1 Corinthians 14 and women in the church
Though we are not going through an in-depth study of 1 Corinthians, over the next two weeks we will be spending some time in 1 Corinthians 14 as Paul talks about prophecy, tongues, and the order of public worship. Toward the end of the chapter is a section that brings all sorts of questions, I wanted to repost some the work of Dr. Lucy Peppiatt and her summation of the ways we can best understand the text.
1 Corinthians 14:33–36
33 since God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but are to submit themselves, as the law also says. 35 If they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home, since it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. 36 Or did the word of God originate from you, or did it come to you only?
Whether in different physical bibles or through an app, notice that the transition from verses 33-34 is interpreted differently in different versions of the Bible.
The NIV keeps the phrase, “as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people” as the end of the section on tongues and prophecy and not as the beginning of the section on women in verse 34.
This is not the case in all translations.
NRSV begins the section on women with 33b and the phrase “as in all the churches of the saints” but places the whole women section ending at verse 36 in parentheses, presumably indicating an interpolation.
CSB and ESV simply begin the section on women with 33b.
There are various readings of these verses on women…
A subordinationist reading
A cultural reading
An interpolation
A disagreement with the Corinthians
In the past, these verses have been used to argue literally for the silencing of women in the congregation, and it would have been common in the past to find commentators interpreting this as a straightforwardly subordinationist text.
However, some people want to soften this to make it more acceptable, so argue that this is a contextual command about some talkative married women and doesn’t apply to all the women in Paul’s churches. In other words, they were being rude. They argue that married women would have been sectioned off in the assembly, but instead of listening are chatting during the service, so they should be quiet and ask their husbands at home.
Paul uses the term “to learn” in verse 35, μανθάνω (Greek: manthanó), which some people see in a positive light. Paul wants them to learn.
However, the language is strong here.
Verse 34: σιγάω/sigaó (to keep silent, not permitted to speak as the Law says)
Verse 35: αἰσχρός/aischros (it is shameful, disgraceful)
Still others argue for this to be understood as an interpolation, a later addition by a misogynistic scribe or someone else…
Now, the challenge of the passage is that it’s just so hard to make sense of this passage in context because it doesn’t fit with what we read before and after it, where Paul is calling for all people, men and women to verbally prophesy (to speak!) in the worship gathering. Similarly it’s hard to make sense of this passage as it roots the basis for women’s silence in “the Law” that is the Torah, the first five books of the Bible. To which we kind of scratch our heads, where is there a command that women are not permitted to speak? (There isn’t one, and even if there was this runs against all of Paul’s writings about how we are no longer under the law cf. Galatians 5:18).
Kirk MacGregor argues that these differences are an instance of Paul’s ongoing quotation-refutation devices in 1 Corinthians. Without going too deeply into detail, in recurring places of the letter Paul quotes from a previous letter written to him by the Corinthians (often called Corinthian slogans by scholars) for the very purpose of correcting or challenging them!
For an example of one of these slogans, look at 1 Corinthians 6:12–14. Paul quotes a phrase or idea, to then correct it. These appear regularly in the letter, but the ongoing discussion is where those quotations begin and end or even exist in the first place. The Greek language didn’t have quotation marks like English, so we are left to slow reading and grammar to help us out.
So then, return to 14:33-36, when we see clear contradictions within the surrounding passages, many scholars hold that v33b-35 should be translated with quotations marks. Paul is quoting something he disagrees with so he can refute it – namely the silencing of women in the church!
Here’s an example of how it could be read…
[You, Corinthian men say,] “As (Hōs) in all the assemblies of the saints, the women should keep silent in the assemblies; for they (autais, feminine plural) are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, just as the Law says. But if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in an assembly.”
[Paul replies,] Or (ē) did the word of God originate with you (hymas, plural.), or (ē) to you men only (hymas monous, masculine plural) has it come? If anyone seems to be a prophet or spiritual, let that one recognize that what I write to you (pl.) is a commandment of the Lord; but if anyone disregards this, let that one be disregarded.”
Verse 36 begins with and then repeats ē (‘eh’), which means “or/than/either” or “hey/now!” It can function as a marker of an alternative, or a disjunctive particle signalling a change of tack. It introduces a rhetorical question. What is it? What is Paul rebuking them for exactly?
“Paul introduces both rhetorical questions in v. 36 with ē, which he did six times elsewhere in 1 Corinthians to argue against the Corinthians’ position (1:13; 6:16; 9:6, 8, 10; 11:22) and five times to argue against a Corinthian deed (6:2; 9, 19; 10:22; 11:13).” - MacGregor, Kirk (2018). “1 Corinthians 14:33b-38 as a Pauline Quotation-Refutation Device,” Priscilla Papers.
So then, Paul is rebuking the men of the corinthian church in verse 36, not the women. If he had been rebuking the women only it would have taken a feminine form, monas.
So MacGregor writes that Paul is addressing “you men.” Here are his conclusions.
“Far from attempting to silence women, therefore, Paul was rebuking the Corinthian men for prohibiting women from speaking in the assemblies, as he regarded such a restriction as tantamount to alleging that the Word of God belonged properly to the men and merely derivatively to any woman who was married to one of them. Paul summarily exposed the absurdity of this allegation with each part of the rhetorical question, whose form (not to mention the context) required a negative answer to each part. Obviously the Word of God neither originated with men nor has come only to men; hence it is ridiculous, and contrary to the character of the Gospel, to act as though the Word belonged properly to men by disallowing women from discoursing about it or asking questions about it in church. For these reasons, the preceding thought-unit is shown not to belong to Paul, but is rather Paul’s quotation of the Corinthians’ position from the letter they had previously sent him, his response to which letter constituted in large part the purpose of 1 Corinthians. This conclusion explains perfectly the paragraph breaks in our translation (hōs and ē), as Paul would clearly compose two shifts in thought when alternating from his own counsel to the position of the Corinthians back to his own counsel again. Hence [the] complaint that ‘[n]one of the other Corinthian quotations Paul refutes are nearly this long’ has no purchase; the paragraph breaks make clear that vv. 33b-35 are a separate thought-unit. Likewise, the shift of vv. 33b-35 is apparent by its interrupting the chiasm spanning vv. 26-40:
A (v. 26),
B (vv. 27-28),
C (vv. 28-30),
D (v. 33a),
vv. 33b-35 (not part of the chiasm),
C’ (vv. 36-38),
B’ (v. 39),
A’ (v. 40).
Through this interruption, Paul makes it quite clear that vv. 33b-35 do not represent his thoughts, as opposed to his thoughts throughout the chiasm. Contrary to Payne’s objection that nothing in vv. 36-38 requires that it refutes vv. 34-35 if these verses were authentic, the ē, the hymas monous and its implications, and the two-part rhetorical question cumulatively require that v. 36 begins a thought-unit refuting vv. 33b-35.” - MacGregor, Kirk (2018). “1 Corinthians 14:33b-38 as a Pauline Quotation-Refutation Device,” Priscilla Papers.