Women, be silent… or not?

I’ve heard this taught a few places, but never seen it online in any format, so I’m going to lay this out for anyone who hasn’t heard this.

You know the verse I’m talking about, right?

It comes at the end of a chapter where Paul is talking about the practicing of supernatural gifts of the Spirit- prophecy and tongues and all kinds of “messy” things that the church in Corinth was “getting out of order” about. (Mostly because they were lacking in love, but I digress.)

Anyway, along in verse 34, he makes this (highly quoted) statement:

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.

1 Corinthians 14:34

And here we are, 2000 years later, and the majority of people who believe the gospel are like, look, it literally says women shouldn’t speak at church. LIKE READ THE BOOK.

And then there are all these questions regarding it like- idk, well, can they teach Sunday school? Can they share their testimony? Can they speak on Mother’s Day? If they’re silent, should they not be singing? If they teach children, should it be only to a certain age? What if it’s in a foreign country, and the woman is a missionary?

Does this mean the woman can’t serve in any leadership capacity? She shouldn’t be a deaconess (even though there’s one in the bible), She shouldn’t be on any committees? Or… wait, she’s allowed to speak at a committee meeting or in a small group study, just not ever from the pulpit?

As I’ve been around, it feels like most American churches interpret it as this:

Let your women never speak behind a pulpit on a Sunday morning, for it is not permitted for them to preach, for they are commanded to be under obedience (to any other man) as the Old Testament says (somewhere, I can’t specifically find it but this verse is saying it’s there so it must be.)

ANYWAY. Instead of arguing how to live out “what this verse means,” which means, assuming it means what we think it means (women should be silent, at least in some way.) Let’s actually look at the verse in context.

1 Corinthians 14:34 in the KJV :

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

What! came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

Paul, outraged.

Guys. Do you know what that word “What!” is? In the Strong’s, it’s numbered g2228, it’s a single Greek particle that looks like this blue N with a few dashes above it. It’s pronounced: “ay” As in, “Aye?”

“What?” It looks like this:

Let’s see where else Paul uses it.

How about Romans chapter 6. Here he’s coming from the end of chapter five, where he is talking about how the more sin there was on the earth, the more powerful the grace of God was proven. And he gets to chapter six, verse one, and he says this:

 Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

Romans 6:1

Is this a literal invitation to come commit sin? No. It’s a kind of paradoxical question that he asks so that he can refute it. The immediate verses following are:

God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

Romans 6:2-3

Okay so remember g2228, that “What?!” It doesn’t happen to be translated as “What” in English here, for some reason, but it’s actually in the greek right before “Know ye not.” So it could read-

“What!? Know ye not that…”

It’s a piece of language that signifies that he’s exclaiming “huh?!” “What?!” AYE!? in reponse to something that he finds WRONG or INCORRECT or stupid or false or whatever. And guess what! Paul does this A LOT.

Here’s another place: Romans chapter nine.

This time, Paul is talking about questioning God. He says in verse 20

…Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, “Why has thou made me thus?

Okay, so again, he’s saying something that he doesn’t agree with. He responds to his own writing with the contradictory:

Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

(Romans 9:21, KJV)

His second statement refutes the first statement. This is a common mode that Paul uses in writing, all the time!

Once again, g2228 is listed in the Greek right before the responding question. The translators did not choose to write the word “What?” because the question itself makes it quite obvious that he is refuting the previous question.

Let’s go on to the book of First Corinthians itself. Let’s look at this verse: 1 Corinthians 11:21.

In this verse, Paul is in the middle of addressing problems with the Lord’s supper. He makes this statement:

For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.

Now, is he saying that this is the way it should be? When you take communion, some should be hungry and some should get drunk? It literally says this in this verse, right? Oh, wait. Look what comes after it:

What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.

Can you see g2228 there?

What I’m trying to show you is that Paul uses this mode of writing many times. He makes a statement or asks a question and then refutes it, often using this g2228 Greek participle to signal his refuting statement.

There are plenty of other places this is true, if you want to look at them yourselves, here’s a list:

• Romans 2:4
• Romans 4:9
• Romans 6:3
• Romans 6:16
• Romans 7:1
• Romans 11:1
• 1 Corinthians 1:13
• 1 Corinthians 6:9
• 1 Corinthians 6:16
• 1 Corinthians 6:19
• 1 Corinthians 9:6
• 2 Corinthians 11:7
• Galatians 1:10
• Galatians 3:3

These aren’t the only places where g2228 used, but they’re the places that it’s the most obvious.

Paul likes to make a statement and then immediately question it with almost an incredulity. We see it and understand it other places, and we have no problem with it. But for some reason, in this instance, we don’t “See it.” And why not?

Let’s look at it again. 1 Corinthians 14

(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) – 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) -What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

Can someone tell me, please, why we would ever make the argument that verse 36 is NOT refuting verses 34 and 35? Can any complementarian explain that? Because it looks to me that he’s talking to men, saying-

“Are you men the only ones that God has used to share the gospel? Are you men the only ones who have received it?”

And the obvious answer is: No. In Christ there is neither male nor female.

SELAH, GUYS.

---

One more thing: can we talk about “as also saith the law?”

Can anyone find a cross reference in the Old Testament for this?

I don’t think you can. Because the law that Paul is referring to is a Roman Law:

In multis juris nostri articulis deterior est conditio foeminarum quam masculorun,; l. 9, Pap. Lib. 31, Quaest. Foeminoe ab omnibus officiis civilibus vel publicis remotae sunt; et ideo nec judicis esse possunt, nec magistratum gerere, nec postulare, nec pro alio invenire, nec procuratores existere; l. 2, de Reg. Juris. Ulp. Lib. i. Ad Sab. – Vid. Poth. Pand. Justin., vol. i. p. 13.

“In our laws the condition of women is, in many respects, worse than that of men. Women are precluded from all public offices; therefore they cannot be judges, nor execute the function of magistrates; they cannot sue, plead, nor act in any case, as proxies.” They were under many other disabilities, which may be seen in different places of the Pandects. But to be in silence – It was lawful for men in public assemblies to ask questions, or even interrupt the speaker when there was any matter in his speech which they did not understand; but this liberty was not granted to women.

Adam Clark Bible Commentary

You guys, as clear as I can see it, Paul was stating, and then refuting, a Roman law.

---

I have heard these thoughts and ideas from several people during podcasts, in books, and on video feeds from classes I’m taking. This is not my brilliant idea.

I’m just writing this out because I can only recommend books and sermons and classes to so many people, and this idea is such a mind-blowing paradigm to this issue that I wanted to share it in a more succinct manner. I would like to give the honor of discovering it to other people than myself. However, I am a little loathe to list the specific people here, because I would like this idea to stand on it’s own merit and not be immediately dismissed because of the labels that people get.

Okay, that’s all. Have a nice day! Be nice if you comment, because we’re all brothers and sisters in the Lord!

oxoxoxo

Bri