Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Continued
   1. Answering Complementarian Objections: Mike Winger’s Objections to the Question-Asking View
      1. Response to Objection 1:
      2. Response to Objection 2:
      3. Response to Objection 3:
      4. Response to Objection 4:
   2. Answering Complementarian Objections: Were Women Judging Prophecies Rudely?
      1. There Are Women Prophets Named in the New Testament and Old Testament
      2. The Strongest Case for the Judging Prophecy View
      3. Paul Is Not Restricted To Immediate Context
      4. Learning, Not Prophecy
   3. Answering Complementarian Objections: Why did Paul justify submission using “the law”?
      1. Submission Does Not Imply Male-Only Leadership
      2. Men Were Also Commanded to be Silent
      3. Principles and Practices in Their Proper Place
3. Summary
4. Footnotes

Introduction

In part 3 of this series we took a look at why we need to study this issue, the potential for women to be damaged and hurt, and a basic understanding of how Egalitarian scholars and Complementarian scholars understand 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.

Please read the first part before continuing!

This article examines more closely the various Complementarian objections to the Egalitarian viewpoint, as well as other reasons why they think that Paul was prohibiting women from judging prophecies.

Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Continued

Women 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. (1 Cor. 14:34-35)

Last article, I mentioned how I think that the strongest Egalitarian understanding of these verses is that Paul was primarily addressing women asking too many questions and disrupting the church gathering because historical sources show us that it would have been culturally shameful for a woman to ask “unlearned” questions. Paul was keenly aware of how churches should accommodate their surrounding culture so as to not damage the witness of the gospel, and he also connected asking questions with speaking in church (v. 35).

Answering Complementarian Objections: Mike Winger’s Objections to the Question-Asking View

Mike Winger has arguably the most popular Bible Youtube channel. He has compiled a massive YouTube playlist highlighting the broad range of various viewpoints on women in ministry. I’ve summarized as best I can Mike’s objections to the “question-asking” view (sorry Mike if I’ve misrepresented you):

1. Just because women may have less education doesn’t mean the men had more education, because new converts both didn’t know anything about God and Scripture, which is what was being taught. So it wouldn’t make sense for Paul to tell women to ask their husbands to learn at home, because their husbands may not have known the answers.

2. The Corinthian church had already heard Paul’s teaching for 1.5 years, how can we say that they weren’t educated and still needed to be silenced?

3. Why did Paul single out only uneducated women, instead of uneducated men? Surely there were uneducated men. Moreover, Paul must be implying that all women were uneducated. As D.A. Carson says, “And since Paul’s rule operates in all the churches (verses 33b-34), it would be necessary to hold that all first-century Christian women were uneducated—which is palpable nonsense.”¹

4. Asking questions is not related to being “in submission”. Judging prophecies hastily is more about being in submission.

Response to Objection 1:

Let’s get statistical here. Based on the historical evidence Craig Keener has given us, who is more likely to have have had more education: a Corinthian man or woman? Obviously, a man is more likely. But Mike seems to overlook the historical evidence; he even goes so far as to say that men wouldn’t have had any educational advantage over their wife if they both didn’t know anything about Jesus.² Mike seems to think that general education has no impact on listening to a lecture, which to me doesn’t make any sense.

True, a couple who both don’t know anything about Jesus will start with the same level of knowledge. But wouldn’t someone who has had more formal educational training be able to learn at a faster rate? Won’t they know more vocabulary and geography for example? Wouldn’t these women be prone to ask even more questions, now that they finally get to have the opportunity for specialized education?

An uneducated wife would at least know that her husband could probably understand some things better than she could. Is it unreasonable to think, for example, that a woman would ask basic questions about a lecture she heard at church, questions about geography (where is Samaria?), vocabulary (what is a Pharisee?), etc.? So to me this objection carries no weight.

Response to Objection 2:

Mike’s second objection misses the fact that there could be a lot of new believers that he was addressing, and we don’t know how many of the original members of Corinth sat under his teaching and for how long. In order for this to be a valid objection, we’d have to have a record of who has been in the church and for how long, but we don’t. The early church was exploding in growth, so I imagine there were probably hundreds if not thousands of new believers in Corinth. Mike seems to think that there was a fixed number of members of the Corinthian church. In fact, the very fact Paul needs to remind them of a universal church practice might mean there were some who needed to hear it again.

Response to Objection 3:

Yes, there were probably men who were uneducated, but the fact still remains that it was probably more offensive for a woman to ask questions than it was for a man, and Paul was concerned not just about the church service, but how the church service would appear to outsiders.

Second, Mike quotes D.A. Carson. Now I just want to say, that I respect Mike and D.A. Carson’s work! But, I will say, D.A. Carson’s quote is surprisingly illogical - isn’t it possible to have a universal rule that applies in all churches, but doesn’t apply to every person? Carson thinks the question-asking view requires that Paul thought all women were uneducated. This is quite a logical leap, and is oversimplifying the egalitarian view to make it easier to attack, in other words, he’s creating a straw man argument.

When Paul said that “I desire then that in every place men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or quarreling.” (1 Tim. 2:8), presumably some men had some anger and quarreling. But are we to adopt Carson’s logic, and then conclude that every man in all the churches was lifting up holy hands with anger and quarreling? On Carson’s logic, we would have to, which would mean even the elders must have been quarreling, which would contradict Paul’s qualifications for an elder. Carson’s logic is severely flawed.

If I’m a business owner of 1000 employees, and I give an order to all my franchises that all the men need to make sure they are wearing cologne at work, I’m not thinking to myself, I know without a doubt that zero men in my massive company are wearing cologne, unless I’ve surveyed every single male employee. But that’s just not how organizations work. I’m giving the order because, in general, the men aren’t wearing cologne. Is it possible that some men were wearing cologne already? Yes! In the same way, Paul can give a general prohibition without being forced to admit that he only gives prohibitions when 100% of the group needs to hear it. To me, it would be “palpable nonsense” to require Paul to think this way.

Finally, Paul many times gave general prohibitions or statements that were not meant to be taken to their logical extreme:

• “As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry.” (1 Tim. 5:11). He obviously was not thinking “every young widow in the church by definition is destined to have their desires overcome their dedication to Christ.” It was a general tendency he was pointing to, not a universal destiny for young women.
• “Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives’ tales…” (1 Tim. 4:7). Not every old wife was spreading myths.
• “They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” (Titus 1:11-12). Paul probably would not have granted that literally every Cretan is a liar and a brute. That would be impossible if there were genuine, Christlike believers in the church anyway.

Response to Objection 4:

I don’t see how asking too many questions would not be related to submission - If I’m in a classroom with a teacher, and I’m asking 50 questions every classroom, I’m disrupting the meeting and not being “submissive” in the sense that I’m not considering how I’m impacting the conversation, and I’m in a way taking control of the teaching setting. Oddly enough, Mike gave this as an example of how Paul could have been trying to prevent women from usurping authority, so he is sort of contradicting himself here.

I can certainly implement the general concept of “submission” by not asking so many questions, and maybe even asking questions after class directly to the teacher.

Answering Complementarian Objections: Were Women Judging Prophecies Rudely?

In my view, this Complementarian interpretation is the strongest of any others on offer, primarily due to it’s strong emphasis on the immediate context of Paul’s prohibition: prophecy.

Blomberg challenges the “question-asking” view by endorsing a view as “plausible” (not sure why he chose the word plausible…is he not convinced?) that the women were not asking too many unlearned questions, but challenging prophecies of their husbands too much,³ and also that it doesn’t make sense for Paul to silence all women and no men, because there were at least a few women who probably had higher education, and were probably some men who had no education. While it may have been a possibility that women were challenging their husband’s prophecies and therefore being disrespectful to their husbands, I don’t think this is Paul’s only concern; verses 34-35 are dealing with question asking, not challenging prophecies.

If Paul is specifically telling women to be silent and asking their husband questions at home, why should we think “oh he was really talking about judging prophecies, not asking too many questions”? Moreover, the issue of taking turns prophesying has already been dealt with by Paul in verses 29-31; he already told them to take turns! I guess he was just repeating himself and making sure the women really knew to take turns?

There Are Women Prophets Named in the New Testament and Old Testament

But an even stronger case against Blomberg’s view can be made, if we grant that women can be prophets, since Paul said that “The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets.” (1 Cor. 14:32). If women can be prophets, it would mean that another male would need to be “subject to the control” of another female prophet. This would invalidate the view that Paul wanted women to never be able to judge prophecy in a public church meeting, and also invalidate the view that Paul expected women to never hold a leadership position or have authority over another man.

But can women be prophets in the NT? The answer is a resounding yes, which Winger believes is a no, and Blomberg and Schreiner don’t really deal with. The NT calls Anna a prophetess (Lk. 2:36), and the daughters of Philip prophetesses (Acts 21:9, NASB),⁴ and the OT names many women prophets. If women were prophets in the OT, and the outpouring of the Spirit expands the gift of prophecy to “all flesh” (see Joel 2), we should expect there to be women prophets.

Moreover, if Paul saw a strict division of gender and leadership like Complementarians do, we’d expect him to specify gender in places where he discusses the leadership gifts of the prophet (Eph. 4:11, 1 Cor. 14:37, Rom. 12:6), but he does not. If Paul was passionate about women never having leadership positions in church, why wouldn’t he mention it when he mentions these gifts? In fact, whenever he mentions any gift the Spirit gives, he never specifies gender.

The Strongest Case for the Judging Prophecy View

The stronger case for the “judging prophecy” view is that the passage is situated within a discussion on prophecy, making it likely Paul was addressing women’s role in judging prophecy specifically. The Complementarian, attempting to interpret Paul telling women to be silent, is rightly looking at the immediate context (the topic of the verses before and after the command to be silent). If we think he was dealing with question-asking, it seems odd for him to interrupt his flow of tongues and prophecy to talk about question-asking and then go back to prophecy.

This is good practice to always ensure looking at the surrounding verses and see what those verses are about.

Mike Winger also believes elders were meant to be the ones judging prophecy, and biblically, only men could be an elder. Women cannot infringe on God’s choice of men to be final decision makers, according to Mike. Because elders were final decision makers, it is them who were the ones judging prophecy; the judging of prophecy would eventually fall back on the elder.⁵ Oddly, after affirming that it can’t only be prophets judging prophecies, but elders, he says, “So what are we saying? Ok, so women were specifically not supposed to have the office of prophet. That was something women were not supposed to be given to women in the New Testament Church. So it makes sense that in the judging of prophecy, there is a limitation to avoid them infringing on that role as well.”⁶ He then goes on to grant that Paul might have been saying anyone in the church can judge prophecies,⁷ which makes it hard to know what he really believes and why.

First, while it is true that the immediate context was prophecy, the broader context was about order in the church. Both sides agree that women were disrupting church services. Complementarians would say that Paul’s immediate concern was prophecy, but Paul’s statement is still respecting the broader context of 1 Corinthians 14 which was about orderly worship (1 Cor. 14:39-40). Again, why would Paul talk about asking husbands questions, if the problem was judging prophecy?

Paul Is Not Restricted To Immediate Context

Second, why is it a problem if Paul digresses from the immediate context to mention women’s question-asking? Is Paul not allowed to deviate from his own immediate context to respect the outer context? Let’s ask ourselves this: are there any other examples in Paul’s letters where he may have “digressed” from the immediate context? The answer is yes.

Let’s think of an analogy of a delicious hamburger, hot, and juicy. You have the meat, lettuce, and cheese in the middle, and the buns. The meat in our discussion is 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, and the buns are the topic of the verses before and after; the burger buns are the verses before and after.

But, there is more. Our delicious burger is another bun around the first bun; we’ve got ourselves a double-bunned burger.

This second layer of buns would represent 1 Corinthians 14:26-40, the first layer of buns is 1 Corinthians 14:33 and 14:36, and the meat is 14:34-35.

So Mike seems to be saying that in order for this hamburger to be a proper hamburger, the meat must go with the first layer of the bun; the meat in this hamburger can’t have two buns (an outer context). But, is this a fair demand? We should ask ourselves, does Paul in his letters feel the freedom to deviate from the immediate context of what he’s saying? Yes in fact he does:

• 1 Timothy 5:23. Paul tells Timothy to drink wine.
  • (2nd Bun): Chapter 5: instructions for various groups in church.
    • (1st Bun): Verse 22: sin and the sins of others.
      • —> Patty: drink wine for stomach issues.
    • (1st Bun): Verse 24: sin and the sins of others.
  • (2nd Bun): Chapter 5: instructions for various groups in church.
• Romans 14:7-9. Paul explains that Jesus died so he can be Lord of the dead and living.
  • (2nd Bun): Chapter 14: conscience, judging others, practices flowing from conscience.
    • (1st Bun): Verse 6: judging others.
      • —> Patty: Jesus died so he can be Lord of the dead and living.
    • (1st Bun): Verse 10: judging others.
  • (2nd Bun): Chapter 14: conscience, judging others, practices flowing from conscience.
• Galatians 3:19b-20. Paul explains what a mediator is.
  • (2nd Bun): Chapter 3: Faith, promises, works of the law, and inheritance.
    • (1st Bun): Verse 18: God’s grace through a promise, and a question about the law being opposed to God’s promises.
      • —> Patty: Mediators imply more than one party, but God is one.
    • (1st Bun): Verse 21: God’s grace through a promise, and a question about the law being opposed to God’s promises.
  • (2nd Bun): Chapter 3: Faith, promises, works of the law, and inheritance.

All the above “hamburgers” had a patty that didn’t really match with the 1st bun. Why would Paul randomly add a stomach problem to the context of general advice on how to behave in church?

And why would Paul want to explain what a mediator “implies”, and then say “but God is one.”? He digressed for a bit to address potential confusion on a divergent topic. It’s sort of like his version of making a parentheses.

So when a bible scholar or teacher insists that the immediate context should determine the interpretation of any verse, we should say “not always”. It certainly is good practice to look at immediate context, but it cannot apply in every case.

Learning, Not Prophecy

If Paul was trying to prohibit women from judging prophecy, shouldn’t he have said, “if they want to judge prophecy” instead of “if they want to inquire”? Moreover, Paul says that “if they want to learn, let them ask their husbands at home, for it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” Paul connecting shamefulness with asking husbands questions means he’s talking about asking questions, not about prophecy! He (and the apostle John) already expected women to participate in judging prophecy (1 Cor. 12:10, 1 Cor. 14:29, 1 Thess. 5:20-23). Despite this however, Mike still believes that the judging of all prophecy would eventually fall back on the elder.⁸

Sure, one of the core jobs of elders was to correct false teaching, but prophecy is not always the same as teaching, like Agabus prophesying a famine (Acts 11:28). How can an elder judge whether or not a future prophecy is from God or not? In a case like this, only other prophetically gifted people could judge such a prophecy. If no elders present had the gift of prophecy or discernment, there is logically no other group who can judge the prophecy except someone who receives direct prophetic discernment.⁹ It seems that Mike may have a limited understanding of what prophecy is, and how it is different from Scripture. I’ve already covered the difference between prophecy and Scripture here.

Winger’s evaluation and discussion reveals his felt struggle to see how decision-making power could be shared with the congregation and prophetic people. At one point, he seems unable to imagine how anyone in the congregation could have judged a prophecy but the elders, making this possibility sound like “mob rule”,¹⁰ despite the fact Paul expected everyone to participate in judging prophecy (1 Cor. 12:10, 1 Cor. 14:29, 1 Thess. 5:20-23). Strangely, he then goes on to grant that Paul might have been saying anyone can judge prophecies.¹¹ If you watch his video on 1 Cor. 14:34-35, you will need to sift through a mixed bag of black and white statements followed by a “but maybe not”, making it difficult to tell what he bases his view on.

Answering Complementarian Objections: Why did Paul justify submission using “the law”?

Schreiner actually agrees with Keener that women were probably asking questions, but departs from Keener by noting Paul’s use of “the law” as justification for his view that women are to be in general submission to leaders:

We may have some uncertainty about the particular situation in Corinth, but the principle enunciated here fits with the rest of Scripture. The women are not to speak in such a way that they arrogate leadership. As in all the other churches, they are to behave submissively, so that the leadership of the church belongs to men.¹²

Schreiner points out the scriptural principle of women submitting to men, and wives to their husbands as originating in the OT law, but he does not clearly say how this refutes the “question-asking” view - he seems to sidestep it and just assume that God wants men to have leadership because Paul said the OT points to submission here and in other places. Schreiner is relying on other Scriptures, which is ok, but outside the scope of this article. He relies on Genesis 1-3, which I’ve already addressed elsewhere. Our immediate question is how do we interpret 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 on its own terms? In my view, he is interpreting it almost completely based on other scriptures, which if he is doing, is not good practice; we should consider the whole of 1 Corinthians 14 and other Scriptures. I’ll address the other NT scriptures Schreiner is leaning on (probably 1 Tim. 2) in another article.

But even if we agree with Schreiner’s view that Paul’s understanding of submission in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is general submission to male leadership, it seems like the only way for them to “submit” is by simply not asking questions. We’ve already seen that women could be prophets, and that Paul already wanted women to be able to bring a teaching, prophecy, tongues, hymns, etc. to the whole church, and even be able to judge prophecies. Schreiner does not explain how “the leadership of the church belongs to men” in this context; if Paul wants women to do all these things, there is a great deal of leading being done by women.

Despite this, Schreiner still thinks that this text is teaching that only men should be in leadership, a step that I think is too far; Paul can refer to OT law as examples of women in submission. He primarily refers to Genesis 1-3, but even if we grant that Genesis 1-3 teaches submission, it does not teach women being in submission in church contexts, but between a husband and a wife.

So even if he “as the law says”, Paul cannot mean “general submission” in the way Schreiner does, where it means women are always submitting to male leadership. What does Schreiner think, that women were just supposed to always stop prophesying when a man does? Stop talking when a man wants to? Or that prophets always ran the meeting? We’ve already seen that there can be female prophets, which requires men submitting to women.

Submission Does Not Imply Male-Only Leadership

It seems more likely to me that Paul was using OT law to illustrate a good principle that corresponds to the current situation - in the OT women were expected to be submissive, and the women in Corinth should do so now by asking questions at home to their husbands. Paul was applying a general principle of submission to a specific situation. The OT does not ever explicitly teach that women cannot lead; on the contrary, it gives examples of women in leadership like Deborah.

This would not be the first time Paul applies a general principle from an OT passage to a specific situation.

For example, when trying to convince the Corinthian church that full-time ministers deserve financial support from those they serve (see 1 Cor. 9:3-12), Paul applies the scripture “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” (1 Cor. 9:9) to his current situation. Paul says, “Is it about oxen that God is concerned? Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he?” (1 Cor. 9:9). That scripture was not specifically dealing with ministers getting support, but Paul saw a principle in it that is relevant for his situation. In the same way, when Paul says that women should be in submission “as the law says”, he is referring to the general principle of submission, not strict male leadership roles. How are we to understand it differently, if he wants women to minister in so many capacities?

While it is true that wifely submission was expected in the Old Testament, it is still true that there were exceptions like Deborah and some other women. So while Peter praised Sarah for obeying Abraham and calling him “lord” (1 Pet. 3:6), Abram still followed Sarai’s directions (Gen. 16:2), and even God tells Abraham to “Listen to whatever Sarah tells you” after he was upset (Gen. 21:12). Any man with his head on straight knows that sometimes, you just need to shutup and listen to your wife!

In my view, the stress that the NT places on women submitting more than men in ministry contexts has more to do with all cultural norms we have already surveyed and foundational principles like peace and maintaining a good witness for the gospel (Titus 2:7-8, 1 Thess. 4:11-12, Rom. 12:17-18, Col. 4:5-6). If Paul was trying to enforce strict male leadership, why would he apply submission to men as well? (1 Cor. 14:28, 1 Cor. 14:30, Eph. 5:21, Gal. 5:13, Phil. 2:3). The fact that Paul saw submission as a practice for both men and women means submission was not as foundational for Paul as was the purpose of submission: love, peace, and relational harmony.

So Paul’s use of the OT law does not mean he implies a universal practice but rather a universal principle: women should be in submission to men. Paul was therefore applying that principle to his current situation, but not mandating a practice of male-only leadership in churches.

Men Were Also Commanded to be Silent

As Linda Belleville also pointed out succinctly, also Paul admonished men to be silent in various ways, too. He commanded prophets to be silent when another is speaking (1 Cor. 14:30). Note that Paul says if a prophet is speaking, he uses the gender-neutral term: “the first speaker should stop.” Because women can be prophets in the NT (see above), this would require a male prophet to silence himself if another female prophet is speaking. He also told people with the gift of tongues to also be silent (1 Cor. 14:28), prior to commanding women with husbands to be silent and ask questions at home; silence and submission are two sides of the same coin.¹³ Are you able to see the pattern? Silence is a pattern for Paul because he wants people to practice it in order to respect each other and the whole church, not just for male leadership.

Paul therefore subordinated “submission” and “silence” to the greater principles of orderly worship and peace (1 Cor. 14:39-40). Complementarians seem to be elevating the practice of male leadership over broader, all-encompassing principles like mutual submission and peace.

Schreiner’s own response to Keener gives us a clear example of misunderstanding practices and principles. In reference to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, Schreiner believes that “The transcultural principle, then, is that wives are to be submissive to their husbands.”¹⁴ How can that be the principle? The text does not tell us that women were yelling questions specifically at their husbands, but that they were simply asking questions.

But how can Paul be attempting to enforce male leadership norms, if he’s already told other men to be silent if another woman was speaking? How can Paul be trying to establish male leadership when he commanded prophets to subject themselves to each other, who could be both male and female? How can the transcultural principle present be submission to men, when Paul’s flow ends with the goal being orderly worship and building one another up (1 Cor. 14:39-40)? To me, the Complementarian position is severely lacking some basic interpretive principles, for example, paying attention to the final summary of a section of scripture, in this case, the end of 1 Cor. 14.

Principles and Practices in Their Proper Place

Jesus Himself made a more exaggerated distinction between foundational principles and practices:

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.
(Matt. 23:23)

The Pharisees were exalting religious practice to the same level of their intended purpose, seen most clearly when he taught that “…the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” (Mark 2:27). This is why the Pharisees accused him of being a drunkard and glutton (Lk. 7:34), a Sabbath breaker (Matt. 12:2), and a sorcerer (Matt. 12:24). These guys were the ultimate Rule Followers and huge Teacher’s Pets, kind of like those kids in school who obsessed over their homework and constantly were evaluating their own performance, losing sight of the entire purpose of school, which was to learn and mature, not get A’s. Getting A’s could be a sign of maturing and learning, but was not the sole purpose.

So when Schreiner seems to suggest that “wives being submitted to their husbands” is the overarching principle Paul is teaching, it might be the case he is elevating a practice above a principle. The surrounding context of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is orderly worship and peace (1 Cor. 14:33). If Paul’s context and guiding principle was peace, and elsewhere applies submission to men (1 Cor. 14:28, 1 Cor. 14:30, Eph. 5:21), why should we assume that “submission” is more foundational to peaceful worship gatherings?

When describing love, for some reason, he chose only to describe what love does (see 1 Cor. 13) rather than what love is; that is, Paul thought of practical solutions (love is patient, love is kind, etc.) from foundational principles. Submission as a practice is a manifestation of love. We need to remember that practices are always for an intended purpose and not forget that purpose.

Summary

When stripped of its context, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 can seem to be unfair towards women. But this is simply not the case!

Paul previously encouraged everyone, including women, to prophesy, pray, and even teach for edification (1 Cor. 14:26). Therefore, “silence” can only refer to “asking questions”, not an absolute, generalized prohibition of women in leadership. Women in first-century Corinth were less educated and, according to historical evidence, asking unlearned questions in public was seen as disruptive and disrespectful. Paul advised women to inquire at home to maintain the orderly and peaceful worship environment he emphasized throughout the chapter (1 Cor. 14:39-40), while still encouraging women to minister in church.

Submission, in this case, served as a tool for maintaining harmony, rather than a universal mandate; and just because Paul cites OT law does not mean OT law mandated strict submission, seen especially in cases like Abraham following Sarah’s directions, and women prophets like Deborah. Like Jesus emphasizing justice and mercy over rigid religious practices (Matt. 23:23, Mark 2:27), Paul’s directive reflects applying practical solutions from foundational principles like love and peace.

In the case of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, Complementarians ignore the fact that women can be prophets, and overstress Paul’s immediate context at the expense of Paul’s grander vision of orderly worship and mutual edification.

Surprisingly, Paul pushing women to learn from their husbands at home would have put him in a progressive minority for his time,¹⁵ since it was common for men to consider it impossible for a woman to learn an academic discipline.¹⁶ The Egalitarian interpretation is therefore far stronger at explaining and hearing the true intent of this passage.

Stay tuned for the next article where we will attempt to listen to God through 1 Timothy 2:11-14, which many consider to be the strongest passage for supporting the Complementarian position.

Footnotes