1 Corinthians 14:34–35 and what is the role of Women in the Church

We have several indications in the NT that the prophetic gift was bestowed upon and exercised by women no less than by men. In Peter’s speech on the day of Pentecost he explicitly said that characteristic of the present church age is the Spirit’s impartation to both men and women of the prophetic gift. Look closely at his citation of Joel’s promise:

“ ‘And it shall be in the last days,’ God says, ‘That I will pour forth of My Spirit on all mankind; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; even upon My bondslaves, both men and women, I will in those days pour forth of My Spirit,’ and they shall prophesy” (Acts 2:17–18; emphasis mine).

In Acts 21:9 Luke refers to the four daughters of Philip as having the gift of prophecy. And in 1 Cor. 11:5 Paul gave instructions regarding how women were to pray and prophesy in the church meeting. What, then, does he mean in 1 Cor. 14:34 when he says, “Let the women keep silent in the church; for they are not permitted to speak”?

Before I answer that question, observe that v. 33b goes with v. 34, not with v. 33a. It is customary for Paul to reinforce his teaching by saying that it is common practice among all the churches (cf. 1 Cor. 4:17; 7:17; 11:16; 16:1). On the other hand, if v. 33b is linked with v. 34, we are left with the somewhat trite declaration that God is a God of peace in every church. But who would ever have questioned that?

How, then, do we reconcile 11:5 and 14:34–35? Here are the many alternatives.

(1) Some say 14:34–35 is a post-Pauline interpolation, i.e., an insertion into the text of chp. 14 by some scribe after its original composition by Paul. Thus there is no conflict with 11:5. Those of us who believe in the textual integrity of 1 Corinthians will find this singularly unappealing, as well as unnecessary.

Those who embrace this view appeal to the fact that there are a number of ancient manuscripts that place vv. 34–35 at the end of the chapter rather than between vv. 33 and 36. However, this is somewhat understandable given the seemingly intrusive nature of vv. 34–35. One can see how later scribes, convinced that these verses interrupt Paul’s discussion of spiritual gifts, would move them to the end of the chapter where they might function as the beginning of a new discussion. We should note, however, that there are no manuscripts whatsoever that omit vv. 34–35 from Paul’s argument.

(2) A few liberal scholars argue that Paul simply changed his mind. He initially permitted women to speak in 11:5 but upon further reflection reversed himself in 14:34–35.

(3) In 11:5 Paul does not actually endorse women speaking in church. He says only that if they were to do so with uncovered heads it would be a disgrace. He withholds condemnation of the practice until chp. 14.

(4) Some suggest that 11:5 describes an informal meeting different from the public, corporate gathering of the church. Thus women may pray and prophesy in smaller, private groups but not in the public assembly.

(5) Others say that only wives are in view in 14:34–35 and that single women may therefore pray and prophesy in church. However, chp. 11 also has wives in view and it permits them to speak. Also, why would Paul prohibit the most likely older and more mature married women from speaking while allowing the younger and possibly less stable single women to speak. See Titus 2:3–5.

(6) James Hurley articulates and then responds to yet another view:

“Cultural factors have been seen [by some commentators] as the cause of Paul’s remarks. Women were not well educated in his day and may well have been seated apart from the men in the church. It has been suggested that they called out questions to their husbands, disrupting the worship, or that they became noisy in times of charismatic expression by the congregation, not having the sense of order which their husbands had. The plausibility of this explanation fades somewhat when the following observations are made: (1) there is no indication elsewhere in the letter that the women in particular were unruly; (2) Paul does confront unruly situations in the letter (11:33–34; 14:27, 29, 31). He meets them by establishing order rather than by silencing the unruly completely; (3) the rule which Paul sets out is one which he says applies in all his churches (14:33b). It seems unlikely that the problem of noisy women had arisen in all of them; (4) it seems unlike Paul to silence all women because some are noisy or disruptive. His actual handling of other disorderly people provides concrete grounds for arguing against wholesale action when only some individuals are in fact violators” (Men and Women in Biblical Perspective, 187–88).

Blomberg responds to this view in similar fashion, arguing that it “fails to explain why Paul silenced all women and no men, when presumably there were at least a few well-educated, courteous, or orthodox women and at least a few uneducated, less than polite, or doctrinally aberrant men” (280–81).

(7) Others have argued recently that vv. 34–35 are a Corinthian slogan which Paul quotes, only to refute it in vv. 36–38. Blomberg cites seven reasons why this is unlikely:

“Unlike all the other widely acknowledged slogans in 1 Corinthians, these verses (1) are not concise or proverbial in form; (2) do not reflect the libertine wing of the church; (3) require the assumption that there was a significant Judaizing element in the church, which little else in the letter supports; (4) are not qualified by Paul but rejected outright; and (5) as best as we can tell represent an explanation that was never proposed in the history of the church until the twentieth century. In addition, (6) this view requires taking the Greek conjunction e (‘or,’ left untranslated in the NIV) at the beginning of verse 36 as a complete repudiation of what has gone before, even though no other use of e in Paul functions in that way. Finally, (7) it assumes that ‘the only people’ in verse 36, a masculine plural adjective (monous), refers just to men rather than to both men and women, even though no other plural reference to the Corinthians ever singles out the men in this way without explicitly saying so” (280).

(8) Christopher Forbes has argued that the key to this problem is the word aischron in v. 35, translated “improper” in the NASB. When Paul tells women to “keep silent” he is not prohibiting their making a verbal contribu

 Storms, S. (2016). Biblical Studies: Deciphering Difficult Texts. Edmond, OK: Sam Storms.