Introduction
When I arrived in Arizona and became the pastor of Community Christian Church (now Reformation OPC) back in 2013, I knew there were a lot of things being done that should not be done. I also believed that the best way to change those things would be to simply teach the word, love the people, win their trust, and let the Spirit do the work. I remember explaining to a few people back then that we were not going to interrupt or change anything immediately unless they were offering children on an altar to Molech. I think the intent was right, and the principle was sound, but there was, at least, one area where we allowed things to continue that shouldn’t have. When the original elders interviewed me for this call, I emphasized that women should not be in ordained office or placed in any position of teaching authority over a man. But when I got to Arizona, I saw they had women doing the Scripture readings in worship every week—most of the time a woman would read and then her husband would lead the prayer. I let that go on for many months before we finally changed it. That was wrong. It may have been well-intentioned, but Paul draws a clear line here. He was willing to make concessions for those who wished to exercise the gift of tongues (14:27-28), but he said women were not to speak in the Church.
This passage is not complicated. It is not hard to understand, only to accept. It is controversial, but it is controversial and offensive to modern readers because it is clear. I will admit there are specific questions that need to be examined and addressed. Some aspects of the discussion may require more time to explain than others, but the overall point is perfectly plain. Modern thinkers simply don’t like it. And this should force us to ask the question: where do I get my sense of what is right and fair? Am I judging Scripture based on my sense of right and wrong, or has my perception been colored by my culture and worldly values more than I realize? Theologians devote vast amounts of time, writing, and debate to this passage and others related to it, but this is the kind of passage you need a seminary degree not to be able to understand it. The average unbeliever reads this passage, knows immediately what it means, and hates it. But many modern Christians, including pastors, read this passage, hate it, and say, “That must not be what it means.” We should be more humble. We must submit our will to God’s will and form our judgments based on God’s word, not on the standards of this world.
The challenge in teaching this text is not due to any exegetical complexity in the passage; the challenge is deciding how much of the modern foolishness that has been said about this text and issue to engage. For the vast majority of Church history, this passage and others related to it were clearly understood and their application universally agreed upon, but that changed with the rise of feminism in western culture. We can even identify when certain new interpretations were introduced that have rapidly overtaken the historic consensus. In the last hundred years so much has been written and said to undermine and overturn the plain reading of this text that we could easily devote an entire series of sermons to answering it all. But one mark of good preaching is what it excludes and not just what or how much it includes. A preacher should never say everything he knows or has studied about a given text or topic—if he can do so, then he is woefully under-prepared! He must weigh the needs of the congregation to whom he is preaching. This is not a theological lecture or historical survey of bad theology; it is a sermon for the people of God, specifically, the people of ROPC, and it is designed to edify and equip you as God’s people, called to holiness.
If we were preaching this text a decade ago, we really would have to devote a lot of time to unpacking it and answering many of the challenges and contrary views that have arisen and are accepted in the Church today. At that time, ROPC had a lot of egalitarians in it. But that is not our context today, and I am not persuaded the church would be well-served by spending weeks answering arguments that few, if any of you, have even heard of, much less believe. So while I am always willing to say more, I think our congregation will be best-served by a simple, straightforward overview of the passage, with some attention to interpretations of it that have become common in the broader church, a study that will serve to reinforce what we already confess and practice rather than trying to answer issues that are not part of our life here.
As In All the Churches of the Saints (33b)
Let’s begin by noticing that the majority of scholars and commentators take the final phrase in v.33 in connection with vv.34-35, so that the text would read: As in all the churches of the saints, let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. This is not because it is objectionable simply to take v.33 as a whole or to read the last clause in connection with the instructions about prophecy and tongue-speaking in the prior verses, but the text flows better if we take the end of v.33 as part of vv.34-35. Even commentators who are egalitarian or influenced by feminist readings will admit and argue for this division, and that raises an interesting point.
What Paul is saying in vv.34-35 is a catholic (universal) tradition, not local. It wasn’t just for Corinth. This is what all the churches practiced, and it is still what churches should do today. This rule is normative, not situational. Paul is not giving these rules for women there because of the disorder. It is not a special policy for that congregation; it was the rule of every church in every place, no matter their particular situation. And this rule was enduring, not temporary. We noted last week that the instructions Paul gives in this chapter relate to the time of miracles and the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, but he doesn’t refer to female prophets or tongue-speakers here. He simply refers to your women—the Critical Text omits “your” making the universality to all women even more apparent. We may not have prophets or tongue-speakers today, but the same rules Paul gives to them applies to preachers and anyone who would speak in the assembly, and in the same way, the rule he lays down for women then still applies to women in the Church today. They are not to lead or address the assembly. They are to be silent.
Silence in the Churches
Paul is not unclear about this. He states it positively, negatively, and reinforces it in several ways. Three times in two verses he requires their silence: let your women keep silent… for they are not permitted to speak… it is shameful for women to speak in church. What else could he or should he have said that would be clearer?
Paul is clearly talking about leading in worship or addressing the assembly. He is not referring to the church building, as though women cannot speak when they are inside the walls. The church in that day didn’t have dedicated buildings. Paul is talking about when the whole church comes together in one place (v.23), when they come together as a church (11:18). The surrounding verses make clear that leadership is in view. Women do speak in the Church in a number of ways. They say amen when we pray (v.16). We all speak to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs (Eph. 5:19). We respond to the word of God corporately just as the Psalms teach us to do. Paul’s point is not that a woman cannot make a sound in church but that she is not to be the speaker. This would include reading Scripture, leading prayers, addressing or exhorting the congregation, or any kind of teaching or preaching.
You may be wondering: are women forbidden then to ever pray in the presence of a man? No! Paul is referring here to when the whole church comes together for worship. It is good for your wife and daughters to lead prayer in family worship, to read Scripture, and to share with family and friends and in conversation what they have learned, but not in the Church assembly.
Paul establishes the authority of his argument in several ways. First, he argues from catholicity. This is the practice of all the churches of the saints. Even if we did not take v.33 with vv.34-35, Paul is explicit throughout the letter that what he was teaching the Corinthians is the same doctrine he taught in every church (Cf. 1:2, 10; 4:17; 7:17; 11:16; 14:36-37; 16:1). Second, he argues from apostolic authority. Let them keep silent… for they are not permitted to speak. Says who? Says the Lord of the Church through his apostles. If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord (v.37).
Third, he argues from the former Scriptures. They are to be submissive as the law also says. Commentators have debated what passage Paul has in mind, but the theme is so well- established in the OT that he did not have to cite a particular verse. Paul was well-aware of Deborah and Huldah and the strong, godly women in the OT whom later feminists would cite to justify disregarding this instruction, but he says this command is consistent with the law, the OT. When we compare this passage to what he said in ch.11 as well as in 1Tim. 2, we can infer that Paul probably has all of Genesis 1-3 in mind.1 In those passages he appeals to the fact that (1) Adam was created first, (2) Eve was created as his helpmeet, and (3) she was deceived in the transgression. That text is foundational for a biblical worldview.
Fourth, Paul argues from nature. He says it is shameful for women to speak in Church. The word he uses means ugly and refers to something that is morally repugnant. This is an argument from propriety that we are supposed to recognize innately. The fact that feminism has influenced, and in many ways warped, our thinking does not set aside the basic point. There is something proper about men leading in the Church and women being submissive and following and supporting that leadership. That is not oppression; it is good, godly order.
“Paul’s reasoning, however, is simple—that authority to teach is not suitable to the station that a woman occupies, because, if she teaches, she presides over all the men, while it becomes her to be under subjection.” –John Calvin, Commentary, 468
Paul’s command and reasoning is straightforward and easy to understand. The difficulty is not understanding but accepting what the text says. We must ask ourselves: who has authority in the Church? It is not the pastor or the elders or the congregation. It is not proud or tyrannical men; it is not proud and rebellious women. The One who has authority in the Church is the Lord of the Church: Jesus Christ. He has authority over all of us, and he determines and imposes the rules by which the Church is to be governed today.
B. B. Warfield, in an article written 105 years ago, summarized this instruction helpfully:
“Keep silent – speak: these are the two opposites; and the one defines the other. It is important to observe, now, that the pivot on which the injunction of these verses turns is not the prohibition of speaking so much as the command of silence. That is the main injunction. The prohibition of speech is introduced only to explain the meaning more fully. What Paul says is in brief: "Let the women keep silent in the churches." That surely is direct and specific enough for all needs. He then adds explanatorily: "For it is not permitted to them to speak." "It is not permitted" is an appeal to a general law, valid apart from Paul's personal command, and looks back to the opening phrase—"as in all the churches of the saints." He is only requiring the Corinthian women to conform to the general law of the churches. And that is the meaning of the almost bitter words that he adds in verse 36, in which—reproaching them for the innovation of permitting women to speak in the churches—he reminds them that they are not the authors of the Gospel, nor are they its sole possessors: let them keep to the law that binds the whole body of churches and not be seeking some newfangled way of their own.” –B. B. Warfield, “Paul on Women Speaking in Church” (1919)
Brothers and sisters, this is not complicated, so let’s not make it so. The world around us, and far too many in the Church, may clutch their pearls when they read these verses, but let’s have the courage and good sense to simply say: Amen. Thanks be to God!
Questions and Objections Raised About This Instruction
I want to deal, albeit very briefly, with some of the common objections to Paul’s teaching in this passage, if for no other reason than to make you aware of some of the arguments you may hear in other churches or from friends and loved ones.
Let’s get a couple of the silly ones out of the way that shouldn’t get as much attention as they do. First, “Paul is a misogynist.” Okay, if you think so, then the Bible is not inspired. It is not the word of God but a very flawed religious document written by very flawed men. If Paul is a misogynist, then we can’t have any confidence in the Bible or the Christian religion. This view is not compatible with Christianity. It is a non-Christian position, albeit affirmed in some churches.
Second, “this is a scribal interpolation.” In other words, it was not part of the original text. One evangelical scholar has pushed this view in recent years based on the fact that in a few manuscripts vv.34-35 appear after v.40. But here’s the problem, they appear in all the copies we have of this passage. All of them. If you start deciding which verses are authentic and original based on whether they agree with your theological conclusions, you don’t have a Bible anymore. Even most liberal scholars do not take this idea seriously; only “conservatives” are so foolish!
Third, “this is a quotation of the Corinthians, not Paul’s view.” We’ve noted this happens in the letter, but never like this. When Paul refers to what the Corinthians are saying, it is always brief and then followed by an extensive rebuttal or clarification. But not here. If he is quoting a false argument, why doesn’t he rebut it? Some will say, “That’s what he is doing in v.36,” but how can you know that? The text reads just as naturally if we take vv.34-35 as Paul’s own view. The fact that Paul interacts with Corinthian arguments doesn’t allow us to simply to set aside whatever is difficult for us to accept. We have to deal honestly with the text, and this passage is supported by others like it, not just in this epistle but elsewhere in the Bible (cf. 1Tim. 2:11-15).
Fourth, “the prohibition in ch.14 must be modified by the permission in ch.11 allowing women to lead prayer and prophesy in the assembly.” This is a common argument, but a bad one. Ch.11 is descriptive; ch.14 is prescriptive. Ch.11 does not say when or where women might be praying or prophesying; ch.14 is explicit that they are not to speak in the Church. If women are allowed to pray and prophesy but are commanded to keep silent when the whole Church comes together, we should assume that they are to pray and prophesy outside of those gatherings, in private meetings and not the public assemblies of the saints.
Fifth and finally, the view that has become dominant in conservative evangelical and Reformed circles is that “Paul is forbidding women to weigh or evaluate and critique the prophets.” This means it is particular speech that is silenced, not any speech at all. Interestingly, this view was first introduced in 1962, but because of the influence of Wayne Grudem and others, it has rapidly achieved widespread acceptance. So let’s get this straight, a woman can prophesy to the congregation, she simply cannot tell whether someone else’s prophecy is correct or not. She can deliver a sermon but not critique someone else’s sermon. Why then does Paul emphasize in so many different ways that she is to be silent, and not just in regard to weighing prophecy? Let women keep silent… they are not permitted to speak… they are to be submissive… if they want to learn… let them ask their husbands at home… it is shameful for women to speak in church. Some say the questions being forbidden are aggressive and critical questions, but how do you know that from the text? Is this a straightforward reading? Ironically, this view allows what the passage forbids and forbids what it allows. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. Who are the others who are to evaluate what the prophets say? The other prophets? Maybe, but I think the context (local and remote) shows it is the entire congregation. Every one of our sisters should be sitting here listening intently to the preaching and testing it against God’s word. They, like their husbands, are to test all things, hold fast what is good, abstain from every form of evil.
Let Them Ask Their Own Husbands at Home
I want to spend a minute on v.35 and the command that women ask their own husbands at home if they want to learn anything. What does that require, and what does it not require? Not every woman has a husband, or a believing husband, so the point is not that she may not ask the elders or other brothers and sisters about the teaching. We can see this in the parallel with 11:22: What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? Paul’s point is not that you are only allowed to eat in your home. His point is that the public assembly is not the place for a meal, and here his point is that the assembly is not the place for women to raise questions.
This really drives the point home. A woman might ask a question after worship or in a Bible class, but when the church comes together for worship, she is to remain silent. It may be that some in Corinth were justifying women speaking by saying, “They are only trying to learn,” but Paul says, “If so, let them ask their husbands at home. They should not speak in church.” If a woman is not even to raise questions in the assembly, what possible justification is there for her to lead worship, read Scripture, exhort, or address the Church in any other way at that time?
There’s another point to recognize in v.35. Men, you are responsible for being spiritual leaders in your home, and that means you should know the Scriptures and the Christian faith well enough that you can competently answer questions from your wife and children. This does not authorize an ignorant or incompetent man to teach his family. Your opinion is not right simply because you are a husband. You are to study, learn, and master the faith and the Scriptures so that you may teach, lead, shepherd, and protect your family with the word of God. I am happy to answer your wife’s questions about the Bible, but I shouldn’t have to. You should be able to, and you should have the moral and spiritual gravitas that would lead your family to ask you for help.
Pastoral Application: Thinking Covenantally or Atomistically
The reason this passage is difficult for many modern Christians in the West today is that we no longer think covenantally but atomistically. We are all egalitarians, in our politics, in our culture, and we bring that egalitarianism with us into the Church as we read Scripture. I don’t care how conservative you think you are politically or otherwise. The West abandoned covenant categories a long time ago and embraced a view of the individual that led inevitably to the rise of modern feminism and the destruction of the family and much of western society.
What do I mean? Let me first clarify what I do not mean. I do not mean that individuals do not have distinct and particular value as image-bearers of God. Everyone is created in God’s image and called to glorify and enjoy him. Every man, every woman, every child has value as an image-bearer, no matter the sexual, ethnic, cultural, or other differences between them. But when we think covenantally, we realize that we do not exist as individuals but as part of larger families and societies. You are from a family, part of a community, a citizen of a nation, and engrafted by baptism into the Body of Christ. Warfield touches on this in the article I referenced earlier.
“Perhaps it ought to be added… that the difference in conclusions between Paul and the feminist movement of today is rooted in a fundamental difference in their points of view relative to the constitution of the human race. To Paul, the human race is made up of families, and every several organism—the church included—is composed of families, united together by this or that bond. The relation of the sexes in the family follow it therefore into the church. To the feminist movement the human race is made up of individuals; a woman is just another individual by the side of the man, and it can see no reason for any differences in dealing with the two. And, indeed, if we can ignore the great fundamental natural difference of sex and destroy the great fundamental social unit of the family in the interest of individualism, there does not seem any reason why we should not wipe out the differences established by Paul between the sexes in the church—except, of course, the authority of Paul. It all, in the end, comes back to the authority of the apostles, as founders of the church. We may like what Paul says, or we may not like it. We may be willing to do what he commands, or we may not be willing to do it. But there is no room for doubt of what he says. And he certainly would say to us what he said to the Corinthians: "What? Was it from you that the word of God went forth? Or came it to you alone?" Is this Christianity ours—to do with as we like? Or is it God's religion, receiving its laws from him through the apostles?”
The Law of God teaches us to see ourselves as living in community with others. Each of us exist in relationships with superiors, inferiors, and equals (cf. WLC 123-133). This is not an ontological superiority or inferiority—as if men are better human beings or a different kind of creature than women—it is a relationship of authority. Our roles and responsibilities are partly determined by the relationships we have been given by God to those who are over us, under us, and beside us in the family, the Church, and the State.
It has been said that “a woman can do whatever an unordained man can do,” but it is simply not true. Not only untrue, it is demeaning to women. We do not honor our sisters in Christ by flattening out gender roles in the Church or family or civil society. We honor their God-given gifts, the glory and beauty they bring to God’s creation and new creation (cf. 11:7). An unordained man can do some things a woman is not permitted to do in the Church, and there are a great many things that only a woman can do, whether the man is ordained or not!
If some Neanderthals portray gender roles in a way that is disrespectful to our sisters, then we should be happy to be true, godly, and gentle father-rulers by protecting, defending, and valuing our wives, daughters, and sisters by standing up to male despots. But we should also be willing to stand up to rebellious women and the beta males and white knights that enable them. Capitulating to feminism and egalitarian values is not the way of Christ. God did not make us androgynous, and he does not remake us in Christ as androgynous. Our destiny is not to be sexless but fully sanctified as men and women who perfectly, blamelessly, and eternally manifest the multifaceted glory of the Triune God that no man or woman could ever fully image alone.
God’s word is not demeaning to women or to men. It is empowering, transforming, and given for the salvation of our soul. His law is for our good always. May he give us grace to receive, believe, and obey it with reverence, gratitude, and joy. Amen.
---------------------------------------------------
1 “Many in history have thought Paul appealed to Genesis 3:16 and man’s rule over women in the fall. However, it is most likely that Paul appeals to Genesis 1–3 as a whole, which would include Adam’s chronological priority and Eve being made as a helper, in addition to Genesis 3:16. This was Paul’s practice in two other passages on gender roles, where he appeals to Adam’s creation and Eve’s deception in 1 Timothy 2:13-14 and Eve being created ‘for’ Adam in 1 Corinthians 11:8-10. Paul draws a similar point from the creation account here in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 as he does in 1 Timothy 2:8-15, where Adam being formed first is the basis for Paul’s prohibition of women teaching and exercising authority over men.” Zachary M. Garris, Masculine Christianity, 209; Garris’s entire treatment of this passage (pp.195-224) is excellent and worth reading for those interested in more detailed exegetical engagement with the various views.
