I. Quick Recap

In part-6 we posed the question of whether Paul was a subjugator of women, based upon some of the things he wrote. We learned that neither Paul, YHVH nor Yahoshua were subjugators of women as popularly alluded to by some people within and without our Faith Community. Instead, Paul was in lock-step with the Creator and Master Yahoshua in Emancipating women of Faith.

In part-7 we looked at what I called the un-silenced women leaders of the Old Testament (ie., the Tanakh) on up to the conversion of Paul. We found that these women were prophets, judges and disciples of Yeshua Messiah.

Then in part-8 we celebrated and highlighted the many un-silenced women leaders who were associated with Paul’s ministry. In that installment we learned that these women defied the erroneous concept of women being subject to the rule of men and being in a perpetual state of silence in the body and assemblies of Messiah. These women were disciples of Yeshua, prophets, teachers, preachers, matrons, home fellowship leaders and even apostles.

Today, this being part-9 of our Paul and Hebrew Roots series, I want to bring this whole question of women being silent and subject to men in the church to a much deserved head (so to speak). In other words, I want to finally nail down what I Corinthians 14:34, 35 truly means for the Body and Assemblies of Messiah.

II. The Passage in Question

“For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church” (1 Cor. 14:33-35; ESV).

Why would Paul write such an instruction given what we know about women leaders, not only of the Tanakh (ie., the Old Testament), the Way Movement, and even of Paul’s ministry, who could not possibly have been silent in order to fulfill their calling and leadership roles in the Body and Assemblies of Messiah?

III. Background on Corinth

A. Corinthian Government and Economics

Corinth was a prosperous commercial center for sea trade. She was the capital city of the province of Achaia and happened to be the central seat of Roman government in that region. (Achaia was the largest territory in Greece.)

Biannually, Corinth hosted the Isthmian Games. This was a festival that featured music and athletic competitions. Most notably, Poseidon, god of the sea, was honored (pg. 86). Consequently, scholars have estimated that at any given time, the population of Corinth contracted and expanded between 100K to 600K (86).

Other pagan gods worshiped in the region included: Ashtarte; Ba’al of the Canaanites; Bacchus (fertility and wine god); Cybele (mother goddess).

The mountain “Acrocorinth” hosted a temple dedicated to the worship of Aphrodite, goddess of love and the Temple of Melicertes, the patron goddess of sailors. It has been estimated by some archaeologists expert in the area that some 1,000 Aphrodite Temple prostitutes held residence and worked out of that temple. These were called “hetairai”.

In her book “The Handmaidens Conspiracy, Donna Howell points out that it was at this time in history that paganism was experiencing a revival of sorts and these temples and festivities were generating quite a bit of interest among many in the region. Could this resurgence be in response to the recent death and resurrection of Y’shua Messiah in Judea? Were the powers of darkness responding to this great spiritual event?

Naturally, Corinth would be a tough spiritual “nut” to crack, given the large number of voyagers and holidaymakers coming and going in Corinth, bringing with them new religions and the popularity and reverence afforded the temple prostitution cult.

B. The Bustling Corinthian Sex-Industry and the Hetairai

Returning to the Aphrodite cult headquartered in Corinth, we find that the hetairai were a class of sex-workers viewed in Corinthian secular society above the regular “pornai” prostitutes the city also held claim to. Like modern day prostitutes working in major cities of any western city, pornai were known to serve patrons in an indiscriminate matter. Hetairai, on the other hand, tended to maintain a set list of the influential, wealthy, elite male clients of the region (compare to the workings of the infamous madams that made headlines in this country in past years).

From a religio-paganistic perspective, the body of a hetairai was considered a conduit by which Aphrodite was worshiped and honored (Howell, pg. 87).

Consequently, the hetairai prostitute cult drove much of the socio-economic engine of Corinth. What is that saying of a few years ago that seems to hold ever so true in this particular case: “Sex Sells.”

Community-wise, the typical Corinthian-hetairai were generally well educated. They had a demonstrated reputation of being “richly dressed, articulate, heavily painted, schooled in oratory skills and rhetoric, and every hair was in the right place as they flitted about society and owned every room they entered” (Howell, pg. 87). Hetairai were considered and treated in Corinthian society as a higher-class citizen. Interestingly, “unlike the Jewish women of surrounding regions that held the patriarchal traditions of society firm, the sophisticated hetairai were often welcome to share their thoughts and opinions regarding spirituality or theology, especially in the presence of men who were awed by them” (Howell, pg. 87). Now, this is an important element to keep in mind as we delve into deeper into I Corinthians 14:34, 35 in our attempt to discover why Paul wrote what he did here, and what he meant by wrote.

Despite all the hooplah that seems to be played up here related to the hetairai, it should not be construed that the hetairai were worshiped in any way. They were still subject to the laws that governed the role and behavior of women in everyday Corinthian society (Howell, pg. 87 with Rod’s personal embellishments). In fact, despite their elevated status in Corinthian society, hetairai were often considered property (Howell, pg. 87).

C. Corinth Assembly of Messianics Versus Carnal Corinth

Naturally, various religions were being infused into the Corinthian Assembly, often referred to as “syncretism” (Howell, pg. 86, 88).

According to John Temple Bristow in his book Paul, Women and Church, so-called Christian Gnostics were openly engaging in intercourse, publicly, at wedding parties (pg. 51).

Corinth had a terrible reputation as it related to sexual perversion. In fact, D. H. Madvig, in his article on Corinth, printed in “The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, pg. 773, “any woman (in surrounding regions of Achaia) known for her loose behavior would be referred to as a “Corinthian girl.””

Therefore, according to William Barclay, in his book entitled “The Letters to the Corinthians,” the basic Corinthian audience was that of a “mongrel and heterogeneous population of Greek adventurers and Roman bourgeois, with a tainting infusion of Phoencians; this mass of Jews, ex-soldiers, philosophers, merchants, sailors, freedmen, slaves, trades-people, hucksters and agents of every form of vice…without aristocracy, without traditions and without well-established citizens.”

 

III. Quick Rundown on I Corinthians

In order to arrive at the most accurate understanding of what Paul meant in I Corinthians 14:34, 35, there are a few critical things we must first keep in mind:

1. I Corinthians is actually II Corinthians and II Corinthians is actually III Corinthians. In our current version of I Corinthians, Paul was actually responding to the assembly members’ reactions to a previous letter he had written to them and responding to questions and statements that were posed to him as a result of that previous letter.

2. We must absolutely get rid of this concept of modern day churches and church buildings when reading I Corinthians, or any of Paul’s other writings. When Paul mentions the term church in his writings, he’s really writing about a rather informal, intimate gathering of men and women in someone’s home. Church buildings and edifices as we identify churches to be today did not start to come on line until some 2-centuries (ie., 200-years) after Paul died. So no, women and men did not sit on separate sides of a church building.

3. I Corinthians, contrary to the teaching of the so-called Churches of God and other such organizations and even some Hebrew Roots/Messianic groups, is not a “book” about men and women roles in the church. In fact, the term roles does not even show up in any bible passage whatsoever.

But I Corinthians is a response to various behavioral issues that were brought to Paul’s attention via Chloe’s people and by individuals in the assembly who responded to specific points of Paul’s true first letter to the Corinthian Assembly.

The behavioral issues Paul addressed in our present I Corinthians (what we call I Corinthians in our Bibles today) range from the petty (eg., judging one another; cliques; and self-aggrandizement); to the worrisome (eg., suing one another in pagan-civil-courts; self indulgences leading to sinful behavior as a result of a “libertine-gnostic mindset”); to the extreme (eg., a man sleeping with his mother-in-law and certain men of the assembly patronizing Corinth’s robust and out-in-the-open prostitution services).

Essentially, Paul was faced with an almost impossible situation. For all intents and purposes, Corinth’s Messianic Assembly was in crisis and on the cusp of fracturing (ie., splitting or completely falling apart). It was being overrun by:

The intense influence of the sex-culture and trade of the region;

Syncretism (ie., the fusion of paganism and other religious traditions and practices into the Messianic Faith);

Competing cliques with competing interests;

Clashing error-ridden doctrines;

A worrisome lack of discipline in light of the assembly members’ new-found freedoms in Messiah;

An absence of discipline in members exercising their spiritual gifts; etc.

Other than Rome, I can’t imagine a more challenging place for Paul to plant a congregation. (Well, on second thought, maybe Jerusalem would tie Corinth.) But the intense pagan culture and expansive socio-economic system of Corinth made it as much a fertile city to evangelize as it was a nightmare to manage its members’ behavior.

What churchianity has failed to do in educating her members is to make Scripture real to them. The Bible is more than a book of wise anecdotes (ie., wise sayings and moral principles) in which church organizations are to use to create doctrinal structures from. But the Bible is much more than doctrinal sound-bites for church leaders to use to control and manipulate their members. The Bible is a living, breathing document that contains the Word of the Almighty and is “profitable for reproof; for correction; for instruction in righteousness; that the man and woman of YHVH may be perfect; thoroughly furnished unto all good work” (2 Tim. 3:17).

Thus the Bible that we have collecting dust on our home bookshelves was written by and documents the stories and situations surrounding flesh and blood human beings—in most cases just like you and me. In the case of I Corinthians, we actually gain an expansive snapshot of a home church composed of all types of would-be believers in Y’shua Messiah. 

Yet Paul planted churches—assemblies–in these unimaginably pagan-rich cities—drawing a rich but sketchy cadre of would-be believers in Messiah as those assemblies’ members. Certainly Paul recognized the intense spiritual risks inherent in planting an assembly in such an challenging city. And the problems that Paul sought to address and fix is evident in his letter to the Corinthian Assembly. For the Assembly itself is not the problem, but the people that make up that assembly create the problems. It goes without saying that sin-prone people—human beings—make up the assemblies of Messiah. And each of those assembly members had the potential of bringing with them into the assembly baggage—be that baggage past unresolved sin; prejudices; challenging personalities; biased worldviews based upon their respective upbringing, personal beliefs and experiences; personal dispositions; etc. And it appears that as much as one would want to think that people will inherently practice “Kingdom behavior” in the assemblies when they come to Faith, at the end of the day, people tend to cling to certain base behaviors (ie., sinful, nasty, inappropriate, selfish, foolish, immature, etc.).

One of the things that I don’t see addressed much as it relates to the Corinthian situation is the apparent absence of sound leadership over the assembly. Paul was having to remotely deal with behavioral issues that if a strong leader was present, would not be an issue. Not sure what was going on there. But I believe this is a lesson to any of us who lead fellowships that we are capable of leading and that we do not tolerate any behavior that is less than Kingdom behavior. Otherwise, chaos will reign. Sin will reign. And as Paul so aptly stated, even a little leaven leavens the whole lump (1 Cor. 5:6).

Thank YHVH for Chloe, an obviously strong woman of Faith. It’s quite conceivable that Chloe sought to get the behavioral issues of Corinth addressed and fixed at the local assembly levels and her efforts to correct the problems crashed and burned. So she turned to the only person she knew would have the gravitas—the street creds—to correct the cited problems before it was too late. And this is what 1 Corinthians is really about. It is about proper behavior—Kingdom behavior—in the assembly—and by extension—the Body of Messiah.

Some of the instructions and principles Paul provided to the Corinthians are “absolute” and “normative”—that is, those instructions and principles, without question, should be followed by every believer in the Body and Assemblies of Messiah.

Then there are the other instructions and principles that Paul provided to the Corinthians that are “relative”—that is, those instructions and principles tend to apply only to the situation—the place, time and group—that Paul was addressing in his letter. Relative Pauline instructions and principles can of course be adopted by assemblies. But those adopted instructions and principles should never be given the same status as the absolute and normative ones. These must be adopted by the leadership of assemblies with much prayer and fasting and through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

But this question of absolute/normative versus relative instruction from Paul is going to come up again once we begin to unpack 1 Corinthians 14:34-35; as well as later on when we get around to discussing 1 Timothy 2:11 and 12.

Another thing for us to keep in mind regarding Paul and his various instructions and admonishments is the source by which he has received the given instructions. What I mean by this is: is the instruction or admonishment that Paul is giving coming from Torah, Y’shua or the Holy Spirit? Or is the admonishment and instruction Paul’s own experiences, opinions or preferences on the matter in question?

And I get the natural tendency of some to revere Paul to such a place that everything he has ever written is viewed by them as an absolute or normative commandment. Some in churchianity have gone so far as to put Paul’s writings on par with the teachings of our Master Y’shua and with Torah. And that, my friend, is a most dangerous perspective for anyone to have about Paul and his writings and teachings.

For me, Paul’s apostleship is indisputable. His writings and teachings, however, must be taken within proper context with the rest of Scripture, especially in context with Torah and Master Y’shua’s teachings. Doing otherwise places Paul ahead of the One Who all of this that we’re doing in our Day-to-Day walk is all about: YHVH our Elohim.

Let’s do a quick survey of 1 Corinthians leading up to chapter 14:34 and 34. This is NOT meant, of course, to be an exhaustive survey of the book.

Chapter 1. Paul Validates His Apostolic Authority.

Chapter 2. Paul Invalidates The Wisdom of Man and Elevates the The Perfect Wisdom of God.

Chapter 3. Divisions-Rivalries-Jealousies-Quarrels

Chapter 4. Paul Counsels on the Dangers Associated With Judging Others.

Chapter 5. Paul Addresses The Horrendous Sin of the Certain Corinthians Indulging In and the Assembly’s Tolerance of Sexual Perversion.

Chapter 6. Paul Addresses the Embarrassing Matter of Corinthians Suing One Another—Libertine Gnosticism—Non-Kingdom Behavior.

Chapter 7. Paul Addresses Questions Related to Being a Messianic and Being Celibate.

Chapter 8. Paul Provides a Proper Perspective on Hotbed Question of Messianics Consuming Versus Not Consuming Meats Sacrificed to Idols.

Chapter 9. Paul Addresses the Efficacy of Assemblies Financially Supporting Workers in the Faith.

Chapter 10. Paul Defines For The Corinthians Their Purpose in Messiah.

Chapter 11. Paul Instructs The Corinthians on Proper Kingdom Deportment During Assembly Gatherings.

Chapter 12. Paul Instructs The Corinthians on the Proper Exercising of Spiritual Gifts and Delineates The Order of Offices in the Body of Messiah.

Chapter 13. Paul Expounds on the Greatest Gift and Trait of All in the Body of Messiah-Love.

Chapter 14. Paul Instructs on the Proper Exercising of the Gift of Tongues. 

It is in the second-half of this chapter (ie., chapter 14) that out of nowhere Paul springs forth with this seemingly terse admonishment that women are to be quiet or silent in the Assemblies of Messiah. And it is this passage—verses 34 and 35—that is the focus of our teaching today.

So what do you say we break down this passage and figure out just what Paul meant by his admonishment? 

IV. Breaking Down I Corinthians 14:34-35

Paul discusses with the Corinthians what constituted proper worship conduct or behavior in their assembly gatherings.

Comparatively speaking, this is a pretty lengthy chapter. Interestingly, however, Paul really only covers two behavioral issues that the Corinthians were attempting to work through with the apostle’s guidance. Verses 1-25 deal with the Corinthians’ exercising of the ecstatic gifts of prophecy and tongues during their gatherings. Then in verses 26-40 Paul instructs the Corinthians on the elements of proper conduct during their worship gatherings.

Stepping back to the beginning of the chapter, we find Paul encouraging the assembly members to pursue love first and foremost. With love as their guiding light (or let’s say, their primary concern), the Corinthians’ pursuit and exercising of the spiritual, ecstatic gifts—in particular the gifts of prophecy and tongues—during their gatherings would ultimately benefit the whole assembly as opposed to benefiting just the one speaker.

If we think about the method to Paul’s madness here, we see, contextually speaking that is, that Paul was laying the groundwork whereby the Corinthians could exercise their various spiritual gifts during assembly gatherings without offending or overstepping the exercising of those same gifts by their fellow assembly members. In so doing, the member exercising their gift during the gathering is blessed/edified as well as the whole congregation is blessed/edified.

And we will see that it is this whole idea of the constant pursuit of “love” and “respect” for every person in the assembly gathering that is behind Paul’s admonishment to the women in the Corinthian Assembly to be in silence. But not in the way that so many are either literally or doctrinally led to believe.

With love as the foundation upon which the believer is to exercise their spiritual gifts, Paul lays out for the Corinthians what speaking in ecstatic tongues is really all about. He informs the Corinthians that “speaking in tongues” is not performed for the benefit of the people who may happen to hear it.

Paul explains that speaking in tongues is really a form of worshiping YHVH. He explains that no one can understand ecstatic tongues, since the person who is giving forth the utterance is really uttering mysteries through the agency and power of the Spirit and no person understands it on their own accord (14:2).

Paul explains, comparatively, that when one exercises the gift of prophecy, he or she is speaking directly to the people in the assembly; edifying, encouraging and comforting them (14:3).

Thus, according to Paul, speaking in tongues benefits the person speaking in tongues while prophesying benefits the congregation (vs. 4). Paul concludes that for him, it was preferable that the assembly members prophesy so that the entire congregation may be edified (vs. 5). For the gift of prophesy provides revelation, knowledge, foretelling and instruction while speaking in tongues provides for only the speaker who is communing with YHVH (vs. 6).

The text contextually suggests the Corinthians had placed a great deal of emphasis on speaking in tongues and Paul was trying to get them to see that it was more important to focus on those things—those gifts–that benefited and edified the entire body/congregation.

Paul does not altogether dismiss the importance of speaking in tongues in assembly gatherings. For he instructs that if any should pursue and seek to exercise their gift of tongues in the assembly gatherings, he or she should pray for the gift of interpretation to accompany that gift (vs. 13).

Interestingly, Paul approaches the subject of speaking in tongues from the perspective of intellect—so to speak. He stresses the importance of incorporating one’s mind in every aspect of worship (vs. 16). Consequently, the mind of the one speaking in tongues is not employed in the experience.

Interestingly, Paul goes on to use himself as an example. He cites that he would rather edify the assembly with mindful words than speaking in tongues where his mind is not employed and there is no instruction (vs. 19).

Paul also looks at another aspect of tongues where by he explains to the Corinthians that tongues is a sign for non-believers while prophecy is for believers (vs. 22).

Bottom line as it relates to tongues is that order in the assemblies of YHVH is essential (vs. 25). If one or more members is moved to speak in tongues, no more than two or three should exercise their gift at any given time. And in so limiting the number of utterances to two or three at any given time, each must then speak in order—not over one another-as seems to have been the norm prompting Paul’s instruction here.

An interpreter should be present and willing to interpret the utterances. However, if there is no interpreter, the speakers should remain silent (vs. 28).

In terms of prophecies, Paul prescribes the same controls: no more than two or three at any given session; the utterances must be rendered in order. And in following his insistence that the congregation, more than the prophet alone benefits in the utterance, Paul recommends that those in attendance weigh in on the messages that are rendered (vs. 29).

Thus, as it related to order in assembly gatherings, it all came down to member-self-control (vss. 32, 33). And this my friend, is what we will see is at the heart of Paul’s directive that women be in silence in the assemblies.

It cannot be understated here that in no areas of his commentary on the gifts does Paul instill gender restrictions.

And then the reader suddenly comes to the passage in question; seemingly out of any sensible context; popping up in the text out of nowhere; totally foreign to the literary flow of the chapter or even the entire letter for that matter; and frankly, foreign to what one would recognize as Paul’s writing style.

Let’s take a look at these two critical verses:

“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 anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church” (14:34,35; KJV).

Now, before we disassemble and then reassemble this passage so that we can arrive at the best interpretation of this passage that we possibly can, allow me first to quickly mention a couple proposals that some scholars have put forth to explain these two verses. 

Textual Tampering By a Copyist? 

To explain the awkwardness of this passage, some bible scholars have postulated the theory that these two verses were actually inserted by a lone copyist (maybe a cabal of copyists) who inserted his or their misogynistic bias into the body of the earliest manuscript texts. I guess the thinking behind this is that the copyist(s) knew he’d ultimately have a captive audience in the form of those who would, in time, read his version of First Corinthians. And certainly by the time this particular letter would have been copied, any vestiges of female leadership in the early assemblies would have likely begun to draw down and be usurped by ambitious men who saw Christianity as a corporation, and for them as individuals, a means to gain power, authority, wealth and notoriety.

Now, when I first ran across this theory, I became very intrigued. As I previously stated, these two verses, at least to me, read as though someone other than Paul wrote them. The word choices and order, as well as the curtness and tone of the instruction seem contrary to Paul’s admonishment that the Corinthian Assembly members factor love into everything they do. Well, one has to ask, where’s the love to be found in these two verses?

Phrases like: “women keep silence in the churches;” not permitted unto them to speak;” “they are commanded to be under obedience;” and “it is a shame for women to speak in church;” all seem to suggest Paul, assuming he did indeed write this passage, was instituting some type of gender-specific “police state” in not just the Corinthian, but every assembly he oversaw.

Dr. Eddie L. Hyatt, in his book, “Paul, Women and Church” highlighted this theory as a possible explanation for the “out of placeness” of the passage. He notes the following inherent problems with the passage, which in a sense, gives credence to the “copyist” theory:

(1) This passage is clearly out of character with what we know of Paul from Acts and Paul’s other letters regarding women (especially female leaders) in the assemblies and Body of Messiah.

(2) We found earlier that women were allowed to pray and prophesy in the assemblies if they followed cultural head covering conventions (1 Cor. 11:13).

And (3), what law is Paul referring to in this passage, given that there is no Torah law that commanded women be silent in the assemblies?

Hyatt also writes of this passage in relation to the “copyist” theory:

So out of character is that passage, that some scholars have concluded that Paul did not write these verses. Case in point is Dr. Gordon Fee. Fee suggests that an early scribe/copyist intentionally added these verses to the overall text. (Reference: Gordon Fee, “The First Epistle to the Corinthians;” Grand Rapids; Eerdmans; 1987; pgs. 699-708.)

As much as I tend to agree with Fee’s, and especially Hyatt’s contentions here, apart from these verses appearing out of context and character, there is no literary or physical proof that these passages were either tampered with or actually inserted into the body of the text by a scribe or copyist. Verses 34 and 35 are found WITHOUT any significant variance in every single extant Greek manuscript that contains 1 Corinthians 14:34,35.

According to Wikipedia, there are some 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts cataloged to date.

I guess one could say that the insertions were older than the oldest existing Greek manuscript. And for me, that’s certainly not beyond the realm of possibility. However, since we try to be as spiritually pragmatic as we possibly can on this program, we’ll leave this “copyist” theory for others to contemplate and research further for now.

Segregation of Women From Men in Assembly Gatherings

And then we have the segregation of women from men in assemblies theory.

Some scholars have suggested that Paul may have been addressing the Jewish synagogue practice of segregating men from women in assembly services, such that men and women would be seated on opposite sides of the building. In such an orientation, according to this theology, wives would be prone to call over to their husbands on the other side of the building for the purpose of getting clarification of that which was being taught at the time.

The problem with such a theory is pretty simple: assemblies of Messiah during the first-century C.E. were home fellowships. So-called church edifices did not come on line until roughly 2-centuries later.

The key here is that the so-called church, especially the so-called church of the first-century, was not expressive of any type of edifice or building. Instead, the concept of a so-called church was the gathering of the saints together in one place—primarily in those days, someone’s home. We know that these gatherings were generally “personal and informal” as noted by Paul himself when he wrote:

“…When you come together each of you brings a psalm or some instruction or a revelation or speaks in a tongue or gives an interpretation. Let all these things be done in a way that will build up the community” (14:26; NJB).

Consequently, in Paul’s suggestion that “each” of the Corinthian Assembly members brings a psalm or SOME INSTRUCTION or revelation or speaks in a tongue or gives an interpretation, we should note closely that he was NOT gender specific. In fact, this suggestion is posed to the “adelphos,” which can mean specifically men or brothers, as well as it can mean brothers and sister or even fellow countrymen or nationals. And given the context and tone in which the previous 14-chapters was written, Paul was clearly targeting both men and women.

Additionally, our U.S. city Philadelphia derives half her name from the Greek term “adelphos,” that being the city of “brotherly—love.” Certainly, the city Philadelphia did not come to be known exclusively for its male population back in the early days of this republic.

Thus the idea that women might be calling out to their husbands across a massive church aisle during services is based upon historical, cultural and biblical ignorance and such a theory does not work at all to explain 1 Corinthians 14:34,35.

The “Heh” Factor

But wait! There’s yet another theory that is popular among some bible scholars.

In “Paul, Women and Church,” Dr. Eddie L. Hyatt takes somewhat of an ancient Greek literary approach to explain what Paul truly meant in verses 34 and 35. His contention rests entirely upon one simple Greek word (heh???), which, according to Cunningham and David J. Hamilton, is sometimes used in Greek as “an expletive of disassociation, such as the English term, Nonsense! Or Rubbish! Or Certainly not!” (Reference: Cunningham and David J. Hamilton, “Why Not women;” Seattle; YWAM, 2000; pg. 190.)

The Greek term “heh” was commonly used in ancient Greek literature and was used a handful of times by Paul in his writings. Yet in our English Bibles, the translators “either left the term untranslated or translated the term by a simple “or,” which serves to diminish the forceful manner in which Paul is using it” (Hyatt).

Examples include:

6:1,2—”When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? (Nonsense!) Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases” (ESV)?

9:8,9—”Do I say these things on human authority? (Nonsense!) Does not the Law say the same? For it is written in the Law of Moses, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.’ Is it for oxen that God is concerned” (ESV)”

Of Paul’s use of the term “heh” in I Corinthians, Dr. Gilbert Bilezikian writes:

“In most cases cited above, the pattern is similar. A proposition is presented in the form of a rhetorical question or a declarative statement containing an element of incongruity. It is followed by the particle “heh” which is used to introduce the counter-statement in the form of a question. As indicated above, the consistent use of “heh” in each of these ten instances could be accurately rendered by substituting an indignant “nonsense”” (Beyond Sex Roles; Grand Rapids Baker, 1985; pg. 288).

Thus the ancient Greek term “heh” was often used by Greek writers to refute a previous statement. This is confirmed by Liddell and Scott in their Greek-English Lexicon, where they define the term as “an exclamation expressing disapproval.”

So what does all this mean for I Corinthians 14:34,35? Simply this according to Dr. Hyatt:

“Paul is quoting what the Corinthians have said about women being silent and then replies with “an exclamation expressing disapproval.” He says, “heh,” meaning “Nonsense” (Hyatt)!

The key point is somewhat driven home in verse 36 of the same chapter, where Paul writes:

“(Nonsense!) Was it from you that the word of God came? (Absolutely not! A second time) Are you the only ones it has reached” (ESV)

Thus Paul uses “heh” a second time in verse 36 showing his outrage over the Corinthians’ misrepresentation of what he had written to them in that previous letter.

Well, the “heh” theory certainly has more credibility to it than the “men being segregated from the women” and the “copyist insertion” theories, if you ask me. However, when you actually put Cunningham’s and Hamilton’s “heh” theory to the test, suggesting that Paul used verses 34 and 35 as sort of a set-up, so to speak, to dispute the claim or suggestion that women be silent in the assemblies, the “heh” of verse 36 just comes across as somewhat clunky in its refutation of the previous two verses:

“What? Was it from you that the word of God went forth? (”heh” or “Nonsense!” Or) came it unto you alone? If any man think himself to be a prophet, (”heh” or “Nonsense!) Or spiritual (seems as though “or” is grammatically more appropriate here), let him acknowledge that the things I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord” (verse 36,37; KJV).

Despite its chunkiness, however, this theory does seem to have some level of credibility. And I would place this theory over the other two without question. However, in order for this theory to actually be a valid one, it must be freely presumed that someone in the assembly questioned or proposed to Paul, beforehand, the wisdom of denying women the opportunity to speak, communicate or interact during assembly gatherings (verses 34 and 35). And it would also be presumed that Paul responds to the individual(s) question or proposal in verse 36 (maybe continued on in verse 37) with something akin to “where’d you get that idea? That’s absolute nonsense!” And if this is indeed the case, then a plain read of verses 34 and 35 would be in order.

However, I do believe there is a much clearer explanation that either rivals or exceeds the “heh” theory. And I’ll now present that to you.

V. What Did Paul Really Mean?

I Corinthians 14:34,35 follows Paul’s admonishment throughout his letter that the Corinthian’s gatherings should be peaceful and orderly; that they should NOT be chaotic or confusing.

Instead of trying to explain away Paul’s admonishment that the women of the Corinthian Assembly keep silence in their gatherings, what if there was a problem with the women of that assembly; at least, with some of the women?

This admonishment that women keep silence in the assembly is crammed right in the middle of Paul’s instructions that order be established and kept in the Corinthians’ assembly gatherings.

Could it have been that certain women or classes of women were contributing to the chaos and confusion that was gripping the Corinthian Assembly and Paul was addressing the situation here in this particular section of his letter?

What do we know about the women of the Corinthian Assembly? Well, essentially nothing. We can surmise that the women of the assembly was comprised primarily of Gentiles. It’s possible that some were indeed Messianic Jews.

We know that, despite the rather dubious reputation and nature of Corinthian society, there were still social norms that both men and women were expected to conform to. For instance, we can surmise from bible scholars and from 1 Corinthians 11, that the conservative husband and wife structure of a typical family home was indeed the norm—ie., the husband being the head of the household and the wife in charge of taking care of home and children. (Of course, this did not preclude women from being successful in business or even leaders in societies.) In public, wives were expected to wear their hair tied up and their heads covered as a sign of respect for their husband and family structure. They were expected to be clean and attired conservatively, bringing again, a degree of respect for her husband and her family. Conversely, husbands would NOT go about the community with their heads covered, which was a sign that the man was up to something bad, part of something untoward or simply he could not be trusted; maybe viewed as a criminal. He was to conduct himself decently such as would bring respect to him and his family.

Remember earlier on in this teaching, I brought up the class of Corinthian prostitutes infamously known as the “hetairai.” Now, the “hetairai,” if you recall, were afforded quite a bit of latitude in Corinthian society. They were permitted to go unaccompanied anywhere they chose to go in the community. The “hetairai,” most being educated and knowledgeable of a great many things, routinely engaged groups of men in conversations and discussions. They clearly stood out in Corinthian society.

However, when a “hetairai” walked into a room, she walked into a room. Heads would turn toward them and they became the center of attention in any type of gathering. All conservative social norms that were generally followed by non-hetairai women seemingly did not apply to them. They went about town dressed in such a manner to gain the attention of men. Hetairai were known to wear their hair down and did not cover their heads. They tended, of course, to be quite vocal—maybe even vulgar to some extent. The hetairai were of such a carnal reputation that any woman who carried themselves in a “loose” way or defied the norms for women in any of the surrounding cities to Corinth were referred to as “Corinthian Girls.”

So picture this: we have wives coming to Faith along with their husbands (or without their husbands). They ultimately attach themselves to the Corinthian Assembly which is a home church. These brand new women of faith, prior to their conversion were no doubt conforming to the conservative, standard norms of the region, generally spending all of their time taking care of their families in their homes. Thus, they were generally not afforded the experience of interacting with others in a large group. Their husbands, on the other hand, most likely were better versed in proper social conduct and interaction.

These newly converted wives come into the assembly empowered to converse and interact with other wives and unmarried women, as well as men other than their husbands. They witness the chaos going on around them and the lack of order in the assembly. They’re also hearing teachings about things they’ve never heard before. They are being taught that they have freedom in Messiah, suggesting to the uninitiated that they can do whatever they feel like doing. Some go so far as dressing provocatively in the assembly gatherings, spurred on to some degree by the appearance and influence of the city’s hetairai. That same mindset then bleeds over into expressing their thoughts and questioning out loud some of the teachings during the gatherings. At times, their chattering or even outbursts disrupt the proceedings.

Granted, this is all supposition. But it’s supposition based upon the overall context of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians and a breakdown of the two-key verses of our study here. 

Understanding Paul’s word choices in these two verses is crucial to gaining an accurate understanding of the passage.

The Greek term “Sigao,” means silence that is demanded in the midst of disorder. Essentially, “sigao” denotes simply a demand that someone or someones shut up; stop talking; quiet down; stop the chatter. And this is the form of silence that Paul was demanding of the women of the Corinthian Assembly.

Now, if Paul desired that the Corinthian women not talk at all during assembly gatherings, he would most likely have used the Greek term “laleo,” which denotes a complete silencing of an individual for an indeterminable amount of time.

So we have before us a matter of word choice. And to the Corinthians, they would have absolutely no problem understanding what Paul meant in his word choice of “gune en tais ekklesias sigao.” Women in the assembly, stop talking.

We’ve all had the experience of being in some form of public gathering such as a church service, a seminar, or convention, where certain individuals are engaged in intense chatter while a moderator or teacher is trying to get on with his or her presentation. Usually that teacher or moderator will admonish those talking to quiet down or stop talking. Now, those who happen to have been doing the talking would know, without any uncertainty, that the moderator or teacher was attempting to reestablish order in the proceedings and that it was time for them to be quiet and not disrupt the proceedings. They knew that at the end of the presentation, they could resume their chattering if they so chose.

But for our particular study, we have to keep going back to the key issues Paul was addressing in this letter—confusion; chaos; tumult; disorder; discord during the worship services. Within that framework, did Paul tell the congregation that women were not to “laleo”—that is, not to utter a sound in assembly gatherings? Not at all.

Remember that Paul had no problem whatsoever with women praying and prophesying during gatherings; that they were one, equal members of the Body, regardless of their gender, culture or race.

And let us not overlook one of the big reasons behind some of the disorderliness taking place in the Corinthian Assembly gatherings: gender equality. These women, according to John Temple Bristow, “were unaccustomed to listening to public speakers or to participating in public worship. To such women, Paul said, “Hush up” (What Paul Really Said About Women). To me, this would imply that this new found freedom on the part of the women was creating a lot of confusion and chaos in the gatherings whereby the women were untying their hair and remaining uncovered, despite them being married in most cases (women covered their heads in public as a sign that they were married; analogous to the wearing of wedding bands today); and speaking out of turn; chit chatting. Men, being used to public assemblies, knew how to conduct themselves and were more disciplined. However, the assembly members were most likely too hesitant to tell the women to back off a bit in their freedom and exercise some sense of decorum in their behavior during fellowship gatherings.

Now don’t get me wrong. The men of the Corinthian Assembly had their fair share of problems that added to the chaos—suing one another; fornicating and adulterating; contradicting one another; and creating division in the assembly by creating spiritual cliques, just to name a few offenses.

So it was indeed a mess. And Paul had to clean-up this mess in absentia—which would be terribly difficult to do in a place like first-century CE Corinth. And telling women to stop talking in the middle of assembly gatherings was one of those things that he had to put a stop to if he were to gain any semblance of order. His wording seems extremely harsh to our western, politically correct ears. But it really was about establishing order and cutting off excuses.

“But I don’t understand what is being taught. So I’m asking my husband to explain to me what is being said.”

Paul simply says: “Look, I get that. But you know what? You can ask your husband to explain to you what was being said or taught in the gathering proceedings when you get home. Because it’s disruptive when you are jabbering or speaking out of turn in the middle of services. It only adds to the chaos. It’s not appropriate behavior to act in such a brash and disrespectful manner.” And so on.

So it would seem that this understanding lines up well with the context of the whole 14th chapter, whereby Paul is imploring the Corinthians to exercise love first and foremost and to maintain order in the assembly. And certainly, women (or even men for that matter) speaking out of turn in assembly proceedings is unacceptable behavior that cannot be tolerated.

So, what did Paul mean regarding “as also the Law says?” According to John Temple Bristow, this has caused a lot of scratched heads among bible scholars throughout the centuries for obvious reasons. We see this manifested by some translations having law with a capital L and others with a lower case l. But anyone who has read through Torah, as I have, clearly knows that there is no Torah command for women to be silent during worship proceedings. Furthermore, there was no such law known to exist in Corinth civil and criminal laws, especially when we factor in the common practices of the hetairai in Corinth society.

Bristow offers that the answer to this conundrum can be found in the word “hupotassomai.” This ancient Greek term is “a voluntary attitude of being responsive to the needs of others” (Bristow). In other words, it fell upon the Corinthian women to be quiet, subject to the needs of all to hear that which was being said in the gathering services. That love, according to Bristow, was the “code or the Golden Rule” (Bristow).

Bristow continues: “In a situation where worship was tumultuous with the chattering of women unaccustomed to listening quietly to others, Paul was simply applying a principle he wrote in his letter to the Ephesians: ‘Be subject (hupotassomai) to one another, out of reverence for Christ’” (Eph. 5:21).

Contextually speaking, Mr. Bristow’s hypothesis is good an hypothesis as any I’ve come across in my studies. I’m not in love with his hypothesis, but I can’t dismiss it either. So until I come across a better explanation of this statement, I’ll go with it for now.

So Paul wrote to Corinthians regarding “akatastasia,” disruption; confusion; chaos in their gathering. Paul was not writing to Corinthians regarding whether or not women were permitted to preach or teach aloud in their midst. Instead, Paul was addressing aggressors or agitators within the Corinthian Assembly who were disrupting the gathering services. In this particular case, the agitators or aggressors, so to speak, were wives of male assembly attendees who were speaking out of turn during gatherings. Paul here is essentially telling the wives to “stop humiliating your husbands with outbursts, chatter, questions, and speaking in tongues in the middle of service.”

According to Donna Howell, the question was “not whether Paul was condemning women from speaking in the assembly”…but rather”WHEN such an occasion could be carried out appropriately in order to avoid the chaos he condemns through this entire letter!”

Paul sandwiches this note between “God is not the author of confusion” and “Let all things be done decently and in order” as found in 14:40. 

VI. Review—Closing Thoughts-Call to Action

Contextually speaking, any honest student of the Bible will acknowledge that Paul supported women having a voice (ie., speaking) in the assemblies he oversaw as evidenced by the following:

(1) He acknowledged the gifts of the Spirit were poured upon both men and women of the Body of Messiah.

(2) Paul acknowledged that each of the gifts were to be exercised in the assembly proceedings in a decent fashion.

(3) The Apostle provided for women leading corporate prayer in gatherings as long as they were following proper cultural decency norms (11:5).

In all cases of exercising gifts and offices of the Body of Messiah and Assemblies, Paul was gender inclusive.

For all intents and purposes, the Messianic Assembly of Corinth was in crisis and on the cusp of annihilation. It was being overrun by:

1. The intense influence of the sex-culture and trade of the region.

2. By syncretism (ie., the fusion of paganism and other religious traditions and practices into the Messianic Faith). Of special mention was the whole libertine gnosticism that was confusing true Messianic freedom with the outright practice of debauchery.

3. Confused and conflicted cliques—religious and class cliques.

4. Clashing error-ridden doctrines that in many cases outright contradicted the teachings of Y’shua and Paul.

5. An almost total lack of personal discipline among members of the assembly, especially in light of the assembly members’ new-found freedoms in Messiah.

6. A lack of spiritual discipline in the exercising of the members’ spiritual gifts during assembly gatherings.

Other than Rome, I can’t imagine any more challenging a locale for a thriving Messianic Community to have to overcome. We saw how the Messianic Assembly in Rome in the first half of the first century was exiled along with the Rabbinic Jewish Community, simply for political reasons. Yet Paul planted churches—assemblies–in these unimaginably pagan-rich cities—drawing a rich but sketchy cadre of would-be believers in Messiah to make up it’s assemblies. He had to recognize the intense spiritual risks inherent in planting an assembly that would draw such an eclectic menagerie of individuals—each searching for truth in their individual way, but collectively searching out truth to bring about a collective, unified Body in Messiah. Each bringing into the assembly personal baggage (ie., past pagan beliefs; incomplete understanding of the Gospel; personal cultural and racial biases; troublesome personalities; evil personal agendas; etc.) that if left unchecked or uncontrolled, threatened to create much conflict during and after gatherings.

Who knows how many people made up Corinth’s Messianic Assembly. But it obviously was significant enough to cause Paul consternation and fear for the overall wellbeing of the assembly. Thus, he responded/commented so vociferously and comprehensively on so many problem areas common to the Corinthian Assembly. Consequently, Paul’s addressing of these problem areas in Corinth provide us opportunities to establish harmony and order in the fellowships and congregations each of us attends today.

Yes, some of the solutions Paul gave to the Corinthians in response to their common problems are “normative”—that is Paul’s instructions apply to those of us attending fellowships or congregations today such as:

-Not tolerating ongoing, overt sin in our midst.

-Practicing and maintaining personal decency such as in our appearance and behavior in public.

-Resolving personal disputes within the confines of the assembly and not airing our dirty laundry out in the secular world, bringing shame to the reputation of the Faith.

-Respect for order in assembly proceedings.

Yet, there are aspects of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians that are relative and should be kept within the context of present day norms and practicalities (eg., women wearing head coverings in assembly gatherings).

As it relates to our focus passage whereby Paul admonishes women (or even men for that matter) observe the order of service, not disrupt the proceedings with unchecked chattering, and not disrespect their spouses in public, it is safe to conclude that such instruction is indeed normative. Maintaining order in Master’s assemblies is non-negotiable. In fact, Paul himself made note:

“For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints…” (1 Cor. 14:33; ESV).

From a biblically and historically contextual standpoint, 1 Corinthians 14:34,35 is not instructing assemblies to silence their women; to marginalize their women; to subjugate their women; or even to assign them secondary and tertiary roles in the assemblies and body of Messiah. It’s about exercising respect and maintaining order in the Body and Assemblies of Messiah.