A couple of weeks ago, I shared a post detailing my journey from complementarianism to egalitarianism. In that post, I mentioned that I wasn’t intending to offer a comprehensive defense of my position, as that would require more space than a blog would allow. Instead, I offered readers an annotated bibliography with resources from all sides of the debate, so that they could explore the topic for themselves as they desired. Since posting, I’ve had several complementarian friends reach out to me to discuss the issue further. In virtually all of these discussions, two passages have been repeatedly brought up: 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 and 1 Timothy 2:9–15. (This is unsurprising, as these are the only two passages in the NT that appear to limit a woman’s participation in the worship assembly.) Because of the specific interest my complementarian friends have in these two texts, I decided to write two more blog posts detailing my interpretation of each of them. In this first post, I offer my interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:34–35; and in the second, I will offer my interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9–15. These posts are not intended to function as a comprehensive defense of my position; they are simply intended to offer insight into how I read these two challenging texts as an egalitarian.
Let’s begin, then, with 1 Cor 14:34–35:
The women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but are to submit themselves, as the law also says. If they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home, since it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (CSB)
A Passage that Demands Qualification
Every Christian I’ve ever met has intuitively understood that these words from Paul demand qualification. Even the most conservative interpreters today—whether they acknowledge it or not—do not read Paul’s words as a total, unqualified prohibition. For example, Everett Ferguson, an historian within my own tradition (Churches of Christ), has argued that women are permitted to speak in the assembly if it is in the context of singing, confessing faith at baptism, or joining the congregational “amen” after a prayer.[1] These exceptions are not made explicit in 1 Cor 14:34–35—and if Paul’s prohibition of women speaking in the church is truly unqualified, then it must necessarily forbid “speaking to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” (Eph 5:19). However, Ferguson is correct to recognize that Paul’s exhortation to sing is given to both men and women, and that it is applicable “at all times”—including in the worship assembly (Eph 5:19–20).[2] Therefore, the prohibition in 14:34–35 cannot be total and unqualified. Paul would not so blatantly contradict himself.[3]
Moreover, many interpreters recognize that Paul’s exhortation to sing in Ephesians 5 is not the only text that sits in tension with 1 Cor 14:34–35. An acontextual, face-value reading of 14:34–35 also contradicts things Paul says elsewhere in this very letter. Only three chapters before the prohibition, Paul authorizes women to audibly pray and prophesy with their heads covered in a mixed assembly (11:5); and only three verses before the prohibition, he tells both men and women, “you can all prophesy one by one, so that everyone may learn and everyone may be encouraged” (14:31). If Paul’s prohibition is unqualified, then it directly contradicts what he has just said in the preceding verses about the agency of women to pray and prophesy in the assembly.[4]
Prophecy is no small exception, either. For Paul, prophecy is one of the greatest gifts (14:1, 5, 24–25). In 1 Cor 12:28, he ranks it above teaching, and second only to apostleship. The person who prophesies “speaks to people for their strengthening, encouragement, and consolation” (14:3). Unlike tongue-speaking, prophecy has a teaching function; it instructs/catechizes (14:19). People “learn” from it and are encouraged by it (14:31). Prophecy convicts and calls others in the assembly to account (14:24–25). It can also incorporate scriptural interpretation. For example, the book of Revelation is a transcribed prophecy (Rev 1:3; 22:7, 10, 18–19), and it constantly engages with and interprets the Old Testament. While prophecy is distinct from preaching, the functional overlap is apparent; they both strengthen, encourage, console, teach, convict, interpret, and call sinners to account.[5] Prophecy played a vitally important and even didactic role in the early church—and throughout the NT, women are recognized and affirmed as prophets without apology or qualification (Luke 2:36–38; Acts 2:17–18; cf. Joel 2:28–32; Acts 21:9; 1 Cor 11:5; 14:31).[6]
But if Paul expects women to sing, pray, and even prophesy in the assembly, why does he silence women in verses 34–35? Again, for Paul to be consistent, this passage demands qualification. The question thus becomes, How should this passage be qualified? What kind(s) of speech does Paul have in mind when he offers this prohibition? Several potential solutions to this puzzle have been offered. We’ll consider the three most popular in turn.
Option 1: These Are Not Paul’s Words.
The argument that these are not Paul’s words takes two forms. First, some scholars argue from text-critical evidence that these verses are not original to Paul, but are instead a scribal interpolation. That is, they were added to the margins of the text by an early scribe during the process of manuscript transmission. The primary evidence for this is a discrepancy over where the verses are located in the various manuscript traditions. Interestingly, the Western manuscript tradition places verses 34–35 after verse 40, but non-Western manuscript traditions never do so. For reasons I cannot detail here, Gordon Fee believes the most probable explanation for this discrepancy is that the verses were added by a scribe to the margins of the text, and later copyists differed over where in the passage to insert them.[7] More recently, Philip Payne has published research on the distigme-obelos symbol that marks these two verses in Codex Vaticanus B (dated early fourth century). He offers a robust and technical argument that this symbolic marking is a scribal indication of the text being added/unoriginal.[8] While these arguments are significant and worthy of consideration, I do not think they are sufficient to overturn the rough consensus that verses 34–35 are authentically Pauline. Every New Testament manuscript we possess contains these verses—even the earliest ones. Additionally, many of the words Paul uses in the verses (“silent,” “speak,” “submit,” and “learn”) are used throughout chapter 14—demonstrating a consistent pattern of speech.
Second, some scholars suggest that verses 34–35 are a quotation of Corinthian men who are opposed to women praying and prophesying in the assembly. Paul quotes these men in order to refute them in v. 36. In this rendering, the Greek particle that begins v. 36, ē, is used as an exclamatory adversative, like “What!” or “Nonsense!”[9] Some argue further that this helps to explain Paul’s use of an accusative masculine plural in v. 36 (monous); he is addressing the group of men that he’s just quoted.[10] If this rendering is correct, the full passage reads something like this:
“The women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but are to submit themselves, as the law also says. If they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home, since it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”
What! Did the word of God originate from you, or did it come to you men only?
In my estimation, this suggestion is more plausible than the first. Paul quotes and refutes opponents elsewhere in his letters, including in 1 Corinthians (e.g., 6:12–14; 7:1–5). But while it can’t be ruled out altogether, there are several weaknesses with this view. First, none of Paul’s other Corinthian quotations are quite as long as this one. Second, this passage lacks many of the rhetorical flourishes that typically accompany Paul’s correction of an imaginary interlocutor.[11] Third, this view requires a rendering of the particle ē in verse 36 that is rather unusual and unprecedented in the New Testament.[12] Fourth, as was mentioned above, Paul uses several key words in these two verses that are used elsewhere throughout the chapter (“silent,” “speak,” “submit,” and “learn”). This pattern of speech makes it unlikely that the words in verses 34–35 are not Paul’s own. For these reasons and more, it’s best to proceed as though these words are not an interpolation or quotation, but authentically Pauline.
Option 2: Paul is Prohibiting Women from Evaluating Prophecy.
This explanation of verses 34–35 has gained currency among many prominent complementarians—including D.A. Carson, Wayne Grudem, Andreas Köstenberger, and Adam Hensley.[13] According to this view, Paul does not silence women in all contexts, but in the sole context of judging prophecies. In the paragraph preceding verses 34–35 (vv. 29–33), Paul requires that the Corinthians carefully weigh prophecies as they are presented. It is argued, then, that Paul must be presuming the same context when he silences women in verses 34–35. Hensley maintains that prophecy evaluation is the closest contextual referent for the word “speak” (laleō) in verses 34–35.[14]
Proponents of this view claim that it resolves the tension with 11:5 because evaluating prophecy is distinct from prophecy itself. But why would Paul prohibit women from prophecy evaluation? Carson argues that it is a matter of authority. Citing 1 Tim 2:11ff, he contends, “Paul refused to permit any woman to enjoy a church-recognized teaching authority over men…and the careful weighing of prophecy falls under that magisterial function.”[15] For this reason, Paul requires women to be in submission, “as the law also says” (v. 34). While this view has some explanatory power, it is not ultimately convincing. Such a reading faces several complications. I’ll note five below.
First, as Craig Keener points out, the evaluation of prophecy in v. 29 is likely a reference to “discernment of spirits,” a spiritual gift mentioned in 12:10 (the two are cognate terms). Yet nothing in chapter 12 suggests that this gift was reserved for men only.[16] Second, there is no indication that Paul is addressing only men when he gives instructions for prophecy evaluation in verses 29–33. To the contrary, 14:29 implies that everyone who exercises the gift of prophecy is also expected to exercise the gift of discernment.[17] Third, if prophecy evaluation is what Paul has in view, it is odd that he uses the verb laleō (“speak”) as a signifier rather than the verb diakrinō (“discern/judge”); the word diakrinō would have been much clearer, and Paul uses it in verse 29.[18] Fourth, nothing in the text indicates that prophecy evaluation is more authoritative than prophecy. As was noted above, Paul ranks prophecy above teaching and second only to apostleship (12:28)—and prophecy itself instructs and carries authority. Complementarians speculate not only that Paul was silencing evaluative prophecy, but that he was silencing it because it functioned as an illegitimate form of authoritative teaching. This logic is entirely absent from the text; and Paul’s broader concern in the passage seems to be with order rather than authority.[19] Fifth and finally, after silencing the women, Paul clarifies that if there is something they want to learn, they should ask their husbands at home. (v. 35). Asking questions in order to learn doesn’t sound like the behavior of a woman exercising illegitimate teaching authority. Keener rightly notes that “there is little reason to associate ‘asking questions’ here with challenging prophecies.”[20] For these reasons, it is unlikely that Paul is prohibiting women from evaluating prophecy in verses 34–35.
Option 3: Paul is Prohibiting Women from Disruptive Question-Asking.
A third option represents my own view: Paul is prohibiting disorderly speech in verses 34–35, particularly in the form of disruptive question-asking. Again, if the passage must be qualified, it is important to understand how it is qualified. And to understand how it is qualified, it is important to consider how Paul himself qualifies it. John Mark Hicks rightly notes that only “one characterization is explicit. ‘If they want to learn something, they should ask their own husbands at home.’”[21]
Before I press on with my argument, I want to zoom out and offer some context. It should be noted that in 1 Cor 11–14, Paul’s broader concern is with order and decency in the worship assembly (14:40), out of respect for the God of peace (14:33): 11:2–16 prescribes appropriate attire for men and women who are leading worship; 11:17–34 addresses the problem of gospel-subverting social divisions occuring during the Lord’s Supper; 12:1–30, 14:12-33 addresses the orderly use of charismatic gifts in the assembly; and 12:31–14:1 “provides a centering device in the middle of this discussion, focusing on love as the proper context in which worship should be conducted.”[22] Verses 34–35 should not be abstracted from this context, but should be read in light of it.
Anthony Thiselton rightly notes that in 14:26ff, Paul is offering an “ethic of controlled speech”—in keeping with ancient “traditions of speech-ethics.” [23] Such traditions were extremely common in the ancient world,[24] and were characterized by “a concern with personal self-control, speaking in turn, and order with firm boundaries as opposed to shouting, talking all at once, and lack of self-discipline in speech.”[25] In Corinth, a lack of ‘controlled speech’ is contributing to disorder in the worship assembly, so Paul sets out to redress the issue. In verses 26–35, he silences three groups causing disorder in the assembly. In each case, the group is identified and told to be silent, and some qualification is given.
First, Paul silences the tongue-speakers (14:26–28). Those who speak in tongues should be silent if there is no one to interpret; otherwise, no one will understand the tongues, and the body of Christ will not be built up and edified. Second, Paul silences prophets (14:30–31); those who prophesy should do so one at a time, so that “everyone may learn and everyone may be encouraged”. Again, the emphasis is on order and edification. Third, Paul silences women (14:34–35). As was noted above, the only kind of speech that Paul explicitly identifies in this prohibition is question-asking (v. 35). As Keener notes, “Unless Paul changes the subject from women’s silent submission (v. 34) to their asking questions (v. 35a) and then back again (v. 35b), this must be the issue he is addressing.”[26]
The larger context of these verses suggests that these inquisitive women are somehow violating Paul’s ethic of controlled speech and disrupting the order of the worship service.[27] Paul’s verbatim repetition of key terms like “speak,” “be silent,” and “submit” in verses 34–35 suggests that they should be interpreted in light of their previous usages.[28] In 14:26ff, he is not concerned with all forms of speaking, but with disorderly speech; we should therefore assume he is referencing disorderly speech in verses 34–35, as well. Further, his repeated commands to be silent and to submit in verse 34 are constrained by verses 28 and 32 to refer to the same kind of silence and submission he requires of tongue-speakers and prophets—i.e., conditional silence and submission to the order of the worship service.[29]
It is often assumed that Paul is asking the women to submit themselves to men in general (or to their husbands specifically); but while this view is possible, it is not likely. Paul does not identify a personal object of submission in this passage—and he grounds his call to submission in “the law.” Interestingly, the Hebrew Bible contains no explicit command for women, or even wives, to submit to men.[30] Some suggest that Paul is referencing a principle of male authority from the creation order in Gen 1–2; but this is not a firmly established principle, and Paul’s overarching concern in this passage is with order rather than authority. The Old Testament repeatedly witnesses to the principle of order vis-à-vis chaos (e.g., Gen 1–2),[31] and to the principle of silence before God and His word (e.g., Deut 27:9–10; Job 33:31–33; Isa 66:2; Hab 2:20).[32] It could be that Paul has a principle like this in mind. In any case, given 1) Paul’s broader concern for order, and 2) the rhetorical function of repeated key terms (e.g., “be silent,” “submit”), it is likely that he is calling both prophets (v. 32) and women (v. 34) to the same kind of submission—that is, submission to the proper order of worship (which is ultimately submission to Holy Spirit).[33]
Even so, we are left with more questions. In what way is question-asking disorderly? And why is the issue specific to women? While we cannot be certain about the details of the situation in Corinth, Keener has offered some plausible explanations. Interrupting lectures with questions was commonplace in ancient Mediterranean culture; the custom is identified in the writings of Plutarch, Aulus Gellius, and Seneca, as well as in the Talmudic literature.[34] Nevertheless, this practice had certain standards of etiquette attached to it; and two in particular are relevant to women. First, it was considered inappropriate to ask “unlearned” questions, or questions that revealed a certain level of ignorance on a particular topic.[35] Women in the ancient world were particularly inclined to ask “unlearned” questions because they were, on average, less educated than men, with far fewer opportunities to train in Scripture.[36] Second, in the culture of Paul’s day, there was shame associated with a woman directly addressing a man who was not her own husband.[37] (This may explain Paul’s injunction for women to direct their questions to their own husbands at home.) If the women in Corinth were in violation of either of these cultural standards, it could explain Paul’s characterization of their speech as “shameful” or “disgraceful” in verse 35.
If Keener’s analysis is correct, Paul’s concern in these verses is two-fold:
On the one hand, he was trying to deal with a question of social disorder within worship by asking the lesser educated women who were disrupting worship with irrelevant questions to save these questions for later. Presumably, the husbands, being more educated, could answer these questions for them later. Second, in the semi-public setting of early Christian worship, Paul is concerned to avoid public “shaming” in the eyes of outsiders, in a culture in which women were expected to be decorous in public.[38]
It is also be worth noting that Paul uses a definite article before “women” (“the women”), which may indicate that he has a specific subgroup of women in mind. Because reference is made specifically to husbands in verse 35, this subgroup may consist of only married women. While this is not certain, it is a very real possibility. Additionally, the word Paul uses for “speak” in verse 35 (lalein) is in the present infinitive form, which may indicate that the women were speaking continuously or incessantly. The word he uses for “ask” (eperōtatōsan) has an intensifier, which may indicate a persistent kind of asking.[39] It is not difficult to imagine how incessant and belligerent question-asking from this group of women might have disrupted the peace and order of the worship assembly.
With all of these factors in view, one can start to see why Paul—who was primarily concerned with order and peace in the worship assembly—might have seized this opportunity to silence the question-asking women of Corinth.
Conclusion
I have established that Paul’s prohibition of women speaking in 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 demands qualification; otherwise, Paul blatantly contradicts himself. Elsewhere, Paul encourages women to sing, pray, and even prophesy in the worship assembly. Throughout the New Testament, prophecy is portrayed as a particularly important gift, with didactic and authoritative functions. It would make no sense for Paul to totally and permanently silence women in light of this broader context.
Nevertheless, I have also made the argument that these verses are original to Paul, as there is insufficient evidence that they are a scribal insertion or a quotation from an opponent. I have also ruled out the possibility that Paul is silencing evaluative prophecy specifically. While this is a popular theory, there are several interpretive challenges it cannot overcome. I have suggested, instead, that Paul is silencing a group of women (wives?) from disorderly speech that takes the form of disruptive question-asking. While the details remain unspecified, this incessant question-asking is potentially informed by a general disparity in education between men and women in the ancient world. Moreover, in Paul’s cultural context, women interrogating men other than their husbands could have brought shame on the church. In any case, Paul encourages the women to continue pursuing their educational discipleship at home.
Granted, Paul is not quite as specific in this passage as I’d like him to be. His audience in Corinth would have been particularly familiar with the situation and context, so extreme specificity wouldn’t have been necessary for his purposes. Unfortunately, Paul’s lack of specificity means that whether you are a complementarian or egalitarian, the nature of the disruptive speech that Paul has in view in verses 34–35 is necessarily inferential. That said, the view for which I’ve advocated above has the advantage of relying on the only explicit qualification Paul offers in the text: question-asking (v. 35). [40] Furthermore, it can be supported by the immediate, canonical, and cultural contexts of the passage. For these reasons, I believe it to be a responsible handling of this challenging text.
[1] Everett Ferguson, Women in the Church: Biblical and Historical Perspectives, 2nd ed. (Abilene: ACU Press, 2015), chap. 1, “Congregational Activities,” para. 2; chap. 3, “Some Practical Applications,” para. 3.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Craig S. Keener, “Learning in the Assemblies: 1 Corinthians 14:34–35,” in Discovering Biblical Equality: Biblical, Theological, Cultural, and Practical Perspectives, 3rd ed., ed. Ronald W. Pierce, Cynthia Long Westfall, and Christa L. McKirland (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2021), 146: “Any church that permits women to participate in congregational singing recognizes that Paul was not demanding what a face-value reading of his words seems to imply.”
[4] Some escape this tension by proposing that 1 Cor 11:2–16 speaks of a different setting than the worship assembly (e.g., Ferguson, Women, chap. 1, “1 Corinthians 11:2–16,” para. 11). But even complementarian scholars have largely discarded this view. E.g., D. A. Carson offers seven counterarguments in “‘Silent in the Churches’: On the Role of Women in 1 Corinthians 14:33b–36,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton: Crossway, 2021), 186–87. His final argument is especially significant: “the universality of the promise of Joel, cited at Pentecost, that the Holy Spirit would be poured out on men and women such that both would prophesy as constituent members of the community of the new covenant, seems somehow less than transparent if the women may display their inheritance only outside the gathered messianic community.”
[5] See Cynthia Long Westfall, Paul and Gender: Reclaiming the Apostle’s Vision for Men and Women in Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2016), 235–36; Preston Sprinkle, From Genesis to Junia: An Honest Search for What the Bible Really Says About Women in Leadership (Colorado Springs: David C Cook, 2026), 151–70.
[6] Female prophets were also prominent in ancient Israel. For a helpful survey, see Wilda C. Gafney, Daughters of Miriam: Women Prophets in Ancient Israel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008).
[7] Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, rev. ed., New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2014), 784.
[8] Philip B. Payne, “Vaticanus Distigme-obelos Symbols Marking Added Text, Including 1 Corinthians 14.34-35,” New Testament Studies 63, no. 4 (2017): 604–25. See also Philip B. Payne, The Bible vs. Biblical Womanhood: How God’s Word Consistently Affirms Gender Equality (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2023), 79–98.
[9] Gilbert G. Bilezikian, Beyond Sex Roles: What the Bible Says about a Woman’s Place in Church and Family, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 233–34. See also Lucy Peppiatt, Women and Worship at Corinth: Paul’s Rhetorical Arguments in 1 Corinthians (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2015), 108–111.
[10] Peppiatt, Women, 111.
[11] Craig S. Keener, Paul, Women, and Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1992), 130–31. See also Carson, “Silent,” 189–90.
[12] Carson, “Silent,” 190–91.
[13] See, for example, Ibid., 194–97; Wayne Grudem, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth: An Analysis of More Than One Hundred Disputed Questions (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012), 232–35; Andreas J. Köstenberger and Margaret E. Köstenberger, God’s Design for Man and Woman: A Biblical-Theological Survey (Wheaton: Crossway, 2014), 179–80; and Adam D. Hensley, “Σιγάω, Λαλέω, and Ὑποτάσσω in 1 Corinthians 14:34 in Their Literary and Rhetorical Context,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 55, no. 2 (2012): 343–64. Egalitarian formulations of this argument also exist, but are far less common. E.g., Ben Witherington III, Women in the Earliest Churches, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 59 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 101–04.
[14] Hensley, “Σιγάω,” 350–53.
[15] Carson, “Silent,” 195.
[16] Keener, Paul, 136.
[17] Sprinkle, From Genesis, 227–28; Keener, Paul, 136; William G. Witt, Icons of Christ: A Biblical and Systematic Theology for Women’s Ordination (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2021), 154.
[18] Sprinkle makes a similar point in From Genesis, 228.
[19] Witt, Icons, 154. Grudem, Carson, and others point to 1 Timothy 2:12 to support their claim; but as Witt notes here, 1 Timothy had not yet been written and the Corinthians would not have been familiar with it. Moreover, this interpretive maneuver too confidently presupposes the meaning of 1 Timothy 2:12—a passage fraught with interpretive difficulties.
[20] Keener, Paul, 136.
[21] John Mark Hicks, Women Serving God: My Journey in Understanding Their Story in the Bible (Nashville: John Mark Hicks, 2020), 80. Emphasis original.
[22] Witt, Icons, 149.
[23] Anthony Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 1131–32. Thiselton is largely building on the work of William R. Baker in Personal Speech-Ethics in the Epistle of James, WUNT 2/68 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995). Westfall borrows this insight from Thiselton and Baker in Paul, 236.
[24] ‘Controlled speech’ was a prevalent ethical concern in the Old Testament, intertestamental literature, rabbinic literature, Graeco-Roman texts, Philo, and parts of the New Testament. See Thiselton, Corinthians, 1131; and Baker, Speech-Ethics.
[25] Westfall, Paul, 236.
[26] Keener, Paul, 139. He also notes that “Paul explicitly bases his injunction to ask questions privately on his demand for silence (1 Cor 14:35, ‘for’).” In other words, some disruptive form of question-asking is almost certainly at the heart of Paul’s concern.
[27] Alan G. Padgett, As Christ Submits to the Church: A Biblical Understanding of Leadership and Mutual Submission (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 73.
[28] Sprinkle, From Genesis, 229–31.
[29] Westfall, Paul, 237. It should be noted that it is not uncommon for Paul to use unqualified words as shorthand for words that are already explained in context. This happens elsewhere in this letter, as when Paul references “the day” in 1 Cor 3:12–13 without qualifying that he is talking about “the day of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1:8). See Sprinkle, From Genesis, 234.
[30] Genesis 3:16 comes closest; yet it does not describe the divine ideal, but a distortion of it resulting from the fall. In reference to the view that Paul has Gen 3:16 in mind, F. F. Bruce rightly notes, “This is unlikely, since in MT and LXX Gen 3:16 speaks of a woman’s instinctive inclination…towards her husband, of which he takes advantage so as to dominate her.” See F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, NCBC (London: Oliphants, 1971), 136.
[31] Thiselton, Corinthians, 1153–54. Given the overwhelming context of order in the passage, Thiselton argues that “keep their ordered place” is a better rendering of the Greek text than “be in submission.”
[32] Padgett, As Christ, 74.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Keener, “Learning,” 151.
[35] Ibid., 154.
[36] Ibid., 155. Westfall also highlights educational disparity as a potential factor, but makes much more of the house church context and the role of women as table hosts. She argues that this hosting role might have created disproportionate opportunities for disruptive chatter. See Westfall, Paul, 230–40.
[37] Keener, “Learning,” 151.
[38] Witt, Icons, 151. Witt is summarizing Keener’s view in this passage, and I found it to be a helpful and concise summary.
[39] Both of these points are raised in Hicks, Women, 80–81.
[40] Witt makes the same suggestion in Icons, 152.
Jared Dale Greer 
Leave a comment