This article explains one reason why 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, which says “women should remain silent in the churches,” does not exclude women from reading scripture, leading singing or prayer, preaching, or otherwise participating fully in a worship assembly.

It is part of a series regarding the Churches of Christ’s general exclusion of women from serving in worship assemblies, viewed through the eyes of a young woman considering colleges.

Spoiler alert:  She figures out what 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 means.


Mary, 17, a high-school senior who has attended a Church of Christ all her life, recently discovered that most Church-of-Christ colleges have chapel worship-services in which women actively serve.  Women at three of the schools to which she was admitted serve in all roles along with men.  She is worried about this, as her home church taught her that God does not want women serving in worship services.

Mary, along with her friend Julie and Julie’s mom Kim, is visiting a Church of Christ college to which she has been admitted.  This article begins with the trio having lunch on campus while on their way to sit in on a college class.

Before lunch, Mary determined that passages to which people point as prohibiting women from serving in worship assemblies—1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:12— do not have their “plain meaning” in English (as described in the previous article).  This scripture says “women should remain silent in the churches,” for example, but other scripture commands women not to stay silent.  Moreover, women in her church do not “remain silent in the churches” and even very conservative scholars do not give these passages their “plain meaning.”

Now, Mary turns to determining the meaning of 1 Cor 14:34-35.

At Lunch with Kim and Julie During a Campus Visit

Mary:  “People have told me it is wrong to go to a college that lets women speak in chapel because of what 1 Cor 14:34-35 says.”

Kim:  “Honestly, Mary, those people are being ridiculous.  Scripture must be viewed in context.  Context shows women should speak in worship assemblies.  It also shows Paul, in 14:34-35, just asked married women to take care not to ask disruptive questions.”

Mary:  “But it says, plain as day, that “women should remain silent in the churches ….”

Kim:  “Didn’t you tell me earlier that 1 Cor 14:34-35 does not have its plain meaning?  No one who has studied the issue and has any credibility says it has its plain meaning.”

Mary:  “Oh, yeah!  I forgot. It’s really easy to keep going back to plain meaning.”

Kim:  “It is.  That’s the number one mistake people make when interpreting these verses.  People who haven’t thought about it much or who look only at vv. 34-35 or who are just trying to persuade you will say ‘plainly’ or ‘clearly’ these verses mean women are excluded.  Really common.  But those people are obviously wrong.”

Mary:  “How do I figure out what those verses mean?”

Kim:  “Context is key.  Pull out your tablets and let’s look.  I use the NIV.  Pull up chapter 14 of 1 Corinthians.  Ask yourself — what is that chapter about?  I’ll pull it up on my phone.

Mary:  “OK, I’ve read it.  Part of its context is that when Christians come together they should speak but do so ‘in a fitting and orderly way.’ (vv. 33, 40).”

Kim: “Yes!  Paul writes about this from the first verse, saying ‘follow the way of love.’  He emphasizes edifying and building up the church (vv. 5, 12, 26).  His emphasis is proper procedure, not exclusion.”

Julie, Kim’s daughter: “Maybe excluding women is part of proper procedure?”

Kim: “<Laughs> Telling half the people they can’t speak to the other half when they are all together is following “the way of love”?!?  Has doing that “built up” the Churches of Christ or does it repel?  Does it edify all to exclude some?  Sex-discrimination might be “orderly and fitting” in some folks’ view, but it’s not what Paul says he wants and is certainly not the ‘way of love’!”

Mary:  “I’ve never heard someone look at scripture around those two verses for context.  I’ve just heard vv. 34-35 ‘plainly’ and ‘clearly’ says ….’”

Kim: “It’s strange to me that anyone in the Churches of Christ, a ‘Bible church,’ says that.  We can do better.  One has to look at context.”

1 Cor 14 Tells Women to Speak in the Churches

“1 Cor 14 not only does not prohibit women from speaking in the church, but it encourages—some would say commands—them to do so,” Kim tells Mary, and points to scripture as she explains this:

Kim:  “Paul recognized women are prophets earlier in his letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 11:4-5, 16).  The New Testament cites women prophets elsewhere, too. (e.g., Acts 2:15-21; Acts 21:8-9; Luke 2:36-38).

Having this recognition, Paul said, in his letter to everyone in the church at Corinth (1 Cor 1:2):

  • “I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. …”  (1 Cor 14:5) (all NIV)
  • When the “whole church” comes together, it is great “if an unbeliever or an inquirer comes in while everyone is prophesying.”  (14:23-25)
  • What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each—“every one” (KJV)—of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. …”  (14:26)
  • “Two or three prophets should speak, ….”  (14:29) (i.e., of all women and men who are prophets)
  • “For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged.”  (14:31)

Thus, Paul is telling “every one,” the “whole church,” “brothers and sisters,” “all”—women and men—to speak out “when you come together,” e.g., in the church.

Notice at the end of the passage that Paul says “my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy ….” (v.39).”

Walking from Lunch

Julie:  “Wow, I never noticed!  I read chapter 14 of 1 Corinthians backwards, starting at 1 Cor 14:34-35, and thought the prophets and tongue speakers in verses 1-33 must be men.  Of course, 1 Corinthians is a letter and should be read forwards, not backwards.  Context!”

Mary:  “So, Julie and I—and you, too—should be eager to speak in the assembly!  You know, now that I think about it, I am.”

Julie:  “I suppose we should be eager.  It’s a chance to grow and become closer to God and to serve other people.”

Mary:  “That’s verse 39?”

Kim:  “Yes! Paul says ‘Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.’  This is just 5 verses after the verses that some people say means women must be completely silent in the assembly.”

Mary: “It  makes no sense for Paul to say ‘be eager to prophesy’ in context of the assembly (1 Cor 14) if the meaning of verses 34-35 are what those people say.”

Kim (finishing lunch):  “You’re right!  Let’s go find a place to sit outside.”

After Lunch

Julie (while walking):  “Mom, what did you major in when you went to school here?”

Kim:  “Bible.  I loved it. Learned a lot; great friends.  Met your dad.”

Julie:  “You never told me you were a Bible major!  I know you are a Bible wiz, but why haven’t you mentioned this before?”

Kim:   “Well, I had nearly perfect grades, but I couldn’t find a job with a Church of Christ.  They wouldn’t hire a woman minister.  I got a couple of offers to come be the church secretary, but that’s it.”

Julie:  “That’s awful!”

Kim:  “There are more Churches of Christ hiring female ministers these days, but, still, very few.  I believe it will change soon.”

Julie:  “I don’t know what I will major in.  I would love to major in Bible, but I need a job when I graduate.”

Kim: “Let’s sit here; it’s a great day to sit outside.”

A Bench on Campus

Mary:  “So Paul told women they should speak in the assembly!  It seems like he then takes it all back in vv. 34-35 and tells women not to speak.”

Kim:  “That is what ‘plain meaning’ can indicate, but we’ve already figured out that those verses do not have their ‘plain meaning,’ right?  It’s easy to keep going back to that because, well, it’s so easy!  Would it make any sense for Paul to repeat multiple times that women (and men) should speak throughout verses 1-33 of 1 Corinthians, but then take half of it back?”

Julie:  “It is hard for my mind not to just use plain meaning, even though I know it isn’t what it means.”

Kim:  “It can be, but it becomes easier.  We know what it doesn’t mean (plain meaning), but we should try to figure out what it does mean. How do you think we figure that out?

Mary and Julie:  “Context!”

Kim:  “Right!  In the context of the short passage in which vv. 34-35 resides, 1 Cor 14:26-40, after Paul says everyone—women and men—should speak out in the assembly (v. 26, 1-25), Paul addresses three specific situations in which people should not just speak out.”

“Pull up the NRSV translation on your tablet, as it’s closer to a word-for-word and it’s easier to see this point there.”

“The first situation (vv. 27-28) is this:  Paul says if a woman or man wishes to ‘speak,’ not just normally, but ‘in a tongue’ when ‘there is no one to interpret,’ then ‘let them be silent in church and speak to themselves and to God.’”

“The second situation (vv. 29-33) is this:  Paul says if any woman or man is speaking a prophecy when someone else receives a revelation, then ‘let the first person be silent.’”

“In both instances, Paul uses the Greek word sigato as the word that is translated ‘be silent.’”

Julie:  “What does sigato / “be silent” mean?”

Important Point

Kim:  “This is a very important point:  sigato (‘be silent’) is not used in 1 Cor 14:26-40 to mean the woman or man should not speak at all, but instead ‘be silent’ is used to mean that the person should (a) not speak in the specific way referenced (rather than not speak at all) if (b) particular circumstances exist.  And then Paul tells them (c) what to do as an alternative.

Mary:  “I get it.  When Paul says ‘be silent’ as to tongues here, he is telling the person not to speak in the specific way referenced—tongues—and not to not speak in all ways—the person can still pray and speak a prophecy, for example.”

Julie:  “I get it, too.  The tongue-speaker who was told to be silent when an interpreter left the assembly can start again when another interpreter came.  Or the tongue-speaker could pray in the assembly or could prophesy, even if no interpreter is around.”

Mary:  “Otherwise, if we read verse 28 like some people read vv. 34-35 today, since verse 28 says ‘if there is no one to interpret, let them be silent in church …,’ a man or woman who speaks in tongues would have to be completely silent (!) in the church even for speaking in a normal (no-tongues) way—the person could not pray, not sing, not prophesy, not make announcements, nothing …–unless there was an interpreter present.  That would make no sense!”

Julie:  “Oh, yeah.  And if we read verse 30 like some people read vv. 34-35 today, since verse 30 says ‘If a revelation is made to someone else sitting nearby, let the first person be silent,’ a man or woman who has prophesied some in church would have to be completely silent afterwards even for speaking other things—they could not read scripture, not sing, not make announcements, nothing at all!  So ‘be silent’ doesn’t mean to not speak at all!”

Now, 1 Cor 14:34-35

Kim:  “Right!  Having already established how he is communicating twice—how he is communicating regarding when to be silent in the assembly—that is, referring with sigato (be silent) to tell people (a) not to speak in the specific way referenced (rather than not to speak at all) if (b) particular circumstances exist and then giving (c) what to do as an alternative—Paul then addresses the third situation, the one in vv. 34-35:

Women should remain silent (sigatosan) in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

“Remember we know this does not have its plain meaning, so put that out of your mind.  The word silent there is the Greek word sigato (in its plural form).”

“Do you see similarities between vv. 34-35 and the way Paul communicated in vv. 27-28 and vv. 29-33?”

“Look at this table on my tablet showing how Paul structured 1 Corinthians 14:26-39.  Paul gives the general direction that everyone, women and men, should speak in the assembly in verse 26.  He then addresses three specific situations in three sub-passages, one in vv. 27-28, one in vv. 29-33, and one in vv. 34-35, in which the named people should not speak.  Verses 27-28 and vv. 29-33 use sigato to mean not to speak in the specific way referenced in the sub-section if particular circumstances exist and then provide what to do as an alternative.  Do you see in the table how vv. 34-35 are parallel in structure to each of vv. 27-28 and vv. 29-33?  This indicates Paul was continuing to communicate in vv. 34-35 the same way he was communicating in vv. 27-28 and vv. 29-33, addressing silence as to the specific way mentioned and not complete silence as to all speaking.”

Mary:  “Yes!  I see it.  Paul uses sigato and references (a) a specific way, (b) a particular circumstance, and (c) an alternative.”

Julie:  “I see it has the same elements, too.  But in the first two situations, Paul says “should speak,” but in vv. 34-35, Paul does not say to speak.  So, isn’t that different?”

Mary:  “Ah, but Paul has told women to speak—in verse 26, in verses 1-25, in verses 29 and 31, and elsewhere already!”

“Paul isn’t telling people for the first time that they “should speak”‘ in vv. 27-28 and vv. 29-33—he did that in verses 1 – 26— … instead, in vv. 27-28 and vv. 29-33, he is setting limits on the speaking, saying only two or three should, etc.”

Julie:  “Oh, yes.  I see that 1 Cor 14:1-26 tells women and men to speak, and then each of vv. 27-28, 29-33, and 34-35 gives instances in which people should not speak.  And I keep forgetting that vv. 34-35 does not have its plain meaning.”

Kim:  “Notice that the verses in the first two situations say ‘be silent’ (v. 28 for tongues, v. 30 for prophecy) just like v. 34 says ‘be silent’ for this third situation.  We realize that ‘be silent’ means to be silent relative to the specific way referenced in both of those first two situations (and not for other ways).”

“So, since sigato (‘be silent’) is used in that manner in the first two situations, sigato (‘be silent’) was almost certainly used in that same manner for the third situation.  In other words, sigato (‘be silent’) almost certainly means be silent relative to the specific way referenced in the third situation, described in vv. 34-35, too, which is non-submissive questions, and not relative to all ways.

That is, like in vv. 27-28 and vv. 29-33, the ‘be silent’ in vv. 34-35 does not mean to be silent as to other ways not specifically referenced in vv. 34-35.  The way specifically referenced in vv. 34-35 is non-submissive or disruptive questions.  So, vv. 34-35 does not mean to be silent as to prophecy, prayer, singing, tongues, instruction, or any other way besides non-submissive questions.”

Julie: “I see it now! 1 Cor 14:34-35 means women are not to speak (a) non-submissive questions, if (b) they wish to inquire about something; instead they are supposed to (c) ask those to their own husbands at home.  This is because that is what the context, particularly the way Paul uses language in vv. 26-33, shows.”

vv. 34-35 is About Married Women

Mary:  “I see it, too!  But didn’t you say vv. 34-35 is just directed at wives instead of all women?”

Kim:  “That’s right.  That the woman is married is part of the particular circumstances requiring silence.”

Julie:  “How do you know?”

Kim:  “The ‘they’ used in the third sentence of vv. 34-35 (‘they want’ and ‘they should’) have husbands since Paul says ask your ‘own husband.’  It is well recognized that when Greek text says ‘women’ and ‘woman,’ it means ‘wives’ or ‘wife’ if the context suggests they are married.  The ‘they’ and ‘women’ in the first two sentences are the same people referred to in the third.  So, this passage refers to married women.”

Julie:  “I see that.  Some of the married women in Corinth were just speaking out with their questions during the assembly in a way that was disruptive?”

Kim:  “Yes, we do not know if they were not ‘in submission’ (i.e., not orderly) relative to their husbands or relative to their fellow Christians in the assembly or to themselves (or their spirit).  It was probably their fellow Christians and themselves (or their spirit) because — remember the context — Paul is emphasizing avoiding disorder throughout chapter 14.  In any event, for them to just “speak out”—jumping in in a disorderly way with a question, for example—during the assembly was considered disgraceful.”

Mary:  “Why was it disgraceful?”

Kim:  “It might have been because it embarrassed their husbands or maybe the whole group or maybe themselves.  Some say that the questions were specifically about their husband’s prophecy.  Whether vv. 34-35 is directed only to wives or not is not a determinative point regarding whether Paul wanted to exclude women from speaking in the worship assembly—they are not excluded either way.  But it is helpful to see that it was directed to wives for context.”

“I Get It!”

Julie:  “I get it!  Paul is saying as to the specific way referenced—disruptive questions—wives should remain silent, and not just speak such questions out in the assembly.  Otherwise, it is disorderly and a disgrace, either to her husband or to the assembly.  That makes a lot of sense and does not contradict what Paul said earlier in chapter 14 or in chapter 11 and elsewhere.”

Mary: “I get it, too!  1 Cor 14:34-35 means women are (a) not to speak disruptive questions (maybe questions about prophecy) if (b) they are married and wish to inquire about something; instead they are supposed to (c) ask those to their husbands at home.  That’s what Paul was communicating to the Corinthians.”

Kim:  “Yes!  Don’t let people say it has its ‘plain’ meaning when it doesn’t.”

Julie:  “We better get going to class — it’s almost time for it to start.”

(to be continued)



If you missed the beginning of this series, part 1 is here.

The next part, part 4, the conclusion, is here.

Sources & Notes

Photo by Aj Alao on Unsplash

See generally the sources cited in the first and second articles in this series.

See generally Two Views on Women in Ministry (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology) (Zondervan)Also see generally sources cited in this recent blog post (in main text and in sources/notes section) and in the first article in this series and in the second.

I use “leading” and “serving” (by itself) occasionally to try to be succinct. “Serving” is a better description than leading.

“… conservative scholars …”:  See, e.g., Everett Ferguson, Women in the Church, 2nd ed., Abilene, Texas:  Desert Willow Publishing (2015), pages 21, 28-29, 118 (not all “speaking” is prohibited for women by  1 Cor 14:34-35, only certain “kinds of speaking” are prohibited; women can speak “Amen” along with the rest of the congregation, they can translate, they can speak by interpreting or translating for another, and they can speak their confession of faith at baptism); Ferguson, supra, page 46 (that the setting of 1 Timothy 2 is the assembly “is not so obvious”); Wayne Jackson, “1 Corinthians 14:34–‘Silence’ in the Church,” Christian Courier, Accessed May 15,  2018, (“The first two prohibitions demand silence only in the matters being discussed. They do not forbid these men to otherwise speak consistent with their divine obligations. … This does not demand that a woman be absolutely silent at church. Rather, in harmony with what the apostle taught elsewhere (1 Tim. 2:12), the woman is not to speak or teach in any way that violates her gender role. She is not to occupy the position of a public teacher, in such a capacity as to stand before the church and function as the teacher (or co-teacher) of a group containing adult men. In assuming this official capacity, she has stepped beyond her authorized sphere, and she violates scripture. … Thus, mark “silence” in verse 34. Draw arrows back to verses 28, 30, and note: Silence not absolute, but qualified by context.); Wayne Jackson, “May a Woman Ever Teach a Man?,” Christian Courier, Accessed May 15, 2018, (“In 1 Timothy 2:12, the grammatical construction of Paul’s prohibition clearly indicates that the term “teach” (didasko) in this setting is the type associated with exercising “authority.” The woman is not to teach in a situation wherein she exerts “authority” as “the teacher.””); John Piper & Wayne Grudem, 50 Crucial Questions, Wheaton, Illinois:  Crossway (2016),, pages 38-39, 41 (“The reason we believe Paul does not mean for women to be totally silent in the church is that in 1 Corinthians 11:5 he permits women to pray and prophesy in church: “Every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head.” But someone may ask, “Why do you choose to let 1 Corinthians 11:5 limit the meaning of 1 Corinthians 14:34 rather than the other way around?””; “This dynamic is significantly different from the public, authoritative teaching of Scripture to a congregation that Paul prohibits for women in 1 Timothy 2:12.”; “When Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:12, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet,” we do not understand him to mean an absolute prohibition of all teaching by women.”; “It is arbitrary to think that Paul had every form of teaching in mind in 1 Timothy 2:12. Teaching and learning are such broad terms that it is impossible that women not teach men and that men not learn from women in some sense. “); D.A. Carson,  “Silent in the Churches:  On the Role of Women in 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36,” Chapter 6 in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, ed. by Wayne Grudem, John Piper, Wheaton, Illinois:  Crossway Books (1991), pages 133, 142 (“The interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36 is by no means easy. The nub of the difficulty is that in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, Paul is quite prepared for women to pray and prophesy, albeit with certain restrictions; but here, a first reading of the text seems to make the silence he enjoins absolute. The solutions that have been advanced are, like devils in certain instances of demon possession, legion. I can do no more than list a few and mention one or two of my hesitations about them before turning to the interpretation I find most contextually and exegetically secure. …  Paul’s point here, however, is that they may not participate in the oral weighing of such prophecies.”).

Ferguson notes there are three situations addressed in a parallel structure in 14:27-36 with commonalities, but he uses “common properties,” a concept he borrows from Antoinette Clark Wire, and the common properties chosen by Ferguson are awkward and do not seem to fit.  See Ferguson, supra, page 22-24.  For example, he refers to them as three “groups”—“anyone who speaks in tongues,” “prophets,” and “women”—but ignores that people can be in more than one such “group” and in fact can be in all three and the “justify the rule” given by Ferguson for the first category (“speaks in tongues”)—“and speak to themselves and to God, and not to the church”—is not a justification.  Ibid.  There are multiple other problems with Ferguson’s formulation.


How do we know it is disruptive questions to which Paul is referring?

First, the textual context strongly suggests that it is disruptive modes of the type of speaking that is addressed throughout 1 Cor 14.  A primary theme of 1 Cor 14 is avoiding disruption (e.g., “… the one who prophesies edifies the church.  …  try to excel in those that build up the church….  Everything must be done so that the church may be built up If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, … Two or three prophets should speak, … For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed …. God is not a God of disorder but of peace….   … do not forbid speaking in tongues. But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.”)

The tongue-speaking a few sentences before is disruptive tongue-speaking, not all tongue-speaking (vv. 27-28).  The prophesying banned there is disruptive prophesying, not all prophesying (vv. 29-33).

Thus, it is likely that the questions addressed in v. 35 are disruptive ones, not all questions.

Second, Paul tells us the kind of speaking he refers to in vv. 34-35 is disruptive speaking.

  1. We know the “speaking” referred to is not all kinds of speaking.
  2. What kind of speaking is referred to as not allowed in vv. 34-35?
  3. The text tells us that it is the kind that involves (a) not being in submission (v. 34) (hypotassesthōsan) and (b) questions (v. 35).
  4. What is this hypotassesthōsan to which Paul is referring in v. 34? In submission to a husband?  In submission to the congregation?  In submission to one’s self?
  5. Paul has already told us what he is referring to with hypotassesthosan in v. 34 when he tells us in vv. 32-33 that “The spirits of prophets are subject (hypotassetai) to the control of prophets. For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.”
  6. In vv. 32-33, Paul refers to the person themselves staying in control and not creating disorder in the assembly. I refer to this staying in control and not creating disorder in shorthand as “non-disruptive.”
  7. Thus, the kind of speaking referred to as not allowed in vv. 34-35 is the kind that involves disruptive questions.

Third, it makes no sense to say that all questions from women are banned.  What about when a woman wants to ask to be prayed for?  What if a woman wants to ask for prayers for her children?  What if she wants to ask about being baptized?

Fourth, women are told to ask non-disruptive questions in the assembly.  Many psalms ask questions of God.  Hymns ask questions (“Would you be free you’re your burden of sin?  There’s power in the blood.”).  Paul said, to women and men, “… be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord ….” (Eph 5:18-20)  Indeed, Paul said, to women and men, “… teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit, singing to God ….” (Colossians 3:16)  This teaching and admonishing via hymns, psalms, and songs included questions.  Psalms included questions:

  • “My soul is in deep anguish. How long, Lord, how long?”  (Psalm 6:3)
  • Why, Lord, do you stand far off?  Why do you hide yourself in times of trouble?” (Psalm 10:1)
  • I say to God my Rock, “Why have you forgotten me?  Why must I go about mourning, oppressed by the enemy?”” (Psalm 42:9)

There are lots of others (e.g., Psalm 44:24, 74:10).

Thus, women are directed to ask non-disruptive questions in the assembly via speaking hymns and psalms, suggesting that 1 Cor 14:34-35 does not ban speaking non-disruptive questions.  So 1 Cor 11:35—“If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church”—cannot refer to all inquiries and all questions.  It must refer only to certain kinds of questions that they should not speak.  The context of the surrounding verses indicates it is disruptive questions that they should not speak

Fifth, praying involves asking non-disruptive questions to God (e.g., “give us this day our daily bread,” “forgive us our trespasses”), Paul approved of women praying in the assembly, and directed them to do so (see, e.g., 1 Cor 11:5).  The Apostle Paul said, to women and men, “I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy … so that the church may be edified.”  (1 Cor 14:5)  See also 1 Cor 1:1-2; 11:5; 14:23, 26, 39-40)  Speaking in tongues included prayer.  (e.g., 1 Cor 14:14 (“For if I pray in a tongue ….”))  Women were commanded to pray out loud in a mixed assembly by Paul, asking them to pray with “understanding” (out loud, regular way, not in tongues):  Paul, after telling women and men, “I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy,” describes “build[ing] up the church,” including telling them “if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.  So what shall I do?  I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding. Otherwise when you are praising God in the Spirit, how can someone else, who is now put in the position of an inquirer, say “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since they do not know what you are saying?  You are giving thanks well enough, but no one else is edified.”  (1 Cor 14:5, 12-17; see also 1:1-2; 14:6, 23, 26)  Paul recognized women were praying in the assembly in 1 Cor 11:5, 16 as well.  Thus, since women are directed to ask non-disruptive questions in the assembly via praying, it is unlikely that 1 Cor 14:34-35 bans speaking non-disruptive questions.

Any one of these five reasons strongly suggests that the questions addressed in vv. 34-35 are disruptive questions.  Indeed, all five point to disruptive questions.  Even fundamentalists conclude that it is not all questions that are addressed by 1 Cor 14:34-35, but is instead disruptive questions, like overly demanding questions, that are addressed. (See Jim Miller, Keys of the Kingdom.)


The “anything” referenced in v. 35 is just one of a bunch of ways to express a flexible Greek word — ti — (is translated there as something, anything, a thing, any …) … basically, whatever it is that she is wanting to ask about it in that question, ask it at home. The way some try to translate it would make it make no sense (if she wants to learn anything, let her ask her men at home …. of course she wants to learn something, that is why she is sitting there in church; what that anything/something is referring to is the QUESTION that Paul doesn’t want her disrupting the assembly with.


Some people argue that v. 35 refers to “their own men,” such as the women’s fathers and brothers, not just their own husbands.

It is possible that the words alone in vv 34-35 could be women / their own men or wives / husbands, but there are multiple factors that indicate that it is highly likely “wives / their own husbands” and highly unlikely simply “women / men.”

First, the words tie to “submission” in v 34 strongly indicates it is wives / husbands because the term “submission” is strongly tied to the husband-wife relationship by Paul.  The father-daughter relationship is typically referred to with reference to “obey” and not “submission.”  The brother-sister relationship is not one of submission, and thus the reference to submission and asserting “own men” refers to the woman’s family does not correspond to either the language of the Bible or the reality of relationships in the Bible.  The wife-husband relationship, however, strongly  ties to “submission” in the Bible.

Second, the reference to own men “at home” strongly points to the husband-wife relationship.  Brothers of a woman old enough to come to the assembly probably do not live at home, for example.

Third, “own men” was a euphimism for husbands.  This is why even translations that interpret scripture leaning towards the form (as opposed to the function or meaning) translate the phrase as husbands.


Here’s Mary, Julie, and Kim’s conversation while walking to class:

Know Your Bible 

Mary:  “So why don’t people get this easily?  It looks like it is easy to see that it doesn’t have its plain meaning and to see what it means.”

Kim:  “Well, mostly it is because excluding women has just been ‘the way we’ve always done it.’  A lot of people have never even looked at this for themselves for more than 15 minutes, all the while excluding women their whole lives.”

Julie:  “Wow, that’s awful.”

Kim:  “Yes, it is.  And a few people get hung up on their translation of the Bible saying ‘brothers’ instead of ‘brothers and sisters’ in those verses I mentioned, 1 Corinthians 14:6, 20, 26, etc.  It’s basic Bible, though, that the Greek word used in those verses — adelphoi — is translated ‘brothers’ in its form, but the Greek language used the adelphoi (‘brothers’) to mean either “brothers” or “brothers and sisters.”  In other words, adelphoi was used to mean either a group of males or a group of both sexes.”

Mary:  “So adelphoi was used like ‘guys’ today? — either a group of males or a group of both?”

Kim:  “Yes, very similar.  I am not aware of anyone credible who claims 1 Corinthians 14:6,20,26 refers only to an all-male group. Even conservative, evangelical Bible translations that provide original meaning (as opposed to just form), like the NIV, NLT, CSB, NET, etc., translate it to mean “brothers and sisters” in those verses.”

Julie:  “On my tablet, the KJV and the NKJV use the word ‘brethren’ in those verses.”

Kim:  “Yes, exactly — they use ‘brethren’ to signal the dual nature of the word, leaving it to the reader to study the context to figure out what it means.  Those and other translations that lean towards form or ‘word-for-word’ translation, like the ESV, there will use the form ‘brothers’ or ‘brethren’ expecting you to know that when you use one of those Bibles, you have to know and analyze more about the Bible to figure out the meaning.  In those form-leaning Bibles, they will use the same English word (like brothers or brethren) in all places its corresponding Greek word (like adelphoi) appears, even if the meaning in context changes, so the reader knows they are  dealing with the same word.”

Mary:  “Oh, I get it.  So in most modern Bibles, even in very conservative translations, it says “brothers and sisters” when the translation is trying to convey the original meaning of the Greek word adelphoi in those verses, and they say “brothers” or “brethren” when the translation is trying to convey the original form of the Greek word.”

Kim: “Yes!  That it.”

Mary:  “How much of a difference does it make to figuring out what 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 mean?”

Kim:  “No difference.  1 Corinthians 14:34-35 has the meaning we discussed just now no matter what adelphoi means, but it is important to note that adelphoi means brothers and sisters in 1 Corinthians 14:6, 20, 26, 39, etc., to know that other scripture tells women to participate fully in the assembly.”

Mary:  “Ah, got it.  That makes sense.  So, it is really clear that adelphoi means brothers and sisters there, and even those who say it doesn’t for some reason still ought to see that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 does not have its plain meaning and describes just disruptive questions being asked by the married women.”

Kim:  “Right!  You’ve got it!”

Julie:  “I see it, too!  … Oh, the class is in this building, 2nd floor I think ….”


The underlying story of Mary is, of course, fictionalized.  The scripture and her struggle are real.

Some questions:

(a)          Are women part of the church?  So when Paul encourages “the whole church” to speak in  1 Cor 14:23, isn’t he encouraging women and men to speak in the church?

(b)          Since 1 Cor 14:34-35 asks the women which are being addressed to “ask their own husbands,” isn’t he addressing married women?  (asking them not to speak disruptively (non-submissively) in the assembly, specifically asking them not to speak out with disruptive questions)

(c)           How do you justify women singing in church since 1 Cor 14:34-35 says “Women should remain silent in the churches.”?  Doesn’t that suggest only a specific type of silence/speaking (disruptive questions) is what Paul has in mind?

(d)          Since 1 Cor 14:34-35 says if women “want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home,” why isn’t it a sin for a woman to ask a question in Sunday School?

(e)          For the same reason, why isn’t it a sin for a woman to ask a question in a ladies Bible class? Or in college? (the Bible says if they “want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home”)

(f)           Is it disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church in today’s culture?

(g)          Didn’t Paul note that women prayed and prophesied in the churches before this in his letter?  (in 1 Cor 11:5, 16)  If he wanted to say they couldn’t, why would he have just said, wear a veil / long hair?

(h)          When Paul said in v. 28 for people who are speaking in tongues to be silent (sigato) when no interpreter is there, do you think he meant silence for all purposes for the whole time (for praying, for reading scripture, for singing …) or just to be silent as to speaking tongues?

(i)            When Paul said in v. 30 for people who are prophesying to be silent (sigato) when someone else is ready to prophesy, do you think he meant silence for all purposes for the whole time (for praying, for reading scripture, for singing …) or jut to be silent as to prophesying right then?

(j)            When Paul said in vv. 34 for women to be silent (sigato), don’t you think his readers knew by then that he was using sigato to mean silence as to the specific thing he was talking about?  (there, speaking disruptively (non-submissively), specifically disruptive questions)


(k)           Where are are men the head of women (“…the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” (1 Cor 11:3))? In the worship service only or everywhere?

(l)            Is 1 Tim 2:11-15 (regarding women not usurping authority over men, etc.) limited to the worship service or does it apply outside the worship service?

(and for each answer, why do you say what you say?)



What law does “as the law says” refer to?  Options include:  (1) civil law (the Roman law applicable in Corinth at the time, for example), (2) the Hebrew Bible as a whole (the Old Testament), (3) the Torah / Pentateuch, and (4) the oral Torah of the Pharisees, later written down (~200 CE) and referred to as the Mishnah.  There may have been such a civil law.  There is no such command in the Hebrew Bible or Torah / Pentateuch.  Some point to such a command in the Mishnah, citing, e.g., Mishnah sotah 3.4; Mishnah B sotah 20a; Talmud, Tractate Kiddushin; Talmud, Berachot Kiddushin; Talmud, Berachot 24a (out of respect to the congregation, a woman should not herself read in the law; it is a shame for a woman to let her voice be heard among men; the voice of a woman is filthy nakedness).

There is substantial reason to believe that 1 Cor 14:34-35 is not in Paul’s original letter and is an interpolation or insertion into the text.

For example, Payne and others say a Vaticanus scribe marked vv. 34-35 as an addition. Summary here:…/2018/06/1cor1434-35-handout.pdf.  He expands further on his thoughts here:  Fee and others also argue that it is an interpolation for independent reasons.  Payne describes the person marking 14:34-35 as an insertion in Vaticanus is “original scribe B.” I don’t know how one can conclude that even if it is marked in V as an insertion that because it isn’t so marked in some other codices or papyrus, that the verses are original. That doesn’t seem to follow. It seems like that if it is marked as an insertion in Vaticanus, one would have to conclude that the verses at least might be an insertion and not original.   Also, for example, S, A, and papyrus can be downstream of a copy with it inserted and not marked as such. Plus copies pop up later with vv. 34-35 in a different location (after vv. 40), seeming to add to the evidence that it was an insertion.

B46 (aka P46), an earlier papyrus, has it after v. 33, but of course that one papyrus pre-dating Vaticanus has vv. 34-35 in it and after v. 33 does not us whether that papyrus is a copy of a letter that inserted it or not. or is in the line of copies that copy an insertion.  B46 is also broken up, is incomplete, in vv. 34-35, so there may be marks indicating an insertion in the missing portion.  There are very few early papyri or codices with parts that would contain 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 or part in it.  See, e.g.,

This is a rough description, I have not reviewed or studied this:

There are only three paypri listed here as estimated to have been written before 800 AD that contain all or part of 14:34-35:  B46 (200-225), B123 (300-400), B11 (500-600 AD).  Cite above.

Uncials:  It looks like only 5 uncials estimated to have been written before 800 contain 1 Corinthians.  It looks like 4 of the 5 are the ones with the complete (or close to it) New Testament.

It doesn’t look like any amulet contains 1 Cor 14:34-35 area.

Lectionaries of which we have a portion seem to have arisen after the 8th century.

As to Latin manuscripts, neither of the two before 800 have 1 Cor.  One from 850– Codex Ardmachanus — has it, along with the whole New Testament.

Early church fathers quoted the New Testament.  I do not know if any quoted 1 Cor 14:34-35 before 800 or so.

There are other artifacts significant to the Bible.

So that is 8 witnesses to 1 Cor 14:34-35 before about 800 AD.

Some argue that the evidence for interpolation is not strong.  See, e.g., Philip Comfort. New Testament Text and Translation Commentary.


[Update:  fixed the formatting for (a) in all places and some typos/language; added more cites; added discussion in Notes regarding disruptive questions.]

All scripture quoted is from the New International Version (NIV) or New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) unless otherwise indicated.