10-1-11. 1 Corinthians 14: Women Not Permitted To Speak
A Corinthian Concession?
“I suffer not a woman to teach” (1 Tim.2:12) uses a word elsewhere translated “to give leave” or “permit”- it is the language of a concession, as Paul gave to the Corinthians concerning meat, marriage, separation etc. The same word occurs in 1 Cor.14:34: “Women (are) not permitted...to speak”. The Greek here translated “suffer” and “permitted” means ‘to turn over’, ‘to transfer’. This would imply that Paul was being pressurized to make a change in policy, which he refused to do (25). The church in the twentieth century has likewise been pressurized to change in accordance with pressure. But here Paul seems to be saying ‘No, I’m not making a concession about this, even though some are expecting me to do so. I’ll say it twice over: “Learn in silence...be in silence”. In 1 Cor.7:6 I said that I spoke some things by permission, as concessions. But sisters being silent isn’t one of those issues- this is a plain command!’.
“It is not permitted unto (women) to speak” (1 Cor.14:34) sounds as if some had permitted women to speak, although ‘permitted’ may imply some reluctance by the men who first allowed them to do so. “Let them ask their husbands at home...for it is a shame for women to speak” might imply that the women were excusing their teaching by saying ‘We’re only asking questions!’
The command concerning women’s silence in 1 Tim.2 was written by Paul to Timothy, who, we can infer, was being subjected to pressure from liberals in the church he superintended. There was presumably increasing pressure for women to teach in that church, and Timothy had perhaps hinted that Paul might make a concession about this, although Timothy personally was unhappy at the prospect. But the answer was an emphatic ‘No way!
A Shame To Speak
“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak...for it is a shame for women to speak in the church” (1 Cor.14:34,35) is so explicit, that it has called forth a welter of complex explanations by the ‘Christian’ feminists. Their arguments revolve around the idea that the early church was based around the synagogue services, and therefore the women sat separately in ecclesial meetings, chattering among themselves about domestic matters, which they ought to discuss with their husbands later. Without extra-Biblical knowledge regarding the nature of synagogue services, would most honest Bible readers of the past 1,900 years have come to such a conclusion, as opposed to our traditional view?
‘Keeping silence’ in v.34 is defined as not ‘speaking’ in the church (v.35). The Greek for “speak” is used in the context of 1 Cor.14 concerning speaking forth God’s word under inspiration. It is translated ‘preach’ in Acts 13:42; 14:25; 8:25; Mk.2:2. It is almost blasphemy to claim that ‘speaking’ refers to domestic chatter in the context of 1 Cor.14. However, it is evident that women did possess the gift of teaching by ‘prophecy’. Because they are forbidden to use it to teach men and in church gatherings, there seem to have been only three possible uses for the gift:
- To teach other women after the pattern of Elizabeth teaching Mary, and Miriam the women of Israel- both by the gift of prophecy (cp. Tit.2:3,4). The reference in 1 Tim. 2:9 to how women should “also” pray publicly in an appropriate way suggests that there was an organized ‘sisters class’ movement in the early church. It has been observed: “Where women were kept secluded in Greek society, sisters would be the only ones who could teach them. Teaching by brethren would be difficult in such circumstances” (Ian & Averill McHaffie, All One In Christ Jesus p. 80. This book includes valuable quotations from many contemporary sources, even if the conclusions reached are at variance with this study).
- To teach in ‘Sunday Schools’ (there is ample Old Testament precedent for women teaching children).
- To teach unbelievers. This clearly occurred in the early church. Euodia and Syntyche had “laboured side by side” with Paul in the work of the Gospel (Phil. 4:2,3 NIV). Priscilla helped Aquila teach Apollos the Gospel (Acts 18:26). At least eight of the sisters mentioned in Romans 16 are described as workers / labourers. Philip’s seven daughters were prophetesses- presumably not speaking the word to baptized brethren, but either to the world or to other sisters. All these references to women teaching would have been anathema to many of the surrounding cultures in which the Gospel spread in the first century: “Not only the arm, but the voice of a modest woman ought to be kept from the public, and she should feel shame at being heard…she should speak to or through her husband” (Plutarch, Advice to Bride and Groom 31-32). All that has been written in this study about women not teaching men is in the context of teaching brethren, believers, in a formal ecclesial setting. But there is tremendous, and largely unrealised scope, for sisters to preach to unbelievers. Significantly, it was the information gleaned from sisters which must have formed the basis of the early accounts of the resurrection. Even though a woman’s testimony meant nothing in the first century, yet it was women who were first bidden carry the message of the risen Christ. They were the first to see the risen Lord and to be informed of His resurrection. We need to more widely wake up to the possibility for sisters to preach to an unbelieving world.
It must surely be agreed that 1 Tim.2:12 and 1 Cor.14:34 are major stumbling blocks for feminist theologians. Most of them would have to admit that their case would be easier to defend if those passages simply did not exist. But the Biblical position is not affected by the presence or absence of those verses; all they do is to explicitly comment upon the principles laid down in Eden, and draw the obvious practical conclusions. Therefore no amount of linguistic juggling with the Greek of those passages, questioning their inspiration or reinterpreting them in accordance with local culture can change the reality of the conclusions they represent- because those conclusions can be drawn from Old Testament type and precedent. However, the fact that feminist Christians effectively doubt their inspiration shows that they are actually doubting the whole teaching of Scripture which those passages draw on- from the record of Gen.1-3, through the teaching of the Mosaic Law and the examples of Old Testament history, to the teaching and example of the Lord Jesus in the Gospels.
