Do Women Need a Mediator to Come to God?

Edit 5/12 to Add: I love Steve Brown.  Check this out:

I wrote this:

Ah, thank you so much.  You rock.  :o )  

I came out of a very strict patriarchal background (the Douglas Wilson, ”Reforming Marriage,” Vision Forum sort of type, where we were taught that “Biblically” a husband is the husbandman/farmer, and the wife is his field wherein he decides what to grow and when to grow it, blah blah blah).  What can I say?  We were fundies.  We took Scripture “literally.”  A lot.  (Uh, alot more literally than it was ever meant to be taken).    

 Long story short, the first 8 years of my marriage were in that sort of paradigm and as such, I’m a little sensitive in that area.  Coming out of that sort of bondage was no picnic.   (That particular movement is, unfortunately, growing like a bad weed in the conservative homeschooling world). 

So I really appreciate your response and your perspective—and do see where you are coming from.  Whereas my world had males taking on waaay more authority than any human should take (setting themselves up to be idols, often with good intentions!), your world sounds like it’s got the opposite problem.  That said, I would still (humbly!) ask you to please reconsider the use of the word, “priest” in the future.   It does connotate a sense of mediatorship (the dictionary definition reads as such), and yet, as you know, the NT does not teach us that males mediate for females (or husbands for wives).   It does, however, teach that Christ has made all of us priests.  Which I think is pretty cool, and I know that you do too.  :o )  

Thank you for everything you do.  You are truly a treasure.  Thank you for being a voice for Him.   

Warmly,
Molly   

To which he responded with this:

    The wife is a field?  You’re kidding, right?

 

    If I were a wife, that would turn me into a serial killer.

 

    Good point on the priest thing.  You’re right that it seems to imply that the “priesthood of all believers” is a male thing. 

 

    Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth.

 

   You rock, too!!

 

   Bless,

   Steve

www.keylife.org
www.stevebrownetc.com

 

 

[Edit 5/9 to Add: Steve Brown wrote me, that gracious man, and emphasized that he did not mean anything of the sort with the word priest---that by priest, he meant to encourage the many men who think that spirituality is for women, NOT to encourage the patriarchal model as taught by Vision Forum, et all.  I really appreciated his response and have a feeling we're pretty much on the same page, though I would still request a different word would be better suited to do so, as "priest" carries with it the connotation of mediation].   

[Edit Later in 5/8  to Add:  Thanks to some of the illustrious comments here, it has come to my attention that what I think of when I hear the word, "priest," is not what Zacharius or Brown may be thinking of.  To which I would add, what is a Biblical definition for the word priest?  A typical dictionary definition reads: one authorized to perform the sacred rites of a religion especially as a mediatory agent between humans and God.  So, okay, I suppose if folks want to use the word, "priest," so be it, but I admit it is a very confusing word to use if they are not intending to advocate for male mediatorship.  And, yes, EVEN though Steve Brown is a Calvinist, I still like him anyway.  I'm a very gracious person, considering my severe allergy to TULIPs.]  :)

———————————————

The title of this post is a fair question (though my Protestant leanings are obvious), considering the commonly held notion that the husband is priest of the wife.  I recently listened to a clip where Ravi Zacharius (someone I respect) said that as a man, he was “the priest of his home” (this while also advocating mutual submission). 

That very same day, my favorite Bible teacher, Steve Brown, said, in a podcast I was listening to (in the Scandalous Freedom series, the “Punishing Plagues of Putting People on Pedestals,” to be specific), that as a husband and father, he was “the priest of his home” (while at the same time advocating that no one put an earthy authority in the place of God and that to do so is to be in idolatry).

I enjoy both of these teachers and intend to continue to do so.  But the fact that they both used the word “priests” to describe males (meaning, do they believe and teach that men are priests over women, by virtue of gender) is something that struck me as surprising.  The fact that this concept is pretty mainstream in conservative circles is something I’d like to talk about.  Is this “male priesthood” a Biblical New Testament concept?  If so, then where does the NT specifically say that husbands are priests for their wives? 

I feel pretty comfortable with my Bible, as a student of the Scriptures for some time now, yet I can’t locate any verse that says anything about men being priests for women (please correct me if I’m wrong).  And if the Bible doesn’t say that, how has this idea become so mainstream that even more egalitarian-leaning teachers still believe that men are priests. 

To get more specific, let’s talk about what a priest actually does.  Where does the NT say that a man stands before God as a priest of his wife?  Where does the NT say that a man stands before God on behalf of his wife, or that a man stands before God to hear instruction that God wishes him to pass to his wife?  Where does it say that God wishes to speak to a wife through her husband, or wishes a husband to speak to God on behalf of his wife? 

And what about the implications to the gospel itself?  Are we really okay with saying that one human mediates before God for another in a God-ordained role of priest?  Was the sacrifice of Jesus not enough for us?  Do we still yet need a mediator?  Why do Protestants so quickly revile the priests of the Catholic and Orthodox traditions, yet so easily accept an extra-Biblical teaching that husbands are priests over wives?    

“But He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God…for by one offering, He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.”  Hebrews 10:12, 14 NASB

Was the song to the Lamb referring only to men here, when they sang,

“And Thou hast made them to be a kindom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth.”  Revelation 5:10 NASB

Is the mediation of Christ not enough for me, because I am a women?  Do I need an earthly mediator to make up for what Jesus lacks?

“…And to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant…”  Hebrews 12:24a NASB

33 Responses to this post.

  1. Posted by E on May 8, 2008 at 12:04 pm

    That very same day, my favorite Bible teacher, Steve Brown, said, in a podcast I was listening to (in the Scandalous Freedom series, the “Punishing Plagues of Putting People on Pedestals”)

    He must have been reading Hebrews 1:1 in the original Greek.

  2. Posted by E on May 8, 2008 at 12:18 pm

    Someone is going to b*slap you with 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 if you keep this up, Molly. 8^O

  3. I’ve no idea where they get the “priest of his home” idea from. It’s a new idea to me. However, without having heard their full context, i get the feeling you are putting words in these guys’ mouths a bit. They say “priest of his home” and you turn that to mediator between God and the wife/kids and also threw in “priests over women”. I wonder if they would really see it that way or if they would object to turning “priest” into “mediator” and “of” into “over”. I know that priests served as mediators in the OT and the catholic church, but these are evangelical teachers and i wonder if they would argue (as i would) that the role of priest has been redefined by what Christ did. That the priest is no longer the mediator but is now a servant whose role is to lead (please note that “lead” is not spelled r-u-l-e) or “point” (if you prefer) others to Christ.

    I’m sorry if i’ve got you wrong here, Molly, but several “straw man” alarms went off when reading this. Perhaps that is only because this “priest of his home” idea is new language to me, and i’m hesitant to assume i know what is meant by it.

  4. Yes, women absolutely need a mediator. His name is Jesus the Christ. Our men need the same mediator.

    In the earthly realm, He has asked me, as the wife, to submit myself to the headship of my husband. If we disagree on something, my opinion will bow to his will. In doing so, I’m exercising my faith in the God Who has asked this of me. I have yet to regret it.

    Practically speaking, it just makes sense. Otherwise, there would be contention. A lot of contention.

  5. I have no verse for you, Molly, but, yes, I heard this idea preached all through my young(er) years. Of course, there wasn’t a ton of elaboration on it–women were responsible for their own relationship with God just the same. However, this idea was preached in the same pulpit that denounced egalitarianism and mutual submission.

    So, Nathan Bubna, I haven’t heard the specific sermons Molly is referencing, but I can testify that this idea is alive and well.

  6. Posted by Greg on May 8, 2008 at 1:36 pm

    Hey Molly,

    Wannabe farmer here again…

    I have spent a little bit of time with both of these men and I know they are not saying what you infer they are saying about husbands/fathers as priests. There may be others who teach that crap, but I know these two men are not.

    BTW – are you aware that Steve Brown is reformed??? I didn’t know your sensibilities would allow such a thing. Ha – I bet you’re eating twinkies now too.

  7. Practically speaking, it just makes sense. Otherwise, there would be contention. A lot of contention.

    Grafted, I’m curious– could you clarify as to whether you are referring to your marriage in particular, or to marriages in general? I ask mainly for clarity’s sake, simply because the latter (speaking concerning all marriages) would obviously be untrue based on the fact that couples who do not practice what you have described can still have harmonious marriages, whereas couples who do practice one-way submission can have marriages and families riddled with strife and conflict.

    If you’re speaking of your marriage in particular, though, then you would certainly know best whether or not that’s true! I just wanted to know which you meant, before I went and got all contentious about it ;)

  8. I saw the “submit to the husband’s headship” thing come up, and that’s one of my pet peeves when it comes to non-biblical requirements. We’re each, as Christians, to submit ourselves to one another. You don’t submit to anyTHING pertaining to a fellow Christian: not to leadership, headship, authority, etc. We are to submit TO THE OTHER, not to someTHING. And the big shocker that so many simply will not accept, is that EVEN the husbands are to submit to their wives. There aren’t any loopholes.

    The other thing I saw here in the comments is that “lead” doesn’t mean “rule.” That’s true, as far as it goes. The thing is, when one is talking about husbands, it’s totally extra-biblical to claim that husbands are to “lead” (not “rule”) their wives. Religiously-popular, yes, but extrabiblical nonetheless.

    I’m always amazed at how much ruckus people raise when fellow Christians believe and live as though submission to his wife and not leading her is true to the Scriptures. If submission is a good thing–and it most certainly is–then it is as good for husbands to practice as it is for wives, toward each other. They’re simply both putting Eph. 5:21 into practice, because they’re both Christians and it applies to both of them. Radical, huh? :)

  9. Posted by Greg on May 8, 2008 at 6:25 pm

    Hey, I even sing some of Wesley’s hymns.

    And you’ve always been gracious to me even though I came smelling of TULIPs AND Twinkies.

    Hope I wasn’t over the top with my reference to bad teaching, but it is just that.

  10. Posted by belowthesurface on May 8, 2008 at 6:58 pm

    Molly, I’m so glad you tackled this subject. I know nothing about the people you referenced using the “priest of the home” phrase, but there has never been any doubt what that meant in the teaching I was exposed to for years. Like you, I was never able to find a verse to support it.

    Just this past December, a family doctor looked me in the eye and told me that my husband is my “prophet, priest, and king.” He then would not prescribe a certain medication that I needed at the time without my husband’s consent. My husband was with me and gave that consent, but I was livid. We don’t go to that doctor anymore.

    I live in the “Bible belt.” That mindset is unfortunately rampant here.

  11. Posted by belowthesurface on May 8, 2008 at 6:59 pm

    Molly, by the way, I’m Tina and I found you through Cynthia Clack’s blog. I also hang out some on the God Journey forum.

  12. Hmm… Yeah, I have heard this taught. I can’t speak for the men you heard, having never heard them, but the teaching I received was that women could go to God themselves – and should – but they should submit to their husbands and husbands should take spiritual authority in their homes and… wives should not lead … women should not lead men… and women could teach women, but…

    So, here are some thoughts to chew on. ;-) (all from The Message)

    “Deborah was a prophet, the wife of Lappidoth. She was judge over Israel at that time. She held court under Deborah’s Palm between Ramah and Bethel in the hills of Ephraim. The People of Israel went to her in matters of justice.” Judges 4:4-5

    “At that time there was a man named Manoah from Zorah from the tribe of Dan. His wife was barren and childless. The angel of God appeared to her and told her, “I know that you are barren and childless, but you’re going to become pregnant and bear a son. But take much care: Drink no wine or beer; eat nothing ritually unclean. You are, in fact, pregnant right now, carrying a son. No razor will touch his head—the boy will be God’s Nazirite from the moment of his birth. He will launch the deliverance from Philistine oppression.”" Judges 13:2-5

    “So Hannah ate. Then she pulled herself together, slipped away quietly, and entered the sanctuary. The priest Eli was on duty at the entrance to God’s Temple in the customary seat. Crushed in soul, Hannah prayed to God and cried and cried—inconsolably. Then she made a vow:
    Oh, God-of-the-Angel-Armies,
    If you’ll take a good, hard look at my pain,
    If you’ll quit neglecting me and go into action for me
    By giving me a son,
    I’ll give him completely, unreservedly to you.
    I’ll set him apart for a life of holy discipline.” 1 Samuel 1:10-11

    “In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to the Galilean village of Nazareth to a virgin engaged to be married to a man descended from David. His name was Joseph, and the virgin’s name, Mary. Upon entering, Gabriel greeted her:

    Good morning!
    You’re beautiful with God’s beauty,
    Beautiful inside and out!
    God be with you.
    29-33She was thoroughly shaken, wondering what was behind a greeting like that. But the angel assured her, “Mary, you have nothing to fear. God has a surprise for you: You will become pregnant and give birth to a son and call his name Jesus.” Luke 1:26-33

    “Anna the prophetess was also there, a daughter of Phanuel from the tribe of Asher. She was by now a very old woman. She had been married seven years and a widow for eighty-four. She never left the Temple area, worshiping night and day with her fastings and prayers. At the very time Simeon was praying, she showed up, broke into an anthem of praise to God, and talked about the child to all who were waiting expectantly for the freeing of Jerusalem.” Luke 2:36-38

    I see no way around the fact that Deborah led men. Read the whole passage…

    The Angel of God appeared directly to Sampson’s mother first. She went to get her husband on her own…

    Hannah went to pray to God directly in the tent – Eli didn’t stop her. He only spoke to her when he suspected her of being drunk.

    God sent Gabriel directly to Mary… no intermediary.

    Anna was a prophetess who recognized who Jesus was the moment she saw Him.

    These were are under the old covenant. How much more can women come directly to God without a mediator under the new – the better – covenant.

    Just some thoughts. ;-)

  13. BTW, I like the change to the left sidebar – ‘Molly is…’ – Cool. ;-)

  14. We are all priests according to Peter.

    As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 1 Peter 2:4-5

    and again

    But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. 1 Peter 2:9-10

    I suppose the idea of husband as a sort of high priest over the woman (with her as a priest on a lower echelon ) is posited because Ephesians is interpreted as teaching that the husband is as Christ to the wife who represents the church, therefore he is her high priest.

  15. …and just as Christ mediates for the church the husband mediates for the wife.

    I don’t agree with this teaching but I would guess this is how it has come about.

  16. Thanks for touching that subject, Molly, and thanks for all those great thoughts, everyone else!

    1 Corinthians 14.
    34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church

    I understand that to either mean:
    - women shouldn’t talk in church and should simply accept what is taught (submit) because the law (I am guessing of Corinth at that time) says so. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their husbands because it’s not proper for women to speak in church (public meetings????)

    - Or women were being disruptive and Paul is reminding them that, by law, they should be quiet in church, like in any other public setting. If they have questions, they should raise them at home with their husbands.

    Women were not very educated back then and it seems it was disgraceful and would bring shame to their husbands for them to say anything.

    Notice that Paul doesn’t have anything to say about personal Bible study or even Bible study as a couple. Can a wife share her understanding of Scripture with her husband? I think so!
    Can a wife pray for her husband? Of course! As she prays for those in authority? Well… if her husband is a distant, authoritarian figure, I guess so, but I believe that Jesus and Paul both teach unity as the key for marriage and to add a little twist, do prayers go from the brain/head or from the heart? Where does the heart reside in the head-body spectrum?

    Back to the original topic. I asked my husband to show me some evidence of husband priesthood in the Bible, and please provide me with some direct instruction to men to be their wives’ or family’s priest.
    He showed me a passage in Job where Job prays for his family as the priest. Does anyone know where that passage is?

    I’m wary of taking examples on priesthood from the Old Testament, because that was the time when people needed priests as intermediates. Jesus is our high priest and we can all come to him directly. I don’t need my husbands’ intermediation any more than he needs mine, and I need his intercession as much as he needs mine.

    Who’s the spiritual leader? Jesus! If my husband would take us to a church teaching ungodly stuff, I’d probably take myself and the kids to a different congregation.

    I don’t see any direct instruction for men to be the spiritual leaders, or any other type of leader for that matter! (except taking initiative and leaving father and mother to cleave to wife and become one flesh with her).
    If a husband chooses to be the one who picks a church for his family, makes sure they get there, reads Bible to the children, makes time for devotions with his wife, etc… well… My husband took us to a church I wasn’t fond of at all. I had my interior battle about that one, prayed, cried, etc… Then I submitted to him, for the sake of UNITY, not because I’m the wife.

    Some folks take these concepts a bit too far and condemn a woman for even prompting her husband, suggesting he “lead” etc.. Just go ahead and do it if you think it should be done and forget about who is supposed to fulfill what role! They are pretty much man-elaborated, with a very flimsy base in Scripture anyway!

  17. People take the Eph. 5 husband/wife analogy to Christ/church WAY farther than Paul does! A husband is to LOVE his wife as Christ loves the church. Paul elaborates just how lavishly Christ loves the church, but never, ever says that husbands are to be “as Christ” to their wives in any way except in their love for them. It’s ludicrous, really, when we actually think about it. A husband can’t save his wife, or purify her, or atone for her sins, or do any of the other things that he himself needs from Christ (as she does, also). But, in Christ, he CAN love her, and he’s told specifically to do so. All Christians are to love one another as Christ has loved us; Jesus himself told us to do this. All Christians are to submit ourselves to one another; Paul in the Spirit told us to do this.

    But we human beings want easy-answer systems that give us more and more specific things to do and voila! we’re holy. Husbands, be priest and king to your wife and family. Wives, submit unilaterally to your husband and accept his “role” as your high priest; treat him as your king, because he’s your leader. Follow the 40+ tenets of the PMM or the Tenets of Patriarchy and you, too, will be assured of your holiness and conformity to “God’s Way.”

    Jesus Christ is THE way, the truth, and life itself to us. There IS no other. We’re all just sisters and brothers, called to love and defer to one another in Christ. Why do we add to that?

  18. Molly, I believe that when things are very simplistic, we do not understand it.

    For example: I believe the husband should be the man of the house. Just that. Nothing more, nothing less. But being a man does not really sound very “spiritual”. So we give him a title. Priest. Now suddenly, because of this, he has responsibilities that he did not have before. O wow!!

    Man. Husband. Father. Those are very spiritual terms to me. Then again, I could be wrong.

    I’ll end with these verses.
    Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, NEITHER MALE NOR FEMALE, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

    1 Pet. 2:9 However, YOU are chosen people, A ROYAL PRIESTHOOD, a holy nation, people who belong to God. You were chosen to tell about the excellent qualities of God, who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

  19. Greg, my other favorite Calvinist (well, and your humble wife, of course), you were so NOT over the top. Preach it, brothah.

    abmo,
    Very cool. Very simple. I really like it.

    Ah, crud, I thought I’d have a second to respond to everyone, but I think eagles just ate all of our chickens… WAH! More later…

  20. Posted by E on May 9, 2008 at 10:29 am

    Mr. Ignorant-but-learning here.

    I had always associated double-predestination with John Calvin. In reading Jaroslav Pelikan’s THE CHRISTIAN TRADITION (I’ve read vol. 1 & 2 so far, and am in vol. 3; 1 is the “Catholic” church 100-600 AD; 2 is Eastern Christendom 600-1700 AD; 3 is Medieval Christianity (i.e., the “West”) 600-1300 AD; 4 is the Reformation 1300-1700 AD; 5 is the Church and Modern Culture 1700-now), I’ve come to find out that it was Augustine who started it. Big time. So much so that it’s one thing that was eventually rejected by the Church because it was not felt to be in accord with the nature of God or the Apostolic Tradition, IIRC.

    But it is part of John Calvin’s theology, isn’t it – i.e., in the foreknowledge and predetermined plan of God, some are chosen for Election and the rest are damned? Yes? No?

    Anyway, if you haven’t read Pelikan, you might want to put it on your short list. Especially if, like most American Protestants, you have very little knowledge of Church history and, more importantly, why we say and believe what we say and believe about God, Christ, etc. It’s scholarly, but readable.

    And if you come from a “historical/Apostolic” church, like the Roman Catholic or Orthodox Church, or are presently in one of those, you’ll also learn some much-needed information, too. Pelikan became Orthodox in 1998 or so, and died last year, but he wrote these when he was Lutheran (he was regarded as the foremost authority on Martin Luther and his writings). His series is not slanted one way or the other, though, and it’s filled with marginal references to what he is citing in case you want to see the actual quotes for yourself.

    Highly recommended and praised by just about everyone, and inexpensive at Amazon.com.

  21. There are two problems I see with the use of this word to describe the husband’s relationship to his wife. The first is that ALL of us are ‘priests’ in the Holy Priesthood. The High Priest is Jesus Christ.

    Secondly, since all true believers are now part of the Holy Priesthood and if the husband is considered ANY kind of ‘priest’ to his wife, that means she would be serving two masters or would not have direct access to the Father. You just cannot get around that. That is why the interpretation of those verses make no sense in the scope of ALL scripture.

  22. “1 Corinthians 14.
    34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church”

    This is almost word for word out of the Talmud which makes some scholars believe Paul is quoting someone. (There is another quote in 1 Corin that Paul answers)

    I think verse 36 answers the question on whether or not this is teaching from Paul. It basically says: What? Are you serious? You think the word of God came only to YOU?

  23. Have fun:

    ii. A Particular Case (14:33b–36)
    The translation and exegesis is immensely complex. Contextual factors are vital, including presuppositions about what the addressees were assumed to understand by language of which we know only Paul’s part of the dialogue. Nevertheless, the main themes of “controlled speech” and “order” (14:24–40) continue. We also note below the problems caused by issues of whether parts of these verses are un-Pauline, either by interpolation of by allusive quotation.
    Supplementary Bibliography on 14:33b–36 (but See Also on 14:1–40)
    Allison, R. W., “ ‘Let the Women Be Silent in the Churches’ (1 Cor 14:33b–36): What Did Paul Really Say, and What Did It Mean?” JSNT 32 (1988): 27–60.
    Barton, S. C., “Paul’s Sense of Place: An Anthropological Approach to Community Formation in Corinth,” NTS 32 (1986): 225–46.
    Ellis, E. E., “The Silenced Wives of Corinth (1 Cor 14:34–35),” in E. J. Epp and G. D. Fee (eds.), NT Textual Criticism and Its Significance for Exegesis: In Honour of Bruce Metzger (Oxford: Clarendon, 1981), 213–20.
    Fitzer, G., Das Weib schweige in der Gemeinde, TEH 10 (Munich: Kaiser, 1963).
    Flanagan, N. M., and E. H. Snyder, “Did Paul Put Down Women in 1 Cor 14:34–36?” BTB 11 (1981): 10–12.
    Harrington, W., “Paul and Women,” Religious Life Review 25 (1986): 155–63.
    Horrell, D. G., The Social Ethos of the Corinthian Correspondence (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996), 184–95.
    Klauck, H.-J., 1 Korintherbrief (Würzburg: Echter, 1992), “Das Schweigen der Frau,” 104–6.
    Kroeger, C. and R., “Strange Tongues or Plain Talk?” Daughters of Sarah 12 (1986): 10–13.
    Maier, W. A., “An Exegetical Study of 1 Cor 14:33b–38,” CTQ 55 (1991): 81–104.
    Manus, C. U., “The Subordination of Women … 1 Cor 14:33b–36 Reconsidered,” Review of African Theology 8 (1984): 183–95.
    Munro, W., “Women, Text, and the Canon: The Strange Case of 1 Cor 14:33–35,” BTB 18 (1988): 26–31.
    Nadeau, D. J., “La problème des femmes en 1 Cor 14:33b–35,” ETR 69 (1994): 63–65.
    Niccum, C., “The Voice of the Manuscripts on the Silence of Women: The External Evidence for 1 Cor 14:34–35,” NTS 43 (1997): 242–55.
    Odell-Scott, D. W., “In Defence of an Egalitarian Interpretation of 1 Cor 14:34–6 … ,” BTB 17 (1987): 100–103.
    ———, “Let the Women Speak in Church: An Egalitarian Interpretation of 1 Cor 14:33b–36,” BTB (1983): 90–93.
    Osburn, C. D., “The Interpretation of 1 Cor 14:34–35,” in Osburn (ed.), Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity (Joplin: College, 1993), 1:219–42.
    Payne, P. B., “Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus, and 1 Cor 14:34–35,” NTS 41 (1995): 240–62.
    Petzer, J. H., “Reconsidering the Silent Women of Corinth … 1 Cor 14:34–35,” ThEv 26 (1993): 132–38.
    Ross, J. M., “Floating Words: Their Significance for Textual Criticism,” NTS 38 (1992): 153–56.
    Rowe, A., “Silence and the Christian Women of Corinth … 1 Cor 14:33b–36,” CV 33 (1990): 41–84.
    Sigountos, J. G., and M. Shank, “Public Roles for Women in the Pauline Church,” JETS 26 (1983): 283–95.
    Wire, A. C., The Corinthian Women Prophets (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 149–58.
    Witherington, B., Conflict and Community in Corinth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995).
    ———, Women in the Earliest Churches, SNTSMS 59 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 90–104.
    Wolff, C., Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther, “Exkurs,” 341–47.
    33b–34 Judgments about translation become immensely difficult because they are inextricably bound up with Paul’s assumption that the Corinthian readers would interpret and understand such words as σιγάτωσαν (let them be silent; let them hold their peace; let them stop speaking; let them not interrupt) and λαλεῖν (to speak, to speak in the way just described, to speak in the way they do) in accordance with the context of situation known both to the author and to the addressees. Here an “abstracted” rendering on the basis of word-for-word lexicography alone could actually violate contextual understanding. All this is further compounded by the fact that many view these verses (or some verses) as a non-Pauline interpolation by a copyist; others view them as a quotation of a Corinthian view which Paul rejects; yet others perceive them as a pre-Pauline tradition which Paul accepts and adapts. We must first set forth the facts about the textual evidence (or lack of it) for claims that these verses constitute a non-Pauline interpolation. However, most writers who regard these verses as un-Pauline do so only partly on the grounds of textual variants. These various complexities give rise to the research literature cited above, of which the select bibliography represents only a portion of recent studies. Hays regards v. 33b as belonging to the previous unit (vv. 26–33), but Collins and most other writers more convincingly understood it as the introductory principle for vv. 34–36.335
    (1) The UBS 4th ed. Greek New Testament classifies vv. 34–35 as “B,” i.e., “the text is almost certain,” although the UBS 3d ed. also used “B” but in that earlier edition this classification indicated “some degree of doubt.” The basic facts are that the Western, D, E, F, G, the later 88*, and fourth-century Ambrosiaster displace vv. 34–35 to after v. 40. However, the very early P46 (Chester Beatty, c. ad 200, together with א, B, A, 33, 88 mg, Vulgate, Old Syriac, and most other MSS) read these verses in their normal, accepted place. Many writers (including Weiss, Conzelmann, Klauck, and Senft) use this displacement in the Western text as part of an argument for the view that these verses are an interpolation, but we must keep our textual judgments distinct from arguments of other kinds. Surprisingly, Fee is one of those who place most weight on the textual variants, indicating “a very early marginal gloss that was subsequently placed in the text at two different places,” and that these verses were “not part of the original.”336 This variant displacement “may not be shunted aside.”337
    While others agree that vv. 34–35 (or vv. 33b–36) are an interpolation, few place the weight that Fee does on a textual variant which Wire, with meticulous scholarship, shows to rest on a single MS tradition (see below). Metzger and Zuntz in fact find it entirely understandable that an early copyist should move vv. 34–35 to the end of the chapter for any of several reasons.338 Fee’s claims about the paucity of evidence for this type of displacement in the NT where the displacement is artificial seems to be answered by the range of evidence put forward by J. M. Ross.339 A thorough assessment is offered by A. C. Wire. She points out that every “displacement” MS is either a Greek-Latin bilingual or a Latin text, that E is a direct copy of D, and that F and G are so close to each other that it is widely agreed that they copied the same edited text. In practice only D and G remain as two witnesses, which in turn almost certainly come from “a single common archetype.”340 This distinctive Western text gives rise only to the appearance of a variety of Latin text-types, since these depend on the same single tradition. Wire further explains why the anomalous twelfth-century 88* reading is not a survival of earlier pre-Latin texts, but reflects a reactive scribal activity. Finally, in contrast to Fee, and with Metzger, she offers several possible reasons why the D tradition should have displaced the original authentic sequence which occurs in our texts (UBS 3d and 4th eds.). One relates to errors in copying (e.g., haplography) and their correction; a second, to an attempt to “improve” the text; a third, to ideological interests on the part of a corrector: “it is not scientific to exclude a priori the possibility of a translator’s or scribe’s ideological decision to displace or omit a passage silencing women.”341 She cites the period of Montanism and Tertullian as a possible background for such changes.
    The debate has become intensified by two highly detailed and meticulous studies by Philip Payne (1995) and by Curt Niccum (1997), each of which reaches different and opposing conclusions: Payne argues on the basis of the Vaticanus “bar umlaut and/or umlaut text-critical sigla … of the textual variations” that new textual and internal evidence “strengthens an already strong case that 1 Cor 14:34–35 is an interpolation”; Niccum reviews every aspect of the debate (including Wire and Payne), and concludes, “No extant MS offers evidence for an original omission of 1 Cor 14:34–35.… No other reading has claim to being ‘original’ other than that of preserving the traditional sequence of verses.”342 Payne urges that Metzger overlooked the textual evidence of Codex Fuldensis as an important witness to the omission of the verses. Niccum attacks Payne’s appeal to “bar umlauts” marks as at best confused and as postdating the fourteenth century. The earliest known witness to a transposition of sequence in the passage is Ambrosiaster (late fourth century). He cites good reasons for a later reapplication of “in all the churches.” Niccum’s pages are packed with powerful and succinct arguments which prove convincing.
    Further arguments concerning the strictly textual issue are urged by others mainly in the same direction as Wire (anticipating Niccum) but sometimes with Fee. Horrell defends Fee’s position, arguing that Wire has failed to address the issues fully.343 Earle Ellis argues that vv. 34–35 constitute a marginal note added by Paul himself after reading through the draft of 1 Corinthians.344 Stephen Barton accepts and develops this idea further.345 On the other side, however, even Conzelmann, who believes that the verses are an interpolation on internal grounds (i.e., exegetical and theological, not textual), concedes that the Western readings are themselves “no argument for the assumption of an interpolation.”346 Witherington expresses strong scepticism about the weight of the textual arguments: “Displacement is no argument for interpolation. Probably these verses were displaced by scribes who assumed that they were about household order, not order in worship, scribes working at a time when there were church buildings separate from private homes.”347 (The earliest Western text witness is around ad 375.) Again, many of Fee’s points seem to be amply addressed by J. M. Ross, who categorizes different types of displaced or “floating” texts within the NT. He argues that if the verses were an interpolation, this would be “very early, almost before any copies had been made, certainly before the writing of 1 Tim 2:11–13.… We are bound to accept the unanimous testimony of the manuscripts, however deeply we may regret that Paul expressed this opinion.”348
    (2) A textual note should include mention of a less significant minor variant also. D, F, G, K, and Old Syriac insert ὑμῶν after γυναῖκες. This may have been an attempt to localize the rule and is perhaps not entirely unrelated to the Western tradition discussed under (1). However P46 (probable reading) and firmly Sinaiticus, A, B, C, 33, Vulgate, and Coptic have the shorter text, which is clearly right.
    WHICH WOMEN? WHAT KIND OF SILENCE? WHAT KIND OF INTERROGATION? (14:33B–35)
    (1) A Non-Pauline Interpolation?
    It is impossible to explicate the nuances of the words of the text independently of judgments about what verses, if any, constitute non-Pauline interpolations. Those who argue for the view that either vv. 34–35 or vv. 33b–36 represent an interpolation include, e.g., Schmiedel, Weiss, Dautzenberg, Conzelmann, Fitzer, Strobel, Klauck, Fee, Hays, Senft, and Schrage, as well as more cautiously Moffatt and Barrett.349 Before we consider the various arguments in detail, it may be helpful first to gain an overview. Senft and Schrage provide a helpful outline of five main arguments: (1) The verses allegedly differ from the main theme or themes of 12:1–14:40; (2) they supposedly interrupt the flow of instructions about the prophets, as the Western copyists perceive (and a few MSS place them after 14:40, e.g., D, F, G); (3) the verses contradict 11:5; (4) to appeal to “the law” to endorse or to validate church discipline is “non-Pauline”; (5) “the expression ‘the church of the saints’ [ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῶν ἁγίων, translated above as the churches of God’s holy people] is foreign to Paul.”350
    Most, if not all, of these arguments (e.g., especially the relation to 11:5) become clarified in the light of patient exegesis. Collins rightly considers this collection of arguments as “not weighty” and traces the themes and vocabulary which precisely reflect Paul’s concerns in 14:25–40.351 Any attempt to assess these arguments, however (especially the relation to 11:5), must also take account of a further complication. Many argue that vv. 34–35 represent a Corinthian slogan or piece of Corinthian theology which Paul quotes, only to reject it. Such a view is not farfetched, for Paul appears to do precisely this in 6:12; 7:1; 10:23; and perhaps elsewhere (e.g., in 8:1–6).
    (2) Does Paul Quote a Corinthian View Which He Rejects?
    D. W. Odell-Scott is perhaps most widely associated with this view, both in an article of 1983 and a further response to Jerome Murphy-O’Connor in 1987.352 However, Manus, Flanagan and Snyder, and Allison all offer variants of this view also (see below). Odell-Scott regards the key particle ἤ, Or, at the beginning of v. 36, as offering a resounding rhetorical rejoinder to the conservative patriarchal rule expressed by a group at Corinth in the words of vv. 34–35: Or was it from you that the word of God went out? (v. 36). According to Odell-Scott, since this can be understood as a strong rebuttal of vv. 34–35, the passage emphatically endorses the authority of women to speak in the public congregation.
    This view also finds expression in slightly different terms in C. Ukachukwu Manus. He understands it as Paul’s rebuttal of a male sexist group at Corinth who insisted on a strong subordination of women especially here within marriage.353 This approach, however, develops a view which was formulated more tentatively in 1981 by N. M. Flanagan and E. H. Snyder.354 More recently in 1988 R. W. Allison provided perhaps the most detailed development of this same approach. He regards vv. 33b–36 as coming from an earlier letter from Paul to Corinth, in which vv. 34–35 represent the hierarchical view of a conservative group at Corinth, v. 33b is an editorial link, and v. 36 introduces Paul’s indignant rhetorical questions following the disjunctive particle ἤ.355 He suggests an original setting in which Paul argued for eschatological freedom. “Paul’s rhetorical questions are his sarcastic rebuttal of his opponents’ position.”356
    Horrell finds the view of Odell-Smith and Allison “implausible” not least because, as Conzelmann also notes, v. 36, which attacks the self-important claims of some at Corinth to be “different,” then leaves v. 33b either as part of the Corinthian slogan, which would not cohere with our knowledge of Corinth, or as simply hanging without continuation until after an overly long quotation, or as belonging to vv. 26–33a, which, apart from Barrett, KJV/AV, RV, Alford, and Phillips, is widely accepted as belonging with vv. 34–37 (as UBS 4th ed., NRSV, REB, NIV, NJB, Conzelmann, and most writers).357 “The point about the particle … makes most sense when v. 36 is linked with v. 33.”358 Witherington offers stronger and more detailed arguments why the hypothesis of Odell-Scott and Flanagan and Snyder are open to doubt. In sum, because of such phrases as as in all the churches of God’s holy people, and because 6:12; 10:23; 7:1 et al. represent not “rebuttals” but circumstancial qualifications “they raise more questions than they answer.”359 With a deft turn, he adds: “In all probability Paul is anticipating the response he expected to get (v. 36) when the Corinthians read his argument (vv. 34–35).”360 The decisive objection, however, arises under the next heading.
    (3) Paul’s Use of Contextual Terms: “Speaking,” “Silence,” “Order,” and “Churches”
    (a) Speaking
    We strongly contend, as Earle Ellis and Ben Witherington do, that vv. 34–35 take up “a large amount of significant vocabulary” from the verses which immediately precede them.361 The four key terms (as Witherington rightly asserts) are λαλέω (repeatedly from 14:14 to 32), σιγάω (14:28, 30, 34), ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ (14:28, 35; cf. 34); and ὑποτάσσω (14:32, 34). Ellis stresses that the use of σιγάω, to be silent, to stop speaking, to refrain from speaking, is “the catch-word connection between verses 28, 30, 34,” which is overlooked by theories of interpolation.362 It is this that constrains and shapes our translation, as we indicate in the brief introduction to vv. 33a–36. Against the argument that the use of οὐ γὰρ ἐπιτρέπεται, there exists no permission, is not Pauline, several writers refer with approval to S. Aalen’s argument that the key word is drawn here by Paul from a rabbinic formula used in the context of biblical texts, especially in the Pentateuch, which express a principle often introduced with ὁ νόμος λέγει, the law indicates.363 BAGD, Moulton-Milligan et al. and Grimm-Thayer provide instances of the verb in the sense of it is permitted (sometimes with the perfect stative sense, there exists permission) in the papyri, Josephus, and other first-century sources.364
    (b) Silence
    The verb σιγάω, depending on context, means either to stop speaking (as in v. 30, also REB), or to hold one’s tongue, or hold one’s peace, or to refrain from using a particular kind of speech, or speech in a presupposed context.365 Hence while KJV/AV translates keep silence (v. 34) NEB has should not address the meeting, although REB returns to should keep silent, even though it translates λαλεῖν as have no permission to talk. On the other hand, vv. 29–33 clearly concern prophetic speech, and v. 29b especially the sifting of prophetic speech. We must therefore firmly keep in view that since 11:5 makes it clear that Paul approves of women using prophetic speech their silence may allude either to stopping speaking or more probably to the possibility of sitting in judgment over prophetic speech which may come from their husbands, i.e., sifting prophetic speech, or to a constant intervention of questions (cf. v. 35) under the guise of sifting what has been said. To provide a balance between contextual constraints and unknown factors, we propose a general term in keeping with Paul’s own in the previous verses, namely, should allow for silence.
    (c) Order
    The contextual character of ὑποτάσσω is constrained by an explicitly double context. In v. 32 the verb is used in the middle voice to denote self-control, or controlled speech. Paul may be insisting on a specific extension of this to a group who saw reflective critical control as reimposing an oppressive “order” from which they had been liberated. A. C. Wire, from the standpoint of a feminist critique of Paul’s antiegalitarianism, paints a plausible scenario for such a group. In this case Paul has to extend his principle of “order” (τάσσω) to those who might genuinely perceive such an imposition as an apostolic power bid to quench the Spirit and to curb legitimate liberty.
    A second context of “order,” then, is also introduced. This is larger than speech-ethics or ecclesiology. The Pentateuch (ὁ νόμος) declares the ordered character of creation and human life and the regulative character (especially Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Numbers) of boundaries or differentiations. REB well captures this second context by translating ὑποτασσέσθωσαν as they should keep their place as the law directs (against NRSV), should be subordinate, or, worse, NIV, must be in submission. These are quite different in force from the theological context of keep their ordered place.
    NRSV and NIV presumably rest partly on lexicography and partly on the exegetical tradition which sees the law here as referring to Gen 3:16, the “subordination” of Eve. Chrysostom, Bengel, Godet, Grosheide, Robertson and Plummer, and Orr and Walther are among those who support this tradition.366 F. F. Bruce, however, shows the difficulty of this view and offers a series of constructive comments. He agrees with most commentators that the law is likely to refer to the Pentateuch (cf. 9:8), but nevertheless rejects the widespread view that it refers specifically to Gen 3:16. He observes: “This is unlikely, since in MT and LXX Gen 3:16 speaks of a woman’s instinctive inclination … (Heb. תשׁוקה [teshuqah]; Gk [LXX] ἀποστροφή) towards her husband, of which he takes advantage so as to dominate her. The reference is more probably to the creation narratives.…”367 We may take this much further. The patterns of order demonstrated in divine actions of creation through differentiation and order and in the Levitical and Deuteronomic codes are integral to the Pentateuch. The prior state of “the earth” was “without form and void” (Heb. תהו ובהו, tohu wabohu, almost onomatopoeic for chaotic abyss, Gen 1:2). God then “divides” or “separates” light from darkness (Gen 1:4) and heaven from earth (1:6–8) to give each “form.” This principle of order and differentiation (Heb. בדל, badal, 1:4, 6, 7, 14, 18; LXX διεχώρισεν, vv. 4, 6, 7, διαχωρίζειν, vv. 14, 18, διαχωρίζον, v. 6) occurs in the standard creation parallels in Babylonian and Egyptian texts.368
    This conviction that God the Holy Spirit creatively transforms chaos into order runs throughout the scriptures, and as Stephen Barton reminds us, anthropological and biblical research cohere and converge in exposing the importance of “boundaries” and “markers” for determining what is “out of place” or suitably “in place” in the life of God’s holy people. Barton himself argues that the specific central issue in 14:33b–36, as it is also in 11:17–34, arises from “conflict … between Paul and the Corinthians about where the line is to be drawn between church and household” (Barton’s italics).369 However, “the social importance of boundaries,” which also relates to issues of “sacredness” and “power,” is not confined, in our view, to that between church and household in this passage.370 Barton cites the standard work of E. Leach, Mary Douglas, Clifford Geertz, and V. W. Turner among others on the anthropological background, and Wayne Meeks, G. Theissen, and E. Schüssler Fiorenza on related issues in the NT.371 Philo, as Barton notes, relates male-female boundaries to boundaries of place, especially the contrast between public space and the home (Philo, De Specialibus Legibus 3.169-71).372
    What seems surprising is the extent to which writers tend to overspecify the particular aspect of boundaries of “order” which Paul has as his main concern: husbands versus wives; public space versus the home; speech versus silence; controlled speech versus uncontrolled “inspired” or “ecstatic” speech. Although her work defends the emancipated women prophets against an insecure authoritarian Paul, A. C. Wire is surely right to identify the very large issue of whether “order” still applies to a charismatic gospel community.373 In the eyes of many at Corinth, it did not; in Paul’s view, such a claim undermines the very unity of God by making the God of the Spirit of the new age contradict the God who revealed his ordered ways through scripture (cf. the law in a way which would later be called Marcionite or Montanist). Indeed, Wire explicitly argues that Paul’s “rhetoric” depends largely on a (male) logic of differentiation: thought versus reality (3:18; 8:2, 3; 10:12; 11:16; 14:37–8); private versus public (7:2, 8–9, 36; 11:5a, 21–22a; 14:18–19a, 28, 34–35; 16:2); self-benefit versus community benefit (1:10; 3:3; 8:9–11; 9:22; 10:24, 28–29, 32–33; 11:21–22; 12:7, 24b–25; 13:5b; 14:3, 4, 12); shame versus honor (1:26, 27; 4:10, 14; 11:3–7, 13–15, 21–22; 12:23a; 14:34–35; 15:42, 43a); and human versus divine (2:12–15; 3:1, 3; 6:15–17; 7:32–34; 10:21–22; 11:7, 20–21; 15:50): “Paul’s rhetoric in 1 Corinthians again and again stresses … dissociation … antithesis.… [The Corinthians, especially their women prophets,] do not expect the Lord’s Spirit to produce resolution … an ordered meal in contrast to strife, disorder.… Rather, the spirit seems to be known for generating multiple authorities in contrast to a world of stated authority.”374 Paul integrates these differentiations, Wire argues, by appeals to unifying definitions, justice, scripture, argument, God’s calling, the Lord’s command, structures of reality, and “universal church practice.”375 Wire is not alone in ascribing a special sense of “emancipation” to women’s opinion at Corinth, which generated a specific theology of liberation.376
    All of these points seem to substantiate our understanding and translation of ὑποτασσέσθωσαν as let them keep to their ordered place. It is extremely important to distinguish this from submission based on Gen 3:16 (see Bruce’s comment above), since this then confuses the Christian believer’s role within the created order with a role still unresolved within fallen creation, which then appears to conflict with Gal 3:28. Thus Kistemaker rightly understands the issue as one of “respect” in God’s order, in which, Witherington observes, “women are not being commanded to submit to their husbands, but to the principle of order” (although he unduly adds, “in the worship service”).377 The proof of the permanence of the principle of order even within an eschatological mode emerges in 1 Cor 15:28. When everything has been properly ordered (ὑποταγῇ … τὰ πάντα, Jesus Christ, the Son, will also resume his ordered place (ὁ υἱὸς ὑποταγήσεται) in relation to the God who orders all things (τῷ ὑποτάξαντι … τὰ πάντα). This exhibits an “ordered” Trinity, not a “subordinationist” Christology.378
    (d) The Church and Speech
    Wire is right about Paul’s concern that Corinth does not make unilateral local decisions which are at odds with all the churches since these are no less the one holy people of God. The context makes it quite clear why Paul uses ἁγίων (against those who mistakenly urge that this phrase is “non-Pauline”). In contrast to Babel, the Spirit of God brings God’s people together as one holy people. Paul anticipates the later so-called “marks of the church” in classical theology as “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church” as many confess Sunday by Sunday in the Nicene Creed. This verse looks back to 1:2, “called as holy (κλητοῖς ἁγίοις) with all those who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place — their Lord as well as ours.”
    It is essential to ask what Paul means by speaking in this context of church practice. Since Paul expresses no reservation at all about a woman’s praying (προσευχομένη) or using prophetic speech (ἢ προφητευουσα) in 11:5, speaking cannot denote speaking of any kind without qualification. It is possible that the universal practice was more “strict,” and that Paul cites it with broad approval, subject to the qualification enunciated in 11:5 (see below).379 However, it is likely that the contextually presupposed understanding which does not need to be explicated for the addressees is either a failure to stop speaking (if Wire’s hypothesis about a more “liberated” and “spiritual” women’s group is valid, i.e., they would be resistant to the notion of giving priority to an ethic of controlled speech over spiritual inspiration), or more probably the disruptive sifting of prophetic speech (as in v. 29), which might involve (1) repetitive interruption with questioning; and (2) the possibility of wives crossexamining their husbands, especially if, as is developed in the Didache, issues of contextual lifestyle are part of the sifting. This scenario becomes more plausible when we review the remaining issues.
    Fee observes that, apart from those who regard vv. 34–35 as a non-Pauline interpolation, the majority of (especially Protestant) commentators regard it as axiomatic that Paul refers either to some form of disruptive speech, or, as a possible alternative, that 14:34–35 is a more formal church setting than 11:2–16.380 The latter is not easy to sustain, since Paul at once goes on to discuss the Lord’s Supper in 11:17–33, where the immensely solemn wording about self-examination (11:28) and drinking judgment on oneself (v. 29) precludes the notion that ch. 11 is like being “at home” (ἐν οἴκῳ, v. 34). What emerges, however, is that neither silence nor speech nor church is used in a generalized, context-free way. Thus Bruce interprets the issue as one of “forbidding them to interrupt proceedings.…”381 In what sense they might “interrupt,” however, awaits further comment.
    (4) Residual Issues: A Pre-Pauline Rule? Relation to 11:5? Jewish and Greek Backgrounds? A Scenario
    (a) If we concur with Witherington and others that what is at issue is not “speech” as much as “abuse of speech,” a probable scenario begins to emerge.382 All of Paul’s language is context-specific, although he also appeals to the established tradition of the churches in general that respect for order entails silence in the kind of context that is under discussion. Ellis’s suggestion, reformulated by Eriksson but which Fee scarcely pauses to consider, that Paul takes up a pre-Pauline tradition and adds it in the margin to otherwise wholly context-relative argument, is defended by Barton as cohering with, and supporting, Paul’s sense of place, thereby allowing for Paul’s endorsement of a wider principle which can be contextually applied and would account for supposedly non-Pauline phrases without regarding them as post-Pauline.383 This is a possibility, but it remains an unnecessary hypothesis in the light of our discussion above on the relation between the law and respect for order which permeates the Pentateuch. There is nothing whatever “un-Pauline” about the allusion to the law, once we have grasped the exegetical issues. We shall return to there exists no permission shortly.
    (b) Most of the hypotheses about “reconciling” 11:5 with 14:33b–36 remain unnecessary. The widespread notion that whereas 11:2–16 speaks of prophetic speech, the use of λαλεῖν refers to chatter in these verses ignores first-century lexicographical evidence and the context of discussion in 14:27–40. 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.”384 Moffatt asserts, “Keep quiet means even more than a prohibition of chattering. Worship is not to be turned into discussion groups.…”385 This view seems to have gained currency from Heinrici, who, together with Héring, cannot imagine Paul’s silencing “inspired” or “liturgical” speech, but can see him as calling to order “ordinary members of the congregation.”386 C. and R. Kroeger argue that Paul forbids either “chatter” or, at the other end of the spectrum, “frenzied shouting.”387 C. K. Barrett, however, soundly dismisses the faulty lexicography to which such interpretations of λαλεῖν often appeal. The meaning to chatter does occur in classical Greek of the earlier centuries, “but in the NT and in Paul the verb normally does not have this meaning, and it is used throughout chapter 14 (vv. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 18, 19, 21, 23, 27, 28, 29, 39) in the sense of inspired speech.”388 Fiorenza’s argument that 11:2–16 refers to women as such, but 14:33b–36 refers only to married women is also possible (especially since γυναῖκες may mean married women, or wives, as well as women) but remains speculative and not perhaps the most obvious explanation if no contradiction between 11:2–16 and 14:33b–36 arises from a contextual exegesis.389
    (c) A short research article by D. J. Nadeau (1994) reminds us that in this polemical and contextually constrained situation Paul is deeply concerned to avoid any confusion between the emerging Christian churches and marginal Graeco-Roman or oriental cults in which women exercised more prominent roles than in the synagogues which formed the Jewish roots of the churches.390 Paul expresses his missionary or evangelistic concern in his allusions to what unbelievers will make of tongues (14:23) and his hopes for their conversion under sober prophetic communication (14:24, 25). In 9:19–23 he has stated that he himself is willing to undergo voluntary restraint and control, even of that to which he has a “right,” if it enhances his attempts to win others for Christ. Controlled speech reflects the traditions of the Bible, the synagogue, and the early churches. Perhaps this is why he uses the rabbinic formulations concerning whether permission exists and what the law indicates. Nadeau has well noted one major strand in Paul’s concerns, although he has not set forth the whole picture, as Paul’s unqualified support for prayer and prophetic speech by women in 11:5 demonstrates. However, if a form of speech or timing of speech other than prayer or proclamation is involved which may generate more hellenistic than Jewish resonances, then Nadeau has taken us forward in some measure.
    (d) With Witherington, we believe that the speaking in question denotes the activity of sifting or weighing the words of prophets, especially by asking probing questions about the prophet’s theology or even the prophet’s lifestyle in public.391 This would become especially sensitive and problematic if wives were cross-examining their husbands about the speech and conduct which supported or undermined the authenticity of a claim to utter a prophetic message, and would readily introduce Paul’s allusion to reserving questions of a certain kind for home. The women would in this case (i) be acting as judges over their husbands in public; (ii) risk turning worship into an extended discussion session with perhaps private interests; (iii) militate against the ethics of controlled and restrained speech in the context of which the congregation should be silently listening to God rather than eager to address one another; and (iv) disrupt the sense of respect for the orderliness of God’s agency in creation and in the world as against the confusion which preexisted the creative activity of God’s Spirit.
    The issue of whether “order” merely attaches to worship services and ecclesiology or to larger questions about God, the Spirit of God, and divine governance which is to be reflected in God’s holy people appears to represent a point of divergence from Witherington’s otherwise helpful analysis.392 Wire’s analysis of the situation, whether our own theology lies with the Corinthian women prophets or with Paul, should not too easily be brushed aside. Two different understandings of God and of the divine Spirit are at issue. Even if the broader picture is rejected, however, to understand speaking as sifting prophetic speech takes thorough account of the earlier context of vv. 32–33, and of that to which these verses lead on in v. 37. Otherwise v. 37, If anyone thinks that he or she is a prophet under the influence of the Spirit … loses its contextual meaning and leaves a worse case of “Pauline authoritarianism” than vv. 34–35!
    (5) What Kind of Interrogation? (14:35)
    Most of the fundamental exegetical issues have already been discussed above. In different ways Stephen Barton and Antoinette Wire clarify the importance of boundaries between public and private space in relation to the issues under discussion. In Wire’s view Paul wishes to disempower the women by confining their “place” to the home.393 For Paul, however, the concern is not to disempower women, but (i) to reflect in life and worship the dialectic of creativity and order which reflects God’s own nature and his governance of the world; (ii) to keep in view the missionary vision of how any Christian activity, whether corporate or individual, is perceived in the world still to be reached by the gospel (cf. 9:19–23; 14:23–25); and (iii) to avoid a merely localized or brazenly unilateral self-regulation which nurtures the false sense of corporate self-sufficiency of what Calvin calls here “a church … turned in on itself, to the neglect of others.”394 This verse thus comes in between the allusions in vv. 33b–34 to all the churches of God’s holy people (v. 33) and when congregations meet in public (v. 34), and in v. 36 to the apostolic origin and shared currency of the word of God.
    If, as we believe, Witherington is right in asserting that the context of discourse refers most particularly to the sifting, weighing, testing, or discerning of prophetic speech, it has even been the case that “a prophet is not without honour except in his own homeland and in his own home” (ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ, Matt 13:57); or still further in Mark 6:4, 5: “a prophet is not without honour (ἄτιμος) except in his own homeland and among his relatives (καὶ ἐν τοῖς συγγενεῦσιν αὐτοῦ) and in his home (καὶ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ) and he could do no work of power there.”395 The fact that this saying occurs in all four Gospels (cf. Luke 4:24; John 4:44), and that a version of the axiom seems to occur also in the Gospel of Thomas 31, suggests that an early authentic saying of Jesus may have become virtually a proverb in the early church as the experience of the fate of Jesus was replicated for early Christian preachers.396 On Matthew, Hagner comments: “Jesus was widely held to be a prophet (cf. 21:11, 46). The people of his own home town, however, and even his own household or family (cf. Mark 3:21) were outraged and indignant at the pretensions of one who was to them so familiar and hence thought to be ordinary … (with wider scope … John 1:11).”397 We have only to recall the debates at Corinth about the status of “people of the Spirit” as against those who were deemed “ordinary” to understand the immense piquancy and sensitivity when a person uttered prophetic speech, and as it was sifted, or even perhaps to initiate a “sifting,” a wife or close relation might interrogate the speaker in public about how the prophets matched their spiritual state or their lifestyle in daily situations as part of the “testing.” If even the intimate family of Jesus found his implicit status a cause of stumbling and affront (σκάνδαλον, Mark 6:3; 1 Cor 1:23), we need not find any difficulty in envisaging the same affront caused by the implication that an irritating husband might be regarded as “spiritual” in this context. Does his life really suggest that the Holy Spirit of God prompts what he says? This calls for sifting indeed!
    We therefore suggest that ἐπερωτάτωσαν means something more than let them ask their (own) husbands (NRSV, REB, NJB). In Mark 14:60–61 the high priest cross-examined or interrogated Jesus (ἐπηρώτησεν τὸν Ἰησοῦν) while in v. 61 the same verb moves from judicial investigation to virtual accusation.398 In hellenistic literature the word may be used of questioning the gods sometimes in the LXX sense of inquiring into God’s will.399 Even in examples concerning asking questions in everyday life. Grimm-Thayer note the mood of interrogation which can still apply in their first entry: to accost one with an enquiry, to put a question to … to interrogate.400 They convincingly explain the compound ἐπί as having a directive force, which governs an accusative (here in v. 35 τοὺς ἰδίους ἄνδρας). They cite the quasi-legal context of cross-examination in Mark 11:29, where Jesus interrogates “the chief priests and the scribes” about the basis on which they simultaneously reject his authority while purporting to accept the authority of John the Baptist. If anywhere the Marcan narrative has to do with sifting authoritative speech, it is surely here. Thus the noun ἐπερώτημα oscillates between inquiry and demand, with overtones of earnest intensity. By contrast, without the directive compound, the simple verb ἐπωτάω means more generally to ask, in an “open” sense.401
    In contrast to the honor which Jesus associated with the recognition of a prophet (see above), the embarrassing and humiliating cross-examination or interrogation of a prophet by a close relative (especially in Jewish or Jewish and Roman cultural context by a wife or close relative who is a woman) brings not honor but humiliation and disgrace. The importance of the honor-shame universe of discourse for first-century Corinth (in contrast to the purity-guilt contrast of the post-Augustan West) stands in the foreground here.402 J. K. Chance asserts the importance of the honor/shame contrast especially in contexts of kinship or gender, both in the biblical writings and in anthropological research.403 Gender and kinship raise the stakes to “highly emotional” levels, where what is “local” (not merely general) intensifies and personalizes issues.404 Over the centuries, however, shame has become almost merged into guilt, in contrast to more public or intersubjective aspects of the respect, approval, or disapproval of others, especially in the family, community, or state. The best equivalent in modern English is to win approval or disgrace. If we restructure the adjective αἰσχρός, shameful, disgraceful, dishonorable, unbecoming, the force of Paul’s words may be most accurately conveyed by to speak thus in public worship (ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ stands in semantic contrast to ἐν οἴκῳ) brings disgrace. Paul emphasizes disgrace by placing αἰσχρόν as the first word of v. 35b; English achieves the same effect by placing it last in the sentence.
    We may note in passing that whether or not the allusions to silence and to disgrace in Titus 1:11 consciously look back to our verses, those who are enjoined to be silent in Titus 1:11–13 are the broader category of the leaders rather than the women, even if the issue of disruption and disgrace remains the same. A loud mouth and insistent, polarized argumentation confound the force of the gospel and undermine mutual respect when what is required is a lifestyle which respects the need for self-control in the ethics of speech. Once again, I have elaborated this point with reference to Titus 1:12 and 13 or elsewhere, since the role of these verses in relation to the argument of the epistle is often misunderstood.405 Kierkegaard comments on these verses to extol the virtue of silence in just such a broader context: “Silence is just what is needed so that the Word of God may work its work in us.… We can only hear the word of God in silence.”406 Witherington also broadens the issue to all people: “The Corinthians should know that the OT speaks about a respectful silence when a word of counsel is spoken (Job 29:21).”407 However, the context constrains the scope of the meaning and application when the issue is more specifically that of women and silence. An early example of decontextualization in the posthistory of the text can be found in Tertullian. In his work On Baptism Tertullian contrasts Paul with the pseudonymous Paul of the apocryphal Paul and Thecla. Paul himself, he argues, gives no license for women to teach or to baptize, and cites 1 Cor 14:35 in support of this.408 We must keep in mind, however, our introduction on “controlled speech” in biblical traditions (see above).
    36 Witherington offers two useful observations on v. 36. First, he perceives the point of Paul’s rhetorical questions to lie in the scenario that “it appears the Corinthians are trying to make up their own rules, and perhaps thinking their own word is sufficient or authoritative or even the word of God for themselves (cf. v. 36)” (my italics).409 Fee rightly adds, “Has God given them a special word that allows them both to reject Paul’s instructions … and to be so out of touch with the churches?”410 Second, a further affinity between v. 33 and v. 36 exists in the contrast between all and only you. Thus Witherington comments, “This summary statement [question] applies to all, not just women, for he [Paul] uses the word μόνους instead of μόνας probably to indicate a mixed audience.”411 Robertson and Plummer identify misleading nuances in the AV/KJV: the from and unto cannot be left as possible alternatives, and only must be rendered only ones or only people (here, as we have noted, inclusive masculine plural), to mean: “Were you the starting point of the Gospel? Or were you its only destination?”412 This accords, again, precisely with Paul’s overture to the whole letter in 1:2: called … with all who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place — their Lord and ours too! Hence, has Christ been apportioned out? (1:13).
    To follow Conzelmann in regarding any “ecumenical” concern as a “bourgeois consolidation of the church” and hence a post-Pauline interpolation (he concedes that no textual reading affects this verse) is to impose a developmental theory upon Paul which does violence to the unity of Paul’s thought in this epistle.413 It is significant that while he rightly sees all of these verses as turning on “what it means to be pneumatikos” Fee cites “twofold” rather than “threefold” criteria here. He includes: (1) the variety of the Spirit’s gifts; and (2) the criterion of “edification”; but omits (3) the self-coherence and unity of the Spirit’s gifts and agency which Christian lifestyle and church order must equally reflect.414 It is a tragedy of church life that some are so weighed down by history that church activity becomes mere replication and routinization, while others are so concerned with novelty and “relevance” that historical roots do not receive the respect that they deserve as part of a corporate memory and corporate identity.414 “Some regard must be had to church practice elsewhere (cf. 11:16; 14:33b) including places which were evangelized before Corinth.… There may be an implication that, in fulfilment of the prophecy of Isa 2:3/Mic 4:2, it is from Jerusalem (as in Rom 15:19) that the word goes forth.”416 Bruce’s comment takes up the OT references also cited by C. H. Kling, who anticipates the point: “Are you the original church, so that your wisdom is to set the standard of propriety … at liberty to stand alone?”417
    Thiselton, A. C. (2000). The First Epistle to the Corinthians : A commentary on the Greek text (1146). Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.

  24. Is there a prize for the first person who reads that entire comment?

  25. Hee, hee, I’m just kidding. Please don’t be offended.

  26. Posted by E on May 11, 2008 at 4:19 am

    Not offended at all. Unfortunately, WordPress as configured turns : ) and 8 ) etc. into smilies.

    My posting has to do with I Corinthians 14:33ff in response to Lin’s comment about the source of the statement and Paul’s POV. Even I haven’t read what I posted (copied from Logos – New International Greek Testament Commentary), but I figured you might want to read what scholars think and conclude about the passage – i.e., whether Paul is quoting someone/something; whether he is rejecting or accepting of this statement; etc.

  27. It was interesting, E! Thanks.
    (And Angela, you are hereby given permission to tease him whenever you want. E and I go way back—he is a great guy, and I can attest to the fact that he can take it just as much as he can dish it out. But watch out—he might dish it out in Greek). :)

  28. Posted by Beatrice on May 11, 2008 at 11:23 am

    Double predestination was rejected by the Church? Really? This could not be more fascinating to me, as I’m rethinking Calvinism and such. (And had double pr. shoved down my throat by some well meaning people.)

  29. Beatrice, on May 11th, 2008 at 11:23 am Said:

    Double predestination was rejected by the Church? Really? This could not be more fascinating to me, as I’m rethinking Calvinism and such. (And had double pr. shoved down my throat by some well meaning people.)

    I may have oversimplified what was involved in how the church dealt with Augustine’s theology about this. Read Jaroslav Pelikan THE CHRISTIAN TRADITION Vol. 1 The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) Chapter 6 “Nature and Grace” for more about this. Volumes 3 & 4 (not yet read by me) probably go into this subject in more detail, as they are devoted to the Medieval church and the Reformation (including Calvinism).

    From the Conclusion of the Canons of the Council/Synod of Orange, 529 A.D.:

    “According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema. We also believe and confess to our benefit that in every good work it is not we who take the initiative and are then assisted through the mercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him. We must therefore most evidently believe that the praiseworthy faith of the thief whom the Lord called to his home in paradise, and of Cornelius the centurion, to whom the angel of the Lord was sent, and of Zacchaeus, who was worthy to receive the Lord himself, was not a natural endowment but a gift of God’s kindness.”

  30. Posted by Atlantic on May 13, 2008 at 7:52 am

    Beatrice, you might find the following article interesting. It’s by a Catholic apologist and discusses Calvinsim with a view to how close Catholics can come to it, and where the points of difference lie. There are actually differing schools of thought on grace that are officially accepted by the Catholic Church – the closest to Calvinism is the Thomistic teaching on grace, which is mostly what is discussed in this article.

    A Tiptoe through TULIP

  31. E, I can’t compete with ‘quantity’ but I will try with quality.:o)

    Why would Paul quote the oral law in verses 34&35 to be used in the Corinthian church?

  32. Why would Paul quote the oral law in verses 34&35 to be used in the Corinthian church?

    Just curious: What is the reference from the Talmud that you say this statement almost word-for-word comes from, or what source says that this comes straight from the Talmud?

  33. Posted by Beatrice on May 13, 2008 at 11:10 am

    Thanks, Atlantic! All of this is incredibly complicated and I know that I’ll never figure it out in this life. But that was an interesting look at things.

Respond to this post