A. The demand for a woman's silence is an absolute rule in the church assembly
This interpretation is based on:
1) 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is in reference to a home gathering
where women may pray and prophesy, or
a concession where women may pray and prophesy under the restriction of the head covering or
a concession to women who cannot submit to 1 Corinthians 14:33-36,
and
2) 1 Corinthians 14:33-36 is in reference to a church assembly
where women may not pray or prophesy,
There are problems with this interpretation:
1) Pentecost (Acts 2:16) was a fulfillment of
Joel 2:28-29 which prophesied that the Spirit would be poured on both men and women
enabling them to prophecy. In 1 Corinthians 14:23-29, Paul considers the gift of
prophecy as occurring within the context of the church assembly and where it could be evaluated.
"It will come about after this That I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind; And your sons and daughters will
prophesy, Your old men will dream dreams, Your young men will see visions. Even on the male and female servants I will pour out My
Spirit in those days." (Joel 2:28-29)
But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: "Men of Judea and all you who
live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give heed to my words. For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only
the third hour of the day; but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel: 'AND IT SHALL BE IN THE LAST DAYS,' God says,
'THAT I WILL POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT ON ALL MANKIND; AND YOUR SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY, AND YOUR YOUNG MEN SHALL SEE
VISIONS, AND YOUR OLD MEN SHALL DREAM DREAMS; EVEN ON MY BONDSLAVES, BOTH MEN AND WOMEN, I WILL IN THOSE DAYS POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT
And they shall prophesy.'" (Acts 2:14-18)
"Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter,
will they not say that you are mad? But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is
called to account by all; the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God
is certainly among you. 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. If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at
the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let
him speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment.
(1 Cor 14:23-29)
2) 1 Corinthians 11:16 and
14:33 indicate that Paul refers to a standard of church practice within the context
of an assembly; its reference goes beyond a small private home gathering. Either Paul does not allow the Corinthian practice or that
all of the other churches do not allow such practice.
But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.
(1 Cor 11:16)
for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.
(1 Cor 14:33)
B. The demand for a woman's silence is to the order of worship not to men
This interpretation is based on:
1) 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 permits women to pray and prophesy, and
2) 1 Corinthians 14:33-36 is in reference to the worship service
where women may not pray or prophesy.
a) Paul was not referring to the subordination of women to men; instead, women were subordinated to the order of
worship. Paul was concerned with the disruption of the worship service by women involved with noisy discussions about tongues and
prophecy. He did not want women to publicly clamor for their explanation and instead discuss the matter with their husbands or menfolk
at home.
There are problems with this interpretation:
1) The verb "submit" or "subordinate" usually refer to subordination of a person or persons to a person or persons,
not to any order, procedure, or institution.
2) There is no explanation why only women are singled out to submit to ecclesiastical order.
C. The demand for a woman's silence applies only to married women
This interpretation is based on:
1) 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 permits women to pray and prophesy, and
2) 1 Corinthians 14:33-36 is in reference to a church assembly
where only married women may not pray or prophesy,
a) Paul was directing his prohibition only to married women who were uneducated and had nothing of value to say;
they disturbed the church assembly with questions. Married women must exhibit self-control and avoid interrupting the proceedings of
the church assembly by reserving such questions for their husbands at home.
b) In another view, Paul directs his restrictions only to married women, because he prefers the "unmarried state"
(1 Cor 7:8). But because he expects a strong negative reaction to these restrictions
by the church, he claims the authority of the Lord.
But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I.
(1 Cor 7:8)
There are problems with this interpretation:
1) The Greek term "gunaikes," refers to women of any age married or single, and the context here does not restrict
its interpretation to only "married women."
2) Within the historical context of the time, a married woman enjoyed greater social status and freedoms
than single women
(see Examining the authenticity of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35… a study into histo-cultural context).
This interpretation is in contradiction to the socio-historical context; it suggests that married women lose some measure of freedom.
3) This is contrary to Paul's recognition and support of married missionary couples, and it doesn't make sense that
Paul would say something he knows to be ridiculous and prepare for the public outrage by appealing to the Lord's authority.
D. The demand for a woman's silence is in response to a local and specific group of women
This interpretation is based on:
1) 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 permits women to pray and prophesy, but
2) 1 Corinthians 14:33-36 is directed towards silencing a local
problem: a) noisy women, or b) uneducated unruly women.
a) 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 addresses and is limited to a local
problem, because the verses interrupt the discussion on prophecy and tongues and is based on Jewish prejudice.
There are problems with this interpretation:
1) This interpretation presumes a local problem to escape the conflict with
1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and the problem of the generic use of the term "women" in
1 Corinthians 14:33-36.
2) This interpretation begs the question: if some women were noisy, why were all women prohibited from talking?
Were there no noisy men? If some women were uneducated and unruly, why were all women prohibited from talking? Were there no uneducated
men?
3) Based on 1 Corinthians 14:33, the Corinthian church was not
practicing in accordance to the standard of other churches. Paul's directive defined a standard for church practice, which goes
beyond a local problem; hence, this interpretation implies that all Christian women were noisy or uneducated and unruly.
E. The demand for a woman's silence is a reference to the Corinthians or a quote from their letter
This interpretation is based on:
1) 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 states that women may pray and prophesy,
and
2) 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 was a summary (or a quote from their
letter) of a misconception held by Corinthian men, which was based on a Jewish slogan, rabbinic saying, or Jewish oral law (Talmud).
1 Corinthians 14:36 was a rebuke of their misconception that women be silent when
the Word of God was being taught.
a) The word "law" does not refer to the Old Testament, because the Old Testament does not instruct women to be
silent or directly support 1 Corinthians 14:34.
Genesis 1:26, 2:21,
and 3:16 do not pertain to denying women the right to speak in a church assembly.
Whenever Paul appeals to the "law," such as in the phrase "just as the Law says," he usually quotes the Old
Testament to substantiate his statement. Because 1 Corinthians 14:34 is an
exception from this pattern, Paul could not be referring to the Old Testament in this verse.
If the term "law" does refer to the Old Testament, it contradicts Paul's statement that we have been liberated
from the law (Rom 3:28,
6:14, 7:16;
Gal 3:11-13, 4:5).
Because the term "law" cannot refer to the Old Testament, the term "law" referred to a Jewish slogan, rabbinic
saying or Jewish oral law (Talmud).
b) At the beginning of 1 Corinthians 14:36, the Greek word for
"or" is not a comparative particle but a disjunctive particle. In this context, the first word of the translation should
read as a horrified or shocked response, "What?!"
c) In 1 Corinthians 14:36, the Greek word for "only"
(monous) is in the masculine sense. In this context, the translation would read, "Did the word of God originate with you
men only?"
d) Paul's rebuke is thus seen as, "What! Did the word of God originate with you men only?" In this
interpretation, Paul's rebuke is understood to refute the preceding verses 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.
There are problems with this interpretation:
1) It is not likely that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 was a quotation.
When Paul does quote from a source within the same sentence,
a) the quotes are usually short (bold text indicates what scholars consider quotes):
All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I
will not be mastered by anything. (1 Cor 6:12)
Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. But because of
immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.
(1 Cor 7:1-2)
Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but
love edifies. (1 Cor 8:1)
b) the quotes are followed by a qualification (bold text indicates the qualification):
All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I
will not be mastered by anything. (1 Cor 6:12)
Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. But because of
immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.
(1 Cor 7:1-2)
Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but
love edifies. (1 Cor 8:1)
c) Paul's qualifications and principles are clear.
If 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is a quote, its literary structure
fails Paul's pattern of quoting within a sentence; moreover, the principle being illustrated with the hypothetical quote is ambiguous
and unqualified.
2) Close observation of 1 Corinthians 14:34 shows that Paul's
use of the term "law" was to substantiate the concept of submission, not specifically to the prohibition of women speaking. "The
women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law
also says."
Paul's appeal to the law is a reference back to 1 Corinthians 11:7-12
where he first discusses authority and submission within the context of proper forms of worship. It is here that Paul alludes to the
Old Testament and the basis for authority and submission found in Genesis 2:18-23.
Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."
Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he
would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the
birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. So the LORD God caused
a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. The LORD God
fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. The man said, "This is now bone of my
bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man."
(Gen 2:18-23)
3) It has never been substantiated that Paul ever used the word "law" to refer to Jewish tradition or any
extra-biblical oral tradition in any of his letters. In virtually all cases, Paul uses the term "law" to refer to rules or regulations
with a prescriptive intent, and it can be substantiated that this usually meant the Mosaic Covenant or Scripture (the Old Testament).
a) The phrase "the law says" in 1 Corinthians 14:34 is found
in only two other instances, Romans 3:19 (see Rom 3:10-19) and
1 Corinthians 9:8 (see 1 Cor 9:8-10).
as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE
WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE. THEIR
THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE, WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING, THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS; WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING
AND BITTERNESS; THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD, DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS, AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT
KNOWN. THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES." Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law,
so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; (Rom 3:10-19)
Romans 3:19 refers to the Old Testament:
Romans 3:12 comes from
Psalms 14:1-3, 53:1-3,
and Ecclesiastes 7:20.
Romans 3:13 comes from
Psalms 5:9 and 140:3.
Romans 3:14 comes from Psalms 10:7.
Romans 3:15 comes from Proverbs 1:16.
Romans 3:17 comes from Isaiah 59:7-8.
Romans 3:18 comes from Psalm 36:1
I am not speaking these things according to human judgment, am I? Or does not the Law also say these
things? For it is written in the Law of Moses, "YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING "God is not concerned about oxen,
is He? Or is He speaking altogether for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written, because the plowman ought to plow in hope, and
the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing the crops. (1 Cor 9:8-10)
1 Corinthians 9:8 refers to the Mosaic Covenant:
1 Corinthians 9:8 comes from
Deuteronomy 25:4.
4) The masculine sense for the Greek word for "only" (monous) is not germane to the interpretation of the
text. People are generically considered in the masculine sense in Greek, and there is ample evidence for this. If Paul intended to
make a reference to men, it is unlikely that he would ambiguously imply "men" by using the masculine sense for the Greek word for
"only."
5) While it is likely that the Greek word for "or" at the beginning of
1 Corinthians 14:36, is a disjunctive particle, the basis for justifying
the translation to read as a shocked response, "What?!" is unfounded.
Some commentators have cited a principle from Thayer's Greek Lexicon in which a disjunctive particle
located before a sentence, contradicts the one preceding it. This justification is incorrect, because these commentators have
selectively cited a portion of this principle, which has led to their misunderstanding.
The correct citation of Thayer's principle is that the disjunctive may appear "before a sentence contrary to
the one just preceding, to indicate that if one be denied or refuted the other must stand." To understand Thayer correctly, the
disjunctive particle is not used to contradict the preceding clause or sentence, but to present a logical argument to
reinforce the preceding clause or sentence. That this is indeed a principle is substantiated by the fact that in every
instance in the New Testament, where the disjunctive particle in question is used in a construction analogous to
1 Corinthians 14:36, its effect is to reinforce the truth of the clause
or sentence that precedes it.
Thayer's example of Romans 3:29 illustrates his principle.
For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. Or is God the God of Jews
only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, (Rom 3:28-29)
Romans 3:29 begins with the disjunctive particle, and it is
obviously clear that it is not intended to contradict the preceding sentence. It is a logical argument using a rhetorical question
to reinforce the idea that God is not only the God of Jews but for all of mankind.
Other examples that can be examined are Matthew 20:15 and
1 Corinthians 9:6; 10:22;
11:14.
6) There is little evidence that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 was
a quote from a letter or a misconception held by Corinthian men based on a Jewish slogan or rabbinic saying. Furthermore, the Thayer's
principle indicates that Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 14:36 was intended to
reinforce the truth of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.
In attempting to understand 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, one is forced to reconcile
and harmonize their interpretation with 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. Because Paul never
clearly states the problems afflicting the Church at Corinth, the interpreter is left with the difficulty of examining the problematic
attitudes Paul addresses for clues of the root problems.
One clue is found in two passages where Paul uses the Greek term "aischron" which means "shame, dishonorable, disgrace."
For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for
a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. (1 Corinthians 11:6)
If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a
woman to speak in church. (1 Corinthians 14:35)
In 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, Paul refers to man as "head" and in
1 Corinthians 14:34-35, he speaks of "submission." Paul is clearly concerned with
what is shameful for women within the context of how they are to relate to men of the church.
In the case of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, as Paul emphasizes the headship of men, the issue is doing something that would dishonor the
role of men as leaders of the church. It isn't that women are praying and prophesying in public, but whether their dress and demeanor
affirm the headship of men.
In a similar fashion, the Corinthian problem alluded to in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
is not whether women have the ability to speak, but whether what they were saying was appropriate and consistent with the demeanor he
spoke of in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.