I have recently received a letter from a
valued friend asking me to send him a "discussion of the Greek words laleo and lego in such passages
as 1 Corinthians 14:33-39, with special reference to the question: Does the
thirty-fourth verse forbid all women everywhere to speak or preach publicly in
Christian churches?" The matter is of universal interest, and I take the
liberty of communicating my reply to the readers of The Presbyterian.
It requires to be said at once that there is
no problem with reference to the relations of laleo
and lego. Apart from niceties of merely philological
interest, these words stand related to one another just as the English words
speak and say do; that is to say, laleo expresses the
act of talking, while lego refers to what is said.
Wherever then the fact of speaking, without reference to the content of what is
said, is to be indicated, laleo is used, and must be
used. There is nothing disparaging in the intimation of the word, any more than
there is in our word talk; although, of course, it can on occasion be used
disparagingly as our word talk can also – as when some of the newspapers
intimate that the Senate is given over to mere talk. This disparaging
application of laleo, however, never occurs in the
New Testament, although the word is used very frequently.
The word is in its right place in 1
Corinthians 14:33ff, therefore, and necessarily bears there its simple and
natural meaning. If we needed anything to fix its meaning, however, it would be
supplied by its frequent use in the preceding part of the chapter, where it
refers not only to speaking with tongues (which was divine manifestation and
unintelligible only because of the limitations of the hearers), but also to the
prophetic speech, which is directly declared to be to edification and
exhortation and comforting (verses 3-6). It would be supplied more pungently,
however, by its contrasting term here – “let them be silent” (verse 34). Here
we have laleo directly defined for us: "Let the
women keep silent, for it is not permitted to them to speak." Keep silent
– speak: these are the two opposites; and the one defines the other.
It is important to observe, now, that the
pivot on which the injunction of these verses turns is not the prohibition of
speaking so much as the command of silence. That is
the main injunction. The prohibition of speech is introduced only to explain
the meaning more fully. What Paul says is in brief: "Let the women keep
silent in the churches." That surely is direct and specific enough for all
needs. He then adds explanatorily: "For it is not permitted to them to speak."
"It is not permitted" is an appeal to a general law, valid apart from
Paul's personal command, and looks back to the opening phrase – “as in all the
churches of the saints." He is only requiring the Corinthian women to
conform to the general law of the churches. And that is the meaning of the
almost bitter words that he adds in verse 36, in which – reproaching them for
the innovation of permitting women to speak in the churches – he reminds them
that they are not the authors of the Gospel, nor are they its sole possessors:
let them keep to the law that binds the whole body of churches and not be
seeking some newfangled way of their own.
The intermediate verses only make it plain
that precisely what the apostle is doing is forbidding women to speak at all in
the church. His injunction of silence he pushes so far that he forbids them
even to ask questions; and adds with special reference to that, but through
that to the general matter, the crisp declaration that "it is
indecent" – for that is the meaning of the word – “for a woman to speak in
church."
It would be impossible for the apostle to
speak more directly or more emphatically than he has done here. He requires
women to be silent at the church meetings; for that is what "in the
churches" means, there were no church buildings then. And he has not left
us in doubt as to the nature of these church meetings. He had just described
them in verses 26ff. They were of the general character of our prayer meetings.
Note the words "let him be silent in the church" in verse 30, and
compare them with "let them he silent in the churches" in verse 34.
The prohibition of women speaking covers thus all public church meetings – it
is the publicity, not the formality of it, which is the point. And he tells us
repeatedly that this is the universal law of the church. He does more than
that. He tells us that it is the commandment of the Lord, and emphasizes the
word "Lord" (verse 37).
The passage in 1
In the face of these two absolutely plain
and emphatic passages, what is said in 1 Corinthians 11:5 cannot be appealed to
in mitigation or modification. Precisely what is meant
in I Corinthians 11:5, nobody quite knows. What is said there is that every
woman praying or prophesying unveiled dishonors her head. It seems fair to
infer that if she prays or prophesies veiled she does not dishonor her head.
And it seems fair still further to infer that she may properly pray or prophesy
if only she does it veiled. We are piling up a chain of inferences. And they
have not carried us very far, We cannot infer that it
would be proper for her to pray or prophesy in church if only she were veiled.
There is nothing said about church in the passage or in the context. The word
"church" does not occur until the 16th verse, and then not as ruling
the reference of the passage, but only as supplying support for the injunction
of the passage. There is no reason whatever for believing that "praying
and prophesying" in church is meant. Neither was an exercise confined to
the church. If, as in 1 Corinthians 14:14, the “praying” spoken of was an
ecstatic exercise – as its place by "prophesying" may suggest – then
there would be the divine inspiration superceding all ordinary laws to be
reckoned with. And there has already been occasion to observe that prayer in
public is forbidden to women in 1
What must be noted in conclusion is: (1) That the prohibition of speaking in the church to women is
precise, absolute, and all-inclusive. They are to keep silent in the churches –
and that means in all the public meetings for worship; they are not even to ask
questions; (2) that this prohibition is given especial point precisely for the
two matters of teaching and ruling covering specifically the functions of
preaching and ruling elders; (3) that the grounds on which the prohibition is
put are universal and turn on the difference in sex, and particularly on the
relative places given to the sexes in creation and in the fundamental history
of the race (the fall).
Perhaps it ought to be added in elucidation
of the last point just made that the difference in conclusions between Paul and
the feminist movement of today is rooted in a fundamental difference in their
points of view relative to the constitution of the human race. To Paul, the
human race is made up of families, and every several organism – the church
included – is composed of families, united together by this or that bond. The relation of the sexes in the family follow it therefore into
the church. To the feminist movement the human race is made up of individuals;
a woman is just another individual by the side of the man, and it can see no
reason for any differences in dealing with the two. And, indeed, if we can
ignore the great fundamental natural difference of sex and destroy the great
fundamental social unit of the family in the interest of individualism, there
does not seem any reason why we should not wipe out the differences established
by Paul between the sexes in the church – except, of course, the authority of Paul.
It all, in the end, comes back to the authority of the apostles, as founders of
the church. We may like what Paul says, or we may not like it. We may be
willing to do what he commands, or we may not be willing to do it. But there is
no room for doubt of what he says. And he certainly would say to us what he
said to the Corinthians: "What? Was it from you that the word of God went
forth? Or came it to you alone?" Is this
Christianity ours – to do with as we like? Or is it God's religion, receiving
its laws from him through the apostles?