Bridget Jack Meyers

I have to confess, I’ve always been quite baffled by complementarian use of 1 Cor. 14:34-36. If taken as a restriction Paul is universally placing on women, then it is far too restrictive to be useful even to complementarians. “Silent in the churches” would not mean women cannot preach and teach in the assembly; it would also mean no praying, no prophesy, no tongues, no singing hymns, and no token pretty girl singing back-up for the otherwise all-male worship band.

While the “Paul was citing an opponent who was forbidding women to speak” interpretation is one possibility, I’ve also always appreciated the argument set forth by Carroll D. Osburn in Essays on Women in the Earliest Christianity Vol. 1. He argues that there are grammatical clues in the text to indicate that Paul is directing his comments at women who are speaking out of order and interrupting the service with questions. He says:

“This verb ????? always takes its precise meaning from the context. In v. 28, it refers to ’silent meditation.’ In vv. 23 and 27, it refers to ’speaking in tongues.’ In v. 19 it refers to ‘cognitive prayer.’ Here in vv. 34-35, however, there is no clear contextual indication of what is meant, but there is a significant grammatical indication. … Here the two present infinitives make it clear that the ‘ongoingness’ of the ’speaking’ is in focus. … ?????? should be taken here to mean [the women] were ‘piping up,’ giving free rein to ‘irresistible impulses’ to ask question after question either of the speaker or of their husbands, creating chaos in the assembly by interfering with communication.” (Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity: Vol. 1, p. 232-233)

As I see it, the one interpretation of this passage that really doesn’t work is the complementarian one, which tries to wrest “be silent in the churches” into “women can’t preach or teach in the assembly, but they can do all the other kinds of talking.” Talk about eisegesis.