Women's Silence: The Evidence
(by Elizabeth Ward)

 

Introduction

There are a small minority of churches which insist upon total women's silence, and many that bar women from taking any place of leadership and from teaching. In this study I will show that whilst those that bar women from teaching have very strong scriptural support for their claims (the only serious counter-arguments being cultural), those that insist on women's silence, and even those that bar women from non-teaching positions of leadership, are doing so against the clear evidence of scripture. I will look at the major passages used to support the women's silence view in the context of the whole of scripture. Taking verses out of context to support a pre-determined doctrine is the wrong way to approach Bible study: a text without a context is a pretext.

God has so designed it that in His word there are many verses which, if taken at face value, run contrary to the rest of scripture. We must let scripture interpret scripture. Some examples:

On the face of it, Mark 16.16 and Acts 2.38 say that Baptism is essential for salvation. We know it is not because of the evidence of the rest of the scriptures.

On the face of it, Matthew 25.31-46 say that salvation is by works. We know that it is not because of the evidence of the rest of scripture.

On the face of it, there are many verses that say that salvation can be lost. We believe it cannot be lost because of the evidence for eternal security which we believe to be more convincing.

On the face of it, 1 Timothy 2.15 says that women are only saved if they bear children, and then only if those children grow up to become practising Christians. We know this is not what the verse means because of overwhelming evidence from scripture to the contrary.

Firstly, what do we mean by women's silence? There seem to be various degrees of belief in this matter. Some churches believe that women may speak in gatherings that are of an informal nature to which the whole church is not invited. Some churches believe that women should never speak in any authoritative manner about the scriptures in the presence of men anywhere, with extreme cases even saying that women may not teach their own children, and may only teach other women about homemaking as in Titus 2:4-5. Some churches even maintain that a woman may not say Amen. Such churches take the view that women are in fact intellectually and spiritually inferior to men. These churches represent an extreme viewpoint which so flies in the face of scripture that I consider it unnecessary to even address it. I would rather address the more usual position that says that women's silence applies only to meetings of the church for some spiritual purpose (ie. not just part of the church and not a meeting for social purposes only).

However this position, where taken, is rarely honest enough to say "this is not a meeting of the whole church therefore women may take part" or "this meeting is not for any purpose we find in scripture but is merely a legal requirement therefore women may take part". For example, if a social event centered around food is not regarded as a meeting of the church, then it gives an ideal opportunity to allow a woman to give thanks for the meal, but in practice this would be unheard of because the prayer is regarded as something spiritual. But if the meeting is not a meeting of the church, and women are permitted to speak and pray in non-church settings, then a woman can give thanks. Meetings outside the church building for evangelistic purposes similarly should not fall under the category of "church meeting" but women are not allowed to pray at such meetings. The AGM is a legal requirement only and yet women are not allowed to speak at it. Furthermore, any man genuinely believing that women are spiritually and intellectually equal to men, and yet believing that women should be silent in church, should surely be looking for every opportunity to allow women to use their gifts, unless of course he believes that women cannot have vocal gifts, and therefore he should be looking for reasons to say "this is not a church meeting so please feel free to speak", not to say "this is a church meeting even though it does not look like one". Yet churches that believe in women's silence only in meetings of the whole church hardly ever have housegroups, even though these would be the ideal opportunity to allow women to use their gifts.

Exposition

The major passage used to support total women's silence is 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

On the face of it, this is a very clear command, and if there were no other passages addressing the subject, and no clear examples from scripture of women speaking in the church, then no question, Bible believing women would be silent in church. The only options would be to accept it at face value or to write it off as cultural. As it is, however, there are two points even within these two verses which deserve closer inspection.

These two questions need to be answered in order to understand what Paul is saying. We do not take one verse (however clear on the face of it) and make all the rest of scripture fit with that one verse, we take the whole of scripture and see the overall view, then look at how verses that do not fit the overall view of scripture fit in.

The most often quoted verse from the law used in support of this passage is Genesis 3:16

But this says nothing about silence. Miriam, under the law, was a prophetess (Exodus 15.20) and is described along with Moses and Aaron as a leader of the people in Micah 6.4:

It is impossible for prophecy to be silent, and it is impossible for it not to be authoritative. The authority of course comes from God ("thus saith the Lord") rather than from scholarship, but the prophet is in a position where his words are weighed against scripture by the whole company and only then acknowledged as being from God.

It can be argued that Deborah the prophetess was raised up only because there was no man available, but this is arguing from silence because the scripture gives no indication that this is the case. In any event, the same certainly cannot be said of Miriam and neither can it be said of Huldah:

2 Kings 22:14 So Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam, and Achbor, and Shaphan, and Asahiah, went unto Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe; (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the college;) and they communed with her.

They took Huldah's answer back to the king, and what happened next shows that there WERE male prophets available, yet God chose a woman to give an authoritative message to the king. How does this tie in with women being subject to men in spiritual matters?

2 Kings 23

Compare this to the question of Philip's daughters where, as all agree, God sent Agabus despite there being four prophetesses in the house. Are we to conclude that God changed his mind about headship between the OT and the NT? Or is it not more sensible to say that God chooses whomsoever he will at any time?

Now consider Anna, still under the old covenant:

Luke 2:

Although this must have been in the court of women, Anna addresses all present, including Simeon. How does this tie in with being silent and under obedience? Men did not even address women in public! Yet it takes place in the part where all worship.

During the ministry of Jesus we see some things happening which surely must have been unusual, to the extent that it is indeed most surprising that Jesus is never accused of immorality but only of drunkenness and gluttony. Women follow him around, at least one apparently even leaving her husband at home, since it is not likely that Herod's steward would have got time off to go following Jesus all round the country! Zebedee's wife may well have been in the same situation with Zebedee being a non-believer, or perhaps Zebedee had died by this time.

These women are present at times when the 70 are not mentioned:

Luke 8:

Women are the first witnesses of the resurrection, this despite the fact that their testimony was not valid in court!

Jesus talks with a woman at the well of Samaria, and he is not just passing the time of day! Men should not even have been talking to women in public!

Jesus was far ahead of his day in his dealings with women. Women in Israel at that time were oppressed to the extent that men prayed thanking God that he had not made them a gentile, a slave or a woman. Josephus described the woman as being "in all things inferior to the man" It was considered improper, even "obscene" to teach women the scriptures. In more observant Jewish settings, women could not even leave the household.

It seems to be very incongruous, then, that in the New Testament women should actually be allowed to do less than they had been under the old covenant. It is the wrong way round. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty (2 Cor 3.17). Not a whole lot of extra rules that were not there before!

Now to Acts. In Acts 1:14 we find the apostles and the women in prayer together (surely unheard of except possibly in the home, since men and women did not sit together in the synagogue). In verse 16 Peter is clearly addressing the men only about the choosing of the twelfth apostle to replace Judas. This indicates either or both of the following: the 12th apostle had to be male and only men were to vote.

Acts 2.1 says all, and in context surely this can only apply to either the 12 or to the whole company of 120 which included the women. If only the 12 then the question arises about the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel which specifically refers to both sexes, and the question also arises of when and where the other believers first received the Holy Spirit. Traditionally the church has seen all the believers as being together on the day of Pentecost. That only Peter and the other 11 spoke is not in dispute. No other men spoke, just the 11, so if any conclusion is to be drawn from that, the conclusion is one that will support the idea of ordination as much as the idea of women's silence.

Note that there is not one place in Acts where the believers are all gathered where the Holy Spirit is described as filling the men only, yet the evidence of the filling of the Holy Spirit in the scriptures is always vocal. If women were not taking audible part in these meetings, how was it known that they also were filled with the Holy Spirit? Yet there is no suggestion anywhere of the meetings of the church in Acts being for men only. Take for example Acts 4.31 or Acts 10.44-46. The council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 is clearly composed of men only (15.7) but this is a council of elders.

The issue of Philip's daughters has to be seriously addressed by anyone opposed to women speaking in church. That there were female prophets in the OT is beyond dispute. The prophecy of Joel specifies that the Holy Spirit will be given to both men and women "your sons and daughters shall prophesy" and here in Acts 19 we have the first clear example of this. There are a limited number of possibilities: the girls were prophesying only in their own home, they were prophesying in women's meetings in the church, they were prophesying to individual women, or they were prophesying in the church. We can quickly discard the idea that a women's meeting was involved since there is no indication at all in the Bible that such meetings ever existed anywhere. If they were prophesying only to individuals or to their own family then someone must have been bragging, either Philip was bragging about them or they were bragging to Luke themselves. I believe we can discard that idea without further discussion. It is clear that there is no hint of criticism of them in Acts: whatever they were doing, they were doing with the Lord's full approval and in the power of the Holy Spirit, and with men present (at least Luke and Paul) who were not part of their family, and surely they are there as an example for us. Although it is not totally conclusive, the fact that Agabus is sent into the house as well, and the reference to "they of that place" in verse 12 does strongly imply that the church actually met in Philip's house. Meeting in houses was after all the norm throughout the New Testament as can readily be seen from the salutations in Paul's epistles. In any event, the gift of prophecy, as with all the spiritual gifts, was for the building up of the whole church (Eph 4.12) and the idea that the gift was not to be used in the church is therefore nonsensical even before we get to the overwhelming evidence of 1 Corinthians.

Speaking of the salutations in the Pauline epistles, Paul commends women in many of the epistles. He commends Phebe, a servant (and the same word is used as for deacon), asks for Priscilla and Aquila to be greeted as his helpers (with Priscilla named first, also in 2 Tim 4). The church met in their house and yet still Priscilla was named first. Surely this would be unheard of in first century society and there would have to be a very good reason for it. Priscilla was involved in teaching Apollos (not just in making the tea while Aquila talked to him!). Junia is even in prison along with Paul: how did she get there if she was saying nothing to upset the authorities? Chloe either has substantial private means including slaves or else the church meets in her house. Since those of her house are reporting to Paul it seems more likely that part of the church meets there than that it is merely referring to her slaves, though this is not conclusive. Euodias and Syntyche laboured with Paul in the Gospel and it is stretching credulity to suggest that this did not involve any spiritual thing but merely making the tea for the Gospel meetings.

So we come to 1 Corinthians chapter 11. Now no-one that I have heard claims that the man in verse 4 is speaking anywhere other than in church, and since verse 5 is an exact parallel, we need very strong evidence to say that the women in verse 5 are not (or even should not be) speaking in the same place as the men. Bear in mind that this is not any form of teaching: prophecy takes the form "thus saith the Lord" and is directly inspired by the Holy Spirit. There is no NT evidence for women teaching except possibly in a small group or household situation. The head covering requirement, whether cultural or not, is only ever specified for women taking an audible part in the meeting. Though prayer can be silent, prophecy never is, and it is clear surely that the context of verses 4 and 5 is in church. Prayer in the church is audible, or at least includes audible prayer. The early church prayed constantly and it is unthinkable that their prayer meetings involved just one or two praying out loud and everyone else being silent. Men prayed out loud, and if men prayed out loud, then there is not the slightest grounds from these verses to suppose that women prayed any differently. The argument that they did must come from elsewhere. Women when taking an audible part were to cover their heads. Paul does not specify anywhere that they were to cover their heads under any other circumstance. In the culture of the day, respectable women would have heads covered all the time anyway, and so the logical conclusion is that these women were abusing their new found freedom in Christ and giving the enemies of the Gospel cause to speak against it as is also seen in Titus 2.5 Whether or not it is cultural, the point is that it is only specified as a requirement for women taking an audible part. If women were not allowed to take an audible part anyway then the question of head covering becomes moot.

1 Corinthians 12

In each case here "every man" does not refer to males but simply to everyone. There is not a hint here that only men may have the audible gifts. If men are the only ones given the audible gifts, then the only gifts left here for women apart from faith and the discerning of spirits are the sign gifts of healing and working of miracles. Now there is not one example on the NT of anyone other than the apostles being given these sign gifts (though I have no problem with believing that they were more general than that). Discerning of spirits requires a position of authority to be of any use; a woman who is not allowed to speak would have no use for the gift of the discerning of spirits since she would not be in a position to say "stop, there is something wrong here" in a meeting. Does the person believing in woman's silence then believe that the only gift ever given to women is that of faith? There are no others left! Besides, in Ephesians 4:11 and 1 Cor 12.28 there is a definite hierarchy of gifts given, with the Corinthians being urged to seek the higher gifts in verse 31. In each list, prophets come second on the list, above evangelists, pastors, teachers and the rest, second only to the apostles. Logically if women can be prophets (and it is absolutely clear that they can!) then it would seem logical that they can also be pastors and teachers, and we will have to look elsewhere for evidence to the contrary. If women were not allowed any of the audible gifts then surely Paul should have specified that only men were to covet the best gifts. In chapter 14 he urges them (all to whom the letter was read) to desire to prophesy. That is the highest gift after that of the apostle and he does not specify that only men are to desire it. If women are to desire it then surely they are to use it. And the purpose of all these gifts is for the building up of the church (Ephesians 4.12), not for private devotions.

Now to chapter 14. After telling the Corinthians (without any distinction between men and women) to desire to prophesy, Paul reiterates the purpose of prophecy in verse 4 "he that prophesieth edifieth the church". In verse 12 again he tells them to seek gifts that edify the church, hence prophecy rather than tongues, unless with the tongue there is an interpretation. Again we see that Philip's daughters were using a gift that was for use in the church, which is surely a good reason to assume that that is indeed where they used it! Verse 23 talks of the whole church (not just the men) coming together and all (not just the men) speaking in tongues. That Paul says is not right, but what he does want is shown in the very next verse; the whole church (not just the men) coming together and the whole church (not just the men) prophesying. He says "all". In verse 26 he specifies that "every one of you" has something audible to bring to the meeting. If we decide that verse is a criticism then we are going down the road of the one man ministry. There is no hint that Paul objects to every one of them having something to bring: all he is saying is that it must be done decently and in order. Still they may ALL prophesy (verse 31) that ALL may learn and ALL may be comforted. Three uses of "all" in one verse. It takes a big stretch to say that the word all is referring to different sets of people within the same verse, so are not women to learn or to be comforted?

So even within 1 Corinthians 14 itself there is overwhelming evidence for women speaking in the constant use of "all".

Paul asks the prophets to speak only two or three at a time, with the others weighing up what is said before moving on. And it is right here that the women's silence verse comes in! Now verse 34 sticks out like a sore thumb. It goes against the Old Testament, the radical treatment of women by Jesus in the Gospels, the book of Acts and even all of 1 Corinthians up to this point. It comes as a shock: no-one reading this epistle for the first time would expect that all of a sudden Paul would turn round and say "hang on, I mean men only!" But look at the context! Paul has just said several times that ALL are to take part audibly (unless we assume that the epistles were only read to men!) and now just in the context of judging the prophecies he says that women are to be silent. It is surely obvious that he has either just contradicted himself or in fact that he is referring only to a particular thing. He can't be referring to women not taking an audible part when he has just said several times that ALL may prophesy!

Surely the way women are being forbidden to speak is in a way that goes against them being under obedience. In other words, judging the words of a man who has just spoken. The Corinthians have just been told to weigh what is said, it is not unreasonable to suppose that such discussion would be audible in times before the canon of scripture was complete, after all, the church had to agree on what the lord was saying. And it is NOW that women are told to be silent, and to ask their husbands at home if they have any questions. Perhaps it was only their own husbands that they should not be judging (the Greek word can easily be translated as wives) but let us assume it is a general ban on women judging men. To make it apply to anything else works only when the verses are taken out of the context of the rest of scripture.

1 Timothy 2

This is the other passage used in support of women's silence. In reality however it is only a ban on women teaching. Verse 8 says that Paul wants men to pray everywhere in a certain manner (holy, without wrath and doubting) and verse 9 starts with "In like manner also" which could mean that women are to pray in the same way as men, but for women he is not so concerned about them doubting or being full of wrath but about the way they dress. In other words both sexes are to pray and Paul is specifying what are the temptations each sex will fall in to. Or perhaps he is only saying that he wants men to pray. He does not say he does not want women to pray. It could well be that, like today, women were readier to pray than men and it was men who needed the encouragement to open their mouths. We don't know. If he did not want women to pray, he had here the ideal opportunity to say so.

Women are to learn in silence. This however was radical: simply, women did not learn! Rabbis taught boys and men, and secular education in the Graeco-Roman world did not always include girls: the practice appears to have varied. Clearly a woman who could not herself read would not have been in a position to teach anyway. Paul uses arguments from creation, yet even if that were not an issue, from a practical point of view it would have been impossible for women to teach BUT Paul says, let them learn!

Paul says that women are not to teach and not to usurp authority over a man. Since there is clear evidence from the scriptures for women being in leadership roles (Miriam, Deborah, Huldah and many whom Paul salutes in his epistles), what does he mean? We need to consider the meaning of "usurp". Usurp is a strong word which has the sense of taking possession by force or assuming authority. It is not a word used when the person is legitimately in authority: the Queen is not usurping authority and neither are female politicians. They are put into authority either by right of succession or by the common will of the people. A woman who is put into a position of authority by a man or men or by the whole church is not a usurper. Modern versions soften this to "have authority" or "exercise authority". It is of note here that Paul says it is something he does not do, not that it is a command of God or something that must not be done. The curious reference to child bearing (with the straightforward reading of it being that women are only saved if they give birth to and raise godly children) must surely cause a problem here for any straightforward reading of the passage. It goes so far against the rest of the scriptures as to immediately brand any group that believes it literally as a cult, yet that is the straightforward meaning of what Paul says. Could there be something behind this in the church history of the time that sheds some light on a curious passage?

Conclusion

In summary, the evidence for women's silence simply does not stand up when the whole of scripture is looked at. There is evidence also from scripture for women being in positions of leadership. The only thing they are barred from in scripture is teaching in a church setting, and there is strong evidence that they were not in a position of decision making for the church. Those are the scriptural limits, and whether they are for ever or simply cultural is another issue. What is absolutely clear is that the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of women being allowed at least to pray and prophesy in church.

___________________________________________________________________________________