article48

§43 Women and Order at Worship (1 Cor. 14:33b–36)

These verses follow the summary or bridge statement that Paul made at the beginning of verse 33, a declaration that looks back to the previous discussion of Christian worship and probably looks ahead to this next section of the letter. The traditional versification of the text is a problem, for the majority of contemporary English-language translations understand that the concluding words of verse 33 should be read as a phrase leading into the next portion of Paul’s reflection, whereas the verse numbers suggest including the words “as in all the congregations of the saints” with the immediately prior phrase, “For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.…” The commentary below will deal with the matter of the versification, but prior to that detailed analysis, one should recognize that verses 33b–36 must be among the NT verses that have caused the most difficulty at the turn of the twenty-first century. Several basic exegetical issues inherent in the verses pose difficult problems for skilled interpreters, but these complex interpretive issues are exacerbated and at times superseded by equally complex religious and sociological factors. Thus, some preliminary observations are in order. Any discussion of women’s participation or speaking in the course of worship must take into consideration comments that already occurred in chapter 11, even though the concerns of chapter 11 are somewhat different in focus than those of chapter 14. In general, in chapter 11 the focus was on men and women, whereas here, as verse 35 indicates, the issue almost certainly concerns husbands and wives. In particular, at 11:6 one finds that it is “a disgrace” (Gk. aischron; lit. “shameful”) for a woman to be shorn, but in 14:35 it is “disgraceful” (Gk. aischron) for a wife to speak in church. Nevertheless, how can a woman or wife pray or prophesy in church when veiled (11:6) if she is to remain silent in the church? Other issues of language and textual criticism (treated below) make the interpretation of this section even more complicated!

What can be made of the evidence? Although there have been literally dozens of suggestions concerning the interpretation of these verses—ranging from the sensible to the silly—there are four options for understanding the lines. The first explanation could be that Paul wrote these lines as they are and that these verses are meant to be taken at face value. Indeed, the shift of focus from men and women to husbands and wives may provide a key, indicating that Paul is advocating the preservation of traditional Jewish patterns of family relations, although this understanding is problematic since Paul writes to Corinth, which is not a Semitic social context. Thus they would be expressing a timeless principle correctly applied to all women in all churches. The problem with this conclusion is that it fails to grapple with the incompatibility of the plain sense of these lines and other statements made by Paul in this and other undisputed letters.

The second explanation, increasingly popular among both conservative and radical scholars, is that 14:34–35 is an interpolation, that is, material accidentally inserted into Paul’s original text by a scribe. Perhaps this was originally an early scribe’s comment in the margin. A strong case for this option can be based on the unusual character of the language and the textual problems associated with these verses: verses 34–35 are transposed to a position after 14:40 in some few and inferior manuscripts. While the manuscript evidence is not strong, it does show both some scribes dealing with the illogical intrusion of these verses in the discussion of worship from the perspective of tongues and prophecy (two specific forms of verbal expression) and the scribal recognition of a naturally smoother transition from 14:33a to 14:36. The burden of proof for omitting these verses lies with those making such an argument (e.g., Fee), and C. H. Talbert shows the problems with attempting to omit the lines from Paul’s letter to Corinth. While this position resolves the difficulty of fitting these lines with other statements by Paul in this letter (ch. 11), it falls short of dealing with the position stated in these lines and elsewhere in the canonical NT (1 Tim. 2:11–12).

A third, creative, sophisticated, and responsible attempt to make sense of these perplexing verses is Talbert’s reading (Reading, pp. 91–95), which starts by contending that in verses 34–35 Paul is quoting the Corinthians’ own sayings in order to refute those declarations. Thus, Talbert’s argument is that the rhetorical form of the material in 14:34–35, 36 is dialogical. Talbert contends that these lines offer a position derived from general cultural values of the Greco-Roman era and the position taken in these verses runs counter to the explicit teaching of Paul elsewhere, e.g., Gal. 3:27–28; 1 Cor. 11:5, 12, including this letter. Additionally, Talbert sees Paul himself replying to, refuting, and rebutting the logic of verses 34–35 in verse 36, thus challenging and denying the view that the women should be silent in the church. A critique of Talbert’s suggestion could be that Paul’s rhetoric in these lines is not so clear as to signal and promote the recognition of the conversational or dialogical character of the text that Talbert suggests. In general, though, this interpretation is sensible and attractive. It deals with the text as we have it and makes sense of it in relation to other passages that Paul wrote in his letters.

A fourth explanation is that these lines come from Paul but are not meant as a universal directive. Rather, Paul is writing in relation to a specific practice that is disrupting the worship of the Corinthian congregation; the exact circumstances are obscure, although Paul and the Corinthians know precisely to what he refers. The verses may refer to disruptive behavior that resulted from pagan ecstasy being imported into the context of Christian worship. If Paul is writing to address such a specific problem, then his advice applies only to this situation and is not meant to be followed elsewhere. There are other statements in Paul’s correspondences that assume first-hand knowledge of a situation and require later readers to infer and even to speculate to understand (see 5:1–5, 9–11; 15:29 in this letter, or 2 Cor. 2:5–11; 11:12–15; 12:7–8; Gal. 5:11–12; Phil. 3:2; Phlm. 18).

The lack of specific information about the situation(s) Paul faced in Corinth may make it impossible for later readers of the letter to determine conclusively the meaning of these lines, even if they do come from Paul. Paul’s rhetoric could be much clearer if he intended for the verses to function as a timeless principle for how women are to behave in worship settings. The only way to progress toward Paul’s meaning is by tracking the path set by the passage itself.

14:33b / Problems for interpretation begin with the basic issue of recognizing which words are parts of which sentences. At the beginning of verse 33 one finds an explanatory phrase, For … (Gk. gar …), which follows the preceding statements about prophecy and order in verses 29–32, perhaps even relating to the full discussion of tongues and prophecy from verses 27–32. After the words For God is not a God of disorder but of peace, one encounters a phrase beginning with the word as (Gk. hōs), which is normally used to form or to introduce a comparison, As in all the congregations of the saints. Taking this phrase with either the preceding line about God (v. 33a) or the following statement about women (v. 34) is somewhat awkward. The traditional versification results from the understanding of verse 33a and verse 33b as a complete sentence, “For God is not of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.” Nevertheless, the NIV (in agreement with NA27; see also the RSV, NRSV, REB, and other contemporary translations) connects the phrase in verse 33b with the following lines: As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent. Both readings are possible. As Orr and Walther (I Corinthians, pp. 311–12) note, however, “custom is directly applicable to the activity of women in the church but is more difficult to relate to God’s peace role.” Ambiguity is certain, and a decision about coordinating the phrase (As … saints) with either verse 33a or verse 34 alters the nuance of Paul’s remark, but ultimately how one reads the phrase does not determine the understanding of the overall sense of the passage. The phrase does seem to fit less awkwardly with verse 34, so that one finds a reference to church custom and then an example of it in the mention of women’s silence.

Another problem for interpreting this section is that the phrase “the churches of the saints” in verse 33b is peculiar. There is no such designation in the context of the undisputed Pauline letters. Rather, churches are referred to as the church(es) of God or Christ and as the church(es) of a region or city. Thus, divine proprietorship and geographical setting are the normal ways of identifying Pauline congregations. The peculiarity of the statement in verse 33b complicates decisions about the origin and purpose of both these particular words and other statements made in connection with this phrase. No ready solution for the full range of problems is at hand, so verse 33b remains a problem in its own right.

14:34–35 / These two verses are distinct sentences in Greek, but for a number of reasons it proves expedient to treat the statements in the verses together in commentary. Above all, the coherent command to silence in verses 34–35 seems to contradict the expectation that women would be praying and prophesying, albeit while veiled, in chapter 11. Interpreters attempt to minimize or eliminate this problem in various ways. There is a greal deal of speculation about the kind of speech that Paul is forbidding in verses 34–35. Some suggest that he opposes only idle chatter or gossip. However, the verb to speak (Gk. lalein) is not, as some commentators suggest, equivalent with “to chatter.” The verb does not name an activity that is distinct from other sensible speech or prayer or prophecy. Through the rest of chapter 14 “to speak” clearly and consistently refers to inspired speech (see vv. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 18, 19, 21, 23, 27, 28, 29, 39). The vocabulary employed in these verses does not distinguish this reference from all other mentions of speaking in this and other chapters.

By observing the focus on women in chapter 11 in contrast to a proposed focus on wives in chapter 14, some commentators suggest that Paul’s remarks here apply only to wives, not to all women. This reading is possible as the argument develops in the middle sections of verses 34–35, … but must be in submission as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home …; but it ultimately makes little sense to suggest that Paul divided women into two classes and discriminated between them in his treatment of the groups. Nothing in Paul’s discussion of marriage and remaining single in chapter 7 prepares for such a division and such differentiation.

Moreover, the reason given for the silence of the women, that they should be “in submission, as the Law says,” is problematic. There is no such prescription or prohibition in the law, and no text is cited here from the OT as is the case in all other Pauline references to the law in his letters. As Fee (Epistle, p. 707) notes, the appeal by some interpreters to Genesis 3:16 is not persuasive, since that text does not say what is argued, even in the most indirect way, in verses 34–35. Other attempts to argue from either materials of later rabbinic Judaism or references in Josephus are equally problematic to reconcile with Paul. One can only wonder which law is the point of reference here; perhaps Paul is not referring to the OT at all.

In turn, the directions for women or wives to ask their husbands at home should they desire to inquire about something is odd. One can only wonder why that domestic environment takes precedence over being in the church, which is the one place about which Paul cares most. Read one way, this piece of instruction puts a private human domain above the new corporate spiritual realm that Paul understands to be the locus of God’s Spirit’s most powerful presence and action. One wonders if there is an unseen, irrecoverable issue at work that prevents later readers from clearly comprehending these remarks.

As was mentioned in the introduction to this section, there are a number of options to understanding 14:33b–36. All of these hinge on various interpretations of verses 34–35. This could be an instruction from Paul to women to avoid a certain type of speech in the church. Perhaps verses 34–35 are a non-Pauline scribal interpolation into this part of Paul’s letter to Corinth, although it is difficult to see what would have brought this obscure remark into this otherwise focused discussion of tongues and prophecy. Perhaps Paul is awkwardly quoting and responding to a position that the Corinthians had developed; perhaps they distinguished between wives and other women in worship. Or, it is possible that Paul was addressing a specific problem in Corinth that has no real application today. One finally cannot decide from the evidence available which of the several suggestions for interpretation is absolutely correct.

14:36 / The lines of verse 36 become all the more important in trying to understand the previous statements because of the significant uncertainties inherent in verses 34–35. Here at least, Paul’s words and rhetoric are clear. The verse comprises two rhetorical questions, and in tone the questions are emphatic, even sarcastic. The form of both questions indicates that they could be answered either positively or negatively, but the telltale word only indicates which answer Paul expects. Quite literally Paul writes, “Did either the word of God go forth from you? Or, did it reach you alone (NIV: only)?”

The only sensible response to both inquiries is no, an emphatic no! Thus, one thing is clear: the Corinthian congregation is not alone in receiving and hearing God’s word. They should not attempt to stand alone in trying to bring God’s will into reality. This fact requires the reader to cast whatever this passage means into the broader context of the revelation and reception of the gospel. Taken in that way, there is but one sure conclusion to be drawn about these verses. The arguments in verses 33b, 34–35, and verse 36 are—whatever they mean—based purely on custom and the law, not on revelation or a word of the Lord. The character of the remarks gives the statements a restricted force. Thus, of our four options for understanding these verses, the first option—that these verses limit the speech of all women in all churches—is unviable. It is astounding that this particular reading of these difficult, enigmatic verses, coupled with one reading of 1 Timothy 2, became the church’s norm. In contrast to this reading one finds both declarations and assumptions about women (some of whom were wives, e.g., Prisca) taking active roles of leadership in the life of the early church (in 1 Cor. 11:11–12; Gal. 3:28; and in the regular mentioning by Paul of prominent Christian women ministers in his letters).