By Marshall “Rusty” Entrekin
Imagine that the
1930’s comedy team of Laurel and Hardy were invited to share inspirational
messages at a church. In a departure from their regular routine, they decided
to take turns addressing the congregation. While Oliver Hardy had the
congregation in stitches, Stan Laurel was loudly carrying on a conversation
with the person sitting next to him. “Stanley, please be quiet!” Oliver said.
“You’re not supposed to be talking in church! You ought to be obeying the
rules! Shame on you!”
At that, Stanley quit
talking and sheepishly sank down into his seat. Finally, Oliver finished his
message. “OK, Stanley, now it’s your turn!” He said. Stan, however, remained seated.
“Stanley, it’s your turn!”
“Stanley?”
Stan scribbled a note and
handed it to the usher. Oliver read out loud: “But Ollie, you said that I’m not
supposed to be talking in church!”
Obviously, in this imaginary
story, Oliver meant that Stan was not supposed to talk in a disruptive way in
church. Stan, however, took Oliver’s words to mean that he should not speak at
all. That was because he failed to recognize what most of us, as native
speakers of English, are able to easily see. A foreigner, however, or even an
English speaker a few hundred years from now, might easily miss such indicators
of meaning.
All of us are “foreigners”
to Koine Greek, the language that the New Testament was written in nearly 2000
years ago. Occasionally, where difficult passages are concerned, it is only
through careful study and reflection, combined with receptiveness to the
guidance of the Holy Spirit, that we come to properly understand the meaning of
a biblical writer. Sometimes, upon further study, even expert translators
realize that they had initially missed indicators of meaning in a difficult
passage.
For some time now, persuaded
by a good friend who has written on this subject, I have held to the position
that women should not speak publicly in church. This position is based on I
Corinthians 14: 34-37:
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 any
thing, 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.
In most modern churches, not
only the women, but also most of the men have to be silent, so this passage
does not attract as much controversy as it might. In churches such as ours that
practice participatory meetings based on I Corinthians 14:26-40, however, it is
of great relevance. Although I was intellectually persuaded that my friend’s
interpretation was probably right, I had nagging doubts about it.
This was because in I
Corinthians 11, Paul does not speak disapprovingly of a woman prophesying in
what most commentators take to be a church setting, as long as she has a
covering on her head. John Calvin offered a possible explanation for this in
his Commentary on 1 Corinthians 14:
It may be
replied, that the Apostle, by here condemning the one, does not commend the
other. For when he reproves them for prophesying with their head uncovered, he
at the same time does not give them permission to prophesy in some other way,
but rather delays his condemnation of that vice to another passage, namely in 1
Corinthians 14.
Still, it seemed odd to me
that Paul would not express his disapproval of this practice right away, if it
was so objectionable to him, but would wait until chapter 14 to express his
disapproval of it. It is possible that
the apostle was referring to women prophesying in contexts outside of the
church meeting, but, as I already mentioned, most commentators do not see it
that way, and because of reasons that I will explain later, this interpretation
did not seem as likely to me, either.
Secondly, this passage is
one of the most controversial in the New Testament, and I had heard arguments
against this strict interpretation that, although they were not conclusive,
raised further doubts.
Lastly, although my wife and
I were intellectually persuaded of this interpretation, I was dismayed as she
struggled with deep feelings of low self worth because of it. I would remind
her that she is of such worth that God gave His Son for her, and of the close
relationship that Jesus had with women such as Mary and Martha. Although this
interpretation seemed to be having an oppressive effect on her, the last
thing that I or anyone else I knew who held to this position wanted was to
be oppressive. They were simply good, loving people who felt duty bound to obey
what they thought the Bible commanded, just as we did.
A Command Meant to be Obeyed
Our desire to be obedient to this passage was strengthened by
the fact that Paul’s words here are quite firm. He gives not one, but five
reasons why this command should be obeyed:
The first is "for it is not permitted unto them
to speak.” The perfect tense of the Greek verb translated "permitted"
indicates that Paul was being quite emphatic.
The second is "but they are commanded to be
under obedience". This verb is also in the perfect tense, again signifying
that Paul was being very emphatic.
Paul’s
third reason reinforces the second, "as also saith the law." This is
followed by a reply to a possible objection, "And if they will learn any
thing, let them ask their husbands at home".
The
fourth is "for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”
And
the fifth is because "the things that I write unto you are the
commandments of the Lord."
And
so there is no doubt that Paul wanted this command for women to be silent to be
obeyed!
But
in order to obey it accurately, we must make certain that we understand it
correctly! In this case, it is particularly important, especially if we are
going to teach others how to obey it. This is because how we interpret it has a
very important effect on half of God’s people! In our opening story,
when Stan Laurel misunderstood a similar command, it made for comedy. But if
God’s people misunderstand Paul’s command, the result is not so funny, when we
consider the potentially vast impact of that error. Whatever view we adopt, we
must not enter into it carelessly or lightheartedly.
Just as Stan mistook Ollie’s
words, could my wife and I have misunderstood the Apostle Paul? Was Paul merely
forbidding the women from speaking disruptively? As I pondered this question, I
knew that determining the answer to it would require time-consuming study,
which would involve close examination of the relevant Greek words, the Greek
grammar, and the context of the passage. With a struggling new business and
seven children to provide for, that was a luxury that was hard to justify, so I
put it off for a long time.
Recently
however, even my fifteen and nine year old daughters began to question this
interpretation. That was the final prod which motivated me to take the time to
study and meditate on this passage in depth.
Surely,
when any scripture passage has a great and controversial impact on God’s
people, it can be beneficial to study the Greek words, the grammar, and the
context carefully, to make certain that we understand it correctly. Otherwise,
how can we be certain that we know the “plain meaning” of the passage?
What I learned from this
study was very edifying to me! I hope that you will find it to be of benefit as
well.
Various Interpretations of this Passage
We
must not approach this passage (or any other scripture passage) with the motive
of trying to “explain it away.” Instead, we should study this passage, and any
difficult passage in scripture, with the honest desire to more fully understand
it. If a fuller understanding honestly compels us to adopt an interpretation
different from the one that we previously held, then that, on the other hand,
is a good thing.
Some
have claimed that verses 34 and 35, which are generally regarded as canonical,
are an interpolation (addition) by a scribe. However, although these two verses
are indeed placed at the end of the chapter in some ancient manuscripts, they are
present in all of them. In light of such massive manuscript evidence, verses 34
and 35 seem to rightfully belong in the inspired text. Furthermore, in the
spring 1999 edition of the Biblical Theology Bulletin, D.W. Odell-Scott pointed out that in
manuscripts where these verses are placed at the end of the chapter, there is a resulting
textual incoherence, because verse 36 is then left standing alone. Despite the
attempts of some to make it disappear, this difficult passage just won’t go
away!
Others
say that Paul’s command only had application to the Corinthian cultural
situation. However, could not this claim be made in regard to any scripture
that we are uncomfortable with? Furthermore, it is plain contextually, by statements
like “as in all of the churches of the saints,” that the instructions Paul is
giving have universal application.
Still
others assert that in verses 34 and 35, Paul is quoting the words of
some people in Corinth that he disagrees with. In this scenario, he follows the
quote with the words, “What! Did the word of God originate with you?” However,
this interpretation is pure conjecture, since the apostle gives us no clear
indications that he is quoting someone. Steve Atkerson has pointed out that contrary
to the mistaken assertions of some, the Greek letter ayta does not
indicate that verses 34 and 35 are quotes [http://www.ntrf.org/silent2.html].
Instead, Paul’s “What!” seems to be directed at those who would disagree with
the firm command he has just given.
Some
have conjectured that the men and women were sitting on opposite sides of the
meeting hall, and the women were shouting questions to their husbands. Although
Paul may have been forbidding disorderly speech, there is no scriptural,
archeological, or ancient literary evidence I am aware of which indicates that
the practice of the first century church was to segregate the men and women (if
you are aware of such, please let me know). Furthermore, the early church met
in homes. It is hard to imagine such a strict segregation in the casual
atmosphere of a home meeting! However, many of the women might have voluntarily
sat together and apart from their husbands. That would partly explain this
passage, but it would not explain all of it, because Paul’s prohibition seems
to cover much more than just the asking of questions. Furthermore, Paul wrote,
“let them ask their own husbands at home,” indicating that some of the women
were asking questions of people besides their own husbands.
Lastly,
another interpretation is the idea that Paul is merely forbidding the women
from openly questioning or judging a prophecy spoken by a man. However, this
idea has difficulties, too, not the least of which is the fact that the apostle
closes his command with the observation, “For it is a shame for women to be
speaking in church,” a statement which seems to be much broader in scope than
questioning or judging prophecy.
Besides
the interpretations listed above, all of which present difficulties, we are
left with only two other reasonable explanations I am aware of, which I will
discuss after a few brief introductory comments.
A Limited Silence
To begin with, it is obvious Paul meant that when the church
comes together, the women should be silent only at certain times. Most church
historians agree that in the early church, the Lord’s Supper was celebrated
each week in the context of a full meal, and was a time of wonderful
fellowship. Surely Paul was not prohibiting the women from speaking to others
during that time, except, perhaps, at certain points, such as when it was time
for someone to explain the significance of the bread and wine. And so reason
dictates that the times when silence is called for are those periods that are
devoted to public speaking and reverence before God.
Nearly
all of those who believe that women should not speak publicly in church allow
them to sing with the men. Most of them also would allow a woman to call down
an unruly child. And so it is obvious that this was a limited silence. The important
thing that we need to determine is, what was the scope of it?
Two Likely Meanings
A Greek word can mean different things depending on the
context, just as an English word can. Sometimes there are fine shades of
meaning in the Greek, just as there are in English. This, of course, is why we
have multiple definitions for many words in Greek lexicons. To argue that laleo,
the Greek word meaning “to speak,” means all speech of any form, or
that sigao just means “be mute” is to over-simplify things and to gloss
over this fact.
For reasons which I will further explain, it has seemed to me for some time now
that the apostle Paul must have had one of two different shades of meaning in
mind when he wrote 1 Corinthians 14:34-37:
1)
Silence in regard to public speech: A woman
should not publicly address the church at all during the meeting time.
Although nearly all English translations can be understood in the sense of #2
below, this is what many think the “plain meaning” of this passage seems to be,
as it is usually translated into English.
But that, of course, should not be the ultimate determining factor for us. The
most important question is, what was the “plain meaning” of this passage in the
Greek language in which it was written? That is what I set out to learn when I
began to study this passage, and I will try to explain the conclusion I came to
in a way that the average Christian with no knowledge of Greek can understand
and evaluate.
2)
The other meaning that Paul may have had in mind is silence in regard
to disruptive speech: Women should not talk in a disruptive way during
the meeting. For instance, suppose that a missionary revisited a church
that he had planted. When the meeting began, he noticed that some of the
ladies, not wanting to stop their enjoyable conversations, were continuing to
talk, ignoring the speakers and church leaders. I can testify first hand that I
have seen this happen in church, and it really is quite shameful. It reflects a
disdain for the important spiritual matters at hand, a rebellious nature, and a
lack of reverence, for the Lord is present when His people meet. In a follow-up
letter to the church, we would not be surprised for that missionary to get very
firm and say something like, “Just as in all other churches, your women should
be quiet during the meetings! They are not permitted to be talking. Instead,
they should be submissive, as the Bible also says. If they have any questions,
they should ask their own husbands at home. For it is shameful for women to be
talking in church!”
If this interpretation is correct, then the Greek word sigao should be
understood in the sense of “keep quiet” rather than “keep silence.” The Greek
word lalein should be understood in the sense of “to be talking” rather
than “to speak.”
But
which interpretation is the right one?
I
don’t think that in the matter of practical instructions for church meetings, our Lord would leave us with no way of determining the meaning
of an inspired writer of scripture. If we are responsive to the guidance of the
Holy Spirit, and carefully study the grammar, the context, and the NT usage of
the Greek words in a passage, we should be able to find indicators of the
intent of a writer.
To
begin with, the Greek word translated “keep silence” in verse 34 is sigatosan,
which is the present active imperative form of the Greek word sigao. A
present active imperative is a command to continue an action, such as “keep
sweeping!” Because
the command for the women to be silent is in the present active imperative, it
carries with it the idea of "keep quiet."
This
continuous sense could be understood in three different ways:
1) Continue being silent during the meeting.
2) Continue
the church custom of being silent.
3) Get
quiet and keep quiet.
Note
that all three of the above could refer to silence in regard to public
speaking, or silence in regard to disruptive speech. Paul also used the
present active imperative form of sigao twice in the nearby verses:
28 But if
there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him
speak to himself, and to God.
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.
Where
Paul commands the tongue speakers to be silent, his meaning is (1): continue
being silent during the meeting.
Where
Paul commands the first prophet to be silent, his meaning is (3): Get quiet
and keep quiet.
The
first thing that we notice in regard to Paul’s usage of sigao in these
two verses was that he is not prohibiting all forms of speech. For that matter,
he was not even prohibiting all forms of public speech, for he did not forbid
the tongue speakers and prophets from speaking publicly in other ways. It was
OK for them to speak publicly again, provided they did not give a message in
tongues or another prophecy while a second prophet was speaking. Therefore, sigao
meant silence in regard to tongue speaking and in regard to
prophecy. This confirms our earlier observation that sigao is a limited
silence, and it leads us to ask the crucial question, what is Paul commanding
the women to be silent in regard to?
Examining how sigao
is used in the rest of the New Testament can help us to determine this.
The New
Testament Usage of Sigao
The
Greek lexicon of Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich (BAG) is widely recognized as one
of the most authoritative works of it’s kind. According to BAG, sigao
can have the various meanings of:
1)
Be silent, keep still
a.
Say nothing, keep silent
b.
stop speaking, become silent
2) Keep secret, conceal
Sigao only occurs eight other times in the NT. Aside from Paul, Luke is
the only other New Testament writer who uses this word. Luke and Paul were contemporaries who spent
a great deal of time in each other’s company, so it is likely that they both
used the word in the same way. This means that Luke’s usage of the word can
help us understand Paul’s usage of it as well. With that said, let’s look at
each occurrence of this word in the NT.
In
two verses in the NT, sigao has the meaning of, "kept
secret":
Luke 9:36 And when the voice was past, Jesus was
found alone. And they kept it close and told no man in those days
any of those things which they had seen.
Romans 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish
you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the
revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
In
these two verses, we again see that sigao is a limited silence. It
does not convey the idea of silence concerning all things; just silence in
regard to not divulging a particular secret.
All
of the other occurrences of sigao concern public assemblies, so they
have great relevance to understanding the meaning of this word as it
used in 1 Cor. 14:34.
Luke 20:26
And they could not take hold of his words before the people: and they marvelled
at his answer, and held their peace.
Acts 12:17
But he, beckoning unto them with the hand to hold their peace, declared
unto them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. And he said, Go shew
these things unto James, and to the brethren. And he departed, and went into
another place.
Acts 15:12
Then all the multitude kept silence and gave audience to Barnabas and
Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by
them.
Acts 15:13
And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and
brethren, hearken unto me:
The last two occurrences of sigao
in the NT (other than 1 Corinthians 14:34), are of particular importance
to this subject, because they are in the immediate context of the verses that
we are considering:
1
Corinthians 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence
in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
1
Corinthians 14:30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by,
let the first hold his peace.
From
this complete list of all of the NT verses containing the word sigao
(outside of the disputed verse), we can make several observations:
- As we have already
noted, in the last two verses listed above, Paul does not mean that a
speaker in tongues or a prophet cannot address the congregation again
later in the meeting. He only means that they should stop talking in a
particular way. In fact there is nothing to indicate that that the first
prophet who speaks may not give another prophecy later in the meeting. He
is only instructed to be silent so that a different prophet who also
receives a revelation will have the opportunity to speak.
- Outside of the
disputed verse, wherever sigao is used in the New Testament
concerning a public meeting, it refers to the respectful silence required
for unhindered public speaking. In this regard it is very similar to the
English word “quiet.” When we use this word in a phrase such as “be
quiet,” we usually do not mean that none of those in the audience are
permitted to speak publicly. Instead, we use the word to bring order to
a noisy crowd, and to request that disruptive speech and chattering stop.
Outside of 1 Corinthians 14:34, that is exactly the way that sigao
is used in all of the other NT passages that refer to public
speech.
3.
If, in verse 34, sigao does not only refer to being
respectfully silent while someone is speaking publicly, but also to a complete
ban on public speaking, then this is the only place that the word is used in
such a comprehensive sense in the entire New Testament.
If Paul had wanted the women to be completely silent, there is another
Greek word, siopao, that he could have used. It also means “to be
silent,” but it seems to be the New Testament word of choice to indicate
complete absence of speech, including public speech. Here are some instances
where siopao is used in exactly that way:
Luke 1:20 And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and
not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because
thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season.
Luke 19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I
tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would
immediately cry out.
Matthew 26:63 But Jesus held his peace. And
the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God,
that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
Mark 3:4
And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or
to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.
Acts 18:9
Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but
speak, and hold not thy peace:
And so we conclude that the
Greek word sigao indicates a limited, not a complete silence, and that
outside of the disputed verse, it always refers to the respectful silence
required for unhindered public speaking when it concerns public meetings.
The New
Testament Usage of Laleo
Next, let's look at laleo, the word translated
"to speak" in "they are not permitted to speak."
Thayer
writes that laleo has the following range of meanings:
1) to utter
a voice or emit a sound
2) to speak
2a) to use the tongue or the faculty of speech
2b) to utter articulate sounds
3) to talk
4) to utter, tell
5) to use words in order to declare one's mind and disclose one's thoughts
5a) to speak
BAG
lists a similar range of possible meanings.
A
quick computer survey of all of the 271 instances of this word in the New
Testament also confirms that laleo has a very broad range of possible
meanings, just as the English word talk does. Just like the English word
talk, wherever laleo is used, we must determine it’s precise meaning by
the immediate context.
Another word that is commonly used to refer to speech
in the NT is the word lego. Why did Paul not use it instead?
W.E. Vine points out the
primary difference between laleo and lego:
In comparison with laleo,
lego refers especially to the substance of what is said, laleo, to
the words conveying the utterance.
Regarding this, Dr. Spiros Zodhiates writes,
The reason he [Paul] used laleo
and not lego [when discussing tongues] is because laleo refers to
the mere utterance of sounds without the speaker necessarily knowing what he is
saying or others understanding. Lego on the other hand is saying
something which is the product of one’s thought.
Although Dr. Zodhiates was discussing why Paul chose laleo
to refer to speaking in tongues, it is easy to see how the word would also be
appropriate for referring to speaking in a disruptive and noisy fashion. The
translators of the World English Bible, in fact, translate laleo as “to
chatter” in verse 35:
If they desire
to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is shameful
for a woman to chatter in the assembly.
The
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament also confirms the above
observations regarding laleo :
This word, like “lull,”
imitates childish babbling, and thus means ‘to prattle,’ to ‘babble.’ It is
also used for the sounds of animals and musical instruments. As regards speech,
it may denote sound rather than meaning, but also the ability to speak. In
compounds the meaning is always ‘to prattle.’ [Little Kittel, p 506].
Along similar lines, the
translators of the Bible in Basic English render laleo as “talking”:
14:35
And if they have a desire for knowledge about anything, let them put questions
to their husbands privately: for talking in the church puts shame on a
woman.
Laleo is used to refer many
times in the New Testament to the speaking that occurs during conversation,
rather than to public speech.
If
laleo only referred to public speech, then the following verse regarding
the prophetess Anna would cause problems for those who believe that a
woman should not publicly address men, since scripture seems to speak
approvingly of her actions:
Luke
2:38 And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord,
and spake (laleo) of him to all them that looked for redemption
in Jerusalem.
To
be sure, laleo is often used to refer to public speech in the NT, so New
Testament usage of this word does not at all preclude the possibility of this.
However, although laleo is less often used to refer to conversational
talk, it is still used that way many times in the NT, so this may have been
what the apostle Paul had in mind. Here are most of the examples in the NT
in which laleo refers to conversational speech:
Luke
24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us,
while He talked with us by the way, and while He opened to us the
scriptures?
Matthew
12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak,
they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
Matthew
12:47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand
without, desiring to speak with thee.
Mark
5:36 As soon as Jesus heard the word that was spoken, he saith
unto the ruler of the synagogue, Be not afraid, only believe.
Mark
9:6 For he wist not what to say; for they were sore afraid.
Luke
7:15 And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he
delivered him to his mother.
Luke
11:14 And he was casting out a devil,
and it was dumb. And it came to pass, when the devil was gone out, the dumb spake;
and the people wondered.
Luke
12:3 Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in
the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be
proclaimed upon the housetops.
Luke
22:60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And
immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew.
John
4:26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am [he].
John
4:27 And upon this came his disciples,
and marvelled that he talked with the woman: yet no man said, What
seekest thou? or, Why talkest thou with her?
John
9:37 And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh
(laleo) with thee.
Acts
22:10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me,
Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told
(laleo) thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.
Acts
23:18 So he took him, and brought [him] to the chief captain, and said,
Paul the prisoner called me unto [him], and prayed me to bring this young man
unto thee, who hath something to say (laleo) unto thee.
1
Timothy 5:13 And withal they learn [to be] idle, wandering about from
house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking
(laleo) things which they ought not. [Here I think the word definitely refers
to chatter, and godless chatter at that.]
James
1:19 Wherefore, my beloved brethren,
let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath:
1
Peter 3:10 For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain
his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak (laleo) no guile:
Revelation
17:1 And there came one of the seven
angels which had the seven vials, and talked (laleo) with me, saying
unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore
that sitteth upon many waters:
Revelation
21:15 And he that talked (laleo) with me had a golden reed to
measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof.
And so disorderly
conversation is certainly one of the meanings that the apostle Paul could have
had in mind when he used the word laleo. As we will see later, the tense
of laleo as it is used in I Corinthians 14:34 gives us good reason to
believe that this is exactly the case.
Paul’s Usage of Adelphoi in 1 Corinthians
Now let’s examine Paul’s usage of another important Greek
word in I Corinthians, the word adelphoi, translated “brethren”. This
word is important, because if the argument that women should be silent in
regard to public speech is going to hold water, adelphoi has to refer to
men only in 1 Corinthians 14:26. This is because in 14:31 Paul says, “For ye
may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.” The
context here undoubtedly indicates that Paul is referring to public
prophesying.
Unfortunately
for the silence-in-regard-to-public-speech argument, in every other place in 1
Corinthians in which the church is being addressed, the apostle Paul is
including the women when he uses this word. There are only 28 occurrences of
this word in 1 Corinthians, so it will not be difficult for us to examine all
of them. To begin with, let’s look at every verse outside of chapter 14 where
Paul uses this word to address the church. In a few of these verses, men are
mentioned as a subgroup of the brethren, but it is still clear that Paul is
addressing the entire church.
1 Corinthians
1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren,
by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and
[that] there be no divisions among you; but [that] ye be perfectly joined
together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
1 Corinthians
1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by
them [which are of the house] of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
1 Corinthians
1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren,
how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble,
are called: