Recovering Biblical Mannhood and Womanhood: Internal Contradictions and Other Fallacies

1 Corinthians 14:34-45 has always been the bedrock of complementarism, but these two verses create more problems than they solve.

Contradiction # 5  1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Weinrich connects the verses to Genesis 3:16, but Carson disagrees, and tries to explain the reference to the Law, and Knight attempts to make the word "laleo" a reference to teaching instead of regular speech.

Find it in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

Carson: p 152

Knight: p 351

Although Tertullian believed women ought to be silenced in the church, he did not know what to make of the reference to the Law.

When enjoining on women silence in the church, that they speak not for the mere sake of learning (although that even they have the right of prophesying, he has already shown when he covers the woman that prophesies with a veil), he goes to the law for his sanction that woman should be under obedience. Now this law, let me say once for all, he ought to have made no other acquaintance with, than to destroy it.[1]  

By the fourth century, the Law no longer posed a problem, for the inferiority of the woman and the sole guilt of Eve had changed the meaning of Genesis 3:16 from a consequence of sin to a commandment of God. Chrysostom combined 1 Corinthians 14:34 with Genesis 3:16 without discussion and maintained that women should be silent in the Church because “the woman is in some sort a weaker being and easily carried away and light minded.”[2]

In the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century theology the inferiority of the woman was the reason for her silence. Matthew Henry concluded that women ought to be silent and refrain from teaching in the Church because, “it is the woman's duty to learn in subjection, it is the man's duty to keep up his superiority, by being able to instruct her.”[3] Adam Clarke believed women prophesied in the Early Church because of 1 Cor 11:5, but because of the apparent contradiction with 1 Cor 14:34, he concluded that the latter forbade only asking questions, not all speech.[4] Clarke thought “the law” had reference to Genesis 3:16, as did Barnes and Tertullian, but although Tertullian allowed women to pray and prophesy, Barnes concluded that the silencing of women in the Church could not be disputed because the rule was “positive, explicit, and universal.”[5] He equated foreign languages and prophesy with public speaking and therefore they were only for “the male portion of the congregation.” And as to the contradiction between chapters 11 and 14, for Barnes there was none, for he thought Paul was forbidding women from speaking “on every ground.”[6]

D.A. Carson disagrees with Weinrich’s approval of Luther’s habit of connecting Genesis 3:16 and 1 Corinthians 14:34 in his essay Silent in the Churches.

By this clause [the law says], Paul is probably not referring to Genesis 3:16, as many suggest, but to the creation order in Genesis 2:20b-24, for it is to that Scripture that Paul explicitly turns to on two others occasions when he discusses female roles (1 Corinthians 11.8, 9; 1 Timothy 2:13).[7]

But the new connection is not without problems. The phrase “the law says” is found three times in the New Testament: Rom 3:19, 1 Cor 9:8, and 1 Cor 14:34. Carson concedes that Paul usually provides the actual verse from the Old Testament, which is true of the first two examples, but he believes Paul has already provided the verse (Genesis 2:20-4) in 1 Corinthians 11. Carson believes also that the reference to the Law should be understood as Scripture, which includes the Creation account.[8] However, Genesis 1-3 is not called “the Law” or “Scripture” in the Bible; it is always called “the beginning.”[9] Hence “the law” cannot refer to Genesis 2:20-24.

Carson recognizes the problem of reconciling 1 Cor 11:3-16 with 14:34-35 wherefore he suggests that the former allows women to prophesy but that the latter forbids them from evaluating prophecies. Because Carson acknowledges that the whole church should participate in the evaluation of teaching (Acts 17:11; Rev 2:2-3) he creates a distinction in which women are (1) allowed to prophesy, but not allowed to evaluate prophecy; and (2) disallowed to teach, but allowed to evaluate teaching. If "the careful weighing of prophecies falls under the magisterial function" of the teaching authority, why does not the evaluation of teaching considering Carson’s belief that teaching is superior to prophesying?[10] 

Also George W. Knight III recognizes that 1 Cor 11:3-16 allows women to pray and to prophesy in his essay The Family and the Church, but he views 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 as a prohibition for women to teach in a church setting.

This is seen in Paul's treatment of the gifts in 1 Corinthians 11-14, where women are excluded only from speaking in church (1 Corinthians 14:34-5) where congregational "teaching" is involved (1 Corinthians 14:26; notice that the items listed in verse 26 correspond with the subjects dealt with in verses 27 and 35 [with only the first item, "a psalm," not dealt with in these verses] and in particular notice that "teaching" [NASB] in verse 26 is the one-word description for the "speaking" Paul will deal with when it comes to women in verses 34-35). These women are recognized as properly participating in praying and prophesying, for example, but are only asked not to throw off the cultural sign of their submission when they do so (1 Corinthians 11:1-6).[11]

Knight does not explain how the "one-word description" of "teaching" can be "speaking" (laleo) in 1 Corinthians 14:34, considering the word is connected to both tongues and prophecy three times in verses 27-29. Neither does he have a reason why women should learn (manthano) at home when the purpose of prophecy is that all may learn (manthano) at church (v. 31).

The context of 1 Corinthians 14 is speech. (Laleo is used twenty-four times in chapter 14.) In verses 1-25 Paul explains why the Corinthians should desire to prophesy rather than to speak in tongues; in verses 26-40 he explains the proper way of prophesying and speaking in tongues. Moreover, Paul considered prophesying, which both men and women participated in, equivalent to teaching, for he wrote, “But one who prophesies speaks [laleo] to men for edification [oikodome] and exhortation [paraklesis] and consolation… For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted [parakaleo]” (Cor 14:3, 31, NAS). The purpose of their gathering together, the psalms, teachings, tongues, revelations and interpretations, was edification (oikodome, v. 26). Therefore prophesy was not distinguished from teaching as to its purpose. In addition, exhortation (paraklesis) is equivalent to declaring divine truths - such as the gospel, as seen in Acts 13:15-52, Hebrews 13:22, and 1 Thessalonians 2:2-3 - and people are expected to learn as a result. Since prophesying is a form of teaching, it is impossible that Paul excluded women from teaching, and consequently, the evaluation of prophesy.

---

[1] Tertullian, Five Books Against Marcion, Book V, VIII.

[2] Homilies on First Corinthians, Homily, XXXVII.

[3] “1 Cor 14.34-35,” Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible: New Modern Edition.

[4] “1 Cor 14.34-35,” Adam Clarke's Commentary on the whole Bible.

[5] But if women are not allowed to speak in the church, why did Peter write if “anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11)? A similar prohibition against female speech is not found in his letters.

[6] Barnes' Notes on the New Testament.

[7] Piper and Grudem, 152.

[8] Ibid., 148.

[9] See Isaiah 40:2; 41:26; 46:10; Matthew 19:4-9; 24:19-21; Ecclesiastical 3:10-12; Mark 10:3-9; 13:18-19; Luke 11:49-51; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Timothy 1:9; Hebrews 1:10-12; 2 Peter 3:3-4; 1 John 3:8.

[10] Piper and Grudem, 153.

[11] Ibid., 351.