PREFATORY NOTE to Covet to Prophesy

"Eve and the Rabbins" is a 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 sound doctrine. 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 assembly both 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 any supposed 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 herself the
tutor of fanaticism 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.
KATHARINE BUSHNELL

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. If he 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.
31. For ye may ALL prophesy one by one that ALL may learn, and ALL
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 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 turn (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 11th 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 their husbands, 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 of low 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)[1] former co-laborers 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 of Mutterrect [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 of the 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
women. Therefore, I more readily turn in that direction for a statement as to Priscilla's
position in the Apostolic Church. Prof. Harnack, of Berlin, says:[3]
"In any case she must have been associated with and more distinguished
than her husband. That is verified from Acts 18:26 and Romans 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 in accordance 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.

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 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 of the 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."
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 at 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 of Numbers. 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." [Alfotdis 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 turn 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 any one
meeting. So Alford thinks. By the "others" (R. V.) we understand all others who have
likewise the gift of prophecy--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.
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. Comp. 1:14, and 2:4). As the promised powerdynamis--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 Himself will 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. . .
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 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 modern 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 2I: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.
David himself ordered the appointment of men among women to prophesy in song.
Moreover, David and the captains of the host separated to 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, "O woman that publishest good

tidings: to Zion, get thee up into the high mountain; O woman, that publishest good
tidings to Jerusalem, lift up thy voice with strength lift: 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 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 of long 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 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 he 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," O woman.
But that will not do. We must have three terms in our syllogism. What
shall we supply?
"The law saith," "He shall rule over thee."
He rules, "Thou shalt keep silence."
Therefore, "The law saith," "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 will learn anything let them ask their husbands at 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 only legitimate 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 if he 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, fol. 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 stern 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 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:I 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."
"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 of that 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 that would 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 his jealousy 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.85, 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. Probabliliaber die addresse des Hebraerbriefs in the Zeitschrift fr die
neutestamentliche Wissenchaft, Erster Jahrgang. Heft 1 1900. Giessen
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 and Howson, footnote p. 96, Vol II.
8. See Dr. Lightfoot's Exercitations, comment on John 4:29.
9. Schwab's Translation, Berakoth II.
10. McClintock and Strong's Dictionary of Biblical and Theological Literature, see
"Talmud."