the women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak. Rather, let them be in submission, as in fact the law says. If they want to find out about something, they should ask their husbands at home, because it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church. Did the word of God begin with you, or did it come to you alone? If anyone considers himself a prophet or spiritual person, he should acknowledge that what I write to you is the Lord’s command.

(1Co 14:34-37)

Let’s begin by asserting that what the Law says is often different from what the Gospel says. We know of this from Jesus’ “But I say unto you” sayings (Matt.5:21-48) and His other teachings as well as the teachings of the Apostles. The Spirit has prominence over the letter of the Law (2Cor.3:6). Paul uses two sources of arguments when discussing the conduct of women in church:

  1. Phusis or Nature. 1Cor.11:14-15 “Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering”
  2. Nomos or Law. 1Cor 14:34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.

The Gospel teaches that in Christ there is no male or female (Gal.3:28). The only moral code of the Gospel is to love (Rom.13:10). OT Law had not only moral rules but also ceremonial, worship, and civil rules. The rules, especially, were general laws that stood as the written code that judges could refer to when making judgements. Rules create boundaries that are essential for the proper functioning of society, for the protection of the weak and vulnerable, and for the preservation of the nation. However, Jesus made it clear that rules such as the sabbath themselves are not more important than the individual’s life–He argued that the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath (Mark 2:27). Thus, while disrespectfully violating the sabbath was punishable in the OT, Jesus showed by example that saving a person’s life or healing a person on sabbath did not contradict the spirit of the law. [There is nothing wrong in emergency stores and services, medical services, to be available on the sabbath].

We get back to Paul’s use of “the law says” argument. Some think that this refers to Genesis 3:16 where it says “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” But Genesis 3:16 appears more a descriptive statement than a normative or moral one. The NET prefers to translate it as “You will want to control your husband, but he will dominate you.” Since Paul does not cite any particular verse from the Old Testament, it may not be wrong to infer that by “the law says” he means not a particular verse but the entirety of the Mosaic Law. The Law specifically places the woman under the headship of her husband, and until marriage under the authority of her father. A very good example of this is found in Numbers 30 where a married woman’s vow could be nullified by her husband as soon as he heard it and an unmarried girl’s vow could be nullified by her father as soon as he heard it. But, if the woman was a widow or was a divorcee, her vow (if not made before her husband and nullified by him when he was alive) would stand (Num.30:9). This leads us to a question not directly addressed in 1Corinthians 14. 1 Cor.14:35 says “If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” But what if the woman is a widow or a divorcee? One must remember that the Bible does not call on women to be submissive to males in general [male children had to be obedient to their mothers], it only calls women to be submissive to their own husbands (1Pet.3:1). This is not a moral rule, but a rule of social order because the wife is not to knowingly comply with foolish decisions or decisions that are morally wrong and self-destructive; she will be held accountable for her own actions (Col.3:18; Acts 5:7-10; Eph.5:22). We have a very good example of this in Abigail who bypassed her husband Nabal to act quickly in order to save her household from the evil consequences of Nabal’s foolish decision (1Sam.25:18,19). David did not rebuke her for circumventing her husband’s authority or speaking negatively about him, rather he praised her (1Sam.25:32,33). Of course, David may not be the perfect example for everything; however, in this case Abigail certainly was–she took leadership, made a rational decision, communicated humbly, wisely, and authentically, and saved her people. But Abigail was neither widow nor divorcee. If the Law provides us examples of those who submitted to worthy headship (1Pet.3:5,6), so does it also provide examples of those who decided not to submit to foolish decisions. If Hannah simply agreed with Elkanah’s reasoning, there would never have been a Samuel (1Sam.1:7,8). He simply did not understand her.

A woman who does not stand up to challenge her husband or offer second opinion about a viewpoint is not being a helpmeet. A wife is not a domestic dumb beast but the companion of her husband and so vice versa. When 1Peter 3:1 tells about subordinating to husbands who do not obey the word, it does not mean a call to compromise the truth. If a woman blindly and dumbly obeyed the husband even in his wrongdoings, she would not be able to be a witness of the truth. The very fact that she is a believer and he is not demonstrates her independence of conscience in matters of truth and faith. If she failed in aligning her actions with her faith, she couldn’t win him to the faith. It is humility, modesty, purity, respectfulness and meekness that Peter is talking about, not unconditional obedience. These qualities are not feminine but divine.

The woman was not made for the rule of submission but the rule of submission made for the woman. And whenever such rule stands in way of the purpose, to aim at the purpose is not evil. The commandment of subordination is actually a commandment of protection and respect since, especially after puberty and in motherhood, the woman needs the environment of dignity and protection much more than the man as a general principle (1Pet.3:7).

The supposed argument from nature that women are generally weak-bodied, more emotional, irrational, etc is unbiblical. God made both male and female in His own image and likeness to have dominion on the earth.

Getting back again to Paul, he does not totally forbid women to be silent. In the same letter, earlier, he talked about women praying and prophesying in the church and passed the order that they should cover their head while doing so (1Cor.11:5). Here in 1Corinthians 14, he is still discussing the context of prophesying (1Cor.14:31,32). Obviously, to state that women should not prophesy would contradict his own statement that they should cover their head while prophesying. So, the “silence” that he talks about here should be different. Some think that it’s about women being talkative in church or not giving full attention to the speaker. Probably, they would explain that they were just discussing among themselves what the speaker was talking about. This could be the case. But Paul doesn’t seem to be talking about women chattering in church when he says “it is a shame for women to speak in the church” (1Cor.14:35). His statement seems more in par with “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.” (1Tim.2:12) where he also refers to Eve who was created after Adam and was deceived (1Tim.2:13,14). However, if women are deceived so do are men oftentimes; one cannot extract a generalization against women’s rational capacity from this text. From other writings of Paul, it seems obvious that Paul is mainly referring here to those weak and “gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2Tim.3:6,7) who became ready prey to deceivers who creep into households and make captives of such women. He certainly was not referring to women prophesying (1Cor.11:5) nor to godly women teaching younger women and their own children (2Tim.1:5; 3:15; Tit.2:3,5). Paul calls to silence not just foolish women but also foolish men (Tit.1:10,11). However, given the order of authority in the family in this world, the husband is held responsible for the wife (Num.30:15; 1Cor.14:35). Probably, “let your women” (1Cor.14:34) is addressed to the husbands.

In the modern world, the age of consent in different matters has usually superseded the old system of social protection. Different countries have set different age boundaries for general legal purposes and some continue to debate whether the age should be lowered or increased. Yet, to a great extent the notions of whether a person is married or unmarried, whether living independently or with parents, etc do have bearing for regulation and legal applications. All these need to be considered when looking into the spirit of the law in the light of the Gospel message. For instance, the New Testament called on slaves to be obedient to their masters (Col. 3:22). However, today, thanks to the Gospel’s impact, slavery is seen as a social evil. The Gospel established that there is no slave or free in Christ.

Though the Gospel calls for liberty and equality in Christ, maintaining order in this world requires establishment of clearly identifiable boundaries and structures of authority. Order exists where expectations are clear and unselfish living is the norm. The church is a family, a community, a nation; a well-ordered one. Any organization of ordered community must ensure mutual respect, honesty, truthfulness, and mutual care. The Bible provides us an account of this order based on the nature of creation derived from the creative act and order of God (1Cor.11:3; 1Tim.2:13).

There are several examples from missionary history of women pioneering Gospel work and churches in places where men could not succeed. Mary Slessor, Amy Carmichael, Rachel Saint and Elizabeth Elliot are some examples of such.

Older Articles: