Here is the text, "...women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (I Cor 14:34-35 NIV)
Ellis first notes that this passage has four qualifications to it. Before mentioning them, however, it is important to note that the word "women" (Gk: γυνη) can be translated as "women" or as "wife." Context decides. Ellis understands the word to be "wives," but is this justified? Several contextual clues point to the more specific reading of "wives":1) Paul mentions that they should ask their husbands. Surely Paul would not be so careless as to assume that all his female church attendees are married. It makes sense that he is limiting his discussion to married women. 2) Paul mentions that the Law states that wives should be in submission. This is most likely not a reference to the regulations given on Sinai, but is more generally a reference to the first five books of the OT - the Pentateuch which are also regularly called "the Law." Paul is probably referencing Gen 3:16 and the results of the Fall for women which states that the husband will "rule" (NIV) the wife. "The Law" does not speak about women being silent, but it does speak of wives being submissive to their husbands.
Now to Ellis' qualifications: First, the teaching is directed to married women and not to women in general. This is seen by the reference to asking "their own husbands." Obviously, if you are not married then you cannot ask your husband. Second, this only applies to wives of Christian men because a saved women would not go home from church and ask her unsaved husband. The image is laughable. Third, it seems to apply only to Christian wives married to Christian husbands which are actually present at the service. This makes sense in that a wife would most likely ask her husband about some teaching/event happening at the church service. If he is out of town, then he cannot answer as he wasn't at the meeting in the first place. Lastly, this passage is probably specifically written to instruct gifted wives of male prophets. These specific wives should be silent and submissive when their husbands are prophesying. For Paul, it is disrespectful for the wife to publicly challenge her husband as he is exercising his gift of prophecy. She should wait and talk with him at home so that the marriage roles are not violated.
Since the last point is the most significant and debatable, I will separate out his reasons supporting it in a new paragraph. First, the immediate context surrounding the text is about the proper use of the gift of prophecy in the worship service (14:29-33 and 39-40). This significantly supports Ellis' argument that the restriction regards the proper way for married couples to exercise their gift of prophecy in the church. Second, in verses 29-30 Paul directs prophets to speak in an orderly manner, to keep their numbers limited, and then weigh carefully what is said by the other prophets. In other words the prophecy/prophet needs to be tested. This involves discussion - orderly discussion. But what if the situation involves a husband and wife who both have the gift of prophecy? Does Paul want husbands and wives to be debating each other publicly as they practice their gifts? Ellis concludes that this is the specific situation happening in Corinth.
To summarize Ellis' argument for this passage: Paul's command is that in situations where both a husband and a wife have the gift of prophecy, then the wife should wait until they get home if she needs to disagree or discuss the husband's prophecy. In this way, the marriage roles are kept in place as per the Genesis passage.
This blog has already broken a key blog rule: keep it short. However, I am very interested in hearing critical readings of Ellis view. Is this reading tenable?
