Chapter 14

(2021 - Long morning, and very productive to this point, incorporating the book (John Mac's book on Spiritual Gifts) into the verses myself instead of just reading the book separately.  But I am tired.  So just reading through 14 for the most part, and I will focus on it next year.)

More about prophecy and tongues.  Starts like this:

1 Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy. [1Co 14:1 ESV]

Pursue love, as something to be attained.  Practice perfects love.  It is not something that just happens, and if it doesn't then you're not Christian.  Why would we even have chapter 13 explaining what love is unless it was something that we could get better at?  It is something to develop within us, not something we either have or don't have, and not being good at it means you need more practice, not that you aren't saved!

2021-2, Also, this first verse is connecting 13 to 14, just as the first verse of 13 linked it directly back to 12.  13 is all about love, and 14 starts with an injunction to pursue the love described in 13.  This verse is a connector.

This first verse also seems to contrast love with the spiritual gifts.  Love comes first - like in that song, saying if  you have all these gifts and no love, then you've missed it.  Yes, we need to desire the gifts, and perhaps even desire some more than others.  But what the Spirit gives you is what you have to work with. 

We are to especially desire the gift of prophecy.  Given the definition of this back in 12, divorcing it from "fortune telling", this is something we can all do, but those gifted with it will always do it better.  But publicly proclaiming the gospel is for everyone.  Further, Paul is trying to point out that the Corinthian's "favorite gift" - speaking in tongues - is really not that great because few understand a word of it.  Prophesy - the clear, concise,  understandable speaking of God's word - that is what is best for the body, that is a very desirable gift, much moreso than tongues.

This verse:

2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. [1Co 14:2 ESV]

No one understands him?  But...that's not what happened on Pentecost?  

Hmm...MSB note says that though a particular translation may not be consistent about it, the distinction between tongue and tongues is foundational to understanding Paul's teaching in this chapter.  Paul seems to use the singular when he is talking about "pagan gibberish" and the plural when he is talking about the true gift of languages.  So in this verse, it says "in a tongue" because he is talking about gibberish, not "language" as on Pentecost.  I really like the MSB!  Probably because they recognized this, the translators of the KJV inserted "unknown" in front of all the singular forms.  I will also record this from MSB:  Paul emphasizes three things about the true gift: 1)  its position, inferior to prophecy, 2) its purpose as a sign to unbelievers, NOT to believers, and 3) its procedure - systematic, limited, and orderly.

2025 - So a tongue, singular, is not an existing understandable language.  This is why speaking in a tongue is speaking in the spirit, but EVEN THE SPEAKER does not understand what is being said.  In vs 13, Paul says that if a person speaks A tongue, he should also pray for the gift of interpreting that tongue, because if he cannot interpret - if he lacks the gift of interpretation - then what he says is of no benefit to anyone at all, not even himself. 

This verse:

5 Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up. [1Co 14:5 ESV]

How are we to understand this verse?  Paul cannot mean that these are his favorite gifts and he hopes that everyone gets them.  Not in view of what went before about eyes and feet he can't mean this.   So he's saying, sure, tongues are great, wish we all had that gift, but I'd rather see prophecy even more abundant as a gift.  If he means it the second way, then he is not saying that we all need to just keep working and practicing until we can speak in tongues.  If that's what he meant, wouldn't we work even harder to be able to prophesy? 

AND, put this whole verse in the context of "tongues" being a temporary gift, passed away, and so not even a thing to be sought anymore because it does not exist!  Who would build doctrine and set a bar for salvation based on such a thing???  And then add this:

19 Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue. [1Co 14:19 ESV]

Why in the world would a church want to place a huge emphasis on being able to speak in tongues when Paul says five clear words are better than 10,000 no one can understand?  What is the ratio of time you should spend "striving" for these gifts, even if striving did determine your skill - which we have previously seen it does not!?!?!?!

2023 - But go back to the explanation of singular and plural uses after vs 2 above.  Singular is pagan gibberish, plural is languages - being able to speak a language you never learned.  So here in five, in English anyway, Paul wants everyone to be able to speak foreign languages, but even more than that useful, understandable, evangelizing gift of speaking to others in their own language, he wishes people would prophesy even more.  But...in the second sentence, even if someone is speaking a true, interpretable foreign language, prophecy is better, unless someone there already KNOWS that foreign language and can interpret it, or someone there is gifted for the moment to understand and interpret that language. 

2023 - My "translation" of the verse:  Now to speak in tongues I wish for you all but even more that you might prophesy, and greater are the prophesiers than the tongue speakers UNLESS interpreted for the church's edification.  I do not know how to do that last part.  In BLB is "unless he interprets", implying in the translation that the one speaking does his own translating because it uses the third person singular - as in the one speaking is the same ONE translating.  Also the "translating" is in the subjunctive just as "might prophesy" is subjunctive, meaning "possibility" not "certainty".  So Paul wishes - as something that might happen - that all would be able to prophesy, and also wishes - as something that might, but does not always happen - that those who speak languages could interpret them.

2023 - What is missing here is the "definition" of prophecy.  I referenced above that it was defined in Chapter 12...which I think refers to the MSB definition which says "The meaning is simply that of "speaking forth", or "proclaiming publicly" to which the connotation of prediction was added sometime in the middle ages.  Since the completion of scripture, prophecy has not been a means of new revelation, but is limited to proclaiming what has already been revealed in the written Word."  So first, MSB is distinguishing current prophecy from revelatory inspiration given to prophets in the Old and New Testaments.  He points out that of all the sermons that Isaiah and Jeremiah preached, only a small fraction are preserved as revelation from God - revelation being defined in context as messages that ended up canonized as part of a canonized book.  Now if we take this definition, then Agabus in Acts 11 and Acts 21 has a couple of things canonized - that there would be a famine and that Paul would not enjoy his visit to Jerusalem.  Surely Agabus said many other things that did not become revelatory - but he did ADD these two predictions to the canon.  So the idea is that once the Bible was put into final form, we do not believe that anything "new" can be added.  This gets us crossways with Mormons right away, and also with Islam.  Islam makes Mohammad a prophet in the sense of receiving a NEW revelation from God, of receiving canonized scripture, just as Joseph Smith would be a prophet in this sense according to the Mormons.  So...as Christians, we do not believe that there is now nor will there be any more canonized revelation.  So no matter what any gifted "modern prophet" might say, it is not revelatory, but repetitive.  That is, modern prophets REPEAT what is already in the Word, they do not add to it.  If a prophet today says "You will be killed if you go to Jerusalem", that is NOT a repetition of existing scripture, and so is excluded from prophecy as we define it.  If it is not prophecy, it is something else.  It is fortune telling.  This is how it works, this is a consistent, defensible position on the subject of prophecy.  We must start with a definition of prophecy.  We ought to "use" the fact that if revelatory prophecy is still extant, then Joseph Smith AND Mohammad might be right.  How can we say they are not if we allow for revelatory prophecy in the present age?  We cannot, and we get into serious trouble really quickly.

2021-2, This verse: 7 If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played? [1Co 14:7 ESV].  Why would Paul even bring these up as examples if they were not a part of the regular worship of the church?  Or...if I just wanted to take the other side, I might postulate that he calls them lifeless, just as he called idols of wood or stone or metal lifeless, and therefore neither good or evil.  Do we know that such instruments were used first by pagans?  NO!  We know that David introduced the use of musical instruments in the Old Testament!

2023 - Well I thought I was almost done, and then saw these verses:

9 So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air. 10 There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, 11 but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me. [1Co 14:9-11 ESV].  Reading these verses, I can argue, and that effectively I believe, that Paul is not here addressing the speaking of gibberish indecipherable to anyone anywhere ever.  He is not contrasting in any way the speaking of gibberish with the speaking of interpretable languages in the world.  He is saying that the gift of tongues is ALWAYS about speaking a real language, that would be understood somewhere by the people who spoke that language.  BUT, say God gives  you that language for another time - a later time - when you actually run across someone who speaks that language, so that you can proclaim the gospel to them, but TODAY, in this room, no one has the foggiest idea what you're saying.  In such a case, your brilliant and useful gift shows that you are gifted, but it does nothing at all for anyone present...unless someone else there also knows that language, either by heritage or similar gifting.  And the idea is that the person speaking the language may not - probably does not - understand the language either, and cannot even tell you what "sermon" they just preached.  If an unbeliever, who DOES know the language, or does understand that it IS a language unknown to the speaker, hears the language, then that unbeliever might well be convinced that God is working through this person in this church and ought to be heeded.  But if everyone in the place is speaking in languages that no one there understands, that looks like pagan gibberish - even though the languages being spoken are real - because no one has a clue, and it is all done in an disorderly fashion.  So later, Paul tells them to let two or three speak in tongues - not out of sudden uncontrollable compulsion but in their proper turn!  That is also quite significant!!!  AND, if there is no one to interpret that "real language", then even that ought not be spoken aloud! 

2023 - And look at vs 13!!!  Pray that you also get the gift of interpreting the tongue that you are gifted with!!! 

This advice to those who want to see signs and such:

12 So with yourselves, since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church. [1Co 14:12 ESV]

Stop looking for the experience of spirituality and seek instead to practice it yourself.

This is a good one for FB.  Short and sweet.

2021-2, This verse:  14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. [1Co 14:14 ESV].  Paul is separating what goes on in the spirit of man from what goes on in the mind of man.  This is almost like separating consciousness from unconsciousness, almost like modern Psychology.  So since "tongue" is singular here, he is talking about gibberish, or perhaps a human language that no one present understands at all.  The person speaking it, if it is of God, doesn't even understand the words, the meaning, himself.  It is not like you can speak in a tongue, and then when you're done, tell anyone else what you said.  It as if your unconscious has taken over for a bit from your mind.  Or...maybe not quite that.  Maybe you can hear yourself talking, but don't recognize what  you're saying.  I think that's more correct.  You would be conscious of what was going on, know that you were speaking, but I would suspect you'd be a little shocked that you had no idea what you were saying.  I think you would definitely know that you were speaking.  Still, this concept of a separation between a persons spirit and mind is very interesting.

2025 - Vss 18-19 though:

18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. 19 Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue. [1Co 14:18-19 ESV].

Paul has the gift.  He can speak in tongues (known languages, whether understood by anyone present or not) more than any of them.  I think he is saying he is glad that he can do that - that he has this gift in spades!  He contrasts how glad he is that he can speak in known, understandable languages with how almost utterly useless he believes is his ability to speak in language that is incomprehensible to anyone anywhere, even to himself. 

There were some in Corinth with the gift.  They could speak in languages strange to them but languages known to others.  Like me speaking Swahili.  I would not understand what I was saying, though someone who already spoke that language would understand it.  There were also some, I believe including Paul, who could speak a spiritual language incomprehensible to anyone on the planet who was not gifted to interpret that language.  This is the setup.

There were many in Corinth jealous of those gifted with tongues.  So what they were doing was "promoting" the practice of speaking gibberish, since that gave the appearance of HAVING a gift they did NOT have, getting them some attention and perhaps being seen as specially gifted indeed, and because NO ONE could say they did not have the gift!  This is built on the premise that there is such a thing as spiritual, as opposed to earthly, language(s) that is not physically understandable.  The second premise - and I think this one is true - is that some are gifted with the ability to speak this spiritual language. 

BUT NO ONE CAN SAY whether a language being spoken that is incomprehensible to them is real or just made up gibberish to get attention or portray oneself as ultra-gifted.  Therefore, THIS kind of tongue is ripe for abuse.

FURTHER, this type of tongue, the gibberish type, will not be understood by anyone ever.  It is not beneficial to the church.  It is not beneficial to unbelievers.  Unbelievers will just think the person so speaking is a crazy person.  But a Swahili speaking unbeliever who shows up at a church where someone in the congregation gets up and states the gospel in Swahili when they don't know Swahili, will be awestruck by the power of God working through the speaker to bring the unbeliever to Christ.

BOTH VERSIONS ARE OF VERY LIMITED USE, whereas prophecy is of almost universal use, especially to those there in the local church.  Everyone benefits from a clear prophecy in plain English, very few benefit from the exercise of the gift of tongues, whether gibberish or language.

Wow.  This verse:

22 Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers. [1Co 14:22 ESV]

This forces a little bit of a re-evaluation of what prophecy is.  We don't prophesy to unbelievers at all.  Let me go back to what MSB said prophecy was in one of the notes:  Prophecy is now limited to proclaiming what has already been revealed.  Even the biblical prophets were proclaimers of God's truth, both by revelation and re-iteration.  Only a very small amount of what they preached is recorded as scripture.  Most of what they said, what they prophesied during their lives was just re-iteration of what they'd said before.  In the same way, preachers today repeat, explain, and re-emphasize. 

So prophecy is for the church.  Evangelism is something else.  A different gift?

2021-2, Yeah, I think I went too far on this.  As I understand it this time through, I would say this is about the sign gifts.  Tongues, which we no longer have, were a sign to unbelievers, that they might know God was present and moving, and that these new entities called churches were part of God's plan for all mankind.  They were there - the sign gifts that is - as a witness that God was in this place.  And the one's to whom it witnessed were unbelievers.  This is consistent with Paul saying "tongues" don't build up the church, and so prophecy is better. 

2023 - Tongues, plural, are not comprehended by the church, so do not edify the church.  BUT, they impress the lost, they witness to the presence of God in that place, even though unbelievers don't comprehend what is being said any more than believers do.  Isn't this an interesting way of understanding speaking in A tongue as opposed to speaking in tongues!

Prophecy was always to build up the church, in that everyone always understood the words, and whether they were miraculous predictions of the future, or they focused attention on errors or priorities within the church, they were ALWAYS for the benefit of believers.  I think this is what Paul meant here, and I think we can extrapolate it to the other sign gifts.  Like the miracles which are also no longer with us, and the "healings".  They were also to attest to unbelievers that what was going on in the church was unique, was of God, and was legitimate.

But then what does 23 mean????  23 If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds? [1Co 14:23 ESV]  How is it that "tongues are a sign...for unbelievers" if they just make unbelievers think everyone's gone nuts???  Only way I can make sense of this is that speaking in a tongue (singular) that an unbeliever understands would connect back to vs 21, and so not only make sense to that one but preach the gospel to that one.  But if the whole church is speaking in "tongues", plural, then that means they are all speaking gibberish, and NO one gets it, either in or out of the church. Ohhh!!!!  There were some in the church who thought speaking in a tongue was such a cool gift that they were all trying to imitate it.  To do it.  To claim it was from the Spirit.  This very demonstrative gift was the ONLY one of the sign gifts that could be "learned", and then ALL could do it.  Not everyone could heal lepers!  Paul is using hyperbole and saying that if EVERY PERSON in the church was demonstrating their great holiness by making up gibberish that even they can't claim to understand, then not only will the church not be built up, but no one outside will be either - because it is just gibberish!!!  Man-made gobbledy-gook!  The last thing Paul wants is for unbelievers to think everyone in that building is off his nut!  Those with the gift of tongues - speaking in an understandable language - will always have the potential of speaking to a "nearby" unbeliever who understands that language.  THAT is the ONLY legitimate exercise of the gift of tongues.  BUT, if everyone gets together and learns to speak "a tongue", that sounds like gibberish not only to those present AND to those SPEAKING, but unbelievers also, then there is no benefit to the believers IN the church, and the unbelievers OUTSIDE the church won't want to participate in this obvious craziness!!!  It all fits together this way!  Vs 27 locks it down.  Nobody speaks in a tongue unless someone is present who understands and interprets what is said.  No making up gibberish just to prove how spiritual you are (Or to prove your salvation, as some church require!).

2025 - Several days after reading this, I was working on a FB post related to it and found this verse:

23 If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds? [1Co 14:23 ESV].  If you look at the BLB interlinear, the word translated outsiders is actually "ungifted men".  Outsiders seems to be completely wrong.  Think of the implications.  Even the saved inside the church who do not have a gift yet - or who have a gift that is not overt, or obvious, or named by Paul specifically as a gift, are going to think the ones speaking in tongues have gone off their crumpets.  The Greek word is idiotes.  Not a very flattering word!  KJV translates it unlearned - but unlearned does not imply, to my mind at least, that they are unsaved.  Remember we just finished talking about the immature Christians and how we ought not offend them.  Doesn't this word tie directly to that???  NASB95 in fact translates this word as "ungifted".

Vs 26-33 seem to be the Pauline model for a church service.  This isn't exactly the one and only true "order of worship", but it is specific about how some things ought to be done, and it is entirely principle about how to organize a church. 

Then it says let two or three prophets speak.  I suppose we do this by having a sermon and class, and it seems to me that Sunday School is a lot more like what Paul recommends than a preaching service is.  In class, there's speaking by the group, not by only one.  And the hearers in class can judge, and can "play off of" what another says.  It clearly says that prophets should judge what is spoken by prophets.  This is how it is supposed to go.  MSB note though says that since the pastoral epistles don't mention prophets at all, that this too was perhaps gone by the end of the apostolic age.  The prophets of the apostolic age apparently did received some revelatory inspiration from God, and so they spoke in the service, but with the completion of the written word, this went away, and was no longer necessary.  Hmm...no more revelatory prophecy - I get that, agree that's true - but what about re-iterative prophecy?  Wouldn't we still have that?

2025 - Further comment on 1Co. 14:26-33, above:

In vs 26, we see the very clear demarcation that says "WHEN YOU ASSEMBLE..."  This means when you have a formal church service.  This is about Sunday morning.  Maybe Sunday night.  In certain aspects of a Wednesday night, and almost always during a revival.  I believe this is more about Sunday School classes than preaching service.  I am not sure they did a preaching service in Paul's day, I  think it is something that has come about since.  So let's focus on Sunday School classes as the object of "When you assemble..." 

Why?  Because that is where it might occur that "...each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation...[1Co 14:26b ESV].  In our Sunday School classes, various individuals have opportunity to contribute.  That's as close as we ever get to this.  People pray, people comment, people give testimony of what God has done for them or what the Spirit has revealed to them in their reading or their experience.  Someone leads singing.  Someone teaches this week's lesson.  Now, it is noteworthy that in these classes no one ever speaks in a tongue or tongues, and therefore no one interprets.  I see that I am talking here about Baptist churches and classes in my experience.  But we don't do this.  In Baptist preaching service, we don't give opportunity for any of these things, either.  Only in class would this be possible. 

So I think we are talking only about the formal conduct of church.  This is not about home Bible study.  this is not about Wednesday night - at least for Baptists it is not. 

Taken this way - restricted to this definition of "when you assemble" - we can see also the application of the injunction of silence for women.  It applies only to this context.  That must be so because we have 1Co 11:4-5: 5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. [1Co 11:5 ESV].  Clearly women are allowed to prophesy and I think exercise other spiritual gifts including tongues but not in the formal assembly of the church!  Not in preaching service, and not in class - as we conduct our assembly at Baptist churches. 

Where then can women prophesy???  What about Christian radio?  What about a women's convention?  What about during a discussion over Wednesday night dinner at church?  Can we go so far as to say ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD except during a formal church service???  I kind of think so, at least for today.

2024, Sept 19.  Tripped over this as I looked up a reference in Grudem about peace in chapter 12 of that book.  He only referenced the first of these verses but I noticed the other one in context:

33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. [1Co 14:33-34 ESV].

How do we not consider that in putting 33 and 34 together, Paul could be saying that where women speak freely in a worship service, confusion reigns, where otherwise there would be peace.  I mean...they are right together.  Each verse is context for the other.  Surely did strike me directly when I saw it today.

2021-2,  The idea here is that everything is orderly and in turn.  Further, the hearers are to be a check and balance on the speaker.  This verifies that evil people, or Satan- or demon-controlled people, are going to get into the church and spout false doctrine.  It is going to happen, expect it, and here is how you spot it and shut it down:  By having other prophets present as a balance on the one speaking.  I have never ever in my life been in a service where anyone at all got up and said "Hey preacher" or "Hey teacher", what you just said is heresy.  Not even anything close to that.  How is it that I have never been in a church that Satan was trying to undermine?  Why wouldn't he?  Maybe because that church isn't doing enough of God's work to worry him even a little bit.  Now there is a frightening thought.

Ahhh...vs 34:

Actually, this statement seems to start at the end of verse 33, with "...As in all the churches of the saints,".  This would seem to make it very difficult to claim that Paul is only addressing a specific situation in the Corinthian church, and offering a solution to that particular peculiar Corinthian situation.  This is a general rule, as practiced in ALL the churches of that time - as instructed by the Apostle Paul, who does NOT say this is just his opinion.  He does not qualify this in any way, he in fact makes it universal.

34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. [1Co 14:34 ESV]

2021 - Wow.  Read the MSB note.  It says the same thing.  This was a universally applicable rule.

35 is even more direct, and not remotely PC:

35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. [1Co 14:35 ESV]  They aren't even supposed to ask a question...

These two verses come at the end of the orderly worship section, but right after that, Paul summarizes the teaching on tongues. 

MSB says they mean what they say exactly.  Points out that modern churches that permit speaking in tongues and healing and such things also allow women preachers, teachers and so on.  They are all wrong, and they all stick together. 

MSB also says that the women in Corinth may have been "provocative" in the way they asked their questions in the church, perhaps challenging the authority of all the men there, or demeaning their own husbands in the way that they did so.  This may be why Paul addressed how women should behave in church, but he says it as a UNIVERSAL rule of churches - women are to be submissive, and ask their questions, pose their challenges, and so on, at home, not at church.

2021 - I never noticed the MSB note on vss 36, 37.  It says that Paul anticipated that those who were reveling in these showy gifts would push back against his teaching on them.  He anticipated that the women in that church who were perhaps provocative and challenging to the authority of men would push back against him.  So in vss 36, 37, Paul gets a bit sarcastic about what they will likely say.  He anticipates that they will say they have "interpreted" the scriptures differently, to which Paul says "I am an Apostle, submit to my teaching."  They will say "Well, we understand what is meant here better than others" to which Paul replies really?  God has only revealed that in Corinth, and not in all these other churches that don't do it the way you're wanting to do it?"  Paul says his teaching, and the scripture - NOT HUMAN INTERPRETATION OR CULTURAL BELIEFS - should determine how the church should conduct its worship.

2021-2, One last little note on this verse:  39 So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. [1Co 14:39 ESV].  Coming as it does at the end of a universal church rule about women speaking, I am a little unsure about whether speaking in a tongue should be considered "disappeared".  Perhaps like healing and miracles it is exceedingly rare in this day and age.  Yet, the rules for how to deal with it are detailed here, and it says DO NOT FORBID.  We need to be very careful about quenching the spirit here by being too overly sure that the sign gifts are no longer present at all.  Rare I will buy, but this statement says maybe not completely gone.

2023 - Here is another possible caveat.  Remember these verses?  4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. [1Co 11:4-5 ESV].  This CLEARLY implies that women at Corinth DID INDEED pray and prophesy.  They were to cover their heads when they did it...and I think there is good evidence that this head covering situation was just a Corinthian thing.  So, in connection with the end of 14 and women being silent, what are we to say?  That in 11, Paul is not addressing whether or not women should speak in church, but about head coverings, and is saving the whole "they shouldn't be doing either one of these things anyway" until Chapter 14?  That seems unnecessarily confusing.   So...how do we resolve 11:4-5 with 14: 33b-38?  I think first, we have to acknowledge that in 14: 36-37, Paul is making it supremely clear that there is to be NO COMPROMISE on what he's said about women speaking in church.  The language is just too strong.  In 38, "If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized."  Verse 38 is addressed to men.  Specifically unarguably to men.  Paul is NOT telling the women that if they balk about this they are wrong.  He is speaking to men who might potentially disagree with him.  So...women don't even get to participate in the debate.  This follows, since he's just said they are to do their debating at home, exclusively.  So...maybe we go here:  There are some places here in Corinth where women are allowed to prophesy and pray, so long as they cover their heads, but NOT in the congregational assembly.  NOT when you "come together" in formal worship.  For us, in modern times, and the way we conduct church services, can it mean that women don't get to stand up and talk while Rummage is preaching, but can speak up in Sunday School class, so long as everything is done in an orderly and respectful way that focuses on edification of those who hear what is said or prayed?  And in a home Bible study, would it be ok for women to teach, but not to do so during the main worship service?  In our modern services, only the preacher talks anyway, no deacons or elders or anyone else, so teaching isn't really even an issue?  I think this is right.  I think even in Corinth there were a lot of opportunities for women to pray and prophesy, but it was not appropriate, in Corinth or anywhere else, for them to speak during the formal worship service.