Home Church Community

Statement of Beliefs

Contact Us

Search Our Site

Bible Study Resource



Printer Friendly Version

Particulars of Christianity:
312 The Church Ethic


1 Corinthians 14

Introduction & 3 Models of Church Gatherings and Leadership
Examining the Models
Examining the Models Conclusions and Study Expectations
Examining Church Gatherings in the Gospels
The First Supper, Jesus' Specific Instructions, Conclusions
Survey of Post-Ascension Church Gatherings
Apostolic and Eldership Functions in Acts and the Epistles
1 Corinthians 1-10 & Introduction to 1 Corinthians 11-14
1 Corinthians 11-13
1 Corinthians 14
1 Timothy 2:12, Conclusions on Women in Church Gatherings
Conclusions: 1 Corinthians 14, Church Gatherings & Leadership




1 Corinthians 14: Women Teaching in Church Gatherings and the Overall New Testament Picture

 

Further evidence that Paul’s intent in this passage is to prohibit everyone from speaking at the church meeting comes from the final verses of this chapter, in which he provides even further restrictions. In verses 34-35, Paul lists one final restriction on participation at church meetings. This final restriction further limits the number of people who would be able to speak to only men. In two separate statements Paul instructs the Corinthians that women were not allowed to speak at the church meetings.

 

This segment of 1 Corinthians 14 will touch on our final category which dealt with gender participation in church gatherings. In that category we noted that the Viola model claims that women can and must be allowed to participate in the church gatherings just as the men. In contrast, the Elder-Leadership model held that only men are allowed to participate in New Testament church meetings, both as the main speakers and also as those who interrupt with questions and comments. With these points of view in mind, let’s take a look at Paul’s comments in 1 Corinthians 14:34-40.

 

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 (5293), 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. 38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. 39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. 40 Let all things be done decently and in order. 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand…

 

Although it will be covered in more detail later, we should also mention 1 Timothy 2:12 at this point. 1 Timothy 2:12 is often mentioned alongside 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 as a potential reference to a universal prohibition against women speaking in church.

 

1 Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

 

Now many attempts have been made to understand Paul’s comments 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:12 as anything but a universal prohibition against women speaking during church meetings. Among those who oppose taking Paul’s statements in first Corinthians as a universal prohibition against women speaking in church is Frank Viola. His model for church gatherings and leadership rejects any notion that participation in the church gatherings was restricted to men.

 

(Incidentally, women had both the right and the privilege to participate in the meetings of the church. See endnote for details.) 6 – Frank Viola, Reimagining Church, Chapter 2, Reimagining the Church Meeting, pages 55

 

The endnote mentioned in the quote above directs the reader to two online articles written by Frank Viola on the subject of women participating in church gatherings. The links for these articles are “A Woman’s Role in the Church” at www.ptmin.org/role.html and “God’s View of a Woman” www.ptmin.org/view.html. All of our quotes from Viola on this subject are taken from these two articles.

 

In these writings, Viola offers several proofs for his conclusion that women could and did speak, teach, and participate in church gatherings. Below we will provide Viola’s arguments against taking passages like 1 Corinthians 14:34-40 as a universal prohibition against women speaking, teaching, and asking questions in church gatherings. Then we will evaluate each of his arguments to see if they are sound.

 

The first argument offered by Viola is that a universal prohibition against women speaking in church contradicts the overall New Testament message about women.

 

A basic question must be answered at this point: What is the overall teaching of the New Testament on a woman’s role in the church? That is, what’s the big picture about women in ministry? – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 6

 

With that said, whatever the “limiting passages” mean, they cannot in any way overturn the New Covenant. Neither can they contradict the entire thrust of the New Testament. Hence, the idea that women are excluded from speaking in God’s house is a catastrophic breach of the New Covenant. A covenant that has done away with earthly distinctions and treats both men and women as co-priests in God’s kingdom. – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 3

 

Galatians 3:28 sums up the New Covenant nicely: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” This passage summarizes Paul’s understanding of the effect of the gospel on cultural givens like racism, slavery, and gender oppression. Galatians 3:28 is not constricted to “salvation.” Instead, it holds social implications for everyone. – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 3

 

Previously, we saw Viola wrongly claim that the New Testament had done away with rules. In the second quote above, Viola wrongly claims that the New Covenant has done away with earthly distinctions between men and women. The first thing we should mention is that in the quotes above Viola’s argument against making distinctions between men and women is based entirely on his conclusion that as a whole the New Testament makes no such distinctions. This conclusion is the very thing that is in question in this portion of our study. To accept Viola’s conclusion as proof would be circular reasoning or question begging. Therefore, we must evaluate the reasoning and evidence Viola offers in support of his conclusion that the New Covenant does away with gender distinctions, including with regard to church meetings.

 

In support of his claim that the New Covenant does away with gender restrictions, Viola cites Galatians 3:28 saying that this passage is not limited to salvation only, but has social implications. From a hypothetical point of view it is possible that Paul is eliminating all social restrictions based on gender just as Viola suggests. But it is also possible that Paul is speaking merely of salvation. How do we know which is the case? Again, Viola has merely offered his conclusion without exegeting the text or examing of the opposing position. This is another clear case of Viola proof-texting a verse out of its context to disprove his opponents as if merely citing the verse ends the discussion. But what does the context of the Galatians actually say?

 

Galatians 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. 15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. 16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. 18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. 19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. 21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. 22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. 26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. 4:1 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;

 

Now is Paul discussing general social questions here in this passage? Not at all. Paul is clearly discussing the ability to inherit the promises given to Abraham. In the Outlines section of our website we discuss the New Testament definition of the gospel in the outlines listed under the title “Gospel Overview” and “Covenant and Dispensational Theologies." From our study of the Biblical texts it is clear that the gospel of Jesus Christ essentially involved making the promises that Abraham and his seed would receive the Promised Land available to everyone. That is the subject that Paul is discussing here in Galatians 3.

 

To put it simply, the context of Galatians 3 is Paul speaking about inheriting the promises that God gave to Abraham. Now, as Paul says, the promises made to Abraham about inheriting the Promised Land were passed on to his seed, which ultimately was Jesus Christ, who receives those promises and gives them to those who follow him. Because of this Paul can conclude in verse 29 “if you are Christ’s then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” The promise dealt with the inheritance of the Promised Land. This promise will be fulfilled when Jesus comes and establishes his kingdom on earth.

 

Throughout this passage, Paul is contrasting who may receive the promises under the Old Covenant and who may receive them in the New Covenant. Notice in verse 14 Paul states that through Jesus Christ the blessing of Abraham can come on the Gentiles. This is because in the Old Covenant, the Promise was made to Abraham and his seed (as verse 16 attests.) The Gentiles were not Abraham’s seed and so the promise was not available to them. The promise was for the Jewish people only. However, as verse 14 says, through Christ, Gentiles can now receive these promises with the Jews. Verse 28 is nothing more than a restatement of this same concept that Paul first mentioned in verse 14. Through Christ, Jews and Greeks can both receive the promises of Abraham. Likewise, Paul says that slaves and freemen alike can received the promise of Abraham. And lastly, Paul states that women and men alike can receive the promise of Abraham. This is all very clear from the passage.

 

It is important to realize that under the Old Covenant there were restrictions placed upon inheritance depending upon slavery and gender. The facts concerning inheritance among slaves, sons, and daughters are plainly described in Genesis 21:10, 24:36, 25:5-6, Deuteronomy 21:15-17, Leviticus 25:10-16, 24-26, Numbers 26:50-55, 27:1-11, 36:1-13. These facts concerning inheritance are summarized in the following three quotes from Smith’s Bible Dictionary.

 

Heir. The Hebrew institutions relative to inheritance were of a very simple character. Under the patriarchal system the property was divided among the sons of the legitimate wives…Daughters had no share in the patrimony...The Mosaic law regulated the succession to real property thus: it was to be divided among the sons, the elders receiving a double portion, Deut. 21:17, the others equal shares; if there were no sons, it went to the daughters, Num. 27:8, on the condition that they did not marry out of their own tribe, Num. 36:6 ff; otherwise patrimony was forfeited. If there were no daughter, it went to the brother of the deceased; if no brother, to the paternal uncle; and, failing these, to the next of kin. – Smith’s Bible Dictionary, page. 240

 

Jubilee, the year of.3. The laws connected with the jubilee. – These embrace three points: (1) Rest for the soil… (2) Reversion of landed property. “The Israelites had a portion of land divided to each family by lot. This portion of the promised land they held of God, and were not to dispose of it as their property in fee-simple. Hence no Israelites could part with his landed estate but for a term of years only. When the jubilee arrived, it again reverted to the original owners.”Bush… (3) The manumission of those Israelites who had become slaves. “Apparently this periodic emancipation applied to every class of Hebrew servants – to him who had sold himself because he had become too poor to provide for his family, to him who had been taken and sold for debt…” – Cowles’ Hebrew History. 4. The reasons for the institution of the jubilee…(4) “This law of entail, by which the right heir could never be excluded, was a provision of great wisdom for preserving families and tribes perfectly distinct…to establish their right to the ancestral property.” – Smith’s Bible Dictionary, page. 325-326

 

Slave. I. Hebrew slaves – 1. The circumstances under which a Hebrew might be reduced to servitude were—(1) poverty; (2) the commission of theft; and (3) the exercise of paternal authority. In the first case, a man who had mortgaged his property, and was unable to support his family, might sell himself to another Hebrew with a view both to obtain maintenance and perchance a surplus sufficient to redeem his property. Lev. 25:25, 39. …2. The servitude of a Hebrew might be terminated in three ways: (1) by the by the remission of all claims against him; (2) by the recurrence of the year of jubilee, Lev. 25:40; and (3) the expiration of six years from the time that his servitude commenced. Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12. – Smith’s Bible Dictionary, page. 637

 

As we can see, in Old Testament Israel slavery was mostly comprised of what we would call indentured servitude. If a person had a debt they were unable to pay, then that person and their family as well as any land they possessed might be sold into servitude until the debt was paid off or until the Jubilee year, which occurred every fifty years. It is interesting that under the Old Covenant, the Promised Land was divided by lot to each family and the inheritance laws, particularly as applied to slaves and women, were specifically concerned with preserving each family’s allotted inheritance of the Promised Land. Since slavery was largely connected to financial loss and the sale of one’s property, slaves were prevented from retaining and receiving their family’s allotted land. Consequently, it is inherently true that during the time of their slavery, slaves did not retain their allotted inheritance among the Promised Land. 

 

Similarly, a father’s property was only divided among his sons, not his daughters. The only exception to this was when a man died without sons, in which case his property would go to any daughters that he had, but only if they married within their tribe. In this way, the allotted portion of the Promised Land would be preserved in the proper family.

 

Against this detailed historical backdrop, it is easy to see how Paul’s comments in Galatians 3 are intended to relate to Old Testament restrictions for inheritance category by category, including restrictions concerning Gentiles, slaves, and women. Paul’s point is simply that the hope of inheriting the promises under the New Covenant had no such restrictions. And since Paul’s point here is so specifically related to definite details about Old Testament inheritance, it is wrong for Viola to superimpose and expand Paul’s point beyond inheritance to literally all social and cultural distinctions, particularly regarding women.

 

In fact, we know that Paul’s comments here were not intended to overturn hierarchical authorities because elsewhere Paul and Peter require slaves to submit to their masters (Ephesians 6:5-8, Colossians 3:22-24, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, Titus 2:9-10, 1 Peter 3:18) It is also worth noting that this New Testament requirement for slaves to continue submitting their masters often occurs very near to instructions for women to submit to their husbands. (Ephesians 5:22-33, Colossians 3:18, 1 Peter 3:1-6). Lastly, it is important to note that in Ephesians and Colossians, Paul instructs slaves to submit to their masters in the very same breath that he mentions the slaves and masters equally receiving an inheritance in Christ. Obviously, Paul intended to revoke the restrictions on who could inherit God’s promises in Christ without revoking the hierarchies and authority involved in those relationships. 

 

In order to arrive at Viola’s conclusion that Paul is remarking about gender-related social issues as a whole we must go beyond the text’s discussion of simply being able to receive our inheritance in the kingdom. Paul says nothing about the roles of men and women in all facets of social interaction. He is merely saying that both can receive the promised kingdom through faith in Christ. Once again, Viola’s proof-texting has led him (and perhaps his readers) astray from the facts of the scripture.

 

But what about Viola’s larger claim that a prohibition of women speaking in church is against the grain of the New Testament itself?

 

That said, some have interpreted the “limiting passages” to mean that women must de facto be excluded from sharing in a meeting when men are present. But this conclusion runs against the grain of the broad principles of the New Testament. – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 8

 

Concerning Viola’s claim that the New Testament itself makes a universal prohibition against women speaking in church impossible, his first support comes from the simple fact that Jesus’ had women followers.

 

But Jesus also had a group of female disciples. Luke also used a shorthand phrase to refer to them. He simply called them the Women. Interestingly, Luke used this phrase the same way that he used the Twelve. They were the Lord's disciples also--the female counterpart to the Twelve. The Women followed the Lord wherever He went, and they tended to His needs. And He was not ashamed. – Frank Viola, http://www.ptmin.org/view.htm

 

But there's more. The greatest disciples of Jesus Christ were not the Twelve. They were the Women. The reason? Because they were more faithful. – Frank Viola, http://www.ptmin.org/view.htm

 

During our Lord’s earthly ministry, a group that Luke calls the Women were just as well known as the Twelve (Luke 8:1-3; 23:49, 55; 24:24). In fact, the twelve male disciples were a rather pitiful bunch when compared to the Lord’s female disciples (see Chapter 16). – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 7

 

There are several points to address from Viola’s argument here. First, if Viola is right, then why do we even have a distinction between Jesus’ women followers and men followers? More precisely, if Viola is right, why were “the twelve” apostles only men? Since Jesus clearly had women followers and Viola claims these women were greater and “more faithful” than “the twelve” why didn’t Jesus appoint women as “apostles” to be among “the twelve”? From Viola’s point of view, there is no apparent explanation for this New Testament fact. On the other hand, what we know from the New Testament strongly indicates that the distinction of “apostles” was, for some reason, reserved only for men. This fact is best, and perhaps, only explained by the view that this unique, teaching-oriented leadership role was unavailable to women who because of their gender would not be permitted to teach the church.

 

Second, it is critical to Viola’s position that “the women” are treated in the same way in the New Testament as Jesus’ male disciples. If there is inequity in the New Testament treatment of Jesus’ male and female disciples then Viola’s concept that men and women are to be treated equally in the church falls apart. So, is Viola correct? Are “the women” treated as counterparts to “the twelve?” No, they are not. There are several reasons that Viola’s conclusion is in error.

 

For one, the fact that Viola has to inform us about this group is telling. The reason Viola has to tell us about this group is because there is so little attention given to this “group” in the gospels. Consider that there are only 10 references to “the women” followers of Jesus in the gospels and the book of Acts.

 

Matthew 27:55 And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him:

 

Matthew 28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

 

Mark 15:40 There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;

 

Mark 15:41 (Who also, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered unto him;) and many other women which came up with him unto Jerusalem.

 

Luke 8:2 And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,

 

Luke 23:27 And there followed him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented him.

 

Luke 23:49 And all his acquaintance, and the women that followed him from Galilee, stood afar off, beholding these things.

 

Luke 23:55 And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid.

 

Luke 24:10 It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.

 

Acts 1:14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

 

From these ten mentions of “the women” we learn the names of a few of them. And we learn that a few of them were the first who discovered the empty tomb and encountered the risen Christ. But beyond these and a few other facts the gospels give little detail or attention to these people, their relevance to Jesus’ ministry, or the unfolding of church history. There is no record of their preaching or of any exploits performed by them. There is no record of any women leading or starting churches. And we have no epistles written by women, including these women in particular. At the very least, this begs the question as to why the authors of the New Testament, who Viola claims viewed women as equivalent to men in all respects, ignored or downplayed the role of women when recording the gospels and the history of the early church.

 

Contrast this with the attention and prominence that are given to “their male counterparts,” “the twelve.” The phrase “the twelve” is used in the New Testament to refer to the twelve disciples over 34 times. Alternatively they are referred to as “the apostles.” The apostles are referred to an additional 78 times in the New Testament. Time and time again, we learn how Jesus took these twelve men aside and taught them, He ordained and sent them out, He gave them the power to exercise demons and heal the sick, He said they would sit on the twelve thrones over the twelve tribes of Israel, and it is their twelve names that are on the gates of the heavenly city. We also have records of churches that they founded or acted as overseers of. And we have epistles written by them exercising authority and instruction over the churches. Indeed, a very large majority of New Testament writing discusses the contributions and relevance of these men to the spread of Christianity.

 

No comparison can be made here to “the women” followers of Jesus. This is not a demeaning fact about Jesus’ female followers. It is just a clear statement from the New Testament that Jesus’ female followers are not given the same treatment or significance in Jesus’ ministry or the later New Testament church period, despite Viola’s assertions to the contrary. It is obvious that Viola is in error for asserting that Jesus’ female followers were as well known as the apostles, were greater and more faithful than the apostles, and that the apostles were “a pitiful bunch compared to the Lord’s female disciples.”

 

During our Lord’s earthly ministry, a group that Luke calls the Women were just as well known as the Twelve (Luke 8:1-3; 23:49, 55; 24:24). In fact, the twelve male disciples were a rather pitiful bunch when compared to the Lord’s female disciples (see Chapter 16). – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 7

 

But beyond his overestimation of Jesus’ female followers in comparison to the twelve apostles, a larger question looms over Viola’s claim that the New Testament itself prohibits a restriction against women speaking in church. To put it simply, Viola is in error for thinking that this has anything to do with resolving the question of whether women could speak in church. The fact that Jesus had women followers, that these women were the first to see the resurrected Christ, that these women were present in the upper room on the day of Pentecost, or that they were with Jesus while he hung on the cross has no scriptural or logical connection to the question of whether women could speak in the church. It is entirely possible that despite these scriptural facts about Jesus’ female followers, they were still prohibited from speaking or teaching in church. As such, Viola’s argument, that general New Covenant truths deny the possibility of a universal prohibition against women speaking in church, suffers a serious logical flaw.

 

 

 

1 Corinthians 14:34-40 – Contradictions and the Interpretation of Unclear Passages

 

As Viola continues his argument against a universal prohibition of women speaking in church, his next point is that such a prohibition would not only contradict general New Testament teaching about women, but it would also contradict specific New Testament statements that women could and did speak and teach at church gatherings. Specifically, Viola states that if 1 Corinthians 14:34-40 prohibit women speaking in the church this would contradict Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 11 and elsewhere that women did speak and teach in church.

 

The fact is that Paul seems to contradict himself on this subject. – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 2

 

First, Paul has already encouraged the women to pray and prophesy earlier in the letter (1 Cor. 11:5). Second, Paul encourages the whole church to function in Chapter 14. He writes, “for you can all prophesy one by one” (v. 31) and “when you assemble, every one of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation . . .” (v. 26). – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 10

 

Therefore, for Paul to suddenly say that women must never say a word in the church meeting is to completely contradict himself in the space of a few sentences. – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 10-12

 

Does this mean that the sisters are never to speak in the meeting? Certainly not. Such an reflects a culturally biased misreading of Paul. It also puts Paul in stark contradiction with himself (11:5; 14:26, 31). – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 10-12

 

This would contradict his own words. Consider the following: In 1 Corinthians, Paul states numerous times that women may prophesy in the church (1 Cor. 11:5; 14:26, 31). Prophecy contains instruction, for Paul writes, “for you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed (taught) and encouraged” (1 Cor. 14:31). All Christians, including the women, are to teach and admonish one another through psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (Col. 3:16). The manifestation of the Holy Spirit, which includes prophecy, words of knowledge, and words of wisdom, is given to the whole church for the common good (1 Cor. 12:1-12). And these gifts are to function in the church meetings (1 Cor. 14). God bestows all spiritual gifts with undistinguishing regard on men and women alike. There’s no such thing as a gender-specific spiritual gift. The author of Hebrews tells the whole church, including the sisters, that given their relative spiritual age, they all should be teachers (Heb. 5:14). The author of Hebrews also encourages the whole assembly, brothers and sisters, to exhort one another when the church gathers (Heb. 10:24-25). – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 14-17

 

(Notice that in the last quote above Viola agrees that “prophecy” was a teaching gift. In doing so he corroborates our conclusion that Paul is limiting the use of gifts in a church meeting to gifts that are instructional and teaching-oriented.)

 

Viola’s assertion that Paul’s statement would be self-contradicting rests solely on two faulty premises. The first is Viola’s error in claiming that 1 Corinthians 11 is a discussion of women praying and prophesying in church gatherings.

 

It is certainly possible from a purely hypothetical point of view that this passage is discussing women praying and prophesying in the church, but it is equally possible that Paul is simply discussing women praying and prophesying at home or in a private setting. And, if Paul is discussing women at the church gatherings in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, then his comments here would indeed seem to be at odds with his later statements in 1 Corinthians 14:34-38. To be clear, however, there is no inherent contradiction between the two passages unless Paul is discussing women at church gatherings in 1 Corinthians 11. And this is a tough case to prove.

 

Consider for comparison the evidence we have that 1 Corinthians 14:34-38 pertains to women at church gatherings. The case is substantial. First of all, the verses themselves mention two times in two verses that women are to “keep silence in the churches” and “it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” Add to this, that these verses from chapter 14 follow at the end of a long section spanning at least two chapters where Paul is clearly providing protocols for conducting church gatherings, including who could participate in them and how.

 

Conversely, what might we offer to substantiate the notion that 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 is about women at church gatherings rather than in private settings? For one, 1 Corinthians 11:1 follows a passage in which Paul is discussing whether Christians were permitted to eat meat when they were invited to dinner by non-Christians. Verse 1 of chapter 11 starts a new topic which is not related to the previous discussion of meats sacrificed to idols. The important point is that “church gatherings” are not the topic in chapter 10 nor are they the current topic as Paul moves into chapter 11. And the text of verses 1-16 says nothing about church gatherings at all. Look at the passage again if you are unsure. There is no mention of the communion meal, no Greek words which speak of gathering together, and no statements about being “in church.”

 

Furthermore, as we have already seen, in the very next two verses (verses 17-18), Paul moves on to another subject. He is no longer discussing women and head coverings. He has turned to the subject of divisions within the church.

 

1 Corinthians 11:17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. 18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

 

Notice that both verse 17 and verse 18 include the phrase “come together” and “come together in the church.” From this there can be no doubt that Paul is now discussing matters regarding church gatherings. However, verse 18 clearly declares that the divisions are the first issue Paul wants to address on the topic of Corinthians’ church gatherings, when they “came together in the church.” If “division” is, as the text states, the first thing Paul wants to criticize the Corinthians for when they “came together in the church” then what proceeds verses 17-18 must not be an issue that pertains to when the Corinthians “came together in the church.” Consequently, in addition to the lack any positive indication that church gatherings were being discussed in verses 1-16, verses 17-18 provide a strong negation that verses 1-16 were pertaining to church gatherings at all.

 

As such, 1 Corinthians 11 does inform us that women prayed and prophesied, but it is not a passage that presents women as praying and teaching through prophecy in the church gatherings. Notice again that Viola himself does not exegete these passages, but merely proof-texts them as if just citing them proves his point. Put simply, since 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 is not discussing women speaking or prophesying in church gatherings, it is no contradiction for Paul to forbid women from speaking or teaching in church in 1 Corinthians 14:34-40.

 

But what about 1 Corinthians 14:26 and 31, Colossians 3:16, Hebrews 5:14, and Hebrews 10:24-25, which Viola also claims demonstrate that women spoke and taught in church? Let’s look at these passages so see what they say.

 

1 Corinthians 14:26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

 

1 Corinthians 14:31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.

 

Colossians 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

 

Hebrews 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. 13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. 14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

 

Hebrews 10:24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: 25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

 

As we look at these texts we must remember that the question before us is whether we have instances recorded in the New Testament of women speaking and teaching in church. Do any of these passages indicate that women specifically spoke and taught in church? Not at all. Viola claims that since these passages use terms like “us” and “all” and “every” that they necessarily included literally each and every person. But it is important to keep in mind that this is the very question we are investigating.

 

For instance, terms such as “us,” “all,” and “every” are by their very nature more general than terms like “women,” which is much more specific. If we start from the specific statements made by Paul, we see from passages like 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-14 that Paul specifically identified women as not being allowed to speak. If we assume that Paul taught the same rules in all of his churches, then the result would be that his general remarks about “all” and “everyone” who could speak in church would have been understood to refer only to men. In other words, it necessarily follows that if Paul universally taught that only men could speak and teach in church, then when he wrote about “all” those who spoke or taught, he was writing about men only. In short, just because Paul used terms like “all” with regard to speaking or teaching in church, it does not logically follow that he therefore necessarily included those persons he elsewhere directly prohibited from doing so. And to interpret these verses the way that Viola does runs contrary to the normal relationship between more general and more specific statements in language.

 

Viola himself agrees that clear New Testament passages should be used to understand unclear passages.

 

It’s my opinion that we should always interpret the obscure by the clear, not the other way around. When we interpret the clear and consistent thrust of Scripture in light of one or two obscure passages, we end up rupturing the core message of the Bible. And we are forced to do all sorts of exegetical gymnastics to make the many clear passages fit our interpretation of the few obscure texts. Therefore, when an obscure passage seems to be at odds with the clear thrust of Scripture, we must look carefully at context. – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 9

 

Which then are more clear, Paul’s specific statements in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (and 1 Timothy 2:12) or 1 Corinthians 14:26, 31 and Hebrews 5:14 and 10:25? Which are more clear, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (and 1 Timothy 2:12) which clearly and specifically identify women as persons who were prohibited from speaking in church? Or 1 Corinthians 14:26, 31 and Hebrews 5:14 and 10:25 which simply refer to those who could participate in churches but do not clearly or specifically tell us if this included women or not?

 

By attempting to interpret 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (and 1 Timothy 2:12) by appeals to 1 Corinthians 14:26, 31 and Hebrews 5:14 and 10:25, Viola is using unclear passages to re-interpret passages, which are much more clear. And it is also obvious that Viola is, in his own words, “forced to do all sorts of exegetical gymnastics to make the many clear passages fit [his] interpretation of the few obscure texts.”

 

To prove that statements such as 1 Corinthians 14:26 and 31 as well as Hebrew 5:14 and 10:25 are intended to be general, rather than literal, we can look to anther example from 1 Corinthians. We can remember that we have already seen Paul state specifically in several other places that not everyone had the gift of prophecy (Romans 12:6-8, 1 Corinthians 12:10.) But in verses 24, 26, and 31 of 1 Corinthians 14, Paul states that “all prophesy.” It would be a logical error to conclude that because Paul says “all may prophesy” (in verses 24, 26, and 31) that therefore his statements that “not all prophesy” no longer indicate that not everyone was able to prophesy. Instead, we must understand Paul’s statements that “all may prophecy” to refer to everyone who had the gift of prophecy, not to everyone in general and not to everyone present.

 

And “prophecy” is not a lone example. In 1 Corinthians 12:30, Paul rhetorically asks, “do all speak with tongues?” implying a clear “no” answer, just as in chapter 12:4-11, Paul states that different people have different gifts. They do not all have the same gifts. But in chapter 14:23, Paul uses the phrase, “If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues.” Does the phrase “all speak with tongues” overturn Paul’s previous statements and now literally mean that everyone does have the gift of tongues after all? Or, is the phrase “all speak with tongues” meant as a general statement to referring to “all” who had the gift of tongues, rather than literally everyone or literally everyone present at the church gathering?

 

As we can see, general statements using “all” and “everyone” must be interpreted in light of the specificities provided in the surrounding context. “All prophesy” does mean that everyone present at church gatherings had the gift of prophecy. It means “everyone who had the gift of prophecy” but not the rest of those present. “All speak in tongues” does not mean everyone at church gatherings spoke in tongues. It means “everyone who had the gift of tongues” but not the rest of those present. Similarly, a statement saying “all can speak in your church meetings” must be taken to refer to all those whom Paul permitted to speak or teach in church meetings and not to everyone in general (including women). 

 

We should also note that Colossians 3:16 and Hebrews 5:14 don’t even mention church meetings at all.

 

In addition to claiming that such general passages contradict a universal prohibition against women speaking in church, Viola also argues that these “limiting passages” cannot be taken as a universal prohibition because their meaning is highly unclear.

 

The truth of the matter is that the “limiting passages” are highly obscure. Anyone who asserts that they are clear and direct is living in a fog of presumption and academic naivety. For one thing, such an assertion reflects a benighted dismissal of texts like Acts 2:17, Galatians 3:28, and 1 Corinthians 11:5, 14:26, 31. – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 9

 

Pick up any decent commentary. Look up the “limiting passages,” and you’ll discover the various ways these texts can be interpreted due to the ambiguity of the language. The fact that competent evangelical scholars disagree on the meaning of Paul’s word usage in these passages attests to their obscurity. – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 9

 

There are two reasons why it is very inconsistent for Viola to argue that these passages are unclear. First, if Viola himself can argue that 1 Corinthians 14:26, 31 and Hebrews 5:14 and 10:25 are clear, how in the world can he argue that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (and 1 Timothy 2:12) are unclear? His standards for clarity seem to be artificially designed to support his presumed position.

 

Second, it is also very inconsistent for Viola to argue that these passages are unclear since he himself is so certain that they clearly do not provide but, in fact, prevent such a prohibition. By arguing with conviction that 1 Corinthians 14:34-40 and 1 Timothy 2:12 absolutely do not provide a universal prohibition against women speaking in church, Viola is arguing that the texts are clear and that they clearly do not provide such a prohibition. Consequently, he clearly believes we can make a determination about the texts’ meaning. For him to also say that we can’t determine what the texts mean is inconsistent at best and misleading at worst. Viola must make a choice here. If he is convinced that these texts are unclear then he must refrain from taking a strong stance on what they mean. If on the other hand, Viola believes that the texts clearly do not provide a universal prohibition against women speaking in church, then he cannot argue that the texts are unclear.

 

 

 

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 – Special Case or Universal Teaching?

 

The next set of arguments that Viola offers against a universal prohibition all fall into the category of pleading special circumstances. In other words, in the quotes that follow, Viola argues that Paul is prohibiting women speaking and teaching in 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2, but that these prohibitions were special cases that pertained only to Corinth and Ephesus and are not a universal rule for all the churches. One important point to make about such arguments from Viola is that these arguments actually recognize that Paul is prohibiting women from teaching in these passages.

 

Another important point to note about Viola’s line of reasoning here is that it constitutes another contradiction on Viola’s part. In arguing that the rules of 1 Corinthians 14:34-40 and 1 Timothy 2:12 are not universal rules binding for the church of all generations, Viola is contradicting his earlier statements that 1 Corinthians 11-14 provides prescriptive practices that were taught in all the New Testament churches and which were binding for the church in all generations.

 

Point: Normative apostolic commands are binding on the contemporary church. But normative apostolic practices are as well. By normative, I mean those practices that contain a spiritual subtext and are the outworking of the organic nature of the body of Christ. Such practices are not purely narrative. They carry prescriptive force. This means that they reflect the unchanging nature of God Himself. And they naturally emerge whenever God’s people live by divine life together – irrespective of culture or time. In that connection the Book of Acts and the Epistles are awash with references to the apostolic tradition. In 1 Corinthians 4:17, Paul declares how he taught his ways “everywhere in every church.” To Paul’s mind, doctrine and duty – belief and behavior, life and practice – are inseparable. In short, that which is included in the apostolic tradition is normative for all churches yesterday and today. The exhortations of Paul to “hold firmly to the traditions just as I delivered them to you” and to practice what “you have learned and received and heard and seen in me” are the considerations that should guide our church life. – Frank Viola, Reimagining Church, Chapter 14, Reimagining the Apostolic Tradition, pages 247-248

 

The truth is that there are numerous practices of the early church that are normative for us today. These practices are not culturally conditioned. – Frank Viola, Reimagining Church, Chapter 14, Reimagining the Apostolic Tradition, page 248

 

Here are the two verses from 1 Corinthians that Viola cites in his quote above.

 

1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

 

1 Corinthians 4:17 For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.

 

With this in mind, we must note that in 1 Corinthians 14, Paul’s prohibition of women speaking, teaching, and asking questions in the church gatherings is itself set within similar language referring to what was the custom taught and practiced in all the churches. Notice verses 33 and 36.

 

1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. 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. 38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. 39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. 40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

 

Paul’s reaction to the Corinthian women speaking in their church meetings is “What? Did the Word of God come out from you? Did the Word come only to you?” and “what I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.” By saying these things Paul connects his prohibition regarding women with familiar references to Jesus’ teaching and references to the word of God that went out everywhere to all the churches. In fact, Paul specifically mocks the idea that the Corinthian church might have some special teaching on this matter that wasn’t known elsewhere. The Corinthians thought that their practice, which allowed women to speak in the church was more spiritual (verses 36-37), but Paul called it ignorance of the Lord’s commands. This doesn’t sound like Paul’s limitations are specific to the Corinthian church. Rather, according to Paul, they are based on the teachings of Jesus that Paul had taught in every church.

 

Furthermore, in our study of this epistle, we have already noted that in every previous case where Paul was addressing Corinthian arrogance and malpractice, he corrected them with a teaching that was universally held in the church. In no case did we find Paul offering novel solutions particular only to the situation in Corinthian. If we take this passage within the context of this epistle, then we would expect the same to be true in this passage.

 

We must keep in mind that Viola has already pronounced with conviction that what Paul taught regarding church gatherings in 1 Corinthians 11-14 is binding for all generations and that chapters 11-14 are not simply responses to specific first century cultural conditions. But with regard to the issue of women, Viola himself now reverses course perhaps hoping no one will notice. In the quote below, Viola says that Paul’s instructions that women must be silent in the church gatherings in 1 Corinthians 14:34-40 is merely a cultural condition that pertained only to the first century Corinthian church.

 

In the face of all this, the women were interrupting those prophesying with questions. Their motivation was to learn. But they were adding a further distraction to an already disruptive meeting. It was common in the ancient world for hearers to interrupt someone who was teaching with questions. But it was considered rude if the questions reflected ignorance of the subject. It must be noted that women in the first century—whether Jew or Gentile—tended to be uneducated. Any exceptions was rare. Women were essentially trained to be home-keepers. Thus for a woman to query or challenge a man in public was an embarrassing thing in the Greco-Roman world. When women interrupted the men with questions, the men were being interrogated by their social inferiors. Hence, it was considered “improper.” – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 10-12

 

It’s also quite possible that the sisters were quizzing their own husbands, evaluating their prophetic words personally and pointedly. Paul doesn’t want there to be any domestic disputes in the meetings, so he asks the women to question their husbands at home. Either way, Paul’s injunction for women to “keep silent” doesn’t possess an absolute sense. It’s a corrective to a specific problem. – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 10-12

 

Viola must make a decision here. Either 1 Corinthians 11-14 contains binding instructions for the church in all generations or it merely has a series of culturally conditioned prohibitions that only pertain to first century Corinth. He cannot take what he likes and say its binding for all time and leave the parts he doesn’t like and say that they are just first century cultural issues that don’t apply outside that specific context. This is especially problematic because the parts, which Viola wants to relegate to first century cultural issues, are attached to assertions that these instructions went out to all the churches (1 Corinthians 14:35-36).

 

If Viola wants to suggest that Paul’s comments in 1 Corinthians 14 are a special case for the Corinthian church only and are not intended for the universal church, then he cannot demand that we must take 1 Corinthians 11-14 as being informative and prescriptive for church meetings. If it is the case that the protocols for church meetings mentioned in 1 Corinthians are only relevant to a special case in Corinth and were not meant for the church at large, then it necessarily follows that we cannot build our model for church gatherings on Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians.

 

For instance, what would happen if someone wanted to suggest that all the instructions in 1 Corinthians 11-14 were only meant for Corinth because of special circumstances there and, consequently, these chapters were not meant to govern church gatherings universally either then or now? What would happen to Viola’s model, which draws upon these chapters to suggest that “every member participating” is a universal requirement for all church gatherings to this day? And what would Viola be able to say to refute such a counterargument that chapters 11-14 are only relevant to Corinth at this particular time rather than to the rest of us in the church at large? How would Viola prove that the instructions in chapters 11-14 are binding for all churches and not just an isolated, obsolete peculiarity for first century Corinth? Perhaps Viola would point to those verses in chapters 11-14 which appeal to universal axioms such as Paul’s analogy of the body? Yet Paul uses that same analogy to prove the need for male hierarchy over women in 1 Corinthians 11. Or maybe Viola would point to the apparent axiomatic nature of other verses or assertions by Paul? Would he point to contextual references of Jesus’ own commands, which by their nature are universal for the church? Would he point to contextually adjacent statements about what Paul had ordained in all the churches? Would he point to the larger thematic trends that run throughout the whole epistle? These are the exact same proofs that demonstrate the prohibition regarding women was universal rather than isolated solely to Corinth.

 

To summarize, if Corinthians only pertains to the Corinthian church then we must instead build our model for church gatherings on the information that we have learned elsewhere from the New Testament. After all, 1 Corinthians 11-14 is the only passage that even potentially suggests “every one” could participate at church gatherings. As we have seen, the rest of the New Testament simply and consistently depicts one, two, or maybe three speakers dominating a gathering while the crowd interacted with questions or comments. Consequently, if the instructions in 1 Corinthians 11-14 were summarily classified as “not universally binding,” that would leave us very clearly with a model in which a small number of persons spoke at church meetings, the teaching of the word to the crowd, but in which limited participation was open for persons in the crowd to ask questions or make shorter comments.

 

However, if we do take Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians to be relevant, informative, and prescriptive for all church meetings and not just those in first century Corinth, there is nothing in them that would conflict with the model we have seen elsewhere in the New Testament. Paul is not putting forward a model where all persons at the church gatherings participate equally and with the same function. Instead, Paul is clearly limiting the number of persons who could speak to a few. And he is clearly limiting the participants to only those who could instruct or teach the congregation. This is exactly what we’ve already learned from our survey, namely that only a few persons, the elders, would speak at the church meetings, teaching the church. Likewise, some additional participation was allowed for others to ask questions and make shorter comments.

 

So, Viola must make a decision. Is 1 Corinthians 14 prescriptive for all churches in all generations or does it only pertain to first century Corinth?

 

As, we have seen, this is not the only decision Viola must make. In his articles on women participating in church gatherings, Viola offers several contradictory and mutually exclusive explanations of 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2:12. In one case, Viola recognizes that these passages do contain prohibitions against women speaking and teaching in church. The quote we just looked as is an example. In that quote Viola acknowledges that Paul is prohibiting women from speaking in the church meetings because they were uneducated and it was considered rude. For reference, here is that quote again.

 

In the face of all this, the women were interrupting those prophesying with questions. Their motivation was to learn. But they were adding a further distraction to an already disruptive meeting. It was common in the ancient world for hearers to interrupt someone who was teaching with questions. But it was considered rude if the questions reflected ignorance of the subject. It must be noted that women in the first century—whether Jew or Gentile—tended to be uneducated. Any exceptions was rare. Women were essentially trained to be home-keepers. Thus for a woman to query or challenge a man in public was an embarrassing thing in the Greco-Roman world. When women interrupted the men with questions, the men were being interrogated by their social inferiors. Hence, it was considered “improper.” – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 10-12

 

In the next quote Viola contrarily explains that Paul is not prohibiting women from speaking in churches in 1 Corinthians 14:34-40, but that instead Paul is actually objecting to such a notion.

 

Scenario 2. Some scholars have put forth a different interpretation of this text. Yet it leads to the same conclusion as the interpretation just described. In verse 34, Paul says, “but let them the women+ subject themselves just as the law also says.” Interestingly, there is no law in the Old Testament that calls women to silence or to subject themselves. The Old Testament seems to say the opposite. For example, Psalm 68:11 says, "The Lord gives the command; the women who proclaim the good tidings are a great host." What law could Paul be referring to here? Tellingly, the silencing of women was a Jewish ordinance in the ancient world. It came from the Talmud, which was the Jewish oral law during the time that Paul penned 1 Corinthians. According to the Talmud, women were not permitted to speak in the Jewish assembly or even ask questions. Consider the follow quotes from the Talmud. A woman's voice is prohibited because it is sexually provocative. (Talmud, Berachot 24a) Women are sexually seductive, mentally inferior, socially embarrassing, and spiritually separated from the law of Moses; therefore, let them be silent. (Summary of Talmudic sayings) It is a shame for a woman to let her voice be heard among men. (Talmud, Tractate Kiddushin) The voice of a woman is filthy nakedness. (Talmud, Berachot Kiddushin) In light of the above statements, the negative words about women in 1 Corinthians 34-35 may not have been Paul's words at all. Instead, he may have been quoting those in the Corinthian church who based their view of women on the Talmud. The Talmud taught that women couldn't speak in the assembly and added that their voices were obscene and shameful, the very thoughts that we read in verses 35 and 36. This is further confirmed in verse 36 where Paul exclaims, "What! Did the Word of God originate with you?" The "What!" indicates that Paul wasn’t in harmony with the quotation in verses 34 and 35. We know that various concerns and questions came to Paul from the Corinthians (1:11; 7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1). – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 12-13

 

There are at least three glaring problems with Viola offering up this explanation. First, as we said, Viola is offering two contradictory and mutually exclusive explanations for why 1 Corinthians 14 isn’t a reference to a universal prohibition against women speaking and teaching in church. First, Viola says Paul was actually prohibiting the Corinthian women from speaking and teaching because they were uneducated. But, in the quote above, Viola makes the claim that Paul is actually objecting to a prohibition against women speaking and teaching in church. This type of tactic makes it seem like Viola is willing to consider whatever explanation of these passages gets around a universal prohibition against women speaking in church. It seems desperate. It seems like Viola will accept any interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14 so long as it permits women to speak and teach in church.

 

Second, Viola is simply in error when he argues that Paul cannot be referencing anything from the law.

 

In verse 34, Paul says, “but let them the women+ subject themselves just as the law also says.” Interestingly, there is no law in the Old Testament that calls women to silence or to subject themselves. – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 12-13

 

In verse 34 of 1 Corinthians 14, Paul states that the reason women are not permitted to speak is that they are to be under obedience. The word translated “under obedience” in verse 34 is the Greek word “hupotasso” (Strong’s number 5293.) This same word is used by both Paul and Peter when discussing this same point in three other epistles.

 

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 (5293), as also saith the law.

 

Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves (5293) unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 24 Therefore as the church is subject (5293) unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

 

Colossian 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves (5293) unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

 

1 Peter 3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection (5293) to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;…5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection (5293) unto their own husbands:

 

Notice that Peter explains for his readers that the Old Testament itself supports his instruction that women are to be in subjection to their husbands. This parallels Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 14:34 that this teaching is also found in the law. The Jewish writers of the Old Testament used the phrase “the law” at times to refer to the first five books of the Old Testament, which were written by Moses. As such it is not necessarily the case that Paul is referencing a specific Old Testament law in 1 Corinthians 14:34. Paul may simply be doing what Peter is doing in his epistle and saying that the Old Testament indicates that women are to be in submission to their husband. From this we can see that Viola is either being ignorant and less than thorough in his study of this subject or he is being deliberately deceptive in his presentation of the arguments that are involved.

 

Also, notice that this word for a woman’s “subjection” to her husband is intentionally applied by Paul to the church’s subjection to Christ in Ephesians 5 (as well as 1 Corinthians 11:1-3, which we looked at earlier.) By doing so, Paul makes it impossible for us to distinguish the type of subjection the wife must show to the husband from the type of subjection that the church must show to Christ.

 

From these facts we can be sure that in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Paul himself is saying that women must be silent in the churches, that they are not permitted to speak, and that they are to be in submission to their husbands. Paul is not quoting the Talmud in order to reject this idea. Instead, Paul is referring to the same type of Old Testament mandates that Peter does in 1 Peter 3, when Peter likewise requires women to be subject to their husbands.

 

Third, in light of Paul’s comments in the other “limiting passage,” 1 Timothy 2:12, it is both foolish and pointless to suggest that in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Paul is merely citing a Talmudic tradition that he disagrees with. If Paul raises the idea that the Law required women to be in silent subjection only so he can scoff at such a notion, why we find Paul himself invoking the Law to prove the silent subjection of women in 1 Timothy 2?

 

1 Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

 

As we look at 1 Timothy 2, we see that Paul again makes reference to the writings of Moses (the Law) in support of his prohibition of women speaking in church (verses 13-14.) However, in his article, Viola doesn’t attribute Paul’s reference to this passage from the Law as a Talmudic quote. The reason Viola doesn’t attribute this remark to the Talmud is because Paul is simply restating two well-known Old Testament facts from the Book of Genesis. Man was formed before woman. And in that first sin, Adam was not deceived but Eve was. (Interestingly, the fact that man was created first is also cited by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:1-10 when instructing the need for women to submit to the hierarchy of men.) And Paul cites these facts from Genesis as an explanation for his prohibition of women teaching. Clearly this is no Talmudic reference that Paul is quoting in order to refute.

 

Paul’s attribution of this prohibition to the Law of Moses, rather than some Talmudic passage, is also revealed in the Greek grammar in 1 Timothy 2. Paul introduces his explanation for this prohibition with the Greek word “gar” (Strong’s number 1063), which is used to introduce explanatory clauses. So, in verses 12-13, Paul is saying, “Women must be silent and learn in subjection, they cannot teach the men because (gar)…” Then the reason Paul immediately gives for his prohibition isn’t because “because (gar) your women in Ephesus are teaching heresy.” Instead, Paul immediately says “they must not teach because (gar) Adam was formed first and Eve was deceived.”

 

We should ask why Paul includes Eve’s deception in his explanation for his prohibition? The text itself provides an adequate explanation for Paul’s reference to Eve’s deception in Genesis 3. According to Paul, women shouldn’t be permitted to teach men because women have a greater tendency for being deceived, a tendency which is evident in Eve’s first sin. As Paul explains, God put man first and women must be in submission to their husbands. According to Paul, when the man instead followed his wife’s lead, this resulted in sin. He cites the example of Adam and Eve as support. As such, Paul is using Genesis 3 to justify his prohibition of women teaching.

 

And Paul is not wildly extrapolating on this point when it comes to what Genesis teaches. Let’s look at God’s response to Adam for his sin, in Genesis 3.

 

Genesis 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it:

 

As we can see, God himself describes that man listening to his wife’s “teaching” was part of what lead to the first sin. This is no reference to the Talmud cited for immediate refutation. This is Paul himself citing a portion of the Law of Moses, which prohibited women from teaching men. In order to circumvent the rationale provided by Paul in the text, Viola must invent an alternative reason for why Paul refers to Adam and Eve. Viola has no problem coming up with an explanation that is completely outside the scriptural indications.

 

Putting all the facts together, the following scenario emerges: Paul’s warning to the church in Ephesus was finally coming to pass. Five years earlier he forewarned the Ephesian elders that wolves would penetrate the church and draw disciples after themselves with perverse teachings (Acts 20:28-30). The wolves had appeared. So Paul exhorts a young Timothy to combat their perverse teachings (1 Tim. 1:3-7; 6:3-5). Since Timothy was well aware of the heresy, Paul doesn’t need to explain it in detail. However, it appears that it was a kind of proto-gnosticism. Gnosticism was a heresy that appeared in the second century. The Gnostics taught that full salvation comes through special knowledge (gnosis) that only the initiated possess. What Timothy was battling in Ephesus appears to have been an extremely embryonic form of this heresy. (Paul seems to refer to the heresy when he says to Timothy, “Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge [Greek: gnosis+”—1 Timothy 6:20, NIV.) According to the false teaching, both eating meat and engaging in marriage were forbidden (1 Tim. 4:1-3). Myths about the Law were also embraced (1 Tim. 1:4-7). – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 14-17

 

Of course, concerning the quote above, nothing that Viola has said is extra-biblical. From what we can derive from the bible, nothing he has said is unwarranted or incorrect. Gnosticism was indeed an early and prominent heresy that challenged the church. It is indeed likely that Timothy was dealing with an early form of this heresy in Ephesus and that Paul spoke of this in this first epistle to Timothy. As Viola points out, from the text we know that this heretical group forbid eating meat and engaging in marriage and that they held to certain kings of myths. But we know all of this because it is stated in the text.

 

The extra-biblical part is what comes next.

 

We know from historical records that the Gnostics perverted the creation account. Eve was regarded as both a mediator and redeemer figure.56 She pre-existed Adam. Man came into existence because of woman, and he was given enlightenment through woman. Since Eve was the first to take a bite from the Tree of Knowledge, she was regarded as the bearer of special spiritual knowledge (gnosis). It is for this reason that those who accepted this heresy preferred the leadership of women over that of men. The heresy taught that women could still lead people to the illuminating gnosis that was represented by the Tree of Knowledge. It was further believed that redemption completely reversed the effects of the fall so that men were no longer subject to earthly authorities and women were no longer subject to their husbands. – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 14-17

 

The reason Viola brings up the teaching of some Gnostics is to provide an alternative explanation for Paul’s reference to the Genesis account of creation. Without this outside information and without the completely speculative assumption that heretics in Ephesus were performing the specific action of elevating women over men, Paul’s reference to Adam and Eve strongly indicates that the prohibition was both biblically-based and universal.

 

It is absolutely true that we know from writers like Irenaeus and other ancient documents what the Gnostic cults taught. It is true that some of them magnified women as bearers of spiritual enlightenment and taught that woman was created before man. And it is true that some of them forbid meat and getting married. However, not all Gnostic cults taught that eating meat or getting married was forbidden. Other Gnostics taught that earthly things such as these were irrelevant to spiritual living and that we could do whatever we wanted in this material body without affecting our true spiritual selves. We know from 1 Timothy that the heresy Timothy was dealing with was of the former kind of Gnosticism, which forbid eating meat and marriage. But the larger point is that Gnosticism was somewhat diverse in its teachings. Various Gnostic sects taught and emphasized different heretical teachings. We don’t know whether or not one form of Gnostic teaching on women was an issue in Ephesus at this time. Viola wants us to assume it is the case. But Paul doesn’t specify that this specific issue of women dominating their men was going on there when he wrote. Instead, the women seemed to be dominated by men who were false teachers.

 

One of the reasons Viola feels that we are safe to make this assumption (that Paul was refuting Gnostic teachings elevating women to a place of dominance) is because, according to Viola, this is the only time we find Paul referring to Eve’s role in the fall. For Viola, the only way to explain this unique reference to Eve is if Paul was refuting a form of Gnostic heresy that promoted women over men.

 

In all of Paul’s other writings he always hangs the fall around Adam’s neck. But given this particular situation, he sets his sights on Eve. – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 14-17

 

But is this the only time Paul references Eve’s contribution and deception in her and Adam’s sin? Not at all. In fact, another time Paul references this is in his writings to the Corinthian church.

 

2 Corinthians 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. 3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

 

Notice that Paul’s comments here in 2 Corinthians involve the headship of Christ over the church and the headship of the husband over the wife. This is the same thing that Paul is discussing in 1 Timothy 2 and elsewhere. And we see that again Paul mentions that Eve was deceived. Should we conclude that in 2 Corinthians 11 Paul is combating the same Gnostic teaching about the woman being superior to the man that Viola claims Paul is taking aim at in 1 Timothy 2? Obviously, there is no reason to do so. In reality, we have no reason to conclude that either 2 Corinthians 11 or 1 Timothy 2 have that particular Gnostic teaching in view. Again Viola’s scriptural facts are in error, Paul does refer to Eve’s deception elsewhere. And Viola’s reasoning is in error when he tries to avoid the obvious implications that result from letting 1 Timothy 2 speak for itself.

 

It is also curious to note that Viola inadvertently attributes a Gnostic origin to his own arguments. Near the end of his description of Gnostic teaching, Viola says, “It was further believed that redemption completely reversed the effects of the fall so that men were no longer subject to earthly authorities and women were no longer subject to their husbands.” Viola himself has articulated this very argument in favor of his own view regarding women. Notice that while Viola ultimately describes scriptural submission between a husband and wife as mutual, he clearly defines one-sided submission to the husband as a result of the fall.

As far as the marital relationship goes, the husband/wife relationship is an earthly picture of the heavenly reality of Christ and His Bride. So I take at face value Paul’s injunction for wives to be subject to their husbands (Eph. 5:22: Col. 3:18; see also 1 Pet. 3:1-7). Yet I’m quick to add that this passage has been all-too often lifted out of its proper context and misused by controlling husbands who wish to brow-beat their wives. In addition, Paul is a strong proponent of Christians submitting to one another in the fear of Christ (Eph. 5:21). Therefore, in a sense, husbands must also submit to their wives. Jesus Christ doesn’t dominate nor subjugate His Bride. Male domination of women, therefore, is a symptom of man’s fallen nature (Genesis 3:16). It’s not a Divine mandate. Yet submission and subjugation are two very different things. – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role in the Church: An Open Letter, page 20

Elsewhere, Viola once again echoes this theme that the redemption offered in the New Covenant liberates women from that suppressive male dominance that resulted from the fall.

 

Modern scribes have turned New Testament verses into oppressive laws without any regard to local and temporary conditions. By contrast, Paul’s message is one that promotes radical freedom rather than suppression. And that freedom liberally extends to men and women. Therefore, if our interpretation of Paul contradicts his message of freedom, then we are connecting the dots incorrectly. – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 17-18

 

In fact, Viola repeatedly states that all hierarchy results from mankind’s fall into sin. The idea that all hierarchical leadership results from sin more than implies that the redemption brought by Jesus Christ involves redemption from hierarchies, including the hierarchy of men over women.

 

Alongside humanity’s fallen quest for a human spiritual mediator is the obsession with the hierarchical form of leadership. – Frank Viola, Pagan Christianity, Chapter 5, The Pastor: Obstacle to Every-Member Functioning, page 109

 

Actually, we believe that, as a result of our fallen nature, people always move to adopt hierarchy and top-down relationships because they give human beings a sense of control and security. – Frank Viola, Pagan Christianity, Final Thoughts, page 262

 

As we cover in our Gospel Overview study (provided in the Outlines section of our website), it is a constant theme in the Old Testament that the wife is to follow her husband’s lead and not the other way around. In passages like 2 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2, the New Testament upholds this theme and Viola even recognizes that it does (although ultimately he seems to waffle a bit on this topic).

 

As far as the marital relationship goes, the husband/wife relationship is an earthly picture of the heavenly reality of Christ and His Bride. So I take at face value Paul’s injunction for wives to be subject to their husbands (Eph. 5:22: Col. 3:18; see also 1 Pet. 3:1-7). – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 20

 

As we can see from the end of the quote above, Viola even references several New Testament passages in support of the biblical conclusion that wives must be subject to their husbands. We have looked at these verses earlier, but here they are again for reference.

 

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 (5293), as also saith the law.

 

Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves (5293) unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 24 Therefore as the church is subject (5293) unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

 

Colossian 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves (5293) unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

 

1 Peter 3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection (5293) to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;…5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection (5293) unto their own husbands:

 

We might compare these verses with what Paul says in 1 Timothy 2.

 

1 Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

 

In verse 11, Paul states that a woman must “learn in silence and with all subjection.” The word translated “subjection” is the Greek word “hupotage” (Strong’s number 5292.) This Greek word “hupotage” is the noun derived from the Greek word “hupotasso” (Strong’s number 5293), which is used in all of the above passages to speak of a woman’s submission to her husband.

 

It is obvious then that Paul isn’t discussing anything in 1 Timothy that differs from what he is discussing in 1 Corinthians 14, Ephesians 5, or Colossians 3. Nor is there anything in 1 Timothy that differs from what Peter says in 1 Peter. Instead, all five of these passages are discussing the exact same thing, that a woman must learn in silence and submission to her husband and that she cannot teach him. In 1 Timothy, Viola contends that the mention of Adam and Eve can only be explained as a refutation of Gnostic doctrines. But is Paul refuting these same Gnostic doctrines in Ephesians 5? Were the same problems being addressed in Colossae and in Corinth? Was Peter indicating that wives must submit to their husbands only because Gnostics taught that women should lead the men? Obviously not. Why then should we conclude that Paul’s remarks in 1 Timothy 2 can only be explained as a refutation of a very specific Gnostic teaching for which we have no evidence in that location? The only reason to accept such a conclusion is if we wish to avoid a universal New Testament prohibition against women speaking or teaching in church gatherings.

 

Viola himself acknowledges the clear connection between 1 Corinthians 14:34-40 and 1 Timothy 2:11-14, both linguistically and in terms of the instructions themselves.

 

It’s striking to discover that there are seven parallel words that appear in both this text and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. Two of them are: learn and silent. In both passages, the word learn is translated from the same Greek word: 1 Timothy 2:11: “A woman should learn (manthano) in silence and full submission.” 1 Corinthians 14:35: “And if they desire to learn (manthano) anything, let them ask their own husbands at home.” In the Timothy passage, Paul says that the sisters in Ephesus should learn in silence and full submission….In effect, 1 Timothy 2:11 is the same instruction that Paul appears to give the sisters in Corinth. That is, the women ought not to disrupt the meeting with questions and challenges. In the church meeting, they should learn in quietness. So the first thing Paul says to Timothy is, “Let the sisters stop asking leading-questions to challenge the brothers. Instead, let them take on humility and learn with studious attention.” – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 14-17

 

First, it seems striking that Viola acknowledges such similar instructions are given to two different churches, but somehow still argues that these are not universal ordinances in all the churches. Second, if Viola believes 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14 are both prohibitions from Paul that use the same terminology, why would he also offer the idea that in 1 Corinthians 14 Paul is quoting the Talmud in order to reject a prohibition against women speaking and teaching? This is an absurd argument from Viola and a convoluted interpretation of scripture. Obviously, Paul is not quoting the Talmud in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. Instead, Paul is himself saying that women should remain silent in church, that they should learn in submission, and that the Law also indicates this.

 

Yet there are still more problems with Viola’s conclusion that 1 Corinthians 14 is not a universal prohibition. The next problem has to do with Viola’s misunderstanding of the context of the passage.

 

In the face of all this, the women were interrupting those prophesying with questions. Their motivation was to learn. But they were adding a further distraction to an already disruptive meeting. It was common in the ancient world for hearers to interrupt someone who was teaching with questions. But it was considered rude if the questions reflected ignorance of the subject. It must be noted that women in the first century—whether Jew or Gentile—tended to be uneducated. Any exceptions was rare. Women were essentially trained to be home-keepers. Thus for a woman to query or challenge a man in public was an embarrassing thing in the Greco-Roman world. When women interrupted the men with questions, the men were being interrogated by their social inferiors. Hence, it was considered “improper.” …It’s within this very context that Paul shifts to the sisters and says that if they don’t understand a prophetic word, they should ask their husbands about it in private…. Notice the undeniable connection between “learning” and “speaking.” Therefore, the only kind of speaking that Paul is restricting in this passage is that of asking questions. Both leading-questions and ignorance-based questions. It’s also quite possible that the sisters were quizzing their own husbands, evaluating their prophetic words personally and pointedly. – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 10-12

 

Here, Viola identifies Paul’s restrictions on women with the specific issue of prophetic words. Viola asserts that the women were asking questions about prophecies and their questions arose out of ignorance because they were uneducated in such matters. According to Viola, it was because of this transitory situation that Paul restricted women from speaking. Consequently, Viola concludes that women were only being restricted from asking questions and not being restricted from speaking or teaching in general. If Viola would have studied this passage in the context of Paul’s instructions throughout this letter and especially in light of chapters 11-14, he would understand that the larger context isn’t limited to questions about prophetic words, but to limiting what should and shouldn’t go on at a church gathering.

 

By doing the contextual analysis that Viola neglects, we have seen that Paul first restricted what gifts can occur at the meetings to teaching-related gifts. Then Paul restricts how even the permitted gifts were to be used in the meeting. Even a gift like speaking in tongues, which Paul previously allowed, was not allowed if there was no interpreter. Similarly, Paul limits both the number of potential persons who could speak in tongues or prophecy to two or three of each at the most. His other limitations are based on what is proper at church meetings in general and connected to what Paul taught everywhere, although the Corinthians weren’t complying. Paul’s general theme of these passages is to limit who speaks in a church gathering, not just who can ask questions but who can contribute and teach. Since this is the context, we must understand 1 Corinthians 14:34-40 similarly. Only by failing to account for this larger context and these larger themes can Viola restrict Paul’s comments solely to questions about prophecy. But this misunderstanding and failure to take into account scriptural context is a common result of the proof-texting that Viola has continued to exhibit in his writings.

 

In this next excerpt Viola erroneously argues against a universal prohibition based on the idea that the Greek word for “silent” in 1 Corinthians 14:34 only means a temporary silence.

 

Instead of publicly clamoring for explanations, the women were to learn from their husbands at home. However, when it came to speaking in the meeting to edify the church, they were free to speak (1 Cor. 11:5; 14:26, 31). To strengthen the case, the Greek word “silent” in this verse is sigao. It means to hold one’s peace temporarily. The word has the flavor of being quiet in order to listen to what another has to say. Paul uses the same word two other times in Chapter 14. He first says that the person speaking in tongues should be silent (sigao) if there is no interpreter (v. 28). Does this mean that the one who speaks in tongues is never to speak in the meeting? Certainly not. Paul uses the same word again when he says that if a person interrupts someone prophesying, the first one speaking should be silent (sigao), letting the other person interject his word (v. 30). Does this mean that the person prophesying should never speak again in the meeting after he has been interrupted? Certainly not. In the same way, when a sister has a question during the church meeting, she ought to be silent (sigao). That is, she should hold her peace and yield the floor to the person who is speaking (v. 29-34). Does this mean that the sisters are never to speak in the meeting? Certainly not. Such an reflects a culturally biased misreading of Paul. It also puts Paul in stark contradiction with himself (11:5; $14:26, 31). No, the “silence” here has a very restricted meaning. It applies to those times when a sister was confused by something spoken or when she overtly challenged a prophetic word. Paul was saying that in such cases, the sister should hold her peace and give way to the one speaking. She should then quiz her husband at home. For Paul, this would foster both order and peace to a once chaotic and confused meeting in Corinth (v. 33). – Frank Viola, Reimagining A Woman’s Role in the Church, An Open Letter, page 10-12

 

Viola’s interpretation of the Greek word “sigao” (Strong’s number 4601) in this passage and its meaning in general  is flawed for several reasons. First, this word does not mean “temporary silence” as in “momentary silence.” The same word is used in Romans 16:25 to describe how the mystery of Jesus Christ was “kept secret” (“sigao”) since the world began.

 

Romans 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret (4601) since the world began.

 

From this we can see that the Greek word “sigao” can refer to a long period of silence and not just momentary silence or temporarily holding one’s peace. Since the word “sigao” might range from a short time of silence to a very long time of silence, the real question then is what amount of time is Paul saying that the women should be silent for? We can answer this question by examining Paul’s usage of “sigao” in 1 Corinthians 14. As we have already seen, in 1 Corinthians 14:28 Paul stated that if there is no interpreter present then those who spoke in tongues were to be silent in the church gatherings.

 

1 Corinthians 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence (4601) in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

 

How long is the person who speaks in tongues to remain silent if there is no interpreter present? The answer is “for the entire meeting.” Contrary to Viola’s reasoning, Paul does require that if no interpreter is present then the duration of the silence for those who could speak in tongues should span the entire meeting. It may be true that Paul intended that the prophets could alternate as each one began to receive from the Lord. In such a case the silence of the prophets is determined by which one is receiving a word from the Spirit. However, in the case of the speakers in tongues, the silence is determined by the presence or lack of presence of an interpreter. The question then becomes in the case of the women what does the text say determines the duration of their silence?

 

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.

 

According to the text itself, the duration of the women’s silence is the church meeting itself. We don’t have to wonder how long intended for the women to be silent because he says so. They should be silent for as long as they are at the gathering and they are allowed to speak again after the church gathering is over when they are again at home with their husbands. It is not determined by waiting their turn as Viola suggest. Rather, they are allowed to speak at home, but they are not allowed to speak in church.

 

Similarly, Viola’s notion that Paul is merely instructing the women to wait their turn is also absurd. Paul has already provided instructions that those who speak and teach through prophesying must take turns and hold their peace while someone else is speaking. If Paul allowed for women to speak and teach through prophesying and only intended to prevent them from asking questions, then why would Paul need to provide specific instructions for women to take turns and hold their peace when prophesying? He wouldn’t because he already gave instructions for the prophets. It would be totally redundant. Consequently, Paul’s instructions for women to remain silent cannot simply be instructions to those who can prophesy and speak in tongues to temporarily hold their peace as they take turns prophesying. To interpret the passage as referring to a temporary silence as speakers take turns is completely redundant and it makes no sense why Paul would repeat it for the women at the end of the chapter.