Other Books at Freedom's Ring

Chapter 13

Silent - Silence - Other Thoughts

The root Greek word for silence, in I Corinthians 14:34, is "sigao," which means "to be silent, or quiet, or to hold one's peace." The Greek word for muzzle is "phimoo." Paul did not otherwise muzzle the tongues speakers in the church just because there were no interpreters present. But, certainly, he allowed them to speak in other ways. He also said for those who prophesied to "hold their peace" if another Christian gets a revelation while they are speaking. But he did not muzzle them in the rest of the service. In verses 34 and 35, he does not muzzle women or wives in the church. We must remember that if Paul is demanding silence of all women he doubles his emphasis. First he said "keep silence" followed by,"It is not permitted for them to speak." If this rule were followed, a woman would be forbidden to even whisper to her husband or children. Yet, these are the two commands bigger than life. We follow them when they suit our tradition and we break them when they don't suit us in keeping our traditions.

In view of all the instructions to the "whole church" which included all those who had gifts of the spirit, enjoyed by both men and women, it is impossible for me to reach any other conclusion from I Corinthians 14:34-35 than that this was only a husband-wife problem. When will we admit that it is our "reasoning," our "binding," or our "loosing," which enables us to permit women to breach the "silence rule" according to some of our traditions and not other traditions? Can we not see the obvious inconsistencies? Perhaps there is security in our inconsistencies and we are simply afraid to turn the light of reason on some of them.

"For it is not permitted for them to speak." The Greek word for speak here is "laleo." Since this Greek word may also include the idea of babbling, prattling, and chattering, it could easily and logically prohibit wives from babbling and chattering in the assembly, as well as asking husbands questions.

If women could prophesy under the law with God's approval, and if the woman at the well could proclaim Christ at Sychar and make disciples with His approval, women can be evangelists today. The Bible nowhere restricts evangelism to men.

No one really believes that God would refuse men who come to repentance through the declaration of His message by women. Contrary thinking violates the whole concept of the Great Commission, the purposes of God, and His mercy, as well.

Few really believe God feels that His word would be desecrated if read to a congregation through the lips of a Christian woman. How can any person believe that God feels that only men have the intelligence, the spiritual capacity, the articulation ability, and the right to read His word in a congregation?

Yet, some believe that "waiting on the Lord's table" is a domain of clergymen or men only. It would seem much more logical for chauvinistic men to require women to pass out and pick up the trays and attendance cards than vice-versa. Afterall, haven't we traditionally taught women to be in submission and to operate in the servant role, rather than the master role? There could be no greater sign in the church that women were in submission than to have them "wait" on the men as they sit in the pews. Why don't we force them to do so? Mainly, it is because we have been falsely taught that this is leadership, instead of service, and that only men are allowed the glory and honor of conducting this rite or ceremony. Yet, it has nothing to do with leadership, glory or a position of honor.

The Bible says that the church met in "their house," referring to Priscilla and Aquila (Romans 16:5). It was not Aquila's house alone. Without doubt, it was ruled by Priscilla, because Paul instructed widows to "marry, bear children, rule the household" (Timothy 5:14). One cannot imagine women not ruling their households, especially Priscilla.

These household rulers cooked the food, prepared the drinks and, no doubt, served it at the love feasts the church held in their houses. One cannot imagine that when it was time to partake of the Lord's Supper, suddenly they were forbidden to serve the bread and the wine.

One can well imagine that these housewives prepared both the communion and the food for the love feast. The church gathered and sang, taught, prayed, ate, drank, took the Lord's Supper, gave an offering, made announcements, encouraged each other, shared joys, sorrows, and problems - although not necessarily in that order. The assembly was probably centered around a table on which sat the food, drink, and Lord's Supper. It certainly was not a gathering like most of ours today. There was no exalted, elevated pulpit area, with large podiums and throne-like chairs reserved for only men. A communion table in front of the pulpit with the words "In Memory of Me" carved across the front probably did not exist. One can easily imagine the "ruler of the household" going to the table and returning with the "emblems," following prayer, and then passing the bread and wine to the guests who were worshiping in her home.

It has been argued that the silent rule applies only when the "whole church" (I Corinthians 23, 26) is gathered together on the Lord's Day, at a service when the communion is being served. But, we have traditionally applied it to the times when "one half" of the church is gathered together on Sunday evenings or on Wednesday prayer services, or at a revival, or at lectureships, or at youth meetings. Then, some even add home devotionals. And some men will not even let their wives or daughters lead in prayer or give thanks at a family devotional, meal, or at bedtime. In none of these is the whole church gathered. That is really stretching these two "come together" passages to an incredulous interpretation.

Even if it could be proved, and it can't, that women or wives must keep silent and not speak in the services when the whole church is gathered together to observe the Lord's Supper, there is no logical or scriptural basis to apply these rules to other meetings of Christians. If it could even be proved that verses 34 and 35 applied to all women at the gathering of the whole church when special spiritual gifts were being exercised, then we would still need a rule for direction on other meetings. I know of no Bible verse which gave Priscilla the right to teach Apollos at all. If the rules of I Corinthians 14 apply to all meetings and gatherings of Christians, regardless of place, why did Paul even mention a "whole church" gathering anyway? He should have said, "When two or more Christians meet anytime, anywhere, and one is a man, women are to keep silent." But he didn't.

What we have done is to use verses 23 and 26 to keep women silent in the "regular services" - that is, in reading scriptures, leading prayers, preaching, baptizing, and waiting on the Lord's table, all of which have more to do with our concept of exercising authority than our concept of silence. We then say that she can speak up in a mixed Bible class without violating the silence rule. But, if she stands up in front to speak or to read in a Bible class, she sins and is in violation of I Corinthians 14 and I Timothy 2. Why? Because when she is in a standing position she usurps authority. Or, she exercises dominion over men. How contradictory and illogical. But, it is a convenient way to interpret scripture so as to mesh them into our traditions.

What a circuitous route we take to prohibit women from leading a Bible class in prayer or song, yet allowing them to read and teach from their seats. The authority we believe is derived of the "silent" rule when "the whole church is assembled together" and "as also saith the law" is bolstered by our use in I Timothy 2:8-15. We then mix these phrases, "I would that men pray in every place," and that the women "keep silence," "not to have dominion over men," and "to be in quietness." Then, by applying this mixed bag of scripture according to our tradition, or not applying them according to our tradition, we come up with a man-made binding creed. However, it is a terribly inconsistent one.

In the reading of scripture in a Bible class, a woman is not silent. When she makes an intelligent commentary, she is not silent. When she teaches a man something in this process, she is not silent and she is "teaching men", including husbands, elders, and deacons.

Often, when I have acted as a chairman (teacher) of an adult Bible class, women have instructed me "more perfectly" in the way of the Lord. That was not wrong. They were teaching me, along with other men, with my blessing and that of those in authority in the church.

But, remember that I Timothy 2:12 says that she is not to teach, and traditional application is that she is "not to teach a man," especially in public if he has been baptized. Yet, we let her teach men all the time. In almost every class, we let her teach men by reading, commenting, and arguing. Is she violating I Timothy 2:12 by such teaching? In fact, she violates both I Corinthians 14 and I Timothy 2 on the rules of silence, asking questions, learning, teaching, and speaking if we try to reach and maintain any degree of consistency in what we argue that these scriptures say.

Why do we allow her to speak up in a class? Our answer: Because Priscilla did so with Apollos.

Our interpretation and application of the silence rules are conveniently meshed with our interpretation and application of our "exercising authority over" rules. There is no Biblical mandate, let alone a list of exceptions to the rules. Human judgement alone dictates our policies and practices. Since human reasoning determines the exceptions from church to church and across the brotherhood, who has the right to restrict others whose reasoning determines that women may break our man-made rules in other ways? Who will step forth and speak for God on which exceptions He will allow in order to remain in fellowship?