Silent women in the church?

Paul Whiting raises the tricky issue raised by Paul in 1 Cor 14 regarding the place of women in the church. It follows on from my post on tongues in 1 Corinthians. Just to refresh, here's the troublesome text in question:

As in all the congregations of the saints, ³⁴women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. ³⁵If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

 ³⁶Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? ³⁷If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. ³⁸If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.^[i]

 ³⁹Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. ⁴⁰But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way. (1 Cor 14:33b-40)

Texts like these don't sit comfortably with modern readers. It seems terribly un-PC to insist that women ought to be silent in church and that they should rather be instructed by their husbands when they get home. It is also rather common to gloss over Paul's treatment of women as merely 'cultural' rather than treating such texts as an equally authoritative part of Paul's Gospel. Whilst there are perhaps some grounds for maintaining that Paul's attitude to women in the church is simply just a part of his contextual theology (is there such a thing as non-contextual theology???), we ought to dig a little deeper to really try and get to grips with a text that has all kinds of potential for misuse and misunderstanding.

Is the text genuinely Pauline?

Before we even get to the theology of the passage, there is much controversy over the authenticity of the text itself. 1 Cor 14:34-35 are found in all known manuscripts we have of 1 Corinthians, but there is some uncertainty as to where exactly the verses fit into the main body of the text. Roughly two-thirds of the manuscripts we have place 14:34-35 in the place that most current translations have them, but the entire Western manuscript tradition has 14:34-35 placed after 14:40, so not all the manuscripts are in agreement as to where 14:34-35 were originally placed. Broadly speaking, we are left with three options to explain this:

1) The verses were originally written in the place they are now, but for some unkonw reason, some manuscript editors moved them to fit in after 14:40.

2) The opposite of option 1: The verses were orginally placed after 14:40 and then later editors moved them to their current location in 14:34-35.

3) They verses were not a part of the original main text, but were there as a marginal note (either from Paul or a later copyist). Some manuscript editors have thought best to add the note at 14:34-45, while others incorporated the note after 14:40.

If one takes either option 1 or option 2, one then has the difficulty of explaining how all the contrary manuscripts came into being. There are no other examples in the manuscript tradtion of any other NT texts being rearranged in this way, and theologically there seems no good reason to move these verses around. If Paul did write them originally at 14:34-35, why do so many manuscripts have them somewhere else? If he wrote them at 14:40, why the discrepancy with all the other texts? It seems that historically speaking, option 3 makes the most sense.

In addition to the manuscript problems, there is the problem of the text itself. Verse 36 is a rhetorical question: "Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?" which seems to flow directly not from 14:34-35 but from the preceding instructions about orderly worship in opposition to the self-styled superspiritual-yet-disorderly Corinthians who might like to think (as the super-spiritual often do) that they are at the centre of what God is doing, and that the word of God originated with them. The text could then be read this way:

"...The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. For God is not a God of disorder but of peace, as in all the congregations of the saints. Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command."

It then seems that Paul is asserting the order of all the other congregations over against the disorder of the Corinthians, and reminding them that the word of God did not in fact originate with them and so they should come into line with 'all the congregations of the saints' and not continue with such chaotic worship practices. Read this way, the text seems to flow a lot more easily and the remarks about women seem to almost be a non sequitur, or at best an afterthought.

It can be (and frequently is) argued that as 14:34-35 do not fit in with the rest of the argument in 1 Cor 12-14, they are not authentic and so can be disregarded. Personally I think this is a case to be made here, but it is dissatisfactory one. If the chapters were about spiritual gifts alone, the instruction for silence might seem out of place, but if one reads in the broader context of trying to establish order in the church the text does fit more comfortably, and need not be viewed as a later interpolation.

So is the text a non-Pauline interpolation? The text has clearly been modified in some way, but there is not enough clear evidence to say that this is definitely an interpolation. As we shall see however, the biggest problem for understanding 14:34-35 comes not from the manuscript tradition, but from within 1 Corinthians itself.

Silent women and 1 Cor 11:2-16

If we read 14:34-35 on its own, it might be construed that Paul expects all women to be completely silent on all church occasions, and the verse has often been applied in this way and has often had a detrimental effect on church life as a result. But is there anything in 1 Corinthians that might help us better understand what Paul is trying to communicate? Here is chapter 11:2-16:

 ³Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. ⁴Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. ⁵And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. ⁶If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. ⁷A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. ⁸For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; ⁹neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. ¹⁰For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

 ¹¹In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. ¹²For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. ¹³Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? ¹⁴Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, ¹⁵but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. ¹⁶If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

Paul clearly does not envisage that women will be silent in church at all times. Although clearly he is unhappy with some of their methods, he anticipates that women will also be vocal in the prophesying and prayer that was part of the Corinthian ekklesia. He does not rebuke women for the fact that they are praying or prophesying, but only the wayin which they are doing so. He doesn't say "you're prophesying, stop it!" but rather "you're prophesying in an inappropriate way. Stop the improper way of speaking." It seems difficult to reconcile this verse with a reading of 14:34-35 that insists that women are to be completely silent at all times.

Likewise we should assume that Paul includes women in the 'all' who are speaking prophetically in 14:23-24 and also the 'everyone' who brings a tongue or prophecy in 14:26, since both women and men together are part of the congregation.

14:34-35 considered

"...women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. ³⁵If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

So what is Paul saying here then? More conservative scholars have tried to reconcile these verses with 11:2-16 by claiming that women prophesying refers only to private gatherings whereas the rule of silence in 14:34-35 applies to larger scale fellowship meetings. The key problem for this approach however is that it is based on a great deal of guesswork and speculation about the organisation of early church gatherings, and there is simply not enough firm historical evidence to show that this was the case in Corinth.

Interestingly, Paul only seems to have married women in mind here, since they are able to "ask their own husbands at home", single women such as the unmarried virgins or widows mentioned in 1 Cor 7 do not get a metion. In fact it is perfectly possible to translate the Greek word gynē as 'wife' rather than simply 'woman', a case strengthened by the fact that Paul a) expects them to have a husband and b) seeks to maintain the relational structure of marital submission he has set out elsewhere (e.g. Eph 5:24) which would only make sense if the women were married. It can be argued that the disorderly behaviour of some wives during the Corinthians' meetings was so disruptive that it was not only disrupting the balance of the husband-wife relationship but also adding to the already chaotic patterns of behaviour that were going on, and so the command to be silent might seem to make more sense as a corrective measure.

Interestingly the leader of the synagogue in Corinth, Crispus, was one of Paul's converts (Acts 18:8) and it is possible (although unprovable) that this early church there followed the synagogue pattern where men sat on one side and women on the other. If this was the case, it becomes possible to picture a scenario where, amidst the babbling of unintelligible tongues and several people prophesying at once, wives are chattering back and forth across the meeting place to ask their husbands what is going on. Indeed the verb lalei used here means 'to chatter' in normal Greek usage, and it seems likely that this disruptive chatter is what Paul has in mind to prevent rather than insisting on a blanket ban on women speaking in all churches for all time. In this rather noisy and chaotic scenario, Paul's insistence on intelligible, interpreted tongues and ordered prophecy fits well with his instruction that wives (women?) also be silent. This would restore order to the church gatherings and help contribute to the building up in edifying love which is the purpose which underpins Paul's entire thought narrative throughout 1 Corinthians 12 onwards.

Against this however, Paul's brief argument is simply the (almost) unqualified statement that "the women must be silent" which reads not as a particular instruction for one situation but as an absolute rule. It is not "women must be silent, but...", it is simply 'women must be silent in (all) the churches.' Paul then attempts to qualify his statement somehow by appealing to the Law ("as the Law says") but very uncharacteristically he does not say where the Law says this (compare this to 1 Cor 9:8 and 14:21 for instance). We can only guess which part of the Law Paul had in mind but Gen 3:16 is often suggested as a possibility, although this verse still does not fit Paul's argument here. More seriously, nowhere else in Paul does he ever insist that the Law is binding on Christians in the way he does here. This text does not fit comfortably with the rest of what we know of Paul.

Conclusion

I would argue in closing however, that this absolute prohibition is only an apparent absolute. Paul has already granted women the right to speak in the congregation back in 1 Cor 11, so 14:34-35 cannot be read as an all-time command for silence unless one is willing to argue that Paul is now abandoning the position he has set out just three chapters before. The speech in the Corinthian congregation seems to have been very disruptive, a sort of cacophony of uninterpreted tongues and multiple prophecies, which clearly many of the women (and undoubtedly many men too) did not understand. The women in turn then add to the disorder by asking their husbands what is going on. To restore this threefold disorder (babbling tongues, manifold prophecies and chattering women) Paul makes three corrections.

Firstly, those speaking in tongues should only speak one at a time and then if no interpretation follows, they should keep quiet (14:26).

Secondly, those prophesying should not all prophesy at once but take it in turns. If someone else has a revelation, the other prophet(s) are to stop speaking. (14:30)

Thirdly, the women who are asking questions and adding to the disruption are usurping the structure of their relationship with their husbands, and so they should remain quiet and ask questions at home. They are not permitted to speak in such a way that will disrupt the service and hinder the building up of the congregation in love.

So what about today? This verse cannot be read as a demand for complete silence from women on all occasions in church meetings, and even if we leave the tricky textual issues aside, the internal evidence does not permit us to read the text in such a way. Interestingly (I'm going to have a slight dig here) many of the denominations who have insisted on read 14:34-35 in such a way as to ban women from speaking have also been those who insist that speaking in tongues and prophesying no longer happen, which at the very best is a completely inconsistent and contradictory position to derive from 1 Cor 11-14, and despite pleas to the contrary is not 'sound biblical doctrine.'

So should women be silent in church? No, they may prophesy and speak in tongues and help to edify the congregation. Is this an all-time absolute? No, and I do not believe that Paul intended it to be read that way, or that it is indeed possible to read it that way. So when are women to be silent? If they are disrupting the service and hindering the edification of others they should not speak, because this prevents the building up of the church in love. I believe that, after all is said and done, this hermeneutic of love is the best way to read all of Paul's writing on spiritual gifts and women, and is the key to this text and indeed the rest of 1 Corinthians.

Name:			Remember personal info? Yes No
Email:
URL:
Comment:			Emoticons / Textile
To prevent automated commentspam We require you to answer this silly question What are the first two letters of the word 'spam'?
Notify:		Yes, send me email when someone replies.
Small print: All html tags except <b> and <i> will be removed from your comment. You can make links by just typing the url or mail-address.