Should women not be permitted to speak?

In 1 Corinthians 14:34 Paul says, “Women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak but should be subordinate, as the law also says.” 1 Timothy 2:11–14 raises perhaps more problems: “Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.” These two passages constitute a genuine puzzle for modern readers, not least in light of the following four factors.

First, Paul’s statements in 1 Corinthians 11:3–16 presuppose that women will take a full speaking part in public worship and prayer. This at once suggests that his hesitation in 14:34 cannot be understood to be a universal prohibition for women not to speak in public worship. (The one problem of these verses is that Paul does appear to invoke the argument that “man was not made from woman, but woman from man” in 11:9. We shall try to address this later.)

Second, in Paul’s epistles, at least half a dozen women do have leadership positions that would probably involve teaching, preaching, and leading in prayer. These include Phoebe (Rom 16:1), Euodia and Syntache (Phil 4:2), Priscilla (Rom 16:3; 1 Cor 16:19; 2 Tim 4:19; cf. Acts 18:2, 18, 26), Junia (Rom 16:7), and (in Acts 16:14, 40, not the Epistles) Lydia.

Priscilla and Junia call for special comment. Priscilla is part of a husband-and-wife couple, whom Paul describes as his co-workers in Romans 16:3–5. They were probably freedpersons of Jewish origin, who left Rome in A. D. 49 when Claudius closed a Jewish synagogue because of disturbances surrounding the figure of Christ. They probably became converted in Rome, but then came directly to the Roman colony of Corinth. 

There they set up their small shop in which to sell leathercraft among commercial developments on the Lechaeum road. When Paul came to Corinth, they were, as we noted, already Christian believers, and Paul would have been delighted to meet them and share with them. 

They even hosted him. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor suggests that they had a loft over their shop “while Paul slept below amid the tool-strewn work benches and the rolls of leather and canvas. The workshop was perfect for initial contacts, particularly with women. While Paul worked on a cloak or sandal, he had the opportunity for conversation.” Aquila and Priscilla eventually left Corinth for Ephesus, and also hosted Paul there in 52. They joined him in sending warm greetings to the church in Corinth.2 Contrary to convention, Paul always mentioned Priscilla before Aquila, presumably as the more forceful or influential of the couple.

Junia is still more significant. In Romans 16:7 Paul greeted Junia and Andronicus as “prominent among the apostles,” and as “in Christ before I was.” This provides firm evidence that Junia was a female apostle. However, her female name was obscured by earlier English translations of the Bible. 

William Tyndale (1526/1534), the KJB/AV (1611), and recently the NAB (1970) translated the feminine name Junia as the masculine name Junias. Yet Eldon Jay Epp, a foremost world-ranking textual critic, judges all of the various masculine forms to be implausible. He argues that in all the existing literature from the Greco-Roman world of this time, no examples of the name Junias occur, while there are 250 instances of the female name Junia. 

Nor are there males called Junias as a shortened form of Junianus, as some have proposed. In a book of 138 pages and a substantial bibliography, Epp declares, “The conclusion to this investigation is simple … there was an apostle Junia. For me this conclusion is indisputable.”

Third, Paul’s alleged reputation for viewing women as somehow inferior to men has been convincingly criticized by F. F. Bruce, among others. Bruce writes, “The most incredible feature in the Paul of popular mythology is his alleged misogyny.… We recall his commendation of Phoebe, the deacon of the church at Cenchreae, who had shown herself a helper to him as to many others.… In his friends he was able to call forth a devotion which knew no limits. 

Priscilla and Aquila risked their lives for him in a dangerous situation. Priscilla, he suggests, would hardly have risked her neck for an incorrigible misogynist.

Fourth, Paul provides many examples of declarations of the equal status of men and women in Christ. Of these examples Galatians 3:28 is constantly given pride of place, even, some might think, quoted with disproportionate frequency. This verse reads: “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you is one in Christ Jesus” (NRSV). Probably the most radical commentator is Hans Dieter Betz. He comments, “The strongest of the three statements occurs in verse 28c: ‘There is no male and female.’ ” So far, so good. 

But he then suggests that because Paul uses the neuter for the names of the sexes [Greek, arsen kai thēlu], this “indicates that not only the social differences between man and woman (‘roles’) are involved, but the biological distinctions.” He speaks of “the metaphysical removal of the biological gender distinctions as a result of the salvation in Christ.” This appears to go much further than other commentaries on this verse. E. W. Burton, for example, regards the issue as “the basis of acceptance with God,” and Donald Guthrie makes a similar comment.

John Bligh reminds us that in the context of Paul’s contrast with Judaism, “In our day Jewish morning service still includes a series of blessings, for example: ‘Blessed art thou, O Lord, King of the universe, who hast not made me a woman.’ ”

This equality of status and probably ministry is reflected in some Old Testament eschatological traditions, for example in Joel 2:28–29: “Afterward I will pour out my spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men see visions. 

Even on the male and female slaves, in those days, I will pour out my Spirit.” Peter quoted this passage from Joel in his sermon in Acts 2:17–18. It is likely, then, that this was an element within the pre-Pauline gospel tradition.

In the light of these four convincing factors, it is likely that the puzzles to which 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:11–12 give rise must be seen as “correctives” to tendencies in local situations, rather than as universal guidelines. In broad terms, the vast majority of commentators suggest this, and Manfred Grauch proposed the term correctives in his comment on these passages. But can we take this further?

First, one alternative which a minority of commentators adopts is to suggest that 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 is a non-Pauline interpolation into the text. But the evidence for this is relatively weak. The United Bible Society’s 4th edition of the Greek New Testament classifies the text of verse 33 as “B,” i.e., “the text is almost certain.” The only very slim evidence for any uncertainty is that the Western text (D, E, F, and G, and fourth-century Ambrosiaster) displace verses 34–35 to after verse 40. 

However, the very early ƥ46 (Chester Beatty papyri, c. A. D. 200) together with Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, 33, Old Syriac, and most other MSS all read the normal, straightforward text. Bruce Metzger finds it entirely understandable that a copyist should move verses 34–35 to the end of the chapter for several plausible reasons.12 Recent debate has revived the issue, in which Philip Payne and Curt Niccum adopt opposite approaches. But Witherington concludes: “Displacement is no argument for interpolation.”

Second, if we set aside improbable theories of interpolation, a further alternative is to suggest that what is prohibited is “chatter” (Greek, laleō). A number have suggested this. Gaston Deluz writes: “Paul, then, is not forbidding women to undertake ‘ministry of the word’; he is forbidding them to indulge in feminine chatter which was becoming a considerable nuisance.”

James Moffatt goes further. He asserts, “Keep quiet means even more than a prohibition of chattering. Worship is not to be turned into discussion groups.” The notion that “speaking,” in effect, means chattering seems to have gained currency from Heinrici, who, together with Héring, cannot imagine Paul silencing inspired speech. C. and R. Kroeger argue that Paul forbids either “chatter” or “frenzied shouting.”

Against this view, C. K. Barrett soundly dismisses the faulty lexicography to which such interpretations often appeal. The meaning to chatter does not occur in classical Greek of earlier centuries, “but in the New Testament and even in Paul the verb normally does not have this meaning, and is used throughout chapter 14 … in the sense of inspired speech.”1

The standard Greek Lexicon BDAG (3rd ed., 2000) has a lengthy consideration of the verb laleō and the noun lalia. The book gives the main meaning as “to utter words, talk, speak,” with no lexical evidence for “chatter.” Danker’s lexicographical evidence is decisive for excluding the notion of “chatter.”

Third, many understand the argument as referring to controlled speech, and referring to “order” in worship. The use of hypotassō in the middle voice has the significance in this context of “imposing order,” or of “controlled speech.” REB well conveys the sense of hypotassesthōsan as “they should keep their place (as the law directs).” This is far preferable to the NRSV’s “should be subordinate,” and worse, the NIV’s “must be in submission.” 

Admittedly Chrysostom, Bengel, Godet, and Robertson and Plummer anticipate the NRSV and NIV meaning. Nevertheless, Bruce and others convincingly argue that the context primarily concerns the maintenance of order. The pattern of order has been demonstrated in God’s pattern of creation through differentiation and order, as Leviticus and Deuteronomy declare. The Spirit creatively transforms chaos into order. As Stephen Barton argues, the theme includes “the social importance of boundaries.”

Fourth, as an extension of this, the best alternative of all is to understand “speaking” in the context of prophecy with particular reference to the sifting or discernment of prophecy. 

Ben Witherington expounds and defends this view. He comments, “Paul would be turning from a more general exhortation to the orderly procedure in regard to weighing prophecy (vv. 32–33) to the more specific case of women weighing or questioning prophecy.”2

This would become especially sensitive and problematic if wives were cross-examining their husbands about their speech and conduct, and whether this supported or undermined the authenticity of the claim to utter a prophetic message.

This would also readily introduce Paul’s allusion to reserving questions of a certain kind for the home. The women would in this case be acting as judges over their husbands in public life, and risk turning worship into a discussion of private interests in the home. It would also militate against the ethics of controlled and restrained speech in the context in which the congregation should be silently listening to God rather than being eager to address one another. 

Such public “sifting” would also disrupt the sense of respect for the orderliness of God’s agency in creation in the world, as against the confusion which pre-existed the creative activity of God’s Spirit. The notion of the sifting of prophetic speech takes thorough account of the earlier context of verses 32–33, and of that to which these verses lead in verse 37: “Anyone who claims to be a prophet, or to have spiritual powers, must acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord.”

We conclude that there is no contradiction between 1 Corinthians 14:34 and the numerous Pauline passages that cut across 14:34 if verse 34 is understood within its proper Corinthian context and within the context of prophetic speech. We have no need to resort to theories of interpolation or of exceptional meanings of the Greek word laleō.

We have finally to consider briefly whether any special difficulty arises from 1 Timothy 2:11–12; 1 Timothy 1:3 makes it clear that this epistle is directed to a specific situation in Ephesus and concerns especially the danger of false or non-apostolic doctrine. Paul (or, some argue, a disciple or representative of Paul) declares, “I urge you … to remain in Ephesus, so that you may instruct certain people not to teach any different doctrine.” 

William Mounce, who has written probably the most comprehensive commentary on the Pastoral Epistles in modern times, writes: “It [this verse] must be understood against the backdrop of the situation of the Ephesian women.… Some of these women are characterized as learning to be idlers, gadding about from house, gossiping (or talking foolishly), and in general, being busybodies (1 Tim. 5:13). They were anything but quiet.”

Not surprisingly, Mounce compares these women with those to whom 1 Corinthians alludes. The noun hēsychios, “quiet,” he says, occurs twice, and the verb hēsychazein “to be quiet,” four times. 

He continues, “Paul is attempting to correct the Ephesian situation in which the women are characterized as argai manthanousin, ‘learning to be idlers.’ ” The verb hypotassō, usually translated as “submit,” describes the relationship of people to authorities. Technically the verb hypotassein has no direct grammatical object. 

All the same, Mounce identifies those to whom submission is required as the bishops or overseers whom Paul introduces at the beginning of the next chapter. He concluded that this verse is context-relative, but insists that it is not entirely egalitarian. Schreiner agrees that not all men in the church had teaching authority.26 If this is correct, in the next verse, verse 12, “I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man” probably refers not to any and every man, but to male leaders, bishops, or overseers.

Commentators vary in how they interpret these verses. Anthony T. Hanson makes little attempt to smooth away supposed anti-feminine attitudes in these verses, asserting that “the author held [a] completely unPauline and sub-Christian a doctrine.”27 But even if perhaps the majority of biblical scholars have doubts about Paul’s personal authorship, many respected scholars do not have such doubts, and 1 Timothy remains within the biblical canon and thus Christians need to give some account of this text.

C. K. Barrett insists, “Men and women are called equally to the service of God; but they are not called to precisely the same service.” The basis for this is the doctrine of creation. He continues, “Women also will pray, but with care not to draw attention to themselves.… Adornment consists of good deeds.” The reference to “not domineer,” he says, perhaps, refers to their husbands. The key point, however, is that “practice was not uniform.” “Women were apt to do much talking, and that of the wrong kind.”

Guthrie also insists on the equal status of men and women in Christ but adds: “Woman’s dress is a mirror of her mind. Outward ostentation is not in keeping with a prayerful and devout approach.” Today some balancing comments may be needed which would apply to both genders. Sometimes, he points out, plaits of the hair could be festooned with ribbons and bows, implying levity and frivolity in contrast to modesty and self-control. 

This alludes to the so-called Ephesian heresy, which expressed “the tendencies of newly emancipated Christian women to abuse their new-found freedom by indecorously lording it over men.” In verse 12, he argues, the prohibition may well have applied to married women not acting in domineering ways towards their husbands.

We cannot enter here into the detailed interpretations that we considered on 1 Corinthians 14:2. Theories about 1 Timothy are more speculative than those about 1 Corinthians as we have a firmer knowledge of Corinth. Mounce declares that in general “Women, at least in some way, are promulgating the heresy, even if they are not leaders of the opposition.” The key quality required is “quietness.” The word epitrepō, “I permit,” is understood by some to mean only I express the opinion. But this is not widely accepted. Padgett restricts this prohibition to women deceived by heresy. 

But, again, this is not a widespread view. On the other hand, since “teach” has no direct object, this is hardly a blanket prohibition about teaching anyone. It is best taken in conjunction with chapter 3 concerning church leadership and order. Further information about the Ephesian “heresy” and interpretations of these verses can be consulted in P. H. Towner and Robert Wall. It is helpful that Towner relates the “heresy” to 1 Corinthians, for I adopted a similar approach to Corinth in 1978.

Clearly 1 Timothy 2:11–12 is in many ways more sensitive than 1 Corinthians 14:2 for many women. Wall calls this a difficult passage that provokes deep struggles among many of his female students.40 Some compare these verses with what Phyllis Trible called “Texts of Terror” for women.41 Mounce devoted fifty-six pages of his commentary to 2:8–15, with nine pages of packed bibliography. At all events, there is no more reason to find 1 Timothy a puzzle than 1 Corinthians 14:2. It clearly relates to those wealthy women in Ephesus whose self-worth was connected more closely with costly jewellery and flamboyant ornamentation than to serious prayer and propriety.

Thiselton, A. C. (2018). Puzzling Passages in Paul: Forty Conundrums Calmly Considered (pp. 55–63). Cascade Books.