Pauline Commands And Women In 1 Corinthians 14

By Αndrew B. Spurgeon

[Andrew Spurgeon is professor of NT studies at ACA-Evangelical Theological Seminary in Hosur, Tamil Nadu, India.]

Τhe Corinthian believers had asked Paul several questions that he answered in 1 Corinthians. He introduced each answer with περὶ δὲ (“and concerning”) in 7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1, 12. The fourth περὶ δὲ topic discussed questions about spiritual gifts and the Resurrection (chaps. 12-15). In discussing spiritual gifts Paul stated who a spiritual person is (12:1-3), how the spiritual gifts operate (12:4-14:25), and how spiritual gifts strengthen the body of Christ (14:26-36). To illustrate how a spiritual gift can strengthen the body of Christ, he discussed three specific situations: speaking in unlearned languages (14:26-28), prophesying (14:29-33), and women remaining silent in the church gathering (14:34-36). The last of these three issues has become a matter of contention. The purpose of this article is to evaluate several views on these topics and to propose an alternative to the traditional rendering of the passage.

Context: Strengthening The Church (14:26-36)

Earlier in 1 Corinthians 14 Paul repeatedly taught that spiritual gifts are given for the strengthening of the church (οἰκοδομὴν and οἰκοδομέω, vv. 3, 4, 5, 12, 17). He stated that principle again in this section: “What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification [οἰκοδομὴν]” (v. 26).

The gift of speaking in languages strengthens the church, but only if three criteria are met. First, there should be only two or three speakers of foreign languages in a church gathering (v. 27b). Second, language-speakers must take turns so that their words do not overlap and become meaningless (v. 27c). Third, someone needs to interpret what is said (v. 27; cf. vv. 6, 13). If those criteria are not met, the language-speakers must remain silent (σιγάω) in the church (v. 28a). Of course language-speakers are free to speak to God or to his or her own heart in silence (v. 28b). Such orderliness—two or three language-speakers taking turns, and with interpretation—and self-control (remaining silent when there is no interpretation) will strengthen the church.

Also prophesying strengthens the church when proper stipulations are followed. First, only two or three prophets should speak in a church gathering (v. 29a). Second, other prophets must examine the prophecy to determine its authenticity and orthodoxy (vv. 29b, 32). Third, while a prophet is speaking, if someone sitting in the congregation receives a revelation (from God), the former prophet must remain silent (σιγάω, v. 30). A direct revelation from God, unlike prophecies, need not be examined for authenticity and orthodoxy, and therefore the prophets must give way to authentic revelation from God. Fourth, prophesying must be given in sequence, one after the other, in order to facilitate learning and encouragement (v. 31). Fifth, prophesying must not lead to chaotic disorder; instead, it must bring peace (v. 33).

Paul’s third example of strengthening dealt with women’s silence (σιγάω) in the congregation. At first glance his reason for introducing this topic seems puzzling, especially since he had already taught that women may pray and prophesy (11:5). At the same time, the words and thoughts are congruous to what he has been teaching: (a) σιγάω (as he instructed language-speakers [vv. 34, 28], and prophets, v. 30); (b) λαλέω (as he instructed language-speakers [γλώσσῃ τις λαλεῖ, v. 27; and prophets προφῆται . . . λαλείτωσαν, v. 29]); (c) ὑποτάσσω (v. 34, as he instructed prophets [πνεύματα προφητῶν . . . ὑποτάσσεται, v. 32]); (d) and μανθάνω (v. 35, as he instructed prophets [πάντες μανθάνωσιν, v. 31]). Thus it is necessary to understand Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians and consider applications for the contemporary church.

Summary Of Proposed Theories

The standard interpretation of the three imperatives is to treat them as direct commands: “women should remain silent [σιγάτωσαν] . . . must be in submission [ὑποτασσέσθωσαν] . . . they should ask [ἐπερωτάτωσαν] their own husbands” (14:34-35, NIV). Scholars have proposed three theories to explain these commands: (1) “Paul said it,” and the message is universal; (2) “Paul did not say it”; and (3) “Paul said it,” but the message is culture-bound.[1]

First, some claim that Paul’s message is a universal prohibition of women against speaking in church. Robertson and Plummer write, “The women are to keep silence in the public services. They would join in the Amen (v. 16), but otherwise not be heard. . . . Teaching he forbids them to attempt. . . . [This was a] rule taken over from the synagogue and maintained in the primitive Church (1 Tim ii.12).”[2] In support of this view are the facts that the wording seems to suggest this interpretation, and that 1 Timothy 2:11-15 seems to favor this interpretation.

However, this view faces several difficulties. This view is contrary to Paul’s instructions elsewhere within the same letter in which he speaks of women praying and prophesying (11:5). Some seek to answer this by suggesting that these verses discuss private prayer and prophesying, which Paul did not prohibit, and that 14:34-36 deal with praying and prophesying in the congregation, which Paul did object to.[3] Barrett, however, thinks such a differentiation is “special pleading,”[4] and Dunn asks, “Where else would prophets prophesy, and to whom else would they prophesy than to other believers?”[5] Further, if women were to prophesy in private (11:5) and then the church were to evaluate those prophecies to determine if they were truthful (14:32), would this not make all private prophecies public? Thus it is highly doubtful that Paul would have differentiated between private and public prophesying and praying.

Another explanation is that 11:5 was a hypothetical situation.[6] However, nothing in the context of 11:5 suggests that Paul was dealing with a hypothetical situation, and it is highly doubtful that he would have given an extensive explanation (11:1-16) of a hypothetical practice that he never intended the church to practice.[7] Regarding 1 Timothy 2:11-15 there are more dissimilarities than similarities between that passage and 1 Corinthians 14. For example 1 Corinthians addresses the issues of spiritual gifts and speaking (λαλεῖν) whereas 1 Timothy addresses teaching and exercising authority.

Second, some claim that Paul did not say these words, and thus the passage is a non-Pauline interpolation. Fee writes, “One must assume that the words were first written as a gloss in the margin by someone who, probably in light of 1 Tim. 2:9-15, felt the need to qualify Paul’s instructions even further. Since the phenomenon of glosses making their way into the biblical text is well documented elsewhere in the NT (e.g., 5:3b–4; 1 John 5:7), there is no good historical reason to reject the possibility here.”[8] Several factors support this view. (1) Some Western manuscripts transposed 14:34-35 to the end of the chapter, after verse 40, thus suggesting that the scribes debated the Pauline authorship and placement of these verses. (2) Placing this passage along with a discussion of spiritual gifts and prophesying seems odd. (3) Some of the concepts in this section may not seem characteristic of Paul.

On the other hand several factors oppose this view. (1) Even though some significant Western manuscripts (D F G) have transposed these verses to the end of the chapter, these verses were viewed as authentic though out of place. Metzger writes, “Such scribal alterations represent attempts to find a more appropriate location in the context for Paul’s directive concerning women.”[9] (2) All the earlier manuscripts have this text at the precise location and give no indication of being an interpolation.[10] The transposition could be explained as an accidental omission (an instance of haplography), in which a scribe’s eyes skipped from ἐκκλησία at the end of verse 33 to ἐκκλησία at the end of verse 35, thus omitting verses 34-35.[11] Then when the error was discovered, the missing verses (vv. 34-35) were inserted at the end of the chapter, after verse 40. Thus there is no reason to argue for a non-Pauline interpolation of these verses. Though Horsley points to “several non-Pauline expressions (e.g., ‘as the law also says’—without reciting a particular passage),”[12] in actuality, however, several expressions in the verses point to Pauline authorship.[13]

Third, others say that though Paul wrote those words, the message is limited to the culture in Paul’s day. Fiorenza argues that these commands were addressed not to all women but only to married women (as suggested by the phrase “let them ask their own husbands at home”), for this reflects “a Jewish patriarchal pattern.”[14] In response, however, Paul seems not to have differentiated between “wives” and “women” in this passage as he did elsewhere in 7:25, 28, 34, 36-38 (“virgins,” παρθένοι); 7:8 (“widows,” χήρα); and 7:8, 11, 32, 34 (“unmarried,” ἀγάμοι). Most likely Paul was addressing all women, and the phrase τοὺς ἰδίους ἄνδρας (lit., “their own men”) in 14:35 means their husbands, fathers, or brothers.[15]

Wire suggests that Paul was refuting the prophetesses in the Corinthian church who were imitating Greek prophetesses. Whereas the prophetesses exalted themselves, uncovered their heads, and prophesied freely in church gatherings, Paul wanted them to “restrain” themselves and to “subordinate” themselves to the more established social order. Wire says that although Paul permitted women to pray and prophesy in chapter 11, he quickly changed his mind in chapter 14 and wanted the women to submit to traditional family roles.[16] But if there were problems with their behavior, Paul would have addressed them earlier, just as he addressed dissension and sexual immoralities.

Others have argued that these words of prohibition in 14:34-35 were those of the Corinthians and that Paul was refuting them, saying, “Was it from you that the word of God first went forth?” (v. 36).[17] Although Paul had corrected some of the Corinthians’ slogans (6:12-13; 10:23), 14:34-35 give no evidence of being a Corinthian slogan.[18]

Some scholars have argued that the Corinthian women were disruptive in the church by talking aloud and asking questions, and therefore Paul instructed them not to speak, that is, not to “converse” or engage in conversation. Dockery writes, “The problem addressed in ν 34 probably deals with a specific difficulty of women interrupting the services with either outbursts of glossalalia or untimely, unedifying questions. Paul commands these women to remain silent and in reference to the untimely questions commands that they ask these questions to their husbands at home.”[19] The difficulty with this view is that the word λαλέω (“speak”) in this context refers to more than “conversation” since Paul referred to speaking in languages as γλώσσῃ τις λαλεῖ (14:27) and prophesying as προφῆται . . . λαλείτωσαν (v. 29). Thus if Paul was prohibiting any speaking, he would have been prohibiting women speaking in languages and prophecies. Soards writes, “The verb [λαλέω] does not name an activity that is distinct from other sensible speech or prayer or prophecy. Through the rest of chapter 14 ‘to speak’ clearly and consistently refers to inspired speech (see vv. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 18, 19, 21, 23, 27, 28, 29, 39). The vocabulary employed in these verses does not distinguish this reference from all other mentions of speaking in this and other chapters.”[20]

Still others have argued that uneducated women in the Corinthian congregation were asking inappropriate questions in the church, and therefore Paul instructed them to stop interrupting the church with their foolish talk. Morris writes, “We must bear in mind that in the first century women were uneducated. The Jews regarded it as a sin to teach a woman, and the position was not much better elsewhere. The Corinthian women should keep quiet in church if for no other reason than because they could have had little or nothing worthwhile to say.”[21] If that were the case, Paul would have instructed only the ἰδιώτην women (“the uneducated women”—a word he used in the same chapter, in vv. 16, 23-24) to refrain from speaking in the church.[22] The argument that women were not educated misrepresents the Bible and the women of the Bible. The Law clearly included women in hearing the Law (Deut. 31:12); therefore the Jews made sure that men and women were present when the Law was read (Neh. 8:2-3).[23] Several women, although unschooled, were brilliant. Hannah composed a psalm of praise (1 Sam. 2:1-10), Mary composed the Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55), Mary the sister of Martha was keen to hear the Lord’s teachings (Luke 10:39), and Priscilla, along with her husband Aquila, “explained to him [Apollos] the way of God more accurately” (Acts 18:26). Thus the evidence shows that women in Judaism were educated in the Law, even if they were generally unschooled.[24]

Others have argued that Paul was not forbidding women from exercising their gifts of prophecy in the church; instead he was forbidding them from “joining in the congregational discussion of what a prophet or a teacher had said.”[25] The merit of this view is that the context does speak of “evaluating” prophecies (v. 29). But verses 34-35 make no reference to “evaluation.” Paul seems to have been prohibiting speaking prophesies or languages instead of examining them.[26] However, this view has “the least number of additional difficulties.”[27]

The theories[28] and literature on this subject are vast.[29] Basically they all see the three imperatives as direct commands and seek to show that Paul’s commands are neither extreme nor contradictory to the rest of the Bible.

An Alternative Proposal

An alternative proposal to the traditional rendering is to see the imperatives as permissive imperatives, that is, Paul was sanctioning an ongoing action that he felt should continue. “Women are to continue to remain silent, continue to submit, and continue to ask questions of their family” (author’s translation). Instead of envisioning a scene in which Corinthian women wanted to speak and Paul was silencing them, this alternative view sees a situation in which Corinthian women hesitated to speak in front of unrelated men (as in a church gathering) because of their cultural upbringing. Having received the gifts of the Holy Spirit such as speaking in languages and prophecies, some women were unsure whether to remain silent in public gatherings (something they preferred) or to speak in languages and prophecies. The matter was brought to Paul, and he commanded that the church let the women continue as they were—remaining silent, submitting, and asking questions at home with their own family members—instead of speaking or asking questions in the church against their personal convictions.[30]

Permissive imperatives are rare. As Wallace writes, “The imperative is rarely used to connote permission or, better, toleration.”[31] But in a few instances writers used the permissive imperative.[32] Permissive imperatives are also easily misunderstood. They are foremost volitional—the writer commands the hearer to do a certain action. Porter writes, “The command attitudinally grammaticalizes the speaker’s desire to give direction to a process.”[33] Fantin writes, “The meaning of the imperative which is being labeled volitional, does not necessarily mean that it is the speaker’s desire. Rather, the imperative presents the language code in a way which portrays a specific manner for the action/event/belief/etc. to be carried out. It is in this way that it is volitional . . . permission, tolerance, etc. are forms of volition. They communicate to the hearer that the action may continue.”[34] In other words a permissive imperative “does not normally imply that some deed is optional or approved.”[35] Instead the writer gives direction to an ongoing action to continue.[36]

Second, the “object of the command” usually wished for that (permissive) command or was already following that command. Dana and Mantey write, “The command signified by the imperative may be in compliance with an expressed desire or a manifest inclination on the part of the one who is the object of the command, thus involving consent as well as command.”[37] Thus in 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 Paul may have been giving directions that certain ongoing actions in the church were to continue as the Corinthians wished or practiced—women who were already silent were to continue remaining silent, women who already submitted to their husbands were to continue submitting, and women who were already asking questions at home were to continue asking questions at home. The durative aspect[38] of the present imperatives further strengthens the concept that the women in Corinth were already practicing these commands and Paul affirmed them.

Third, permissive commands are usually expressed by third-person imperatives but are addressed to a second-person audience; in this case Paul’s audience was the Corinthian church. Porter writes, “The third person Greek imperative is as strongly directive as the second person.”[39] And Wallace writes, “Its [third-person imperative] force is more akin to he must, however, or periphrastically, I command him to.”[40] To say it differently, the third-person imperative refers to a “recipient group”[41] within Paul’s primary audience (second person). In other words Paul was addressing and commanding the Corinthian church (second person) by focusing on a recipient group within the church (αἱ γυναῖκες, “the women”), because the recipient group was already doing an action of which he approved (permissive imperatives): “I command [you, the church] that women [in your congregation] must continue to be silent, obey, and ask questions at home . . . as they have been doing.”

The immediate context seems to support this hypothesis. Paul’s reasoning for the command was expressed by the words, “for they are not permitted to speak” (14:34). Traditionally this statement has been understood as Paul or the culture prohibiting the women from speaking in the church.[42] But it is possible that the women themselves sought permission not to speak in the congregation. When the construction ἐπιτρέπω plus a dative noun occurs, the dative noun refers to both the person who received the command and the person who sought the permission. When Jesus said, “Moses permitted you [ὑμιν] to divorce your wives” (Matt. 19:8), it was the Jews (Sadducees) who sought the divorce. And in Mark 5:13 “Jesus gave them [αὐτοῖς] permission” in response to the request of the demons who sought permission to enter pigs.[43] Thus it may be that the women in the congregation themselves (αὐταις) sought the permission not to speak (“To they themselves, it is not permissible to speak”). Such an interpretation may be suggested by Paul’s choice of the middle voice ἐπιτρέπεται—where the “subject performs or experiences the action expressed by the verb in such a way that [it] emphasizes the subject’s participation.”[44] Since the women themselves[45] did not find it permissible (i.e., they hesitated) to speak in public, Paul commanded the church that the women must continue to remain silent (σιγάτωσαν) instead of speaking in languages and prophecies in the congregation.

Why did the Corinthian women think that speaking in the congregation in front of other men who were unrelated to them was not permissible? Perhaps this was because they associated such speaking with nonsubmissive action, that is, an expression of immodesty.[46] Paul’s strong adversative ἀλλά (“but”) in verse 34 supports this possible view: “instead of [ἀλλά] speaking, let them continue to submit.” The women did not want to speak in the congregation because they thought it would bring them shame, since it would have portrayed them as nonsubmissive.

Verse divisions can be misleading. In the standard Greek texts verse 34 ends, “but [women] are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.” Some scholars find Paul’s reference to the Law puzzling. For example Blomberg writes, “The ‘Law’ cannot refer to a specific Old Testament passage telling women to be silent in public service, since no such passage exists.”[47] Others suggest Paul was alluding to either Genesis 2:18 or 3:16[48] as a means of sanctioning women’s submission. An alternative view is to see the phrase καθω;ς και; ὁ νόμος λέγει as part of verse 35 rather than part of verse 34: “Just as the Law also says, ‘If they desire to learn anything.’ “Λέγει can function as a marker of a quotation and can introduce a conversation: “Λέγει, φησίν and the like appear to be especially vernacular (occasionally in Plut.) in the reporting of a conversation (λέγει chiefly in Mt, Mk, Jn, φησίν in Lk).”[49] Twice in 1 Corinthians Paul used λέγει to introduce a quotation. “Each of you is saying [λέγει], ‘I am of Paul,’ and ‘I of Apollos,’ and ‘I of Cephas,’ and ‘I of Christ’ “(1:12), and “No one speaking by the Spirit of God says [λέγει], ‘Christ is accursed’ “(12:3). The Law could not be withheld from women or children: “Gather the people—men, women, children, and foreigners residing in the village—so that they may hear about and fear the Lord your God and carefully obey all the words of this law” (Deut. 31:12, italics added; cf. Neh. 8:2-3; 10:28). The Corinthian women were eager to learn, just as the Law instructed them to learn. But similar to their hesitation to speak, they may have hesitated to ask questions of men in the congregation.

Paul explained their hesitation with the second γάρ (“for”) clause: “for it is improper [αἰσχρόν] for a woman to speak in church” (1 Cor. 14:35). This sentence has been traditionally understood as Paul stating why women must be silent. Instead, it is possible that the women themselves found it shameful or humiliating to speak in the church. The dative following the adjective αἰσχρόν often points to the person to whom it is shameful. For example, “but if it is disgraceful for a woman [γυναικι;] to have her hair cut off or her head shaved (11:6); and “for those who looked those seven cows that came out of the Nile were hideous [αἰσχραι;]” (Gen. 41:3-4, author’s translation; cf. 41:19-21).[50] Similarly women in the Corinthian church may have been ashamed to speak in church and to ask questions of men who were not their relatives.[51] Therefore Paul gave the third command: “Women must continue to ask (ἐπερωτάτωσαν) their men at home questions in order to learn.” This was because the Word of God was not confined to the church gathering. “Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?” (v. 36).[52] For the women to learn, they need not ask questions in the congregation; instead they could learn at home because the Word of God was present even in their homes, in the hearts and lips of their men. Regardless, Paul did not want the women to feel compelled to ask other men in the congregations; instead they were to continue to ask their family members at home.

If Paul meant these commands as permissive commands, the passage may be understood as follows. First, Paul approvingly authorized the women to remain silent in the church when speaking in public would shame the women (v. 34a). Second, Paul sanctioned the women’s interpretation of what submissiveness meant for them: instead of speaking “let them continue to submit” and be silent (v. 34b). Third, Paul sanctioned the practice of women who wanted to follow the cultural practice of asking questions at home in order to learn as the Law demanded, because the Word of God was not limited to the church gathering. “As the Law demanded, when they wish to learn anything and find it immodest to ask questions in the church, they must continue to ask their familial men at home since the Word of God did not go out only from you nor did it come to you only” (vv. 34c–36; author’s translation). These instructions were mandating that the church and the recipient group within the church (αἱ γυναῖκες) follow Paul’s directives.

The context favors this interpretation. Paul had been explaining the need to “remain silent” (σιγάω) when edification did not occur in the congregation. Prophets must remain silent when someone with a divine revelation spoke. The language-speaker must remain silent when there was no translator. Women likewise must remain silent when asking questions of men in the congregation was inadmissible and shameful to the women. They must remain silent, be submissive, and ask questions in their homes to their own familial men for the congregational experience to be beneficial. Although exercising spiritual gifts was vital (v. 30), and both men and women were gifted equally,[53] they should not be forced to exercise their gift against their own belief, in order for proper edification to occur.

The practical application for the universal church is the core teaching of the whole passage (1 Cor. 12-14): “Utilize spiritual gifts for the edification of the whole church and limit the use of the spiritual gifts when necessary.” Thus in a culture where women find it difficult to speak in front of a congregation because it implies nonsubmissiveness or find it difficult to ask questions in public because it conveys immodesty, the church should let the women remain silent and learn in their own homes by asking their male family members who are Christians.[54] But if the women do not have such hesitation, they may pray and prophesy (11:5), speak in languages or prophecies (14:26-34a), and ask questions in the congregation in order to learn (vv. 34b–36). Spiritual gifts are given for the benefit of the whole church (12:7). Thus gifts are to be exercised or curtailed based on the church’s need.

Conclusion

Paul’s instruction to the Corinthians concerning women (14:34-35) has been a topic of contention. Taking the three instructions as direct commands, scholars have offered a plethora of views. An alternative view suggested in this article is that these were permissive imperatives in which Paul sanctioned actions that were already in progress in the Corinthian church, such as (a) women remaining silent because they themselves were not comfortable speaking in front of others, (b) women submitting in ways that they understood as appropriate, and (c) women learning at home instead of asking questions in public because they considered such public speaking embarrassing.

Notes

1. Robert W. Allison suggests a similar threefold division (“Let Women Be Silent in the Churches (1 Cor. 14:33b–36). What Did Paul Really Say, and What Did It Mean?” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 32 [fall 1988]: 28).
2. Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians, International Critical Commentary, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: Clark, 1914), 324-25. See also Ed Boschman, “Women’s Role in Ministry in the Church,” Direction 18 (fall 1989): 47. Matthew Henry wrote, “There is indeed an intimation (ch. xi. 5) as if the women sometimes did pray and prophesy in their assemblies. But here he seems to forbid all public performances of theirs” (Matthew Henry’s Commentary in One Volume, ed. Leslie F. Church [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1961], 1822).
3. Harold R. Holmyard III writes, “A number of observations suggest that these verses refer to women wearing head coverings when praying or prophesying in nonchurch settings” (“Does 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Refer to Women Praying and Prophesying in Church?” Bibliotheca Sacra 154 [October–December 1997]: 467, italics added). See also John H. Fish III, “Women Speaking in the Church,” Emmaus Journal 1 (winter 1992): 214-51. But Markus McDowell, after examining over six hundred prayers from the Second Temple era, has successfully argued that Jewish women prayed in both private and public (Prayers of Jewish Women [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006], 198-208).
4. C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Black’s New Testament Commentary (Peabody, MA: Henrickson, 1968), 331.
5. James D. G. Dunn, 1 Corinthians, T&T Clark Study Guides (New York: Clark International, 2003), 75.
6. “We are not sure whether St Paul contemplated the possibility of women prophesying in exceptional cases. What is said in xi. 5 may be hypothetical” (Robertson and Plummer, The First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians, 325).
7. James G. Sigountos and Myron Shank write, “It would be quite strange for him to devote a lengthy argument to the proper fashion for a practice he is about to condemn as wrong” (“Public Roles for Women in the Pauline Church: A Reappraisal of the Evidence,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 2 [September 1983]: 284).
8. Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 705. See also William O. Walker Jr., “1 Corinthians 15:29-34 as a Non-Pauline Interpolation,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 69 (2007): 699-705; and N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, vol. 1 of Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 107 n. 48. Robin Scroggs proposes a variation of this theory, arguing that a Paulinist (who wished to revise Paul) disagreed with Paul’s liberation of women and inserted these modifications (“Paul: Chauvinist or Liberationist?” Christian Century, March 15, 1972, 307-9).
9. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 499.
10. In examining Codex Vaticanus, J. Edward Miller argues that the umlaut there does not indicate that the scribe knew of a variant (“Some Observations on the Text-Critical Function of the Umlauts in Vaticanus, with Special Attention to 1 Corinthians 14.34-35,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26 [2003]: 217-36).
11. Antoinette Clark Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction through Paul’s Rhetoric (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 151-52.
12. Richard A. Horsley, 1 Corinthians (Nashville: Abingdon, 1998), 189. Walker writes, “In short, it is my judgment that the peculiarities of the vocabulary of 1 Cor 15:29–34 are such as to raise serious questions regarding Pauline authorship of the verses” (“1 Corinthians 15:29-34 as a Non-Pauline Interpolation,” 92).
13. Raymond F. Collins cites six expressions that suggest Pauline authorship (First Corinthians, Sacra Pagina [Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1999], 516). See also Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 330-31.
14. Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York: Crossroad, 1983), 230-33. Also Horsley writes, “Paul has to be addressing only married women, not all women, in 14:34-35, since in 11:5 he had already implicitly acknowledged that women were active in prayer and prophesying” (1 Corinthians, 189).
15. Ben Witherington III writes, “I am less sure now than before that these verses refer to married women. The phrase ‘their own men’ (v. 35) need not refer to husbands. It could also refer to whoever was the male head of a particular woman’s household. But probably ‘husband’ is what is meant” (Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995], 287 n. 43).
16. Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets, 59-61.
17. Collins, First Corinthians, 514. See also Joseph A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008), 530; Allison, “Let Women Be Silent in the Churches,” 27-60; and Louis Rayan, “Be Subject to One Another Out of Reverence for Christ (Eph. 5:21),” Indian Theological Studies 47 (June 2009): 23-48.
18. Craig L. Blomberg lists seven other objections to this view, including form, lack of historical evidence, and structure (1 Corinthians, NIV Application Commentary Series [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995], 280). Jay E. Smith lists criteria by which to determine a Corinthian “slogan” (“Slogans in 1 Corinthians,” Bibliotheca Sacra 167 [January–March 2010]: 84-86).
19. David S. Dockery, “The Role of Women in Worship and Ministry: Some Hermeneutical Questions,” Criswell Theological Review 1 (spring 1987): 370. H. A. Ironside writes, “If at such a time [church gatherings] the women hear something they do not understand, do not let them interrupt the meeting by inquiring aloud nor by seeking to teach. Let them ask their husbands at home” (Addresses on the First Epistle to the Corinthians [New York: Loizeaux Bros., 1938], 455). F. F. Bruce thinks this is one of the two possibilities, the other being that women were not to be involved in evaluating the prophets (1 and 2 Corinthians, New Century Bible [Greenwood, SC: Attic, 1971], 135). See also Thomas D. Lea and Hayne P. Griffin Jr., 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 100; James D. G. Dunn, 1 Corinthians (London: Clark, 1999), 74-75; and John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007), 514.
20. Marion L. Soards, 1 Corinthians, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), 306. J. Vernon McGee writes, “He is not saying that a woman is not to speak in church; he is saying that she is not to speak in tongues in the church” (1 Corinthians, Thru the Bible Commentary Series [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1991], 168).
21. Leon Morris, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1985), 197-98. Craig S. Keener writes, “The short-range solution was that the women were to stop interrupting the service; the long-range solution was that they were to learn the knowledge that they have been lacking” (Paul, Women and Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992], 88).
22. It is actually an insult to suggest that only educated women were permitted to speak (λαλέω) in the churches. The Bible sets no such limitation on uneducated people, male or female. Blomberg correctly notes that this view “fail[s] to explain why Paul silenced all women and no men, when presumably there were at least a few well-educated, courteous, or orthodox women and at least a few uneducated, less polite, or doctrinally aberrant men!” (1 Corinthians, 280-81, italics his).
23. See also 1 Esdras 9:40-41.
24. Similarly non-Jewish women could also have been well versed in philosophies, although unschooled. “Women all over the Mediterranean would have been able to hear philosophy from a variety of schools in their homes as Pliny and Seneca indicate in their correspondence” (Nathan J. Barnes, “Women in Philosophy and the Agon Motif of 1 Corinthians 9,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 36 [spring 2009]: 59).
25. Margaret E. Thrall, The First and Second Letters of Paul to the Corinthians, Cambridge Bible Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), 102. Blomberg writes, “An authoritative evaluation of prophecy, however, while requiring input from the whole congregation, would ultimately have been the responsibility of the church leadership (what Paul elsewhere calls elders or overseers), who, at least in the first century, seem to have been exclusively male” (1 Corinthians, 281). Arthur Rowe takes this a step further, suggesting that the women started to judge their own husbands’ prophesies, thus causing marital unrest, and that explains why Paul did not want the women to be involved in the judging of the prophets (“Silence and the Christian Women of Corinth: An Examination of 1 Corinthians 14:33b–36,” Communio viatorum 33 [spring–summer 1990]: 70). Simon J. Kistemaker argues similarly. “No pastor wishes to be publicly criticized by his wife in a worship service; if she does, she undermines his ministry and is a disgrace to him” (Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, New Testament Commentary [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993], 513). See also Dunn, 1 Corinthians, 75; L. Ann Jervis, “1 Corinthians 14.34-35: A Reconsideration of Paul’s Limitation of the Free Speech of Some Corinthian Women,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 58 (June 1995): 51-74; Sigountos and Shank, “Public Roles for Women in the Pauline Church,” 284; and Warren W. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary (Colorado Springs: Cook, 2007), 492.
26. One could argue that the verb “submit” (ὑποτάσσω) is used of both the evaluating of prophecies and of the women being silent, and therefore submitting was the common theme. If so, Paul was actually encouraging women to prophesy (the logic would be, “Prophets were subject to prophets; women must submit to others because the women were prophesying”).
27. Blomberg, 1 Corinthians, 281.
28. Three additional theories are these: (a) Paul was prohibiting only disorderliness (Roger L. Omanson, “The Role of Women in the New Testament Church,” Review & Expositor 83 [winter 1986]: 21; and Dunn, 1 Corinthians, 75). (b) The message of Galatians 3:28 supersedes this passage (Reimund Bieringer, “Women and Leadership in Romans 16: The Leading Roles of Phoebe, Prisca, and Junia in Early Christianity,” East Asian Pastoral Review 14 [2007]: 225). (c) These cultural commands do not apply to churches today (N. J. Hommes, “Let Women Be Silent in Church: A Message Concerning the Worship Service and the Decorum to Be Observed by Women,” Calvin Theological Journal [April 1969]: 5-22; and Jon M. Isaak, “Hearing God’s Word in the Silence: A Canonical Approach to 1 Corinthians 14.34-35,” Direction 24 [fall 1995]: 55-64).
29. Carl B. Hoch Jr., “The Role of Women in the Church: A Survey of Current Approaches,” Grace Theological Journal 8 (fall 1987): 241-51; Keener, Paul, Women and Wives, 74-88; Richard Clark Kroeger and Catherine Clark Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992); Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 1147-62; James R. Beck and Craig L. Blomberg, eds., Two Views on Women in Ministry (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001); Bruce W. Winter, Roman Wives, Roman Widows: The Apperance of New Women and the Pauline Communities (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003); Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, eds., Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004); and Leelamma Athyal, Man and Woman: Towards a Theology of Partnership (Tiruvalla, India: Christava Sahitya Samithy, 2005).
30. This proposed view does not ignore or negate the existence of female speakers such as Phythia at Delphi and Sybil (Plato, Phaedrus, 244), prophetesses such as the daughters of Philip (Acts 21:9), or benefactresses (R. A. Kearsley, “Women in Public Life in the Roman East: Iunia Theodora, Claudia Metrodora and Phoebe, Benefactresses of Paul,” Tyndale Bulletin 50 [1999]: 189-211). This proposal refers to women in general who might have been shy or timid to speak in public.
31. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 489 (italics his). He adds, “It often views the act as a fait accompli. In such instances, the mood could almost be called ‘an imperative of resignation.’ Overall, it is best to treat this as a statement of permission, allowance, or toleration” (ibid., italics his).
32. Scholars list two other passages in 1 Corinthians with permissive imperatives: 7:15 and 7:36 (ibid., 490). See also Ernest DeWitt Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: Clark, 1898), 80; A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1915), 948; and James L. Boyer, “A Classification of Imperatives: A Statistical Study,” Grace Theological Journal 8 (spring 1987): 37. In 7:15 the imperative allowed an unbelieving spouse to depart from a believing spouse—”Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave [χωριζέσθω]”; and in 7:36 Paul’s imperative granted permission to virgins to marry when they wished—”But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry [γαμείτωσαν].”
33. Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood (New York: Peter Lang, 1989), 335.
34. Joseph D. Fantin, The Greek Imperative Mood in the New Testament: A Cognative and Communicative Approach (New York: Peter Lang, 2010), 150 (italics his). Chung-hye Han writes, “Imperatives are in principle agentive . . . the directive force sets forth a plan which is expected to be realized by an agent” (“The Structure and Interpretation of the Imperatives: Mood and Force in Universal Grammar” [Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1998], 168). Wallace writes, “But that volitional force is nevertheless still lurking beneath the surface, even when the speaker is not barking orders” (Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 486).
35. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 488 (italics his).
36. Imperatives can either initiate an action (as direct commands) or respond to an action (as permissive commands). The latter “merely confirms, permits, or tolerates an action/statement/question previously initiated or suggested” (Fantin, The Greek Imperative Mood in the New Testament, 252), or in the case of 1 Corinthians 7:15 and 7:36 “the author is simply directing action based on the actions and/or decisions of others” (ibid., 255). Boyer writes, “Rather than an appeal to the will, this category involves a response to the will of another” (“A Classification of Imperatives,” 37).
37. H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Toronto: Macmillan, 1957), 176 (italics added).
38. The present imperative usually implies durative (“continuous”) or iterative (“repeated”) action (e.g., “let them continue to be silent” or “every time when the church gathers, let them be silent”). For this function of the present imperative see Robert G. Hoerber, “Implications of the Imperative in the Sermon on the Mount,” Concordia Journal 7 (May 1981): 100; Kenneth L. McKay, “Aspect in Imperatival Constructions in New Testament Greek” Novum Testamentum 27 (July 1985): 201-26; and William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 310. John Thorley also sees these present imperatives as “free” imperatives, in which Paul was not under lexical restrictions to choose a present imperative, and yet he did so because he wanted to emphasize the durative nature of the imperative (“Aktionsart in New Testament Greek: Infinitive and Imperative,” Novum Testamentum 31 [1989]: 306-10).
39. Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 55. Fantin writes, “The vast majority of third person imperatives in the New Testament are directed toward the second person in one way or another” (The Greek Imperative Mood in the New Testament, 269). Boyer writes, “Most of the third person imperatives are aimed indirectly at the one addressed and are therefore basically not much different from second person imperatives” (“A Classification of Imperatives,” 37).
40. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 487.
41. Fantin, The Greek Imperative Mood in the New Testament, 269-74.
42. If that was Paul’s intention, one might expect him to have used a simpler construction such as οὐκ λαλεῖνἐπιτρέτωγυναικι;—similar to his prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12.
43. Other examples include a potential disciple seeking permission—”Lord, permit me [μοι]”—to bury his father (Matt. 8:21) or a disciple saying good-bye to his family (Luke 9:61) before following Jesus. Another example is Paul seeking permission (ἐπίτρεψόνμοι) to speak (λαλῆσαι) before the people (Acts 21:39) and receiving permission from the Roman commander (v. 40) or Agrippa (26:1).
44. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 414.
45. “This is semantically equivalent to an active verb with a reflexive pronoun as object: simply add himself, herself, etc. as direct object to the verb” (ibid., 417, italics his).
46. Craig S. Keener writes, “Plutarch insists that a wife ought to reserve her speaking for her husband, or through him (Bride 32; Mor. 142D). Pliny the Younger praises his young wife for enjoying his readings—as she sits privately behind a curtain (Ep. 4.19.4). He also mentions an excellent speaker who publicly read eloquent letters from his wife, the wife herself not appearing to read them (Ep. 1.16.6). . . . A virtuous woman in a possibly third-century novel prefers that the man with her speak, ‘for I think it proper for a woman to be silent, and for a man to make answer, before a company of men’ (Heliodorus, Eth. 1.21)” (“Women’s Education and Public Speech in Antiquity,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50 [December 2007]: 757). In some Eastern cultures today it is considered immodest for women to speak in public to men to whom they are not related. Hamdan narrates the plight of a Muslim woman, Wafaa, who migrated to Canada and was asked to speak in public. “I was very shy and not good at public speaking. I did my first presentation here. . . . I almost cried. I’m not used to that. They told me you have to give a speech about [a topic] and when I was speaking I didn’t look at anyone. I just put my head to the paper and I read it off. . . . I got a good mark on the information I provided, but I got 0 marks for eye contact!” (Amani Hamdan, “Arab Muslim Women in Canada: The Untold Narratives,” Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs 27 [April 2007]: 147).
47. Blomberg, 1 Corinthians, 282.
48. Madeleine Boucher, “Some Unexplored Parallels to 1 Cor 11, 11-12 and Gal 3, 28: The NT on the Role of Women,” Journal of Biblical Literature 31 (January 1969): 50; and Morris, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, 197.
49. F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, ed. Robert W. Funk, 10th ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), § 321. See also Nigel Turner, Syntax, vol. 3 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek, ed. James Hope Moulton (Edinburgh: Clark, 1963), 61; and Andrew B. Spurgeon, “The Historical Present Λέγει [‘He Says’]” (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1993). Buist M. Fanning says λέγει is a “stereotyped idiom” with little or no significance (Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek [Oxford: Clarendon, 1990], 231-32).
50. Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., rev. and ed. Frederick W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 29.
51. Even in the Jewish world interaction between men and women in public was discouraged. “In the traditional Jewish ideal, men should avoid unnecessary conversation with women, to minimize the risk of unchastity or, in some texts, foolishness” (Keener, “Women’s Education and Public Speech in Antiquity,” 757).
52. “It was a common rhetorical technique to end a discussion with rhetorical questions” (Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth, 288).
53. For a detailed explanation of how the Holy Spirit gives gifts to both men and women equally and yet how offices and gifts differ see Harold W. Hoehner, “Can a Woman Be a Pastor-Teacher?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50 [December 2007]: 761-71).
54. As a missionary working in Asia, this author has known churches that demand that their women exercise spiritual gifts in public even when it violates their convictions and grieves them. This passage speaks against such compulsory exercising of spiritual gifts.