Keeping Silence

Introduction

The meaning of the ‘keeping silence’ verses in 1 Corinthians is bitterly disputed and contested. All sorts of points are made about the text: some have suggested the text is not ‘of Paul’; others have argued vv. 34-35 are an interpolation; feminist commentators dislike its chauvinist overtone and offer culturally bound contexts for its meaning; and conservative complementarians defend a traditional reading.[1] It is doubtful whether there is anything new to say and this essay is an intertextual (‘Scripture interprets Scripture’) typological (Paul is, after all, a first class typological exegete) and harmonic presentation of the traditional position.[2] There are several NT texts and arguments that form the battleground of the ‘egalitarian feminist’ versus the ‘complementarian traditionalist’ and 1 Cor 14:34-40 is one such passage.

The Impetus to Speak

The verb ‘to keep silence’ (siga,w) is not common in the NT letters (Rom 16:25; 1 Cor 14:28, 30, 34) and elsewhere only in Luke-Acts (Luke 9:36; 18:39; 20:26; Acts 12:17; 15:12-13). The verb carries the idea of ‘refraining’ from speaking in some sense. We can see this in the immediate context:

But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence (siga,w) in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. 1 Cor 14:28 (KJV)

If anything be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace (siga,w). 1 Cor 14:30 (KJV)

Refraining from speaking requires that there be a corresponding impetus. In 1 Cor 14:28, the one who could speak in a tongue (has that impetus) should refrain if there is no interpreter present. Similarly, if a prophet is prophesying and another does so, he is to refrain from continuing his prophecy (1 Cor 14:30). The point seems to be about doing things according to an order (v. 40), learning (manqa,nw, v. 31), and the preventing of confusion (v. 33). Holding back when there is an impetus to speak is also a feature of Luke 9:36 (wanting to tell about the theophanic voice); Luke 18:39 (the blind beggar wanting to attract Jesus’ attention); Luke 20:26 (the chief priests’ spies wanting to catch Jesus out); Acts 12:17 (the disciples wanting to know what had happened to Peter); and Acts 15:12-13 (the multitude clamouring).

The reason for our rehearsing these examples is to focus attention away from thinking about the silence and towards identifying what the impetus is behind 1 Cor 14:34. This is the impetus to exercise spirit-gifts such as tongues or prophesying: Paul is saying that women should be silent in respect of the impetus to speak vocally in tongues or prophesy. The difference between the Luke-Acts’ examples and 1 Cor 14:34 is that there is an additional reason for the silence: ‘for it is a shame for women to speak at congregation’.[3]

Generalisation

Whilst our Luke-Acts’ examples are silences ‘of the moment’, 1 Cor 14:34 is generalised. This comes out clearly in the RSV, following the GNT/UBS, which renders 1 Cor 14:33a-34b as,

As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches. 1 Cor 14:33b-34a (RSV; cf. NRSV; ESV; NIV, NEB; NJB; NET)

Both the GNT/UBS critical text and the Majority Text[4] punctuate the Greek with a new sentence and paragraph at v. 33b. In the critical apparatus to the Majority Text, it is noted that a sub-group of the Byzantine miniscules add kai. to w`j. This addition by the sub-group shows a tradition of reading a new sentence with w`j. It is also noteworthy that while GNT/UBS and the Majority Text start a new paragraph at v. 33b, Stephanus (TR) and Westcott-Hort do not but still retain the upper-case ~Wj from the manuscript tradition rather than a lower-case w`j.

We can speculate as to why a difference like this might arise—why would v. 33b be associated with v. 33a rather than v. 34? P. Comfort offers a clue when he comments that associating v. 33b with v. 34 “creates serious exegetical problems”.[5] These problems are how Paul can be legislating for silence in all churches for women when he allows praying and prophesying (1 Cor 11:5). Comfort does not consider our solution to this ‘problem’ (below)—but the ‘problem’ causes Comfort to favour associating v. 33b with v. 33a to get round (for him) an otherwise awkward generalisation.

In this connection, C. Niccum’s analysis of Old Latin manuscripts and bilingual (Greek and Latin) manuscripts in the western tradition is interesting: he offers a speculation as to why vv. 34-35 were transposed in some of those ancient manuscripts to a position after v. 40 (a transposition he regards as not original). He says of v. 33b, concluding his paper,

Considering the increasing power of women and the rise of female monastic communities in the Western churches during the third and fourth centuries, some may have perceived the collocation of women’s silence with ‘as in all the churches’ unfortunate.[6]

While we may speculate as to why differences arise in the manuscript traditions, the safest course here is to follow the combined judgment of the GNT/UBS and Majority Text and associate v. 33b with v. 34. We can translate vv. 33b-34a following the Greek word order as follows:

 As in all the churches of the saints, the women in the ecclesias should keep silence.

There is a geographical sense given to ‘ecclesia’ here by the use of ‘all’ (the ‘churches of Galatia; the church in Smyrna, etc.) and a sense relating to membership: the women that Paul is referring to are those ‘in the ecclesia’. His silence command relates to them and not to any other women there who are ‘outsiders’.

Paul’s point is a prohibition ‘it is not permitted’ reinforced by the opposite desideratum ‘to be under obedience’ and backed up by ‘the Law’ (v. 34b; Ps 8:6; Gen 3:16b). We have then a generalized command about speaking for which we need to have a generalised impetus condition and we have this in the generality of the spirit gifts. The ‘at home’ (KJV and other versions) can equally be translated as ‘in a house’.[7]

Speaking to Oneself and to God[8]

‘Learning’ and the exercise of the spirit-gifts are linked in the context. A person speaking in a tongue should do so if there is an interpreter present (v. 28), otherwise he is to speak to himself and God; a person prophesying should have another ‘judge’ (diakri,nw) so that all may learn (manqa,nw—the very object of a woman asking in a house). This linkage tells us in what sense a woman was to keep silent ‘in ecclesia’: if she felt the impetus of the spirit in a matter of prophecy or the exercise of a tongue, she was to speak to herself[9] and to God and ask about meaning later ‘in a house’ rather than ‘in ecclesia’. The spirits of the prophets were subject to the prophets. We can see then that Paul does allow a form of speaking for women ‘in ecclesia’—speaking to oneself and God. This means that women might prophesy and speak in tongues to themselves ‘in ecclesia’ and then ask their own husbands in a house.

This interpretation supports and is supported by 1 Cor 11:5: “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven”. The context for this verse is the coming together ‘in ecclesia’ (vv. 16-17);[10] if a woman were to prophesy (speak) to herself and God uncovered, this would dishonour her head (Jesus, ‘the man’ of the new creation, v. 3).

Praying and Prophesying

Prophesying is an obvious link between 1 Corinthians 11 and 14. It is normally assumed that the prophesying of 1 Cor 11:5 is vocal, but the verb ‘to speak’ does not occur in the reasoning of 1 Cor 11:2-16; moreover, praying is often a silent activity. However, praying and speaking in tongues is connected in 1 Corinthians 14, and in fact it is only in these two chapters that Paul discusses praying in 1 Corinthians. He says,

For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. 1 Cor 14:13-15 (KJV)

It is reasonable to infer that the praying he has in mind in 1 Corinthians 11 for women is spirit-gifted praying and therefore it could and should be carried on privately. Thus, in coupling ‘praying’ with ‘prophesying’ (but not using the verb ‘to speak’) the Spirit through Paul is anticipating (rather than contradicting) the arrangement of silence in 1 Corinthians 14. Vocalisation is not explicitly noted in 1 Corinthians 11 and precluded for the women ‘in ecclesia’ by 1 Corinthians 14. Because Paul saw that praying with a tongue in the spirit to oneself was legitimate (as well as prophesying to oneself), he saw fit to counsel the Corinthian women about the need for head-coverings.

Men and Women

The addressees of 1 Corinthians 14 are ‘the brethren’ (vv. 6, 20, 26, 39; cf. 1 Co 7:9; 9:5) not sisters; the presumption for the prophesying throughout is that it is vocal and that there are those to judge and from which all learn; likewise, the speaking in tongues would be vocal with interpreters present. The fact that Paul is addressing brethren is shown by v. 34 when talking to them in the third person of ‘women’ (gunh,); the later Byzantine text tradition has ‘Let your women’ but the GNT/UBS is more likely the original: ‘Let the women’.[11]

There is a generality in vv. 33b-34a, ‘As in all the churches of the saints, women in the ecclesias should keep silence’ (GNT/UBS). ‘Women’ is the correct translation for gunh, because there is no possessive element in the text which we would expect if the sense is ‘wives’ (as in 1 Cor 7:2; th.n e`autou/ gunai/ka). The Byzantine text tradition has introduced an interpretive element with ‘your women’ and incidentally shows that the absence of a possessive element was felt to be a deficiency.

The Greek of ‘ask their husbands’ (v. 35) does have a possessive element (tou.j ivdi,ouj; cf. Acts 24:24; Eph 5:22; Tit 2:5; 1 Pet 3:1, 5) and this is why translations uniformly make this choice. Paul is presuming (or he knows from personal contact that) the spirit-gifted women ‘in the ecclesia’ all have husbands. The linguistics of the text is such that we have the generality of ‘women’ along with the presupposition that such women have husbands.

There is a typological contrast being made here: the women are to ask their own husbands in a house, but ‘in ecclesia’ they are ‘under obedience’ (u`pota,ssw). This reason for silence is explained by Eph 5:21-22,

Submitting (u`pota,ssw) yourselves one to another in the fear of God—women, to your own husbands, as to the Lord.

When gathered together ‘in ecclesia’, the women represent the bride (1 Cor 11:7)[12] and are ‘under obedience’ or ‘subject’ (s.w) to ‘the Lord’, who is head of the body. In the context of the Breaking of Bread, Christ is the ‘husband’ of the bride and not any other husband. It is the ‘husbandship’ of Christ that women are meant to show in their silence according to Paul’s reasoning. Thus, because the men represent Christ ‘in ecclesia’ (1 Cor 11:7) in this context, but not elsewhere, the gifts given by Christ for edifying or building the ecclesia (Matt 16:18; Eph 4:11-12) are exercised by the men.

Paul is giving guidance to brethren (men) and women, therefore, and not husbands and wives. There is no rationale for Paul giving a silence directive just to wives, whereas he may see a need for a distinction between men and women in how gifts are exercised at congregation. (The generality of the gifts is matched in the generality of ‘brethren’ and ‘women’.) Had he wanted to do so, he could easily have included the possessive element to indicate ‘wives’ as he does in 1 Cor 7:2, but he does not and the later Byzantine tradition has added this element.

House Churches

The Greek translated ‘at home’ (evn oi;kw|) can be equally ‘in a house’; indeed, Paul uses a different expression for ‘at home’ in 1 Tim 5:4 (to.n i;dion oi=kon; cf. 1 Tim 3:4-5, 12) using a possessive element. The contrast is between a ‘coming together’ to congregation from houses or from being ‘in a house’ (1 Cor 11:34). This contrast reflects the house-churches in Corinth (1 Cor 16:19) coming together to break bread. The ‘belonging’ that was associated with houses can also be seen in 1 Cor 1:11, ‘by the ones of Chloe’ (u`po. tw/n Clo,hj)—this is to be compared with the naming of Aquila and Priscilla and the church in ‘their’ house.

The Scope of Silence

Although Paul is addressing brethren, the women had vocal spirit-gifts and it is a command to be silent in respect of these gifts to which v. 34 relates. V. 36 is decisive for relating silence to prophesying rather than ‘asking’ because Paul rhetorically asks whether the Word of God ‘came out of you’ (women) and this is about the Spirit engendering the Word of God through gifts. Since the principle was that ‘the spirits of the prophets were subject to the prophets’ (v. 32), the women (and men) could control their gifts and prophesy in the spirit ‘to themselves’ in keeping with the guidance of v. 28 about speaking in tongues.

The ‘speak’ of v. 34 is getting its sense from what ‘speaking’ Paul has been discussing, because this is what ‘silence’ has been previously related to—tongues and prophesying (all ‘speak’ uses prior to v. 34 relate to proactive gifts like tongues and prophesying, e.g. v. 6). He does not say that women cannot use tongues or prophesy in the spirit ‘in ecclesia’—he only requires their silence—they could exercise these gifts ‘to themselves’ like the brethren are advised in v. 28 for tongues. The ‘speaking’ of v. 35 (‘it is a shame for them to speak’) is summative and picking up the reference of the speaking in v. 34; it is not an additional kind of speaking, i.e. ‘asking’.

Asking and Learning

Paul re-directs the ‘learning’ that goes with hearing prophesying being ‘judged’ (vv. 29, 31) to a different setting that is not ‘in ecclesia’. However, the ‘learning’ of v. 31 is not connected to any asking at this point, just to prophesying: ‘ye may all prophesy…that all may learn’. If women were silent and listening to prophesying, then they would be learning from the judging; there isn’t necessarily any need for asking. Why then does Paul recognise a need for asking in v. 35? The answer to this question is that, if the women were prophesying ‘to themselves and to God’, they would not be learning from any judging of their own prophesying; necessarily so, because those so gifted to judge would not have heard them speak. Accordingly, Paul states that they should ‘ask their own husbands in a house’.

Paul’s logic is anticipating an objection to the principle of silence – namely, what about the need for judging the prophetic gift that is exercised in silence by women? How can women get judgment? This is why he directs their asking to a ‘house church’ and repeats that it is a ‘shame’ for women to speak ‘in ecclesia’.

Shame

The ‘shame’ here is the same word as Paul uses in 1 Cor 11:6 and it is rare in the NT (4x, 1 Cor 11:6; 14:35; Eph 5:12; Tit 1:11). It is one of several links between 1 Corinthians 11 and 14. Because Paul associates ‘shame’ with ‘in ecclesia’, we know that he is not invoking (should there have been such in the first place) general Mediterranean cultural values about women speaking in religious meetings; those meetings are not like the Breaking of Bread. Similarly, he is not invoking Jewish synagogue practice because those meetings are also not like the Memorial Feast. It is not a shame for women to speak in all meetings, just the ‘coming together’ that is the congregation meal.

The ‘shame’ that is possible ‘in ecclesia’ has two possible causes – an uncovered head or speaking. The reasoning in 1 Corinthians 11 for why an uncovered head is a cause of shame (v. 6), is centred on the typology of who is ‘the man’ and who is ‘the woman’ of the new creation (1 Cor 11:7).

• In the adultery law of Numbers 5, the woman suspected of going aside to another man has her head uncovered, and made to partake of the jealousy offering. This action of uncovering the head of the woman is symbolic of the suspicion that she has gone aside to another man (Num 5:18). If she was to be proved innocent, she would remain with her husband. Paul’s comparison with this process is that a woman who is uncovered displays behaviour tantamount to a suspicion of unfaithfulness – a suggestion that she has gone aside to another man – someone other than Christ.
• Deuteronomy 21 describes how a captured woman was required to shave her head as part of the ritual of her being accepted as an Israelite wife (Deut 21:12, cf. Neh 13:25). In other words, this practice of shaving related to the transfer of the woman from an enemy to a man in Israel. In Paul’s argument, he says that an uncovered woman is like a shaven woman: he is saying it is the same as if the woman had gone aside from [remnant of] Israel to another man in another nation. As a paraphrase, we might say that being uncovered is an act of disloyalty to the man. Paul’s argument therefore focuses on the disloyalty shown to the man who redeems the woman, i.e. Christ.

The ‘shame’ that a woman bears ‘in ecclesia’ (1 Cor 11:18) if she is uncovered relates to Christ. This is because the Breaking of Bread is typical of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb and there is enactment of roles in this meeting by men and women: the men represent Christ and the women represent the bride of Christ (1 Cor 11:7). So it is that Paul can say that speaking ‘in ecclesia’ is also a shame for women. The one who speaks is Christ and in Paul’s day the men exercising the gifts of the Spirit from the Lord (Eph 4:8f).

Miriam

Paul establishes his authority to deliver such a principle with an allusion to the incident where Miriam and Aaron challenge Moses.

What, came the word of God out from you or came it into you only? (v. 36)

And they said, hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? Hath he not spoken also in us? And the Lord heard it. Num 12:2 (KJV revised)

Miriam is the principal challenger because she is named first (Num 12:1) and she is the one to be struck with leprosy (Num 12:10). Miriam and Aaron had the Spirit and had spoken against Moses using that implied authority. Such an allusion on the part of Paul suggests that the practice of all the churches (1 Cor 14:33b) was being challenged by spirit-gifted women—Paul’s authority was being challenged.

After Miriam is struck with leprosy, Aaron acknowledges Moses as his ‘lord’ (Num 12:11) and this explains Paul’s remark,

If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of ‘the lord’. 1 Cor 14:37 (KJV revised)

This isn’t a reference in the first instance to the Lord Jesus by Paul, but rather it is his placing himself into the typical place of Moses in his confrontation with the ‘Miriam’ of his day—he is ‘the lord’ as Aaron acknowledged Moses to be his ‘lord’. The point being made by Paul is about ‘who thinks themselves to be a prophet’ and this picks up on the issue at stake between Moses, Aaron and Miriam: their claim was that the Lord had spoken by them. Paul’s logic reflects Yahweh’s speech:

If any man thinks to be a prophet…let him acknowledge

If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known to him… (Num 12:6; cf. 11:29)

The acknowledgement sought by Paul against the Corinthian women prophets mirrors the acknowledgement given to Moses by Yahweh (Num 12:7-8). Paul’s claim to be like Moses in the face of the challenge by the Corinthian women is further seen in his introduction to his command: it was applicable ‘in all the churches of God’ just as Moses had charge ‘in all mine house’ (Num 12:7).

The consequence for Miriam was that she was ashamed and put out of the camp for seven days (Num 12:14-15). This ‘shame’ was for speaking against Moses on the grounds that she was also a prophetess. The shame that Paul relates to women speaking ‘in ecclesia’ (v. 35) is like Miriam’s shame. This is a shame that can obtain ‘in ecclesia’ but not ‘in a house’.

Conclusion

Paul concludes his reasoning about the Breaking of Bread with the remark: ‘Let all things be properly decent and according to order’ (v. 40). The expression ‘all things’ is picking up occurrences that start with 1 Cor 10:23 and continue in various statements throughout this part of the letter (e.g. 1 Cor 11:2; 14:26). The requirement for such things to be properly decent relates particularly to what was not decent in the handling of the emblems (1 Cor 11:17f). The expression ‘according to order’ (kata. ta,xin) uses a word ta,xij that is mainly translated in the NT in relation to an order implied in a priesthood (Luke 1:8; Heb 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:11, 20); it summarises the fact that Paul has drawn different roles for men and women at the Breaking of Bread.

---