Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

The Historic Faith
Sign in

Let your woman keep silence in the churches (1 Cor 14:34-35) (not for feminists)

Started by Simon Isaksson
December 30, 2025
26 replies
2,902 views
#1

There is a certain place in the NT which strikes me and which would be so interesting to know more about, and it's 1 Cor 34-35 (NIV);


"Woman should remain silent 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.".

Modern Bible expositors today seems to say very different about it.

Many claim that it can't mean absolute silence in all instances in the assembly and refers to woman's praying and prohesying in 1 Cor 11 (which however is not in the context of a Church assembly), others say that silence is in the context of the Church service alone and not for the full time, thus permitting verbalization in the church before and after the service time (but Paul says nothing about silence only in service, rather "in the churches" and that it's a shame to speak "in the church".


So what do we do about this inspired passage?

Can a woman ask her husband questions in the assembly once the service is over, or does absolutely verbal voicelessness apply from first entering in the assemly door until the moment going out, or even until entering in the house door later?

In (Rom 16:1) there's a sister called Phoebe which is said to be a deacon, did she serve in the assemly without speaking or how do you think it went?

What has been the Church's view general view throughout the centuries?

God bless :)

Replies (26)

#2

to Simon

#3
Have you eread Acts 18:26, "and he began speaking boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained the way of God more accurately to him."......Here is a husband and wife teaching another man, aside, meaning in private, not in the open assembly at church as we would say. Priscilla is actually teaching this man alongside with her husband, so even the teaching prohibition is not that women cannot teach anything to a man ever, but that they are not to be elders in the church teaching the Word to people in that capacity. After all godly women teach their sons about God in private all the time, even as they transition to become men.
#4
I would like to examine a little deeper, regarding 1 Corinthians ch14:37-38 “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write to you, that they are the commandment of the Lord. But if any man is ignorant, let him be ignorant.”        Where is Paul referencing to? At what point, did the Lord command these things? What I say next I want to say with caution. I am not attempting to contradict Paul. It does not seem that Jesus ever brought up this subject. Perhaps he did and it was not recorded. It’s just I can’t recall this issue being recorded within the Gospels. Perhaps I am wrong. Was it recorded in the Law of Moses? It does not seem to register in my mind. Correct me, if I am wrong. Okay, let’s go back to Genesis, to the Garden of Eden. Genesis ch3:16 “-your desire shall be to your husband and he shall rule over you.” Alright here we go. The Structure of the Famliy was established. From “get, go.” God had established that the Husband was to provide for the family. And the Wife was to live in submission under her husband’s wishes. Ok personally I believe the underlying issue is that the Husband is to lead out in the Church service. This is not Paul’s commandment. This is from the Lord. However, complete silence of the woman is an issue I can not verify as a commandment of the Lord. Perhaps I am overlooking something.
#5
I'll just add a quote to the discussion, which is from Gregory of Nazianzus, and was written in tribute to his mother.
I found this in Everett Ferguson's book, Inheriting Wisdom.

"She is a woman who - while others were being honored and extolled for their natural or artificial beauty - acknowledged but one kind of beauty: the beauty of the soul and, as far as possible, its preservation and restoration to the divine image. She has rejected pigments and devices for adornment as being more fitting for women of the stage. She acknowledged one true, noble birth: piety, and the knowledge of where we came from and where we are going. She knew that one safe and inviolable form of wealth consists of stripping oneself of wealth for God and the poor, and especially for those of our own kin who are unfortunate. She thought that help that went only so far as meeting necessity was a reminder and not a relief from distress; more liberal beneficience brings stable honor and perfect consolation. Some women excel in thrifty management and others in piety, but she - difficult as it is to attain both - surpassed them all in both... What time or place for prayer ever escaped her? She was drawn to these things before all other things in the day; .. Who reduced the flesh by more constant fasting and vigil? Or who stood like a pillar at the singing of psalms throughout the night and day? .. Who was a better patron of the orphan and widow? Who assisted mourners to alleviate their misfortunes as much as she did? .. Her voice was never heard in the holy assemblies or places, except in the necessary liturgical words of the service."

So Simon, as to your quote: "From Tertullian to Thomas Aquinas, commentators concluded that women could not even sing or pray audibly among men.", I believe this disproves it, but it does depend on whether singing would being considered part of the "necessary liturgical words of the service". I would think it is.

Join the Conversation

Create a free account or log in to post and reply.

Confirm Delete

Are you sure you want to delete this post? This action cannot be undone.