1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is the remaining New Testament passage that limits with the role of women in the church. It is also part of a text that deals with the proper use of spiritual gifts. The main point that Paul makes is that in the church it is more profitable to speak understandable prophecy than to speak in unintelligible tongues. Paul compares these two spiritual gifts because some brethren were obsessed with speaking in an unknown language, which edified no one.
Paul states what should be obvious to anyone not carried away with the thrill of possessing a gift: a message in another language carries no meaning for the church unless someone interpreted it. How much edification would the church in America receive if we were addressed in French or German? For that reason, a lesson taught in a language we can understand is much more valuable than the most superb teaching in a tongue unfamiliar to us all. (Consider Paul’s arguments in verses 5-6, 18-19, and 27-28.)
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 deserves careful analysis. The subject of the passage is women: “Let your women keep silent in the churches….” The word translated “women” is used 221 times in the New Testament and is translated either “woman” or “wife,” depending on the context. In 1 Corinthians 7, for example, “wife” is more appropriate than “woman” because the subject of marriage makes it clear that Paul is dealing with husbands and wives (see verses 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 16).
Most translations choose the more general term “women,” perhaps because it is more inclusive than “wives.” But with the mention of “husbands” in verse 35, it may well be that this problem was a marital one. Were the wives interrupting, questioning, or contradicting their husbands in the assembly? If so they were wrong on two grounds.
First, it was a violation of the general principle of 1 Timothy 2:11-14 (as discussed earlier). God gave to men the leadership role, which includes public teaching, preaching, and praying. Whereas the quietness ascribed to women in that passage arises from within (a person’s character and manner of life), “keeping silence” in 1 Corinthians 14:34 involves exercising restraint. The Greek verb sigao is frequently translated “to hold one’s peace” (Luke 20:26; Acts 12:17; Acts 15:12-13). The word is also used two other times in this very text! If there was no interpreter, the tongues-speaking brother was to “keep silent in church” (1 Cor. 14:28). Also, if God revealed something to a brother while another was speaking, the first was to “keep silent” (1 Cor. 14:30). Thus, there is an intentional silence imposed upon oneself for the reasons ascribed above.
Some foolishly argue that if a woman cannot speak in the assembly, then she cannot sing. Well, then, neither could the tongues-speaking brother who lacked an interpreter or the brother who was speaking when another received a prophecy. The context must determine the appropriate time for anyone to keep silence. Obviously, singing is not that time, since all are expected to sing praises to God (Eph. 5:19: Col. 3:16).
The women, then, are not to speak in the assembly (for the purpose of teaching or exercising authority over the man, as per 1 Timothy 2:8-14). “They are not permitted to speak.” This reason would apply to all women; virgins, wives, widows, the Scripturally divorced, and the deserted.
But there is a second reason for their silence, and it involves the marriage relationship. They “are to be submissive, as the law also says.” The law which Moses revealed did not cover the role of men and women in the church, but it does deal with the role of men and women in the home: “Your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Gen. 3:16b). For a wife to openly challenge her husband in the assembly violates her submissive role set forth since the introduction of sin into this world. It would be difficult to find many principles more long-standing than that.
That 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 refers to the husband-wife relationship is seen not only in the reference to the law, but also in the fact that Paul commands her to ask questions of her husband at home. Even if she were not disputing with him and only needed a clarification, she still had the opportunity to do so at home. The assembly was not the place to satisfy an inquisitive wife. Furthermore, her interruptions would only add to the confusion and disorder that already existed in the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 14:33, 40).
Women should hold their peace in the assembly based on the general teaching of 1 Timothy 2:8-14, and wives in particular should ask their husbands questions in a submissive manner in their home. (Is it possible that some women had said, “I wasn’t trying to teach; I only asked a question”?)
Paul mentions that it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. The Greek word is used only in 1 Corinthians 11:6 (“It is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaven”) and Ephesians 5:12: “For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret” (referring to “the unfruitful works of darkness”). The root word (the verb from which the adjective comes) is always translated “ashamed.” For a woman to exercise authority over the man is just as much cause for shame as any immoral act of the Gentiles. She has not been chosen as the one to exercise leadership over the man either in the home or in the church.
Despite the clear teachings of 1 Timothy 2:8-14 and the reinforcement of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, some make an effort to try to find a verse here or there which they think will reverse or circumvent the Bible’s teaching on the subject. The person who would do so lacks respect for the integrity and consistency of the Word of God. Actually, they are seeking contradictions.
When someone will ignore the plain teachings of the Scriptures in hopes of finding a loophole or an exception (as has often been the case with divorce and remarriage), there already exists a major flaw in their hearts. They possess an attitude which seeks to justify what they refuse to obey. A lack of submission to the Word of God is the first and worst problem that anyone can have.
Sometimes the Bible emphasizes one aspect of a process (grace, faith, obedience), and some have mistaken the emphasis for exclusion of anything else. Thus Scriptures must be harmonized (Romans with James). Also, the meaning of some verses may be obscure with our current knowledge (1 Cor. 15:29, for example). So we tread lightly and avoid being dogmatic about the meaning. But there is nothing ambiguous about God’s assignment of the leadership role to men; neither is it a process that will find a different emphasis in a different passage. Other statements in the New Testament must be harmonized with the overall principles already set forth; they cannot contradict them or seek to supplant or modify them.
1. The “women can’t sing” argument has already been commented upon. It is an argument born of desperation and runs contrary both to proper interpretation of the Scriptures, as well as common sense. Whatever we do mutually can scarcely fall under condemnation. In fact, we sing, pray, give, observe the Lord’s Supper, and are taught together. Men just have the lead in all these matters. No one can successfully affirm that women exercise authority over the men when we are all participating in the same action.
2. Philip’s daughters were considered under “Other Occurrences of Prophetess.” Although these sisters may have exercised their gifts in a setting such as the one described in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, there is no indication that they prophesied publicly in the presence of men.
3. Strange as it may seem, some have asserted that Priscilla was the leader in the family over her husband Aquila. Some aver that she took the lead in their spiritual work, also, and the basis for both of these allegations is that her name appears first in three (and perhaps four) of the six verses which mention them together (in one of the verses there is a textual variation).
The six verses are Acts 18:2, 18 and 26, Romans 16:3, 1 Corinthians 16:19, and 2 Timothy 4:19. Aquila’s name appears first in Acts 18:2 and 1 Corinthians 16:19. Priscilla’s name is first in all others except Acts 18:26; some manuscripts have his name first, and some list her first. What does this alternative listing of the two names prove?
Are we supposed to believe that there was an ongoing struggle for supremacy between this husband and wife? This argument is absurd on the face of it. Some manuscripts call her Prisca; is that a significant fact? Was she sassier and more prone to take the lead with the shorter name? Obviously, some are trying to find something not stated explicitly; so they send their imaginations into hyperspace. There are many couples whose names we reverse when referring to them, sometimes putting the male name first, sometimes the female. Sometimes Barnabas’ name precedes Paul’s (Acts 11:30; 12:25; 13:2; and 14:12); does anyone wish to argue that these two servants of God also exchanged positions of prominence? Such observations lack substance.
If Priscilla tried to lead in the home or in their spiritual work, she would have violated the teachings given by the inspiration of God, but absolutely nothing indicates that she did so. The teaching of Apollos was done privately anyway; Priscilla did not oppose publicly the eloquent, but mistaken, preacher. This text provides no justification whatsoever for women preachers.
4. Romans 16:7 is sometimes cited as proof that there were female apostles: “Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who were also in Christ before me.” Some are quick to jump to the conclusion that Junia, a female, must be an apostle–thus showing a willingness to ignore all the other principles which apply to this subject.
First of all, such presumes that these two are apostles, when in fact Jesus chose twelve men, and one male was selected to replace the son of perdition, Judas (Acts 1:15-26). Paul was chosen as one “born out of due time” (1 Cor. 15:8). Others are called apostles in the general sense of “one sent,” but no one else ranks with the twelve except those already mentioned. The best argument that could be made is that Andronicus and Junia were outstanding as a team of missionaries (not unlike Aquila and Priscilla).
The far more likely explanation, however, is that these two were considered, among the apostles, outstanding workers. The Pulpit Commentary says of this verse: “The phrase, however, will bear the interpretation that they were persons held in honour in the circle of the original twelve” (18:2:455). No one would think otherwise unless hard-pressed for some kind of authorization from the Scriptures for women preachers. Those who make such attempts are like golfers whose shots have gone awry. They think that every candy wrapper and dandelion gone to seed is their ball–only to be disappointed by the truth the object they seek remains elusive.