Home 

Let Your Women Keep Silence!

PART 5

Table of Contents
PART 1
IN THE BEGINNING
THE OLD TESTAMENT VIEW OF WOMEN
HAS GOD EVER EMPOWERED WOMEN?
A PROPHETESS IN ISREAL

PART 2
DEBORAH ARISES IN ISREAL!
THE UNHERALDED PROPHETESS
THE WOMAN WHO CHANGED HITORY
MORE OF GOD’S LEADING LADIES

PART 3
THE ROLES WOMEN PLAY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
MARY’S EXEMPLARY ROLE
A WOMAN SPEAKS OUT
THE ACID TEST-CHRIST’S ATTITUDE TOWARD WOMEN
THE PENTECOST EXPERIENCE—NOT FOR MEN ONLY!
I SUFFER NOT A WOMAN!

PART 4
ROMANS 16—WHY SO MANY WOMEN?
DID WOMEN PROPHECY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT?
ARE THERE SEPARATE GIFTS FOR MEN AND WOMEN?
THE ISSUE OF SUBMISSION

PART 5
THE DIFFICULT WORDS OF PAUL
1 CORINTHIANS 14:34-35—WHAT DID PAUL REALLY MEAN?
I TIMOTHY 2:11-15—MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE!
THE FINAL ANALYSIS

THE DIFFICULT WORDS OF PAUL

We have now reached a point in our study when we must deal with two specific passages of Scripture that give people more trouble on the subject of our discussion than all others combined. They are I Corinthians14:34-35, and I Timothy 2:9-15. I have left them till last, because I felt it was necessary to establish from the entire Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, the fact that God created them male and female, not male in charge of, the boss of, or the one superior to, the female!

We have covered the fact that God unquestionably does use women in fulfilling His purposes upon the earth. That use has run the gamut from playing a supporting role of service to hosting a local assembly to being a teacher, an evangelist, a prophetess, an apostle, and even a judge and ruler of Israel, and, possibly above all, to being to mother of Yahshua the Messiah.

In addition, we have come to see that certain passages, especially in the New Testament, have simply been either erroneously translated or interpreted through the years, that false assumptions have been made, that indeed totally wrong teaching has been dumped upon whole church organizations with regard to the role of women.

We have seen the numerous women who were involved in the Savior’s ministry, and, above all other considerations, we have reviewed His perfect attitude toward women, even breaking with the Jewish traditions and conventions of the day in favor of women. We are very aware that women comprised part of the 120 disciples, who spoke in tongues and prophesied on the day of Pentecost in 30 A.D. We observed literally multitudes of women intimately involved at virtually every level in the ministry of the apostle Paul. And we have come to share his position on the gifts of the Spirit, that they are available to all members of the Body, that they are given by the Almighty as He desires, and that none of them are forbidden to women.

We have more than enough evidence from the Bible to know and understand fully the role of women in the assemblies. So, why can’t I simply write a short conclusion and close this study? Because of two short passages of Scripture that trouble many people. They find it so difficult to see through the words that cause them such doubt and pain. It is as though the few verses involved tear down the foundation, the walls, the ceilings, and the roof–the entire building that the Bible has constructed on this issue!

We must constantly keep in mind that the writings of the Bible, most especially those of the New Testament, were written under difficult circumstances. This was particularly so with the letters of the apostle Paul. The nature of his ministry, unlike most of the other first-century servants, caused him to travel, meet, speak to, and write to a wide variety of peoples, situations, false teachings, etc. Therefore, it is mandatory that we always make ourselves aware of the background of Paul’s epistles, the people to whom he is writing, and, quite often, the specific problem he is addressing. Paul is not always forthcoming in his writings, meaning that he writes in a manner that most effectively deals with the situation at hand. Sometimes that reveals itself in very guarded language, sometimes symbolic words, sometimes subtle statements, and, in many instances, rather difficult phraseology and challenging concepts. In other words, Paul has to be read very carefully, or he will be misunderstood or misinterpreted, something that has occurred time and time again through the centuries.

With these facts in mind, we will commence our investigation into the first of the two passages in question—I Corinthians 14:34-35.

I CORINTHIANS 14:34-35–WHAT DID PAUL REALLY MEAN?

When most people read these two verses, they are thrown for a loop. The words sound harsh and hard to take. In fact, they sound strange, improper, even insulting.

The assembly at Corinth was a lively group of believers. Clearly they were a very gifted congregation, for virtually all of the spiritual endowments appear to have been present among the members. Obviously, the background of the vast majority of the people was Greek paganism. Resisting the temptation to backslide into their pagan ways was always a difficult challenge. In addition, the Corinthian church was plagued with a number of other spiritual problems, many of which Paul addresses in his two letters to that group. Indeed, the critical passage with which we will be dealing appears in the midst of a long section of the epistle that is dealing with one of those major spiritual problems extant in the Corinthian church.

Beginning in chapter 12, Paul speaks to the brethren about spiritual gifts, explaining to them that all of God’s true people are gifted, and that all of the gifts are important in the functioning of the local assembly, as well as the entire Body of Christ. The Corinthians had become imbued with pride over their giftedness. Some were boasting about their particular endowment. Others were guilty of ranking the gifts, one being greater than another, and thus the persons having the highest rated gift were being held in higher esteem, or at least saw themselves as predominant, thus precipitating discrimination and animosity among the group.

Because the Corinthians were so carnally minded in many ways, Paul also perceives that they were not showing love one to another. The entire 13 chapter of I Corinthians is, therefore, devoted to this specific subject, Paul touting love above any of the gifts of the Spirit.

And finally, in chapter 14, the apostle confronts local problems when the assembly meets together. There was disorder in their gatherings. Some were interrupting others when they were speaking. Certain ones possessing the gift of tongues or languages were misusing their gift by exercising it when no interpreter was present, thus creating confusion. Indeed, the prophets came in for their share of criticism as well. The point of the entire chapter is that all things should be done decently and in order. Otherwise, the brethren were outright dishonoring God, and slighting each other, curtailing the opportunity that the Sabbath day offered for quality worship, sharing the truth, spiritual growth, and loving fellowship.

After a lengthy space devoted to the problems mentioned above, Paul surmises the following:

“How is it then, brethren? When you come together, EVERY ONE OF YOU has a psalm, has a doctrine, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying” (I Cor. 14:26).

This one little verse gives us quite a glimpse into the corporate life of one of the early local assemblies. Note carefully that Paul does not in any way condemn or seek to stifle the fact that all of the brethren, men and women, were obviously gifted and were equally as obviously using their gifts. They all were intently involved, each one bringing something to the table, as it were. What Paul is interested in is making certain that all were being edified, which is the purpose of the gifts of the Spirit in the first place.

He then briefly writes about how those who speak in tongues and those who prophesy should comport themselves, so that each one has a fair opportunity to address the group, and creates an atmosphere conducive for all to profit thereby, stating:

“For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints” (I Cor. 14:33).

Now, somewhat out of the blue, as it were, Paul suddenly makes a statement with regard to a

subject that he hasn’t even touched on in the entire letter, saying:

“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also says the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church” (I Cor. 14:33-34).

It is from these two verses that an entire re-interpretation of the Scriptures with regard to the status of women in the Church eventually transpired. The change came, not in the first century, but in the second, third, and fourth, as the Roman church gained the ascendency in the professing Christian world of the time.

We, however, are compelled not to develop doctrine based on a single, rather uncertain, perhaps even difficult, passage of Scripture. Whatever Paul is meaning to convey in these two verses to the Corinthian assembly must be viewed and interpreted in the light of all the evidence we have thus far uncovered in our study. He cannot suddenly contradict what God has established for thousands of years among His human children. We must also take into consideration the overall subject of this part of his epistle as well, for what he says with regard to women must fit in with the context. Unless we are careful in applying such study principles thoroughly, we will tend to fall into the same trap millions upon millions of professing Christians have experienced over the years.

To fully expound this passage of Scripture, which seems to have given so many people trouble over the years, I will discuss three specific approaches to the questions raised by I Corinthians 14:34-35. It is my hope that within this information, we can draw the most logical and correct conclusion.

1. The passage was never in the original text, but was added later.

There is debate over this topic among Biblical scholars, some claiming that the passage was added later, perhaps in the second or third century, and perhaps done so for the very purpose of controlling women in the churches.

According to the famous German commentator, Hans Conzelmann:

“This self-contained section (I Cor. 14:33b-36) upsets the context: it interrupts the theme of prophesy and spoils the flow of thought. In content, it is in contradiction to I Cor. 11:2ff, where the active participation of women in the church is presupposed. This contradiction remains even when chapters 11 and 14 are assigned to different letters. Moreover, there are peculiarities of linguistic usage, and of thought. And finally, v. 37 does not link up with v. 36, but with v. 33a. The second is accordingly to be regarded as an interpolation. Verse 36, which is hardly very clear, is meant to underline the ecumenical validity of the interpolation. In this regulation we have a reflection of the bourgeois consolidation of the church, roughly on the level of the Pastoral Epistles: it binds itself to the general custom. Those who defend the text as original are compelled to resort to constructions for help” (I Corinthians: a Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, trans. James W. Leitch, p. 246).

Conzelmann is not to be taken lightly in this matter. Not only is his position quite defensible, he has other scholarly support for this thesis. For instance, we read the following excerpt from The New Jerome Bible Commentary:

“I Corinthians 14:34-35. These verses are not a Corinthian slogan, as some have argued..., but a post-Pauline interpolation...Not only is the appeal to the law (possibly Gen. 3:16 un-Pauline, but the verses contradict I Cor. 11:5. The injunctions reflect the misogynism of I Tim. 2:11-14, and probably stem from the same circle. Some mss. Place these verses after v. 40” (ed. Raymond Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, pp. 811-812).

The points mentioned in both of these sources are quite valid and worthy of consideration. The most obvious problem is that the passage does not appear to fit with the flow of the chapter. It is almost shocking to suddenly come upon it in while reading I Corinthians 14. The fact that an apparent contradiction exists between what is said in the verses in question and Paul’s clear statements in chapter 11 should be obvious to any careful reader of the Scriptures. In one place, the apostle gives instructions for women and men in both prayer and prophesying, and then turns around three chapters later and gives virtually the opposite teaching with regard to women speaking. This is hardly possible, and indeed cannot be tolerated by those who believe in the inerrant nature of the Scriptures.

To succinctly summarize this seeming contradiction, note the following passages of Scripture read in the order below:

“Every WOMAN that PRAYS or PROPHESIES with her head uncovered dishonors her head” (I Cor. 11:5).

“He that PROPHESIES speaks unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. I would that you ALL spoke with tongues, but rather that you [ALL] PROPHESIED...If therefore the whole church be come together in one place, and...ALL PROPHESY, and there come in one that believes not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of ALL, he is judged of ALL” (I Cor. 14:3, 5, 23-24).

The Oxford Bible Commentary also recognizes a problem with these verses as well, stating:

“Either Paul is truly inconsistent here, reacting against the treat of unruly women by forbidding their verbal participation, despite what he had earlier allowed (I Cor. 11:2-16), where women were understood as publicly praying and proclaiming. Or this passage is an interpolation into the letter by a later editor...This latter option is favored by many commentators, and it is given slight textual support by the fact that some manuscripts places verses 34-35 at the end of the chapter, rather than in their present location; that might indicate that they were once a marginal gloss which was inserted by scribes at varying points in the original text” (ed. John Barton and John Muddiman, p. 1130).

And finally, I will cite a quotation from Dr. John B. Hays, the writer of what is generally considered to be the most complete discussion and resolution of these verses:

“All things considered, this passage is best explained as a gloss introduced into the text by the second or third generation Pauline interpreters...The similarity of I Corinthians 14:34-35 to I Timothy 2:11-12 is striking: Both command women to learn in silence and submission. Such directives assume a later historical situation in which there was a conscious effort to restrict the roles played by women in the first-generation Pauline churches...With respect to the issue of women’s public leadership, there are good theological reasons to insist that we should be guided by Paul’s vision of Christian worship in which the gifts of the Spirit are given to all members of the church, men and women alike, for the building up of the community. The few (2) New Testament texts that seek to silence women should not be allowed to override this vision. As our congregations wrestle with the ongoing task of discerning God’s will for our life together–as task to which I Corinthians repeatedly calls us–we must be faithfully attentive to Paul’s wider vision of men and women as full partners in the work of the ministry” (First Corinthians: Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, pp. 248-249).

Is this rather strange passage in I Corinthians 14:34-35 a later addition to the text? This position certainly has its scholarly defenders and proponents. If not, then there can be no doubt whatsoever that it constitutes an egregious contradiction in Paul’s teaching. There is, however, no existing proof of an absolute, undeniable nature with regard to this theory, and so I will leave it as is for your personal study and consideration, and move to the second approach to these key verses.

2. The passage did not originate with Paul. He is only quoting either a Corinthian slogan or a Jewish saying, with the intent of correcting those promulgating such teaching in Corinth.

There exists in the Biblical scholarly world another thesis regarding I Corinthians 14:34-35, and it is that the passage represents a rabbinic saying that Paul is repeating for the purpose of rebuking. According to this theory, Paul rebukes the oral saying beginning with verse 36. This theory has much support behind it, and much going for it with respect to how it deals with the subject at hand.

In I Corinthians 14:34, the passage makes reference to the law, but what law? The standard answer to such a question is to cite Genesis 3:16, which says:

“Unto the woman He said, I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in sorrow you shall bring forth children; and your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

The first issue to be faced is can this verse be correctly interpreted as being a law that must be enforced? It is almost incomprehensible that Paul is actually referencing Genesis 3:16 as the law upon which he bases this instruction. First of all, it is not stated in the form of a law, nor is there any evidence from Scripture that men ever enforced such a law against women. Indeed, when the Sinaitic Covenant was made, no mention whatsoever was included with regard to men ruling over women. This sort of behavior has always been spawned by certain men at certain times in history in order to maintain a dominant patriarchal order to things.

In addition, it was uncustomary for Paul to not cite the Torah passage to which he referred. In the entire letter of I Corinthians, each time the apostle either quotes from or specially uses the term law (meaning written Scripture), he does so in a manner that raises no question with respect to what he is saying. Note the following excepts:

“Say I these things as a man? Or says not the law the same also? For IT IS WRITTEN in the law of Moses, You shall not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treads out the corn” (I Cor. 9:8-9).

“In the law IT IS WRITTEN, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people” (I Cor. 14:21).

“And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that you might learn in us not to think of men above that WHICH IS WRITTEN, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another” (I Cor. 4:6).

“FOR IT IS WRITTEN, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent” (I Cor. 1:19).

“But of Him are you in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness...That, according as IT IS WRITTEN, He that glories, let him glory in the Lord” (I Cor. 1:30-31).

“For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For IT IS WRITTEN, He takes the wise in their craftiness” (I Cor. 3:19).

“Neither be you idolaters, as were some of them; as IT IS WRITTEN, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play” (I Cor. 10:7).

“It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body...And so IT IS WRITTEN, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit” (I Cor. 15:45).

As you can easily see, Paul is extremely careful to make his references to the law as clear as possible, and yet in I Corinthians 14:34, he simply states “as also says the law.” He doesn’t even use the familiar “it is written,” much less actually quote the Old Testament passage in question. There is simply no sound, logical reason for Paul to suddenly change his entire style of writing in this one verse. It can only be accounted for if the passage itself was later inserted, or if he is actually quoting something that he himself did not write, something like an existing rabbinic law, an idea that takes on much additional merit the more one investigates this possibility.

First-century Judaism incorporated many laws that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Scriptures, even as does modern-day Judaism as well. One of the most offensive aspects of the culture was the low esteem in which women were held, and the demeaning, restrictive manner by which they were controlled. All that is needed to establish the veracity of these points is to read just a few of the rabbinic and other Jewish statements regarding women.

Based on a detailed examination of Greek manuscripts, Dr. John Gustavson states the following:

“Paul never wrote these words as a ‘commandment of the Lord,’ but was simply quoting what the Judaizers in the Corinthian church were saying...There is not one trace from Genesis to Malachi of any such prohibition of women to literally keep silent in the church, nor is there a single word in the whole ‘law of Moses’ dealing with the subject” (Women in Christ: A Study in New Testament Principles, Part 2)

Dr. Gustavson is in agreement with a number of the foremost Biblical scholars in recognizing the unlikelihood of Paul’s having written verses 34-35, among them Dr. Gordon Fee, Professor Emeritus of New Testament Studies, Regent College, Vancouver, B. C. Canada, one of the world’s most capable and conservative Scriptural authorities. Dr. Fee contends that Paul is not writing a declarative statement in these verses, but is rather quoting an outside source denoting the practice or at least the teaching in the Corinthian church with regard to restricting women. He strongly leans toward Paul’s citing a rabbinic regulation, which he then intends to challenge and correct.

The notion that Paul could be referring to a Jewish law of the time gains much support when The Talmud and other Hebrew writings are consulted. For instance, The Talmud plainly states:

“It is a shame for a woman to let her voice be heard among men.”

Note carefully how closely the wording of this Jewish ordinance is to what is written in I Corinthians 14:34-35.

Adam Clarke, one of the earliest post-reformist Biblical scholars, and compiler of the exhaustive commentary bearing his name, concludes that the passage in question:

“Was a Jewish ordinance...because women were not permitted to teach in the assemblies or even to ask questions...The rabbis taught that a woman should know nothing but the use of her distaff” (Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Old Testament, p. 458).

Clarke goes on to quote the following rabbinic teaching on this subject as follows:

“Let the law be burned, rather than that they should be delivered to women.”

The 18th century Hebraist scholar, Campegius Vitringa, testifies that it was “forbidden by Jewish tradition for women to speak in the synagogue.”

We must remember also that Corinth was in Greece, and the Greek philosophers took a very dim view of women, permeating the cities of Athens and Corinth. Plato ascribed inferior status to women, stating: “It is only males who are created directly by the gods and are given souls” (Greek Philosophy on the Inferiority of Women).

Plato’s most gifted protege, Aristotle, the famed teacher of Alexander the Great, believed that women were defective by nature, going so far as to call “a woman is, as it were, an infertile male,” and that males command superior intelligence.

In addition, under Roman law of the first century, heavily influenced as it was by Hellenism, the father had complete household authority. A husband could punish his wife in any way including killing her, and he could make love to other women with impunity (The Rights of Women According to Roman Law).

So, as you can plainly see, the major cultural forces in Corinth, Greek, Roman, and Jewish, all held the same low opinion of women, and had laws, written and oral, condemning them, insulting them, and indeed restricting them. Is it any wonder that such a problem described in I Corinthians 14:34-35 existed in the Corinthian church? They already had three strikes against them before the apostle Paul ever even entered the city!!

This particular approach to the proper understanding of the passage has Paul, in verses 34-35, quoting most likely from a letter sent to him previously, or perhaps from overhearing certain information, with regard to a problem existing in the Corinthian church concerning whether or not women should be permitted to speak in public meetings. Following this line of thinking, therefore, Paul would not have been the original author of the two verses in question, nor do we have any knowledge of who it might have been. In order to get the flow of thought, here are verses 34-35, along with verse 36, which is considered to be Paul’s rebuttal to the previous two verses:

“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak: but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also says the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church. WHAT? Came the word of God out from you? Or came it unto you only?” (I Cor. 14:34-36).

As you can easily discern, verse 36 does not seem to fit if indeed Paul is the original author of verses 34-35, since he would be reacting strongly and negatively to his own statement and the restrictive regulation which it contains. If, on the other hand, Paul were simply quoting or paraphrasing something he had learned that was being pushed on the congregation by either Jewish or Greek or even Roman tradition or local law, then verse 36 makes far more sense as a rebuke. In this sense, Paul would be telling the Corinthians, in essence, that they were completely wrong in imposing such limitations on women.

A footnote of the Spirit-Filled Bible says of this passage:

“One other view sees vs. 35-35 as Paul quoting from the Judaizers’ letter to him in beginning a new paragraph. Proponents of this view then see v. 36 as his rhetorical answer, essentially saying, What? Men only? Nonsense! (P. 1742).

Remember that chapters 12-14 form a separate section of the first letter to the Corinthians. Most of chapter 14 is taken up with issues that have been causing confusion, strife, and disorderliness during Sabbath gatherings. If one takes the view that verses 34-36 actually comprise Paul’s response to the fact that the Corinthian women were being discriminated against, with a Jewish or Greek law being used as an excuse for such conduct, then the passage in question, rather than being a problem with women speaking is really a problem with certain of the men who were unlawfully placing strictures on the female members of the assembly!

3. Paul is the author of verses 34-35, but they must not be viewed as prohibiting women from speaking in public services. There are other reasonable explanations.

This third approach assumes that the two verses are indeed of Pauline authorship, but that the apostle in no way had in mind the complete restriction of women in this manner, but rather was dealing with a much more localized problem, and even within the Corinthian fellowship, his words would be applicable only to those who were specifically guilty of the indiscretion with which Paul charges them.

Clearly, no matter how this passage is explained, we can safely state that it does not apply to the entire congregation. In fact, it does not apply to all of the women in the assembly, since the apostle is quite plain in stating that the individuals to whom he is referring are married women. We cannot even establish with absolute certainty that even all wives were included in the reprimand.

If it were to be argued that verses 34-35 should be taken at face value, based upon the King James Version of the Bible, it would literally mean that all women believers could not utter a sound while meeting with fellow saints. It would mean they could not sing, exhort, prophesy, pray audibly, greet people, discuss subject matter, correct their children, encourage one another, or even say Amen at the close of a prayer!! Just the thought of such a thing is almost too bizarre to even consider. It would be hard to believe indeed that anyone with God’s Spirit would interpret this passage in such a manner. And, if that be the case, then there necessarily must be a restriction on the scope of silence about which Paul speaks.

Just how restricted are Paul’s words intended to be understood and applied? Remember that the overall context of chapter 14 concerns doing all things pertaining to the assembling of the believers in a way that is orderly, courteous, harmonious, and edifying. Therefore, whatever the particular Corinthian wives were guilty of doing, it would probably have been contributing in some way to confusion and disorder in the meeting. This contention only stands to reason.

If we take a look at certain specific key words in the passage, we will see immediately, as stated earlier, that the English term women in verse 34 should be understood as wives, since they are told if they have questions to inquire of their husbands at home (v. 35). Thus, all other women, whether single, divorced, or widowed, would not be included in Paul’s corrective statements, so that based on the precise wording as it is generally read, it would be okay for these other categories of females to speak.

Secondly, we should discuss the word silence in verse 34. The better translation of this term from the Greek is to hold one’s peace. Now, most people understand that being asked to hold their peace would generally mean to be quiet for the moment at hand. They would not expect such a request to mean that they could not utter a sound. To hold one’s peace would be applicable if, for instance, someone else were speaking. In other words, don’t interrupt. Rather, hold your peace until the speaker has finished. And this can be so easily discerned right in the same 14th chapter when we read the following with regard to Paul’s instructions for the prophets and for those who spoke in tongues. Note the following:

“If anyone speak in a tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep SILENCE in the church...Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the others judge. If anything be revealed to another that sits by, let the first HOLD HIS PEACE. For you may ALL PROPHESY ONE BY ONE, that ALL may learn, and ALL be comforted” (I Cor. 14:27-31).

Is there any reason to suspect that all the brethren who spoke in tongues and who prophesied were men only? Absolutely not! In all likelihood, women were also involved in the exercise of both gifts. It should be quite clear that the use of the word silence in this portion of Scripture, namely verses 28, 30, and 34, carries basically the same meaning and application. For the prophet who must hold his peace when something is revealed to another, his being silent does not indicate that he can never utter a sound while he is a church meeting. A speaker of tongues remaining silent in the assembly for lack of an interpreter, would never mean that he was to be quiet in every service. The instructions were given for specific situations, and nothing more. It can be rightly assumed that the speaker in tongues, the prophet, or a woman were not permanently muzzled from ever speaking in the assembly. Under varying circumstances, however, certain prohibitions could come into play to insure that all things were done “decently and in order.”

This leads us directly to the words to speak (v. 34). This is a very general term in the Greek, and could just as easily have been translated talk or tell, as is it is in a number of instances in the New Testament. The idea behind Paul’s prohibition against wives talking obviously has nothing to do with women as full-fledged members of and participants in the Body and all of its activities. Rather it is that, in this particular instance, some of the wives were interrupting the proceedings with their chatter. Why? Simply because it was contributing to the disorderly state of the services, even as the first part of I Corinthians 14 shows that the men also were guilty of the doing. Paul was insisting that all of this kind of activity must cease in order for the meetings to be profitable to everyone, and for God to be pleased and honored.

We now need to consider exactly what these certain unnamed Corinthian wives were doing that was disruptive, and determine why this problem arose in the first place. It was typical in both Greek and Jewish culture for the advanced students to ask meaningful questions of public speakers. The problem, however, is that most women of the first-century were simply uneducated. This was a product of the male dominated societies of the time. Jewish women, of course, were not permitted to speak at all, no matter how well versed in the Scriptures they might have been. Most of them, however, having been denied the opportunity to learn the Torah and discuss the pertinent issues thereof, were simply ignorant, and therefore had little constructive to offer anyway. Such were the despicable conditions in that civilization. Unfortunately, Greek culture was hardly any more advanced with respect to women’s equality. The bottom line is that most husbands of ancient time completely doubted their wives’ intellectual ability.

This well could have been the situation in Corinth, where a certain number of these uneducated wives, perhaps even a relatively small group, were being disruptive in posing inappropriate questions, and possibly doing so at inappropriate times as well. If so, then Paul is simply providing both the wives and their husbands with a solution to the problem. The wives should stop asking their questions during the meetings, and simply ask their husbands when they were home. This way, the wives could learn and catch up to the rest of the congregation in knowledge and understanding, their husbands would become directly involved in helping them, which would certainly be the Godly way, and the services would return to normalcy, eliminating the unnecessary confusion and disorder.

Since we are not given the specific details concerning the actual nature of the problem in question, we are compelled to search out the facts, obtain as much of the truth as we can, and draw as informed, reasonable, and logical a conclusion as possible, always keeping within the confines of the Scriptures, and the pertinent things that we do know about God’s perspective on women and their roles. This we have attempted to do in this study.

With that in mind, there are other strong possibilities with respect to solving the I Corinthians 14:34-35 situation. In addition, to the likelihood that some of the women in that assembly were in need of learning and growing spiritually due to the gender-based cultural repression of the times, we might also consider another set of circumstances that could prove pertinent to our discussion.

Corinth was a key city in the ancient Greek world, and although she supported Sparta in the war against Athens, and fell into disarray as a result, she was completely rebuilt by Julius Caesar in 46 B.C., and resumed her high status as a center of trade and commerce, and especially of pagan religion.

Temples were constructed to Asclepius, the god of healing, to Apollo, and a magnificent structure to Aphrodite, the goddess of love and beauty, was located atop the Acro-corinth, a mountain to the south of the city. Over a thousand female prostitutes served in this latter temple, and strongly contributed to Corinth’s vile reputation for immorality. As early as the time of Aristophanes, the coined word to Corinthianize was used in the common language as meaning to practice immorality. A Corinthian girl was simply another name for a prostitute. Such evil in Corinth accounts for Paul’s railing accusations and corrections in this first letter to that church.

It is altogether possible that the wives involved in the I Corinthians 14 reprimand had at one time been a part of the local pagan religious scene. Perhaps they were actually unconverted at this time, or quite new to the faith. These possible factors coupled with general lack of education for women, could quite feasibly account for their disruptive actions during the assemblies. Paul could well have instructed these particular women to save their questions until they were home and could ask their husbands. Naturally, this would presuppose that in these cases, the husbands were capable of answering their wives.

Just remember that it is evident that Paul is not writing the Corinthians in this letter in order to establish doctrine, but rather to correct many of the problems present in that assembly of believers. Were the reprimand of certain wives in verses 34-35 to be taken as a new rule being instituted by Paul, it would be totally out of context with the entire letter.

From virtually the beginning of this epistle, we are introduced to the many difficulties faced by the Corinthians. In the first chapter, Paul writes:

“Now I beseech you, brethren...that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you...For it has been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you says, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (I Cor. 1:10-13).

In chapter 3, he comes back to this same problem, stating:

“And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto you were not able to bear it, neither yet now are you able. For you are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are you not carnal and walk as men?” (I Cor. 3:1-3).

Chapter four discusses the fact that some of the Corinthian believers were puffed up, inflated in their egos, thinking of themselves more highly than they ought. Paul threatens to pay them a visit soon and confront those who are in this spiritual condition.

Next we come to a most serious situation in the Corinthian church. In chapter 5, Paul reveals that he has uncovered something which the congregation there assumed was hidden, namely that one of the members was actually sleeping with his own mother, and that the others knew it, tolerated it, kept in quiet, and considered themselves as quite broad-minded in doing so. Chapter 6 follows with more of Paul’s admonitions and corrections, this time having to do with legal matters between believers, and in chapter 7, he is forced to deal with issues respecting marriage that were being disobeyed.

Chapter 8 has the apostle confronting the fact that some of the brethren were wounding the weak consciences of other members, because they had greater knowledge than the newer inductees. Paul then defends his apostleship in chapter 9, as he often had to do in other areas as well, and in chapter 10, he goes back into the history of ancient Israel to warn the Corinthians that they were danger of committing the same kind of sins of which the Israelites were guilty.

In chapter 11, Paul deals with the fact that some of the women were praying or prophesying in the assemblies sans a head covering. The point to remember is that in Corinth of the first century, if a woman removed her veil or scarf and allowed her hair to fall down, she was considered a prostitute, since this was the local practice among the pagans in that area. Paul is forced to set the brethren straight on this issue. In addition, beginning in verse 15 of this same chapter, he discusses with them the fact that they were partaking of the Lord’s Supper in a wrong manner. Some were barging through to get in the front of the food line, so that by the time the latter portion of the group was ready to partake, nothing was left. Others were actually getting drunk, and the entire scene overall was one of total disrespect for God and for one another.

Then, of course, we come into chapters 12-14, our own area of discussion in this study. Obviously, this passage is replete with problems occurring in the Corinthian assembly. Their attitude toward the spiritual gifts was carnal, some assuming that one gift was more important than another, thus making the human possessor of that gift greater than others. Chapter 12 sets the record straight on spiritual gifts, which are compared to parts of a human body. All parts are good, all parts are necessary, and all parts should be working together, none of which things were transpiring in Corinth at this time. Chapter 13 is the famous love chapter, yet another major element often missing among the Corinthian believers, and finally chapter 14, the portion of this epistle that comprises our primary focus.

In this chapter, Paul is most concerned about both the wrong attitude of many of the brethren, but especially with respect to disorder and confusion that was being created in their Sabbath meetings. He discusses the issue of speaking in tongues, a gift of the Spirit that was being totally misused in the congregation. Some were just wailing out in ecstacy, having no one around who could interpret and thus make sense out of what was being said. Additionally, there must have some problem with those who had the gift of prophecy as well, since Paul is forced to set down a rule of conduct for both the speakers in tongues, as well as the prophets, limiting the number of speakers, insisting on silence and respect from the others in the audience.

Finally, Paul, at the end of this whole series of corrections, mentions in two verses about a situation of which he is aware concerning certain of the women who were also contributing to the overall confusion. The seriousness of this problem can be gauged by the fact that it is the last point Paul brings up against the Corinthians, as well as the brevity with which he comments on the infraction, concluding the entire subject with the following words:

“Wherefore, brethren, desire to prophesy, and forbid not to speak in tongues. Let all things be done decently and in order” (I Cor. 14:39-40).

I have taken the time and space to give this brief overview of I Corinthians so what we can get the big picture of what was actually going on at this time in the Corinthian church. Paul knew that this was a spiritually gifted group of believers, perhaps more so than most, but they were facing significant difficulties in the use of their gifts, in their attitude toward one another, and in their own high appraisal of themselves. The apostle Paul covers numerous issues in this first epistle, surely the least of which was contained in I Corinthians 14:34-35 concerning some of the unruly wives. Given the extenuating circumstances of the time, and the unique problems faced by the Corinthian brethren, it should be crystal clear that Paul is not by any means legislating against all women believers everywhere and of all time, demanding that they never make a sound while attending a church meeting. Rather he is giving guidelines to men and women alike as to how ALL the members may participate according to their gifts, and do so in a considerate, appropriate, loving manner, so that all might profit.

To further elaborate on the Corinthian situation, we know that it was the Jewish manner to separate the men and women into different sections of the synagogues. Paul was well aware of this practice, and may have adapted it for the church in Corinth. There is evidence to show that many of the early house churches were often still ordered to one degree or another according to the synagogue layout. If this was so in Corinth, it would certainly lend credence to the explanation that certain women could well have been disruptive during the services, especially if they did not hear clearly what was said, or were attempting to ask their husband something, or simply because their was a separation, having to raise their voices to even be heard. Any number of problems could easily arise due to a configuration such as might have been the case in the Corinthian assembly.

Viewed in such a light, Paul’s statement saying, “let the women (wives) be silent,” is really nothing more than a rebuke to certain women for the part they were playing in contributing to the overall problem of confusion, thoughtlessness, and hostility. In the more common language of today, Paul would simply be saying, “And tell those unruly wives to stop interrupting the proceedings with their chattering as well.”

In the two previous interpretations of the passage in question, the reference in verse 34 to the law was explained as being perhaps either a Jewish law, or possibly a Greek custom, both of which were certainly in place at that time. With respect to the current or third approach, how are we to view Paul’s statement, “as also says the law?”

To find a reasonable answer to this question, let’s take a look at verse 34 once again:

“Let your women (wives) keep silence (hold their peace) in the churches: for it is not permitted unto to speak (chatter, interrupt the speaker); but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also says the law.”

Note that the words they are commanded are in italics in the King James Version, indicating that they have been added by the translators ostensibly to help make sense out of the passage. Paul states that these wives in question who were disrupting the services should stop such activity, that they are to be under obedience, as the law so states. The word obedience comes from the Greek term hupotasso, and it means to be subdued, to submit oneself unto, be subject to. Now consider the following potential explanation.

Paul does not state in either verse 34 or 35 precisely to what these particular unruly wives were to be in obedience. Many people might casually suppose that the statement is a reference to their husbands, but there is nothing said about them dishonoring or disobeying their mates. We also might typically assume that because of the reference to the law, these women must therefore be in disobedience to the Law of God, even though the entire Hebrew Scriptures contain no trace of a commandment prohibiting women from speaking in any specific situation. Once realizing this fact, we usually then fall back on the only possible vestige of an Old Testament statement that we feel might work, and that is always Genesis 3:16, which, once again, says:

“Unto the woman (Eve) He said, I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in sorrow you shall bring forth children; and your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

Even without determining whether or not this verse is correctly translated in the KJV, can this statement be said to constitute a law, a requirement, something to be enforced? If so, who has the responsibility for enforcement? What guidelines are given in the Scriptures? Where would one draw the line? How would it be determined that a husband is not ruling over his wife to the proper degree? Who would make such a decision? Should there be a special board appointed to investigate each report of deficient rulership of a husband over his wife? What is the punishment for a husband who doesn’t rule over his wife enough to satisfy Genesis 3:16? No such answers appear in the rest of the book of Genesis; they did not become a part of the Law given at Mt. Sinai, and thus were not a part of the Old Covenant. In fact, they are not provided in the entire Old Testament, nor anything like them! You may search the Scriptures from Genesis to Malachi, and you will find not a trace of any law that stipulates that women are prohibited from prophesying, or from asking questions in the congregational gatherings, and certainly not to conduct themselves in total silence!

The Law did not demand the silence of women in the assemblies, nor the subjection of women generally to men. In fact, under the law women were permitted to prophesy (Miriam, Anna, Noadiah, Isaiah’s wife, etc.), to counsel, direct, and instruct husbands (Abigail, Esther, Sarah, the wife of Manoah and mother of Samson), to wage war and judge (Deborah), direct kings and high priests (Huldah, Bathsheba), and in the New Testament, to prophesy, teach, and exercise any of the other gifts of the Spirit, as each one was so endowed. And all of this and more was done with the approval and direct involvement of the Almighty!

Furthermore, Genesis 3:16 is spoken by Yahweh in the form of a curse upon Eve, not a law. There is nothing inherent in the statement that would demand that this be done. It is rather a prediction of what men would do to women because of the wrong choice made in the Garden of Eden, of the forbidden tree or pathway or way of life or, better yet, way to salvation. How applicable should we expect such a curse to be upon spirit-begotten believers in Yahshua, those who have chosen the tree of life? Is it reasonable that the apostle Paul would have resorted to this passage in Genesis 3 as the basis for his reprimand in I Corinthians 14:34-35? Think about it.

On the other hand, what if the law to which Paul refers is not a law contained in the Hebrew Scriptures at all, but rather a local or even church ordinance. The Greek word for law is nomos, a quite general term that can also be rendered as regulation or principle. This word is not required to mean a divine commandment, and since Paul makes no appeal to the precise law of which he speaks, nor does he quote the law, nor does he make mention of which prophet wrote it, nor does he indicate its location in the Torah, we are left to choose from other possibilities such as those given above.

In the overall sense of things, the short passage of I Corinthians 14:34-35, if indeed it was ever even in the original text, or if it actually was a local Jewish or Greek prohibition, or if it is simply referring to a Corinthian church ordinance, should not prove all that difficult to sort out. The reprimand to the particular wives comes at the end of a chapter dedicated to establishing regulations in the Corinthian church that would allow all of the brethren, men and women alike, to profit from their fellowship together through improved harmony, peace, order, lack of confusion, much less noise, and better attitudes. The passage dealing with wives was directed specifically at those in Corinth, but the principles put forth by Paul in the entirety of chapter 14 should be applicable to all local assemblies who are experiencing the kinds of problems extant in Corinth at that time.

The foregoing is true, of course, only if the statement on wives being silent is of authentic Pauline origin, and not rather of Jewish, Greek, or simply Corinthian law, tradition, or regulation, or an interpolation inserted into the text by a later scribe. In numerous ancient manuscripts, verses 34-35 are placed at the end of the chapter, indicating that the text may well have been tampered with over time. If the former be the case, as we have previously discussed, then verse 36, beginning with the word “What?” stands as a rebuke to such a notion being instituted in the Corinthian congregation.

Although additional space could be taken in discussing the I Corinthians 14 passage, and the reader is heartily encouraged to do his or her own further research into the matter, it is now time for us to move on to the other New Testament scripture that is misunderstood and subsequently misused to silence women and support male domination in the Church. The definitive passage is found in I Timothy 2:11-15. The correct explanation is one of the most interesting and absorbing subjects in which one could ever hope to engage. Paraphrasing a common saying, What you see is not necessarily what you get!

I TIMOTHY 2:11-15—MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE!

On the surface, the passage we are about to investigate might appear perfectly clear and understandable, but I can assure you that it is not. We begin our reading in I Timothy 2:9, which will then lead into the key verses themselves starting with verse 11:

“In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array. But (which become women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in SILENCE, with all SUBJECTION. But I suffer NOT A WOMAN TO TEACH, nor to USURP AUTHORITY OVER THE MAN, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety” (I Tim. 2:9-15).

Without further open-minded study, the easy and typical conclusion is that women are not to speak, not to teach, and not to usurp authority over a man. After all, isn’t that precisely what is stated? Isn’t Paul’s language here perfectly clear and obvious? Well, the answer is, once again, what you see is not necessarily what you get!

Let us first discuss briefly the background of Paul’s initial letter to Timothy. It was written later in the apostle’s life, not so long prior to his martyrdom in Rome during the great persecution against followers of the Messiah launched by Nero Caesar. The exact date of the epistle is unknown, but it would be at some point between Paul’s first and second Roman imprisonments, making the general time period around 64-65 A.D.

Timothy was the son of a Jewish mother and a Greek father, but clearly it was his mother who most directly affected his life. Paul expressed the fact that Timothy’s mother, whose name was Eunice, was a believer (Acts 16:1), and spoke highly of both her and her mother Lois in II Timothy 1:5.

Timothy was converted during Paul’s first missionary journey to Lystra, one of the cities of southern Galatia. He joined Paul and Silas on the second evangelistic campaign, and from that point on became the most trusted of all Paul’s companions. He was treated, in effect, as Paul’s son, and was sent on numerous journeys to various Asia Minor and European church areas. When this first epistle was written, he was in the city of Ephesus, serving as the bishop of that church.

It is paramount that we understand a little about Ephesus at this time in history. The city was perfectly situated to become the chief commercial center of western Asia Minor. In addition to its strategic seaport location on the Aegean Sea, one of the major attractions of Ephesus was the world-famous Temple of Diana (Artemis), which was considered absolutely sacrosanct throughout the greater Mediterranean world. In fact, the Temple of Diana has historically been one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. Soon, the temple became the primary banking institution of Asia Minor. This fact shouldn’t come as to much of a shock, since banks have their origins in the great pagan temples of the ancient world. Later in history, the infamous Knights Templar became the most powerful bankers of Europe, while they ostensibly were supposed to be protecting the highways into Jerusalem and the Temple Mount! The population of Ephesus during the early Christian period was in excess of a quarter of a million people.

Though Ephesus was a part of the Roman Empire, it was essentially Greek in culture. The Hellenization of Asia Minor during and after the days of Alexander the Great was extensive. The goddess Artemis or Diana, though adopted into both the Greek and Roman pantheons, was essentially of Asian derivation. The worship of Diana in Ephesus was the single most important activity in the entire city.

Diana was the goddess of fertility, and was believed to protect women during childbirth. She traces her origins back to the ancient Amazons, who supposedly built Ephesus anciently. The type of frenzied worship of this deity, such as we see demonstrated in Acts 19 was typical of the Asian form. Note the following excerpt:

“And when they heard these sayings, they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians. And the whole city was filled with confusion...Some therefore cried one thing, and some another...And they drew Alexander out of the multitude...But when they knew that he was a Jew, all with one voice about the space of two hours cried out, Great is Diana of the Ephesians” (Acts 19:28-29, 32-34).

Diana, as protector of women during childbirth, naturally had a great following. Men were attracted to her worship as well, since deviant sexual practices played a central part in the temple activities. They believed that sexual intercourse in the course of the worship ceremony linked them with the gods. There were numerous young female priestesses providing this service. They were known as bees.

The ancient Amazons considered themselves to be superior to men, and thus the cult that developed around their goddess Artemis (Diana) was taught the myths of the Amazons, indeed that they were the literal descendants of the fabulous female warrior race. The followers of Diana prided themselves on their genealogies and focused a great deal on their ancestors.

Perhaps the most significant aspect of Ephesian religion was the amalgamation of Asian, Greek, and Roman thought. This eventually developed into a form of Gnosticism (some refer to this particular stage as proto-Gnosticism) that became solidly established and was centered in the city of Ephesus. The pagan notions and practices of the Ephesians could not help but strongly and adversely affect the fledgling New Testament Church, and it is in Paul’s first letter to Timothy that we see how widespread it had become among the brethren.

A casual reading of this epistle might not bring out the subtle words and methods Paul utilizes in writing to Timothy. There are major problems in Ephesus, but the apostle approaches them somewhat obliquely in this first letter. It is a literary device that he has used before, in the letter to the Colossians, for instance. Therefore a careful analysis is required to ferret out the full understanding of what is transpiring in Timothy’s church area.

Paul opens up this letter with a clue for those of us who seek to discover the subject of his writing. Beginning in verse 3, we read:

“As I besought you to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that you might charge SOME that they TEACH NO OTHER DOCTRINE, neither give heed to FABLES, and endless GENEALOGIES, which minister questions, rather than Godly edifying which is in faith: so do” (I Tim. 1:3-4).

Right away, we know something serious is wrong in Ephesus. Note the key words in the passage. There are some in the assembly there who are teaching false doctrine, combined with fables or myths and debates and discussions over genealogies. This teaching was also combined with elements of the Law and of Judaism, for Paul continues to say:

“Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: from which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm” (I Tim. 1:5-7).

In the first seven verses of this epistle, Paul has established the general nature of the problem in Ephesus. Additional elements of the false teaching will be unveiled as we continue through the letter. Indeed, two of the culprits are actually named by Paul at then end of chapter 1, for we read:

“Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme” (I Tim. 1:19-20).

Some have concluded that the name Hymenaeus in Latin means Wedding Song, and that this particular individual may indeed have been female. If so, then we detect early on that some women were involved in the Ephesian heresy, a fact that will come into play much more forcefully a little later in this article.

As we move into chapter 2, we must be careful to pick up on critical points relevant to the key passage that is under discussion in this section of our study. In verse 4, he describes the Almighty as the One “who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” Were there some in Ephesus who were teaching that only some could be saved and come into the truth? It would certainly appear so.

Then Paul makes the following statement:

“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ; who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time” (I Tim. 2:5-6).

Do you suppose that Timothy didn’t know these most basic of Christian tenets? After all, he had been with Paul for many years by now, and was his most trusted protege. These words were not written to remind Timothy of such facts, but to point out that part of the problem in Ephesus involved a possible debate over multiple gods, along with doubts that Yahshua was the only mediator between Yahweh and man. The false teachers at Ephesus were, therefore, espousing either numerous mediators, or that there was one mediator, but not Yahshua Himself.

Beginning in verse 8 of chapter 2, Paul reacts to some of the ramifications of this false system of teaching and worship, addressing first the men and then the women in the Ephesian church. He writes:

“I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting” (I Tim. 2:8).

A climate of wrath and hostility had been created by the invasion of these false teachers in Ephesus. Undoubtedly Paul had in mind the time when he was in Ephesus during his third missionary journey, the occasion when he encountered one Demetrius the silversmith, as recorded in Acts 19. As you will recall, this altercation precipitated the huge riot among the worshipers of Diana that we read about earlier in our study. Such was the frenzied atmosphere among the religious people of Ephesus.

Paul next begins his admonition to the guilty women involved. He writes:

“In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array. But (which becomes women professing godliness) with good works” (I Tim. 2:9-10).

These words do not constitute mere advice from the apostle Paul. He is responding directly to the fact that a number of the women in the Ephesian church had started dressing like the pagans who worshiped the mother-cult of Diana (Artemis). They may well have already been in this cult long before ever attending a Christian gathering. This was a reprimand, along with a strict rule of modesty that he intended Timothy to enforce. Note, by the way, that Paul in a sense takes a sideswipe at these “women professing godliness.” Obviously, the apostle’s feelings are clearly showing, for he does not by any means regard these as truly Godly women.

All of this information that Paul is discussing with Timothy fits perfectly with the then current Gnostic philosophy that was extant in the city of Ephesus. It went right along with the worship of Diana, that cult being particularly dominated by women. As stated earlier, many of the female worshipers of Diana considered themselves superior to men. In fact, the entire Gnostic religion centered in Ephesus at this point in time had strange teachings with regard to men and women, and those specific tenets are at the very heart of the key verses of Scripture that Paul writes to Timothy regarding women that has become so controversial over the centuries.

We are indeed fortunate that Richard Kroeger and his wife, Dr. Catherine Kroeger have written the most authoritative book on the subject of I Timothy 2:9-15 available today. It is entitled, I Suffer Not a Woman, and I highly recommend it to anyone wishing to delve into this subject more deeply. Some of the information that I will present in this portion of our study comes from the Kroegers’ research.

It cannot be overstated that Ephesus was the center of the mother-goddess worship in all of Asia Minor. The Kroegers have documented the fact that some of the Gnostic teachers in the area of Ephesus indeed loosely synthesized their own beliefs with the Scriptures. It was undoubtedly some of these particular people who were causing the greatest problem for the church at Ephesus.

As we proceed to discuss some of these Gnostic teachings, we will be carefully comparing them to the language of Paul in I Timothy 2:11-15. Please take special note of the information that is unveiled in this passage of Scripture that, on the surface, would simply not be apparent at all. I believe that you will agree with me that it is convincing, and that we will be able to draw hard and fast conclusions with regard to what Paul has to say about women in the Church.

As stated earlier, Paul begins by addressing first the men, then the women in his instructions to Timothy. Paul is keenly aware that false teachers have invaded the Ephesian church, just as he had previously predicted when he met with the elders by the shore. On that auspicious occasion, he said:

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock over the which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which He has purchased with His own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears” (Acts 20:28-31).

What were some of the perverse things that the false teachers were promulgating? They dealt in myths (I Tim. 1:4), that is in the pagan deities, which gave rise to what Paul terms endless genealogies. Such things were very important to the worshipers of Diana, who believed that they had ancient descent from the gods. From the same verse 4, we also can gather that there was much strife generated by the false teachers in Ephesus. Paul said that their erroneous teaching led to needless questions (v. 4), vain jangling (v. 6), forbidding to marry (4:1), promotion of vegetarianism and other types of food restrictions (4:3-5), the telling of old wives’ tales (4:7), doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof comes envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds (6:4-5), and the corrupt teaching that material gain is proof of godliness (6:5). Paul concludes the letter by admonishing Timothy:

“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to your trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith” (I Tim. 6:20-21).

Paul refers to all of these departures from the truth as giving heed to seducing spirits and the doctrines of demons (4:1). Just to read over these various problems enumerated in this first letter to Timothy, we can easily get a sense of the situation faced by the brethren in Ephesus of the mid-late first century. And remember, the false teachers were cleverly amalgamating their pagan lore and practices with the Hebrew Scriptures, creating a sort of syncretism , a deadly fusion of truth and error. In other words, after Paul’s departure from Ephesus, unscrupulous people joined with the true believers there, ingratiating themselves with the brethren, becoming ostensible members of the assembly. Eventually teachers arose from this mixed group, and began to pervert the foundation of what Paul had earlier laid, up to and including the issue of personal salvation itself hinging on the adoption of the erroneous myths, traditions, and tales brought in by these worshipers of the mother-goddess Diana.

Apparently a number of those guilty of false teaching were women who had been indoctrinated into the prevailing Gnostic/Diana-worship religion. Aside from the various problems we have picked up on throughout the letter of I Timothy, there were other, even more specific errors being taught, and they have everything to do with the critical passage we are investigating.

After Paul has given his correction to this group of women who were immodestly dressed in verse 10, he elaborates on his reprimand by saying:

“Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection” (I Tim. 2:11).

Should we consider this admonition as pertaining to all women in every church down to the present time, or more specifically to certain women who were acting and teaching in a wrong manner in the Ephesian congregations? Given what we already know about God’s perspective on women, about the Messiah’s treatment of women, and about Paul’s welcomed use of women in his ministry, the correction given in I Timothy 2:11-15 cannot be viewed as applying to all women believers. In fact, it almost certainly did not even pertain to all of the females in the Ephesian assembly either.

The guilty parties involved were clearly making a lot of noise. This wasn’t some minor occasional disturbance–thus Paul’s initial point is for silence on the part of these particular women. Now the fact that he insists on the women learning in silence is not a slam on all women, because anyone who is intent on learning should do so in silence, not making excessive noise, interrupting speakers, asking unnecessary or inappropriate questions, or introducing material that is totally off the subject at hand. This would apply to men as well as women, even as we have demonstrated in Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians in an earlier portion of our study. So this request is not something that need overly concern us.

There is a catch, however, in the translators rendering of the Greek word hesuchia as silence in verse 11. This term is the feminine form of the word translated peaceable in verse 2 of the same chapter. Almost invariably, the male and female forms of Greek words have the same meaning, and yet this is not the case in II Timothy 2. What’s the problem? An established grammatical rule has been broken in the King James Version. When the first usage of the same word is translated one way, it should be rendered the same when it is used in the same context the second time. What we should discern from this is that Paul is not intending to force all the Ephesian women into utter silence, but rather that a peaceable situation needs to be established in order that the most conducive atmosphere for learning will prevail. Clearly, as we have already seen, the entire letter of I Timothy reveals circumstances in the Ephesian assemblies as being one of strife, argument, disputing, anger, not to mention the promulgation of false teaching.

The fact that Paul includes the word subjection or submission in verse 11 is an indication that, as in the I Corinthians 14 situation, at least some, and perhaps all, of the women involved were married, since the Scriptures teach that a wife is to submit to her husband, not that all women must submit to all men. Of course, the usage of the word submission does not have to indicate a marital state at all, if indeed Paul had in mind the overall principle of mutual submission one to another, or simply submission to God and the truth of the Word.

Verse 12 is the portion of this passage that troubles most people. Let us read it once more armed with the knowledge we have now accumulated:

“But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”

What is Paul’s objective here? It is most assuredly not to suddenly inform Timothy or anyone else reading this letter that Paul now no longer allows women to teach. Remember the situation extant in Ephesus at this time. The command against women not teaching has got to be directly connected with helping to solve the problem plaguing the church. Paul is seeking a peaceful solution. He is urging Timothy to put certain regulations into effect in Ephesus that will help quell the wrangling among the brethren, and the teaching of false doctrine, especially that connected with the worship of the mother-cult of Diana.

Now we need to take a look at several key words in verse 12, the correct understanding of which will open up the real meaning of this passage. These words in the Greek are epitrepo, didaskein, oude, and authentein.

Epitrepo, rendered as suffer not in verse 12, does not require a lot of explanation, however, when we find the word used, for instance in the Septuagint, it speaks to a specific and limited situation rather than a universal application. This can be seen in such passages as Gen. 39:6; Esther 9:14; Job 32:14, etc., as well as in the wisdom and apocalyptic literature of the Intertestamental period.

Kroeger & Kroeger’s research, which, of course, delves more deeply into the issue than this article, makes the following statement with respect to the limited nature of epitrepo:

“This accords with the thesis that the apostle is here addressing a particular circumstance rather than laying down a widespread interdiction against the leadership activities of women. His use of the present tense may also indicate that his decree had to do with a situation contemporaneous with the writing of the epistle” (I Suffer Not a Woman, p. 83).

Obviously some of the women were indeed at the heart of the problem facing the Ephesian congregation, and Paul is addressing that problem. When he tells Timothy that the women involved should not be permitted to teach, he does so because of the extenuating conditions existing in the Ephesian church at that time. His instruction is, in other words, conditional. If there were no problem with the women involved, or if a solution were reached, then obviously the reason for the ban on teaching would not apply.

The second point to consider is the little word that joins the two clauses in verse 12. That term in Greek is oude, and is translated into English as the conjunction nor. Paul’s usage of this word in his epistles is almost always to bring together two closely related ideas. The significance of oude in verse 12 is that it links the two expressions, didaskein (teach) and authentein (to usurp authority over). Linking the two phrases in this manner conveys the meaning of Paul’s decree. In other words, the oude indicates that the precise nature of the teaching (didaskein) that is forbidden will be revealed and defined by the second clause of verse 12, which contains the rather unusual Greek term authentein, the meaning of which we must now determine.

This word is used only once in the entire New Testament, and that is right here in I Timothy 2:12. Over the years, there has been hot debate with regard to the meaning and usage of this particular word. Most of the authoritative sources today, however, have come into agreement that the KJV is incorrectly translated.

Since authentein appears only one time in the Bible, we are forced to go elsewhere to determine the correct definition and appropriate application of this word. Most English translations of the New Testament simply render this term as to bear power over. Ordinarily, however, the Greek word for this phrase is either kurieuein or exousiazein. When either of these are employed, there is little doubt as to the correct understanding. Authentein, however, is quite different, and has several other meanings that must be very seriously considered.

The primary meaning of authentein is to begin something, to be primarily responsible for a condition or action (especially conception/birth and murder/death). It can also mean to claim ownership, sovereignty, authorship, or dominion. We must determine which of the definitions are to be applied to the usage of this word in I Timothy 2:12.

It is not accidental that the Gnostic teaching prevalent in Ephesus at the time Paul’s wrote Timothy often incorporated the use of the term authentein. Interestingly also, women usually officiated at the initiation rites of males into the mysteries. Elements of both sex and death were portrayed by employing the term authentein. Given these extenuating circumstances, it is quite possible that an amalgamation of such Gnostic practices with Christian/Biblical teaching (Paul wrote and spoke a lot about the mystery of what God is doing) was present in the Ephesian church. This might well have involved the integrating of certain pagan myths or stories, or at least aspects of them, into the teaching. This could well account for Paul’s mention of fables (1:4), profane and old wives’ tales (4:7), and vain babblings and opposition of science falsely so called (6:20). Similar references are made in both Paul’s second letter to Timothy, as well as the epistle to Titus.

It is also of importance to note that the Ephesians considered the ancient women-warriors, the Amazons, to have been the founders of their city, with many of the citizens claiming descent from them. In the Amazonian world, women were the rulers. Men who were taken captive were often forced into slavery or otherwise humiliated, such as being assigned traditionally female tasks. To a great extent, numerous Ephesian women of the first century A. D., as well as many others throughout Asia Minor, still retained these ancient tendencies. History shows us that female leadership was quite widespread in that part of the world at that time. Of course, in pagan religious affairs, Ephesian women were well known to be influential forces.

In Greek literature, we find the use of the word authentein, and its various derivatives, as meaning the creator of a thing. Early Christian writings of the 2nd and 3rd centuries state that God was the authentes of heaven and earth. Other substitute words would be originator, author (Messiah, for instance, is said to the Author (beginner) and Finisher of our faith). This is the definition of choice for authentein in verse 12.

The reason for this choice has to do with the heretical Gnostic teaching that had crept into the Ephesian church. This form of Gnosticism was female-dominated, and considered the female to be more important and more highly honored than the male. They looked to Diana (Artemis) and through her to mother Eve. The cult believed that Eve existed before Adam, and that all life came from her, including Adam. Thus Eve was viewed as the great earth-mother—the authentein (creator, author, originator) of mankind.

Amazingly, the Gnostic heresy in Ephesus, as carefully documented by Kroeger & Kroeger in their previously cited book, I Suffer Not a Woman, also taught that it was Adam, not Eve, who was deceived, but rather that she brought liberation to Adam from the oppressive god of the Old Testament by offering him the forbidden fruit.

Certain women in Ephesus were obviously involved in spreading a form of this pagan Gnostic teaching. Paul just as obviously despised what was happening in that assembly, and is extremely firm with Timothy in his instructions on handling the matter. When he uses the phrase, “old wives’ tales” in I Timothy 4:7, this is not merely a reference to some ancient untrue belief or saying, as we might think today. In fact, this was actually a term in contemporary use in Paul’s time, and it referred to older women who were the storytellers in the pagan earth-mother cults. These women were the major promulgators of the fertility doctrines and other forms of mythology. Now some of them had infiltrated the local congregation.

We are now homing in on our target in the matter of I Timothy 2:12. Putting together what has been covered thus far, along with other information simply unable to be included due to space, it is reasonable and indeed most likely that verse 12 should be read and understood in a completely different manner than has been normally accepted or assumed. First, I will repeat the verse as it reads in the King James Version:

“But I suffer not (Gk. epitrepo) a woman to teach (Gk. didaskein), nor (Gk. oude) to usurp authority (Gk. authentein) over the man, but to be in silence (peaceable, quiet).”

And now the way this verse should read, according to the best research that is available today. Please note the key Greek words and how their meaning differs in the correct version below:

“I do not allow (Gk. epitrepo) a woman to teach (Gk. didaskein) nor (Gk. oude) proclaim herself the originator (Gk. authentein) of man, but to be quiet and peaceable.”

In other words, the subject that Paul is not allowing the women to teach is that the female is the originator or creator of the male, and thus would have precedence over him. You may need to let verse 12 presented in this form to sink in, because this is not at all what most Christians have been taught. This version, however, jibes perfectly with the false Gnostic teaching that was being promoted in Ephesus at this point in history, and all credible modern research attests to the reasons why this rendition is indeed the most accurate rendering of Paul’s intent.

That this is the correct conclusion to draw is further amplified by reading and properly understanding the remaining portion of the passage. It is just extraordinary how the following verses respond perfectly to the erroneous doctrines being espoused by these women teachers in Ephesus. Verse 13 states:

“For Adam was first formed, then Eve.”

This statement clearly defends the truth of the Scriptures against the false Gnostic teaching that Eve was the originator of all life, including Adam and thus all males. Now, verse 14:

“And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”

Next Paul counters the heretical notion that it was Adam who was deceived, and Eve who actually had the knowledge which she used to set Adam free from the true creator God.

Finally, there is the very strange language of verse 15. Attempts have been made to explain this verse, but they all have, over the years, been unsatisfactory. Paul ends this portion of his epistle by saying:

“Notwithstanding she shall be saved in (through) childbearing, if they continue in faith, and charity, and holiness with sobriety.”

How are we to understand this seemingly enigmatic statement? In the very same light as we have done in the preceding verses of the passage–the Gnostic teaching that prevailed in Ephesus.

The fact is that many, if not most, Gnostics believed that, while sexual intercourse was deemed appropriate, if the act resulted in childbirth, it was evil. In fact, many women who were part of the Gnostic/Diana-worship cult believed they would lose their salvation if they had children. The Gnostic literature of the time clearly conveys this idea. For instance, The Gospel According to the Egyptians has Jesus (Yahshua) announcing, “I came to destroy the works of the female,” to which Salome responds, “How long will death prevail?” Jesus answers her, saying, “As long as you women bear children.” Salome comments, “Then I have done well in bearing no children.”

We observe the same negative view of child-bearing in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary. The Christian writer Epiphanius confirms the same Gnostic teaching in his composition Panarion, and Hippolytus verifies the same thing in his Refutation Against All Heresies.

This teaching, in one form or another, had also undoubtedly crept into the Ephesian assembly, and Paul addresses it last, assuring the female believers that they should have no fear of losing their salvation because of childbirth. Rather he instructs them to pursue the truly important issues of their calling–faith, love, and holiness with sobriety or propriety.

Although used for centuries, beginning with the Roman Catholic Church, but also introduced into the Protestant institutions as well, as a club to keep their female members under male control, we can now rightly conclude that the I Timothy 2:11-15 passage is not at all dealing with the role of women in the Church, but is rather a strong and convincing refutation of a very specific heresy being taught by certain women in the Ephesian assembly.

FINAL ANALYSIS

This particular study paper is much longer than we normally prepare and send out, but the subject in this case simply demanded that a reasonably full exploration and explanation be forthcoming. Obviously there are issues with regard to the overall topic which we did not investigate at all, and there may indeed be more questions raised by this study than answered. If so, it is not a bad thing. Hopefully the information presented here will stimulate some to research further. Indeed, if questions remain, more study is clearly needed.

This article has taken the position that men and women are equal in the sight of the Almighty, that He loves both with the same intensity, and that full participation in the life of the Body of Messiah is open to all members, not just men! We decry the attempts which male church leaders have made over many, many years to control the female believers among them. Such a practice is evil and sinful, and ought to be repented of by those guilty of doing so in this day and time.

There is a crying need for intelligent, knowledgeable, wise, logical, reasonable Spirit-led believers to come together on the issue of the role of women in the Church and be in one accord on the matter. If you disagree with the position taken in this report, that is your prerogative, but I would hope each and every dissenter will stand in opposition based on the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth! Emotionalism, illogical thinking, prejudices, and sloppy scholarship will never allow any of us to perceive the real meaning of Scripture.

It is my fervent hope that all believers, male and female, will be acceptive of one another, will practice the Biblical principle of mutual submission, of learning from each other, and of permitting every member of the Body to use their Spiritual gifts as God Himself has determined they should function. This is the only way the Church of God today can be healed of its sickness, be drawn together around the Messiah, and be fully and fruitfully used by the Almighty in His service. Let us each pledge right now to be a positive force in this regard, and to labor ceaselessly toward such a lofty and significant goal.

Of course, just as in a human body, there are many parts, each one distinct, and fulfilling specific roles. It is the same in the Body of Messiah. All of us are not gifted precisely alike, but all of us are gifted and are important. Instead of discriminating on the basis of gender, why don’t we simply live by those beautiful words written by the apostle Paul who said:

“You are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus (Messiah Yahshua). For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither MALE NOR FEMALE: for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then are you Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:26-29)

Cornerstone Publications
P.O. Box 625
Mineral Springs, AR 71851
E-mail: info@cornerstonepublication.com
www.cornerstonepublication.com

Part 1  | Part 2  | Part 3  | Part 4