Please note that this is one of several ways of non-bindingly examining some confusing scriptures. There are a plethora of ways to look at every piece of the Bible, but only two are presented here. Furthermore, regardless of the number, only one is correct. Please do your own research and look at more than just this point of view. There are at least 4 others that I can think of immediately.
BQ: We're going to start off by looking at 1 Cor 14:34-38 (NASB) in depth. We'll refer to this text for a whole series, so keep it in mind. Let's get rolling:
"The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. 36 Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?
37 If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. 38 But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized."
These verses seem to imply that women can't speak in assembly. Is it deeper than that? Yes. Here Paul seems to say that women must not speak. A few chapters before, in 1 Cor 11, he gave various rules about both men AND women speaking, however. Verse 5 shows that women did indeed speak, saying, "But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved."
BQ: We're looking at 1 Cor 14:34-38. Yesterday we saw that women were talked of as both prophesying and praying. Why does 1 Cor 14 say they must not speak? Let's look at some translation issues. Verse 34 says, "The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says." The part where it says "the women" here comes from Greek, " αἱ γυναῖκες, which is "hai gynakies," or more rudimentarily, "hai gune." In most standard translations, the "hai" is not correlated with an interlinear reference, but it is indeed there. What differences does it make?
The word for "women" in this case, is also the exact same word for wives. So it can also be read as "The wives" are to keep silent in the churches. This makes sense, because how can an unmarried woman as her non-existent husband? She can't! Tomorrow, we look at "hai."
BQ: We saw that 1 Cor 14:34-38 was applied via Greek and context to wives. The word "αἱ/hai" is also used. This is the feminine form of "Οἱ/hoi."
Why does it matter? Because the Greeks had a LOT of ways to translate "the." Hai and hoi are very often translated as "those," not the. If you have various translations on hand, you can examine the following verses and see that some translate it as "the," and others as "those." Look up some verses such as John 6:14; 8:26, Romans 8:5, 1 Cor 10:18; 15:18; 15:23, Gal 3:9; 5:24; 6:13, 1 Thess 5:7, 1 Tim 3:13, and 2 Tim 1:15 and 3:6.
Let's look at just John 6:14. First, the NASB: "Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.”
Now the KJV: "Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world."
Now let's apply that to 1 Cor 14:34. "THOSE wives are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says."
Makes a difference, doesn't it?
BQ: So if someone were talking about "those wives" in 1 Corinthians 14:34, why would they have wanted them silent? We saw that in earlier chapters they were indeed taught to be speaking, and, like men, to be doing it without bringing dishonor. What, then, was wrong with these ladies?
Well we have to ask, "what wives?" To ascertain this, we need to look at the context. The verses proceeding this are talking of spiritual gifts, and especially speaking in tongues, so we need to go to the section mentioning spiritual gifts primarily, and in this case, it's in 1 Cor 12. Let's see if anyone was misusing spiritual gifts and in need of being made to shush:
"Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware. You know that when you were pagans, you were led astray to the mute idols, however you were led. Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is accursed”; and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit." (1-3)
It is indicated here that some were using false spiritual gifts to curses Jesus—truly wrong. Could this be it? You decide, but the original Greek will reveal an entirely new aspect of the discussion.
BQ: Yesterday we saw that 1 Cor 12 had a section mentioning some saying, "Jesus is cursed." The interesting thing is that, in the Greek, there are no punctuation marks to add the quotations. In fact, it's all UPPERCASELOOKINGCAPITALLETTERSWITHOUTPUNCTUATION. The translators themselves had to determine where to put the periods, question marks, and quotations. I've attached a picture to make it easier to visualize.
Some translations, such as the NASB, don't bother to insert quotation marks very often. Let's look at an example. 1 Cor 6:13 says, "Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food, but God will do away with both of them. Yet the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body." (NASB) Or it says (NRSV): “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food,”and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is meant not for fornication but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.
Notice how the quotes make a difference? One shows that Paul is enlightening and attacking what the Corinthians have said, showing their error through comparison and contrast. But is that what he's doing? Let's see more tomorrow.
BQ: Yesterday we saw that MAYBE Paul was really refuting some things that the Corinthians had written to him in correspondence. But how do we know that they ever told him anything ludicrous? How do we know that it was almost a point-counterpoint style of writing? Well, if we read 1 Cor 7:1, we see that indeed he was having a dialog:
"Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.""
So they were indeed writing him, telling him about the issues that they had as a congregation. 1 Cor 3 mentions the divisions within the assembly, and how immature they were, so Paul had to do some teaching. Tomorrow we'll look at more evidence of this.
BQ: We saw that, in 1 Corinthians, Paul was addressing some of the issues that the assembly there had. We saw that the originals had no punctuation, so translators have added it where they thought was best, and some just didn't bother at all. Let's look at another verse where quotation marks make a difference. This time, we will pull from Rotherham's translation to look at 1 Cor 6:12, which says:
"All things, unto me, are allowable, but, not all things, are profitable: all things, unto me, are allowable, but, I, will not be brought under authority by any."
The word there is "allowable," or "permissible." Now let's look at it with the point-counterpoint quotations added:
"“All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are beneficial. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything."
Think about it—does God permit ALL things? No! When viewing this as Paul corresponding with the Corinthians about their immature points of view, it makes more sense. We'll see why that's important in regards to women speaking tomorrow.
BQ: So we saw that Paul was often chastising the Corinthians for their poor behavior, and now we're going to apply that to...1 Cor 14:34-38. Examine it like this:
QUOTE "The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church." UNQUOTE
PAUL RESPONDS: "Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized."
That changes things significantly, doesn't it? Corinthians saying that women must not speak, as the "Law" says, but must be quiet. We'll see more tomorrow.
BQ: So we looked at women speaking and saw some evidence that Paul was writing in a point-counterpoint style when speaking of women not speaking, and instead of telling women never to speak, and contradicting himself, as he wrote earlier, he was rather saying that it was not ok to say that women must not speak. But why do we think that Paul was refuting some nonsense by the Corinthians? Isn't that a little bit too easy?
Verse 36, where the attribution of Paul speaking was inserted, says, "Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?" (NASB) However, in some versions it says, "What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?" (KJV)
Why does that "what" exist? It's because the original Greek has a symbol that is called a "rhetorical eta." It looks like a little n with ears on top (ἢ), and when used by itself, means something like, "What nonsense!" or "That's ridiculous!" or "How absurd!"
So, immediately after saying that women must not speak in the churches, Paul exclaims, "That's ridiculous!" and follows it up by sarcastically asking if they have some special revelation. Makes a difference, doesn't it?
BQ: But wait, is this "rhetorical eta" used anywhere else by Paul? Well indeed it is, in addressing the Corinthians, who as we saw had written him a pile of silliness and were very immature. Here are some examples:
1 Cor. 10:21-22—"You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord's table and the table of demons. [RHETORICAL ETA Nonsense/that's gargabe/ridiculous!] Are we trying to arouse the Lord's jealousy? Are we stronger than he?"
1 Cor. 11:13-14--"Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled?" [RHETORICAL ETA Nonsense/that's gargabe/ridiculous!] Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering."
We see here that it isn't a one-off thing. Instead, it's used by Paul to make a point when something is patently absurd.
BQ: Something else to consider is the fact that, in the following places, Paul quotes the Old Testament Law: 1 Cor 1:19;31; 2:9; 10:7, 14:21. In 14:21, he quotes Isaiah 28:11-12 and says, "In the Law it is written, “By men of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers I will speak to this people, and even so they will not listen to Me."
In each case where Paul (and thus God) quotes the Law, he inserts the actual scriptures. Let's look again at 1 Cor 14:34, which says, "The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says."
Notice that Paul does not actually quote the Law here. Why is that? It's because the Old Testament never says this at all. In fact, the closest one can get is a Pharisically-created rabbinical tradition being espoused as "Law," which is in fact never uttered by God.
BQ: So we've examined that. What other evidence is there that women may indeed speak in the assemblies? Let's look at some of just a few women who spoke publicly and had the approval of God:
1. Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her (Exodus 15:20).
2. And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time ... and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment (Judges 4:4,5).
3. So Hilkiah the priest ... went unto Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum ... and they communed with her (2 Kings 22:14).
Clearly, the prophetesses of the Old Testament exercised their gift publicly, even the priests and the king being subject to what they said. So tomorrow let's see if women had to just zip it in the New Testament.
BQ: So we saw that women could speak in public in the Old Testament, now how about the New? Yep:
(1) And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel ... which departed not from the temple ... and spake of him (Christ) to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem (Luke 2:36-38).
(2) The apostle Peter, on Pentecost, cited the Old Testament scriptures which prophesied that in the times of the new testament, "Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy" (Acts 2:17).
(3) "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a deaconess of the church which is at Cenchrea; that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the [b]saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well." (Romans 16:1-2)
Note that "deaconess" can also be translated as "servant," but in whatever case, she had an important and independent role. Furthermore, extra-Biblical resources indicate that women performed somewhat official functions, with Pliny (close to Paul's death) writing of the early church, "After receiving this account, I judged it so much the more necessary to endeavour to extort the real truth, by putting two female slaves to the torture, who were said to officiate in their religious rites: but all I could discover was evidence of an absurd and extravagant superstition."
Many consider those two females to have been the equivalent of Phoebe, but this is supposition.
BQ: Is there anything else that makes women stand out in the New Testament? Yep.
(1) "Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, who for my life risked their own necks, to whom not only do I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles; also greet the church that is in their house. Greet Epaenetus, my beloved, who is the first convert to Christ from Asia. Greet Mary, who has worked hard for you. Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me." (Rom 16:3-7)
Of those mentioned, Junias is the only uncertain one. Junias was considered by the majority of the early church "fathers" to have been a female, and in all the Greek manuscripts, it is denoted a feminine. With that said, it is a name somewhat like "Leslie," and can be either masculine or feminine.
Still, consider that Mary and Priscilla were also mentioned, and that Priscilla is rather stunning, as she is most often mentioned before her husband. This is not at all normal for the culture and Greek, and would be similar to us getting a piece of mail to "Mrs. and Mr. Lastname."
BQ: We saw one look at Priscilla, but I felt that it was important to mention something that one commentator wrote:
"Amazingly, she is mentioned first, even ahead of her husband, and first of all those whom Paul was about to name. From this it has been concluded that she was more active and successful in Christian work than her husband Aquila; for not merely here, but in Acts 18:18,26, and 2 Timothy 4:19, the same preeminence of Priscilla is indicated; however, in Acts 18:2,1 Corinthians 16:19, Aquila is mentioned first.
There were doubtless very good reasons why this couple should have headed the list of all whom Paul desired to salute in Rome, and some have supposed that Prisca was of the Roman nobility; but we cannot believe that anything of that nature would have carried any weight whatever with Paul. There were qualities of character and service involved in the bestowal of such honor as was given this great Christian woman, an honor above even that of her husband; and it is natural to think of their laying "down their own necks" on Paul's behalf, an action in which Prisca might well have been the principal participant, encouraged and supported by her husband." (—James Coffman)
BQ: We've seen that women were very active in the New Testament, and that they were not forbidden to speak. However, it is true that the Old and New Testaments place man as the head of woman as a principle. (Gen 3:16, 2:18, etc.) Furthermore, some positions were given only to men, such as the positions of evangelist and elder. For example, "An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife." (1 Tim 3:2)
If we were to make a woman an elder, it would "usurp authority from a man,". The idea of "teaching a man" as a violation of that law, or speaking in the assembly answering questions as part of the audience is, however, far-fetched. Did Priscilla usurp authority over Apollos when she (and her husband) taught him the word of God (Acts 18:24). Nope!
In fact, women are told to speak, and not just in songs, hymns, and spiritual songs, but also praying and prophesying—yet in many congregations, they are not found praying for fear of "stepping out of line." I have even met some Christian females who would not teach an un-baptized male because they could not "teach a man." It's a horrible state to be in, and one that undermines our effectiveness for God.
There is much more that can be said about this subject, and I will probably post more research in future BQs, but for now, I've run out of time, and air traffic controlling calls.