# 1 Cor. 11:5 and 14:34 - how does Paul reconcile these two verses



## Pergamum (Nov 27, 2008)

These two verses seem to contradict whether women can speak in church.

How does Paul reconcile the two? 

(of course I know Paul isn't contradicting himself after only 3 chapters)....


----------



## Matthew1034 (Nov 27, 2008)

I Cor. 11:5



> But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.



I Cor. 14:34



> Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says.




The context of chapter 14 would mean that women were not permitted to speak in tongues in the the church, and if she wanted to know what others were saying in tongues and what the interpretation meant, she could not interrupt to ask, she was to be patient and inquire her husband at home.

Sidenote: In v. 37 Paul states these are commands from the Lord, which is a powerful argument against the tongues movement today, for those pentecostal churches that hold the gift of tongues in such high regard, they do not follow the commands of the Lord in practicing them. If the rules was enforced today that women could not speak in tongues in the church, and only three or four men could (in order), I'm pretty sure the movement would fall apart.


----------



## TheocraticMonarchist (Nov 27, 2008)

Matthew1034 said:


> Sidenote: In v. 37 Paul states these are commands from the Lord, which is a powerful argument against the tongues movement today, for those pentecostal churches that hold the gift of tongues in such high regard, they do not follow the commands of the Lord in practicing them. If the rules was enforced today that women could not speak in tongues in the church, and only three or four men could (in order), *I'm pretty sure the movement would fall apart.*


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 27, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> These two verses seem to contradict whether women can speak in church.
> 
> How does Paul reconcile the two?
> 
> (of course I know Paul isn't contradicting himself after only 3 chapters)....


1 Cor 11:5 is not commanding anything but noting what is happening. It's descriptive of the fact that women are praying with uncovered heads. Because he condemns the head being uncovered and not the prayer does not mean he is commending or commanding public prayer. If we were to infer that he was then we are corrected in our false inference by 14:34. In fact, nearly the entire epistle is noting that things are out of control. I agree with those that note that the passages about tongues that edify the self are actually a condemnation of the practice because no spiritual gifts are given for self-edification but for the Church at large.


Matthew1034 said:


> Sidenote: In v. 37 Paul states these are commands from the Lord, which is a powerful argument against the tongues movement today, for those pentecostal churches that hold the gift of tongues in such high regard, they do not follow the commands of the Lord in practicing them. If the rules was enforced today that women could not speak in tongues in the church, and only three or four men could (in order), I'm pretty sure the movement would fall apart.



Excellent point. While I'm a cessationist and do not commend even the "prophesying" of men (except Preaching), the fact remains that I never once heard a man "prophesy" in all my years as a Charismatic.


----------



## satz (Nov 27, 2008)

As I had mentioned on the headcovering thread, I believe this contradiction is resolved by understanding 1 Cor 14 as laying out the general rule, while 1 Cor 11 is addressing an exception that existed in Paul’s time because of spiritual gifts. The prayer and prophecy in 1 Cor 11 is inspired prayer and prophecy, which is indicated by the general context of the second half of 1 Corinthians. In other words, Paul is essentially regulating prophetesses in 1 Cor 11, who were allowed to speak, even in church assemblies because of their special gift. 1 Cor 14 in general shows, I believe, that prophecy was a gift to be exercised in and during the assembly, normal preaching like we have today could not take place as there was no NT yet, so the church had to reply on inspired teaching. 1 Cor 14:34 is the general rule that applied to other women, and applies to us today because the special gifts of the apostolic era are now gone.

I know Calvin and some others disagree, but I would respectfully submit that this is a more natural reading of the passages than to say Paul only mentions women praying in the assembly in 1 Cor 11, then later condemns it in 1 Cor 14. 1 Cor 11:5,6,10 and 13 are Paul making arguments for women to cover. So he was not just mentioning the practice, but regulating it as well. Why would he regulate something he later intended to absolutely condemn?

I would also add that there is no inherent contradiction between this position and 1 Cor 14:34 because the very context of the verse allows for exceptions. Firstly, Paul has already used the phase “keep silence in the church” before in the chapter, in v28, about a man with tongues but no interpreter. This would not mean that man could not speak at all, but rather he was not to speak in a certain respect, being his gift of tongues. So the prohibition on women speaking which Paul meant is not absolute, otherwise women could not even sing. Rather it is specific types of speaking which is forbidden.

Looking closely, 1 Cor 14:34 also says “as also saith the law”. The law itsself had allowances for women to speak, which is why we understand that the silence required in a NT church is similarly not absolute. Specifically, Ex 15:20; Judges 4:4; II Kgs 22:14; Micah 6:4 show that the law itself allowed for prophetesses. So the “under obedience” contemplated by 1 Cor 14:34 is not absolute, as it is qualified by the exceptions allowed by the law itself.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Nov 28, 2008)

There are, to my knowledge, two views that harmonize these passages. First, if we take the words praying and prophesying to relate to normal functions in the worship service, they would refer to the act of public prayer (with the rest of the congregation) and "prophesying", which, in the OT was done by many times by singing, (where the Prophet sung the Word of God he was prophesying) such that this singing was on occasion called "prophesying". So, the Apostle is telling the Corinthian Church that the participation by women in the regulated worship of the Church, which included singing (the Word of God) and praying, was properly undertaken with heads covered. (2 Kings 3.15; 1 Samuel 10.5-6)

The other argument was ably made by John Murray. See it pasted below. 

Beyond question it is in reference to praying and prophesying that the injunctions pertain, the absence of head covering for men and the presence for women. It might seem, therefore, that the passage has nothing to do with a head covering for women in the assemblies of the Church if they are not engaged in praying or prophesying, that is, in leading in prayer or exercising the gift of prophesying. And the implication would be that only when they performed these functions were they required to use head covering. The further implication would be that they would be at liberty to perform these functions provided they wore head gear. This view could easily be adopted if it were not so that Paul forbids such exercises on the part of women and does so in the same epistle, (I Cor. 14:33b-36): "As in all the Churches, for it is not permitted to them to speak" (vss. 33b-34a). It is impossible to think that Paul would, by implication, lend approval in chapter 11, to what he so expressly prohibits in chapter 14. Hence we shall have to conclude that he does not contemplate praying or prophesying on the part of women in the Church in chapter 11. The question arises: how can this be, and how can we interpret 11:5, 6, 13? It is possible to interpret the verses in chapter 11 in a way that is compatible with chapter 14:33b-36. It is as follows: —

a. In chapter 11 the decorum prescribed in 14:33b-36 is distinctly in view and Paul is showing its propriety. Praying and prophesying are functions that imply authority, the authority that belongs to the man as distinguished from the woman according to the ordinance of creation. The man in exercising this authority in praying and prophesying must not wear a head covering. Why not? The head covering is the sign of subjection, the opposite of the authority that belongs to him, exemplified in praying and prophesying, hence 11:4, 7. In a word, head covering in praying and prophesying would be a contradiction.

b. But precisely here enters the relevance of verses 5, 6, 13 as they pertain to women. If women are to pray and prophesy in the assemblies, they perform functions that imply authority and would require therefore, to remove the head covering. To do so with the head covering would involve the contradiction referred to already. But it is the impropriety of removing the head covering that is enforced in 11:5, 6 & 13. In other words, the apostle is pressing home the impropriety of the exercise of these functions — praying and prophesying — on the part of women by showing the impropriety of what it would involve, namely, the removal of the head covering. And so the rhetorical question of verse 13: "Is it proper for a woman to pray to God unveiled?"

c. This interpretation removes all discrepancy between 11:5, 6, 13 and 14:33b-36 and it seems to me feasible, and consonant with the whole drift of 11:2-16.

5. The foregoing implies that the head covering for women was understood to belong to the decorum of public worship.


----------

