What Did the Apostle Paul Mean By,

“Let your women keep silence in the

churches”?
"But the Lord is in His holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before him."
Habakkuk 2:20

By Marshall “Rusty” Entrekin

Imagine that the 1930‟s comedy team of Laurel and Hardy were invited to share
inspirational messages at a church. In a departure from their regular routine, they
decided to take turns addressing the congregation. While Oliver Hardy had the
congregation in stitches, Stan Laurel was loudly carrying on a conversation with the
person sitting next to him. “Stanley, please be quiet!” Oliver said. “You‟re not supposed
to be talking in church! You ought to be obeying the rules! Shame on you!”

At that, Stanley quit talking and sheepishly sank down into his seat. Finally, Oliver
finished his message. “OK, Stanley, now it‟s your turn!” He said. Stan, however,
remained seated.

“Stanley, it‟s your turn!”

“Stanley?”

Stan scribbled a note and handed it to the usher. Oliver read out loud: “But Ollie, you
said that I‟m not supposed to be talking in church!”

Obviously, in this imaginary story, Oliver meant that Stan was not supposed to talk in a
disruptive way in church. Stan, however, took Oliver‟s words to mean that he should not
speak at all. That was because he failed to recognize what most of us, as native
speakers of English, are able to easily see. A foreigner, however, or even an English
speaker a few hundred years from now, might easily miss such indicators of meaning.

All of us are “foreigners” to Koine Greek, the language that the New Testament was
written in nearly 2000 years ago. Occasionally, where difficult passages are concerned,
it is only through careful study and reflection, combined with receptiveness to the
guidance of the Holy Spirit, that we come to properly understand the meaning of a
biblical writer. Sometimes, upon further study, even expert translators realize that they
had initially missed indicators of meaning in a difficult passage.

For some time now, persuaded by a good friend who has written on this subject, I have
held to the position that women should not speak publicly in church. This position is
based on I Corinthians 14: 34-37:

34 34 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.
35 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for
it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
36 36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you
only?
37 37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him
acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the
commandments of the Lord.

In most modern churches, not only the women, but also most of the men have to be
silent, so this passage does not attract as much controversy as it might. In churches
such as ours that practice participatory meetings based on I Corinthians 14:26-40,
however, it is of great relevance. Although I was intellectually persuaded that my
friend‟s interpretation was probably right, I had nagging doubts about it.

This was because in I Corinthians 11, Paul does not speak disapprovingly of a woman
prophesying in what most commentators take to be a church setting, as long as she has
a covering on her head. John Calvin offered a possible explanation for this in his
Commentary on 1 Corinthians 14:

It may be replied, that the Apostle, by here condemning the one, does not
commend the other. For when he reproves them for prophesying with their head
uncovered, he at the same time does not give them permission to prophesy in
some other way, but rather delays his condemnation of that vice to another
passage, namely in 1 Corinthians 14.

Still, it seemed odd to me that Paul would not express his disapproval of this practice
right away, if it was so objectionable to him, but would wait until chapter 14 to express
his disapproval of it. It is possible that the apostle was referring to women prophesying
in contexts outside of the church meeting, but, as I already mentioned, most
commentators do not see it that way, and because of reasons that I will explain later,
this interpretation did not seem as likely to me, either.

Secondly, this passage is one of the most controversial in the New Testament, and I
had heard arguments against this strict interpretation that, although they were not
conclusive, raised further doubts.

Lastly, although my wife and I were intellectually persuaded of this interpretation, I was
dismayed as she struggled with deep feelings of low self worth because of it. I would
remind her that she is of such worth that God gave His Son for her, and of the close
relationship that Jesus had with women such as Mary and Martha. Although this
interpretation seemed to be having an oppressive effect on her, the last thing that I or
anyone else I knew who held to this position wanted was to be oppressive. They were
simply good, loving people who felt duty bound to obey what they thought the Bible
commanded, just as we did.

A Command Meant to be Obeyed

Our desire to be obedient to this passage was strengthened by the fact that Paul‟s
words here are quite firm. He gives not one, but five reasons why this command should
be obeyed:

The first is "for it is not permitted unto them to speak.” The perfect tense of
the Greek verb translated "permitted" indicates that Paul was being quite
emphatic.

The second is "but they are commanded to be under obedience". This

verb is also in the perfect tense, again signifying that Paul was being very
emphatic.

Paul‟s third reason reinforces the second, "as also saith the law." This is
followed by a reply to a possible objection, "And if they will learn any thing,
let them ask their husbands at home".

The fourth is "for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

And the fifth is because "the things that I write unto you are the
commandments of the Lord."

And so there is no doubt that Paul wanted this command for women to be silent to be
obeyed!

But in order to obey it accurately, we must make certain that we understand it correctly!
In this case, it is particularly important, especially if we are going to teach others how to
obey it. This is because how we interpret it has a very important effect on half of God‟s
people! In our opening story, when Stan Laurel misunderstood a similar command, it
made for comedy. But if God‟s people misunderstand Paul‟s command, the result is not
so funny, when we consider the potentially vast impact of that error. Whatever view we
adopt, we must not enter into it carelessly or lightheartedly.

Just as Stan mistook Ollie‟s words, could my wife and I have misunderstood the Apostle
Paul? Was Paul merely forbidding the women from speaking disruptively? As I
pondered this question, I knew that determining the answer to it would require time-
consuming study, which would involve close examination of the relevant Greek words,
the Greek grammar, and the context of the passage. With a struggling new business
and seven children to provide for, that was a luxury that was hard to justify, so I put it off
for a long time.

Recently however, even my fifteen and nine year old daughters began to question this
interpretation. That was the final prod which motivated me to take the time to study and
meditate on this passage in depth.

Surely, when any scripture passage has a great and controversial impact on God‟s
people, it can be beneficial to study the Greek words, the grammar, and the context
carefully, to make certain that we understand it correctly. Otherwise, how can we be
certain that we know the “plain meaning” of the passage?

What I learned from this study was very edifying to me! I hope that you will find it to be
of benefit as well.

Various Interpretations of this Passage

We must not approach this passage (or any other scripture passage) with the motive of
trying to “explain it away.” Instead, we should study this passage, and any difficult
passage in scripture, with the honest desire to more fully understand it. If a fuller
understanding honestly compels us to adopt an interpretation different from the one that
we previously held, then that, on the other hand, is a good thing.

Some have claimed that verses 34 and 35, which are generally regarded as canonical,
are an interpolation (addition) by a scribe. However, although these two verses are
indeed placed at the end of the chapter in some ancient manuscripts, they are present
in all of them. In light of such massive manuscript evidence, verses 34 and 35 seem to
rightfully belong in the inspired text. Furthermore, in the spring 1999 edition of the
Biblical Theology Bulletin, D.W. Odell-Scott pointed out that in manuscripts where these
verses are placed at the end of the chapter, there is a resulting textual incoherence,
because verse 36 is then left standing alone. Despite the attempts of some to make it
disappear, this difficult passage just won‟t go away!

Others say that Paul‟s command only had application to the Corinthian cultural situation.
However, could not this claim be made in regard to any scripture that we are
uncomfortable with? Furthermore, it is plain contextually, by statements like “as in all of
the churches of the saints,” that the instructions Paul is giving have universal
application.

Still others assert that in verses 34 and 35, Paul is quoting the words of some people in
Corinth that he disagrees with. In this scenario, he follows the quote with the words,
“What! Did the word of God originate with you?” However, this interpretation is pure
conjecture, since the apostle gives us no clear indications that he is quoting someone.
Steve Atkerson has pointed out that contrary to the mistaken assertions of some, the
Greek letter ayta does not indicate that verses 34 and 35 are quotes
[http://www.ntrf.org/silent2.html]. Instead, Paul‟s “What!” seems to be directed at those
who would disagree with the firm command he has just given.

Some have conjectured that the men and women were sitting on opposite sides of the
meeting hall, and the women were shouting questions to their husbands. Although Paul
may have been forbidding disorderly speech, there is no scriptural, archeological, or
ancient literary evidence I am aware of which indicates that the practice of the first
century church was to segregate the men and women (if you are aware of such, please
let me know). Furthermore, the early church met in homes. It is hard to imagine such a
strict segregation in the casual atmosphere of a home meeting! However, many of the
women might have voluntarily sat together and apart from their husbands. That would
partly explain this passage, but it would not explain all of it, because Paul‟s prohibition
seems to cover much more than just the asking of questions. Furthermore, Paul wrote,
“let them ask their own husbands at home,” indicating that some of the women were
asking questions of people besides their own husbands.

Lastly, another interpretation is the idea that Paul is merely forbidding the women from
openly questioning or judging a prophecy spoken by a man. However, this idea has
difficulties, too, not the least of which is the fact that the apostle closes his command
with the observation, “For it is a shame for women to be speaking in church,” a
statement which seems to be much broader in scope than questioning or judging
prophecy.

Besides the interpretations listed above, all of which present difficulties, we are left with
only two other reasonable explanations I am aware of, which I will discuss after a few
brief introductory comments.
 A Limited Silence

To begin with, it is obvious Paul meant that when the church comes together, the
women should be silent only at certain times. Most church historians agree that in the
early church, the Lord‟s Supper was celebrated each week in the context of a full meal,
and was a time of wonderful fellowship. Surely Paul was not prohibiting the women from
speaking to others during that time, except, perhaps, at certain points, such as when it
was time for someone to explain the significance of the bread and wine. And so reason
dictates that the times when silence is called for are those periods that are devoted to
public speaking and reverence before God.

Nearly all of those who believe that women should not speak publicly in church allow
them to sing with the men. Most of them also would allow a woman to call down an
unruly child. And so it is obvious that this was a limited silence. The important thing that
we need to determine is, what was the scope of it?

Two Likely Meanings

A Greek word can mean different things depending on the context, just as an English
word can. Sometimes there are fine shades of meaning in the Greek, just as there are
in English. This, of course, is why we have multiple definitions for many words in Greek
lexicons. To argue that laleo, the Greek word meaning “to speak,” means all speech of
any form, or that sigao just means “be mute” is to over-simplify things and to gloss over
this fact.

For reasons which I will further explain, it has seemed to me for some time now that the
apostle Paul must have had one of two different shades of meaning in mind when he
wrote 1 Corinthians 14:34-37:

1) 1) Silence in regard to public speech: A woman should not publicly

address the church at all during the meeting time. Although nearly all
English translations can be understood in the sense of #2 below, this is
what many think the “plain meaning” of this passage seems to be, as it is
usually translated into English.

But that, of course, should not be the ultimate determining factor for us.
The most important question is, what was the “plain meaning” of this
passage in the Greek language in which it was written? That is what I set
out to learn when I began to study this passage, and I will try to explain
the conclusion I came to in a way that the average Christian with no
knowledge of Greek can understand and evaluate.
 2) 2) The other meaning that Paul may have had in mind is silence in
regard to disruptive speech: Women should not talk in a disruptive way
during the meeting. For instance, suppose that a missionary revisited a
church that he had planted. When the meeting began, he noticed that
some of the ladies, not wanting to stop their enjoyable conversations,
were continuing to talk, ignoring the speakers and church leaders. I can
testify first hand that I have seen this happen in church, and it really is
quite shameful. It reflects a disdain for the important spiritual matters at
hand, a rebellious nature, and a lack of reverence, for the Lord is present
when His people meet. In a follow-up letter to the church, we would not be
surprised for that missionary to get very firm and say something like, “Just
as in all other churches, your women should be quiet during the meetings!
They are not permitted to be talking. Instead, they should be submissive,
as the Bible also says. If they have any questions, they should ask their
own husbands at home. For it is shameful for women to be talking in
church!”

If this interpretation is correct, then the Greek word sigao should be

understood in the sense of “keep quiet” rather than “keep silence.” The
Greek word lalein should be understood in the sense of “to be talking”
rather than “to speak.”

But which interpretation is the right one?

I don‟t think that in the matter of practical instructions for church meetings, our Lord
would leave us with no way of determining the meaning of an inspired writer of
scripture. If we are responsive to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and carefully study the
grammar, the context, and the NT usage of the Greek words in a passage, we should
be able to find indicators of the intent of a writer.

To begin with, the Greek word translated “keep silence” in verse 34 is sigatosan, which
is the present active imperative form of the Greek word sigao. A present active
imperative is a command to continue an action, such as “keep sweeping!” Because the
command for the women to be silent is in the present active imperative, it carries with it
the idea of "keep quiet."

This continuous sense could be understood in three different ways:

1) 1) Continue being silent during the meeting.

2) 2) Continue the church custom of being silent.

 3) 3) Get quiet and keep quiet.

Note that all three of the above could refer to silence in regard to public speaking, or
silence in regard to disruptive speech. Paul also used the present active imperative form
of sigao twice in the nearby verses:

28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him
speak to himself, and to God.
29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.

Where Paul commands the tongue speakers to be silent, his meaning is (1): continue
being silent during the meeting.

Where Paul commands the first prophet to be silent, his meaning is (3): Get quiet and
keep quiet.

The first thing that we notice in regard to Paul‟s usage of sigao in these two verses was
that he is not prohibiting all forms of speech. For that matter, he was not even
prohibiting all forms of public speech, for he did not forbid the tongue speakers and
prophets from speaking publicly in other ways. It was OK for them to speak publicly
again, provided they did not give a message in tongues or another prophecy while a
second prophet was speaking. Therefore, sigao meant silence in regard to tongue
speaking and in regard to prophecy. This confirms our earlier observation that sigao is a
limited silence, and it leads us to ask the crucial question, what is Paul commanding the
women to be silent in regard to?

Examining how sigao is used in the rest of the New Testament can help us to determine
this.

The New Testament Usage of Sigao

The Greek lexicon of Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich (BAG) is widely recognized as one of
the most authoritative works of it‟s kind. According to BAG, sigao can have the various
meanings of:

1. Be silent, keep still

2. Say nothing, keep silent
3. Stop speaking, become silent
4. Keep secret, conceal
Sigao only occurs eight other times in the NT. Aside from Paul, Luke is the only other
New Testament writer who uses this word. Luke and Paul were contemporaries who
spent a great deal of time in each other‟s company, so it is likely that they both used the
word in the same way. This means that Luke‟s usage of the word can help us
understand Paul‟s usage of it as well. With that said, let‟s look at each occurrence of
this word in the NT.

In two verses in the NT, sigao has the meaning of, "kept secret":

Luke 9:36 And when the voice was past, Jesus was found alone. And they kept it
close and told no man in those days any of those things which they had seen.

Romans 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my

gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the
mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

In these two verses, we again see that sigao is a limited silence. It does not convey the
idea of silence concerning all things; just silence in regard to not divulging a particular
secret.

All of the other occurrences of sigao concern public assemblies, so they have great
relevance to understanding the meaning of this word as it used in 1 Cor. 14:34.

Luke 20:26 And they could not take hold of his words before the people: and they
marvelled at his answer, and held their peace.

Acts 12:17 But he, beckoning unto them with the hand to hold their peace,
declared unto them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. And he said,
Go shew these things unto James, and to the brethren. And he departed, and went
into another place.

Acts 15:12 Then all the multitude kept silence and gave audience to Barnabas
and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the
Gentiles by them.

Acts 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men
and brethren, hearken unto me:

The last two occurrences of sigao in the NT (other than 1 Corinthians 14:34), are of
particular importance to this subject, because they are in the immediate context of the
verses that we are considering:

1 Corinthians 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the
church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
 1 Corinthians 14:30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first
hold his peace.

From this complete list of all of the NT verses containing the word sigao (outside of the
disputed verse), we can make several observations:

1. As we have already noted, in the last two verses listed above, Paul does
not mean that a speaker in tongues or a prophet cannot address the
congregation again later in the meeting. He only means that they should
stop talking in a particular way. In fact there is nothing to indicate that that
the first prophet who speaks may not give another prophecy later in the
meeting. He is only instructed to be silent so that a different prophet who
also receives a revelation will have the opportunity to speak.

2. Outside of the disputed verse, wherever sigao is used in the New

Testament concerning a public meeting, it refers to the respectful silence
required for unhindered public speaking. In this regard it is very similar to
the English word “quiet.” When we use this word in a phrase such as “be
quiet,” we usually do not mean that none of those in the audience are
permitted to speak publicly. Instead, we use the word to bring order to a
noisy crowd, and to request that disruptive speech and chattering stop.
Outside of 1 Corinthians 14:34, that is exactly the way that sigao is used in
all of the other NT passages that refer to public speech.

3. 3. If, in verse 34, sigao does not only refer to being respectfully silent
while someone is speaking publicly, but also to a complete ban on public
speaking, then this is the only place that the word is used in such a
comprehensive sense in the entire New Testament.

If Paul had wanted the women to be completely silent, there is another Greek word,
siopao, that he could have used. It also means “to be silent,” but it seems to be the New
Testament word of choice to indicate complete absence of speech, including public
speech. Here are some instances where siopao is used in exactly that way:

Luke 1:20 And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day
that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which
shall be fulfilled in their season.

Luke 19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should
hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

Matthew 26:63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said
unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the
Christ, the Son of God.
 Mark 3:4 And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or
to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.

Acts 18:9 Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but
speak, and hold not thy peace:

And so we conclude that the Greek word sigao indicates a limited, not a complete
silence, and that outside of the disputed verse, it always refers to the respectful silence
required for unhindered public speaking when it concerns public meetings.

The New Testament Usage of Laleo

Next, let's look at laleo, the word translated "to speak" in "they are not permitted to
speak."

Thayer writes that laleo has the following range of meanings:

1) to utter a voice or emit a sound

2) to speak
2a) to use the tongue or the faculty of speech
2b) to utter articulate sounds
3) to talk
4) to utter, tell
5) to use words in order to declare one's mind and disclose one's thoughts
5a) to speak

BAG lists a similar range of possible meanings.

A quick computer survey of all of the 271 instances of this word in the New Testament
also confirms that laleo has a very broad range of possible meanings, just as the
English word talk does. Just like the English word talk, wherever laleo is used, we must
determine it‟s precise meaning by the immediate context.

Another word that is commonly used to refer to speech in the NT is the word lego. Why
did Paul not use it instead?

W.E. Vine points out the primary difference between laleo and lego:
 In comparison with laleo, lego refers especially to the substance of what is said,
laleo, to the words conveying the utterance.

Regarding this, Dr. Spiros Zodhiates writes,

The reason he [Paul] used laleo and not lego [when discussing tongues] is because laleo refers to
the mere utterance of sounds without the speaker necessarily knowing what he is saying or others
understanding. Lego on the other hand is saying something which is the product of one‟s
thought.

Although Dr. Zodhiates was discussing why Paul chose laleo to refer to speaking in
tongues, it is easy to see how the word would also be appropriate for referring to
speaking in a disruptive and noisy fashion. The translators of the World English Bible, in
fact, translate laleo as “to chatter” in verse 35:

If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home,
for it is shameful for a woman to chatter in the assembly.

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament also confirms the above observations
regarding laleo :

This word, like “lull,” imitates childish babbling, and thus means „to prattle,‟ to
„babble.‟ It is also used for the sounds of animals and musical instruments. As
regards speech, it may denote sound rather than meaning, but also the ability to
speak. In compounds the meaning is always „to prattle.‟ [Little Kittel, p 506].

Along similar lines, the translators of the Bible in Basic English render laleo as “talking”:

14:35 And if they have a desire for knowledge about anything, let them put
questions to their husbands privately: for talking in the church puts shame on a
woman.
Laleo is used to refer many times in the New Testament to the speaking that
occurs during conversation, rather than to public speech.
If laleo only referred to public speech, then the following verse regarding the prophetess
Anna would cause problems for those who believe that a woman should not publicly
address men, since scripture seems to speak approvingly of her actions:

Luke 2:38 And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord,
and spake (laleo) of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.

To be sure, laleo is often used to refer to public speech in the NT, so New Testament
usage of this word does not at all preclude the possibility of this. However, although
laleo is less often used to refer to conversational talk, it is still used that way many times
in the NT, so this may have been what the apostle Paul had in mind. Here are most of
the examples in the NT in which laleo refers to conversational speech:

Luke 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while
He talked with us by the way, and while He opened to us the scriptures?

Matthew 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak,
they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

Matthew 12:47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren
stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

Mark 5:36 As soon as Jesus heard the word that was spoken, he saith unto the
ruler of the synagogue, Be not afraid, only believe.

Mark 9:6 For he wist not what to say; for they were sore afraid.

Luke 7:15 And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he delivered
him to his mother.
Luke 11:14 And he was casting out a devil, and it was dumb. And it came to
pass, when the devil was gone out, the dumb spake; and the people wondered.

Luke 12:3 Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the
light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed
upon the housetops.

Luke 22:60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately,
while he yet spake, the cock crew.

John 4:26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am [he].

John 4:27 And upon this came his disciples, and marvelled that he talked with
the woman: yet no man said, What seekest thou? or, Why talkest thou with her?

John 9:37 And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that
talketh (laleo) with thee.

Acts 22:10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise,
and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told (laleo) thee of all things which
are appointed for thee to do.

Acts 23:18 So he took him, and brought [him] to the chief captain, and said, Paul
the prisoner called me unto [him], and prayed me to bring this young man unto
thee, who hath something to say (laleo) unto thee.
 1 Timothy 5:13 And withal they learn [to be] idle, wandering about from house
to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking (laleo)
things which they ought not. [Here I think the word definitely refers to chatter,
and godless chatter at that.]

James 1:19 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow
to speak, slow to wrath:

1 Peter 3:10 For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his
tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak (laleo) no guile:

Revelation 17:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven
vials, and talked (laleo) with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto
thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:

Revelation 21:15 And he that talked (laleo) with me had a golden reed to
measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof.

And so disorderly conversation is certainly one of the meanings that the apostle Paul
could have had in mind when he used the word laleo. As we will see later, the tense of
laleo as it is used in I Corinthians 14:34 gives us good reason to believe that this is
exactly the case.

Paul’s Usage of Adelphoi in 1 Corinthians

Now let‟s examine Paul‟s usage of another important Greek word in I Corinthians, the
word adelphoi, translated “brethren”. This word is important, because if the argument
that women should be silent in regard to public speech is going to hold water, adelphoi
has to refer to men only in 1 Corinthians 14:26. This is because in 14:31 Paul says, “For
ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.” The
context here undoubtedly indicates that Paul is referring to public prophesying.

Unfortunately for the silence-in-regard-to-public-speech argument, in every other place

in 1 Corinthians in which the church is being addressed, the apostle Paul is including
the women when he uses this word. There are only 28 occurrences of this word in 1
Corinthians, so it will not be difficult for us to examine all of them. To begin with, let‟s
look at every verse outside of chapter 14 where Paul uses this word to address the
church. In a few of these verses, men are mentioned as a subgroup of the brethren, but
it is still clear that Paul is addressing the entire church.

1 Corinthians 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and [that] there be no divisions among
you; but [that] ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same
judgment.

1 Corinthians 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by

them [which are of the house] of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

1 Corinthians 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise
men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

Here "wise men" are mentioned as a small subgroup of the brethren. But Paul is
sharing something that he desires all of those in the church to be aware of, so
there is no reason to think that by "brethren," Paul does not have the entire
church in mind.

1 Corinthians 2:1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with
excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.

1 Corinthians 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but
as unto carnal, [even] as unto babes in Christ.

1 Corinthians 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to

myself and [to] Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think [of
men] above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against
another.

1 Corinthians 7:24 Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide
with God.

1 Corinthians 7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that
both they that have wives be as though they had none;
 Read in isolation from the context, verses 7:24 and 7:29 might seem to be
exceptions. But both verses are in the context of instructions given to both men
and women, including virgins and widows, so there is no compelling reason to
think that Paul is not addressing both men and women with his use of the word
"brethren."

1 Corinthians 8:12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound
their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.

1 Corinthians 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be

ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed
through the sea;

1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in

all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them] to you.

1 Corinthians 11:33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to

eat, tarry one for another.

1 Corinthians 12:1 Now concerning spiritual [gifts], brethren, I would

not have you ignorant.

1 Corinthians 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel

which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye
stand;

1 Corinthians 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot
inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

1 Corinthians 15:58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast,

unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye
know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

1 Corinthians 16:15 I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of

Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and [that] they have addicted
themselves to the ministry of the saints,)

And so we see that outside of 1 Corinthians 14, in every place where the church is
addressed by the word adlephoi, the women are included. Now let‟s look at each
occurrence of the word adelphoi in chapter 14. In all of these, the church is being
addressed.

1 Corinthians 14:6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with

 tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by
revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?

The ASV translation of 1 Corinthians 14:20 might lead some to believe that this is one
instance where adelphoi refers only to the men:

1 Corinthians 14:20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit

in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.

However, the Greek word translated “men” here is the word teleioi, which means “full
grown” or “mature.” It is translated “men” here in the AV because it has a masculine
gender, but this is probably not because Paul was excluding the women. It was
probably for reasons of grammatical correctness only; the word needed to be in
agreement with the masculine gender of adelphoi. Besides that, just as we often mean
a group consisting of men and women when we use the words “man” and “mankind” in
English, it was also common in Greek to use the masculine form of a word when
referring to a group consisting of men and women. That is why most modern translators
do not translate teleioi “men” in this verse. Green‟s Literal Version translates it “mature,”
as does the Modern King James, the New King James, the NASB, and the RSV.
Young‟s Literal Version translates it “perfect,” and the NIV “adults.” Certainly, no
convincing argument can be made on the basis of the gender of teleioi alone.

1 Corinthians 14:26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together,

every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a
revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

1 Corinthians 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid

not to speak with tongues.

Nowhere in 1 Corinthians 14 does the apostle inform us that he is switching gears and
addressing only the men with the word adelphoi. Although this conjecture seems very
unlikely, it must be affirmed if one is to maintain the silence-in-regard-to-public-speaking
position.

Now lets look at the all of the places in 1 Corinthians 14 where Paul uses the word
adelphoi, but not to address the church. Even in most of these, women are not
excluded.

1 Corinthians 6:5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise
man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his
brethren?

1 Corinthians 6:8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.
 1 Corinthians 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred
brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but
some are fallen asleep.

1 Corinthians 16:20 All the brethren greet you. Greet ye one another
with an holy kiss.

That covers 25 of the 28 occurrences of the word adlephoi in 1 Corinthians. The

remaining three verses are the only ones in I Corinthians where it may be argued that
the word adelphoi definitely excludes women:

1 Corinthians 9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as do

other apostles and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

1 Corinthians 16:11 Let no man therefore despise him, but conduct him
forth in peace, that he may come unto me; for I look for him with the
brethren.

1 Corinthians 16:12 Now concerning our brother Apollos: I greatly

desired that he should come unto you with the brethren, but it was not at
all his will to come at this time; but he will come when it shall be
convenient.

Note that in none of these last three occurrences of the word “brethren” is the church
being referred to.

And so there is overwhelming evidence that when the word “brethren” is used to
address the church in 1 Corinthians, it includes the women.

In response to this, it has been argued that Paul is addressing the women under the
headship of the men by using the word “brethren.” The problem with this is that Paul
does not exclude the women in his opening address to the church:

1 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the

will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
2 2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are
sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every
place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and
ours:

This certainly includes the women. Since the letter is written to both men and women,
the word “brethren,” which Paul uses quite frequently to refer to those he is writing to,
obviously must include the women.

Secondly, Paul seems to have no hesitation about addressing women directly, even by
name, in his epistles. In Philippians 4:1-3 he uses the term "my beloved brethren," and
then addresses two women by name in the very next verse:

I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in
the Lord.

If, for purposes of headship, Paul preferred to address the women through the men, this
would be an exception to that rule. He could have written, “Please beseech Euodias and
Syntyche,” but instead he wrote, “I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche.”

Thirdly, in addition to the New Testament usage, there is solid extra-biblical evidence
that adelphoi can refer to females as well as men. There is an excellent article by
George Davis and Michael Clark entitled, Brotherhood: Male and Female Created He
Them, at http://www.awildernessvoice.com/brotherhood.html, which further discusses
the meaning of adelphoi. In it, the authors quote Michael Perkins, who wrote,

"It (adelphos) can literally be translated 'from the same womb' and was
often used of twins, INCLUDING brother/sister pairs. That's why I
abandoned the use of 'brothers/ brethren' a few years ago and began to use
'siblings'... adelphos (comes from delphos: 'womb') literally means 'from
womb', but is normally considered to be, 'son of the same mother'.

HOWEVER...

Euripides uses adelphoin (masculine genitive/dative dual) in Electra 420-

410 BC (line 536), 'the foot of brother and sister would not be the same
in size, for the male conquers.'

Here, Euripides uses a masculine plural word that has for centuries been
considered to ONLY refer to males. The only significance to his using the
DUAL is that it's clear he is referring to two siblings. However, the other
contextual information, 'the male conquers' makes it absolutely evident
that one of these siblings is female. This provides incontrovertible
extra-biblical evidence that completely dispels the myth that because
adelphoi(n) is masculine, it can only refer to males."

But there is more extra-biblical evidence than that. Acknowledging that adelphoi can
refer to both men and women, Wayne Grudem writes in What's Wrong with Gender-
Neutral Bible Translations? :

Up to this point I have listed numerous examples of inaccurate translations

in the NRSV and other gender-neutral versions. A different matter arises,
however, with the plural form of the Greek word adelphos, "brother."
Although in many cases the plural word adelphoi means "brothers," and
refers only to males, there are other cases where adelphoi is used to mean
"brother and sister" or "brothers and sisters." Consider the following
quotations from Greek literature outside the New Testament:

1. That man is a cousin of mine: his mother and my father were

adelphoi (Andocides, On the Mysteries 47 [approx. 400 B.C.]).

2. My father died leaving me and my adelphoi Diodorus and Theis

as his heirs, and his property devolved upon us (Oxyrhynchus
Papyri 713, 20-23 [97 A.D.; Diodorus is a man's name and Theis is
a woman's name]).

3. The footprints of adelphoi should never match (of a man and of

a woman): the man's is greater (Euripides, Electra 536 [5th cent.
B.C.]).

4. An impatient and critical man finds fault even with his own
parents and children and adelphoi and neighbors (Epictetus,
Discourses 1.12.20-21 [approx 130 A.D.]).

In standard English, we just don't say, "My brothers Dave and Jenny." So
the Greek plural adelphoi sometimes has a different sense from English
"brothers." In fact, the major Greek lexicons for over 100 years have said
that adelphoi, which is the plural of the word adelphos, "brother,"
sometimes means "brothers and sisters." (so Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-
Danker, 1957 and 1979; Liddell-Scott-Jones, 1940 and as early as 1869).

One other important factor is that the masculine adelphos and the feminine
adelph_ are just different forms (masculine and feminine) of the same
word adelph-. But the plural form of this word would be adelphoi when
talking about a group of all men, and it would also be adelphoi when
talking about a group of both men and women. Only the context could tell
us whether it meant "brothers" or "brothers and sisters." This makes Greek
different from English, where bro- and sis- are completely different roots,
and we wouldn't call a mixed group of men and women "brothers." (The
root adelph- is from a-, which means "from," and delphus, "womb"
(Liddell-Scott-Jones, p. 20) and probably had an early sense of "from the
same
womb.") [http://www.cbmw.org/resources/articles/genderneutral.html]
Confirming these observations, Thayer writes that adelphoi may refer to “a fellow
believer, united to another by the bond of affection.”

Likewise, W.E. Vine writes that the word can mean “believers, apart from sex” [p147].

And so we conclude that outside of the disputed verse, when the word “brethren” is
used to address the church in 1 Corinthians, it always includes the women. In my
opinion, this deals a crushing blow to the silence-in-regard-to-public-speech position,
because while directly addressing the “brethren” in this passage, Paul writes, “For ye
may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.”

What do the Context and Grammar of I Corinthians

14:26-40 indicate regarding this silence?

There is more than the New Testament usage of these three important Greek words to
lead us to believe that Paul was not prohibiting the women from praying or prophesying
publicly in church. The grammar and the context all point to that conclusion, too:

1. 1. Laleo is in the present active infinitive form lalein, which

indicates action that is in progress or is prolonged (Huber
DrumWright, An Introduction To New Testament Greek, p. 75).
Although it is translated “to speak,” which sounds more natural in
English, more accurate translations are “they are not permitted to
be talking,” and “for it is a shame for women to be talking in the
church.” If Paul had wanted to forbid individual acts of public
speaking, as opposed to conversational talk or frequent public
speaking, he could have used the much more commonly used
aorist active infinitive.

Admittedly, the tense could indicate that Paul was prohibiting

women from engaging in public speech on a regular basis in
church. Even this would make allowance for occasional acts of
public speech. But it is not likely that Paul was doing this, for two
reasons:

a. a. Paul uses lalesai, the aorist active infinitive form of

laleo, in 1 Corinthians 14:19 to refer to public speaking
in the church: “Yet in the church I had rather speak five
words with my understanding, that by my voice I might
 teach others also, than ten thousand words in an
unknown tongue.” If Paul wanted to forbid women from
engaging in individual acts of public speech such as
this in church, why did he not use lalesai again?

b. b. Paul also used the present active infinitive in 1

Timothy 2:12, where he wrote that he did not permit a
woman “to be teaching” a man. But there the word
“woman” is singular. In 1 Corinthians 14:34, however, it
is plural, indicating that Paul did not want multiple
women to be talking at once. We will discuss this in
more detail shortly.

Laleo is used two other times in the present active infinitive form in
1 Corinthians 14, where it literally means,

“and I wish you all to be speaking with tongues” (verse 5)

“and to be speaking with tongues do not forbid.” (verse 39)

In each of these instances, lalein denotes the prolonged ability to

speak with tongues, but does not necessarily refer only to speaking
in tongues publicly. Paul wanted them all to have the ability to
speak with tongues. But if there was no interpreter, they were not to
speak publicly, but to themselves and to God. Therefore, it cannot
be argued on the basis of these two instances that lalein must refer
to public speech.

The present active infinitive is not used with the other instances of
laleo in chapter 14, all of which involve public speech.

2. 2. Likewise, as we mentioned above, in the Greek "women" is

plural in verse 34. It is also plural in verse 35 in the Textus
Receptus and Byzantine majority texts. This is reflected in the AV
(King James Version) translation: "for it is a shame for women to
speak in the church." This is exactly what we would expect Paul to
say if he were prohibiting the women from conversing with each
other in a disruptive way when someone else is speaking publicly.

Of course, this begs the question: Men should not engage in

disruptive speech either during the meeting. So why did Paul single
out the women?

The likely answer is quite simple. Paul was having a problem with
 the women talking in church at Corinth, but not the men!

Obviously, he would not have approved of the women conversing

out loud when someone was speaking. But he also would not have
approved of a woman competing with a male teacher during the
meeting:

1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to

usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Each of these things seems to have been a problem in some of the

churches. Evidently, some of the women, enjoying for the first time
in their lives the liberty of NT priesthood, were going to extremes
and abusing their new-found freedom by trying to "take over"
teachings, by usurping pastor-teachers, disregarding head
coverings, and conversing during the meetings. It is less likely that
this would have become a problem if the women were not allowed
to contribute revelatory insights, such as tongues, a word of
knowledge, or prophesy, during the church meetings. Instead, it
seems more likely that some of these women took their liberty and
ran as far as they could with it! Paul got very firm with them, as we
have already stressed. He commanded them to act in cognizance
of, and to be in subjection to, the principles of creation and of order.

3. In I Corinthians 11, Paul teaches that a woman‟s head should be

covered, and a man‟s head uncovered, when praying or
prophesying. There is little doubt that the women in some of the
early Christian communities covered their heads with garments.
Vincent writes: "In the sculptures of the catacombs the women have
a close-fitting head-dress, while the men have the hair short."

In On The Veiling of Virgins, Tertullian, arguing that both married

women and virgins should cover their heads in church, wrote,

The region of the veil is co-extensive with the space covered by the
hair when unbound; in order that the necks too may be
encircled…To us the Lord has, even by revelations, measured the
space for the veil to extend over. For a certain sister of ours was
thus addressed by an angel, beating her neck, as if in applause:
 "Elegant neck, and deservedly bare! it is well for thee to unveil
thyself from the head right down to the loins, lest withal this
freedom of thy neck profit thee not!" - CHAP. XVII

Chrysostom, in his Homilies on 1 Corinthians, wrote,

For this cause He left it to nature to provide her with a covering,

that even of it she might learn this lesson and veil herself.

If alternate translations of this passage lead us to believe that long

hair was the covering that Paul was referring to, a woman with
short hair would still be expected to don a head covering before
praying or prophesying publicly in the presence of men. In light of
that, these commands seem to make the most sense when
understood in a public rather than a private context, for several
reasons:

First of all, in even the strictest Middle Eastern countries today,

when women are in private gatherings (even private gatherings
that include men) or in public women‟s meetings, head
coverings usually come off. Take the following report from the
UK Observer regarding current practices in Kabul, for instance:

The burqa has no longer been compulsory since they [the

Taliban] fled Kabul, but women of marriageable age still
wear it all the same. In the streets of the city last week it was
almost impossible to see a single adult woman who had cast
it off.
In private, where they feel comfortable, women will lift their
veils, even in the presence of men. And they are confident
enough to do so in places where there is a large female
presence - in government offices like the Ministry of Labour
and Social Affairs, or in the offices of the women's
associations or schools. When they enter a building the burqa
is hauled off with a quick flick and put into a handbag. When
they leave it is slipped on again. [Peter Beaumont, Sunday
December 30, 2001 The Observer]

It seems likely that the early Christian women behaved in a

similar fashion in regard to head coverings, and removed their
head coverings at home and during private gatherings when
men were present, as well as in public gatherings where only
other women were present.
 I don‟t think that women praying or prophesying without a
head covering would have been an issue at all were it not for
the fact that they were doing this during the church meetings,
in the presence of men. It seems likely that the women, who
were accustomed to removing their head coverings during
home gatherings with family and friends, were taking the
liberty to carry this custom over into home church meetings,
which are more public in nature.

It could be argued that Paul was encouraging women to cover

their heads in private times of prayer and prophecy when men
are present, just as men today remove their hats before praying
at the dinner table. But although such behavior seems
appropriate, it really is difficult to imagine the apostle being so
concerned about enforcing this formality over private gatherings.
Instead, his primary concern in these chapters of 1 Corinthians
is the church meeting.

Secondly, in 1 Thes 5:17, the apostle Paul instructed us to

“Pray without ceasing.” In light of that, what are we to make of
the command for men to pray without a head covering on, and
women to pray with one on? It would be impractical for a woman
to keep her head covered at all times. Likewise, it would also be
impractical for a man to remove a head covering in bitter cold or
in the raging sun. This is further evidence that Paul was talking
about public prayer and prophecy in church.

In support of this, a woman‟s head covering is a sign that she

has authority on her head. (I Cor. 11:10). Of what use is a sign
of authority if it is worn in private? To be sure, the head covering
should be worn because of the angels, but would the angels be
offended if a woman was not wearing a head covering while
praying and washing the dishes in the privacy of her home?
Such an idea seems impractical.

And so given the fact that Paul seems to be speaking in regard

to women prophesying and praying publicly in church (and most
commentators agree with this idea), the vital question comes to
mind, “Why would Paul go into such great detail explaining the
proper way to do something that he was just about to
completely forbid?”

To this, it can conceivably be argued that Paul would have

approved of women praying and prophesying privately in church
 in the presence of men, during the fellowship of the Lord‟s
Supper meal for instance, but not publicly in church.

No doubt, private prophecy took place during NT church

meetings, and it is certain that both male and female prophets
participated in this. This is made evident by verses 23-25:

23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place,

and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are
unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?
24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or
one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:
25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so
falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God
is in you of a truth.

The hypothetical unbeliever who visits the church is male. But

notice how Paul uses the term "the whole church" and follows it
with "but if all prophesy." This must include the women, and the fruit
of it is repentance.

Obviously, Paul must have had prophecy outside of the official

meeting in mind when he said “but if all prophesy,” since only two
or three prophets were allowed to speak during the time for public
sharing of spiritual gifts. But it was not private, because the
hypothetical visitor is male, and other church members, both male
and female, would still be present during the times of fellowship
before and after the public meeting.

However, although the women must have prophesied during the

fellowship times before and after the offical church meetings,
claiming that women were not permitted to prophesy publicly during
the official meeting raises some problems.

To begin with, in 2 Kings 22:14, we read that Huldah the

prophetess addressed five leading men at once with a prophecy:
Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam, Achbor, Shaphan, and Asahiah.
Scripture seems to speak approvingly of her actions. This raises
the question, “How many men have to be present when a woman is
prophesying before she is forbidden to speak? “ In many small
home gatherings during NT times, there were probably often no
more than five grown men. That is the case with many home
church meetings in modern times, too!
 But the strongest argument that women were indeed allowed to
prophesy during the offical meeting time is one that we have
already mentioned: If “adelphoi” includes the women, then “you can
all prophesy one by one” must also include them. And the context
of this verse concerns the official meeting time, the time for mutual
public edification. Since Paul limits the number of prophets who can
speak during this time to two or three, he must have meant that that
everyone could prophesy one by one over the course of many
meetings.

Lastly, Paul concludes his argument for head coverings in 11:16

with “But if any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such
custom, neither the churches of God.” Paul‟s use of the word
“churches,” which has the primary definition of “assemblies,” lends
weight to the idea that he is speaking of a custom adhered to
during church assemblies. To avoid confusion on this matter, Paul
could have said, “neither do the other saints of God,” but instead he
chose to say, “neither the churches of God.”

3. 4. The Corinthians were busting at the seams with spiritual gifts, and
their meetings were quite disorderly and confusing. Paul‟s overarching
concern in this passage is that everything be done in an orderly and
edifying way:
4.

26c: Let all things be done for edification. (26c)

33: for God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as it is in all
churches of the saints.

40: Let all things be done decently and in order.

The idea of Paul commanding the women not to engage in disruptive

speech fits with this.

5. 5. Let‟s appeal to "nature itself" here, as Paul does in chapter 11 when

he argues that a woman should have long hair. Which do people naturally
feel is shameful: A woman making a respectful and insightful comment
 that is accord with scripture, or women carrying on a conversation while
someone is trying to teach? Isn't it our natural inclination to regard the
second as shameful, but not the first? Isn‟t it also our natural inclination to
judge that not allowing the women to utter so much as a peep of public
speech in church is overly harsh?

6. 6. In 1 Corinthians 11, where Paul instructs women to wear a head

covering when praying or prophesying, and in 1 Timothy 2:12, where Paul
states that he does not allow a woman to teach or to usurp authority over
a man, he appeals to the created nature of men and women as
justification for this. This is to be expected when we encounter a very
restrictive command that deserves an explanation. But we see no such
explanation here, although, if Paul were commanding the women not to
speak publicly at all during the meeting, that would be a much more
restrictive command. There is no attempt to explain the reasons for this
command; apparently, Paul assumed that they would be obvious to his
readers. The absence of such an explanation lends weight to the idea that
Paul is only prohibiting disruptive speech.

7. 7. Beyond the immediate context of this passage, we should also

consider the context of the New Testament as well. The New Testament
teaches us that in Christ there is “neither male nor female” (Gal 3:28), that
men and women are “heirs together of the grace of life” (1 Peter 3:7), and
that women as well as men are “priests unto God and his Father”
(Revelation 1:6). Although the New Testament clearly teaches that “the
head of woman is man” (1 Cor 11:3), it also teaches “for as the woman is
of the man, even so is the man also by the woman” (I Cor 11:12).
Although it teaches that wives should submit themselves to their own
husbands (Eph 5:22), it also teaches “Yea, all of you be subject one to
another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and
giveth grace to the humble” (1 Peter 5:5). The idea that Paul did not permit
the women to utter so much as a prophecy or a prayer in church seems
very difficult to reconcile with the New Testament teaching that women are
also “priests unto God.”

The Differences between Prophecy and Teaching

Verse 31 indicates that there are didactic (teaching) elements to prophecy, because
prophecy results in learning:
 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.

In light of this, some argue that since Paul forbade a woman to teach a man in 1
Timothy 2:12, a woman must not prophesy publicly in church. However, the offices of
prophet and teacher are not synonymous:

1 Corinthians 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles,
secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of
healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some,
evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

Generally speaking, prophecy, by nature, is revelatory and spontaneous; it does not

come from study or forethought, (although it may build on this) but is revealed directly
from the Spirit of God. Teaching, on the other hand, is based on prior learning and
experience.

However, a teacher should be guided by the Spirit of God in how he utilizes his learning
and experience to instruct. And so prophecy and teaching, although distinct spiritual
gifts, overlap in function:

As the above illustration indicates, the boundary between prophecy and teaching is
more like a "zone" than a line. But must this be used as a reason to be more restrictive?
Remember, when we encounter areas where the Lord has not given us specific
instructions, but has given us the freedom to choose what is best, love abounding in
“knowledge and depth of insight” should be our guide. This is an area where each
church can exercise their freedom to choose what is best, given their local culture. In
light of that, in many cultures, the overlap between teaching and prophecy should be
reason for churches to be less, not more restrictive in what they permit a woman to
share in church.

A word of knowledge, and a word of wisdom, although they contain didactive elements,
are essentially revelatory, and thus prophetic in nature. Because of this, I believe that a
woman, if she exercises careful discernment, may be able to share such a message
without making a “teaching” of it.
For instance, a woman could say, “as you were speaking, it occurred to me that…” or
“while I was reading this scripture and praying, the Lord seemed to reveal to me that…”.
There is subtle difference between this sort of message and a teaching. It is revelatory
rather than didactic.

Of course, there is no subtle distinction between the “Thus sayeth the Lord” kind of
prophecy and a teaching. Here, provided the prophesy is genuine, God is speaking
directly through his chosen mouthpiece.

But although there is an overlapping zone between prophecy and teaching that leaves
room for freedom, we should also recognize that there is a limit to that zone, and that it
is possible for a woman to cross over that limit into forbidden territory.

The Church Fathers

The earliest comment that I have been able to find in the writings of the Church
Fathers on this subject was made by Tertullian, around AD 206:

"It is not permitted for a woman to speak in the church" (The Veiling of Virgins
IX).

Those Church Fathers who spoke on this subject did not believe that women should
speak publicly in church. I have been asked, in essence, “How can you justify staunchly
defending the early creeds, and yet disagree with some of the Church Fathers on this
subject?”

To begin with, most evangelicals and protestants disagree with many

statements of the Church Fathers, where scripture plainly conflicts with
them. As early as the beginning of the second century, the gospel “once
for all delivered to the saints” began to be diluted with a works-based,
“earn your salvation” mentality. This is plainly reflected in many of the
writings of the Church Fathers. A shift from the plurality-of-elders kind of
church government established by the apostles to a monarchial episcopy
(church government by city-wide bishops) had begun by this time as well,
and most Protestants reject the validity of that, too.

An example from the Old Testament can shed some light on how this can
happen. In Exodus 30:8-9, Moses wrote,

8 And when Aaron lighteth the lamps at even, he shall burn incense upon
it, a perpetual incense before the LORD throughout your generations.
 9 Ye shall offer no strange incense thereon, nor burnt sacrifice, nor meat
offering; neither shall ye pour drink offering thereon.
And yet, in Leviticus 10:1 we read,

1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his
censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered
strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.
Nadab and Abihu attempted to start a new custom – offering strange fire
before the Lord – even while Moses and their father Aaron were still
alive! Clearly, there are fallen aspects of human nature that motivate
men to do such things. Given these, it did not take long at all for people
to add their own practices to those of the Lord, or even to replace those
of the Lord with their own.

Plainly, the Church Fathers were men just like us, and capable of
making errors. This is evidenced by the fact that they differed from
one another in their interpretation of certain Bible passages. Given
this observed tendency in the church Fathers to sometimes place
man-made traditions above the word of God (a temptation we all
must fight against), it seems all the more likely that they were
influenced by common prejudices of their day regarding women.
Tertullian, for instance, expressing a view of the female sex that
most of us would consider extremely condemning of women, wrote:

God's sentence hangs over the female sex, and His punishment
weighs down on you. You are the devil's gateway. You first
violated the forbidden tree and violated God's Law. You shattered
God's image in man. And because you merited death, God's Son
had to die.

It is said that the young Byzantine Emperor Theophilus, while

interviewing an attractive and intelligent young woman named
Casia as a potential bride, lamented to her that it was through
women that evil had entered the world. She responded that it was
also through women that good (referring to Christ) had entered the
world. [Byzantium, p. 79, Time-Life Books]

Surely, the male sex bears guilt for the fall of man, too! The
punishment inflicted on the man was just as harsh as that inflicted
on the woman. God‟s call to Adam, “Where art thou?” indicates that
as the head of his family, Adam was held accountable for the
actions of his family. In fact, scripture teaches that although the
younger (and therefore more ignorant) woman was deceived by the
 serpent, the man was not. However, God‟s judgment of Eve was
not unjustified, because Eve allowed herself to be deceived in order
to gratify her desires.

Secondly, not all of the Church Fathers wrote on this subject, at

least in extant documents that are known to us, so they may not
have all held to this opinion.

Thirdly, although we should carefully consider the opinions of the

Fathers and hold them in respect, we must nevertheless place
scripture above what they teach.

Lastly, a creed determined by an early church council is a

corporate judgment of the Ecclesia concerning matters foundational
to the Christian faith. Jesus granted authority to even local
churches to meet for purposes of church discipline. How much
weightier then, is the judgment of a provincial council, and weightier
still the judgment of an international council such as the Council of
Nicea! Such judgments are of an entirely different character, and of
much weightier consequence, than an interpretative opinion
expressed by one writer regarding an issue unessential to
salvation.

Does the word “them” in “it is not permitted unto them

to speak” mean that Paul must have been addressing the men only?

Some argue that since Paul uses the word “them” in “for it is not permitted unto them
to speak,” he must have been addressing only the men in 1 Cor. 14. This argument
would carry more weight, were it not for two very important facts:

To begin with, the letter of 1 Corinthians is addressed “unto the church of God which is
at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called [to be] saints, with all that in
every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours.”

This certainly means that the letter is addressed to the entire church, not just to men.

Secondly, there is at least one example in 1 Corinthians where Paul uses the word
“them” to refer to a subgroup which is definitely among the people he is addressing!

1 Corinthians 7:8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows, It is good
for them that they remain even as I.
Here, Paul uses the very same Greek word that is translated “them” in 1 Cor 14:34 (but
in the masculine gender). This means that Paul was probably addressing the entire
church, including the women, in 1 Corinthians 14, but used the word “them” to refer to
the women as a subgroup.

It is also worthy of note that although Paul is speaking to a group consisting of

unmarried men, unmarried women, and widows in 1 Corinthians 7:8, he uses the
masculine form of the word translated “them,” autoin, to refer to them. Likewise, as we
have already seen, where the masculine word adelphoi is used to address the church in
1 Corinthians, it includes the women.

Do the words “your women” indicate that Paul is addressing only the
men?

Steve Atkerson writes,

Interestingly, the textus receptus adds the word “your” before “women” in
14:34, further evidence that the term “brothers” throughout 1Co 14
specifically refers to the men and not the women.
[http://www.ntrf.org/silent2.html]

The idea behind this argument is that by “your women,” Paul means “the women (or
wives) who belong to you men (or husbands).” Of course, this is by no means a
conclusive argument, because it is also possible that “your women” simply means “the
women (or wives) belonging to the church.” Given the fact that this letter is addressed to
both the men and women at Corinth, and the fact that when adelphoi is used to address
the church in the rest of this letter, it includes the women, this seems most likely. Also,
in the Greek, the word “your” is not in some important manuscript traditions.

However, if Paul was addressing the husbands to tell them that their wives should
behave, this does not necessarily mean that he had been addressing only the men
throughout the chapter. He could have momentarily turned his attention to the men. In
addition, as we are about to see, this idea that Paul‟s command primarily concerned the
wives in the church, which has much merit, does much to undermine the idea that
women, as a gender class, cannot speak publicly in church.

Paul Primarily Had Married Women in Mind

Since Paul wrote, “let them ask their own husbands at home,” it is obvious that he
primarily had married women in mind. Evidently, they were the ones who were doing
most of the talking. Paul knew that some of them might ask questions of a husband or a
friend sitting by, thinking that to be a legitimate reason to ignore his command.

The phrase, “they are commanded to be under obedience, as also sayeth the law”
supports this idea that Paul was primarily correcting the married women, since the verse
most often cited to support this, Genesis 3:16, has to do with the relationship between a
husband and wife.

In the New Testament, the Greek word gune is translated “wives” rather than “women”
nearly half of the time. The translators of the AV rendered it “women” in verse 34.

By contrast, the Greek word aner is translated “men” three quarters of the time.
However, in the AV, it is translated “husbands” in verse 35. So why did the translators of
the AV translate gune as “women” but aner as “husbands”?That is a very strange (and
seemingly inappropriate) inconsistency, and it evidently led the translators of the
Wesley and Weymouth New Testaments to translate this word as “married women”
rather than “women”:

Let married women be silent in the Churches [Wesley NT]

Let married women be silent in the Churches [Weymouth NT]

(The translation of gune as “women” at the end of verse 35 appears to be more

justifiable, however.)

The significance of this is that Paul was apparently writing in response to the disorderly
actions of a subgroup of women in the churches, not to prohibit an entire gender class
from engaging in public speech. But why did Paul need to specifically address actions of
the wives?

Surely it was not because wives are more inclined to public speech than single women
and widows! Let‟s not forget that before the advent of birth control, most women bore
children until menopause. Since there was no “Sunday School” or “Children‟s Church” in
the apostolic church, the little ones were probably present with their mothers during the
meetings. If anything, having to keep a constant eye on their little ones would have
made them less inclined to public speech. However, it would have made them more
inclined to chatter with other wives and to ask questions, since their children would have
made it so challenging for them to focus on what was being taught. In our participatory
meetings, I have observed this tendency first hand, especially with my own wife, since
we have seven children. My wife often finds it difficult to concentrate on the meeting
because of the demands of the children. When a noisy child forces her and another wife
into the hallway, it is naturally tempting to talk rather than try to listen. The example we
are about to quote will further serve to illustrate this.
And so although the command to “keep quiet” in the churches applies to all women in
“all of the churches of the saints,” this helps us to recognize that the scope of that
silence probably concerned disorderly speech.

Some Examples

The following quote describes women who, like most of the women at Corinth, grew up
without formal classroom schooling. It helps us to understand the kind of situation that
Paul might have been addressing at Corinth:

My mother used to compare the situation in Corinth to the one she and my
father faced in northern China. Back in the 1920s when they were first to
bring God's message to that forgotten area, they found women with bound
feet who seldom left their homes and who, unlike the men, had never in
their whole lives attended a public meeting or a class. They had never
been told as little girls, "Now you must sit still and listen to the teacher."
Their only concept of an assembly was a family feast where everyone
talked at once.

When these women came to my parents' church and gathered on the

women's side of the sanctuary, they thought this was a chance to catch up
on the news with their neighbors and to ask questions about the story of
Jesus they were hearing. Needless to say, along with babies crying and
toddlers running about, the women's section got rather noisy! Add to that
the temptation for the women to shout questions to their husbands across
the aisle, and you can imagine the chaos. As my mother patiently tried to
tell the women that they should listen first and chitchat or ask questions
later, she would mutter under her breath, "Just like Corinth; it just couldn't
be more like Corinth." [Kari Torjesen Malcolm, *Women at the
Crossroads* pp. 73-74].

Interestingly, writing four centuries after the apostle Paul penned 1 Corinthians, in his
Ninth Homily on 1 Timothy, John Chrysostom bemoaned the fact that women were
chattering in his church. Holding up the women of the apostolic age as an example, he
exhorted the women in his congregation to refrain from disorderly speech:

Then indeed the women, from such teaching, kept silence; but now there is
apt to be great noise among them, much clamor and talking, and nowhere
so much as in this place. They may all be seen here talking more than in
the market, or at the bath. For, as if they came hither for recreation, they
are all engaged in conversing upon unprofitable subjects. Thus all is
 confusion, and they seem not to understand, that unless they are quiet,
they cannot learn anything that is useful.

In modern times, I have at times observed a tendency among some of the wives in our
participatory meetings to do the same thing. A private, loving reminder of Paul‟s words
from their husbands was all that it took to bring it to an end.

Of course, if there is a greater general tendency among women than men to converse in
church, it would be very wrong to prejudicially assume that every woman is like this, for
there are also women who are admirably disciplined in their speech, and there are men
with uncontrolled tongues. Likewise, we recognize that men are generally more likely to
attempt to “dominate” or “lord it over” God‟s people than women, but it would be wrong
to color all men this way, or to think that a woman is incapable of such behavior.

Putting Things into Perspective

Although these things lead us to conclude that women are permitted to pray and
prophesy in church, we must also integrate this into the whole counsel of scripture. We
must not think that distinctions of behavior and dress according to gender are foreign to
the Scriptures. Deuteronomy 22:5 tells us

“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a
woman‟s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”

Likewise, the New Testament prescribes different behavior patterns in church for men
and women. As we have already seen, a woman‟s head is to be covered (with a
garment, or, according to alternate translations, long hair) when she prays or
prophesies in church. In I Timothy 2:11-15, Paul wrote,

11 11. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the
man, but to be in silence.
13 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was
in the transgression.
15 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they
continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Verse 11 indicates that the context being referred to is when a man is teaching. A
woman‟s primary demeanor when a man is teaching should be peaceful, uncontentious,
and submissive. The Greek word translated “silence” here, in both verses 11 and 12, is
hesuchia.
Thayer defines hesuchia as:

1) quietness

1a) description of the life of one who stays at home doing his own work, and does not officiously
meddle with the affairs of others

2) silence

It is the same word that Paul used just a few verses earlier, in I Timothy 2:1, when he
wrote:

1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers,

intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

2 2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a
quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

Here, the word does not mean completely refraining from speech. It means a peaceful
life free from persecution.

This word is used in only two other places in the New Testament:

Acts 22:2a And when they heard that he spoke in the Hebrew tongue to
them, they were the more silent.

Here, the word does indicate silence, or possibly peacefulness. It is not a complete
silence, but rather “more” silence.

2 Thessalonians 3:12 Now those who are such, we command and exhort
by our Lord Jesus Christ that they work with quietness and eat their own
bread.

Here hesuchia seems to mean working without grumbling, complaining, or causing

trouble.

Although Paul‟s use of this word in his commandment does not confine a woman to
absolute silence when a man is teaching, it does indicate that her overall demeanor
should be peaceful, quiet, and uncontentious. Observing this principle must be difficult
at times, especially when one considers how human and prone to mistakes we men can
be. However, it can reap joyous rewards for women. Few women like the idea of men or
husbands who are timid leaders. As Jonathan Lindval noted in a letter to me, by
observing this principle, women will create a “leadership vacuum” that men will feel
compelled to step into. Thus, through obedience to the scriptures, women can wisely
help to mold the men of their church, and their own husbands, into bolder leaders.

There seems no escaping the fact that the Apostle did not permit a woman to teach a
man publicly in church. There is little doubt that he wanted Timothy to imitate this
practice.

It must also be observed that the two reasons Paul gave for this prohibition were based
not on cultural conditions, but on the created order and the circumstances of the fall.
Paul found those reasons to be compelling even after men and women had embraced
Christ as their Savior. These are facts that must not be ignored by anyone desiring to
come to honest conclusions regarding this passage.

However, although there is no doubt that “Let the woman learn in silence with all
subjection” is a command, the statement that immediately follows it is not a command,
but an example. It reads, “I do not permit a woman to teach” rather than “a woman
should not teach.” If we make a rigid command out of it, we are going beyond scripture.
As Proverbs 30:5-6 teaches:

5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust
in him.
6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a
liar.

Paul‟s example is a practical application of scriptural considerations, and it obviously

should be imitated. In fact, Paul wrote, “Those things, which ye have both learned, and
received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you.” (Ph.
4:9). However, Paul refrains from going so far as to command that women should not
teach men in his letter. Why?

“What is the difference," someone might naturally ask, “between an example meant to
be followed and a command?” The difference is that although Paul‟s example models
what should be done in the absence of special circumstances, it does seem to make
room for some exceptions. Although the reasons Paul gave for not permitting women to
teach men in church are valid considerations, he seems to make allowance for
overriding considerations in some situations. Lottie Moon may have encountered just
such circumstances during her Christian work in China. In a letter written February 9,
1889, and apparently intended for publication in the SBC‟s Foreign Mission Journal, she
wrote:

Feb. 9, 1889

Recently, on a Sunday which I was spending in a village near Pingtu city,

 two men came to me with the request that I would conduct the general
services. They wished me to read and explain, to a mixed audience of men
and women, the parable of the prodigal son. I replied that no one should
undertake to speak without preparation, and that I had made none. (I had
been busy all the morning teaching the women and girls.) After awhile
they came again to know my decision. I said, "It is not the custom of the
Ancient church that women preach to men." I could not, however, hinder
their calling upon me to lead in prayer. Need I say that, as I tried to lead
their devotions, it was hard to keep back the tears of pity for those sheep
not having a shepherd. Men asking to be taught and no one to teach them.
We read of one who came forth and saw a great multitude, and he had
compassion on them because they were as sheep not having a shepherd.
"And how did he show his compassion?" He began to teach them many
things.

Miss Moon was admirably right in her desire to remain faithful to the practice of the early
church. Of course, she could have taught the men in private. But some would even
object to this, because Paul does not specify that he is referring to public meetings. But
might this not have been an exceptional circumstance? To require that women abstain
from teaching men who are starving for the milk of the Word, even in private, seems
wrong. Perhaps such circumstances are why the Apostle Paul, writing under the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit, refrained from going so far as to give a universal
command that women not teach men in his letter (although he did command this in the
specific churches where he ministered).

Susanna Wesley, the mother of the famous evangelist John Wesley, also found herself
in a similar situation. Susanna had a knowledge of the scriptures and of the NT Greek
language that few men in her day could match. Some biblically illiterate parents brought
their children to the Sunday evening devotions she gave to the children in her home.
Soon, curious fathers, many of whom found the Sunday morning church service dull
and uninteresting, became an unofficial part of the listening audience, soaking up her
words. Her husband Samuel, who was on a church assignment in another city, seriously
considered forbidding her to continue the devotions because of this, but wisely refrained
from denying these men, women and children the opportunity to listen to the Word of
Life as it came from his wife‟s lips. Samuel returned home to a packed Sunday evening
audience in his own home, which Susanna then turned over to him. [Susanna Wesley:
Servant of God by Sandy Dengler, Moody Press, Chicago, p 163].

However, I do not believe that examples such as this should be misused as a „crack in
the door,” in hopes of eventually forcing that door wide open for women to teach men
publicly in churches where overriding considerations do not exist. To have such a goal
in mind would be to oppose the apostle Paul‟s very clear example. I believe that on the
whole, we should preserve the normative biblical pattern of men, rather than women,
teaching men in church. Just as Deborah wanted Barak to lead the Israelites into battle
without her, a woman should rejoice when she is able to turn things over to men who
have matured enough to serve as teachers.

Obviously, Paul did not mean that he did not permit a woman to teach at all. If that
were so, then she could not teach her own children or other women. That would
contradict his own words in Titus 2:3-5, where he said that the older women should
“teach what is good” to the younger women. He did not forbid a woman to teach other
women or children in a public setting. Nor did he forbid a woman to set forth the word of
God to a man in an informal and private setting, as Priscilla, with her husband Aquilla,
“expounded … the way of God more perfectly” to Apollos (Acts 18: 24-26).

A Word of Caution

The subject that we have been discussing is a volatile one, one that sometimes
inflames emotions and causes men and women to cast their reason aside as they
debate this issue. Brothers and sisters have refused to speak to each other again over
this issue. A friend of mine who holds to the silence-in-regard-to public-speaking
position was even threatened with church discipline by an irate woman!

While we might understand this woman's frustration, shunning and church discipline
should typically be practiced only because of moral infringements. They should only be
practiced for theological issues when someone is denying a foundational or essential
doctrine of the Christian faith. Although I have been arguing against the silence-in-
regard-to-public-speaking position, it is certainly a possible meaning that the apostle
Paul could have intended. I still respect and fellowship with those who hold to that
position. Some of them are my very good friends, and although I believe that they are
mistaken in their interpretation of this passage (just as they believe that I am mistaken),
I admire them for being willing go against our culture for the sake of their personal
convictions regarding the scriptures.

No matter how strongly we may be persuaded of our own interpretation of these

passages, we should recognize that our brothers and sisters have just as much a right
to live by their convictions as we do. When persuasion gets nowhere, there comes a
point at which it is best to lay aside, at least for the time being, a theological issue that is
not foundational or essential.

And the Lord‟s servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to every one,
an apt teacher, forbearing, correcting his opponents with gentleness. [2
Timothy 2:24-25a]

One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day
alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that
 regardeth one day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not
that day, to the Lord doth he not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the
Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he
eateth not and giveth God thanks. For none of us liveth to himself, and no
man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and
whether we die, we die unto the Lord. Whether we live therefore or die,
we are the Lord‟s. For to this end Christ both died, and arose, and revived,
that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. But why dost thou judge
thy brother? Or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? For we shall all
stand before the judgment seat of Christ. [Romans 14:5-10]

Application

We must understand a commandment before we can effectively obey it. But it would
be imbalanced for us to devote so much attention to trying to understand Paul‟s words
without also discussing the application of them.

In modern Western culture, church meetings often take place in the regimented order
dictated by the church bulletin or tradition, so the very idea of women being caught
chatting in church may seem terribly embarrassing or perhaps even unimaginable.
Perhaps you are even thinking, “This passage is hardly applicable to my church at all!”

That may be the case, but if it is, it indicates that your church practice is far from what
normal Christian church life was like in NT times.

Church meetings in NT times took place in homes, not church buildings, and behavior
was not yet dictated by elaborate ritual or church bulletins. Instead, the church meetings
were participatory, and each believer was permitted to contribute to the meeting:

26a How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you
hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an
interpretation.

Today some are going back to the New Testament practice of participatory home
meetings, where everyone gets to know each other so well, and the meetings are
unstructured enough, that it can be easily understandable how some of the women
might get carried away in conversation. But although this is so, the atmosphere of
fellowship in a New Testament style church meeting must never be used as an excuse
for irreverence in the presence of the Lord.

It is important to realize that two of the guiding principles behind 1 Corinthians 14: 26-40
are expressed in verses 26b and 40:

26b Let all things be done unto edifying.

40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

Obviously, to be carrying on private conversations, even asking private questions

concerning a scripture passage, during a time devoted for public speaking is neither
edifying, decent, nor orderly. Any godly, conscientious woman who catches herself
doing this will naturally feel at least a slight blush of shame.

In churches where the women talking has become a problem (and this probably occurs
most often in rural, third-world locations), these women should submit to their husbands
and church leaders in this matter, and be quiet in church. As Habakkuk 2:20 says,

“But the Lord is in His holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before him.”

Summary

Outside of 1 Corinthians 14:34, wherever the Greek word sigao concerns public
meetings, it is used consistently to refer to the silence required for unhindered public
speech. This leads us to believe that Paul‟s command for the women to be silent
involves refraining from disorderly speech. In support of this, we find that the Greek
word laleo is often used in the NT to refer to conversational speech. Throughout I
Corinthians, Paul addressed the members of the church as adelphoi, or “brethren.”
Outside of 1 Corinthians 14, whenever this word is used to address the church in 1
Corinthians, it includes the women. Arguably, in I Corinthians 14, Paul was continuing to
use adelphoi as he had throughout his letter. This would indicate that the following
verses conflict with the silence-in-regard-to-public-speaking position:

1 Corinthians 14:26 How is it then, brethren? When ye come together

every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a
revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.

1 Corinthians 14:31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may
learn, and all may be comforted.

Likewise, the present active infinitive form of laleo indicates that the most accurate
translation of verse 35 is “for it is a shame for women to be talking in church.”

Since Paul‟s commandment was probably directed to the wives in the church, he was
most likely writing in response to disruptive speech, since generally speaking, women
distracted by the care of small children would be more likely to engage in conversation
with each other than in public speech.

And so the NT usage of important Greek words in this passage, the immediate context
of 1 Corinthians 14 34-35, and the Greek grammar used, all indicate that Paul was not
excluding women from prophesying or praying publicly in Church. Instead, he was
apparently forbidding them from talking in a disruptive way.

All of these factors suggest that 1 Corinthians 14:38-40 should be translated in the
following way:

38 38 The wives should keep quiet in the churches, for they are
not allowed to be talking; but they are commanded to be under
obedience, as the law also says.
39 39 And if there is anything they want to know, let them ask their
husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to be talking in
the church.

In light of the overwhelming evidence we have considered, my belief is that scripture

does not prohibit women from publicly contributing prophetic and revelatory insights in
church. Of course, while doing so, they should be careful to observe the instructions our
Lord has given regarding the exercise of spiritual gifts, including those that relate
specifically to women.

With their male brethren, our sisters in Christ are “heirs together of the grace of life” and
“priests unto God” [I Peter 3:17, Rev 1:6]. As such, they have valid and valuable
contributions to make to the body of Christ. The body of Christ would be incomplete
without their prophetic and revelatory contributions, and without their prayers of faith.

Marshall E. "Rusty" Entrekin

Permission is hereby granted to print this article for free distribution, provided it is
printed in it's entirety. Please contact the author if you desire to place the article in a
publication that is not free of charge. It should not be copied for use on the web,
because it may be revised or updated periodically. Please link to this article instead.
Short quotes are permissible, but if you quote me, please reference that quote with a
link to this url. Please do not place this article in an html frame unless you obtain
permission from me first.

Rusty Entrekin is a theology graduate of LA College. He and his wife Julie have seven children,
with 6 still at home, and one grandchild. Currently, he resides in Kennesaw, GA, and teaches in
a house church that practices participatory meetings.

Would you like to become a patron of Rusty's ministry of defending the faith and helping
to prepare the bride of Christ for the return of Jesus? Then click here.