Exegetical Fallacies in D.A. Carson's "Exegetical Fallacies," Pt. 2: Reconciling 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Corinthians 14

For those who desire to see Pt. 1 of this series, please go to my other blog, The Center for Theological Studies (CTS).

“In this case, however, there is no need for such a procedure of last resort. The passage can be and has been adequately explained in its context. There are ample parallels to this way of looking to the Old Testament for a principle, not a quotation (and the principle in question is doubtless Gen. 2:20b-24, referred to by Paul both in 1 Cor. 11:8-9 and in 1 Tim. 2:13); and the demand for silence on the part of women does not bring on irreconcilable conflict with 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, where under certain conditions women are permitted to pray and prophesy, because the silence of 14:33b-36 is limited by context: women are to keep silent in connection with the evaluation of prophecies, to which the context refers, for otherwise they would be assuming a role of doctrinal authority in the congregation (contra 1 Tim. 2:11-15)” (D.A. Carson, “Exegetical Fallacies, Second Edition.” Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006, pages 40-41).

In the last post, I critiqued Dr. Carson’s idea of a tense fallacy regarding I. Howard Marshall’s interpretation of Hebrews 3. I made it clear there that Carson simply takes the perfect tense, looks to the end of the human life, and concludes that those who are true believers are only those who endure to the end. You may not have caught on to it, but what Carson is saying is, “Only those who endure to the end ever believed to begin with.” The sad part about such a statement is, that if one does not endure to the end, according to Carson, such an individual was “never saved to begin with.” But, if the individual was never saved, then how about you and me? How about those who love God in the present, who serve Him, worship Him, and do His work? If believers in the here and now must endure to even know if they are saved, how can they know they are saved “now”? How can they know if they are saved “today”? See, Dr. Carson’s words sound believable until we start to question the believer’s salvation---then, things turn ugly. But Carson’s question is a good one for those who insist that the apostate “was never saved.” If the apostate can do what he did, how do you and I know that we will not end up like him? To know the end in the here and now takes a special omniscience, one that you and I do not possess whatsoever. Therefore, when we question that the apostate was ever saved, we are questioning if even we ourselves are saved...and I doubt the believer wants to take that treacherous step.

In today’s post, however, I will not discuss the doctrine of apostasy...instead, I will tackle another fallacy of Carson’s: “Appeal to unknown or unlikely meanings.” In the quote above, we find Carson critiquing an assessment of Walter Kaiser Jr.’s regarding the word “nomos” (Grk. “law”) in 1 Corinthians 14:33-36. Kaiser argues that the word “nomos” there refers to rabbinical law. Carson insists that this is highly unlikely, and then goes on to give his own assessment of what “law” Paul may have referred to: “the silence of 14:33b-36 is limited by context: women are to keep silent in connection with the evaluation of prophecies, to which the context refers, for otherwise they would be assuming a role of doctrinal authority in the congregation (contra 1 Tim. 2:11-15).”

In the sentence before the one I just quoted (see quote above at the top of the post), Carson feels the need to reconcile 1 Corinthians 14 with the permission of women to prophecy before the congregation in 1 Corinthians 11. His solution? Women can pray and prophesy (as 1 Cor. 11 allows), but they cannot “evaluate prophecies.”

Now, whenever a solution or remedy is proposed to texts that seem to conflict with one another, the solution always has to be tested against the context. If there is a solution proposed that may sound believable but does not fit the context, then believers must toss the theory out and look for another proposal that will adhere to sound hermeneutics.

Since Dr. Carson has proposed the prohibition of women from prophecy evaluation, it’s now time to check that view against the context of 1 Corinthians (before we can decide whether or not it would even adhere to 1 Timothy 2).

First, let’s note that the background to 1 Corinthians 14:33 is concerned with bringing understanding to the body of Christ (as well as unbelievers). At the beginning of chapter 14, Paul tells the Corinthians that their focus on tongues as a spiritual gift is lopsidedly misguided: that is, they should desire to prophesy above all. Why? Because “he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him...but he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men...edifies the church” (1 Cor. 14:2-4, NKJV).

This theme is continued in his discussion of speaking in tongues: “I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue” (1 Cor. 14:19). The goal of speaking in the church is to edify the body of Christ, to encourage, to push forward into the things of God. How can that be done if the person does not understand the language in which someone is speaking? How can one put something into action that he or she does not understand? Paul uses this logic to argue that speaking in tongues is a good gift and fit for use before God...but it is not to be publicly proclaimed amongst believers, especially when there is no interpreter to bridge communication between the unknown language and confused believers (1 Cor. 14:28).

In verses 29-32, Paul begins to turn the discussion towards prophets and prophecy: “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged.” What Paul is doing here is exactly what he is doing in all of chapter 14--- providing instructions on how to maintain order and harmony in the body of Christ. Things are out of place, as the Corinthians themselves desire to speak in tongues and are so doing, despite the presence/absence of an interpreter. Paul is aware that worship serves are becoming places where confusion runs rampant, so he feels the need to address the issues. With the prophets, each is to have his/her turn in prophesying, while each is to judge in turn. Paul’s emphasis on “ALL may learn and ALL may be encouraged” (v.31) is his way of saying, “everyone has a moment to act in church. No one person has to “bull-doze” the others in order to get a moment to prophesy and judge. There is enough room in God’s House (the church) for everyone to be given their opportunity to exercise their gifts.” In essence, “Corinthians, what are you fighting about?”

When we get to the prohibition against women speaking in church, the tendency is to do what Carson does: to claim that women are prohibited from evaluating prophecy, and tie it in with 1 Timothy 2 (which is Carson’s prooftext for everything women can and cannot do. What about the other texts regarding women?). However, the context does not point out that women cannot evaluate prophecy. After all, look at Paul’s words:

“And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets” (1 Cor. 14:32).

If this follows with verses 31 and before, then Paul is saying that judging prophecy is to be left to those who are prophets in the house of God. And this contradicts Carson’s idea that women cannot judge prophecy because women themselves are prophets. As Carson himself says in the quote above, “...under certain conditions women are permitted to pray and prophesy” (Carson, “Exegetical Fallacies,” page 40). If women are allowed to pray “and prophesy,” then why would women be automatically forbidden from evaluation prophecy? I’ll set up a syllogism:

Premise #1: Only prophets can judge prophecy.

Premise #2: Some women are prophets.

Conclusion: Therefore, female prophets (prophetesses) cannot judge prophecy.

The conclusion does not follow from the premises. If women are prophets, and prophets are the ones to judge prophecy, then why would women be prohibited from judging prophecy? Carson’s thought here does not follow, considering his own admission that women were allowed to prophesy in the Corinthian congregation. He is only left, in the end, to appeal to 1 Timothy 2 to make his case.

By so arguing, Carson has forgotten the principal rule of hermeneutics: that is, that one must first assessment a statement made in the context in which the statement was written. One cannot make a case to link the prohibition of 1 Corinthians 14:34 with 1 Timothy 2 unless he or she knows what the statement meant to the Corinthian congregation in 1 Corinthians 14 (and the larger context of 1 Corinthians). Then and only then, can Carson appeal to 1 Timothy 2. As is seen here, Carson claims that he is calling Walt Kaiser, Jr. on a fallacy--- but instead, he fumbles and commits one of his own. See? “I told ya” that it’s ironic Carson commits exegetical fallacies in a book written against committing exegetical fallacies...

Who Are The "DISRUPTIVE" Women?

“EGALITARIAN CLAIM 7.4: NOBODY OBEYS 1 Corinthians 14:34: COMPLEMENTARIANS CAN’T BE CONSISTENT; 1 Corinthians 14:34 REQUIRES THAT WOMEN BE SILENT IN CHURCH, BUT EVERYBODY DISOBEYS THAT COMMAND TODAY, BECAUSE WOMEN CAN SING, PRAY, READ SCRIPTURE, AND SO FORTH. SIMILARLY, OTHER NEW TESTAMENT RESTRICTIONS ON WOMEN WERE FOR A PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCE, NOT FOR ALL TIME” (Grudem, 232).

Grudem responds with the following:“Answer 7.4b: This passage requires women to be silent with respect to the activity under discussion, which is the judging of prophecies…what is the topic under discussion in the context 1 Corinthians 14:33? The topic in verses 29-33 has been prophecies and judging prophecies, beginning with verse 29, ‘Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said.’ In fact, verse 29 is a general principle about prophesying that divides itself into two halves, with (a) the first half talking about prophesying (‘Let two or three prophets speak’) and (b) the second half talking about judging those prophecies (‘and let the others weigh what is said’) (233).

Let me say first off, as I’ve said in other blog posts, that I’m not a masculinist (for all men), but I’m not feminist (for all women) either. I believe that God calls both sexes and uses both male and female for His glory.
In this post, I’m dealing with the response of Wayne Grudem (as I’ve done in other posts). While Grudem tries to remain theologically conservative (which is what I am as well), he and I differ when it comes to the giftedness of men and women in ministry. As a result of his inherent bias, Grudem tends to make “simple” mistakes in his interpretations, even when he tries to uphold the correct position theologically. Grudem interprets 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 to say that women should be silent when prophecies are being judged.

But Grudem’s position is all based on 1 Timothy 2. In fact, at the end of his answer against the egalitarian position that complementarians are inconsistent in their application of this text, Grudem states, “This passage is consistent with other New Testament passages THAT RESERVE THE TASK OF TEACHING AND GOVERNING THE WHOLE CONGREGATION TO MEN” (235). Lest someone think I’m too paranoid with Wayne Grudem (and could use a “chill pill”), note Grudem’s argument after the above answer:
“It is not surprising that Paul would say only men can give spoken corrections to prophecies. Such correction is part of the task of ‘TEACHING AND HAVING AUTHORITY’ over the congregation, the task that Paul reserves for men in 1 TIMOTHY 2:12. For Paul to restrict this ‘doctrinal guardianship’ job to men is entirely consistent with what he does in 1 TIMOTHY 2, and also consistent with his expectation that elders are men (“husband of one wife” in 1 TIMOTHY 3:2; Titus 1:6; compare ‘men’ in Acts 20:30)” (235).

Did you notice that the ENTIRE final comment Grudem makes with regard to the egalitarian claim, involves 1 Timothy 2 and the offices of teacher, elder, and pastor? The passage of 1 Timothy 2 seems to be Grudem’s response to everything. Nevertheless, let’s look at the letter of First Corinthians itself to see how Grudem’s bias stacks up.

The context of the letter, starting in chapter 14, is the public church setting. Notice that in 14:23 Paul writes about the condition of “if the whole church assembles together…” Verse 26 shows the interaction that believers have in the gathering: “What is the outcome then, brethren? WHEN YOU ASSEMBLE, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.”
In verses 27 and 28, those who speak in tongues and interpret are being addressed. Verses 29 and 30 refer to those who prophecy: “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment.” Here, the prophets are the ones speaking—but ONLY THE PROPHETS can pass judgment. This is reinforced in verse 32: “and the spirits of the prophets are SUBJECT TO PROPHETS...” Here, only those who prophesy are those who get to judge the prophecies.
But if we don’t read the passage carefully, we’ll miss something. Let’s read verse 32 in context with verses 33 and 34:
“32and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; 33for God is not a God of (BC)confusion but of peace, as in (BD)all the churches of the (BE)saints. 34The women are to (BF)keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but (BG)are to subject themselves, just as (BH)the Law also says.”

If we look at these verses from Grudem’s standpoint, then women are not to judge prophecies. But….WAIT A MINUTE! Didn’t Paul say in vv.29-30 that the “others,” being OTHER PROPHETS, could pass judgment on prophecy? And if Paul said that prophets could pass judgment, doesn’t that INCLUDE WOMEN? For Paul told the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 11 that “5But every (I)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 (J)shaved” (1 Corinthians 11:5, NASB).

The issue at the church involved WOMEN WHO PROPHESIED, so women were also involved in PROPHESYING and JUDGING prophecies. The problem with the women of verse 34 is that they were not prophets, and were asking questions regarding prophecies. Grudem states that the women were not supposed to judge prophecies (233), but if women were prophets, then wouldn’t that include women among those WHO JUDGED PROPHECIES? Grudem fails to take the context into account and simply ends up with the idea that women can’t judge prophecies because of a “1 Timothy 2” bias. As I’ve stated before, in Grudem’s eyes, this passage is the “goal” of all the others: no matter what the other passages say, they will always have to conform to 1 Timothy 2 (which Grudem interprets incorrectly).

Last but not least, “judging prophecies” IS NOT why Paul reminds women of what the Law had to say about being silent in church—but their asking questions is! And this is why Paul issues the suggestion in verse 35 that if the women wanted to learn what was being said, or what revelation was being given, they were to ask their own husbands at home. Notice that Paul doesn’t discredit their wanting to learn; he just simply suggests a more civil and organized way to allow them to ask the questions of which they desired to know answers. If Deuteronomy 27:9 was one of the verses in the Law that Paul appeals to, then being silent and listening to God speak would have been to be quiet and listen to the prophecies being made and judged. The women asking questions were not prophetesses (who would have understood prophecies and judged them), but instead, women who didn’t understand what was being said (or simply had an enquiring mind about something that was said).

Context is key to any passage—not just on the subject of men and women in ministry, but on all other subjects of the Bible as well. Grudem butchers context in order to save his own gender bias of women in ministry. If context is discarded for "proof-texting," then ANY passage that says ANYTHING can be used out of its situation at any time...and I shudder to think of what the outcome of our churches may look like in the future...

Disruptive Corinthian Women? (Continued)

“Answer 7.7b: This theory says Corinth is a special situation, but Paul applies his rule to ‘all the churches’…according to this view, noisy women were a special problem at Corinth. But Paul says, ‘As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches’ (1 Cor. 14:33b-34), and there are strong reasons for thinking that even though the phrase ‘as in all the churches of the saints’ comes at the end of verse 33, it really modifies ‘the women should keep silent in the churches’. And even if someone thinks that phrase goes with the preceding sentence, Paul still says, ‘the women should keep silent in the churches’. Thus his rule cannot be restricted to one local church where there supposedly were problems” (Grudem, 245).

Yes, this theory makes much sense. God as a “God of peace” is a universal, timeless truth that needs no “as in all the churches of the saints.” However, when Paul uses this, he is referring to a rule in the churches. This, however, is evidence he uses in addition to God’s character. Because God is a God of peace, and the churches have a rule regarding silence, then the women are not to disrupt the worship services. Grudem, however, is wrong because he makes the women the only ones in the church that are supposed to be silent. Note that Paul doesn’t just cover women in 1 Corinthians 14: he also addresses those who speak in tongues (v. 27) as well as those who prophesy (vv.29-31) (before he even addresses the women).

“Answer 7.7c: This ‘noisy women’ theory does not make sense of Paul’s solution’. If women were being disruptive, Paul would just tell them to act in an orderly way, not to be COMPLETELY SILENT…If noise had been the problem in Corinth, he would have explicitly forbidden disorderly speech, not all speech” (245).There is a problem with this statement: he claims that Paul now requires the women in Corinth to be “completely silent”—a few pages earlier, on page 232, Grudem writes the exact opposite of what he says here on page 245: When responding to the egalitarian claim that complementarians are not consistent with their application of 1 Cor. 14:34-35, Grudem responds, “The passage NEVER DID REQUIRE COMPLETE SILENCE of women”! (232). How can the passage require complete silence but not require complete silence at the same time? Grudem’s attempt to “forge” the complete silence of women on the basis of this passage demonstrates that he has an inherent gender bias against women.

“ ‘Answer 7.7e: Paul does not give noisy women as a reason, but gives the Old Testament law’…Paul therefore gives “the Law” as the reason for his statement, not noisy women’” (Grudem, 246).
Grudem now says that the Law is why Paul writes the church; but is this correct? As I argued earlier, Paul had ways of reminding the church about things he had mentioned before; but the only reason why he brings the Law into play is because of the disorder in the church. The Law is not the reason he writes—the situation is. The Law is not the REASON, but the SOLUTION, to the problem at Corinth.

Grudem then cites Craig Keener as an authority on the so-called “myth” that “women were
seated separately from men in early synagogues and churches, and this made it likely that women were shouting questions across the room to their husbands” (243). Keener says that “there is no historical evidence to support the idea that women sat separately from men, either in synagogues or in churches” (243), and that separate seating didn’t occur until the Middle Ages (244). But the problem with this theory is that we have evidence of separate seating dating from as early as the fourth century.

Along these lines, an ancient document, called the “Apostolic Constitutions,” dates from the late fourth century. While it dates 300 years later than Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, it is one of the only remaining ancient documents we have regarding the history of the early church. See the following (taken from http://www.piney-2.com/DocAposConstitu.html):
SEC. VII.--ON ASSEMBLING IN THE CHURCH.
AN EXACT DESCRIPTION OF A CHURCH AND THE CLERGY, AND WHAT THINGS IN PARTICULAR EVERY ONE IS TO DO IN THE SOLEMN ASSEMBLIES OF THE CLERGY AND LAITY FOR, RELIGIOUS WORSHIP.
LVII. But be thou, O bishop, holy, unblameable, no striker, not soon angry, not cruel; but a builder up, a converter, apt to teach, forbear-ing of evil, of a gentle mind, meek, long-suffering, ready to exhort, ready to comfort, as a man of God. When thou callest an assembly of the Church as one that is the commander of a great ship, appoint the assemblies to be made with all possible skill, charging the deacons as mariners to prepare places for the brethren as for passengers, with all due care and decency. And first, let the building be long, with its head to the east, with its vestries on both sides at the east end, and so it will be like a ship. In the middle let the bishop's throne be placed, and on each side of him let the presbytery sit down; and let the deacons stand near at hand, in close and small girt garments, for they are like the mariners and managers of the ship: with regard to these, let the laity sit on the other side, with all quietness and good order. And let the women sit by themselves, they also keeping silence.
In the middle, let the reader stand upon some high place: let him read the books of Moses, of Joshua the son of Nun, of the Judges, and of the Kings and of the Chronicles, and those written after the return from the captivity; and besides these, the books of Job and of Solomon, and of the sixteen prophets. But when there have been two lessons severally read,
let some other person sing the hymns of David, and let the people join at the conclusions of the verses. Afterwards let our Acts be read, and the Epistles of Paul our fellow-worker, which he sent to the churches under the conduct of the Holy Spirit; and afterwards let a deacon or a presbyter read the Gospels, both those which I Matthew and John have delivered to you, and those which the fellow-workers of Paul received and left to you, Luke and Mark. And while the Gospel is read, let all the presbyters and deacons, and all the people, stand up in great silence; for it is written: "Be silent, and hear, O lsrael." (2) And again: "But do thou stand there, and hear." (3) In the next place, let the presbyters one by one, not all together, exhort the people, and the bishop in the last place, as being the commander.
Let the porters stand at the entries of the men, and observe them.
Let the deaconesses also stand at those of the women, like shipmen.
For the same description and pattern was both in the tabernacle of the testimony and in the temple of God.
(4) But if any one be found sitting out of his place, let him be rebuked by the deacon, as a manager of the foreship, and be removed into the place proper for him; for the Church is not only like a ship, but also like a sheepfold.
For as the shepherds place all the brute creatures distinctly, I mean goats and sheep, according to their kind and age, and still every one runs together, like to his like; so is it to be in the Church.
Let the young persons sit by themselves, if there be a place for them; if not, let them stand upright. But let those that are already stricken in years sit in order. For the children which stand, let their fathers and mothers take them to them.
Let the younger women also sit by themselves, if there be a place for them; but if there be not, let them stand behind the women. Let those women which are married, and have children, be placed by themselves; but let the virgins, and the widows, and the elder women, stand or sit before all the rest; and let the deacon be the disposer of the places, that every one of those that comes in may go to his proper place, and may not sit at the entrance.
In like manner, let the deacon oversee the people, that nobody may whisper, nor slumber, nor laugh, nor nod;
for all ought in the church to stand wisely, and soberly, and attentively, having their attention fixed upon the word of the Lord.
After this, let all rise up with one consent, and looking towards the east, after the catechumens and penitents are gone out, pray to God eastward, who ascended up to the heaven of heavens to the east; remembering also the ancient situation of paradise in the east, from whence the first man, when he had yielded to the persuasion of the serpent, and disobeyed the command of God, was expelled. As to the deacons, after the prayer is over, let some of them attend upon the oblation of the Eucharist, ministering to the Lord's body with fear. Let others of them watch the multitude, and keep them silent. But let that deacon who is at the high priest's hand say to the people, Let no one have any quarrel against another; let no one come in hypocrisy. Then let the men give the men, and the women give the women, the Lord's kiss. But let no one do it with deceit, as Judas betrayed the Lord with a kiss. After this let the deacon pray for the whole Church, for the whole world, and the several parts of it, and the fruits of it; for the priests and the rulers, for the high priest and the king, and the peace of the universe. After this let the high priest pray for peace upon the people, and bless them, as Moses commanded the priests to bless the people, in these words: "The Lord bless thee, and keep thee: the Lord make His face to shine upon thee, (1) and give thee peace." (2) Let the bishop pray for the people, and say: "Save Thy people, O Lord, and bless Thine inheritance, which Thou hast obtained with the precious blood of Thy Christ, and hast called a royal priesthood, and an holy nation." (3) After this let the sacrifice follow, the people standing, and praying silently; and when the oblation has been made, let every rank by itself partake of the Lord's body and precious blood in order, and approach with reverence and holy fear, as to the body of their king. Let the women approach with their heads covered, as is becoming the order of women; but let the door be watched, lest any unbeliever, or one not yet initiated, come in. (4)

The above context demonstrates that men and women sat in separate seating; the laity and all others were to be quiet while the Law was being read. In addition, notice that there is Scripture used to justify quietness during the service: Deuteronomy 5:31 and Deuteronomy 27:9. Deuteronomy 5:31 says, “31'(AD)But as for you, stand here by Me, that I may speak to you all the commandments and the statutes and the judgments which you shall teach them, that they may observe them in the land which I give them to possess.'” (NASB) Deuteronomy 27:9 says, “9Then Moses and the Levitical priests spoke to all Israel, saying, "Be silent and listen, O Israel! This day you have become a people for the LORD your God.”

I’d like to add one final word on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. We are not told by Paul what reference in the Law he was thinking of, but there are some references to being quiet in the house of God: one would have been that there is a time to be silent, and a time to speak (Ecclesiastes. 3:7). Another good reference would come from Ecclesiastes 5:1-3:
“Guard your steps as you go to the house of God and DRAW NEAR TO LISTEN rather than to offer the sacrifice of fools…do not be hasty in word or impulsive in thought to bring up a matter in the presence of God. For God is in heaven and you are on the earth; therefore let your words be few” (Eccl. 5:1-2). Other references to silence in the Law would be Habakkuk 2:20, Zephaniah 1:7, and Zechariah 2:13. I will provide these below:
(a) Habakkuk 2:20—“But the LORD is in His holy temple. LET ALL THE EARTH BE SILENT before Him.”
(b) Zephaniah 1:7—“BE SILENT BEFORE THE LORD GOD! For the day of the LORD is near, For the Lord has prepared a sacrifice, He has consecrated His priests.”
(c) Zechariah 2:13—“BE SILENT, ALL FLESH, BEFORE THE LORD; for He is aroused from His holy habitation.”

We will never know if Paul had a certain passage in mind when he referenced the Law; but there's one thing we can know-- Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 14 to restore order to a church that had taken a turn for the worst in their worship services.

Disruptive Corinthian Women?

“EGALITARIAN CLAIM 7.7: DISRUPTIVE CORINTHIAN WOMEN: WOMEN IN THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH WERE BEING NOISY AND DISRUPTIVE, AND THAT IS THE REASON 1 CORINTHIANS 14:34-35 TELLS WOMEN TO BE SILENT” (Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, 242).
“Answer 7.7a: There is no evidence inside or outside the Bible to prove this theory. The first thing to be said about this view is there are no facts to support it. There is nothing in 1 Corinthians that says women were being disruptive. And there is no evidence outside the Bible that women in the Corinthian church were disruptive. Some people have assumed this, but their position is just that: an assumption without evidence” (243).

This is one of the passages on women that continues to be debated among believers. For conservative evangelicals, this passage is authoritative because it lies within the New Testament canon and the canon of Scripture. However, the question is not “is it authoritative?” But “how is it authoritative?” In other words, being that Scripture is the authority on all matters of life, how does 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 pertain to the modern Christian life?

First, let’s look at 1 Corinthians 14 itself to see what the text can tell us.
34The women are to (BF)keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but (BG)are to subject themselves, just as (BH)the Law also says.
35If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. (1 Corinthians 14:34-35, New American Standard Bible).

Going back to Grudem’s theory, there is no evidence in the passage that shows there was disruption of any sort in the church at Corinth. However, once again, Grudem can be shown to lack quality exegesis as well. The above two verses have to be placed within their context, which means that we have to examine these two verses within the other verses in the chapter, verses both before and after the two above. Looking at verse 33, which comes right before this one, we read “FOR GOD IS NOT A GOD OF CONFUSION BUT OF PEACE, AS IN ALL THE CHURCHES OF THE SAINTS.” The word here for “confusion” in the Greek is “akatastasias,” meaning “disturbance, disorder, unruliness, or insurrection.” Grudem says that we can’t know of a disturbance at the church—but Paul uses a word in the Greek that means “disturbance” and “disorder”!

Next, look at verse 35. Paul seems to offer a solution to the disturbance by saying, “If they desire to ask anything, let them ask their husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.” Why would he have to tell them what wasn’t proper if they were already demonstrating it? When Paul was about to leave the elders at Ephesus after three years with them, he left them with these words: “…REMEMBER the words of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 20:35). Here Paul doesn’t use the word “remember,” or “to write the same things again is no trouble to me…” (Philippians 3:1). Paul doesn’t use any indicators of a reminder here. It seems then, that Paul is writing to address a specific situation at Corinth among the believers there.
Verses 39 and 40 end with this discussion of order vs. disorder: “Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues. But all things must be done PROPERLY AND IN AN ORDERLY MANNER.” Here once again, Paul is discussing order and propriety. The fact that he stresses this in the last few verses of 1 Corinthians 14 demonstrates Paul’s intention—his goal is to show them the PROPER way to have services. Notice that the “proper” manner of verse 40 matches what is “improper,” that of women speaking in the church, in verse 35.

According to Grudem: Craig Keener says in his book, “Paul, Women, and Wives,” that “What is almost certainly in view is that the women are interrupting the Scripture exposition with questions (Keener, 71)…what is the hard evidence for this? There is none. Keener bases much on Paul’s statement, ‘if there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home’ (1 Corinthians 14:35). But that does not prove they were already asking disruptive questions…it could just as well be Paul’s way of heading off any possible attempts to evade his command that women not speak out and judge prophecies in the church service” (Grudem, 243).
Notice that Grudem says “it could just as well be.” “It could be.” Grudem offers a possibility, like he accuses Keener of doing, but he offers no evidence for why his interpretation is correct. He doesn’t go back to the verses and show us why this is so. Grudem’s idea doesn’t make any sense—for example, if I walk in a room and no one is talking too loud, why am I gonna tell the audience to stop talking so loud? The only time that a person calls someone down about their voice is when the room gets “too loud,” because so many people are talking and nothing is getting heard. Paul is no different. His idea, that women were trying to disobey Paul’s command, is Grudem’s way of accusing women of something that Scripture does not say. Paul wrote earlier in the letter that “I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:1). The believers made great efforts to do what Paul had left as an example for them to do; this in fact contradicts Grudem’s response to Keener’s analysis.

In the next post, I will continue to confront Grudem’s attack of the egalitarian position on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.