Paul had formerly acknowledged that women could share a word from the Lord in the church meetings (11:4-16). Now he clarified one point about their participation in this context of prophesying.
14:34 The word translated "silent"(Gr. sige) means just that, namely to keep silent or to hold one's peace. However in 11:5 Paul spoke as though women prophesying in the church was a common and acceptable practice. I think the best explanation of this apparent contradiction comes out of the context, as is usually true. Paul had just permitted others in the congregation to evaluate the comments that a prophet made (v. 29). Now he qualified this by saying the women should not to do so vocally in the church meetings as the men could. The teaching of the Law on this subject appears to be a reference to woman's subordination to the authoritative man in her family (Gen. 3:16). The "Law"then would refer to the Old Testament, as in verse 21.
14:35 Rather than calling out a question in the middle of some male or female prophet's message, a woman was to wait and ask her husband about it at home after the service. Presumably unmarried women would ask their fathers or some other man in the church after the service. Men could raise questions or make comments, but too much of this could ruin the order of the service and the edifying value of the message. Consequently Paul asked the women, evidently because of their natural position of subordination, to refrain. It is improper for a woman to speak in church meetings in the situation Paul addressed in the context. That situation is the questioning and perhaps challenging of what a prophet said who was sharing something he or she believed God had given him or her to pass on to the church.343
There have been many other explanations of this apparent contradiction. Richard Lenski assumed that all of what Paul said in 14:26-32 applies only to men and that he added verses 33-36 as an appendix to deal with women's participation.344However this does not harmonize with 11:4-5. William Barclay believed at this point Paul was not able to rise above the spirit of his age that said women should not participate in intellectual activities on a par with men.345This view fails to appreciate the implications of Paul's inspiration by the Spirit as he wrote as well as his high regard for women that he expressed elsewhere in his writings. G. Campbell Morgan seems to have regarded Paul's prohibition as necessary in view of conditions unique in Corinth.346C. K. Barrett believed Paul did not write verses 34-35. He presumed some other person added them to the text later when Christians thought good order was more important than the freedom of the Spirit.347Gordon Fee also argued that these verses are inauthentic.348Harry Ironside believed the occasions at which women could speak were different from the official meetings of the church at which they were to be silent.349David Lowery wrote that Paul wanted the married women whose husbands were present in the meeting to be silent, but that other women could speak if properly covered.350S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., seems to have felt women could never speak in the church meetings except when they prayed or prophesied.351H. Wayne House concluded women could not speak if others considered what they said was authoritative.352Anne Blampied said Paul told the women to keep silent because they were violating the principle of order in the church, not because they were women.353
The most common view is that Paul forbade some form of inappropriate speech, not all speech.354The second most popular interpretation is that Paul forbade some form of "inspired"speech other than prophecy, perhaps contradicting the prophets or speaking in tongues.
"Paul's long response to the Corinthians' enthusiasm for tongues is now finished. The basic issue is over what it means to be pneumatikos(spiritual'); and on this issue Paul and they are deeply divided. They think it has to do with speaking in tongues, the language(s) of the angels, the sure evidence that they are already living in the pneumatic existence of the future. For this reason they have great zeal for this gift (cf. v. 12), including an insistence on its practice in the gathered assembly. Apparently in their letter they have not only defended this practice, but by the same criterion have called Paul into question for his lack of spirituality.' Hence the undercurrent of apologetic for his own speaking in tongues in vv. 6, 15, and 18.
"Paul's response to all this has been twofold. First, they are to broaden their perspective to recognize that being Spirit people by its very nature means a great variety of gifts and ministries in the church (chap. 12). Second, the whole point of the gathered people of God is edification, the true expression of love for the saints. Whatever they do in the assembly must be both intelligible and orderly so that the whole community may be edified; thus it must reflect the character of God, which is how it is (or is to be) in all the churches of the saints (v. 33)."355
