of Restrictive Interpretation,” p. 14.
69. Ibid., p. 24.
70. Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 151; H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: Macmillan Co., 1927), p. 243; Maximilian Zerwick, Biblical Greek (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Press, 1963), § 473.
71. For example, 1 Timothy 3:13; 4:5, 8, 16; 5:4, 11, 15 .
72. See Moo, “The Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11–15: A Rejoinder,”.
73. Dibelius and Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, p. 47.
74. Alexander, “An Exegetical Presentation on 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 and 1 Timothy 2:8–15, ” p. 13.
75. See this writer’s “An Investigation of Contemporary Feminist Arguments,” pp. 165-71, for an analysis of Genesis 3:16b, pp. 165-71; also see Susan Foh, “What Is the Woman’s Desire?” pp. 380-81.
76. Phyllis Trible, “Eve and Adam: Genesis 2–3 Reread,” Andover Newton Quarterly 13 (1973): 251.