Women Be Silent in Church! …Uhm, Did Paul Actually Write 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36?

What I want to discuss here is controversial.  Additionally, what I want to address is not novel.  Here is the thought I’d like to ‘think aloud,’ so to speak,...

What I want to discuss here is controversial.  Additionally, what I want to address is not novel.  Here is the thought I’d like to ‘think aloud,’ so to speak, in the provocative world of the blogosphere: Is 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36 original?

I should say up front that my focus is not on Complementarianism vs. Egalitarianism per se.  There are Egalitarians and Complementarians who take 1 Cor 14.33b-36 to be original, yet each have different interpretations about what ‘keeping silent in church’ is all about.  Additionally, there are loads of Egalitarians who suspect that the text is unoriginal, that is, that it was inserted by an early interpreter of Paul or a scribe copying the letter.  I’m not sure if there are too many Complementarians who reject the originality of this text, but I’d like to find out if any of you know.  Here is a quick summary of both the external and internal evidence regarding 1 Cor 14.33b-36.

The manuscript evidence favors its originality.  It is represented in some very important manuscript traditions (P46, א, A, B, and others), yet there are some manuscripts which place vv.33b-36 as we know them a few verses later — after 1 Cor 14.40 (D, F, G, and others).

Although the external evidence could suggest its originality, the internal evidence favors its unoriginality.  In 1 Cor 14.33b-36 the speaking of women in church is described as “shameful.”  Instead, they are to be “silent.”  If women want to learn they need to ask their husbands at home.  Yet, just prior to this Paul mentions the prayer and prophecy of women (1 Cor 11.5), which is certainly in the context of corporate gathering (v.16).  Additionally, the flow of 1 Cor 14.1-33a into 33b-36 is quite abrupt.  Why is Paul going on about silent women just now?  However, if you proceed from 14.33a to vv.37-40 there is a consistent train of thought regarding prophecy (something Paul has already said that women can do!).  Lastly, 1 Cor 14.33b-36 says that women should keep silent and be subordinate “as the Law says” ….and where exactly does the Law say that?  I’d be glad to know.

In light of the internal evidence and other reasons, several people find 1 Cor 14.33b-36 to be unoriginal.  Yet, what are we to make of the external evidence noted above, especially if the most important witnesses contain these verses? I have two thoughts on the matter.  1) It is possible that the text originated as a marginal note that was later added to the text since Paul is addressing “issues of orderly worship.”  A later scribe may have felt it necessary to add this note.  This would explain why there are two strands of tradition – one placing the text after v.33 and the other placing the text after v.40.  2) The earliest manuscript that contains these verses is P46 which is dated to the year 200 AD by Metzger and Ehrman (The Text of the New Testament, 4th ed., p.54).  Given this date, the scenario depicted in point #1 is quite plausible as the marginal note could have been incorporated into the text at an early stage.

This blog has presented some posts on issues related to men and women in ministry in the past.  For the most part, our posts have been critical of various strands within the Biblical Manhood movement (see my post where I critique the over-emphasis on “manliness“; cf. Ryan’s 6 part critique of the use of sociological data by Driscoll and Mohler:  #1,  #2,  #3,  #4,  #5,  #6 and see Caleb’s critique regarding the nature of cultural influence).  At present I would assume that the majority of our regular readers would identify as Complementarian – though I could be wrong.  The question I’d like to pose to those who self-identify as Complementarian is: do you feel like your version of Complementarianism needs 1 Cor 14.33b-36 to be original?  What would happen to your understanding of the role of men and women in ministry if that text was legitimately unoriginal?  I’d love you hear any thoughts addressing those questions.  Also, if you’re an Egalitarian and believe that this text is original I’d love to hear your interpretation of it.  I’m eager to explore ideas and hear from you all now.

Share This:Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone
Categories
Biblical Studies
John Anthony Dunne

John is currently a PhD Candidate at the University of St Andrews working under Prof. NT Wright.
38 Comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

*

*

  • Scott
    20 March 2012 at 9:45 am

    I suppose the more pressing question is this: even if we dismiss the Corinthians passage (and I am not inclined to do so), how would we dismiss the ENTIRE passage from 1st Timothy? Paul goes back to Adam and Eve (a rare paradigm from which to begin if we are merely speaking of de novo behavior), and from an even more pedantic point of view, given the submission requirements found in Ephesians, Colossians and elsewhere it would seem only natural to plainly and clearly enunciate what the behavioral expectation of each gender would be. More to the point with regard to your comment on “prophecy” etc. in the earlier portion, one can easily allow for a specified, controlled communication (in the same way that I may say women cannot speak, but may participate in worship) without being allowed to speak in the same way that men are commanded to do so. It may seem a dichotomy, but in my view it is only an apparent dichotomy, not an actual one. Again, for the moment dismiss the Corinthians passage. How do you then explain the 1st Timothy restriction on the participation of women?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    Leave a Reply
    • John Anthony Dunne
      John Anthony Dunne
      20 March 2012 at 11:24 am

      Scott, I never claimed that we should dismiss 1 Timothy or any other text (I didn’t reference them for the point regarding 1 Corinthians). Of course, its all a matter of interpretation. My question for readers is how would one modify their Complementarianism if 1 Cor 14.33b-36 was legitimately unoriginal (Thus, I’m asking readers to draw out implications from Paul elsewhere, though this is not something I will do). I decided to deal only with 1 Corinthians for a reason. I am simply interested in whether the text in question coheres with 1 Corinthians, which for the reasons hinted at above I would suggest that it is an interpolation (though one at an early stage). The real problem is that 1 Corinthians calls for absolute and exclusive silence, something no other text in Paul could be used to support. I’m attempting to ruffle some Complementarian feathers and get Christians to think a bit more open-mindedly about the issues related to women in ministry.

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
      Leave a Reply
  • Jacob Niemi
    20 March 2012 at 12:40 pm

    John do you support women being elders and pastors? Don’t go liberal on me! haha

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    Leave a Reply
    • John Anthony Dunne
      John Anthony Dunne
      20 March 2012 at 12:49 pm

      Ha, Jacob! I’m not addressing that question here. I simply want to hear from others about how they’d modify their Complementarianism if 1 Cor 14.33b-36 were unoriginal. So do you have any thoughts for me on that? Is this passage central for your view of women in ministry? supplemental? peripheral?

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      Leave a Reply
  • Jacob Niemi
    20 March 2012 at 12:55 pm

    Hey John! I know, just giving you a hard time Man : ). Honestly, my main foundation for holding the complementarian position comes more from 1 Corinthians 11, Colossians 3, Ephesians 5, and, the golden boy, 1 Timothy 2:8 – 3:8. 1 Cor. 14:33-36 is a definite support, but not absolutely crucial. I believe it is canon of course, and it echoes Paul’s concerns elsewhere. It would seem harder to accept if Paul said something along the lines of “do not forbid women from holding any role whatsoever” in the worship service, or something therein. I’m not opposed to women sharing their testimony or serving on a worship team; but, as our dear Ken Berding has said, the defense of doctrine is reserved for men.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    Leave a Reply
    • John Anthony Dunne
      John Anthony Dunne
      20 March 2012 at 7:43 pm

      Thanks Jacob. One question: you said, “I believe it is canon of course…” Hmmm what do you mean by “of course”? Was my post THAT unconvincing? ; )

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
      Leave a Reply
  • Kevin O'Farrell
    Kevin O’Farrell
    20 March 2012 at 2:10 pm

    I have heard this argument before,and my guess is that it is probably unoriginal. And as a Complementarian (more of a soft one myself), I don’t think the loss of this passage hurts its theology at all. Rather, I think it would be easier to defend its theology without it.

    Three quick reasons as to why I think that is: 1) 1 Cor 14:33-36 does give the impression that women are secondary in the ‘you are inferior to men’ manner, 2) Paul would be contradicting himself (as noted in ch. 11), 3) and it doesn’t cohere with the other pictures of women in the NT who appear to serve actively within the context of the church (Rom 16; The Priscilla/Aquila texts for what they are worth, etc.).

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
    Leave a Reply
    • John Anthony Dunne
      John Anthony Dunne
      20 March 2012 at 2:15 pm

      Thanks for this comment. Yeah I really think that this passage doesn’t support Complementarianism, but rather fundamentalism!!

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
      Leave a Reply
    • Andrew Faris
      21 March 2012 at 2:22 pm

      Regarding your three arguments:

      (1) strikes me as a pretty subjective judgment (couldn’t you feasibly say the same about 1 Cor 11 and 1 Tim. 2?).

      (2) is true, so it makes it a difficult passage, but again, if you haven’t read Carson’s article in Piper/Grudem about this, you ought to. He at least makes a clear case for how it would fit pretty well in the context considering the language carry over from the immediate context (the idea would be that Paul is picking up on the men and women discussion from ch. 11 and applying those principles into the orderly worship discussion of chs. 12-14, which, again, feels abrupt, but you could see how it would be a reasonable thing for him to want to do, right?).

      (3) Is there any direct evidence of Priscilla violating what this passage is saying in church? Carson argues that the text is about weighing prophecies (where “be silent” means, “don’t publicly weigh a prophecy, and “learn at home” means “ask about it the prophecies when you get home”), but even if it is not, there is no evidence that Priscilla is correcting Apollos when the church is gathered, is there? Perhaps I’m wrong about this, but I can’t think of it.

      It’s not that even really disagree all the way with what you’re saying so much as I can never get over how difficult this passage is.

      Also, I don’t mean to sound at all terse with this comment, so I ask your forgiveness in advance if it comes off like that.

      Andrew

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
      Leave a Reply
  • Keith Jagger
    20 March 2012 at 5:56 pm
    • John Anthony Dunne
      John Anthony Dunne
      20 March 2012 at 7:39 pm

      Keith thanks for your response and the link to your paper! I’ll definitely give it a look. We’ll have to have a chat the next time I see you in the Roundel!

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      Leave a Reply
  • Scott
    20 March 2012 at 6:59 pm

    John,

    I am sorry if my post earlier was not more clear. I am a middle school teacher, and my day begins early, and perhaps I was not writing as quickly as I was thinking. What I meant was this: it only makes sense given all of Paul’s other concerns that he clearly elucidate a hierarchy and behavioral expectation. Of course we recognize that women have a valid job to perform in the Church. It is simply not to be in the open, and not in any sort of leadership position. Can a woman serve in children’s ministry (at least from a Complementarian perspective)? Certainly, so long as she is not in authority over men and so long as she is ONLY working with leadership over minor children in teaching. From a purely textual perspective, it comes back to the same question: where are the lines in the sand being drawn? As long as they abide by the restrictions placed by Paul clearly in 1st Timothy, and as long as they fit within the paradigm set up in submission to a husband figure, it seems less relevant. A comment on the earlier statement though: it is a fight for the soul of the American Protestant Christian community over the parameters of doctrine when we seem to have so many churches “ordaining” women in clear violation of 1st Timothy and its negative command. In that sense, then, John, I think 1st Corinthians 14:34 becomes even MORE important form the sense that if we do not have a clear and unambiguous understanding of where women stand, we can get muddled, confused, and wishy-washy in our theology.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
    Leave a Reply
    • John Anthony Dunne
      John Anthony Dunne
      20 March 2012 at 7:42 pm

      Scott, thanks for your response. I appreciate your comments and will consider them further. This project was really a way for me to ‘think aloud’ as I consider whether this text is original and ponder how far the ripples might go.

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      Leave a Reply
  • Carrie Allen
    21 March 2012 at 2:51 am
  • Jacob Niemi
    21 March 2012 at 11:19 am

    Hi John, it was not that unconvincing. I just think that if God allowed it to be put in the Bible and it coincides with other parts of scripture, then is it really that horrible to assume its authenticity and divine authority? That’s all : ).

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    Leave a Reply
    • John Anthony Dunne
      John Anthony Dunne
      21 March 2012 at 12:41 pm

      Haha I gotcha. Just wondering though: you’d agree that the longer ending of Mark is unoriginal right? So you’d admit that the transmission of the text ins’t inspired like the original writing of the text, right? I don’t want to press you into agreeing with me! Just giving you some food for thought (or at least justifying to you why I’m not crazy or heretical for suggesting this!)

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      Leave a Reply
  • Andrew Faris
    21 March 2012 at 12:19 pm

    JD,

    A couple things.

    1. As a complementarian, I’m frankly smack in the middle on this question. In a sense I actually want it to be unoriginal because it wouldn’t take anything away from what I see as an otherwise biblical view (so I wouldn’t have to go changing up my thinking entirely or anything), and it wouldn’t be such a difficult text.

    2. The exegetical issues are simply difficult here. I can’t think that Paul really wants women literally “be silent” in churches (because of the 1 Cor. 11 passage you mentioned), and yet that is the most immediately natural reading of that particular pericope. For now I lean towards Carson’s take in Piper/Grudem, where he says it is original and about women weighing prophecies publicly, where by disagreeing with particularly their husbands’ prophecies, they would be subverting prescribed gender roles. I like the contextual language connections he makes there with all of the repeated words from the preceding context (e.g. sigao, laleo, hypotasso, en ekklesia, manthano). It seems to me that this makes your (and Fee’s) internal evidence argument a little muddier than you like. Maybe you could state it more accurately as, “If this text was gone, the flow would actually be easier” rather than “This text interrupts the flow so badly that it probably isn’t original.” I think that second idea overstates it.

    3. The external evidence strikes me as the much more difficult thing. For one thing, Fee, and more recently, Philip Payne, have gone into some pretty impressive text-critical detail on this. If you haven’t gotten a chance to check out Payne’s stuff on it, it’s pretty incredible. For those reasons I really appreciate Carson’s humility in his Piper/Grudem article, where he basically says, “Look, Fee is a better text critic than I am, even though I think he is wrong here.” That is partly my take on this issue: it’s above my pay scale. When I read Payne’s discussion I put the book down and thought, “Even if he is wrong, I wouldn’t know exactly how to disagree with him, because he just knows so much more about this than I do.”

    The specifically compelling point to me is that there are no other examples of a text just moving. It just doesn’t make sense that a scribe would decide to move a passage so early in the transmission. The scribal marginal note suggestion seems reasonable to me, but that’s one shifty scribe.

    But to indicate the difficulty again, here’s a little anecdote: I emailed Philip Payne and asked him about a solution I had thought of, namely the idea that Paul himself went back and wrote it in the margin. Wouldn’t that explain why it showed up so early, why it is missing from literally zero manuscripts, and yet why it moved? Payne emailed me back and basically said, “Interesting thought, but what kind of paper with what kind of margins and text size were you suggesting Paul used? Because that doesn’t line up with the kind of stuff we have that floated around from that area.”

    I mean, honestly, what can I say to that? It would be hard for me to know any less about those issues, whereas Payne knows quite a bit about them. So how can I really judge that?

    All that to say, at this point I lean towards the idea that it isn’t original or else that Carson’s solution is right. It’s just really, really, really hard.

    And sorry for the length of this comment.

    Andrew

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
    Leave a Reply
    • John Anthony Dunne
      John Anthony Dunne
      21 March 2012 at 12:39 pm

      Andrew, thanks so much for your comment! I am familiar with Payne’s book and looked over his arguments. It’s beyond my TC knowledge as well, but for me it’s the internal evidence that is most compelling (at least I find it more compelling than the external). I guess I need to re-read Carson’s chapter, and perhaps I won’t emphasize how “abrupt” this text is, but I still find it out of place (I fear being too speculative but I wonder if the comparable language isn’t the result of a Pauline scribe, i.e. one very familiar with his style. At least he has the advantage of being able to blend the note/text into the present context). When you mentioned that there are no examples of texts moving, isn’t John 7.53-8.11 a good example? I just wonder why 1 Cor 14.33b-36 shows up after v.40. It’s all very intriguing to me which is why I wanted to hear from others. Thanks for your thoughts and thanks sharing your email correspondence with Payne as well. Very interesting.

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      Leave a Reply
      • Andrew Faris
        21 March 2012 at 2:14 pm

        JD,

        Of course you’re right: a scribe could have purposefully used Paul’s language since it is right there in the surrounding context, but then you run into the problem of saying that something sounds too much like Paul to be Paul. That, to me, doesn’t get us anywhere because you can do the opposite so easily with so many other passages too: “Oh gosh, that doesn’t sound like Paul at all! Look, none of the language is even the same!” And so on, forever and ever, as you well know. That line of thinking constantly strikes me as the kind of things where scholars feel more sure of themselves than they should be.

        I guess maybe I could put it more simply: if it weren’t for the problem of the moving pericope (sounds like a movie about textual criticism/our path to millions of dollars) then I don’t think you would make that judgment about the passage. You’d see the carry over of language, admit that it is an abrupt thing to address, but then say, “Yes, it’s a hard passage, and yes, it’s abrupt, but then, Paul is abrupt fairly often.”

        As for the moving text and John’s gospel, Fee and Carson have some back and forth about that, and it brings up a helpful clarification: there is no other moving text that is also universally attested in the manuscripts. The pseudo-John passage moves around partly because it is so obviously an interpolation.

        Andrew

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
        Leave a Reply
        • John Anthony Dunne
          John Anthony Dunne
          21 March 2012 at 2:53 pm

          “The Moving Pericope” Rated R for Textual Content : )

          Fair enough about the Scribal comment. Admittedly I was being speculative.

          And that is a good clarification regarding the Fee-Carson dispute on moving texts. I’ll think about that more.

          Thanks for your input!

          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
          Leave a Reply
    • Carrie Allen
      21 March 2012 at 11:33 pm

      This is fascinating, thank you Andrew.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      Leave a Reply
      • Andrew Faris
        22 March 2012 at 10:12 am

        Carrie,

        Word.

        Andrew

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
        Leave a Reply
  • Andrew Kelley
    Andrew Kelley
    21 March 2012 at 1:45 pm

    I think many complementarians (me for one) would be happy if this passage proved to be unoriginal. It wouldn’t change my view and beyond that, I don’t practice (nor do I know of any churches that practice) a hard view of this scripture. What I mean by that is that my church identifies itself as complementarian, but it certainly allows (and encourages) women to speak in church. I can’t think of a situation where I have been in any church and a woman was prevented from praying, worshipping, or giving a testimony because it was mixed company.

    So, in a practical sense, the elimination of this passage doesn’t change the way complementarianism is practiced by any churches that I am familiar with and it makes the view easier to swallow. My churches PR guy would totally go for it (just kidding about that, but I think we all understand the sentiment).

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
    Leave a Reply
    • Carrie Allen
      21 March 2012 at 11:29 pm

      This is what I find so interesting about the complementarian argument. Complementarians say that the bible is telling us to put limitations on women’s roles but when the bible takes it a step further to say not to speak in church, no one seems to care about not adhering. My question is not so much about the originality of this passage, but about picking and choosing what we like and don’t like when it comes to such a huge issue.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
      Leave a Reply
      • Andrew Kelley
        Andrew Kelley
        23 March 2012 at 12:43 am

        I think that’s a good points, and I don’t really know the answer. I’m not sure it is as easy as assuming that churches are picking and choosing. I think that church trends arise from some exegetical methodology as opposed to some sort of bargaining between biblical mandates and cultural expectations (although that probably happens too). I want to be sensitive to this issue (practicing some mandates more seriously than others) but I also don’t want to assume that churches are just making arbitrary decisions.

        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
        Leave a Reply
        • Carrie Allen
          25 March 2012 at 2:41 am

          I think that I would actually have a lot of respect for churches that just practiced what they preached. Churches are constantly pushing the boundaries with these issues. One church I went to went as far as letting the wives of the elders attend the meetings once a month and they loved to mention this in front of the congregation because I guess maybe it looked “PC” to the public? But they still stood by the fact that a woman could never actually BE an elder. Another thing that bothers me is that all of these amazing women are leading and directing ministries but are not seen as “pastors”, and not held in high regard as leaders in the church. Essentially we have men and women doing the same jobs, but women are usually receiving lower pay, less respect, and no title. And yet they are LEADING, SPEAKING, PREACHING, and holding authority over many people at times. Now I think it about it more… really, many of these complementarian churches are in a way discriminating against women. If complementarians are truly being complementarian, then women should not be leading in these ways.

          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
          Leave a Reply
  • Jacob Niemi
    21 March 2012 at 2:41 pm

    John, I would never consider you a heretic! I am shocked and appalled that you would think such a thing : ). It could be, it couldn’t be, I just take the faith step and say, because that principle is affirmed elsewhere, I accept its validity in faith. I have a difficult time both with John 7:53-8:11 and Mark 16, but I accept them just the same.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    Leave a Reply
    • John Anthony Dunne
      John Anthony Dunne
      21 March 2012 at 2:49 pm

      Fair enough. Thanks for playing the blog game with me : )

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      Leave a Reply
  • Jacob Niemi
    21 March 2012 at 3:30 pm

    Hey it’s fun dude! Let me also make it clear that I do not want women to just “sit down and shut up.” That wreaks of extra-biblical misogyny.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    Leave a Reply
    • Carrie Allen
      22 March 2012 at 8:31 pm

      Can you define extra-biblical misogyny? Haha.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      Leave a Reply
      • Jacob Niemi
        24 March 2012 at 12:31 am

        When male (and even some female!) fundamentalists attempt to oppress women using passages of scripture out of context to justify male egoism, paradoxical to the theological schema of scripture, wherein biblical submission is a form of love, esp. in the Trinity, as manifest in the home and in proper church roles between male and female.

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
        Leave a Reply
        • Carrie Allen
          25 March 2012 at 2:33 am

          yes, yes, I know. I just thought it should maybe be called just “misogyny”. “Christian misogyny” also might be a better way to describe it, because misogyny is definitely not “biblical”.

          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
          Leave a Reply
          • Jacob Niemi
            25 March 2012 at 7:36 pm

            Hence the “extra”-biblical.

            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • James Mace
    22 March 2012 at 6:28 am

    John Dunne wrote: “Lastly, 1 Cor 14.33b-36 says that women should keep silent and be subordinate ‘as the Law says’ ….and where exactly does the Law say that? I’d be glad to know.”

    Dear master Dunne,

    I was spurred to an answer to your question this morning while I was reading the section from Scott W. Hahn’s biblical theology, “Galatians 4:21–31: God Disinherits the Circumcised Seed of Abraham” (Kinship by Covenant: A Canonical Approach to the Fulfillment of God’s Saving Promises [New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009], 272–74).

    There Hahn elucidates Paul’s concept of the Law’s speaking to us, even where some could see it as silent.
    “Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law?” (Gal 4:21 NASB95). Paul then proceeds to argue, based on the example of Ishmael’s disinheritance, that the law speaks a more overt theological point. Although it is not stated “exactly” in terms such as those provided in what Hahn says is the theological point Paul is making, Hahn nonetheless (I think rightly) concludes:
    “Paul’s point is clear: Circumcision is of no avail (see Gal 5:6). In light of the expulsion and disinheritance of Ishmael (Abraham’s firstborn son ‘after the flesh,’ and his first son to be circumcised), it is an inescapable conclusion that circumcision is no guarantee of the Abrahamic inheritance of the promised blessing. Indeed, circumcision may have been necessary at one time, but even then it was not sufficient for what mattered most.129” (Hahn, Kinship, 273).

    Hahn’s footnote makes clear his (and my) idea re Paul’s (and other readers’) legitimate inductive reading: “129 Curiously, Paul nowhere explicitly states this simple but profound inference; rather, he lets his readers draw it themselves.” Paul does not “say” this somewhere “exactly,” yet this is precisely what he says.

    Paul is apparently doing similarly in 1 Cor 14 when he says “the Law says” something that someone could (incorrectly albeit understandably) say is not there.

    As the example of Ishmael provides grounds for inducing/inferring a non-narratival theological statement, so do the examples of God’s historically prescribed ministers within the worship community lead to inferring His prescription of solely male leadership in the New Covenant worship community. Perhaps Paul’s thinking (based on his thinking in Gal 4) may be something like: all of the priests in all of their courses and all of the Levites in all of their various ministries in all of the places throughout the Law during all of the history of all Israel (except those apostates who engaged in idolatrous forms of worship) were solely male; women were to be silent and subordinate re the cultic worship context.

    Of course God can sometimes in some ways complement His best intention on an emergency basis, yet the weight put on poor Deborah’s shoulders is too much to bear. Her hypothetical role in the cultic worship is not at all clear, not least because the text is entirely silent on anything except non-worship functions. This later period of the judges was one of degradation, shortcoming, and disobedience. Hebrews 11 entirely passes over Deborah in favour of the more normative male Barak (Heb 11:32). So I think Paul would have seen himself quite safe inducing an argument for male church leadership based on the historical examples (like he did with disinheritance in Gal 4) throughout Israel’s obedient following of Yahweh’s prescriptive requirements.

    So in my thinking re this, I would say that Paul sees the Law speaking not only through didactic prescriptive statements and deductive logic but also in its recording of historical narrative and the reader’s logical induction from examples. In such a sense the Law may be said to speak more fully only to those with ears to hear; inductive hearing entails knowledge of the broad text(s), mental capacity to induce, and a willing heart to hear what God is saying. In this sense, I think, Paul is correct in saying that the Law “says that women should keep silent and be subordinate,” as you put it (as per the Corinthian context).

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    Leave a Reply
    • John Anthony Dunne
      John Anthony Dunne
      22 March 2012 at 9:51 am

      James, thanks for your comment. I’ll have to think about this more. In fact, I’d like to read that article (I’m working on Gal 4.21-31 at the moment). We’ll have to chat more about this in the future.

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      Leave a Reply
      • James Mace
        22 March 2012 at 11:30 am

        I have the chapter from Hahn in electronic format if you want to read it. See you sometime soon!

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
        Leave a Reply
  • sandy
    9 January 2013 at 3:42 pm

    When I heard the shut up and submit verses, I did just that. I never went back. Now, they will not be. Contaminated with.my singing voice, my.coughs, not.even the clearing of my throat. Not by my.praying, or saying amen. So, .lone will need to worry about being offended by.my.voice e, since.it is so distasteful.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    Leave a Reply
    • John Anthony Dunne
      John Anthony Dunne
      9 January 2013 at 8:51 pm

      This is completely sad. I hope you’re joking (and I’ll assume you’re being sarcastic… plus what’s up with the grammar?). What you’ve described is oppression; something far from Christian. Paul would have been completely saddened by this.

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      Leave a Reply
    More Posts

    RELATED BY