1 Corinthians 14:34-35

[QuietTimes]

[34] Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith. [35] But if they would learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.

Can someone explain this to me
I am reading this passage over and over and I just don’t get it.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

I just listened to a talk on this by Dr. Brant Pitre, where he gave the case that it was meant as a woman attempting to give a homily in a liturgical setting, which only the priest can do. I will listen to it again and respond, since my memory on it is hazy.

 

[QuietTimes]

Thank you Nathan. That is what I thought, but was not sure.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Okay, just listened to it. It was buried in the sacramental theology series almost as a throwaway, so I had to do some digging. After careful listening, I am going to formulate my response in my own words, using part of his argument.

Sometimes the best way to understand a passage, when you can’t seem to find context, is find another passage describing the same thing. This is particularly helpful with baptism. Did Jesus mean literal water and the Spirit? So you have to see corroborating passages, typology, etc to make your case. The same applies to this passage of Paul. Many people have found such difficulty with this passage that they have attempted to accuse it of being an interpolation on the part of a later Christian with a theological agenda. So the question is, is there any correlating passage using similar language that may help shed light on Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35? Yes. Consider the following a “parallel passage.”

1 Timothy 2:8 - 3:1: It is my wish, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands, without anger or argument. Similarly, (too,) women should adorn themselves with proper conduct, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hairstyles and gold ornaments, or pearls, or expensive clothes, but rather, as befits women who profess reverence for God, with good deeds. A woman must receive instruction silently and under complete control. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. 4 She must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. Further, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed. But she will be saved through motherhood, provided women persevere in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. This saying is trustworthy: 2 whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task.

To use my “baptism” analogy again, in John 3:5 Jesus says to be born of water and the Spirit, and many people struggle with the passage, attempting to explain according to their pre-conceived theology what Jesus means by these supposedly cryptic words. However, this statement of Jesus is bracketed in such a manner that the statement becomes delightfully clear. Jesus was baptized with literal water and the Spirit, says the statement “water and the Spirit,” then goes and baptizes with his disciples using what? Water and the Spirit. So what did Jesus mean by water? The contextual “bookends” of literal water help clarify the meaning of his statement. In the same way, we can understand what Paul means above.

Notice the first set of highlighted words “lifting up holy hands.” Then are the comments about women, then the final bracket, or “bookend” is where Paul goes directly into speaking of the bishop. What many commentators miss is that this “lifting of holy hands” is a priestly, liturgical action. Contextually, to go even a bit further back, Paul speaks of supplications, prayers, thanksgivings (Eucharistia), and petitions. These are all priestly actions. Then he goes on the lifting of holy hands. In the Hebrew and particularly in the Greek OT, references to “hands” is ordainment terminology, and the rite of ordination was the verbal form in both the Hebrew and Greek was literally “handing” a man. The consecration of the hands and the laying on of hands is part of the priesthood in the OT, and “hands set apart” refers to the hands of the priest. The elevation of the Eucharist by the holy hands corroborates with this perfectly. Lest you think this is reading too much into the text, keep in mind that again, in the OT, the priests also performed a wave offering where the offering was elevated up, down, and then either from left to right or forward to back (which I find fascinating). So this “elevation of holy hands” has deep OT background as well, and not merely reading Catholic anachronisms back into the text of Saint Paul.

Okay so now we have established a context of priestly action as the first bracket, the words of women, and then the second bracket with instructions on ordaining bishops. So we can see then that Paul is making his comments about silence, etc in specific regard to ordained ministry/liturgy, which is nothing different from Catholic teaching today. Now go back to Corinthians, and read it with fresh eyes. Paul chastises them throughout the epistle essentially for liturgical abuse, both of the Eucharist and during other parts of the mass as well. Particularly in Ch. 14 is Paul specifically referencing liturgy. So since the contexts are the same, the passages referring to women can be used to help shed light on one another. I hope this helps. God Bless you.

 

[Julian0404]

[34] Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith. [35] But if they would learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.

Can someone explain this to me
I am reading this passage over and over and I just don’t get it.

How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

1Cr 14:27 If any man speak in an [unknown] tongue, [let it be] by two, or at the most [by] three, and [that] by course; and let one interpret.
1Cr 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
1Cr 14:29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
1Cr 14:30 If [any thing] be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
1Cr 14:31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
1Cr 14:32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
1Cr 14:33 For God is not [the author] of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
1Cr 14:34 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 saith the law.
1Cr 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
1Cr 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
1Cr 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
1Cr 14:38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
1Cr 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

Taken in context, it appears to be an admonition against prophesying in tongues, and it appears that all the men are likewise advised on very strict guidelines, what is proper and what is improper in using tongues to attempt to prophesy.

 

[Totterman]

Jesus,our Lords peace be with You.
Sorry for my bad english,and for my ansver. Dear friend,as we know women today have many importen things to do in the Church,in fact,and I am man,I think that our Church would not have survived for all theese years without women. They do so much,and there is realy only on thing they cant do,be priests,and we all know why,so I want go in to that,and I dont have to becuase a catholic woman know why. For the rest of the ansver,common sence,as my son says,“keep it simple”,so the reason has very little to do with women but with time. Back then a woman had a other role in the infrastructure then today. And we know that today women can do much in the church,so let us thank them for all the good work they do,and in fact,do it so that we seldom even know that they do it. Maybe we should remember them in a prayer today? I will,and thank You for asking,it made me think,and understand.

 

[Bookcat]

[34] Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith. [35] But if they would learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.

Can someone explain this to me
I am reading this passage over and over and I just don’t get it.

Here…this will help:

ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfinsig.htm

Particularly 3 and 4.

On women in service of the Gospel:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20070214_en.html

 

[bnapgh]

[34] Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith. [35] But if they would learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.

Can someone explain this to me
I am reading this passage over and over and I just don’t get it.

All the above are good answers.

If I may I would like to share a few of my own thoughts, not those of the Church or the learned.

Obviously, the social customs and mores of civilizations have evolved over time. One of the largest and most needed changes was the role of women in society. IMHO it seems God planned parallel but different and complementary roles for men and women in the psychological and social development of humans (one more aggressive, one more nurturing). Since the dawn of humans, IMHO these different roles were socially exaggerated by the atavistic and less developed intellectual capabilities of early humans (think cavemen and cavewomen). Before Christ, might made right. In the home and in society the physical prowess and left-brain bias of men, coupled with their animalistic drive for dominance (pecking order), seemed to lead to prejudices (at best) and abuse (at the extreme) against women.

With time and enlightenment social customs and mores evolved to the realization and recognition of women’s equality in all but physical prowess.

There are two sides to many sins: an aggravator and an ‘‘aggravatee’’. For every thief, there is also one who is robbed. For every murderer there is a victim. For every act of aggrandizement, there is one who was put down. BOTH sides are prone to sin. It seems to me that even ‘‘aggravatees’’ are prone to be angry and jealous and covetous. Remember Jesus advice right after the beatitudes: if someone takes your coat, let him have your cloak as well (Matthew 5:40). So we must guard against venting our own pride after any indignation.

That said, today’s seldom referenced sin of scandal is misinterpreted. Scandal is not just a lewd act, it is any act or statement that might lead others (especially the children and child-like) away from righteousness. IMHO today’s women who enter church dressed to show their ‘‘fashionable’’ cleavage are scandalous because males will be tempted to impure thoughts even in that holy place. Well, under the mores of Paul’s time perhaps it would be scandalous if a woman then evidenced some perceived lack of modesty with an uncovered head or some perceived lack of humility by actually speaking in church. This sounds silly under today’s social norms, but perhaps not to men of that age.

So IMHO the verse you quote from Paul was probably an admonition of care to avoid scandal (old definition) that might mislead some men as an occasion of sin.

I am probably out in left field on this.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

All the above are good answers.

If I may I would like to share a few of my own thoughts, not those of the Church or the learned.

Obviously, the social customs and mores of civilizations have evolved over time. One of the largest and most needed changes was the role of women in society. IMHO it seems God planned parallel but different and complementary roles for men and women in the psychological and social development of humans (one more aggressive, one more nurturing). Since the dawn of humans, IMHO these different roles were socially exaggerated by the atavistic and less developed intellectual capabilities of early humans (think cavemen and cavewomen). Before Christ, might made right. In the home and in society the physical prowess and left-brain bias of men, coupled with their animalistic drive for dominance (pecking order), seemed to lead to prejudices (at best) and abuse (at the extreme) against women.

With time and enlightenment social customs and mores evolved to the realization and recognition of women’s equality in all but physical prowess.

There are two sides to many sins: an aggravator and an ‘‘aggravatee’’. For every thief, there is also one who is robbed. For every murderer there is a victim. For every act of aggrandizement, there is one who was put down. BOTH sides are prone to sin. It seems to me that even ‘‘aggravatees’’ are prone to be angry and jealous and covetous. Remember Jesus advice right after the beatitudes: if someone takes your coat, let him have your cloak as well (Matthew 5:40). So we must guard against venting our own pride after any indignation.

That said, today’s seldom referenced sin of scandal is misinterpreted. Scandal is not just a lewd act, it is any act or statement that might lead others (especially the children and child-like) away from righteousness. IMHO today’s women who enter church dressed to show their ‘‘fashionable’’ cleavage are scandalous because males will be tempted to impure thoughts even in that holy place. Well, under the mores of Paul’s time perhaps it would be scandalous if a woman then evidenced some perceived lack of modesty with an uncovered head or some perceived lack of humility by actually speaking in church. This sounds silly under today’s social norms, but perhaps not to men of that age.

So IMHO the verse you quote from Paul was probably an admonition of care to avoid scandal (old definition) that might mislead some men as an occasion of sin.

I am probably out in left field on this.

This argument won’t suffice, in itself, because Paul is not making any form of cultural argument. In fact, he makes an argument that goes back to creation itself, and so it has no rooting in “perceived lack of modesty.” The head covering issue goes back to the order of the created universe, and is why head covering have been a tradition of the Church for 2,000 years. To wave away this statement of Paul as cultural is to not only selectively dismissive of his teachings, but is also unfaithful to the text considering what he uses to substantiate his case. If Paul appealing to creation themes for headcoverings is a “cultural teaching,” then the Catholic view of marriage must be a “cultural teaching,” because Jesus uses the same style of argumentation to talk about the indissolubility of marriage.

"With time and enlightenment social customs and mores evolved to the realization and recognition of women’s equality in all but physical prowess."

No. Men and women are equal in ALL things in terms of intrinsic value, they are NOT equal in all things according to their roles, from a biological nature on up. Women can be mothers, men can’t. Men can be fathers (and therefore priests) and covenantal heads of the family, women can’t. Physical prowess doesn’t even enter the picture as criteria into the Catholic mindset. This reeks of modernist gender role revision, and in the end causes more division among the sexes due to the viewing of genuine sexual differences as a form of “power struggle.” This is a particularly modern, worldly, dare I say revisionist way of viewing things.

“Male” and “Female” at their essence are also relational terms, as is obvious in observing human sociological behavior. The man in a special way mirrors how the Father relates to us, and the woman in a special way mirrors how we relate back to God. This is why theologians (Scott Hahn JPII to name a couple recent ones) are able to make the connection that the family mirrors the Trinity in an earthly fashion.

As the “male” relates to the outside in terms of reaching out and self-giving, the “woman” in relational terms tends to receive.

Most “masculine” words in the NT? "Take, eat, this is my body, given for you (rough paraphrase). Total self-giving. He is the source, the author of what he is giving, and this statement is essentially masculine.

Most “feminine” words in the NT? “Let it be unto me according to your word.” Catholics should know who said that.

We also reflect our heavenly relational realities in the sense that heaven, in a special way, touches down to earth for the man as a priest, when the host is consecrated. Heaven touches down to earth for a woman when she conceives a child in her womb, in a special act of creation that no man can ever achieve (this is why Saint Paul can make such clear assertions about the sanctity of motherhood). Lest the rest us feel left out, the Church has us covered. We all taste of heaven in a real sense when we take part in the Blessed Sacrament. This is a Catholic view of the sexes.

As for the “before Christ, might made right” comment, I’m not even going to respond to that. God Bless.

 

[COPLAND_3]

The Ignatius Study Bible says

Paul enjoins silence upon Christian women in public worship. This is not an absolute restriction, since women can lawfully pray and prophesy in the liturgical assembly (11:5) and are encouraged to teach in other circumstances (Titus 2:3-4). Paul is prohibiting women from instructing the congregation in the official capacity of a pastor or homilist. see note on 1 Timothy 2:12

Here is that note on 1 Timothy 2:12

I permit no woman to teach: Not an absolute prohibition that applies to all circumstances, but one that excludes women from teaching ministry exercised by ordained clergymen (1 Cor 14:34-35). Paul is not denying the equal dignity of men and women in Christ (Gal 3:28) or the propriety of women in praying and prophesying within the context of worship (1 Cor 11:5). Women perform an invaluable service when they teach the faith in other contexts by words and Christian example (Tit 2:3-4). According to Church teaching, Paul forbids women to exercise the official function of teaching in the Christian assembly (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Inter insigniores 1976)

 

[bnapgh]

Dear Mr. Wagar,
It seems I have angered you. If so, I am sorry. It was never my intent to anger anyone. I prefaced my thoughts by saying that these were ‘‘my own thoughts, not those of the Church or the learned.’’ I never proffered them as a final explanation. I did not realize they ‘’reeked’’. Nor was I aware that the Catholic church had decided these issues ex cathedra. Thank you for your explanations.

This argument won’t suffice, in itself, because Paul is not making any form of cultural argument.

I am so pleased to know that you have discerned the true meaning of Paul’s wording.

In fact, he makes an argument that goes back to creation itself…

I guess I missed that part of Genesis. I had no idea that head coverings for women were so deeply rooted. Thanks for the enlightenment.

(I)t has no rooting in "perceived lack of modesty." The head covering issue goes back to the order of the created universe, and is why head covering have been a tradition of the Church for 2,000 years.

So does this mean that all women who do not wear hijab in any Christian church today are at the peril of their souls? Please explain to me how this is not cultural? Or, more simply, please enlighten me with the theological explanation of women’s head coverings.

If Paul appealing to creation themes for **headcoverings** is a "cultural teaching," then the **Catholic view of marriage** must be a "cultural teaching," because Jesus uses the same **style** of argumentation to talk about the indissolubility of marriage.

I had not realized that it was the ’’stlye’’ of an argument that gave it weight and authority! I did warn everyone that I was unlearned, but, until now, I had no idea how badly.

First I said:

IMHO it seems God planned parallel but different and complementary roles for men and women in the psychological and social development of humans (one more aggressive, one more nurturing).…With time and enlightenment social customs and mores evolved to the realization and recognition of women’s equality in all but ** physical** prowess.

And then you said:

No. Men and women are equal in ALL things in terms of intrinsic value, they are NOT equal in all things according to their roles, from a biological nature on up.

You are so kind to explain how far these two statements vary! (Are you sure that you meant to say ‘’intrinsic’’? Have you checked what that means?) Are you saying that men and women are ‘’extrinsically’’ unequal??

Why is my use of ‘’roles’’ so wrong, when your use of ‘’roles’’ is so right?

I sure would appreciate your sharing more of your ‘learning’ with me. How are a person’s ‘’physical’’ attributes so antithetical to their ‘’biological’’ attributes?

Women can be mothers, men can’t.

And this is not a ‘’physical’’ difference in what way?

Perhaps I am also naïve. I should have known, I guess, that any mention of men and women on a Catholic message board must inevitably involve the defense of the position that only men can be priests. I thought the OP was asking why Paul wrote: ‘’Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak’’. I guess I did not realize this must have been a subterfuge to demand that women be made priests.

This reeks of modernist gender role revision, and in the end causes more division among the sexes due to the viewing of genuine sexual differences as a form of “power struggle.” This is a particularly modern, worldly, dare I say revisionist way of viewing things.

Specifically what do you think my ‘’reekingness’’ was trying to ‘’revise’’?

“Male” and “Female” at their essence are also relational terms, as is obvious in observing human sociological behavior.

So you contend that the differences between men and women are, in essence, more ‘’relational’’ than ‘’physical’’?

And ‘’sociological’’ differs from ‘’cultural’’ in what way?

As the “male” relates to the outside in terms of reaching out and self-giving, the “woman” in relational terms tends to receive.

So, if I understand you correctly, in the Bible men are the givers and women are the receivers. Is this right?

As for the “before Christ, might made right” comment, I’m not even going to respond to that.

I guess you do not agree with this either, huh? So you believe that before Christ most groups interacted based on fairness and ethical standards, is this right?

One more question. If the OP’s quote from Paul were meant to mean that women should not ‘’teach’’ in Church, then why does Paul’s very next verse say:

[35] But if they would learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.

Just in need of more learning and enlightenment.

God Bless.

Thanks, Nathan! You, too!