In 1 Corinthians, Paul spends time answering questions sent to him by the Corinthians and time responding to reports that he received from members of the Corinthian church who visited him. In chapters 12 through 14, he addresses the issue of spiritual gifts and the church.

The last section of chapter 14, beginning with verse 26, Paul addresses the assembly. The section reads as follows:

“What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But all things should be done decently and in order.” (1 Corinthians 14:26–40)

There is some controversy as to whether Paul, in verse 26, is describing the assembly as it is in Corinth or as it should be. Whichever the case, Paul sees the need for correction.

He tells three groups of people that they need to be in control of themselves and be silent at times:

• Tongues speakers
• Prophets
• Women

The tongue speakers were to speak one at a time. If no interpreter was present, they were to be silent.

Prophets were to speak one at a time. If another received a revelation, the first was to be silent. Paul reminds them that their spirits are subject to them (same word used for “submit” in other passages); that is, inspiration from the Holy Spirit did not override the ability of the prophets to control themselves.

Women were to remain silent in the assembly. Paul brings back the concept of shame, which he used when discussing women wearing a head covering in chapter 11. It is shameful for these women to speak. They are to ask questions of their husbands at home.

Several things lead us to think that Paul is addressing a specific problem. The instructions come in the midst of teaching about correcting a chaotic worship service. Paul seems to have in mind here women who are shaming their husbands (similar to chapter 11). The commands are somewhat hyperbolic; Paul talks about women being completely silent in the assembly, which would include singing and other activities. Yet as he explains, the problem appears to have been women asking questions in a disorderly fashion.

I don’t believe in pitting one passage against another. The silence imposed on women in chapter 14 wouldn’t keep them from doing the things mentioned in chapter 11: praying and prophesying.

However, we mustn’t overlook the fact that Paul once again has different instructions for the different sexes. Galatians 3:28 doesn’t change that fact, at least it didn’t for Paul. Women were not to shame their husbands; the same instruction could have been given to the men… and it wasn’t.

Note: There are textual problems with this passage. Patrick Mead (here and here) and Jay Guin (here) have discussed this recently. Guin notes:

I agree with Patrick that 1 Cor 14:34-35 should be considered a part of the original text. However, those who take the opposite view aren’t “liberals” or unworthy of fair consideration. Some very conservative scholars who are experts in textual criticism reject these verses as unlikely to have been in the original.

Mead concludes:

As I mentioned before, these two verses are found in every early manuscript of which I am aware…but not in the same place.

There’s no reason not to deal with these verses. They may occur in a slightly different place, but there is little doubt that they were in the original text.

The first verses of 1 Corinthians 11 are not easily understood. I’m guessing that the original readers had an easier time of it, but I’m not altogether sure. Paul uses the same words in a literal sense and a figurative sense (as he does in other parts of 1 Corinthians), which can create some confusion.

Here’s the passage in question:

“Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.” (1 Corinthians 11:2–16)

There. It says what it means, and it means what it says. Let’s move on.

OK, I won’t chicken out like that. One problem with this passage is that there are several words that aren’t easily translated. Not that they are uncommon words, they’re just used in somewhat uncommon ways. Here are a few examples:

• head — Paul begins by talking about a figurative head: Christ as the head of man, the husband as head of his wife, God as the head of Christ. But then he moves to a discussion of the literal head, which leaves us scratching our heads (all puns intended) about just what he means by the figurative use.
• glory — Man is the image and glory of God; woman is the glory of man. Later he says that long hair is a woman’s glory (in contrast with disgrace).
• authority — The KJV says that a woman should have “power on her head.” Several versions talk about a sign or symbol of authority, but those words (sign, symbol) have been added as an interpretation.

As different meanings of those words are used, so the interpretations shift. Like I said, it’s a difficult passage.

But here are some takeaways that I find, even as I wrestle with understanding specific details:

• Women prayed and prophesied in public. One commentator suggested that this was merely a hypothetical that would then be ruled out by Paul’s teachings in chapter 14. I don’t buy that. Women prayed and prophesied in public. Probably in the assembled church, hence the reference to the presence of angels.
• There are differences between men and women. Were there not, there would be no reason for this passage to exist. Paul’s appeals are theological in nature, not cultural. (see the previous chapters of 1 Corinthians for a good example of a culture-based argument) Galatians 3:28 did not erase gender nor gender differences in the church.
• There is a sense of “hierarchy” to the relationship between men and women. We can talk around that all we want, yet it’s hard to get away from that understanding of verse 3 and it’s discussion of headship. It’s not accurate to say that the Greeks didn’t use the word “head” to refer to the leader or prominent one. They frequently used the word in that way. Philo did, a Hellenistic Jew of the time. Pre-Christian and post-Christian gnostic writers did as well. Many Jewish writings do the same, often basing themselves on the usage in Deuteronomy 28 (verse 11 and verses 43-44).
  Even if the word should be translated “source” or “origin,” the idea of hierarchy remains, based on the references to Christ and God. (Christ as “head” of man and God as “head” of Christ)
• Women were to dress in a way that reflected their relationship to man and to God. They were not to try to be men, but women. Even as they practiced a new freedom in Christ, they were to do so in a way that showed respect toward their husbands.

Lots of other details can be discussed and debated. Feel free to do so in the comments.