1 Corinthians 14
As we study the book of Corinthians together, we note that certain verses raise questions about the freedom of ministry we embrace for women. So we asked Dave Akerman to write a blog on what he feels the passages in Corinthians mean and how they relate to the topic of women preaching and teaching.
Thoughts on 1 Corinthians 14
By Dave Akerman, LifeChurch Penketh
Does Paul take a stance against women preachers in Corinthians?
1 Corinthians 14:34 “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.”
In recent years, the role of women in church leadership has continued to be a topic of intense debate within Christian communities. And the book of Corinthians has two key passages that have been used by some to argue for maintaining traditional gender roles and forbidding women from teaching and preaching. Nevertheless, there is a case to be made for embracing women preachers. This blog will very briefly introduce various biblical and historical perspectives that support the inclusion of women in preaching and teaching roles within a church.
Divine Partnership: Genesis and the Shared Dominion
Our journey begins at the very foundation of creation. In Genesis 1:28, we find a declaration of equality and shared responsibility:
"God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.'"
This verse establishes that both men and women were called to share dominion over creation. From the outset, God’s original design included women as partners in the stewardship of the earth and its resources. We are not sure whether Adam (men) and Eve (women) had defined roles for this rule, the story doesn’t go on to clarify that, but this foundational principle sets the stage for understanding the intended role for women in God’s domain. Men and women both carried the role of being bearers of God’s image and were called to rule the creation together.
Men have more regularly been leaders across all of time
Following on from the story of the Garden of Eden and creation, far more men than women have led. Statistically this is true. And there are biological and sociological reasons for this, because men on average have the more aggressive, dominant personality types, and typically less suited to raising children in the home. Finding it easier to be away from family and from being relatively more aggressive, men had an advantage in the requirements of primitive leadership roles. But this was also a curse of the fall. Due to Adam and Eve’s disobedience, it was said the male would “rule” over the female (Genesis 3:16). And this certainly seems to have played out in the story of humanity and ancient home life. But the curse of the fall was dealt with in Christ. I think we should be imagining how new-creation relationships look.
Examples of women in leadership roles in the Bible
Despite men more often taking leadership roles in military and prophetic matters in ancient Israel (let's not underestimate the impact of women taking leadership in the home in ancient societies), there are key examples of women being used in both of those contexts.
Deborah (Judges 4-5) served as a prophet and judge, leading Israel in both spiritual and military matters.
Huldah (2 Kings 22:14-20) was a prophet consulted by King Josiah on matters of national importance.
Isaiah’s wife is described as a prophet (Isaiah 8)
Anna is described as a prophetess and spoke about the ministry of Jesus (Luke 2:36-38)
Women were the first people to be witnesses to the resurrection (John 20), despite it being thought by men that women’s testimony was not reliable.
Mary sat at the feet of Jesus learning from him, in the posture of a disciple (Luke 10:39). This was radical!
Phillip had four daughters who prophesied (Acts 21:8-9)
Priscilla, along with her husband Aquila, taught Apollos, a prominent early Christian leader (Acts 18:26).
Phoebe is described as a deacon of the church in Cenchreae (Romans 16:1-2). She delivered Paul’s letter to the Romans and it was typical for the courier to explain and answer questions on the letters they delivered. Was she the first preacher of the book of Romans?
Junia is referred to as "outstanding among the apostles" (Romans 16:7). John Chrysostom, one of the most prominent church leaders in the 4th and 5th centuries, understood Junia to be a woman and said, “How great was the wisdom of this woman that she was thought worthy of being called an apostle!” In fact any attempt to make the word Junia into the male equivalent (Junias) is going against the overwhelming weight of scholarship to the contrary.
1 Corinthians 11:2-16
From that list, people might argue that women in leadership is rare. True. But it isn’t zero! So, what about head coverings described in Corinthians and the command to be silent in churches?
1 Corinthians 11:3-5 says,
“But I want you to realise that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head—it is the same as having her head shaved… this is why a woman should have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.”
We must start by noting a few things from the historical context as well as the text itself:
Head coverings for women were not a universal symbol of being under a man’s authority or leadership. There are over 20 possible meanings someone in Corinth or a related cultural setting might have associated with a woman wearing a head covering.
The Corinthian church would have been made up of both single and married women. There is no clear, stated evidence in ancient sources that single women wore head coverings to show they were under a man’s authority or leadership, like their father’s authority for example. This practice has to make sense to single women too.
The congregation was mostly Gentile, so we cannot view this simply through a Jewish lens. Jewish women covering their heads was sometimes practiced in the first century but not typical until 2nd century AD onwards.
The need for an absence of head coverings for men is also requested, despite an emerging practice of Jewish men wearing head coverings to show honour to God.
Paul uses the one word “head” (kephalē) in at least two different ways in the same passage (literal and metaphoric). And the word had a nuance of meaning in Classical Greek in comparison to Koine Greek. Therefore, a standard word-search on the word “head” won’t by itself solve this puzzle, even though doing an extensive study on the word is helpful.
Paul speaks about this practice in terms of being a “tradition” and “custom” to follow (vv. 2, 16). It is framed as guidelines for churches to follow from concern about how Christians would be perceived, rather than just individual conduct for the moral sake of it. This is why Paul preempts a Corinthian counter argument (11:16) by appealing to the custom of other churches rather than just double-down on further theology about the nature of authority. We could arguably read between the lines that Paul knew from his teaching on freedom, the Corinthians could have considered this unnecessary on theological grounds so Paul also appeals to wider church practice.
So, what is going on here? I cannot detail my workings out because of the overwhelming amount of scholarship I would need to unpack. But, I think what Paul is saying is essentially this: Paul is using the word “head” in a way that is linked to the word “image.” (v. 7). Headship here is the recognition of being obligated (under authority) to that which our lives reflect (bear the image) symbolised through the head itself. Maybe read that again. The fact Paul assumes some accountability, rooted in creation itself, for women for how their lives reflected the glory of God and men and, of course, themselves, which is not the same as women being at the bottom of a hierarchy or chain of command. Paul is acknowledging that people (even more obviously in that day and age) looked at the way a woman conducted and presented herself that not only informed opinions about her but about men too (also consider Paul’s instruction in 1 Timothy 2:9), and people looked at men in a way it reflected on God. Paul argues that they cannot make a decision about how they presented themselves without taking into account the wider implications.
For example, my wife is under obligation to me to represent me well by how she conducts herself. And visa versa. There is an accountability to me and me to her. She should bear the image of her relationship with me well. We both live under that authority and express it in culturally appropriate ways. But that is different to saying she should submit to doing all I lead her to do, with me at the top of some sort of chain of command.
If this is true, what opinion about a woman did people form from the absence of a head covering as she was ‘bearing image’? A woman not wearing a head covering was, generally, a negative thing. A woman with an uncovered head and showing her hair might send a signal that she was sexually available. A Roman man would not be prosecuted for making advances on an unveiled woman. Or it could be seen that she had been judged as immoral. Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish writer who never converted to Christianity, details how women being unveiled was typically a mark of shame and judgement in sexual cases. Some Greek manuscripts say head shaving for women was to be used as a judgement for adultery. So one can understand why Paul would be uncomfortable with women not wearing head coverings at church. If it was allowed for women to engage in praying and prophesying while tolerating a cultural signal of dishonour, she invited dishonour herself and men. This trail of dishonour might be traced by the communities around the churches all the way upstream to their common source, which was God. We know how much Paul cared about the witness of the church and public perception.
One final point here is to speak about who and why the women might have been uncovering their heads in the first place. Were women throwing off the veils because they saw them as an enemy to all the freedom they had in Christ? Were the Corinthian women like first century suffragettes? My short answer to that is no. As I’ve already said, I don’t think head coverings were being removed in protest to male leadership because they didn’t really symbolised male leadership. Head coverings had more to do with modesty than subjection to men. Other contemporary sources from the time generally discuss head coverings in terms of modesty, cultural practice, or religious observance, without explicitly linking them to male authority. So why would women remove them? I suspect it was actually the men who were encouraging the unveiling!
A scholar called Cynthia Long Westfall deals with this question in great depth. Her conclusion is that women were likely being told by the men they should remove their head covering, and this is why Paul says, “a woman ought to have authority over her head.” (1 Corinthians 11:10). Meaning, a woman should be given charge (“authority”) over what happens to her own head with regard to veiling not the men. The word “symbol” does not appear in the original text. I think this makes far more sense of the puzzle. Like King Xerxes to Queen Vashti, there was often instruction to women to remove the veil to look at her beauty (Esther 1:11). Paul was helping keep women modest. And it was likely if Paul was going to face contention about it, as he anticipated (11:16), it would be from a man.
To know this helps make sense of Paul’s falling comments about angels (1 Corinthians 11:10). Paul, earlier on (1 Corinthians 6:3), says that Christians will judge angels. So if men and women cannot judge what is appropriate here and choose a more acceptable way of behaving (bearing image), God is going to need to do a lot of work before they’ll be ready to judge the angelic beings that are watching what is going on!
As regards being “silent in church,” even if we accept head coverings as still being valid, praying or prophesying are not usually silent actions!
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
“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.”
First, no one holds to this literally. To do so would prohibit singing, leading Sunday school, and women only talking to each other through sign language! Women are allowed to pray and prophesy, we’ve just read that. But here (and some argue in 1 Timothy chapter 2) some people believe Paul advocates women backing off from communicating about God in church, which would include preaching. I believe the most reasonable explanation of this however, is, that due to the fact women were rarely well educated in the ancient world and would often want to ask their husbands the meaning of what was being taught, Paul is at most against women constantly questioning the preaching. It would have been hugely disruptive and seen dishonourable by any visitors. This is why Paul goes on to explicitly say “they [women] should ask their husbands at home.” This likely means Paul was tired of many of the women disturbing the flow of the meeting from asking their husbands at church. Typically house churches could not seat more than about 50 people. If half of the congregation are chatting to their husbands for clarity, it could be quite noisy.
1 Timothy 2:9-16
When examining New Testament passages that seem to restrict women's roles, as I’ve said, it's crucial to consider the cultural context. For instance, Paul's instructions in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 have often been used to argue against women preachers. Paul said,
“I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.”
However, a deeper look at the historical, cultural setting reveals important insights. In Ephesus, where Timothy was based, the cult of Artemis had significant influence. This female-dominate religious system promoted ideas that could have been disruptive to the church Timothy was pastoring. Paul's concern about women "assuming authority” (1 Timothy 2:11, which in the original language carries a strong sense of force, even to the point of murder!) over men (which may also be translated “over her husband”) may have been a specific response to this local threat, rather than a universal principle. It is interesting to note that (1) in Greek mythology, Artemis was born first, just before her brother Apollo, opposite to the birth/creation order of men and women in Genesis (2) Artemis, a warrior woman, was not only seen as a dominant figure but (3) the deity local women would approach for protection through childbirth, having been the helper to her mother to birth her brother Apollo. Childbirth was a leading cause of death for women in the ancient world and would no doubt cause great concern even to Christian women. Who should they trust to save them? Artemis or God? One could see these points as providing some possible clarity as to why Paul might want to rebuff the narrative of spirituality that came from the cult of Artemis and point to God and Torah. Reaching for the ‘perennial burden of childbirth’ as a hammer to knock down disruptive women would otherwise seem harsh, even for Paul. And ‘progeniture’ (privilege from birth order) was mainly to do with the family hierarchy of sons and didn’t extend to superiority between genders. So it would likely be redundant for Paul to make a point about men being superior to women based on the order of creation. Therefore I believe Paul is simply addressing some concerns about the situation in Ephesus that would make sense to Timothy. But this situation is not a general principle for all women.
Furthermore, we have no clear indication that Paul is addressing a local church gathering. Requiring “men everywhere to lift up holy hands without anger or dispute" (1 Timothy 2:8) is, I think, an idiom for, ‘Men, get your spiritual lives together and worship God,’ not instructions for a church service. Paul then merely asks women to dress modestly and do their learning about God without trying to command authority over men (or possibly translated as their husbands). We see that Mary sat quietly at the feet of Jesus doing this in the Gospels (Luke 10:38). In Ephesus, religion was very often a ‘female thing,’ and Paul did not want the possibility of women usurping authority and disrupting the balance of his congregation.
1 Timothy 3
That said, it might be argued, even if women can learn about God and do not need to be silent in all circumstances of church life, surely we can still agree that Paul was against women holding positions of overseer and deacon, based on the fact they do not fit the criteria Paul outlines in 1 Timothy 3 (the very next chapter)? Some argue that Paul goes on to say church leaders and deacons have to be the husband of one wife and women cannot fulfil that criteria. First, this means Paul himself could not be an elder or a deacon (or even Jesus!), which seems very odd. And, the church did not stick to this. We have no record of female elders, granted. But we do have reliable records that there were female deacons, one of which was Phoebe (Romans 16:1-2), despite some trying to substitute the word "deacon” for “servant” in this passage. Deacons too were mandated to have “one wife” (2 Timothy 3:12) in the same passage about overseers. It is likely, therefore, that Paul’s guidelines were general moral guidelines assuming the majority were male rather than demanding they were all male.
Early Church History: Women in Leadership
Contrary to popular belief, the early church did recognise women in some public roles of church function. By the 5th century, historical records from the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) show that women over 40 were being formally appointed as deacons, even though their roles were slightly different to male deacons. This practice demonstrates that the early church understood the value of women's contributions to ministry. And this was despite 1 Timothy 3:12 saying a deacon “must be the husband of one wife.” And the Waldensians in the 12th century enthusiastically encouraged women in ministry.
The Deception of Men: A Balanced Perspective
While Eve's deception in the Garden of Eden is often cited as a reason to limit women's authority, it's worth noting that the deception of men caused most of Paul's problems in his ministry. From false teachers to those who abandoned the faith, Paul consistently dealt with issues arising from men's failures. This reality calls for a more balanced view of human fallibility and the potential for both men and women to serve faithfully in leadership roles. It is unlikely the lack of a Y chromosome disposes an educated woman to errors in their preaching over an uneducated man, for example.
Paul's Cultural Navigation
It's essential to remember that Paul was ministering in a cultural context where women were often treated as second-class citizens. Even if you you accept women preachers and leaders, you might be extra careful how you included them if you planted a church in Saudi Arabia, for example. Like his approach to slavery, Paul's writings on women's roles may reflect a pragmatic navigation of existing social structures rather than an endorsement of them as ideal. Paul likely believed that Jesus would return soon, which may have influenced his decision not to write a comprehensive thesis on how the church could change every ungodly social convention. Instead, he focused on immediate concerns and provided guidance for living faithfully within existing societal frameworks.
Conclusion: Embracing the Gifts of All Believers
As we consider the biblical narrative, historical evidence, and cultural contexts, I believe a case emerges for embracing women preachers in a church. From the shared dominion mandate in Genesis to the examples of women in the Bible and in the history of the Church, we see a thread of God using both men and women to advance His kingdom, which at times may include preaching and teaching.
There is often a kick-back to arguments from first century culture, because they seem less robust than simply embracing what seems the most straight-forward reading of certain Bible passages. But I would argue that to read a passage ignorant of the culture in which set is to be ignorant of what the ‘straight forward’ meaning is. The cultural and historical context is necessary to understand what is being communicated, and for understanding certain comments that Paul makes. Why did Paul circumcise Timothy? Why did Paul not say more about the general abolition of slavery? Why should Gentiles avoid bloody meat (Acts 15:29). Why did Paul not explicitly condemn proxy baptisms for the dead? (1 Corinthians 15:29) We try to piece together the Bible in its context(s). Sometimes Christians agree on the end result, and sometimes they do not. I believe the historical and cultural setting of Paul played an important part in understanding his comments about women.
Ultimately, the question we must ask is not "Can women preach?" but rather "How can we fully utilise the gifts and callings of all believers, regardless of gender?" By embracing women preachers, churches have the opportunity to benefit from the full range of talents, insights, and spiritual gifts that God has bestowed upon all His children.