WOMEN BEEN SILENT IN THE CHURCH, THERE WOULD BE NO CHURCH!

MEN WERE CALLED, WOMEN ARE CHOSEN:

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 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? 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) 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) 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) Continue being silent during the meeting. 2) Continue the church custom of being silent. 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: Be silent, keep still Say nothing, keep silent Stop speaking, become silent 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. PLEASE AND UNDERSTAND THATTHERE WERE MORE WOMEN WHO FOLLOWED JESUS, NOT MANY MEN.