In a previous article, "Who are the Women," we showed that I Cor 14:34-35 was addressed to the married women at Corinth, and most probably to the women married to believers. This article will attempt to answer the question: "What does the passage teach?" To answer this question, we must consider all scriptural evidence. Please open your Bibles and read each passage.

MARRIED WOMEN PERMITTED TO PARTICIPATE ORALLY IN EARLY-CHURCH ASSEMBLIES

The context of 1 Cor 12 through 14 is Spiritual gifts. Consider Acts 2:17-18: ... I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh;... and your daughters shall prophesy;... and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit, and they shall prophesy." Acts 21:8-9: Philip's four virgin daughters prophesied; 1 Cor 11:5: (the previous article showed that this woman was married). Most discussion centers around the covering, but notice that the woman in question was in the act of praying or prophesying. The evidence is undeniable; women possessed and exercised Spiritual gifts in the early church. At the time I Corinthians was written, these gifts had obviously not ceased; else Chapters 12 through 14 would have little or no meaning. This evidence, however, does not state "where" these women could exercise the gift, and some will contend that it was "not in the assembly."

EVIDENCE FOR ASSEMBLIES

1 Cor 14:23: "If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and any speak with tongues (oral participation). 1 Cor 14.26: "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." Oral participation. To the best of my knowledge, there is but one record (Acts 15:4) of the proceedings during an assembly. "And when they (Paul and Barnabas) were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them." Acts 15:22: "Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren." Acts 15:25: "It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul." Some way, some how, the whole church conveyed its approval of sending these men. Does the text eliminate oral approval? In the above passages, how many women, married or unmarried, can be eliminated and still have "every one of you" and "the whole church" remain accurate statements? Not a single one! Permission for women to participate orally is evident.

THE CONTROVERSY

1 Cor 14:34-35: "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. 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." The interpretation often placed on this passage is the prohibition of oral participation by the women "in the churches" or in the assemblies. This is certainly contradictory to the interpretation of the evidence already presented. There are three possibilities:

For permission not to be given, it is necessary to find scriptural evidence removing married women from "all" and "every one of you." One argument is that "all" means all who possessed spiritual gifts, but as has already been shown, Acts 2:17-18 includes all flesh and, therefore, cannot exclude married women.

Another argument is that "all" means all who were practicing in the assemblies, and these "practitioners" were all male, citing, as proof, the use of masculine language. I Cor 14:28: "But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church;..." 1 Cor 14:30: "If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace, (keep silence). This argument falls short; consider the following verses. Matt 7:21: "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Mark 16:16: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned." John 12:32: "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." The argument used to eliminate women from 1 Cor 14 would also eliminate them from receiving the benefits of doing the will of the Father; eliminate them from believing, being baptized, and thus, from being saved; and finally, would eliminate them from being drawn to Jesus. The fact of the matter is that masculine language is often used to include both genders. When it does not, it requires additional evidence from the text to so indicate. For example, 1 Tim 3:1-2: "...If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, ..." Being the husband of one wife compels the interpretation of "man" in verse one to be the male. The use of masculine language is not sufficient to eliminate women, either married or unmarried.

The last alternative to remove women from "all" and "every one of you" is to eliminate them from the "coming together in one place." This argument has serious consequences; it would eliminate them from the "whole church" (also Vs. 23); and it would make verses 34 and 35 useless. If women could not be part of the coming together, their silence would be guaranteed in any assembly, in any place, and at any time.

I know of no alternative interpretation that eliminates married women from the "all" and "every one of you" that does not contradict other plain scripture, but I remain open to suggestions.

Is there an alternative interpretation to the banning of a married woman's oral participation that will harmonize the above evidence and verses 34 and 35? Yes! It is conditional silence, and the principle and examples have already been established in the previous text. The tongue speaker could not utter a single sound, in the tongue, without an interpreter. The prophet was not to utter a single word of revelation while another spoke. In the presence of an interpreter, the silence could be broken. If it was the prophet's "turn," the peace being held could be "turned loose." Notice also that curbing the spiritual gifts did not prevent them from oral participation in any other facet--singing, praying, discussion, explanation of scripture--of the assembly. Having shown that women possessed and exercised spiritual gifts, and being unable to eliminate women from "all" and "every one of you," the only explanation that permits harmony is that in "Let your women keep silence" her silence is also conditional.

EVIDENCE FOR A MARRIED WOMAN'S CONDITIONAL SILENCE

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak,..." This portion of the instruction would be sufficient to forever silence women; however, Paul continues with these comments. 1 Cor 14:34: "...but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law." The persons being addressed by this instruction are husbands--"Let your women" (wives). "Let" means to cause, allow, or permit. "Your" is the possessive form of you, and in the language, the husband is the "possessor" of the wife. In essence, Paul is telling these husbands to take, as indicated in Gen 3:16, "the rule over" their wives. By introducing the "law," Paul also shows that this is not a new principle, but one already established by the law. The words "as also" mean to the same degree or extent; hence, Paul's teaching in the passage is to the same degree or extent as taught by the law. Does obedience to the husband require silence in the presence of other men and/or in a public assembly? Consider the following examples of women under the law. Deborah, Judg 4:4: "And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time." In the context, she specifically summoned Barak to prophesy the defeat of Sisera. Huldah, 2 Kin 22:14: "So Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam, and Achbor, and Shaphan, and Asahiah, went unto Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum ... and they communed with her." The context of this verse shows that these men were sent by King Josiah to determine the word of the Lord. Did Lapidoth and Shallum fail to "rule" over Deborah and Huldah? Are these examples of women who violated the law? If your answer is yes, please provide book, chapter, and verse to show that these women were anything but righteous.

Consider also Anna. Luke 2:36-38: "And there was one Anna, a prophetess, which departed not from the temple, ... spoke of Him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem." Anna was not married, and she is not an example of the law of obedience that Paul references in the verse; but for those who would apply Paul's teaching to all women, Anna requires some explanation. There is no condemnation of her speaking in the temple. If the law permitted these women to speak in matters of judgment concerning the law, in revealing the word of the lord, and speaking of Him, then Paul's teaching also permits a woman (wife) to speak to the same degree or extent--"as also saith the law." If not, why not? Even though she may be permitted to speak, the manner and content of her speech must demonstrate her obedience to her husband, a condition of her speaking. And husbands, before requiring absolute silence in any assembly, carefully consider Deborah and Huldah.

"And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home" (1 Cor.14:35). This is a difficult passage. Unlike the tongue speaker and the prophet, the precise detail of the offense is not recorded and is known only to the Corinthians. Perhaps these women at Corinth were attempting to justify their improper conduct by pretending to be "learning," and Paul is telling them to, rather than appearing disobedient to their husbands during the assembly, learn at home.

Consider the last part of verse 35 ... "for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." Is it a shame, or a sin; some teach that it is sin. Is there a difference between shame and sin? The bible defines sin as a transgression of law (1 Jno. 3:4). It should be evident from the previous discussion and the examples of Deborah, Huldah, and Anna, that judging Israel, prophesying, and speaking of Him, did not transgress the law. Shame is not always a sin. Acts 5:41: "And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name." These suffered reproach and dishonor in the eyes of men, but what about in the eyes of God? Here is the difference. In words, what is shameful is often determined and or evaluated by men; yet, the action may not be sinful. In 1 Cor 14:23: "...and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad.?" The shame is the condition that results from the accusation of being "mad." Speaking in tongues, with no message being conveyed; many speaking at once creating confusion; and wives demonstrating a lack of obedience to their husbands, each hindering edification (which Paul says is the purpose of spiritual gifts)--all things which are not "decent and in order" (vs. 40), a shame in all three cases.

Conclusion

Women, including married women, were permitted to speak in early-church assemblies. Their speaking, however, was not without restriction. One of these restrictions is discussed in 1 Cor 14:34-35. The content of the speech and their conduct must comply with the principles taught in Gen 3:16. For example, in Ephesians 5:19, Paul instructed: "Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord," There can be no doubt that singing is "speaking." How then can the woman "keep silence" and sing? The "silence" is conditional. Does singing violate Gen 3:16? No, she may, therefore, sing. If on the other hand, a woman is prohibited by other scripture from speaking under certain conditions, no amount of compliance to Gen 3:16 will justify her speech.