Is That Really What He Meant?

The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.  If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. (1 Corinthians 14:34-35 NASB)

After 1 Corinthians 7 where Paul goes to heroic lengths to remain balanced between genders, chapter 11 where he addresses women and prophesying or praying with their heads covered, and chapter 12 where he again strives for a balance; these verses are extremely problematic.  There's no getting around their wording, it's unequivocal.  There's no limits on application, the terms are general.  And therefore there is really no comprehension in light of the previous chapters.  It's as if these two verses are completely at odds with the rest of what Paul wrote.

But there's more: they really don't fit in the discussion at hand.  They don't refer to tongues or prophesy, and while the rest of the chapter seems to be about intelligibility, these are about who speaks, without reference to what is said.  Left out, the chapter reads just fine or even better. Their only link to this chapter is that the setting seems to be worship.

While it would just be easier for everyone to leave them out, they occur in all manuscripts we have, just not in the same place.  Some put these two verses at the end, preserving the contiguous reading of Paul's argument, but only up to that point.  The majority of texts put them right where we find them.  I don't think you'll find a modern translation pulling them out, or even noting that they don't belong.  Since they appear in all manuscripts, there wouldn't be any point in noting that.

The commentator I use for 1 Corinthians, Gordon Fee, believes that they were a margin note that made it into the early manuscripts around the first century, and thereafter into all the other text families.  It makes sense from a point of view, but I believe that my Master, having inspired the texts, protected them through transmission as well.  This seems an odd thing to permit.

So, here's my take on it:  The reason it would have been an addition is because of culture, and things Paul wrote to Timothy later on.  In those instances there were specific problems that women were causing within congregations.  So, my application of this passage is that everyone should keep their communication during worship from disrupting what the Holy Spirit is doing.  In other words, rather than having a discussion about what was said right there, chatting about it while worship is going on, wait until afterwards.

But I also believe that this verse needs to be held in tension with the other things Paul wrote in this letter.  Therefore, women can prophesy and pray within worship.  Women do have status within the congregation as participants.  But as tongues would be a disruptive practice unless interpreted, so anyone simply asking questions about some item taught or prophesied which is not 'weighing' the prophesy or saying 'amen' to the prayer is also disruptive and not 'building up' of the church.

Other than that, I find these verses as unintelligible in 1 Corinthians as tongues in worship.  They seem at odds with Paul's clear teaching in other parts of the letter, so a 'cultural' application to Corinth doesn't fit.  They're not specifically about tongues or prophesy, so an application to those specific practices doesn't fit either.  They don't mention unintelligible speech, but any sort of talking; and leave out any reference to 'building up of the church' which would also be expected as support for why.

So, the literary context being what it is, I apply it as I have: generally to anyone, and about adhoc disruptive side discussions in worship distracting from the work of God in worship.  That's way wide of where it is specific and very narrow where it is general.  So, technically speaking, it's a bad interpretation.  Considering the implications of it being taken narrow where it's narrow, and wide where it's wide, I'll take the bad interpretation that figures Paul had a reason for this where it is.  The other options are to remove it, as Dr. Fee suggests, or to take it as the rule over against the other things Paul wrote.  It's not possible to take the other parts of this letter with reference to women, and these verses as they read, and make them compatible.  You either do what I did, or jettison the other references of Paul in this letter, you can't keep both.  Practically speaking, I'd much rather just leave these verses out.  But here, my Master simply isn't cooperating with my view of simplicity.  I suppose when dealing with One who forms stars with simply their voice, simplicity is relative...