(2) 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36

As we have seen (Part 3) in 1 Corinthians 11:2 - 14:40 Paul addresses certain problems connected with church worship - matters concerning the veiling of women (11:2-16), observing the Lord's Supper (11:17-34) and the granting and use of spiritual gifts (12:1-14:40). In his treatment of spiritual matters, (12:1-14:40) the apostle deals with two important subjects in chapter 14: first, the relative value and use of prophecy and speaking in tongues (14:1-25), and second, the need for orderly conduct in the exercise of spiritual gifts in the assembly (14:26-40). Among other things, such orderly conduct in the exercise of spiritual gifts means observing the apostolic prohibition against women teaching or exercising authority over men in the worship assembly (1 Tim 2) and Paul makes this clear in 1 Cor. 14:33b - 36. In a moment we will look at these verses in some detail but first let's say a general word about 1 Corinthian 14.

Earlier we pointed out that not all teaching in the public assembly involves leading that assembly. When Christians engage in congregational singing, all members of the assembly simultaneously speak to one and engage in mutual teaching by way of psalms hymns and spiritual songs (Eph. 5:18; Col. 3:16), but such reciprocal teaching does not involve participants in that exercise of authority which Paul discusses in 1 Timothy 2. However it is equally clear that in 1 Corinthians 14, the apostle is discussing an assembly in which spiritually-gifted Christians are exercising their gifts of prophecy and language-speaking to lead in worship. Among other things, this is evident from the fact that Paul instructs prophets and tongue speakers to speak, not simultaneously, but "in turn" (14:27) and "one by one" (14:31), while others in the assembly are to remain silent throughout (14:28,30), and say "amen" at the appropriate point (14:16). In giving these instructions, Paul is urging the Corinthians to conduct themselves in such a way as to ensure that all things are done "properly and in an orderly manner" (14:40).

Now evidently the Corinthians needed to be reminded of the requirement for orderliness because a certain amount of confusion has invaded their assemblies (14:23, 26ff). Briefly, it is evident that some at Corinth who are "zealous of spiritual gifts" (14:12) have a misguided view of true spirituality, are giving undue emphasis to certain gifts, and are failing to use these gifts for the benefit of the church as a whole. There appears to have been a competitive spirit and a "a high degree of individualized worship in (the) assemblies" (Fee) and to correct this, Paul emphasizes that the gifts are given "for the common good" (12:7) and that all things are to be done for edification (14:26 cf. vs 3-5, 12). Having discussed the priority of prophecy over tongues and the rules for the exercise of both (14:1-25), the apostle then gives directions for orderly conduct in the assembly (14: 26-40). Paul tells us that such orderly conduct involves the strict regulation of tongues, prophecy and other gifts in the assembly (vs 26-33a), and he is also adamant that in the case of women, such conduct requires their submission to male leadership (vs 33b-36).

The Spirit of God and the Prophets' Own Spirits

It is clear that much of what Paul says in 1 Cor. 14 is corrective, and vs 31, 32 may help explain why the Corinthians assemblies are somewhat chaotic. Here Paul writes: "For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; and the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets." J. W. McGarvey suggests that in this verse "the apostle asserts the truth that the prophets can control their spirits while under the prophetic influence," adding: "This guarded against the possibility that any speaker should pretend to be so carried away by the prophetic influence as to be unable to stop". Likely this is correct. Likely Paul is emphasizing here that the prophet "is not bowled over by the storm of inspiration". (Jim McGuiggan, First Corinthians, Commentary) In stressing the fact that the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets, Paul is emphasising that tongue-speaking and prophesying are activities which are "completely under the control of the speaker" (Fee) and that this being the case, there is no reason why the spirituals cannot speak "in turn" and remain silent at the appropriate times (vs 26 - 30). Disorderly conduct in the assembly cannot be attributed to the irresistible influence of the Holy Spirit over the spirituals.

In this context, Paul has a word to say about the role of women. Perhaps, like their male counterparts, some sisters were saying: "We are so bowled over by the Spirit's influence that we simply must speak out in the assembly when He gives us a message. We lose all control and cannot help ourselves!" But Paul will have none of this. Since the prophets’ own spirits are under their own control (v 32) this argument simply will not wash, and women must accept complete responsibility for their own behaviour in the assemblies. Likely this is the background to 14:33b-36. Anyway we will now look at these verses in detail.

1 Corinthians 14:33b - 36

In view of the fact that the apostle does not permit women to teach or to have authority over men in Christian worship (1 Tim. 2), and the fact that the exercise of spiritual gifts in the assembly involves authoritative teaching and instruction, Paul's words here are just what we would expect. Because certain matters of translation arise, we will look at 1 Cor. 14:33-36 in three different versions.

For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? (K.J.V.)

For God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says. And 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. Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? (N.A.S.V.)

For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If 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. Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? (N.I.V.)

c) This helps us with v 34. Since Paul is discussing "spirituals" throughout this chapter, and since he issues the command for women to "keep silent in the churches" in the course of regulating the exercise of spiritual gifts in the assembly, it is most natural to think that he has prophetesses and female spirituals in mind here. Context strongly suggests that this is the case and, in light of vs 28, 30, context also strongly suggests that the point of v 34 Paul is that these spiritually gifted sisters are to refrain from exercising their language gifts in the assembly. Women who say "amen" at the giving of thanks are not violating this command to "keep silent" in v 34, any more than male tongue speakers who say "amen" are in violation of v 28. However female spirituals who exercise their language gifts in the assembly do so in defiance of the apostolic command of v 34.

d) And why are women forbidden to exercise spiritual gifts in the assembly? Simply because, unlike saying amen, or engaging in congregational singing, this activity involves leading the assembly. (see above) In fact the New English Bible captures the idea by rendering v 34 "women should not address the meeting". Paul is forbidding women to exercise spiritual gifts in the assembly, because to do so is to teach and exercise authority over the men present (1 Tim. 2). The words "for they (women) are not permitted to speak (from laleo)" reinforce the fact that Paul has spiritual utterances in view. A form of the word laleo occurs over 20 times in chapter 14, and most often has reference to prophecy, revelation and spiritual knowledge.

e) Instead of employing their spiritual gifts to lead the assembly, women are to "subject themselves (from hupotasso) just as the Law also says." Thayer cites this verse as an example of the following meaning for hupotasso: "to submit oneself, to obey; to submit to one's control; to yield to one's admonition or advice." Female submission then involves remaining silent and not speaking when doing so involves exercising authority over the men present, and while it is possible to say "amen" and to engage in congregational singing without exercising such authority, it is not possible to employ language gifts like tongue speaking, prophesy and interpretation in the manner prescribed in chapter 14 without doing so.

f) Paul's appeal to "the Law" in v 34 to reinforce the teaching on female subjection ("just as the Law also says") is best understood as an appeal to the creation account in Genesis 2:21-24, and while some libertarians have different suggestions their arguments are not convincing. (See below Objections to 1 Corinthians 14:33b -36) It is true that Genesis 2:21-24 makes no explicit reference to female subordination, but it is evident from the apostle's use of this passage elsewhere to teach this very doctrine of subordination (1 Cor. 11:8; 1 Tim. 2:13) that an appeal to Gen. 2:21-24 in this context is legitimate.

g) Turning to v 35 we find that in the present context female subjection means that women who "desire to learn anything" are to "ask their own husbands at home," as opposed to asking questions in the assembly. The word translated "husbands" here can also be translated "men," and in light of the fact that Paul's instructions apply to all gifted women, not simply to those who are married, the latter is the better translation here. Women are to ask "their own men" (e.g. husbands, brothers, fathers) "at home" or in private, outside the public assembly. Note the following points:

Paul's rhetorical questions in v 36 remind us that "The pneumatikoi (spiritually gifted) in Corinth seem to have struck an independent course, both from Paul and therefore also from the rest of the churches". (Fee on 1:2) Paul's point here is: "Who do they think they are anyway?...has God given them a special word that allows them both to reject Paul's instructions, on the one hand, and be so out of touch with the other churches on the other?" (ibid) The Corinthians are to "toe the line," and this involves, (among other things) accepting the apostolic directive concerning the role of women in the assembly.

Objections to 1 Corinthians 14:33b - 36

Although there are some textual difficulties with this passage, it is only in recent years with the rise of liberation theology that serious questions about its authenticity have arisen. Among those who have helped popularize the view that this passage is an interpolation is Hans Conzelmann, whose commentary on 1 Corinthians was translated into English in 1975. Conzelman wrote:

"33b-36 This self-contained section upsets the context: it interrupts the theme of prophesy and spoils the flow of thought. In content, it is in contradiction to 11:2ff, where the active participation of women in the church is presupposed. This contradiction remains even when chapters 11 and 14 are assigned to different letters. Moreover, there are peculiarities of linguistic usage, and of thought. And finally, v 37 does not link up with v 36, but with v 33a. The section is accordingly to be regarded as an interpolation. Verse 36, which is hardly very clear, is meant to underline the "ecumenical" validity of the interpolation. In this regulation we have a reflection of the bourgeois consolidation of the church, roughly on the level of the Pastoral Epistles: it binds itself to the general custom. Those who defend the text as original are compelled to resort to constructions for help." (1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians)

Following the publication of Gordon Fee's commentary on 1 Corinthians (New International Commentary on the New Testament) over a decade later, the view that vs 34, 35 constitute a non-Pauline interpolation gained wider acceptance in certain quarters. Fee concludes his ten page discussion of vs 34, 35 by affirming that "in keeping with the textual questions, the exegesis of the text itself leads to the conclusion that it is not authentic." He adds: "If so, then it is certainly not binding for Christians." (To see how Fee arrives at this conclusion see his commentary pp 699 ff.)

Now the simple truth is that the interpolation view flies in the face of all the external evidence. The fact is that there is absolutely no manuscript evidence for the omission of the passage, and it is only in the last few decades with the rise of feminist theology that serious doubts about its authenticity have arisen. Bruce Metzger points out that: "Several witnesses, chiefly Western, transpose verses 34-35 to follow verse 40" (A Textual Commentary on the New Testament) but it is important to keep in mind that transposition is not omission. Significantly "in codex Fuldensis (6^th century A.D.) they were inserted by Victor of Capua in the margin after ver 33 without, however, removing them from their place farther down". (ibid) Evidently those who worked on this document were aware of the fact that there was some variation in the placement of these verses, but at the risk of labouring the point we say again: there is no manuscript evidence for their omission. It is difficult to believe that these verses crept into the text so soon after the writing of 1 Corinthians that every surviving manuscript was affected.

Turning to the internal evidence, Conzelmann is quite wrong in saying that vs 33b-36 "upsets the context" by interrupting the theme of prophesy and spoiling the flow of thought. (In similar vein Fee says that vs 34, 35 are "intruding sentences".) As we said above, Paul is speaking here to spiritually gifted women, and this being the case it is quite natural that these verses occur in a section dealing with the need for orderly conduct in the exercise of spiritual gifts in the assembly (14:26 -40). Once we understand that the silence enjoined by Paul in v 34 relates to spiritual utterances, as does the speech which he prohibits in this verse, we will see that there is no interruption in the apostle's thought here. Quite the reverse. Metzer points out that the placement of vs 34, 35 after v 40 "represent attempts to find a more appropriate location in the context for Paul's directive concerning women," which simply shows that, like some modern commentators, some early copyists failed to see that vs 34, 35 concern spiritually gifted women.

Conzelmann's argument (echoed by Fee) that this passage "is in contradiction to 11:2ff, where the active participation of women in the church is presupposed" holds no water in light of the fact that Paul does not presuppose such active participation by women. (see our earlier comments on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16) Suggestions that:

• "peculiarities of linguistic usage, and of thought" in vs 33b-36 show them to be non-Pauline (Conzelmann) or that vs 34, 35 are not genuine because they contain "some usages...quite foreign to Paul", (Fee) involve highly subjective judgments, and evidently these arguments carried little weight with scholars until just a few decades ago. 1 Cor. 14:33a -36 may be a thorn in the side of liberationists, but there are no grounds upon which to excise this passage from the text.

• A number of those who reject the "traditional" interpretation of 1 Cor. 14:33b-36 insist that Paul's instructions concerning the silence of women in the assembly are limited to a particular time, a particular place, a particular set of circumstances, a particular group of women etc. etc. Among those who take this approach, there is no consensus about what particular group of women Paul has in mind, or about why members of a certain group are forbidden to speak, but there is general agreement on one point: Paul's demand for silence is not universal, but is limited to a particular time, or place or situation.

A good example of the above approach is found in an essay by Linda L. Belleville in which she offers the following "intelligent reconstruction" of 1 Cor. 14:34, 35:

"Married women, in exercising their newly acquired freedom to learn alongside the men, were disturbing the orderly flow of things by asking questions during the worship service. Paul instructs them to ask these questions of their own husbands at home (14:35) so that worship could progress in an orderly fashion". (Two Views on Women and Ministry)

According to Belleville, "the educational limits of married Greco-Roman women" explains why they were the ones asking questions in the assembly. But this argument and others like it are hardly convincing. As we have seen, it is clear from context that Paul has spiritually-gifted women in mind. Both before and after vs 33b-36 he is discussing the gifts, and it makes no sense to suggest that he here breaks off to say a word to non-gifted, married women. Moreover in urging women to "subject themselves just as the Law also says" Paul is appealing to creation order just as he does elsewhere when discussing the role of women in the assembly (1 Cor. 11:8; 1 Tim. 2:13). Thus Paul does not have talkative Corinthian wives in mind when he speaks of subjection, but all women everywhere. Ordinances grounded on creation law are universal.

Belleville's suggestion that Paul may be referring to Roman law in v 34, is completely without merit (as is the suggestion of others that Paul is quoting a first century Rabbinic law, or even referring to his own earlier instruction). A few verses earlier (14:21) when Paul uses "the law" (nomos) to support an argument, he refers to the Old Testament, and this is typical. In fact Paul uses nomos almost 10 dozen times, and in no case is there clear reference to either Rabbinic or Roman law. Moreover he uses the expression "the law (also) say(s)" elsewhere on two occasions (Rom. 3:19; 1 Cor. 9:8) and in both cases reference is to the Old Testament. Belleville's attempt to avoid the force of this appeal to "the Law" fails.

Another telling point against Belleville's position is the fact that Paul's instructions are not limited to Corinthian women but apply to sisters in "all the churches" (see comments above on v 33b). Are we to imagine that because of their lack of education all women in all churches are prone to disruptive activity in the assemblies? What of the Phoebes, the businesswomen like Lydia and the Priscillas? Moreover, in light of the fact that the Corinthian church has more than its fair share of immature, competitive, self assertive males, and the likelihood that this has created problems among male spirituals in the assembly, it is hardly reasonable to suggest that only women (and married women at that) need to be silenced because they were "disturbing the orderly flow of things by asking questions during the worship service."

Bellevelle's position is just one example of a cluster of arguments which are based upon the assumption that Paul's instructions in 1 Cor. 14:33b 36 concerning the silence of women in the assembly, are limited to a particular time, a particular place, a particular set of circumstances, a particular group of women etc. All such approaches fail to deal adequately with the apostle's argument in this passage.

Finally let's say a word about a group of interpretations which, while differing in particulars, have this in common: they treat vs 34, 35, (or parts of these verses) not as a statement by Paul, but rather as a restatement by him of the position held by some at Corinth. In other words, it is the Corinthians, not Paul who have affirmed that women are to "keep silent" and are not to "speak" or request information. Allegedly Paul sets forth their position in vs 34, 35 and then in v 36 refutes it. Details vary, but it is suggested by some that the rhetorical questions: "Was it from you that the word of God first went forth" (36a) and "Or has it come to you only," (36b) are addressed to those Corinthian men who, in their arrogance, are denying Christian sisters the right to exercise their gifts in the assembly.

Support for this position is allegedly found in passages like 1 Cor. 6:12 and 7:1 and 8:1b where we read: "All things are lawful for me," (6:12) and, "it is good for a man not to touch a woman" (7:1) and "we all have knowledge" (8:1b). There is good reason to suppose that in these verses Paul is indeed restating the positions of certain Corinthians in order to refute them. A good case can be made that it is the Corinthians who are saying: "All things are lawful for me," (6:12) and, "it is good for a man not to touch a woman," (7:1) and that having stated their positions, Paul then sets out to refute them. But is there any merit to the suggestion that it is the Corinthian men who are saying: "Let the women keep silent," and that Paul is rebuking these men by asking: "Was it from you (men) that the word of God first went forth" (36a) and "Or has it come to you (men) only?" (36b)

At the outset let's note that this argument that vs 34, 35 do not contain Paul's own teaching on the role of women, represents a radical departure from the traditional position. Like me, many will find it difficult to believe that this novel approach uncovers a truth which has been hidden in the text for almost 2,000 years. But quite apart from this, there are solid reasons for rejecting this interpretation and we will mention just a few.

iii Again, those who take this novel position usually deny that Paul has the Old Testament in mind when he speaks of "the Law" in v 34, but as we have seen, Paul's usage elsewhere makes this highly unlikely.

Finally, looking at the Corinthian letter as a whole, when we compare those passages which are widely acknowledged as restatements of a Corinthian position, (i.e. 6:12; 7:1; 8:1b) we notice that 1 Cor. 14:34, 35 does not fit the pattern. Speaking of those instances that are "almost universally recognized as quotations" (namely 6:12; 7:1b; 8:1b) D. A Carson says:

"(i) they are short (e.g., 'Everything is permissible for me,' 6:12);

(ii) they are usually followed by sustained qualification (e.g., in 6:12 Paul goes on to add 'but not everything is beneficial ... but I will not be mastered by anything' - and then, following one more brief quotation from their letter, he devotes several verses to the principle he is expounding);

(iii) Paul’s response is unambiguous, even sharp."

(Silent in the Churches, RBM)

Carson goes on to point out that: "The first two criteria utterly fail if we assume verses 34-35 are a quotation from the letter sent by the Corinthians". (ibid)

Concluding comment

Scripture is inspired, but interpretations of scripture are not, and because of this students of the word must always be prepared to set aside inadequate explanations of the biblical text no matter how impressive the tradition behind them. The Bible is infallible; interpretations are not.

However, while traditional explanations of scripture are not normative, common sense tells us that we should not lightly discard those interpretations which have been ratified by believers of virtually every age, cultural background and denominational tradition. There is good reason to suppose that those views which transcend barriers of time, location, class, confessions of faith and such like have a solid scriptural base. Common sense suggests that we should scrutinize very carefully any new and novel interpretations of a set of biblical texts if those interpretations represent a complete break with the past, if they mirror precisely the cultural values of those who zealously promote them, and if they are the product of novel hermeneutical methods.

For about eighteen centuries it was taken for granted by just about all believers everywhere that Paul's instructions concerning Christian sisters in 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14 impose certain limitations upon the role of women in the assembly. Then, in the last quarter of the 20^th century, some began to insist that such interpretations were wrong, and that the notion of gender-specific roles is an affront to God and man. However this break with the past was not the result of new textual discoveries, new insights or improved methods of interpretation. Rather it was the fruit of a world view which sees the pursuit of freedom, self-expression, egalitarianism and the attainment of individual rights as the ultimate good. Within modern western democracies, individualism is valued above all else.

Under these circumstances the clear teaching of 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14, that God has established certain gender-specific roles in the church, is anathema to many, and they are determined to "liberate" Christian women by ridding the church of all vestiges of patriarchy. Driven by philosophical presuppositions, some have used their considerable intellectual ability, skill and training to undermine Paul's teaching on male leadership, and unfortunately many who share their cultural heritage have heard them eagerly. This is particularly sad in light of the fact that, as we have seen, liberation arguments on 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14 will not stand up under examination.

In the next and final section we will touch upon several miscellaneous arguments which liberationists use to support their contention that the New Testament does not prescribe gender-specific roles.