The Cultural/Historical Reading
For all my talk about the importance of understanding the cultural and historical context of a passage, I actually find this interpretation to be the weakest. I do think these cultural aspects enhance the reasoning and relevance for such a verse, but it’s not enough to discredit the notion that women should remain silent and that it is “shameful” for a woman to speak in church.
First, the context of 1 Corinthians as a whole is a letter written by Paul to the church at Corinth, which was in real trouble. They were unruly, disorderly, chaotic, and angrily disputing with one another. Some were even pitting teachers against each other. Paul calls them “worldly” and still “infants” in the faith (
1 Corinthians 3:1-4). The letter is answering
specific problems within
that church. The first half deals with situations relayed to Paul through members of Chloe’s household (
1 Corinthians 1:11) and the second half deals with specific issues the church at Corinth inquired about in a letter to Paul (
1 Corinthians 7:1). Since we only have Paul’s answers and not the letter from Corinth, we can only “read between the lines” as to what those questions were. Biblical scholars like to say that the letters of Paul are akin to listening to one side of a telephone conversation. I think that is an apt description.
Most early churches met in homes, and many still segregated the men and women. This was a LONG standing tradition in Judaism, and since Christianity was seen as Judaism’s offspring, that tradition (along with others) crept into the early church. Nonetheless, women had never before been so included during religious meetings. The Holy Spirit fell on
all believers at Pentecost and all believers were expected to contribute to church meetings for the common good and building up of the church (
1 Corinthians 14:26). Some would prophesy, some would pray, some would sing, some would give a teaching, some would give instruction or a word of knowledge, some would edify the body, and so forth. Gifts are distributed according to the Holy Spirit and not according to gender, and if one had a gift, one was expected to use it in the midst of the entire body (
1 Corinthians 12:4-11).
We must remember that women previously under Judaism and previously under pagan religions were rarely afforded this kind of participation in religious services, so most were uneducated. Greek women stopped receiving any formal education when they got married, which was between the ages of 12 and 14! Pagan religions featured temple prostitutes and female prophets that uttered unintelligible babbling, but this was not the kind of participation expected in the christian church. So believing women in the church, though filled with the Spirit, did not have the same training under “The Law” as most of the men did. Based on some other early writings of this time, many scholars believe that the women let this new found liberty go to their heads and got out of hand by interrupting the meetings with unnecessary, UNLEARNED questions, talking over others, all prophesying at once, and so forth. And since women were still seated away from the men, it is supposed that they were yelling across the room to ask their husbands about what was happening or being said. This makes sense since the language of the “lay people” was a certain dialect in Greek and usually religious meetings used a formal dialect, that was hardly taught to women. So the “silence” command was not so much about gender, but keeping order.
Others believe wives were airing their dirty laundry during services, revealing all their personal problems with their husbands. It does seem strange that the first part of the verse is translated as “women” remaining silent and then the latter solution is that they should ask their own husbands. What about women who were unmarried? So this inappropriate “sharing” could be the case.
And yet others believe that Paul is addressing UNBELIEVING women who attend meetings with their believing husbands, who obviously would not be permitted to participate in a vocal manner until they became believers.
Although Corinth was a city IN the Roman Empire, it was Greek by culture. In Greek culture, woman had it even worse than in Jewish culture. The only women seen and heard in public were the cultured prostitutes, called hetaira. There were also pagan prophetess, administering sexual temple rituals and preaching pagan religions. But women by and large were considered inferior on every level: mental, physical, and spiritual.
Some believe Paul was being sensitive to the culture surrounding the Corinthian Church. Since Christianity was still an “infant” religion, unestablished and unknown to the culture at large, then if women were publicly speaking, they could easily be mistaken for the hetaira and Christianity would be seen as just another sect that offered temple prostitution to commune with the gods.
While all of the scenarios briefly covered above are plausible, they are highly speculative. I think the original language study and quotation reading offer a much clearer and precise understanding of this verse. Even though I find these insights into the culture beneficial and revealing, I do not think it is enough to clarify the meaning of the passage in question. The passage is phrased too broadly and universally to be based solely on culture. Calling it shameful for women to speak in church and appealing to The LAW is strong language that cannot be dismissed based solely on the situation and culture of the Corinthian Church.
May 16, 2008 at 9:16 am
I’m really glad you blogged on this topic. After watching an Amish documentary recently, those verses have been sort of kicking around in my mind. As with so many passages, I wondered what the basis was for such a seemingly contradictory statement. God’s love and grace are doled out equally to all His children, and in addition we each get our own spiritual gifts to use for His glory. So why would half of us be ordered to hide those gifts away? This inconsistency seems to pop up a lot in the Bible when we don’t know the context.
The theories that you presented were all interesting and I imagine Paul took them all into consideration when choosing his words. Although we can’t verify that’s true, they do give a good framework with which to view this passage. And in the end, I find myself reaching the same conclusion about many surprising/confusing/confounding verses; how do they fit into the Bible as a whole? If it seems to directly contradict something that’s repeatedly clarified in the Bible, there is probably much more to it than it’s face value. As a pull quote it’s impossible to understand, but in cultural/historical context it no longer contradicts foundational elements of Christianity.
This topic – equal access to God’s love/grace and everyone having a place in the body of Christ – has recently been discussed at my church and in our weekly small groups. It’s been a great dialogue. One woman told her story of growing up in a church that taught women to hide their gifts, and how that created a stagnant faith for her. The revelation that God doesn’t actually think of her as a 2nd class citizen was revitalizing for her faith. (And so it goes with many of us Christian feminists!) Anyway, thanks again for the great post.
PS- I linked to the MP3 of the woman’s personal story above
May 16, 2008 at 10:00 am
“Calling it shameful for women to speak in church and appealing to The LAW is strong language that cannot be dismissed based solely on the situation and culture of the Corinthian Church.”
Unless of course the culture of the church isn’t as egalitarian in practice as we might want to believe, isn’t as divorced from Judaism as we might be now, and that patriarchy wasn’t as ingrained as we would have hoped even in the early church. Even when women were ordained in denominations in the 20th century it took decades for the practice to become acceptable.
I think we agree on the end result: That this passage is misused. I appreciate the writing you are doing on this subject because many need to hear it, but we can easily underestimate the errors of the early church, too. To do so, I think, is to sidestep the male-centeredness of the Bible and the fact that many early Christians likely would have still viewed their wives/sisters as less-than-human, or at least, less-than-male, regardless. I just don’t think culture changes that quickly. But I could be totally wrong too. :)
June 3, 2008 at 10:17 am
There is no error in this passage. Only faulty interpretations. I cannot understand why people ignore verse 36. It is the key to the whole passage. Paul negates verses 34-35 with verse 36. If you study the Greek, he is basically saying in verse 36: What? Are you kidding me? The Gospel was ONLY given to YOU?
Verses 34-35 are almost word for word right out of the oral law. Would Paul be teachng the Oral law to the Body? Of course not. As in other places in 1 Corin he is quoting from the letter sent to him. Some translations even have quotation marks around those passages which are quotes from the letter that Paul answers. If you look at the flow of this letter, you will see that Paul is answering questions put to him. The Greek has no punctuation so there is no uniform translation on this.
Why would Paul tell women to be silent when he ASSUMED theyare preaching in 1 Corin 11? And why would he use the Oral Law in the Corinthian church?
October 3, 2008 at 10:47 pm
I am so overwhelmed, exuberant, astonished – you name it, I am it – by this whole blog. Your posts, research, and attitude so perfectly encapsulate things I have felt in my heart and just barely understood. Thank you for doing what you do. This has made such a difference to me.