A Critique of One Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14 on Women Being Silent in the Church

 “A woman cannot be subject to her husband while simultaneously expecting him to submit to her judgments about his prophecy.”

This is part of Denny Burk’s argument in his interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:29-35,

²⁹ Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. ³⁰ And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. ³¹ For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. ³² The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. ³³ For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.

³⁴ Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 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.

Denny Burk is a Professor of Biblical Studies at Boyce College, the undergraduate school of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. He also serves as an Associate Pastor at Kenwood Baptist Church. He is, by his own declaration, a complementarian, meaning he believes God created men and women equal in essential dignity but different and complementary in function, with headship and leading roles being exclusive for men and support roles available to women.

Burk argues that the verses that say women should remain silent in the churches are part of Paul’s original text, and cannot be considered an addition by a scribe, since they occur in every Greek manuscript we have of 1 Corinthians, though placed at the end of chapter 14 in some. But the verses cannot mean women should generally be silent, as some argue, because this would contradict Paul’s encouragement of women prophesying in 1 Corinthians 11:

⁴ Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. ⁵ But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved…¹⁰ It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels…¹³ Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? (1 Corinthians 11:4-5,10,13, NIV)

It is acknowledged that the praying and prophesying that Paul is referring to is in the context of the church meeting, not private practice. So how could Paul contradict himself in 1 Corinthians 14 by saying women can’t speak at all in the public meetings?

Burk argues that some more specific form of speaking must be in view here, and based on context, that form of speaking would be “weighing carefully” or judging the other prophets. A woman might be prophesying and her prophesying be judged by the other prophets, but she cannot judge another prophet (unless the other prophet is a woman?). She must remain silent. And Burk reasons that this is because judging or weighing another prophet’s prophesy is teaching, and women are forbidden to teach or have authority over men (1 Timothy 2:11,12):

A woman cannot be subject to her husband while simultaneously expecting him to submit to her judgments about his prophecy.  To avoid this conflict, Paul says that while women may prophesy, they may not participate in the judgment of prophesies. In this case, the judgment of prophecies is tantamount to teaching, which Paul absolutely prohibits in 1 Timothy 2:12.

In Paul’s terminology, “teaching” involves explaining and applying an already-given revelation. The judgment of prophecies would have included evaluations and corrections which are the functional equivalent of teaching. That is why Paul does not wish for women to judge prophecies in the gathered assembly. It would be like allowing them to teach and to exercise authority—something that he clearly prohibits in 1 Timothy 2:12: “I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.”

What does Paul mean by evaluating another prophet, and does it amount to teaching? Burk is making some big assumptions here. Paul does not explain what he means by weighing carefully what is said (other translations,” judge”, “discern”, “evaluate”). It could be that the “others” (the other prophets) are merely determining that the prophesy is legitimate or not (can you imagine being the prophet whose prophecy is considered illegitimate?), or it could be, as Burk suggests, that the prophecy is evaluated in light of other revealed truth, leading to an explanation or “teaching” on how already revealed truth contradicts what was prophesied, rendering the particular prophet’s utterance illegitimate. But is not the prophecy uttered also teaching? Are not Jeremiah’s prophecies, and Isaiah’s, and Paul’s, and Peter’s, also teaching? Yes, the gift of teaching may be “explaining and applying an already-given revelation,” but that does not exclude prophecy and revelation as teaching. The one gift gives teaching through direct revelation, the other gives teaching through the explanation and application of revelation.

A woman cannot be subject to her husband while simultaneously expecting him to submit to her judgments about his prophecy.

Really? She can prophesy to him a direct revelation from God without being authoritative and judging him, but she can’t challenge his prophecy without being authoritative and judging? This doesn’t make sense. How is prophecy not, in itself, authoritative and judgmental teaching:

²⁴ But if an unbeliever or an inquirer comes in while everyone is prophesying, they are convicted of sin and are brought under judgment by all, ²⁵ as the secrets of their hearts are laid bare. So they will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!” (1 Corinthians 14:24,25, NIV)

What if among the prophets are those who are elders and in authority over the congregation, and a male prophet challenges an elder’s prophesy. Can he not be subject to his elder while simultaneously expecting him to submit to his judgments about the elder’s prophecy? Why doesn’t Paul prohibit the male from speaking in that situation? It is because it is fallacious to argue that the process of evaluating, judging, weighing, another’s prophecy is being unsubmissive to that person.

Strangely, Burk remarks,

I happen to be a cessationist, which means that I do not believe that prophecy is an ongoing experience in Christ’s churches. Having said that, God’s revelation still has a place in our worship services through scripture. Today, reading aloud God’s revelation from scripture is the functional equivalent of prophesying God’s revelation in Paul’s day. Biblically speaking, it would be totally in keeping with Paul’s instructions for women to be reading scripture and praying during the gathered assembly of God’s people.

If we accept the idea that reading Scripture today is the functional equivalent of prophesying, women can prophesy by reading the Scripture in public assembly, but she cannot challenge the reading by another male prophet because that would be teaching, and that function is forbidden to her in the public assembly (presumably because males are present). But of course, how could one legitimately challenge the reading of Scripture, an already accepted and validated true prophecy? Reading the teaching would not be teaching, nor would praying (though there is no doubt an indirect teaching going on in praying), but interpreting or applying the Scripture would be and would therefore be forbidden to women in the assembly. This seems to be walking a fine line.

Is Burk’s interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:34,35 correct? It does not seem so. The context is speaking about prophets speaking, two or three at most, and women remaining silent, not even asking questions (is that teaching, because why else would it be a restriction) in the assembly (though if she is asking questions of her husband at home is that challenging his authority). Why limit the speaking of women to only the judging of the other prophets? Why not limit them from prophesying (and speaking in tongues) in the public meeting entirely, as many have contended? Prophesying is in every sense authoritative teaching, which, Burk contends, is forbidden to women in the assembly.

I think Burk is correct that Paul allows women to prophesy in the assembly according to 1 Corinthians 11. And it would, therefore, be a contradiction here in chapter 14 to prohibit women from prophesying (or public tongues speaking, tongues speaking being, in my understanding, prophesying in an unknown language). But Burk’s attempt to remove the contradiction by understanding that Paul is limiting the restriction on women speaking to only to judging other prophecies does not seem to hold water. The water is leaking out all over the place.

I still believe that the best explanation for this text is that the passage in question is not in the original letter from Paul to the Corinthians. Though Burk is right that every Greek manuscript we have of Paul’s letter includes the passage, it is passing strange that several manuscripts (D, F, G, 88*, it^ar,d,e,f,g, Ambrosiaster, and Sedulius-Scotus) have the verses after verse 40. This strongly suggests that these scribes/copyists knew of these verses and their relation to chapter 14 of 1 Corinthians but did not find them in the position as verses 34 and 35 in the texts they were copying. The extreme difficulty of making sense of the verses without contradicting Paul’s teaching in other parts of the letter, and the fact that removing them renders a passage quite easy to interpret and that is in harmony with Paul’s other teaching, lends itself to the view that Paul never wrote these verses.