COYeT

TO

PREFATORY NOTE
"Eve and the Rabbins" is it discussion of Genesis 3:16, reading in our
English translation of the Hebrew text. "Thy desire shall be to thy husband,
and he shall rule over thee." It has been my aim in writing to show that none
of the ancient versions of the Scriptures support the thought our English
translation sets forth in the first clause of the sentence, excepting those
appearing after certain teachings arose that are embodied' in the Oral Law of
the Jews. And, in case of these, only such as came immediately under the
influence of that .Oral Law.. For the full exposition of this point, I have spent
much painstaking work, especially in the library of the British Museum, which
affords such rare opportunities for Bible study. The object has been to show
that the .position and privilege of woman has been falsely interpreted and
misunderstood, almost from the first. The clearing away of misconception and
misinterpretation is demanded in order to remove impediments that block the
progress of the Church. The question is much more than a woman question.
It concerns the Church preparing the way for a more complete fulfillment of
God's will as to a general outpouring of His Spirit upon believers--a fulfillment
in completeness of what we saw in part in the Welsh Revival, even the pouring
out of His Spirit upon "all flesh," without regard to caste, class or sex, foretold
by Joel the prophet and realized on the Day of Pentecost.
Two fixed points are required in order to determine the direction of.a
line. As in geometry, so has it always been taught in sounddoctrine. An inner
Voice is not, alone. sufficient for guidance. The written Word must accord
therewith. When these two are present, then a line of conduct can be fixed
upon with confidence. How are we to interpret the fact that women of holy
life did speak in the public assemblyboth in the Old and in the New Testament
times? "An exceptional call" is the usual reply. God could exceptionally call
and qualify a woman to prophesy just as He bestowed exceptional qualities
upon Balaam's beast of burden, So that the ass was led quite outside the
"sphere" of her natural calling. We grant that, but the animal didn't have to
meet the difficulties of anysupposed divine prohibition, and the woman must.
Expositors teach us, not .only that the apostle admonished women to keep
silence, but that he backed his admonition with the "as also saith the law," and
added thereto the declaration that this silence was "a commandment of the
Lord." The woman who goes forth to preach, then, is taught by the Church
through its Bible expositors to believe, that she must do so on an exceptional
call that tramples upon Paul's admonition, defies the "as also saith the law,"
and disobeys the "commandment of the Lord."

But, if we accept the inner Voice as sufficient, though it tramples upon

the Word of God as written, we plant our feet on the broad road of fanaticism.
No woman can afford to believe that she has a "special revelation" to disobey
a commandment. No Church can afford to teach such a doctrine. The Church
fears the preaching of woman in its pulpits will bring in irregularities and
fanaticism. She may well fear so long as she is herselfthe tutor offanaticism
to women. There is no middle ground safe for the Church. She should either
silence women altogether in every activity that would make her voice heard
in the Church as a teacher or preacher, or else give a tardy assent to the truth
of Paul's sweeping assertion that "there can be no male and female"
distinctions as to call and privilege that the Church is authorized to make, or
can make, without mischief to the body of believers.
KAT~EBUSHNELL

COVET TO PROPHESY
The present article is a discussion of the words, "Let the women keep
silence in the Churches." This is generally accepted by expositors as an
unqualified prohibition of the preaching of women. We do not believe the
Apostle utters these words in his own sense. He is quoting the language of
Judaizers and their teaching of the Oral Law of the Jews, which enjoined
silence upon women. The Apostle himself replies to this teaching, "What!
came the Word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?" This article
presents the arguments in favor of that view.
We shall now take up the study of Paul's utterances as regards women,
which are generally construed as a complete prohibition of their speaking in
public. The words are to be found in the 14th chapter of the same Corinthian
Epistle in which he discusses their unveiling when "praying or prophesying"
in the 11th chapter. Ifhe continued uninterruptedly in his task of dictating to
his secretary, there would scarcely have elapsed a half-hour between the two
utterances.
We give his words as translated in the Authorized Version
beginning at the 29th verse.
29. Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
30. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold
his peace.
3 1. For ye may ALL prophesy one by one that ALL may learn, and ALL
3

may be comforted.
32. And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
33. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all
Churches of the saints.
34. Let your women keep silence in the Churches, for it is not permitted
unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also
saith the law.
35. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home:
for it is a shame for women to speak in the Church.
36. WHAT! CAME THE WORD OF GOD OUT FROM YOU? OR
CAME IT UNTO YOU ONLY?
37. If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him
acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the
Lord
38. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
39. Wherefore, brethren covet to prophesy and forbid not to speak with
tongues.
40. Let all things be done decently and in order.
The words in italics are supplied by the translators and do not appear in
the original. The words in bold capitals we so print to call especial attention
to their force.
Two different matters have been almost universally confused by
expositors when dealing with Scripture utterances as regards to women. One
is the public ministry, the other the subordination of woman to man, as though
if subordination exists by Divine ordinance, the silence of women in Church
must be the necessary consequence. But the proof of one is not, per se, the
proof of the other. The inference is drawn on the assumption that, of course,
man would invariably command woman to be silent if she were subordinate
to him. Such would not always be the case by any means. And, besides, there
were certain rights maintained by apostolic authority, even for the
subordinated.
Several times over, the Apostle declares for no difference in the
household of faith between the "bound and free." Slaves are exhorted to obey
their masters, yet these same slaves could take part in public worship in the
Apostolic Church. And then the veil was not per se a sign of subordination,
even in the Apostle's mind. Slaves did not go veiled. Man is certainly
subordinated to God and must acknowledge that subordination, yet Paul
directed men not to veil in the presence of God in worship. Because expositors

assume much, we must not take it all for granted. Each point must be proved
for itself, and the proof of one point must not be taken as proof of something
else quite different.
The average expositor not only takes it for granted that each of these
utterances of the Apostle--the one as to women veiling, and the other as to
women keeping silence in Church--is the logical outcome of woman's
subordination to man. But also, vice versa, that each utterance in tum (in that
their view commands the veiling and the silencing of women) constitutes an
argument for the subordination of women. We have already shown that
neither veiling nor silence in the Apostolic Church was a necessary
consequence of subordination.
On the other hand, considered as two
arguments for the subordination of women, they destroy each other. The first
argument for subordination would then rest upon the statement that women
were ordered to veil when praying and prophesying, and the second upon the
statement that they were not praying and prophesying in the Apostolic Church.
We must not let this contradiction pass unchallenged. The expositor
passes it over as lightly as possible, but we call him to account for this
disparity before he goes further. It is the old story of the broken pitcher, and
the woman's defense in court: "It was broken when I borrowed it, and it was
whole when I took it back." And, if we allow the defense to proceed thus, the
next point may be, "What's more, I never had it." It is a point in law that "when
a fact necessarily involved in an action is once determined," it shall not
afterward be called in question as between the same parties of persons
claiming under them." In other words, it is a res judicata. If an expositor base
an argument for woman's subordination to man on the claim that Paul
commands her to veil in sign of that subordination when praying and
prophesying, then he knocks the foundation from under that argument if he
proceed to deny that Paul allowed that praying and prophesying.
He has
destroyed the claim that women were silenced in Church. But Paul could not
actually and absolutely have forbidden women to pray and prophesy since in
point of value as evidence there can be no comparison between the worth of
a seeming denial of an act, such as occurs in the 14th chapter, and a
description of that very act, such as is found in the l lth chapter. Weight and
worth lie with the description. So, we have nothing to do but to seek to
reconcile this teaching in the 14th chapter with the more explicit teaching of
the 11th chapter. Let us remember that every Scripture itself says elsewhere
(2 Pet. 3: 16) that Paul wrote some things in his Epistles "hard to be
understood, which the ignorant and unstable wrestle. . .to their own
destruction," and proceed with prayer and careful thoroughness.

Several attempts at reconciliation or explanation have been made of

which we will mention the principal.
a) Paul was meeting a local difficulty of a past age, and it is a matter
of no importance to us. This might be the case, perhaps, but such a view of
any portion of Scripture as this must only be received with the greatest caution,
lest we weaken the influence of the Scriptures as a rule of life. Since we do
not think it necessary to be driven to this conclusion, we abandon it.
b) The Apostle has changed his mind in the half-hour that elapsed
between the two writings, or as De Wette says: "Both of these the Apostle
disapproved as well their coming forward to pray and to prophesy as their
removing the veil." Such explanations, as we have already shown, are almost
too puerile to deserve refuting. We believe they would be ruled out of court
by any worthy judge. What has the Apostle to do with entering upon an
elaborate discussion with the object of directing women how to do what he is
just on the point of rebuking them for doing at all? If Paul changed his mind,
and never told us so, in a matter of such seeming importance and the last
declaration alone stands, then we have reason to think be may have changed
his mind as to all those arguments upon which he seemingly based his
conclusion. We are left in doubt after all as to whether "man is the head of
woman" whether "woman is the glory of man" and many other things. No,
that will not do.
(c) The Apostle, when he says; "it is not permitted unto them to speak,"
refers to women "babbling" and "chattering" in a disorderly manner, for the
word "to speak" (laleo) often carries that sense. This is undoubtedly true as
to laleo, but the Apostle himself never uses this very common word in the
sense of "babbling." Rather, he uses it in this very chapter some twenty-three
times aside from this instance for solemn utterances under the influence of the
Holy Spirit. And, then, while there is some evidence that there were disorders
in the Corinthian Church, who can prove that that disorder extended even to
such conduct as this among the women? The recital of instances of heathen
women today in China, Japan or India, who are disorderly in Church, is no
proof. We cannot accept this attempt to reconcile Paul's two statements.
d) Some say that Paul refers only to women asking questions in Church
because they are told that "if they wish to learn anything," they should "ask
their husbands at home." But we must remember that many of these women
may have been widows, some divorced wives, and others yet unmarried.

Whom shall they ask? And of the married ones, Paul implies elsewhere that
some of them had "unbelieving," that is, heathen or Jewish husbands (7: 13).
That would leave only a comparatively small proportion of the Corinthian
women under Christian instruction if they were left to learn these things of
theirhusbands. And, besides, if their husbands had no sense of the right of a
thing beyond that displayed by them in their fashion of celebrating the Lord's
Supper (11 :21), why should Christian women be referred to such sources as
these for religious help? By so doing, the Apostle would send the women who
had no husband nowhere for help. He would send the married women back to
idolaters, and back to Jewish husbands, and most of the rest back to these
Corinthian men oflow ideals, even if professed Christians. Is that "feeding the
flock of Christ" in an honest manner, or turning part of it loose into arid lands
at the mercy of the world? Besides, the Apostle tells us himself why his
silence is enjoined.
The reason is not because questions are asked, but
because thus saith the law," and "it is a shame for women to speak in Church."
These are the reasons Paul gives though this does not prove, as we will
presently show, that they are sufficient reasons in Paul's estimation for
silencing women.
We will now give an explanation, which we think sufficient, but because
of Paul's own method of basing his conclusions on well-laid foundations, often
of extended reasoning and explanation. We must prepare the way for it by an
introduction of considerable length.
Paul wrote this Epistle in the spring of A.D. 57 when he was at Ephesus
living, in all probability, with Priscilla and Aquila (16: 19)[ I] former colaborers with him at Corinth in tent making--(Acts 18:3), and now at Ephesus
co-laborers with him in the Gospel. They had accompanied him to Ephesus
from Corinth when he made a former visit (Acts 18:18,19).
Shortly
afterwards, this couple went back to Rome, which had been their former home
before Corinth (Acts 18:2), for Paul sends greetings to them at Rome a year
later in his Epistle to the Romans. It is then that he calls them his "fellow
laborers in Christ Jesus (Rom. 16:3,4, R.V.). He says they laid down their
necks for him, and that all the Churches of the Gentiles along with Paul give
thanks for them. If Priscilla was the veiled and silenced creature, a woman of
the expositor's imagination, what possible opportunity could she have had for
"laying down her neck" for the Apostle? And how did Paul and the Churches
of the Gentiles get acquainted with a veiled and silenced woman sufficiently
to give thanks for her?

When the Apostle first speaks of the couple in A.D. 57 (16:19), he calls
them" Aquila and Priscilla," but a year later he reverses the order, calling them
"Priscilla and Aquila" and again in A.D. 67 when writing Timothy (2 Tim. 4:
19). In the book of The Acts, which was written about A.D. 63, Luke also
twice speaks of this couple as Priscilla and Aquila, reversing the common
order of mentioning the husband first. The conclusion is that after Paul and his
fellow-traveler Luke had experienced the help of these two, they had found
Priscilla the more efficient "fellow-laborer in Christ Jesus." But for all that,
had the Apostle followed the example of his expositors in dealing with "the
different ranks" of male and female, he would hardly have acted so in defiance
of order and seemliness in the management of his Churches as to have put this
woman's "head" behind her after this fashion. We call attention to these things
in order to get a correct historical setting. At the very time when it is supposed
the Apostle is absolutely silencing women, he is associated in the work of
preaching the Gospel with a woman. To be sure, her husband is there, but Paul
does not hesitate to indicate that he prizes her services above his.
Some explain it by saying she must have been a woman of property who
ministered to Paul's needs. If the Apostle had a wealthy patroness at this time,
how could he say (4: 11), "Even unto this present hour, we both hunger and
thirst, and are naked and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling-place; and
we toil working with our own hands"? Paul applies this same word, "fellow
laborer," to Timothy, Titus, Luke and others about him. No one questions that
they preached the Gospel with him, and that is what the Apostle means. We
have reason then for thinking the same of Priscilla. The customs in Asia
Minor at that time would have permitted it. This has been clearly shown by
historians.
Women in Asia Minor were doubtless, whether Gentiles or Jews, under
the rule of their husbands.
However, their husbands allowed them larger
liberties than the Jewish men of Palestine permitted their wives. There was
even one synagogue at least in Asia Minor over which a woman ruled. We
quote from Professor Ramsay of Aberdeen in his Church in the Roman
Empire, "A point which illustrates and is illustrated by the state of society in
Asia Minor is the influence exerted on the Apostle's fortunes in Antioch by the
women (Acts 13: 50). The honors and influence, which belonged to women
in the cities of Asia Minor, form one of the most remarkable features in the
history of the country. In all periods, the evidence runs on the same lines. On
the border between fable and history, we find the Amazons.
The best,
authenticated cases ofMutterrect [mother rule] belong to Asia Minor. Under
the Roman Empire we find women magistrates, presidents at games and

loaded with honors. The custom of the country influenced even the Jews, who
in at least one case, appointed a woman at Smyrna to the position of
archisynagogos.
It would be strange if the women had not exercised some
influence over St. Paul's fortunes. "[2]
Later, Professor Ramsay says: "The universal and catholic type of
Christianity became confirmed in its dislike ofthe prominence and the public
ministration of women. The dislike became abhorrence, and there is every
probability that the dislike is as old as the first century, and was intensified to
abhorrence before the middle of the second century." Nevertheless, woman
held her place as an unveiled "presbytress" in the Church until the Council of
Laodicea (about A.D. 360) forbade their ordination in its 11th canon and
forbade women entering in to the altar in its 44th canon. It was during the
days of this growth of prejudice against women, we believe, that the Apostle's
clear utterances as regards women were turned into whimsical, illogical
utterances against women by adroit misrepresentation. That exegesis gained
favor with a Church that had lost its first love and has been bequeathed to us
with all the authority of traditionalism back of it.
Now let us assume, what rests upon so good historical grounds as
regards the freedom of women in Asia Minor at this time, that Priscilla prays
and prophesies in the Churches as she goes about with the Apostle and as his
directions in the 11th chapter permit. And, it is for this reason that Paul so
values her. She understood Scripture remarkably well; for she, principally,
taught Apollos in a more accurate knowledge of the "way of God" (Acts 18:
26). If Priscilla took her full share in this Gospel work, then the Apostle, who
valued her labors, would feel indignant at any attempt to check her services
and that of other women. Nor would he so wish to defend their case as to
make of this a mere "woman question," but he would deal with it on the
highest grounds, and not as a matter of dispute as to the comparative rights,
privileges and talents of women and men, as to which is "greatest in the
Kingdom of Heaven." We believe, therefore, that the Apostle does defend the
call of these women to preach the Gospel and on these higher principles.
We are not accustomed to look to German sources for broadminded
statements as regards to women. Therefore, I more readily tum in that
direction for a statement as to Priscilla's position in the Apostolic Church.
Prof. Harnack, of Berlin, says:[3]

distinguished

"In any case she must have been associated with and more
than her husband. That is verified from Acts 18:26 and Romans
9

16:3f. convincingly. For according to the former passage, not only Aquila,
but she also instanced Apollos ("whom when Priscilla and Aquila had heard,
they took him to them and expounded unto him the way of God more
perfectly"). One is allowed from it to infer that she was the chief instructor;
otherwise, she would scarcely have been mentioned. And in the Roman epistle
Paul calls her and Aquila-not the latter only-his "fellow laborers in Christ."
This expression, not frequently employed by Paul, signifies much. By the use
of it, Priscilla and Aquila are legitimized official Evangelists and Teachers.
Paul adds, moreover, the following: "Who for my sake laid down their own
necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the Churches of the
Gentiles." To what heroic service the first half of this clause refers, we
unfortunately know not. From the second part, it follows that the Christian
activity of the couple was a genuinely ecumenical work. Why "all the
Churches of the Gentiles" were obliged to thank Priscilla and Aquila, Paul
does not say." Then, Dr. Harnack adds in a footnote, quoting the views of
Origen and Chrysostom as inaccordance with his own: "that the thanks of the
Gentile Churches relate only to the fact that Priscilla and Aquila saved the life
of the Apostle is to me most probable." Then he proceeds again: the fact that
they were so vigorously and successfully engaged in the Gentile mission is
significant enough."
The point to be emphasized, however, is not so much that the Apostle
had women associates who propagated the Gospel message, but that he could
not have spoken of an absolutely silent woman as one to whom all the
Churches of the Gentiles give thanks. The fact to be made clear is that this
woman was associated in the period of her greatest activity with the Apostle
at the very time (and a year later), and so prominently that all the Churches of
the Gentiles knew it, that the Apostle is represented by expositors as relegating
women to absolute silence. Herein lies an absolute historical contradiction to
such a representation of the Apostle.
A word as to the occasion that led Paul to the writing of this First
Epistle to the Corinthians, lest we might seem to bias the case, we take the
description given in the Helps to be found as an appendix to the Oxford
Teachers Bible: "Paul was defamed by the Jewish party, and rumors of
alarming disputes reached him, followed by a letter full of inquiries, on
matters of morality and doctrine, brought by a deputation of freed men. He
now writes the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Then, as to the substance of
the Epistle, a Summary of its contents follows:

1. Reproof of the factions (chapter I-IV.20).

2. Intercourse with heathen ... (chapter IV. 21 - VI. 20),
3. Answer to the Corinthian Church (VII. -XIV: 40) ... " Thus, we learn
that what the Apostle said on the veiling of women, and what he here says
about women keeping silent in the Churches. Both come in that part of his
letter where he is answering inquiries sent to him by the Corinthians. In
making these replies, Paul follows a method interestingly described by
Weizsackeriv[4] in the following manner:
"And now [that is, at chapter VII] begins a new letter, or at any rate, a
new section of the letter. What follows, therefore, bears a wholly different
character. The language is now comparatively calm, official, instructive and
hortatory and treats a whole series of affairs belonging to the life of the
Church. And, as an answer to the Church's inquiry, the discussion furnishes
a subject new in form as well as in matter. "THE REFERENCE TO THE
QUESTIONS IS REPEATED WHENEVER A NEW POST IS TAKEN UP...
Under each heading, a discussion is given as has been desired, and therefore
the matters are discussed one after the other and, each by 'itself. We print in
small capitals again the portion to which we wish specially to call attention.
Let us illustrate the meaning of it.
III

At chapter 6: 12 occur the words, "All things are lawful unto me." This
was in all probability originally Paul's own declaration; but the disorderly ones
among the Corinthian disciples have repeated it as a pretext for wrongdoing.
A complaint of the matter is sent in the letter of inquiry to the Apostle. In
answer, he now quotes again his own words, to add, in answer to their
unlawful use of his words: "but all things are not expedient." Then, he repeats
his words, "All things are lawful unto me ... but I will not be brought under
the power of any." Again, at chapter 8:8, he takes probably his own
misapplied words, "meat commendeth us not to God," and, answers (verse 9):
"But take heed lest this liberty of yours become a stumbling, block to the
weak."
At chapter 9, the style varies somewhat. He answers them in such a
manner that the reply indicates what they had said, as though it read. "They
say I am not free, do they?" "They say I am not an Apostle, do they?" "And
that I have not seen the Lord, do they?" and so on through several verses
indicating the criticisms that the Judaizers had passed upon him. At chapter
10:23, he again reverts to their misuse of his language, "All things are lawful
11

unto me," repeating, the answer: "but all things are not expedient," and yet
another answer: "all things edify not."
We think there are many indications that when the Apostle makes use
of the language, "Let the women [not "your," as A.V.] keep silence," and on
through the following verse, "let them ask their husbands at home," he is not
saying these things in his own sense. They are the teaching ofthe Judaizers,
and he answers them back with, the words, "What! came the word of God out
from you? or came it unto you only?" Then, follow a few plain words of
admonition and the conclusion, which is: "Wherefore, my brethren, covet to
prophesy and forbid not to speak with tongues. Let all things be done decently
and in order."

1
j

This is the third time that the Apostle repeats, the word "covet" in
reference to spiritual gifts. "The other two places are 12:31 and 14: 1. In the
last, it is translated "desire." The word "desire" occurs in one form or another
nearly a hundred times in the New Testament and is expressed by a dozen
different words in the original. The Authorized Version translates this original
word as "desire" only twice--in this instance and in James 4:2. The word
means properly "to be jealous of," or "to envy." It is the word used in the 13th
chapter, 4th verse, "Charity envieth not." So, we see the Apostle uses the word
likewise in its bad sense, which is its ordinary force.
Those who read the Septuagint Version of the Scriptures (the Version
which would be the one used among these Corinthians and the one the Apostle
constantly quotes in this very letter to the Corinthians--not the Hebrew text as
we have it) can hardly help calling to mind here the use of this word "envy" in
relation to prophesying. An incident occurred in the experience of Moses,
recorded in the 11th chapter ofN umbers. God had descended and taken of the
spirit that was upon Moses and put it upon seventy elders who were to help
him in leading the people. The Divine ordination took place in the Tabernacle,
but two of the seventy, evidently for some sufficient reason, were not in the
Tabernacle at the time but out in the camp among the people. Both of them
and the sixty-eight are included in the prophetic reply: "Enviest thou for my
sake? would God that all the LORD's people were prophets, and that the
LORD would put His Spirit upon them!"
Joshua moved evidently in a spirit of jealousy for his master Moses sees
in this irregularity an opportunity to "restrict" this rivalry with his master. But
that which God does cannot be forbidden in pretence that it is out of order.
Moses had prophesied, therefore, of a time when it would be in order for God's

}
)

entire people to be prophesying. In that day, no one who prophesied could be

pronounced out of order. The spirit of jealousy on the part of Joshua stands
out in contrast to Moses' zeal for the time when all would prophesy.
"Jealousy" and "zeal" are one and the same word in Greek. So the Apostle
exhorts: "Be jealous-or zealous-for the best gifts; and, moreover, I show you
an imminently excellent way." [Alford's translation].
Then follows that
wonderful description of charity which "envieth" not by which we know that
it is not the individual and exclusive desire for these gifts to which Paul
exhorts, but rather that all should have an intense desire, like Moses, that the
promise of universal bestowment of the Spirit might be fulfilled to the Church.
No one will question that the Apostle would have women as well as men
seek that "eminently excellent way" of charity. But in the same breath that the
Apostle says he will show it to us, he says: "Covet earnestly the best gifts."
Who then can say that in one part of the verse Paul addresses men only and in
the rest of it men and women both? That is bringing matters down to a fine
point indeed in Bible exposition. What the best gift of all is Paul leaves us in
no doubt about. "I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye
prophesied, for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with
tongues."
So reads the 5th verse of the 14th chapter. Whatever else is
included, we have proof here that prophecy is the greatest gift to Paul's mind,
and he is speaking in the mind of the Spirit also. And as many as he exhorts
to "follow after charity," he likewise exhorts to be zealous for spiritual gifts,
but rather that ye may prophesy." (14: 1) Women, then, should be "zealous to
prophesy," so far as teaching gives us to understand.
Now we tum our
attention particularly to the words of the lesson we have assigned for
ourselves. "
Verse 29. Perhaps this means that two or three are enough speakers for
anyone meeting. So Alford thinks. By the "others" (R. V.) we understand all
others who have likewise the gift ofprophecy--the other prophets. They would
be the ones best able to discover whether the utterances of the speakers were
truly prophetic or not. Undoubtedly, there were men abroad trying to
disseminate false teaching, such as the Judaizers, seeking every possible
occasion to induce these Christian converts to return to the teachings of the
traditions of the Jews and playing the part of prophets for this end (chapter
12:3).
Verse 30. If one claimed to have, perhaps just received, a fresh
revelation from the Lord, he was to be accorded a respectful hearing.

13

Verse 31. This should be translated, as in the R.V. "Ye can all
prophesy." It is not unlikely, that the Corinthians had asked the Apostle a
question as to this point. The emphasis is on the word "can"-"ye have the
power to." However the distribution of gifts (12: 11) took place, it was not in
such a manner as to exclude any from the gift of prophecy. The universal
bestowal of that gift took place on the day of Pentecost when the Spirit was
poured out upon "all flesh." Sons, daughters, servants and hand-maidens of
the Lord ALL prophesied (Acts 2:17,18. Compo 1:14, and 2:4). As the
promised power-dynamis--came to all, so the Apostle now says, "Ye are all
empowered-dynasthe-to prophesy." Not in the sense that all had obtained the
power to prophesy, for the Apostle would not have then said, "Covet to
prophesy," but in the sense that the gift was attainable by all.
But while there is a special stress on the word "can" in this clause, the
emphasis throughout the whole verse is on the word thrice repeated--all.
"All" may prophesy, that "all" may learn, and "all" be comforted. Not all,
perhaps in each meeting but there is no restriction on the gift of prophecy. It
belongs to every individual member of Christ's Body. It was prophesied by
Joel that all would receive this gift, and the Apostle exhorts all to covet it
earnestly. And, in the light of its probable reference to Moses, for each to have
that spirit of zeal for" all" to possess the gift of prophecy that there shall be no
show of that other form of zeal-envy--that would restrict the gift as out of
order in some.
Verse 32. "The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets." The
word translated "subject," hypotasso, has reference rather to harmoniousness
than servility (Eph. 5:21; 2 Cor. 9: 13). A spirit of harmony will pervade all,
and for the reason implied in the next verse.
Verse 33. "For God {who is the author of all prophecy, 12:6} is not a
God of confusion, but of peace, as in all Churches of "the saints." God
Himselfwill harmonize His own gifts. Since the voice is one, and the various
messages an expression of the will and purpose of One, the universal
experience throughout all the Churches of the saints, is that liberty of the Spirit
in the exercise of the gift of prophecy will not lead to confusion, even if its
regulation be left wholly to the prophets within their own body (verse 32).
Verse 34. Let your women keep silence in the Churches ...

every Church of the saints of those days kept the women silent. This
punctuation appeared in Tischendorf's edition of the Sinaitic code, and has
been quickly adopted by many modem critics. It seems to contradict the truth
of plainly described conditions in the Church implied in the Apostle's
directions as to veiling in prophecy and prayer, as well as the "perfectly,
known instance of the four daughters of Philip (Acts 21 :9) who prophesied.
Also, we have every reason for assuming they prophesied in the Church as we
would assume in the case of any male prophet. As to the punctuation (a thing
of man's invention, purely, and not belonging to the original text), that would
place the last clause of the preceding verse at the beginning of this verse.
Dean Alford says, "Taken as beginning the next paragraph, the clause would
be harsh beyond example and superfluous as anticipating the reason about to
be given, 'for it is not permitted' etc. besides which it is more in accordance
with St. Paul's style to place the main subject of a new sentence first (see I
Tim. 3:8, 11, 12). Here is an example of reference to general usage coming
last in aid of other considerations--chapter 11: 16. But it seems unnatural that
it should be placed first in the very forefront of a matter on which he has so
much to say."
"The women" not "your women," as in the A.V. --are the opening words
of the 34th verse. Remembering Weizsacker's words: "The reference to the
questions [that is, the questions asked by the Corinthians which Paul is
answering in this portion of his Epistle] is repeated whenever a new point is
taken up"--we believe these words, "The women," are, as it were, his subhead.
Next, he quotes the language of Judaizers, which has been reported to him, for
him to make reply to: "Let them keep silence in the public assemblies; for it
is not permitted to them to speak, but "let them be in subjection," as also the
law says, and if they wish to learn anything," etc. The quotation continues
throughout the next verse.
Considered as the language of certain, or of a certain Judaizer(s) in the
Church at Corinth, we must translate the word used in the Apostle's sense for
'Churches' in the more general sense of pubic assemblies, in which it was so
frequently used (see Acts 13: 43; 19: 41, etc.), "It is not permitted unto them
to speak." Since how long had the voice of women been silenced in the public
assembly? If Paul could say, "women are not 'permitted' to speak,' then it is
required to show who prohibited them, and when it was done. Miriam,
Deborah, Huldah and Anna spoke in earlier days in prophecy.

The R. V. begins this verse with the words: "as in all Churches of the
saints," making thereby the point (very doubtful as a matter of history) that

David himself ordered the appointment of men among women to

prophesy in song. Moreover, David and the captains of the host separated to

14

15

the service of the sons of Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun, who should prophesy
with harps, with psalteries, and with cymbals . . .And, God gave Heman
fourteen sons and three daughters. All these were under the hands of their
father for song in the House of the Lord with cymbals, psalteries, and harps for
the service of the House of God. (I Chron. 25: 1,5,6) But, it was not alone for
music that women prophesied. David in prophetic vision sees that "The Lord
giveth the word: the women that publish the tidings are a great host." (Psalm
68: 11). Not only were women permitted to preach the tidings but commanded
in the Old Testament to do so when the Gospel dispensation opened. The
prophecy in the Psalms was hidden from view for a long time by incorrect
translation. The revisers have given us its true sense. Had they been willing
to translate with equal fairness another passage, we should have had more light
on this subject. By comparing this passage in the Psalms with one in Isaiah
(40:9), we discover that they employ in the original one and the same word in
the same part of speech, participial in each instance, for the word translated in
the Psalm, "publish the tidings." Both are in the feminine gender, the only
difference, in fact, being that one word is singular and the other plural in
number.
The chapter in Isaiah in which this verse appears opens with a
commandment to comfort My people because their warfare is ended. Then
follow the words, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness," indicating with
certainty the period to which the prophecy relates. Then at the 9th verse occur
words which, if translated with the same spirit of fairness as at Psalm 68: 11,
would read in English, "0 woman that publishest good tidings: to Zion, get
thee up into the high mountain; 0 woman, that publishest good tidings to
Jerusalem, lift up thy voice with strength: it up, be not afraid; say, unto the
cities of Judah, Behold your God!" Dr. Adam Clarke, in his commentary,
prints some interesting notes on this passage. Not only was woman, then,
permitted to publish, the tidings under the Old Covenant, but also she was
commanded, under the Old, to do so at the opening of the New, and it was
prophesied under the Old that she should do so both by Joel and by David.
As to the practice under the New Covenant if women were forbidden
to speak in a public assembly, how come our Lord Himself did not rebuke the
woman who cried out in the midst of the assembly that He was addressing,
"Blessed is the womb that bare Thee, and the paps that Thou has 'sucked'" but
only replied, "Yea, rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and
keep it." And why did our Lord require of the woman who came secretly into
the midst of the crowd that thronged Him and touched the hem of His garment
(Luke 8:43) that she declare before all the people for what cause she had
16

touched Him? Surely there were reasons of delicacy alone why she might
have been allowed to keep silent, if ever a woman were, excepting that the
Lord would have them know once for all that He had fully lifted what tradition
called the "curse" and all its results off the woman. Those who would silence
her from her explicit testimony to this truth, if no other, are the ones who are
out of order.
At what time, then, did it become the woman's duty to keep silence?
Not surely throughout the Old Testament days; not during the days of the Son
of Man; not during the early Pentecostal days when the Holy Spirit came in
tongues of fire and sat upon "each one" of the one hundred and twenty, a
considerable number of whom were women. When they all "began to
prophesy," Joel's prophecy began to be fulfilled, "your daughters shall
prophesy." Then the women, also "began to speak as the Spirit gave them
utterance," as well as the men. Not even a year after this Corinthian Epistle
was written were women yet silenced (Acts 21 :9). Commentators have shown
some uneasiness at this point occasionally. Kalisch says: The New Testament
is perhaps even more rigorous than the Old. While it commands the woman "to
learn in silence with all subjection" (but not to teach; nor to usurp authority
over the man, but to be in silence), she was in the Old Testament admitted to
the highest office of teaching; that of prophets, as Miriam, Deborah and
Huldah." Has the Gospel, then, entered the world to degrade woman, to
deprive her oflong recognized privileges, to execute upon her a "curse" for the
sin of Eve that was never executed under the law? Is grace more severe in its
dealings with woman than law? Endless are the contradictions into which one
is at once plunged who assume that Paul silences woman since it is surely the
first time that she is silenced in the true Church of God. For these reasons, we
believe these words are a quotation from the letter sent him from Corinth,
which he presently answers.
The words, "Let them be in subjection, as also saith the law," are
generally supposed to refer to some "law" in the Bible. A seeming reason is
that the Apostle would not in all probability speak of anything but the Word
of God as "the law." But if the Apostle is not here speaking in his own sense,
he is then making a quotation from those who would have called the traditions
of the Jews "the law" also.
For instance, Josephus describes the practices of the Jews in a letter to
Apion, under the name of "the law "--ho nomos. At Lib ii. 25, he states: "The
law says [nomos phasin, not "Scripture says," as Whiston[5] erroneously
translates[6]] a woman is inferior to her husband in everything, therefore let
17

Therefore, "The law saith," "Thou shalt keep silence."

her be obedient." The Talmud expressly tells us, moreover, in that place where
it describes for what reasons a man may put away his wife, with the loss of her
marriage portion that it can be done for transgressions of "the law." Then, it
defines the law as including that which the daughters of Israel follow though
it is not written.
Furthermore, while not making the same deductions, the great
lexicographer, Dr. Schleusner, declares that in this passage the phrase, "as also
saith the law," refers to the oral law of the Jews. In the Old Testament no rule
on this matter exists, but Vitringa says ... "that it was forbidden to women by
the traditions of the rabbins to speak in the synagogue." Those who attempt
to find an Old Testament law that forbids women to speak in public utterly
fail. Such a "law" nowhere exists.
As to the phrase, "Let them be in subjection," or rather, "They are
commanded to be under obedience," as the Authorized Version translates
(supplying the words; "they are commanded"), the marginal reference is to
Gen. 3: 16, "he shall rule over thee." But ancient versions of Scripture which
distinguish between the two tenses, as the Septuagint and Vulgate, treat this
as a future, not an imperative form, and certainly the Hebrew permits it. Thus,
it is a prophecy, not a commandment.
For these reasons, the Revised Version refers to this passage in the
margin but adds an interrogation point questioning its propriety. Granted for
the sake of the argument that the Apostle does in very truth forbid women to
speak in public, assigning as the reason that they are commanded to obey their
husbands in Genesis 3: 16, the logic is as bad as it very well could be. And one
must be left to marvel why the Apostle could not have summoned better to the
defense of his position. Here it is reduced to syllogism:
"The law saith," "He shall rule over thee."
Therefore, "Thou shalt keep silence," 0 woman.
But that will not do.
What shall we supply?

We must have three terms in our syllogism.

"The law saith," "He shall rule over thee."

He rules, "Thou shalt keep silence."

But who supplies that second term? Who has decided what shall be, for
in it is the begging of the whole question? That is passed over lightly by the
expositor as though accepted by common consent. Is it true? Do all men tell
their wives, "Thou shalt keep silence?" Supposing even a small number
pursued an opposite course, then, another second term must be found, and the
argument stands:
"The law saith," "He shall rule over thee."
He rules, Thou shalt NOT keep silence.
Therefore, "The law saith," "Thou shalt NOT keep "silence."
This effort to base an argument for woman being silenced in the
Churches on a statement that she is under her husband's rule is a piece of
flimsy sophistry of which we do not believe the Apostle Paul was ever guilty.
We cannot find Scripture warrant, therefore, for referring the words "as also
saith the law," to the word of God. Now it remains for us to show that it does
refer, as Schleusner and others claim, to the Oral Law, or Talmud, of the Jews.
It is not always possible by any means to trace a statement in the Talmud back
to its real originator. We do not know how old some of these decisions may
be, however great the antiquity claimed for them, since they were not reduced
to writing until the beginning of the 3rd century of the Christian Era although
the body of the laws began to be formed at about an equal number of years
before Christ.
One decision is as follows: " The "Wise Men" say, "Let not a woman
read in the law for the honor of the synagogue." The rabbins of the Mishna-the oldest portion of the Talmud--taught: "Out of respect to the congregation,
a woman should not herself read in the law." One Rabbi, Samuel, declares,
"The voice of a woman is filthy nakedness." It must be remembered, however,
that these teachings of the Oral Law influenced more largely the Jews about
Jerusalem.
As we have said before, the women of Asia Minor enjoyed
considerable freedom at this time. But the persecuting Judaizers against whom
Paul had to contend so much came out of Palestine originally to exert their
influence in prejudicing other Jews against Paul (Acts 15:1,24; Ga. 2:4, 12;
Acts 28:21.)vii[vii]
Verse 35. And if they willleam anything let them ask their husbands at
19

home ...for it is a shame for women to speak in the public assembly. Because
of these words, some have thought that Paul only prohibited women from
asking questions, but not from prophesying.
But, did the order of the
Apostolic Church permit these disputations? It hardly seems in harmony with
our conceptions of a Spirit-inspired ministry. To be sure, the Apostle disputed
with the Jews, but that is not saying that he disputed with fellow believers. He
lays down an order of exercises at verse 26 for the guidance of the Christian
body that makes no mention of disputings and questions in the Church. These
words seem, in fact, a further indication that all this is said not from the
Christian but from the Jewish stand point.
At "the meetings of learned men," Conybeare and Howson inform us,
some passage of the Old Testament was taken as a text, or some topic of
discussion propounded in Hebrew translated into the vernacular tongue by
means of a Chaldee paraphrase and made the subject of commentary. Various
interpretations were given, aphorisms were propounded, allegories suggested,
and the opinions of ancient doctors quoted and discussed.
At these
discussions, the younger students were present to listen or to inquire, or in the
sacred words of St. Luke, "both hearing and asking them questions; for it was
a peculiarity of the Jewish schools that the pupil was encouraged to catechize
the teacher." But women were not allowed to ask questions like this.
A certain woman asked R. Eleazar, "Why, when the sin of the golden
calf was but one only, should it be punished with a threefold death?" He
answered, "A woman ought not to be wise above her distaff." Saith Hyrcanus
to him, "because you did not answer her a word out of the law, she will keep
back from us 300 measures of tithes yearly." But he [answered], "Let the
words of the law be burned rather than committed to women. " Another version
of the story represents R. Eleazar as replying to the woman: "The distaff is the
onlylegitimate object for the exercise of woman's wisdom, for it is said, "All
the women that were wise-hearted did spin with their hands." Exodus
35:25viii[viii]
(Bammidbar Rabba, sec. 9, following 204). This decision
seems to have been rendered at an early date. And, if so, these Judaizers
would have made full use of it in urging the body of Christian believers to
silence women, and for an argument that they must be instructed to "ask their
husbands at home," since the decision was rendered on the occasion of a
woman presuming to ask a question.
The Mishnaic Rabbis also taught that "Women and slaves shall be
dispensed [excused] the reading of the schma [that portion of Scripture read
or recited which begins; "Hear, 0 Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord," (Deut.

6:4), which occurs so frequently in the Jewish ritual] and from the precepts of
the phylacteries. Because it is said, "Thou shalt teach the precepts to your
sons" (Deut. 11: 19) and not, consequently, to your daughters, the question was
asked, "And why are slaves dispensed?" "Because he would say we have no
other superior than God while the slave is subordinate to his master." [9] The
husband was forbidden to teach his wife any more of the law than that which
related to her own special duties. He who teaches his daughter the law is like
as ifhe teaches her to sin.[10] The Talmud says, almost in the exact words
employed in this verse, "It is a shame for a woman to let her voice be heard
among men" (Kiddushin, fo1. 70, col. I).
Verse 36. What! came the word of God out from you! or came it unto
you alone? This we interpret as a stem rebuke of those who would silence the
prophecy of women. Alford says, "However, this question seems to refer to
all the points of Church custom which he has been noticing." But it seems
unnatural for the Apostle to refer to Church customs as the "word of God,"
while that very expression is most Scriptural as applied to the voice of
prophecy.
"The word of the Lord" and "the word of God" are spoken of constantly
throughout the Old Testament when a spirit of prophecy came upon God's
prophets. So in the New, Luke tells us: "The word of God came unto John the
son of Zacharias in the wilderness, "when he began his ministry." (Luke 3:2)
It was promised of the Messiah (Deut. 18: 18), "I will raise them up a prophet
from among their brethren like unto thee; and I will put My words in his
mouth." Psalm 68: 11, "The Lord giveth the word, the women that publish the
tidings are a great host ... " Jer.18:18, "The law shall not perish from the
priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet." Jer. 23 :28,
"The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath My
word, let him speak My word faithfully ...Therefore, behold I am against the
prophets, saith the Lord, that steal My words everyone from his neighbor."
The constant teaching throughout Scripture that the message of the
prophet is the "word of God" needs no amplification. It is of this prophetic
utterance that the Apostle now speaks, this, which has been the subject of all
his teaching from the 12th chapter to the end of the 14th, when he says, "What!
came the word of God out from you?"
Does not the very expression, "word of God," acknowledge its source
as from God? The Apostle recalls them to the truth that no real prophet speaks
on his or her own behalf. To attempt to control prophecy by mundane rules
21

means to dictate what instruments God shall use. The only subjection possible
is a test applied by others possessing the same "word of God," as to the
genuineness of the message given. God has a right to choose His own
instrument whether that instrument is a king (I Sam. 10:10), a child (I Sam.
3:17), an ass (Num. 22:30), or a woman (2 Kings 22:15, 16). The voice is
from God, and contempt for the instrument would mean defiance of God's
authority. This is what the Apostle recalls them to consider (2 Cor. 2: 17).
Perhaps he refers, however, more definitely (and we believe he does) to that
day upon which the Spirit descended upon "all flesh," and they all "began" to
speak as the Spirit gave them utterance." (Acts 2:1 ff.)
How was it when the Church received the Holy Spirit? Surely you will
not hold that the word of God came out from you? It "came from Heaven, a
sound as of the rushing of a mighty wind" Surely you will not claim that it
came unto you only? It came unto the women also of that company; for it was
in fulfillment of Joel's prophecy, "Your daughters shall prophesy," and the
cloven tongues sat upon "each of them" of whom a considerable number was
a woman. The rebuke of the Apostle is the sterner because he has just been
teaching that a false modesty will not permit one to excuse oneself from
position and responsibility in the Church as a member of Christ's Body.
"If the foot shall say, because I am not the hand, I am not of the body;
it is not therefore not of the body." Nor will egotism permit one to say of
another member, "I have no need of thee" (chapter 12: 15, 21). In considering
these words of the Apostle in the 12th chapter, we forget that the word
"member" cannot be used of mere position as one speaks of a member of the
human body or of a member of the Church. There is no position in Christ's
body for a member apart from function. "Every branch in Me that beareth not
fruit, He taketh it away."

Verse 37. The things that I write unto you are the commandments of
the Lord. He sets this over against the mere utterances of men as recorded in
the Oral Law of the Jews against women speaking in a public assembly.
Verse 38. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

"A
renunciation of further effective instruction," Winer. (Rom. 1: 17,32; Isaiah
6:9; Ezek. 3:27; Mark 4:11; Rev. 22:10.

Verse 39. Wherefore," his final conclusion from what goes before.
How strangely inapt it would be if the Apostle had just said in his own
intention, " Let your women keep silence."
22

"Let your women keep silence, wherefore covet to prophesy."

"Let your women keep silence, wherefore forbid not to speak with
tongues." But as a conclusion rendered in the plain language of a judicial
statement, resting upon his reminder by a question that the word of God
neither came from them nor upon them only, its fitness cannot be questioned.
"The word of God came not unto you, wherefore forbid not to speak."
The expression, "covet to prophesy," deserves attention here. It is the
positive admonition ofthat which is negatively put by the Apostle in 1 Thess.
5:19, 20. Quench not the Spirit; despise not prophesyings.
It relates not
properly to the individual, but to the whole body. Covet the to prophesy is the
literal reading, and it means, "covet the prophesying," that is, the gift itself,
both for one's own and for others exercise. As Moses, having the gift himself,
refused the jealousy thatwould restrict but expressed the zeal that would make
universal the gift of prophecy. See Numbers 11:29 where in the Septuagint the
same Greek words are employed for "envy" and "forbid" as here.
Verse 40. "Let all things be done decently and in order." Joshua would
have had Eldad and Medad at least as "out of order," forbidden to prophesy-out of jealousy for his lord, Moses. Moses would, in hisjealousy for God's
honor, have had all the people prophesy. This was his conception of decency
and order. We say again, one is almost compelled to believe that in all three
of these passages where the Apostle makes such striking use of the word
"covet" (12:31; 14:1; and 14:39), he has direct reference to Moses' desire that
all the people of God should be prophets (Num, 11:29), as the true pattern of
emulation for each Christian believer.
NOTES

__

1. Conybeare and Hewson, Life and Epistles, of St Paul, Vol. II, p.8S,
note 9. As dates, we have the chronology of these authors.

2. Dr Ramsay refers his readers to Nebauer in Studia Biblia, I, p. 70;

and Reinach in Revue des Etudes Juives,VII, p. 161~ for further light.
3. Probabliliaiiber die addresse des Hebraerbriefs in the Zeitschrift fur
die neutestarnentliche Wissenchaft, Erster Jahrgang, Heft 1 1900. Giessen

23

4. Professor of Church History University of Tubingen, in his work,

The Apostolic Age of the Christian Church.

5. The subject is separated by intervening words from its predicate,
hence Whiston's careless translation.
6. See Dr. Lightfoot's Talmudic Exercitations on Luke 7:37.

7. Life and Epistles of St. Paul, Conybeare andHowson, footnote p. 96,

Vol II.
8. See Dr. Lightfoot's Exercitations, comment on John 4:29.
9. Schwab's Translation, Berakoth U.

10. McClintock and Strong's Dictionary of Biblical and Theological

Literature, see "Talmud."
by
Katharine Bushnell

THE BRANCH

P.O. Box 1004

Kingsland, TX 78639
http://www .the-branch.org
e-mail: info@the-branch.qrg