With this cultural background in mind, let’s search out the meaning of a few words and phrases.
“Speak”
The Greek word translated “speak” throughout the chapter, lalein, takes its exact meaning from the context, and can refer to anything from silent meditation (v. 28) to disruptive speech of about any kind. There is nothing in the word itself to indicate what kind of speech is in mind. However, the verb is in present tense, indicating continuous action.
Thus, Paul is saying something like “they are not allowed to continually speak.”
“Silent”
The Greek word translated “silent” in 1 Corinthians 14:34, sigao, does not necessarily mean “not speak at all.” Rather, the word may mean nothing more than “be quiet” or even “keep a secret.” The italicized portions of the following verses are all the other occurrences of the word in the Greek New Testament:
(Luke 9:36) When the voice had spoken, they found that Jesus was alone. The disciples kept this to themselves, and told no one at that time what they had seen.
(Luke 20:26) They were unable to trap him in what he had said there in public. And astonished by his answer, they became silent.
(Acts 12:17) Peter motioned with his hand for them to be quiet and described how the Lord had brought him out of prison. “Tell James and the brothers about this,” he said, and then he left for another place.
(Acts 15:12-13) The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them.
(Rom. 16:25) Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past … .
(1 Cor. 14:28) If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.
(1 Cor. 14:30) And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop.
(1 Cor. 14:34) [W]omen should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.
Notice that in its normal use in the New Testament, sigao refers to a temporary silence, typically the courteous silence of not interrupting while another speaks.
In 1 Corinthians 14, sigao is used in verses 28 and 30 to refer, not to total silence, but to abstaining from rude or inconsiderate speech.
In verse 28 Paul told the tongue speakers to “keep quiet [sigao] in the church,” a phrase not significantly different from verse 34’s “remain silent in the churches.” And yet we readily see that Paul did not mean for tongue speakers to be completely silent, only that they should not speak in tongues when no interpreter is present. Other speaking by those with the gift of tongues is not banned by the “keep quiet” command.
Similarly, in verse 30 Paul tells the prophets to stop speaking, literally to “be silent [sigao].” But this command to silence clearly only means to stop talking long enough to let another speak. Thus, in each case, in context, sigao means “refrain from inconsiderate speech” of a certain type.
Thus, when Paul tells women to “remain silent” because they “must be in submission,” we should understand that the command to silence is limited to speech that is not submissive. After all, the Law only requires submission of women, as complements for their husbands, not silence. Women should be silent to the extent that speaking would, in the circumstance and at the time, violate the command to submission, that is, their role as suitable complements. Nowhere in the Old Testament do we find women told to be silent in the presence of men.
But prophets and tongue speakers are given the same limited command — not that they should not use their gifts to God’s glory, but that common courtesy and mutual submission of Christians to one another requires the taking of turns, using gifts in a manner that edifies, and behaving decently and orderly.
Clearly, where considerations of courtesy and orderliness do not prevent speaking, tongue speakers and prophets are free to speak, even as stated in verse 28, “in the church.” Likewise, in a culture and place where a woman may speak in the presence of men without causing a scandal or being perceived as immoral, the command to silence has no application. This interpretation will become clearer as we proceed more deeply into the scripture.
“The Law”
Paul’s reference to the Law as supporting his command is either (a) the Law of Moses, (b) the curse pronounced on women in Genesis 3, or (c) a reference to the “one flesh” relationship that God created, described in Genesis 2. No one has plausibly suggested any other possibility.
But Paul cannot be arguing from the Law of Moses, since the Law of Moses never commands women to be silent in the presence of men or even to be submissive to men. And Paul cannot be arguing from the curse in Genesis 3, as many would suggest. This is a curse and not a command and is the result of sin, not a pattern for righteous living.
Thus, the only possible explanation is also the most appealing explanation. Paul is referring to the command that husbands and wives be one flesh and the role of women as suitable complements — for their husbands.
“Women”
The Greek word translated “women” is gune, which can be translated “wives” or as “women” — the distinction can only be found in the context. Translating gune as “wife” solves a number of problems and has much to commend it. First, only a wife can ask her husband at home. A widow, divorcee, or other unmarried woman could hardly do so.
Second, the Law (Genesis 1 and 2) imposes submission on wives, and then only to their husbands. Nowhere does the Law require all women to be in submission to all men. Genesis 2 only talks about husbands and wives. Eve was Adam’s helpmeet, not a helpmeet to all men. (Would you tell your daughter that she is to submit to every man she meets?)
“Inquire”
In the New International Version, Paul is translated as saying, “If they wish to inquire about something …,” but the King James Versions translates, “And if they will learn anything ….” In this case, the King James Version has it right. For reasons mentioned earlier, Paul makes it clear that while woman are certainly permitted to learn, he is unwilling to assume that they will.
With these definitions in mind, let’s try our hand at a clearer translation:
As in all the congregations of the saints, wives should not speak in a way considered rude or immoral in the churches. They are not allowed to [so] speak, but must be in submission, as Genesis 2 says [about wives being suitable complements for their husbands]. If they want to learn about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a wife to speak in the church. Did the word of God originate with you [rather than the Jews]? Or are you the only people it has reached [the gospel has reached many people who consider female questioning of men very immoral]?
Jay,
I have just recently discovered your site because I am doing some restoration movement history for my own personal edification and I would also like to share accurate church history with fellow believers. I noticed the posting on this site earlier today about the Quail Springs, Oklahoma congregation having growing pains because of allowing musical instuments. I found it interesting that the people who took out the newspaper ad were immediately blaming the minister, Mr. Henderson even though every Church of Christ congregation I've been to really downplays the role of the minister and stresses the point that the eldership (always plural) is the authority for making decisions. In A church of 900 I'm sure there were about a half dozen.
What made me think of this is that Robert H. Rowland was an elder at Quail Springs from 1973-???? . The reason this is relevant to the post above is that he published "I permit not a woman…" TO REMAIN SHAKLED. I found this book in a second hand store for 67 cents. If anyone wants to expound on your thoughts above this is a good read. I have never read anything like it from any other writer in the brotherhood from his time period. ( He was President of Columbia Christian College in Portland, OR from 1959-1969) The electronic copy can be found at http://www.freedomsring.org.
I wonder if Mark Henderson knows Robert Rowland and was possibly mentored by him?
Anyway,
Thank you for your excellent site Jay. I look forward to coming back to it often and sharing it with others.
Brian
There is nothing in the Greek text about the manner of speaking (rude or immoral). The Greek does not say they are not allowed to "so" speak. It says they are not allowed to speak. So we cannot call that a translation — much less a clearer translation. It obscures by adding ideas not in the original text.
In verse 21, Paul says:
Pauls says that is written in the Law, but he quotes from Isaiah. So "Law" can be used to refer to any Old Testament writing. And therefore, later in the same chapter when he refers to "the Law", it is reasonable to interpret Law to mean the Old Testament. It does not mean there is a rule in the OT prohibiting women from speaking. He says she must be in submission as the Law says. It means what he is saying is consistent with the related teachings in the Old Testament about the role of women. Many, many commentators (I dare say a large majority of commentators) have written that this includes Gen 3:16, as well as Num 30:3-13 and others.
I have to tell you that the whole conversation of women's roles is really difficult to nail down. Sure this is a duh statement, however, I think an earlier point was made in the comments of someone that it is virtually impossible for us to take the reality of Paul's day and then try to make such comments dogmatically true for every community at every place in time. What I mean is, this will be different for every community. You have to ask yourself, what is an assembly? Well according to Acts 2, it was the daily gathering to break bread, to gather around the disciples teachings, to hear the gospel. Well for my context as a church planter, then women should never speak because almost every day I and others are gathering with men and women in a very similar mode. Dining together, breaking bread, speaking the gospel, having all things in common. To be honest, I am not sure our "assemblies" are even close to the situations we see Paul referring to. If you consider the assembly the place you "go" to church, I believe we may already be in err.
Secondly, we must then ask ourselves if the proclamation of the gospel, the witness of the gospel should then be allowed by a woman to a man. For this is a witness, it is often proclamation/preaching, it is often authoritative, it is often in an assembled state with other believers. So does Paul then intend to make her witness irrelevant to men and thus potentially hinder the spreading of the gospel to others. Someone may say about this, well this is irrelevant to the topic at hand, because this is not the assembly. Well, I would argue, is it more important to silence our women on Sundays or for each person to live as Christ throughout the week. For I have seen the woman be silent card played far to often by those who are Sunday Christians and the rest of the time cheats, thieves and unethical business men who practice the ways of the world readily.
Thirdly, at what point does this conversation become relevant to the lost, broken, sinful and sick. How does this relate to the life of Jesus who went before the most scandalous of women and invited them to speak? How does this relate to the church as the bride of Christ? The woman figure? We must not simply find ourselves as men outside of the larger picture of our larger body, the wife, the bride of Christ? What does it mean for men, to be the bride of Christ, corporately? Well, one might say well this is irrelevant? This is out of context. Well what of Paul in 1 Corinthians when Paul is referring to the marriage relationship but then quickly says, I am not really speaking of marriage but of Christ and the church.
Fourthly, while it is true one can read scripture purely in a straight forward, literal manner. The problem with this is that it demands we twist the other texts that so often are held in such great tension. How can you read the text literally about women being silent and then hear Paul speak of women who prophesy? We cannot throw the baby out with the bath water. Neither should we simply ignore one for the sake of the other. Then we are merely supporting our own claims. Rather, we should be theologizing, reasoning, etc. in an effort to look at the whole of scripture. In fact, it is probably equally, if not more, important to look at the actions of Jesus as it is to listen to the words of Jesus. You see, even today, it is readily acknowledged that something like 80% of communication is nonverbal anyway. So are we going to allow the tension of Jesus who says, you without sin cast the first stone. Are we going to allow the tension of Mary and Martha speaking to Jesus at a gospel presentation because it wasn't one of our Sunday services? Are we going to overlook the work of the Samaritan woman who proclaimed the good news of Jesus and gathered the crowd? Are we going to overlook the fact that Jesus had compassion on the bleeding woman? All of these were highly illegal according to the law but Jesus revealed the greater call to love the Lord your God, to love neighbor, to love enemy.
My point is this, while these do not deal directly with the nature of this argument perhaps we have given up seeking how such ancient principles and doctrines should move us to love. Perhaps, it is more loving sometimes to let a woman speak and share her testimony. Perhaps, it is more loving to allow women to grow closer to the kingdom life, where there is no male or female, gentile or jew. As far as I can understand we are called to be ambassadors of the reign of God. We are called to submit to the governing authorities at the same time. These two things are almost always in tension with one another yet this is our call. Perhaps, we should see Paul's writings in this same light. Perhaps, Paul was acknowledging God's freeing power in the Christian community for women, while respecting the laws and ways of his surrounding culture.
Otherwise, we are always going to have to fight battles of inconsistency, not in our church but in our authoritative Word from God. For Paul, is not a man who is wholly consistent. So either he is completely false or he is theologizing for the sake of the kingdom come.
Forgive my misspellings and my perhaps unqualified reasoning. In my own head I have already done so but time did not permit and it was already way too long. God bless each of us as we seek what it means to live for the Truth.
It is interesting how some (alan) seem to enjoy shooting holes in the efforts to better understand the original text, but then turn around and "re-interpret" to their own liking such as "It means what he is saying is consistent with the related teachings in the Old Testament about the role of women."
But, the problem is THAT IS NOT WHAT PAUL SAID (English or Greek)!
Here is another question to add fuel to the fire..What does it mean when the same Paul writes that "there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Were females lost in the OT (and males saved)? Were only men chosen by God?
Looking forward to the pot being stirred…and thanks Jay for rocking our comfortable little boats!
MIke
Alan wrote,
Num 30:3-13 declares that an unmarried woman is not bound by her oaths or contracts unless ratified by her father and that a married woman's is not so bound unless her husband ratifies them.
This principle was a part of the common law of England and in America until repealed by statutes in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Indeed, married women were once declared incompetent to contract, along with minors, lunatics, and drunkards.
Hence, for those paternalists who see women as too gullible to lead in church affairs, this is certainly a proof text. I've never heard it cited by a complementarian.
Num 30:3 ff is a product of the debased state of women resulting from the Fall, not an indicator of how we should treat women today.
Quite seriously: if your view is that we should build our doctrine of the role of women on Num 30:3 ff, why would we not also base secular law on the principle? Were we wrong to change the law so that a married woman can contract without the consent of their husbands?
And on what basis do we decide that women are competent to run corporations and nations but not to vote in a church business meeting?
Gen 3:16 is a product of the fall, an enemy of the Christ.
If the curse is Christ's enemy, why would we encourage its continuation?
Les,
There is considerable wisdom in your post. Let me add this example.
In a church plant in a highly secular parts of the country, the leadership will struggle with the role of women much more than we do in the highly-churched South.
Discrimination against women is one of the great secular sins of our age. Most outside the church would find refusing to allow women to teach or to have authority immoral — just as bad as refusing to allow a black man to speak or have authority would be.
Hence, the traditional view of these issues will have an effect on our ability to be evangelistically effective in many places. That doesn't decide the right and wrong of it, but it certainly means we can't preserve our traditions to be "safe" or to avoid controversy. And it demonstrates the urgency of re-thinking things in light of gospel principles.
Jay,
I would add to your thoughts:
"it certainly means we can’t preserve our traditions to be “safe” or to avoid controversy. And it demonstrates the urgency of re-thinking things in light of gospel principles"
I think that whatever side of this issue we come down on, if we don't have a clear, precise, and I think most importantly – CONSISTANT doctrine and practice – it becomes difficult for us to shake the "discrimination" label. I would say that as one attending the church of Christ my entire life, I think one of our big problems is not being consistant with our doctrines and practices.
I've been greatly appreciative of these discussions as I've been able to really study it in depth and I think that this is one area where we need to be studying more.