Who Must a Church Allow to Speak?

Who may speak in church? Who is the church commanded to allow to speak? What limitations are there are speaking in church? There is one passage in scripture of length that addresses the topic.

I Corinthians 14

26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
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.
31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
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.

Look at verses 34-25. This is in the third person..."your women...unto them....they.....their husbands...women....." Verse 36 switches back to 'you', which seems to refer to the whole congregation all throughout the book, the readers, that are saluted in chapter 1. The book is not addressed just to women.

So we can conclude that in verse 36 Paul is addressing the 'church of God which is at Corinth' and anyone else he addressed in chapter 1. So what is he talking about? I started with verse 26, where Paul actually starts giving commands-- "Let all things be done unto edifying." I go with that instead of the idea that he meant "All things are done unto edifying" because this passage is bringing correction.

So if we look Paul mentions 'commandments of the Lord' in verse 37. So let's look at what is taught and commanded here. 'Every one of you' have a psalm, teaching, tongue, revelation, interpretation. He added the command-- Let all things be done unto edifying. Then the church must allow someone to speak in tongues to do so. If there is no interpreter, he must be silent in the church. The church needs to allow the interpretation. The church is commanded to let the prophets speak two or three and let the other judge. A prophet is required to hold his peace if another sitting by receives a revelation for ye may all prophesy one by one.... Then there is a command for women.

The command for women shows up at different places in the chapter in different manuscripts. Since chapter 11 speaks of women prophesying, and prophesying edifies the church/assembly, then many interpreters believe women were allowed to prophecy. Women prophesying is specifically mentioned in the prophecy of Joel 2 which Peter quotes in Acts 2 about the last days. Philip had four daughters who prophesied.

This leads many commentators and interpreters to think that Paul's instructions to women was about a specific problem related to their talking. Origen later in history would complain about some women talking during the teaching. I have heard speculation that men and women sat on different sides of the room and the wives were asking questions about doctrine to their husbands across the room (though I have also heard or read there is not evidence that synagogues divided men and women in the seating during this time period), and I have read the interpretation from a Greek scholar along the lines of women doing a 'Socratic dialogue' on the prophets after their prophets, maybe during the time of 'judging prophecies.'

Paul seems to make an argument appealing to universal church practices with such things as 'as in all the churches of the saints' and his questions about 'What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?' Jerusalem had prophets. They went to Antioch. Other churches had prophets. The word had not originated with Corinth. Isaiah said the Law of the Lord would go forth from Zion, and the church had started in Jerusalem and the word had spread from there. So why would the Corinthians deviate from the practices of the church out from whom the word had come or from that of other churches who had received the word? Why would the prophets prophesy in a different manner, or the way the regular believers in the congregation sang, taught, shared revelations, etc.? And if this is the location for the verse about women, why would the church allow the disorder that was going on when considering how other churches operated. In chapter 1, the epistle is also addressed to 'that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord'.

Then we get verse 37, one of the verses where Paul emphases the importance of what he writes as being from God. "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."

So if someone thinks he is a gifted speaker in tongues or interpreter or sharer of revelations, then he should do it in church 'unto edifying. And the prophets should let their prophecies be weighed after 'two or three' (whether Paul means prophets or utterances or whatever.) He should hold his peace when another receives a revelation. This is preemptive correction to those who wanted to do church activities in a way contrary to this.

These commands are quite different from what many people think of church if they are influenced by either traditional liturgy or Protestant preacher-centered sermons. There is no command here for one big sermon from anyone. Paul does not even mention the elder or bishop role, or mention the word 'pastor' in this passage-- the one long passage that addresses this aspect of church meetings in the whole New Testament aside from chapter 11 which tells us how not to have the Lord's Supper. Elders are associated with teaching, and they, along with others in the congregation, are allowed to teach according to verse 26.

As far as the issue of women pastors are concerned, there is plenty to discuss, but I do not think you can legitimately get the point you want out of that particular verse.

“Therefore, if the whole church comes together in one place (This is the condition that specifies and limits what follows), and all speak with tongues, and there come in those who are uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are out of your mind? But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an uninformed person comes in, he is convinced by all, he is convicted by all. And thus, the secrets of his heart are revealed; and so, falling down on his face, he will worship God and report that God is truly among you. How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be encouraged. And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.”

“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. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands (ἄνδρας – men or husbands) at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? (Explanation of the reason for the self-restraint) If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant.” (ignored) (consequences).

“Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues. Let all things be done decently and in order.”

A. Notice – the occasion / condition is “if the whole church comes together in one place.” The “anyone” of verse 27 (an indefinite pronoun) is qualified by the “he” of verse 28 and has a limited application. This instruction is given to “all the churches of the saints.” In the context of the prophesying and tongues, “the women are to keep silent” and are “not permitted to speak.” Their subjection is to be self-imposed as they are to “be submissive.” This is active, not passive they are to be self-subjecting not having to be forced to be in subjection.

Clarification for whatever questions they may have was to be addressed “at home.” Why? Because it is “shameful for women to speak in church.”

1. In verse 26 regarding the speaking in tongues, revelation, psalms, and interpretation Paul address the men saying, “each one,” this is nom, masc, sing. In verse 27 he says, “if anyone", this is then reinforced in verse 28 by “let him be silent,” “let him speak to himself.” All of this is in relation to “a psalm, a teaching, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation.” In verse 29-33 Paul then address the issue of prophesying and in verses 33 and 34 commands the women to keep silent in this as well and not to speak because it is improper for them to do so.

2. Paul ends all of this by saying, “that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.”

Paul is talking about the local assembly of the Church. Paul says that his same principle, however, is to be exercized in all the churches of the saints.

Although Paul does not specify this, it would certainly apply to the weekly assembly, but his meaning seems to be broadened to any time the Church comes together, presumably for the purpose of corporate worship.

The passage you are referring to in Matthew 18:20 has nothing to do with a worship scenario. Jesus is talking about having to make decisions regarding what to do to deal with a sinning brother. Read verses 15-20. It is all the same context.

There are many Churches today that believe and teach that their members should be filled with the Holy Spirit and they allow and encourage their people to operate in these gifts like how Paul taught it in 1 Cor 14.

You can experience it in Assemblies of God churches all over the world. Prophesy will come forth from both men and women and they will take turns. Speaking in tongues and interpretation of tongues takes place from various members all in decency and in order. There are leaders like Timothy and elders like the bible describes that give themselves wholly to the study of the Word and preach and teach the Word of God. These leaders are appointed based on a blameless life and gifting's of wisdom, leadership, as it relates to the Holy Spirit empowerment and also in training and having lived a servants life among the members.

The same thing that happened in the first century church still happens today among Spirit Filled Churches that allow the Holy Spirit to have control.

You might have to search around a bit to find them but they are around. I would visit AG churches or nondenominational Spirit Filled Churches in your area.

None of the non charismatic churches are going to know anything about these things so you really can't expect to experience 1 Cor 14 churches in a non charismatic church. (pentecostal/charismatic/Spirit Filled) are the kinds of churches you are looking for if you want to see how others besides just the pastors minister in the Spirit for the edification of all during a meeting time. Many of the members in these churches will share a word impromptu sometimes when the Spirit leads. Pastors will recognize that the Spirit is speaking through a brother and sister and they will give them space even if it means not preaching the sermon that they had planned and the whole service will turn into a time of seeking God in prayer and responding to a prophesy that was given or something like that.

Happens all the time. One must get out more and visit these churches in their communities so that they can know more than what they have only seen in their limited world view of experience. Videos are often edited and these things are left out because they are ordained by God for the people who are present not for video. There is no way video streaming will ever be the same as face to face ministry of the Holy Spirit in the body of Christ. Video is just for informational teaching not for experiential encounters with God.

I have hear so many testimonies from people who tell me how they spent years in a dead institutional church and when they visited a Spirit Filled church everything changed for them. They regret the wasted years and are finally growing in their faith.

I understand your position here and appreciate your argument. That is a good point about 'each one' being masculine. I would need to do a bit of research to see if even the masculine singular could include women in this type of construction that speaks of each one. Masculine plurals, of course, can include women or all mean either way.

The issue is how to interpret 'speak' in 'speak in the church.' Even now, 'talking in church' can be an issue, and it's not about sharing the word, it's about talking when you aren't supposed to. 'You can all prophesy' in verse 31 is masculine plural which can include women. How do you exclude women from the concept of 'all'? Women prophesying shows up in chapter 11, in references to the traditions of the church, including head coverings. There is women prophesying in Acts and the Old Testament. Romans 11 indicates the one gifted to prophesy should prophesy, the one gifted to teach should teach, etc. I Peter says that we are to use the gifts to minister to one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.

I experienced a lot of tongues and interpretation and prophecies in church growing up both in A/Gs and other churches. One of the problems is that it isn't happening as much, apparently, or not percentage wise, in the US at least. Some people do not seem to realize that interpretation of tongues is actually a thing that happens.

A lot of those messages were directed toward the congregation. I've also seen 'personal prophecies' directed to an individual. Prophecies from the Spirit of God given in church build up the assembly, and we can be edified from hearing a personal prophecy also. There are these 'personal prophecies' in the Bible, and also prophecies addressed to larger groups.

Sure, I understand that you have witnessed these misuses.

But I believe that is why these chapters 1 Cor 12-14 are in the bible and spend so much time on the subject of proper use of the gifts.

It is because God knew that we would always have these misuses and needed these chapters to help train and lead people who might make mistakes. They teach us how to operate in a motivation of love and not show boating.

They give us examples and within these texts are guiding principles. If leaders would not be afraid to gently correct the people if they get off base the leaders can train a congregation over time to operate in these gifts in the way in which they were intended and that MISUSES are not hard to correct.

Soon the congregation itself (individual seasoned members) will help guide, others and nip misuse in the bud without shaming those who are trying to step out in faith and operate in the gifts.

What happens so often is that one or two instances of misuse cause unnecessary knee jerk overreactions from leaders to shut it down altogether so that people are too afraid to even try and the church goes into a phase of saying they believe in the gifts but no one is operating in them.

@Amanuensis

During the Azusa Street Revival, different people would speak. They would have not just tongues and interpretation but other messages with different people taking turns. They valued a Spirit-led meeting, and they had some of the style and 'cultural wrapping paper' as I call it of Pentecostal meetings now, which they got from the Holiness style and other types of meetings that they had back then.

I don't think I have seen an Assemblies of God church where someone from the congregation during the meeting would offer a teaching. I have seen tongues and interpretation, and in churches where I've seen it it is kind the people kind of know the unwritten rules for how it works, act reverently toward it, and treat it like prophesying. I have seen testimonies in services, probably in other Pentecostal churches, so I believe you about what you said you have seen. It's just so rare. The tongues, interpretation, prophecy, and teaching--- almost always only from the pastor or guest speaker in a pulpit, though-- are allowed in church. Since there is no pastor as the "MC" of the church meeting to microorganize other people speaking, I don't really care much for it, though I can't say it is downright unbiblical. Agabus rose and predicted the family. Peter rose and told of his experiences with the Gentiles. Even the Pharisees rose and spoke. So I suspect they stood and sat down. The prophet is speaking and someone else is sitting by and receives a revelation, so I would think in New Testament times the other guy who gets a revelation stands up. I prefer to see elders fill in the gaps when things really get stuck if the congregation learns the way a church should operate and gets in the flow of it. They should direct the affairs of the church so they have a general responsibility for all kinds of things, but they aren't specifically mentioned here and all those other ministries speaking are.

And throwing pastors doing stuff in the mix in the tongues-interpretation and prophecy--judge-revelation sitting by --all prophecy sections does not seem to fit with the flow Paul describes, unless the pastors are also tongues speakers, interpreters, and prophesiers and revelation receivers themselves acting in that capacity.

I've been in a church with a lot of ethnic Chinese who could have a meeting of 300 who all spoke in turn to edify. There wasn't much emphasis on prophesying if they had it in the meetings I saw. They had a certain rhythm and way of doing it. And some of house churches have different people speaking and interacting, though some may have more of a Bible study feel and discussion. I've seen prophesying and interpretation of tongues with people who do house church, too. I also read that a lot of the Charismatic churches in the UK started as house churches. Hearing testimonies also, I heard that the number of evangelical believers tripled around 1980, that there was revival going on. One brother who hosts house churches said he opened the door and someone asked him how to become a Christian. There were meetings on this street in London, and then in another house on another street. There were meetings where they flowed in the gifts, took turns speaking and edifying each other. Then they started to decide they needed buildings. They institutionalized. They hired professional pastors (in the Bible the elders were men, more than one of them, appointed from within the congregation. Elders were told to pastor the church and to pastor the flock.)

And that is something I cannot say I have seen in an A/G, where one prophet is speaking and holds his peace if a revelation comes to another sitting by. There could be a prophecy then another one and this was really a case of the first holding his peace but he just seemed to be done anyway-- I am trying to think if I saw two prophecies back-to-back like that in an A/G. A/G interpretation treats those who prophesy like the 'prophets' in the passage, but it seems like A/G people or pastors would generally be uncomfortable with 'prophets', but I'd imagine that has changed a lot with all the talk of prophets. I like the fact that prophets can be and do without so much focus on the title or these strange ideas of prophets and all the five-fold being church government offices on a committee of every local church.

Another thing I do not think I have seen in the A/G is an effort to apply 'let the other judge.' Maybe the interpretation is that they do it silently, in their hearts. I do not think that is what Paul is talking about. Elsewhere Paul says prove all things. Is this internal? I notice in Acts after Agabus signified by the Spirit that there would be a famine, the saints took up the collection for poor saints in Judea. So they must have decided that it was going to happen. Maybe they discussed it. Saying 'amen' to a prophecy can be a way of conveying a judgment.

Of course, if a church is stuck in the mindset that it is a sin to make the sound of a pin dropping and that only the pastor is supposed to speak, teach, the idea of having some kind of input from either the congregation or other prophets for judging prophecy may seem weird. If a church practices I Corinthians 14:26 and actually has a doctrinal understanding of it (I think Azusa Street had practice but without the connection to this scripture as far as I can tell), then doing something about judging prophecies may not seem that unusual. Even an 'amen' would be good for a true prophecy. Not doing this as other prophets or the congregation-- whatever the passage means-- would mean the pastor would have to deal with those false prophecy situations. He may not hear anything or get anything through discernment and prophecy may not be a gift he operates in. Elders are to be apt to teach, but they can fit the lists of requirements without being apt to prophesy or discern spirits. I suspect some pastors don't allow it partly because they don't want to have to deal with the possibility of a false prophecy, or simply because they don't get it when they read I Corinthians 14.

I was blessed to be introduced to the fullness of God in an assembly that revered and worshipped in the Spirit.

I came from a non Christian background but my mother often sang old hymns.
Even in song ,God began to pull at my heart when I was a teenager.
My childhood was a nightmare and I feel it molded me a in certain way.

My first interactions were mildly disturbing but not panicky.
I had not attended church except for occasional VBS.,no regular services.
We had churches come around with witness programs directed at church growth.

About a week later the church had revival. I was amazed,astonished and slightly overwhelmed for the sedate Baptist that offered us VBS were nothing like this.

There was joy,and glory and love permeating the pews and those that sat in them. I had NEVER heard a preacher under the anointing before and it was like seeing Moses COMMAND the children of Israel .

I was hungry after a week of revival and had a desire for that joyous explosion to continue in my soul. I began regular attendance where that same love was shown,that same anointing came through the teacher,the choir and the pastor.

I had felt the Spirit bring me under conviction before but as an unbeliever,I didn't understand what God was about.
I am so thankful I did not run but willing submitted my everything unto him!

Although Mussies makes a similar argument concerning Greek gender in independent adjectives, I think you are going to have a difficult time proving that the Greek masculine or feminine nouns, verbs, or articles are ever inclusive of both genders. I can think of no such example. As to the word "all": The scope of "all" is typically defined and limited by the context. Understand, Paul is not forbidding women to prophesy. He is only forbidding them to prophesy when "the whole church comes together in one place." The prohibition is very simple and straight forward. "Let your women keep silent in the churches." Why? "For they are not permitted to speak." Why? Because "it is shameful for women to speak in church." Why? Because of the order of creation. Man was created first. Also, because the Word of God was not sent out through the woman, nor did the word of God did not come only to the woman. These are the reasons Paul commands the women to keep silent in the church. More than that, this prohibition is not from Paul, it is from the Lord.

Do you think Peter was only telling men to be baptized in Acts 2:38? He had quoted about handmaidens prophesying. If the word being in the masculine singular means __only__ mean was Peter only offering baptism to men? The Bible does not mentioned specifically as many women being baptized, but it is clear that Lydia was baptized, and households were baptized. So it was apostolic practice to baptize women also. The KJV was before these modern feminist movements and they translated this 'every one.'

In Luke 4:40, when those people came to Jesus and he healed every one of them, did he heal only men.

In English in my lifetime as a child, we used 'man' or 'mankind' to refer to male and female. We can see something similar in the early chapters of Genesis. God created man in His own image; male and female created He them.

Just based on Biblical examples like the, I think the 'every man' or 'every one' verses may be potentially inclusive. I am not seeing specific commentary on the word that goes into that in the easily-accessible online source I looked up. It is probably somewhere. I used to have a go-to person who knew some Greek. Maybe I should look around or post on a forum for scholars. I suppose I could dig through the LXX online to see if there is a smoking gun example, but I am seeing that pre-SusanBAnthony translators went with 'every one' in a theologically significant passage.

I have heard that argument before, that God allows women to prophesy like Acts and I Corinthians 11 says, but just not in church. Practically, you have the issue that prophecy is given to 'profit withal'. It is to edify others. Then the men's prophecies would be judged/weighed carefully in the assembly, but prophecies from women would never go through that process. I Corinthians 11 mentions women prophesying in the context of traditions and ordinances, and it comes before a discussion of a church gathering activity. It is not explicit about it being 'in church', but there are commentators who take the 'because of the angels' verse to refer to the idea that angels are present in the assembly. If the idea that the covering spoken of there is cloth (or any such material) rather than hair, then would Paul be saying a woman has to wear a head-covering 24/7, rather than in public, as in while bathing, while along with her husband?

If we carry the absolute silence view to true absolute silence, women should not say 'Amen' to prayers or readings, and they should not sing in church gatherings either. Rhoda said Peter was at a door at the prayer meeting. Is that story supposed to be telling on her for doing wrong? If Paul's instructions to be silent address a specific out-of-order speaking behavior-- such as asking questions to their husbands in church or questioning the prophets (e.g. using a Socratic interrogation, maybe like men were doing), then it still makes sense.

Philip the evangelist had 4 daughters that were prophetesses. Can we sit here & say they only prophesied in the streets? Only to their daddy? Only in the ladies' meetings?
Those who do today mostly do so in the corporate church setting.
Blessed are those who obey the Spirit & speak whenever/wherever He directs.

My thought
With so many immature believers and false teaching present today, I would suggest that a church only allow those they know speak.

In Acts chapter two, Peter and the rest of the apostles were in the temple on the Day of Pentecost as would be expected. We learn this from Luke 24:53, "Now it came to pass, while He blessed them, that He was parted from them and carried up into heaven. And they worshiped Him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and were continually in the temple praising and blessing God." There would have been no women present in the temple. Women were not traditionally permitted beyond the courtyard of the women. The only ones present in the temple were men as is confirmed by verse 14, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words. " And in verse 22, "Men of Israel, hear these words ." The word in both verses is ἀνδρός which is gender specific. There is not even the suggestion that there were any women present in this assembly.

You are correct in that the KJV and others correctly translate ἕκαστος as "everyone." However, ἕκαστος is masculine spelling, not feminine or neuter. It is, therefore, gender specific. Thiis does not mean that women were excluded from being baptized. It merely shows that the audience being addressed were men just as verses 14 and 22 demonstrate.

Luke 4:40 is a perfect example of what I mentioned earlier about Mussies' argument concerning Greek gender in independent adjectives being inclusive. Like I said, I think you are going to have a difficult time proving that Greek masculine or feminine nouns, verbs, or articles are ever inclusive of both genders.

It is important to remember that in Greek, the use of masculine and feminine does not always signify gender. It is very often used to imply role or function when applied to an inanimate object such as the sun mentioned earlier is verse 40. The idea of masculine and feminine represent the idea of the subordinate and dominate roles. Man and woman is merely a reflection of this concept and does not represent it entirely. While the Church is feminine, thus occupies the subordinate role, it is not woman. While God is always represented in the dominate masculine position, he is not man.

Verse one does not stand alone. The antecedent of "they were all with one accord in one place" is the apostles who were the focus of Acts 1:26.

Would not the Church be edified by the prophesying of the men without the prophesying of the women? Paul excludes the women from doing this in the assembly.

You said, "I Corinthians 11 mentions women prophesying in the context of traditions and ordinances, and it comes before a discussion of a church gathering activity."
Since this prohibition comes from the Lord and not from Paul, it does not matter in which order these appear. This is a revealed principle from the Almighty regarding the function and behavior of both men and women in the Church.

You said, "It is not explicit about it being 'in church', but there are commentators who take the 'because of the angels' verse to refer to the idea that angels are present in the assembly. "
It is most explicit. "Whenever you come together "... "in church"... " it is shameful for women to speak in church."

The purpose of the coming together of the Church seems to be in the context of praise and worship. This seems clear from the fat that their coming together was for the expressed purpose of teaching, prophesying, and edification. In other words, this appears to be a worship environment and the prohibitions seem to be limited to this. Surely, no one would attempt to use this text to suggest that when the church come together for the purpose of having an enjoyable fellowship meal that women must remain silent in this assembly as well. This would be nonsense.

It is important to remember that there are also prohibitions placed here on the men as well. I wonder why it is that no one challenges these prohibitions.

The head covering is another issue that we could perhaps discuss at another time since it is so involved.

You are trying to find some logical argument that will stand against the language of the text. No matter what argument one may attempt to use to justify some personal agenda or preference, this prohibition still stands.

Might I suggest that we address only one argument at a time so that we do not get bogged down in having to address a wall of arguments in one post such as I did here.

While you appear to be making a logical argument, you did not take it far enough, end with a non sequitur and have nothing valid or sound as a result.

Do you honestly believe that women are forbidden to speak in the Christian Church merely because Adam was formed before Eve? Seriously? There is absolutely no logic to that. Frankly, I am saddened that so many smart Christians accept it without an ounce of further thought. It truly makes every woman a second-class citizen, inferior in nature to every male in the Church.

Paul says in 1 Cor. 14:36 " Or was it from you that the word of God first went out? Or has it come to you only?" Is there anything at all to indicate that he was writing to women at that point? Not if we follow your line of thinking, where EVERYTHING ELSE is written exclusively to men. Sorry, your argument falls completely flat. Either he was writing to the whole congregation (which leaves other issues to be examined) or he was writing to men only, which makes v. 36 agonizingly inconsistent. There is a third option, which I will leave to you to discover. By the way, check your Greek sources for the word at the start of that verse. It is often translated "or", but I believe that is incorrect... and its correct translation changes the tone of the passage significantly.

You referenced 1 Timothy 2:13... I would encourage you to delve into the cultural background, and the ideas of the proto-Gnostics (mystery religions) from Ephesus in the mid-first century. They were teaching that Eve was formed first, among other things. You might just come to a different conclusion on this matter. And yes, I'm sure you have done your homework.