Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 14:34
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.
34. Let your women keep silence in the churches ] The position of women in Christian assemblies is now decided on the principles laid down in ch. 1Co 11:3; 1Co 11:7-9.
as also saith the law ] In Gen 3:16.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Let your women keep silence … – This rule is positive, explicit, and universal. There is no ambiguity in the expressions; and there can be no difference of opinion, one would suppose, in regard to their meaning. The sense evidently is, that in all those things which he had specified, the women were to keep silence; they were to take no part. He had discoursed of speaking foreign languages, and of prophecy; and the evident sense is, that in regard to all these they were to keep silence, or were not to engage in them. These pertained solely to the male portion of the congregation. These things constituted the business of the public teaching; and in this the female part of the congregation were to be silent. They were not to teach the people, nor were they to interrupt those who were speaking – Rosenmuller. It is probable that, on pretence of being inspired, the women had assumed the office of public teachers.
In 1 Cor. 11, Paul had argued against their doing this in a certain manner – without their veils 1Co 11:4, and he had shown, that on that account, and in that manner, it was improper for them to assume the office of public teachers, and to conduct the devotions of the church. The force of the argument in 1 Cor. 11: is, that what he there states would be a sufficient reason against the practice, even if there were no other. It was contrary to all decency and propriety that they should appear in that manner in public. He here argues against the practice on every ground; forbids it altogether; and shows that on every consideration it was to be regarded as improper for them even so much as to ask a question in time of public service. There is, therefore, no inconsistency between the argument in 1 Cor. 11: and the statement here; and the force of the whole is, that on every consideration it was improper, and to be expressly prohibited, for women to conduct the devotions of the church. It does not refer to those only who claimed to be inspired, but to all; it does not refer merely to acts of public preaching, but to all acts of speaking, or even asking questions, when the church is assembled for public worship. No rule in the New Testament is more positive than this; and however plausible may be the reasons which may be urged for disregarding it, and for suffering women to take part in conducting public worship, yet the authority of the apostle Paul is positive, and his meaning cannot be mistaken; compare 1Ti 2:11-12.
To be under obedience – To be subject to their husbands; to acknowledge the superior authority of the man; see the note at 1Co 11:3.
As also saith the law – Gen 3:16, And thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
1Co 14:34-35
Let your women keep silence in the churches.
Woman
I. Her sphere.
1. Not in public, but at home.
2. Not (except in extraordinary eases, 1Co 11:5) to teach, but to learn.
3. Not to command, but obey.
II. Her obligation to keep within it.
1. Arises out of her natural position.
2. Is confirmed by the command of God.
3. Should be dictated by modesty. (J. Lyth, D. D.)
Women in the Church
I. Women have a place in the church. Christianity found woman degraded: it exalts her. In Christ there is neither male nor female.
II. Women have many ministries connected with the Church. If excluded from some positions how many are still open to women! In not a few of these she is unrivalled by man, who cannot do what she does. The Church owes a vast debt to its holy women.
III. Women are debarred by the apostle from speaking in Church assemblies. On the ground of propriety. Does not accord with womans true position (Gen 3:16; 1Co 11:1-34.). It had been foretold that your sons and daughters shall prophesy, and we read that Philips daughters prophesied; but in neither case is anything said about prophesying in public and mixed assemblies, which is what Paul forbids, inasmuch as it would conflict with modesty and womans rightful position, and would lead to many evils
IV. Womans instructioin encouraged. To supplement instruction of the sanctuary, women may ask questions at home of their husbands or relatives (R.V.). We have here incidentally indicated–
1. A special and most important sphere of woman–the home. A beautiful temple for her ministry. Oratorical females are frequently poor housewives.
2. A suggestion that husbands should be well furnished with religious knowledge. The head of the household should not be an empty head.
3. Evidence that women in the religious sphere are not to be mere automata. They are not to be dupes of priests. They are to ask questions, and not to be kept in ignorance. Intelligent service is expected from them. (E. Hurndall, M. A.)
Do the Scriptures forbid women to preach?
I. There are three views of this matter.
1. That this utterance is official and conclusive. Women are not to speak, however gifted they are.
2. That the authority of the apostle cannot settle the question. Paul forbad women to speak, but he had no business to.
3. That while the Scriptures are of binding authority in matters of faith and morals, this and other injunctions are local, national, and therefore transient.
This latter is the position now to be proved.
I. It was not the design of Christianity to determine manners, customs, forms of government and ecclesiastical institutions. Its aim was to build a new man in Christ Jesus, and to this inspired manhood was left the utmost liberty in respect to externals. This view is corroborated by the whole testimony of history. The modern Church is totally different from the assemblies of the first Christians. The civil state has been revolutionised since the time of Christ. The family has changed, and no one organisation resembles the organisations of two thousand years ago. The presumption is that when Christ was leaving everything else to the wisdom and experience of after times it did not step in with this single exception and fix the position of women. Such a course would have been contrary to its genius in every other direction.
II. Such a universal, limitation could not have taken place without violence to Jewish ideas. Woman was far more nearly equal to man among the Hebrews than among other Oriental nations. She was a public instructor. Note the cases of Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Huldah, Anna, and the prediction of Joel, Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, with Peters comment in Act 2:1-47. So when the Spirit of God rests upon them, and they have a message to give, if you undertake to set up the letter of Paul round about them, I will set up the message which says, On My handmaidens will I pour out My Spirit, and they shall prophesy. True, in the synagogue it was forbidden women to teach, but the service was not extemporary, but liturgical and expository; and women had not the technical education for it. But outside the synagogue it was eminently in accordance with the Hebrew sentiment that women should speak out–and speak in meeting too.
III. Only to Greek Churches were there such limitations to womans rights And privileges. The text and 1Ti 2:11-12 were addressed not to Jewish, but to Greek assemblies. Why this distinction? Look at the condition of Greek women. The highest thought of womanhood that the Greeks had was that a woman should remain at home, that she should serve her husband and his household, and that she should not be known beyond her own family. She was not permitted to go into the street unless veiled, otherwise her reputation for virtue was destroyed. For a woman to do what is done by women in modern civilised nations–to develop that which the poorest man toils to give his daughters–to learn music, poetry, art, and philosophy, was to stamp her as a courtesan. Such being the popular feeling and custom, what would have been the effect if a Greek had looked in on a Christian meeting and seen a woman rise uncovered and pour out her heart? He would have said, That is Christianity, is it? Why, then the Church is but a house of orgies. I understand your new religion. It teaches our wives that they must forsake their virtue, and go out into public exposure and do as courtesans do. Therefore it was that Paul said, You shall not violate the customs of your country. You shall not bring into discredit the religion of Christ by doing that which can be interpreted but in one direction by every man who sees it. I forbid your women to teach in Greek communities.
IV. What, then, may be considered a fair interpretation of this?
1. Is it right to say that this is the last word which the genius of Christianity had for women? Are you to take a command which had a peculiar interpretation in one province of the globe and in no other, and make it the criterion for judging of womans position and instruction everywhere? Shall this be done where Christianity has raised and inspired woman, and shall a manacle, which belonged to the degradation of the Greek period, be put upon the limbs of enfranchised womanhood? You might as well say that the command of the physician to the leper is the prescription that you should take care of your children by.
2. Scripture commands are binding only where they apply: e.g., we are commanded to honour the king, but what about countries where there is no king? And you cannot give a rigid interpretation to the text without running against the whole fruit of civilisation for the last 1,800 years. Are you going to put back the shadow on the dial? Christianity has made woman a prophetess, and no false interpretation of the text can ever close her mouth.
3. It is fair to apply to this subject the argument of Peter in Act 11:17. If in the providence of God women are called to preach, if their discourse is accompanied with power from on high, and blessed to the salvation of souls, then the Spirit itself bears witness to the right of woman to speak, and who are we that we should resist God?
4. Pauls doctrine in Gal 3:27-28, is the Christian doctrine for the future. In Christ there is neither male nor female. Faith, hope, love, learning, eloquence, etc., have no sex. Whoever can bring the kingdom of God nearer to men has the right to do so. We have trumpets enough; let us have some flutes. Women can sing and speak in the secular sphere often to mightier effect than men; why not, then, in the Divine? (H. W. Beecher.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 34. Let your women keep silence in the churches] This was a Jewish ordinance; women were not permitted to teach in the assemblies, or even to ask questions. The rabbins taught that “a woman should know nothing but the use of her distaff.” And the sayings of Rabbi Eliezer, as delivered, Bammidbar Rabba, sec. 9, fol. 204, are both worthy of remark and of execration; they are these: yisrephu dibrey torah veal yimsaru lenashim, “Let the words of the law be burned, rather than that they should be delivered to women.”
This was their condition till the time of the Gospel, when, according to the prediction of Joel, the Spirit of God was to be poured out on the women as well as the men, that they might prophesy, i.e. teach. And that they did prophesy or teach is evident from what the apostle says, 1Co 11:5, where he lays down rules to regulate this part of their conduct while ministering in the church.
But does not what the apostle says here contradict that statement, and show that the words in chap. 11 should be understood in another sense? For, here it is expressly said that they should keep silence in the church; for it was not permitted to a woman to speak. Both places seem perfectly consistent. It is evident from the context that the apostle refers here to asking questions, and what we call dictating in the assemblies. It was permitted to any man to ask questions, to object, altercate, attempt to refute, c., in the synagogue but this liberty was not allowed to any woman. St. Paul confirms this in reference also to the Christian Church; he orders them to keep silence; and, if they wished to learn any thing, let them inquire of their husbands at home; because it was perfectly indecorous for women to be contending with men in public assemblies, on points of doctrine, cases of conscience, c. But this by no means intimated that when a woman received any particular influence from God to enable her to teach, that she was not to obey that influence on the contrary, she was to obey it, and the apostle lays down directions in chap. 11 for regulating her personal appearance when thus employed. All that the apostle opposes here is their questioning, finding fault, disputing, c., in the Christian Church, as the Jewish men were permitted to do in their synagogues together with the attempts to usurp any authority over the man, by setting up their judgment in opposition to them; for the apostle has in view, especially, acts of disobedience, arrogance, c., of which no woman would be guilty who was under the influence of the Spirit of God.
But-to be under obedience, as also saith the law.] This is a reference to Ge 3:16: Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. From this it is evident that it was the disorderly and disobedient that the apostle had in view and not any of those on whom God had poured out his Spirit.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
This rule must be restrained to ordinary prophesyings; for certainly, if the Spirit of prophecy came upon a woman in the church, she might speak. Anna, who was a prophetess, in the temple gave thanks to the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem, Luk 2:38; and I cannot tell how Philips daughters prophesied, if they did not speak in the presence of many, Act 21:9. The reason that is given why women should keep silence, is, because
they are commanded to be under obedience. This apostle speaketh much the same thing, 1Ti 2:11,12, because it looked like a usurping authority over the man; which indeed is true, if it had been the ordinary practice of women to speak in the assemblies of the church; but not so, if some particular women sometimes spake upon an extraordinary impulse or impression. The law to which the apostle here refers, is thought to be that, Gen 3:16, where the woman is commanded to be subject to her husband, and it is said, that he should rule over her; yet that law did neither restrain Miriam from prophesying, Exo 15:20, nor yet Huldah, to whom Josiah himself sent, 2Ch 34:22, of whom it is also said, that she dwelt in the college. But setting aside that extraordinary case of a special afflatus, it was, doubtless, unlawful for a woman to speak in the church.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
34. (1Ti 2:11;1Ti 2:12). For women to speak inpublic would be an act of independence, as if they were not subjectto their husbands (compare 1Co 11:3;Eph 5:22; Tit 2:5;1Pe 3:1). For “underobedience,” translate, “in subjection” or”submission,” as the Greek is translated(Eph 5:21; Eph 5:22;Eph 5:24).
the lawa term appliedto the whole Old Testament; here, Ge3:16.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Let your women keep silence in the churches,…. This is a restriction of, and an exception to one of the above rules, that all might prophesy; in which he would be understood of men only, and not of women; and is directed against a practice which seems to have prevailed in this church at Corinth, allowing women to preach and teach in it; and this being a disorderly practice, and what was not used in other churches, the apostle forbids and condemns, and not without reason:
for it is not permitted unto them to speak; that is, in public assemblies, in the church of God, they might not speak with tongues, nor prophesy, or preach, or teach the word. All speaking is not prohibited; they might speak their experiences to the church, or give an account of the work of God upon their souls; they might speak to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs; or speak as an evidence in any case at a church meeting; but not in such sort, as carried in it direction, instruction, government, and authority. It was not allowed by God that they should speak in any authoritative manner in the church; nor was it suffered in the churches of Christ; nor was it admitted of in the Jewish synagogue; there, we are told b, the men came to teach, and the women , “to hear”: and one of their canons runs thus c;
“a woman may not read (that is, in the law), , “in the congregation”, or church, because of the honour of the congregation;”
for they thought it a dishonourable thing to a public assembly for a woman to read, though they even allowed a child to do it that was capable of it.
But they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. In Ge 3:16, “thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee”. By this the apostle would signify, that the reason why women are not to speak in the church, or to preach and teach publicly, or be concerned in the ministerial function, is, because this is an act of power, and authority; of rule and government, and so contrary to that subjection which God in his law requires of women unto men. The extraordinary instances of Deborah, Huldah, and Anna, must not be drawn into a rule or example in such cases.
b T. Hieros Chagiga, fol. 75. 4. & T. Bab. Chagiga, fol. 3. 1. c Maimon. Hilch. Tephilla, c. 12. sect. 17. T. Bab. Megilla, fol. 23. 1.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| On Spiritual Gifts. | A. D. 57. |
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.
Here the apostle, 1. Enjoins silence on their women in public assemblies, and to such a degree that they must not ask questions for their own information in the church, but ask their husbands at home. They are to learn in silence with all subjection; but, says the apostle, I suffer them not to teach,1Ti 2:11; 1Ti 2:12. There is indeed an intimation (ch. xi. 5) as if the women sometimes did pray and prophecy in their assemblies, which the apostle, in that passage, does not simply condemn, but the manner of performance, that is, praying or prophesying with the head uncovered, which, in that age and country, was throwing off the distinction of sexes, and setting themselves on a level with the men. But here he seems to forbid all public performances of theirs. They are not permitted to speak (v. 34) in the church, neither in praying nor prophesying. The connection seems plainly to include the latter, in the limited sense in which it is taken in this chapter, namely, for preaching, or interpreting scripture by inspiration. And, indeed, for a woman to prophesy in this sense were to teach, which does not so well befit her state of subjection. A teacher of others has in that respect a superiority over them, which is not allowed the woman over the man, nor must she therefore be allowed to teach in a congregation: I suffer them not to teach. But praying, and uttering hymns inspired, were not teaching. And seeing there were women who had spiritual gifts of this sort in that age of the church (see Acts xxii. 9), and might be under this impulse in the assembly, must they altogether suppress it? Or why should they have this gift, if it must never be publicly exercised? For these reasons, some think that these general prohibitions are only to be understood in common cases; but that upon extraordinary occasions, when women were under a divine afflatus, and known to be so, they might have liberty of speech. They were not ordinarily to teach, nor so much as to debate and ask questions in the church, but learn in silence there; and, if difficulties occurred, ask their own husbands at home. Note, As it is the woman’s duty to learn in subjection, it is the man’s duty to keep up his superiority, by being able to instruct her; if it be her duty to ask her husband at home, it is his concern and duty to endeavour at lest to be able to answer her enquiries; if it be a shame for her to speak in the church, where she should be silent, it is a shame for him to be silent when he should speak, and not be able to give an answer, when she asks him at home. 2. We have here the reason of this injunction: It is God’s law and commandment that they should be under obedience (v. 34); they are placed in subordination to the man, and it is a shame for them to do any thing that looks like an affectation of changing ranks, which speaking in public seemed to imply, at least in that age, and among that people, as would public teaching much more: so that the apostle concludes it was a shame for women to speak in the church, in the assembly. Shame is the mind’s uneasy reflection on having done an indecent thing. And what more indecent than for a woman to quit her rank, renounce the subordination of her sex, or do what in common account had such aspect and appearance? Note, Our spirit and conduct should be suitable to our rank. The natural distinctions God has made, we should observe. Those he has placed in subjection to others should not set themselves on a level, nor affect or assume superiority. The woman was made subject to the man, and she should keep her station and be content with it. For this reason women must be silent in the churches, not set up for teachers; for this is setting up for superiority over the man.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Keep silence in the churches ( ). The same verb used about the disorders caused by speakers in tongues (verse 28) and prophets (30). For some reason some of the women were creating disturbance in the public worship by their dress (11:2-16) and now by their speech. There is no doubt at all as to Paul’s meaning here. In church the women are not allowed to speak () nor even to ask questions. They are to do that
at home ( ). He calls it a shame () as in 11:6 (cf. Eph 5:12; Titus 1:11). Certainly women are still in subjection () to their husbands (or ought to be). But somehow modern Christians have concluded that Paul’s commands on this subject, even 1Ti 2:12, were meant for specific conditions that do not apply wholly now. Women do most of the teaching in our Sunday schools today. It is not easy to draw the line. The daughters of Philip were prophetesses. It seems clear that we need to be patient with each other as we try to understand Paul’s real meaning here.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “Let Your women keep silence in the churches:” (hai gunaikes en tais ekklesiais sigatosan) “Let the women in the churches or assemblies be silent.” The exhortation to silence seems to concern two things: 1) teaching in any sense of usurping authority over men, and 2) speaking in tongues, in contrast with prophesying, or speaking forth.
2) “For it is not permitted unto them to speak;” (ou gar epitrepetai autais lalein) “Because it is not permitted for them to speak.” This appears to exclude the a) tongues speaking or interpreting and teaching in the sense of usurping authority over men, 1Ti 2:12. It does not seem to exclude them from praying or prophesying, witnessing, 1Co 11:5; 1Co 14:31.
3) “But they are commanded to be under obedience.” (alla hupotassesthosen) “But let them be subject,” Subjection, modesty, and obedience as the weaker vessel, to the husband in the home and men in public worship leadership, is sanctioned throughout the Scriptures, Gen 3:16; Eph 5:22; Eph 5:24; Col 3:18; Tit 2:5; 1Pe 3:1-7.
4) “As also saith the law.” (kathos kai ho nomos legei) “Just as the law also says.” Gen 3:16; 1Co 11:3. The woman’s veil or head covering was an Old and New Testament symbol of obedience or subjection to the husband. While Christians are not under the Law of Moses, the principle of woman’s subjection to man in the home life and church role of teaching leadership, seems to be Divinely directed. This liberty of man is, however, not to be used as an occasion to the flesh, Gal 5:13; Eph 5:22-24; Eph 5:28; Eph 5:33; 1Pe 3:7.
It appears that the New Testament approves that Christian women may 1) pray in public worship, 1Co 11:5; 1 Corinthians 2) prophecy or speak forth witnessing in public worship, 1Co 11:5; 1Co 14:31; 1 Corinthians 3) play musical instruments and sing in public worship, Eph 5:18-19; Col 3:15-16; 1Co 14:26. The two things specifically forbidden for women were 1) speaking in tongues and 2) public teaching that would usurp authority in any way over man, 1Ti 2:12.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
It appears that the Church of the Corinthians was infected with this fault too, that the talkativeness of women was allowed a place in the sacred assembly, or rather that the fullest liberty was given to it. Hence he forbids them to speak in public, either for the purpose of teaching or of prophesying. This, however, we must understand as referring to ordinary service, or where there is a Church in a regularly constituted state; for a necessity may occur of such a nature as to require that a woman should speak in public; but Paul has merely in view what is becoming in a duly regulated assembly.
34. Let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. What connection has the object that he has in view with the subjection under which the law places women? “For what is there,” some one will say, “to hinder their being in subjection, and yet at the same time teaching?” I answer, that the office of teaching (877) is a superiority in the Church, and is, consequently, inconsistent with subjection. For how unseemly a thing it were, that one who is under subjection to one of the members, should preside (878) over the entire body! It is therefore an argument from things inconsistent — If the woman is under subjection, she is, consequently, prohibited from authority to teach in public. (879) And unquestionably, (880) wherever even natural propriety has been maintained, women have in all ages been excluded from the public management of affairs. It is the dictate of common sense, that female government is improper and unseemly. Nay more, while originally they had permission given to them at Rome to plead before a court, (881) the effrontery of Caia Afrania (882) led to their being interdicted, even from this. Paul’s reasoning, however, is simple — that authority to teach is not suitable to the station that a woman occupies, because, if she teaches, she presides over all the men, while it becomes her to be under subjection.
(877) “ D’enseigner ou de prescher;” — “Of teaching or of preaching.”
(878) “ Eust preeminence et authorite;” — “Should have pre-eminence and authority.”
(879) “ Elle ne pent donc auoir authorire publique de prescher ou enseigner;” — “She cannot, therefore, have public authority to preach or teach.”
(880) “ Entre toutes les nations et peuples;” — “Among all nations and peoples.”
(881) “ On les souffroit proposer deuant les iuges, et plaider publiquement;” — “They were allowed to make an appearance before the judges, and plead publicly.”’
(882) Caia, Afrania was the wife of a senator, Licinius Buccio. The circumstance referred to by Calvin is related by Valerius Maximus, (lib. 8. c. 3. n. 2,) in the following terms: — “ Mulicbris verecundiae oblita, suas per se causas agebat, et importunis clamoribus judicibus obstrepebat; non quod advocati ei deessent, sed quia impudentia abundabat. Hinc factum est. ut mulieres perfrictae frontis et matronalis pudoris oblitae, Afraniae per contumeliam dicerentur;” — “Forgetful of the modesty that becomes a femme, she pleaded her own cause in person, and annoyed the judges with a senseless clamouring — not from any want of advocates to take her case in hand, but from excessive impudence. In consequence of this, women that were of bold front, and were forgetful of the modesty that becomes a matron, were, by way of reproach, called Afranias. ” — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(34) But they are commanded to be under obedience.Better (as in some of the best MSS.), but let them be under obedience. The original precept laid down in Gen. 3:16 teaches this. The law stands for the Old Testament generally.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
d. This Church order must not be disturbed by the garrulity of their women, 1Co 14:34-35 .
“Paul,” says Calvin, (note 1Co 11:5,) “attends to one thing at a time.” Truly said; for as in 1Co 11:3-16 he regulated the praying and prophesying of the gifted women, so here he prohibits the garrulity of the ungifted commonalty of the sex. It was not given to Orientalism, but to our Teutonic races, to assign to woman her higher place. The Indian brahmin, the Jewish rabbi, the Greek poet, and the Roman senator, alike spoke of her with contempt, and prescribed silence as her cardinal virtue. Their penalty was to lose the blessings that cultured womanhood does now, and can still more abundantly, confer upon man. St. Paul treats the sex with the severity accordant with its then character; but no vision is vouchsafed him of woman’s better future. The Spirit, however, in persistently bestowing upon woman the gift of prophecy, clearly indicated a gracious hope. Act 2:18.
How the rabbins crushed woman with false exegeses of the Old Testament let the following quotation show, given by Wetstein from Kidduschim, folio 29, 2: “Whence is it proved to us that a mother may not be held to teach her own son? Because it is written in Deu 5:1, ‘Ye shall teach, and ye shall learn,’ the verbs being in the masculine. Whoever are commanded to learn are commanded to teach: whoever are not commanded to learn are not commanded to teach. That a woman is not commanded to teach herself, whence is it proved? From Deu 11:19, where it is said: ‘And ye shall teach them your children, speaking of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.’ Whence, also, is it proved that others should not teach a woman? Because it is said, Deu 11:19, ‘Ye shall teach them to your sons; it is not said, also your daughters.’ Megilla, fol. 23, 1. The wise men say: ‘Women should not read in the law for the sake of the honour of the synagogue.’ Bloomfield quotes Bammidhar rabba, sec. 9, fol. 204, 4, “A certain matron asked Rabbi Eleazar, ‘Wherefore were the Israelites, who committed but one crime about the golden calf, punished with a threefold penalty?’ Rabbi responded: ‘Women ought to know nothing but the distaff,’ as in Pro 31:19. The same rabbi also spake thus: ‘May the words of the law rather be burned than placed in the hands of women!’”
So the old Roman in Valerius Maximus, 1Co 3:8: “What has a woman to do with public haranguing? If our ancient customs prevail, nothing.” So the Greek Euripides: “For a woman silence, sobriety, and indoors, are a beauty.” Callistratus says, “The ornament of trees is foliage; of sheep, wool; of horses, the mane; of men, the beard; of women, silence.” A very extended anthology of such admonitions to women can be quoted from old eastern literature. The philosophy was the same as slavery taught in regard to negroes: keep them in ignorance and degradation, and then make that ignorance and degradation a ground of reproach, and a reason for still-continued ignorance and degradation.
The character of the women of Christian congregations in eastern Europe in the fourth century, under such a regimen, may be estimated by the following passages from Chrysostom: “Then, indeed, the women, from such teaching, kept silence; but now there is apt to be great noise among them, much clamour and talking, and nowhere so much as in this place. They may all be seen here talking more than in the market or at the bath. For, as if they came hither for recreation, they are all engaged in conversing upon unprofitable subjects. Thus all is confusion, and they seem not to understand that unless they are quiet they cannot learn any thing that is useful. For when our discourse strains against the talking, and no one minds what is said, what good can it do them?” Of present eastern women Dr. Anderson, on Oriental Churches, gives (vol. ii, p. 277) the following specimen describing an American missionary lady’s meeting with seventy or eighty females: “The chapel was nearly full of women, all sitting on the floor, and each one crowding up to get as near her as possible. They were very much like a hive of bees. The slightest thing would set them all in commotion, and they resembled a town-meeting more than a religious gathering. When a child cried it would enlist the energies of half a dozen women, with voice and gesture, to quiet it. When some striking thought of some speaker flashed upon the mind of some woman, she would begin to explain it in no moderate tones to those about her, and this would set the whole off into a bedlam of talk, which it would require two or three minutes to quell.”
Of the Palestinian women of the present day Mr. Thomson says: “Oriental women are never regarded or treated as equals by the men. This is seen on all occasions; and it requires some firmness to secure to our own ladies proper respect, especially from menservants. They pronounce women to be weak and inferior in the most absolute terms, and in accordance with this idea is their deportment toward them. Even in polite company the gentlemen must be served first. So the husband and brothers sit down and eat, and the wife, mother, and sisters wait and take what is left. If the husband or the brothers accompany their female relatives anywhere, they walk before, and the women follow at a respectful distance. It is very common to see small boys lord it over both mother and sisters in a most insolent manner, and they are encouraged to do so by the father. The evils resulting from this are incalculable. The men, however, attempt to justify their treatment of the women by the tyrant’s plea of necessity. They are obliged to govern the wives with the utmost strictness, or they would not only ruin their husbands, but themselves also. Hence, they literally use the rod upon them, especially when they have, or imagine they have, cause to doubt the wife’s fidelity. Instances are not rare in which the husband kills the wife outright for this cause, and no legal notice is taken of the murder; and, in general, the man relies on fear to keep the wife in subjection, and to restrain her from vice. She is confined closely, watched with jealousy, and every thing valuable is kept under lock and key; necessarily so, they say, for the wife will not hesitate to rob her husband if she gets an opportunity. There are many pleasing exceptions, especially among the younger Christian families. But, on the whole, the cases are rare where the husband has not, at some time or other, resorted to the lash to enforce obedience in his rebellious household. Most sensible men readily admit that this whole system is a miserable compensation to mitigate evils flowing from the very great crime of neglecting the education of females; and, during the last few years, a change has taken place in public sentiment on this subject among the intelligent Christians in Lebanon and the cities along the coast, and a strong desire to educate the females is fast spreading among them.” The Land and the Book, vol. i, p. 187.
What Teutonic Christianity will do for woman we do not predict. It will never cause her to cease to be woman; but as her sphere enlarges she may very possibly bring some things within the circle of gracefulness and modesty which were once rightly held a shame for women (1Co 14:35) to attempt. Even now women in the Lyceum are able to address an admiring audience in full accordance with the sense of a most fastidious propriety. And no women in modern times present more perfectly the ideal of female modesty than the women of that sect which has always had its female preachers the Friends.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
34. Your women If we suppose the mind’s eye of the apostle to be “isolated” upon such a set of women as Chrysostom, Dr. Anderson, and Thomson describe, we should utter a hearty amen to his keep silence! That he does not expressly except cases like Phoebe, whom he commended to a whole Church, or the daughters of Philip, is explicable on the ground that such a class have already been provided for in chapter 11. The New Testament contains no case of public preaching more unequivocal, and scarce any more successful, than that of the woman of Samaria to her townsmen.
Not permitted Either by custom, propriety, or divine law.
Speak The verb , the root of which is , lal, is a word like prattle, chatter, and jabber, formed from imitation of senseless or childish utterances. In the classic Greek it usually retains that import, but in New Testament Greek it signifies, as here, to talk or discourse in any mode, usually with the idea of continuance. No argument can be drawn from the word in regard to the nature of the utterances which St. Paul forbids.
Under obedience Under control both of the proper decorum of the meeting and of the regulative authority of the other sex.
Saith the law ”Thy desire [or request] shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” Gen 3:16. See note, 1Co 11:3-16. The law is permanent, but the application of the law may vary from age to age. When obedience to, or concurrence with, the will of the other sex requires a lady of talent to lecture before an audience or preach before a congregation, it may be as proper as it was for Miriam, in obedience to Moses, to prophesy upon the timbrel before the camp of Israel.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Let the women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted to them to speak. But let them be in subjection, as also says the law. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.’
That women were allowed to prophesy we know from chapter 1Co 11:2-16. Whether they could do so in the church we are not told, but it would seem likely that that was one of the main reasons why she had to wear a covering when she did so, so that she was not seen to be challenging the headship of man. Thus this does not seemingly refer to that.
We have, however, had one or two earlier cases of people who were to keep silence. The man who had ‘a tongue’ when there was no interpreter present was told to keep silence (1Co 14:28). The prophet is to keep silence if a special revelation from God comes (1Co 14:30). Thus the command to keep silence is not for women alone. All should keep silence who have nothing at that time to contribute to the edification of those present. Why then should women particularly keep silence as a whole? Paul supplies the answer. It is because it is they who had the tendency to chatter. It is because it was they who constantly asked their husbands questions, and thus tended to be noisy, and even embarrassed the prophets who spoke. It was the women who tended most to chatter and to gossip (1Ti 5:13). It is because, unlike the prophetess who keeps her head covered, they are often oblivious to what they are doing and get so noisy that they seem to forget the headship of man. They forget the need for submission and tend to disturb the meetings. It is even possible that they had much to do with the misuse of tongues. Nothing would have caused more confusion than excited women endlessly expressing themselves in tongues, interrupting what was going on.
Thus, like the man with a tongue when no interpreter is present, they are to maintain a dignified silence. It is not permitted to them to speak. They are under authority. They must not chatter. They should speak to themselves and to God (1Co 14:28). They must not cause any confusion in the church service, especially by continually asking questions.
Of course, there is an unstated assumption that if one had a genuine gift of grace (charismata), they may utilise it in accordance with what Paul has been saying, for that has been stated in chapter 11. There was no forbidding of that. Although even then it was only when wearing something that indicated their submission to the headship of man and of Christ. Then it was permissible. They could also no doubt sing and take part in worship. What they must not do is chatter and ask questions of their husbands.
Again reference is made to the Law concerning the need for a woman’s submission to man as indicated by Genesis 1-2, as he has previously indicated in his arguments in 1Co 11:3-16. They must recognise continually God’s order of things.
So if women wish to understand anything that has taken place in the church gathering, or that has been said in a prophecy, they should not start up a conversation about it, they should remain silent and ask their husbands at home, indicating by this their recognition that they are helpmeets not heads.
(The difficulty that these verses caused in the Western church comes out in that Western manuscripts, and they alone, placed 1Co 14:34-35 after 1Co 14:40. Someone was unhappy with them where they were. Yet all the earlier manuscripts (which are non-Western) without exception have them in the correct place, and there is no early evidence at all for them not being a part of the text. Apart from these Western witnesses, the evidence for their inclusion is overwhelming in the terms of textual criticism.
That the change took place very early comes out in the unanimity of Western witnesses. It is possible that the change took place so as to connect 1Co 14:36 directly with what has gone before rather than it being seen as a comment on 1Co 14:35-36, some in the Western church seeing 1Co 14:35-36 as interrupting the flow and relatively unimportant. Or it may have been due to the influence of highborn women in Rome who used their influence when the first copy of the letter was received and read out, to minimise the influence of the verses by this change, the church refusing to excise them altogether.
Most of those who would remove them today probably do so for the same reason as the Western church moved them to follow 1Co 14:40, because they do not fit in with our view of how Paul should have written his letter and somehow they do not fit in with our ideas. They are inconvenient. So let us put them out of the way. Then they find arguments which will justify the decision, as we always can. (This is not of course done consciously. We are all at times guilty of this process, and should be aware of it). But their arguments are certainly not conclusive, and are not sufficient to overthrow the combined witness of the early manuscripts.
For we can quite understand why some highborn aristocratic Roman women, offended at the implication of these verses and the limit they might place on them, might have been able to use their great influence (not paralleled elsewhere) to prevail on the Roman church to make them a postscript to the section rather than part of the instructions about church worship, thus minimising their influence. Yet it would indicate that even these women could not carry enough weight to have them moved completely. They were Scripture. In other parts of the world there were not such pressures. (This may be so or it may not. But in the end we will never know).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Final regulations:
v. 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.
v. 35. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home; for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
v. 36. What? Came the Word of God out from you? Or came it unto you only?
v. 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.
v. 38. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
v. 39. Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
v. 40. Let all things be done decently and in order. Both Greek and Roman as well as Jewish custom forbade the public appearance of women, especially their participation in public speaking. It seems that the Christian women of Corinth had a wrong idea of the meaning of Christian liberty, assuming that the ancient distinction made by God had been abrogated. But this rule made by God, that man is the head of woman, holds good for all time and under all circumstances. It is not a question of superiority or inferiority, but of headship and of government in the affairs of the church. Let women keep silence in the congregations; they shall take no part in public teaching in the church, they shall not be given authoritative direction. The public speaking and teaching in the congregation on the basis of the Word of God is a ruling and governing which is at variance with the position which God has given to woman, not only since the Fall, but before as well. And a Christian woman, knowing the high esteem in which she is otherwise held according to the Word of God (See Eph 5:22 -, will not attempt to break this rule, Gen 3:16, but will gladly acquiesce in His will, knowing that it is not permitted her to be a teacher in the public worship of the congregation, 1Ti 2:12, but to be under obedience, leaving the leadership, the teaching, and the government to the men. Christian women are thereby not excluded from learning, they are rather encouraged to take an intelligent interest in the work of the congregation; they should freely ask questions and discuss matters of the kingdom of God at home, with their husbands. And far from occupying a position of dishonor by this ruling of God, Christian women know that it is disgraceful, it shocks moral feeling, if women aspire to, and assume, equal footing with men in public speaking and teaching, and in church leadership. Note: Here, as in the parallel passages, the apostle refers to public teaching before the whole congregation; the work of women teachers in schools and high schools is here not condemned, and in other passages, Tit 2:3; Act 18:26, is rather, by implication, commended.
In case some of the Corinthians might now think that the apostle is exceeding his authority in giving them these regulations, he emphasizes their value, if rightly used: Or is it from you that the Word of God went out? Or did it come to you alone? The tendency among the Corinthian Christians was to be so self-complacent that they gave the impression of being the original Christians and that the wide world must learn from them. But they must remember that they were neither the first nor the only Christian congregation; the Gospel had neither gone forth from Corinth as the source, nor had it reached them alone. It behooved them, therefore, to adjust their church order to that of the other churches, to conform to the greater experience of such as had had an opportunity to try out the rules of divine worship. And if one of them persisted in being unruly, if he deemed himself as having’ prophetical or spiritual insight into matters, he should know and, if a true prophet, will admit for a certainty that the things which the apostle writes are a commandment of the Lord. The Lord of the Church, Jesus Christ, has not only given the apostles the ability to judge all things, 1Co 2:15, but He has entrusted to them such rules as will redound to the upbuilding of the congregation. If, however, any man persists in his ignorance, let him be ignorant. His willful ignorance causes the Lord to disown him, just as he will be disregarded, abandoned, to his own self-will by the members of the congregation.
And so the apostle, in conclusion, sums up once more: And so, my brethren, seek eagerly after the gift of prophesying, and to speak with tongues do not hinder. The latter is to be allowed in the congregation, but not encouraged like prophecy; no obstacle is to be put in its way, but the decided preference is to be given to the gift whose power to edify was so obvious. And so far as the public services in general are concerned: Let all things be carried on with proper Christian taste and deportment and in order. Both indecorousness and tumultuousness in a Christian assembly are at variance with the will of the Lord of the Church. Rules and orders may be mechanical, but they tend to serve the preaching of the Gospel and the edifying of the congregation, and should therefore by no means be despised.
Summary. Among all spiritual gifts Paul commends prophecy as serving for the edification of the congregation, being preferable to the gift of tongues; he proposes an order of service, forbids the public teaching of women, and emphasizes the fact that God is a God of peace and order.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
1Co 14:34-35. Let your women keep silence “As to your women, let them keep silence in your assemblies: for it is not permitted them to discourse there, or pretend to teach: that no way suits the state of subjection appointed them in the law. See Gen 3:16. But if they have a mind to have any thing explained to them which passes in the church, let them, for their information, ask their husbands at home; for it is a shame for women to speak in the congregation.”
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
1Co 14:34 . Appendix to the regulative section regarding the gifts of the Spirit (1Co 14:26-33 ): directed against the public speaking of women . Corinthian women, with their freer mood inclined towards emancipation (comp. 1Co 11:2 ff.), must have presumed on thi.
. . . . .] is referred by the Fathers and most of the older expositors, Rckert, Osiander, Neander, Maier, to what precedes (comp. 1Co 4:17 , 1Co 7:17 , 1Co 11:16 ). But since the preceding is quite general, and hence contains no special point of reference for (for which reason this has been got rid of in various ways, and even has been added in some codd. and versions); since, on the other hand, the passage which follows offers this point of reference in the fact of its being a command for the Corinthians ; and since 1Co 14:36 manifestly glances back at the argument implied in . . . . ., therefore it is preferable to connect the clause with what follows, as is done by Cajetanus and most modern expositors: As in all church assemblies of the saints, your women ought to be silent in the church assemblies . To place a comma, with Lachmann, before , puts an incongruous emphasis upon .
Regarding the matter itself (1Ti 2:11 ), comp. the parallels from Greek, Roman, and Rabbinical writers in Wetstein in loc. ; Vitringa, Synag . p. 724; Schoettgen, Horae , p. 658.
] for it is (permanently) not allowed . To take as mandari (Reiche) would be linguistically correct in itself, but against the usage of the whole N. T. (comp. 1Co 16:7 ; 1Ti 2:12 ).
] namely, is incumbent upon them , in accordance with a current Greek brevity of expression. Comp. 1Ti 4:3 ; see Khner, II. p. 604 f.; Dissen, ad Demosth. de Cor . p. 222 f. The , excludes, in Paul’s view, the speaking in the assemblies, inasmuch as the latter appears to him as an act of uncomplying independenc.
] Gen 3:16 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
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.
Ver. 34. Let your women, &c. ] See Trapp on “ Rom 16:1 “
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
34, 35. ] Regulatian prohibiting women to speak publicly in the church, and its grounds . If be placed at the beginning of this sentence, we must not, as Lachm. absurdly does, put a comma before , which would throw the emphasis on it and disturb the sense: and which besides would then be expressed , or even , but certainly not .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
34 .] , scil. . The same construction where a second verb must be supplied from the context, occurs 1Ti 4:3 . So Soph. d. Tyr. 236, , : Lucian, , line 49 from beg [64] , , . See other examples in Khner, 852 K.
[64] beginning.
ref. Their speaking in public would be of itself an act of in dependence; of teaching the assembly, and among others their own husbands.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1Co 14:34-40 . 49. FINAL INSTRUCTIONS ON CHURCH ORDER. In 1Co 14:34 ff. P. returns to the matter which he first touched upon in reproving the disorderly Church life at Cor [2180] , viz ., the irregular behaviour of certain Christian women (1Co 11:2-16 ): there it was their dress , now it is their tongue that he briefly reproves. 1Co 14:37 f., glancing over the injunctions of Div. IV. at large, commend their recognition as a test of the high pretensions to spiritual insight made at Cor [2181] 1Co 14:39 recapitulates Paul’s deliverance on the vexed question of Tongues versus Prophecy. 1Co 14:40 adds the final maxim of propriety and order , a rule of administration as comprehensive and important as the of 1Co 14:26 .
[2180] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.
[2181] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
1Co 14:34 . : “Let women (Gr [2182] generic art [2183] ) keep silence in the church assemblies, for it is not allowed them to speak”; cf. 1Ti 2:12 , where the “speaking” of this passage is defined as “teaching, or using authority over a man”. The contradiction between this veto and the language of 1Co 11:5 , which assumes that women “pray” and “prophesy” in gatherings of Christians and forbids their doing so “with uncovered head,” is relieved by supposing ( a ) that in 1Co 11:5 P. refers to private gatherings (so Cv [2184] , Bg [2185] , Mr [2186] , Bt [2187] , Ev [2188] , El [2189] ), or means specifically at home (Hf [2190] ), while here speaking is forbidden (1Co 14:35 ); but there is nothing in ch. 11 to indicate this distinction, which ex hyp . is vital to the matter; moreover, at this early date, the distinction between public and private Christian meetings in church or house was very imperfectly developed. Or ( b ), the instances admitted in 1Co 11:5 were exceptional , “o la femme se sentirait presse de donner essor un lan extraordinaire de l’Esprit” (Gd [2191] ): but (1Co 11:5 ) suggests frequent occurrence. ( c ) Hn [2192] supposes participation in the ecstatic manifestations forbidden, as though were understood with . ( d ) Ed [2193] thinks the tacit permission of 1Co 11:5 here withdrawn , on maturer consideration. But ( e ), in view of the words that follow, “but let them be subject ” and “if they want to learn ” (contrasted with by ), and on comparison with the more explicit language of 1Ti 2:12 , in view moreover of the principle affirmed in ch. 1Co 11:3 ff., it appears probable that P. is thinking of Church-teaching and authoritative direction as a rle unfit for women. is the key-note of Paul’s doctrine on the subject ( cf. also Eph 5:22 ff., etc.). This command cannot fairly be set aside as a temporary regulation due to the state of ancient society. If the Ap. was right, there is a which lies in the nature of the sexes and the plan of creation; but this must be understood with the recollection of what Christian subjection is (see Gal 5:13 b , Eph 5:22 ff.; also note on 1Co 11:3 above). What “the law says” was evidently in Paul’s mind when he grounded his doctrine in ch. 11. on the O.T. story of the creation of Man and Woman. For Jewish sentiment in the matter, see Wetstein ad loc [2194] , Vitringa, Synag ., p. 724; Schttgen, Hor ., p. 658. For Gr [2195] feeling, cf. Soph., Ajax , 293, (Ed [2196] ); for Early Church rule, Const. Apost ., iii., 6, Conc. Carthag ., iv. 99 (quoted by El [2197] ).
[2182] Greek, or Grotius’ Annotationes in N.T.
[2183]
[2184] Calvin’s In Nov. Testamentum Commentarii .
[2185] Bengel’s Gnomon Novi Testamenti.
[2186]
[2187] J. A. Beet’s St. Paul’s Epp. to the Corinthians (1882).
[2188] T. S. Evans in Speaker’s Commentary .
[2189] C. J. Ellicott’s St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians .
[2190] J. C. K. von Hofmann’s Die heilige Schrift N.T. untersucht , ii. 2 (2te Auflage, 1874).
[2191] F. Godet’s Commentaire sur la prem. p. aux Corinthiens (Eng. Trans.).
[2192] C. F. G. Heinrici’s Erklrung der Korintherbriefe (1880), or 1 Korinther in Meyer’s krit.-exegetisches Kommentar (1896).
[2193] T. C. Edwards’ Commentary on the First Ep. to the Corinthians . 2
[2194] ad locum , on this passage.
[2195] Greek, or Grotius’ Annotationes in N.T.
[2196]
[2197] C. J. Ellicott’s St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: 1Co 14:34-36
34The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. 36Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?
1Co 14:34 “The women are to keep silent in the churches” This verse has become a major theological issue in certain segments of the modern church. The modern western social, cultural trend toward individual rights and equality has made the NT, and especially Paul, seem judgmental and negative on this issue. In Paul’s day his theology relating to women was radically positive (cf. Eph 5:22-23). Paul obviously worked with many women, as his list of co-workers in Romans 16 shows. Also see the Special Topic: Women in the Bible at 1Co 7:5.
Even in this context, Paul states the balance, 1Co 11:5 versus 1Co 14:34. Somehow 1Co 14:34-35 relate uniquely to Corinth and the first century. The theories are legion (see Special Topic below)! How it relates to our day is problematic. Dogmatism and proof-texting are inappropriate. The biblical witness is not uniform or monolithic on this issue.
Paul limits several groups in the Corinthian worship setting, “keep silent,” 1Co 14:28; 1Co 14:30; 1Co 14:34. There was a problem in gathered worship at Corinth. Christian women were a part of that problem. Their new freedom in Christ (or their being part of a Roman societal woman’s freedom movement) was causing cultural, theological, and evangelistic problems. In our day the opposite may be true. Gifted women leaders will help the twenty-first century church reach the world with the gospel. This does not affect the God-given order of creation, but it does show the priority of evangelism (cf. 1Co 9:22). This issue is not a gospel or doctrinal issue.
SPECIAL TOPIC: WOMEN IN MINISTRY
SPECIAL TOPIC: THEORIES RELATED TO “WOMEN KEEP SILENT”
NASB”are to subject themselves”
NKJV”they are to be submissive”
NRSV”should be subordinate”
TEV”they must not be in charge”
NJB”theirs is a subordinate part”
This is a present passive imperative. “Subject” was a military term describing the chain of command. It is used of Jesus (cf. Luk 2:51 to His earthly parents and 1Co 15:28 to His Heavenly Father) and is a universal truth for the church (cf. Eph 5:21).
SPECIAL TOPIC: SUBMISSION (HUPOTASS)
“just as the Law also says” Is Paul referring to a specific text or a general principle? There is no OT text that says this. It is possible that in light of 1Co 11:8-9 that Gen 2:20-24 is the referent (cf. 1Ti 2:13). Some think that the result of the fall and that Gen 3:16 is the referent. It is also contextually possible that the “subjection” is related to the use of the word in 1Co 14:32, where it would refer to submission to other prophets (cf. Hard Sayings of the Bible, p. 616).
There is a fluidity in Paul’s writings in using this term “law.” Most often it refers to Mosaic Law, the old covenant, but sometimes it refers to the concept of law in general. If that is true here then it refers to the general tenets of this patriarchal, “men first,” culture.
If women were allowed to be in charge, even in appearance, it would have hurt the cause of Christ in the first century Greco-Roman world. In this way it is similar to how the NT treats the issue of slavery. See note at 1Co 14:21 for a different understanding of this phrase.
1Co 14:35 This verse shows that the term “woman” in 1Co 14:34 refers to “wives.” Does this imply a single woman can speak? This same ambiguity is in chapter 1Co 11:5.
This verse is related to 1Ti 2:11-12 and Tit 2:5. Is it theological or cultural in 1Ti 2:13-14? Is it locked into a unique historical setting or is it a universal truth for all cultures, all ages? The biblical witness is speaking with two voices (cf. How to Read the Bible For All Its Worth by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart, pp. 15,63,72.74).
“If” This is a first class conditional sentence. Christian wives were asking questions in gathered worship at Corinth. The church meetings were already being interrupted by singers, tongue speakers, tongue interpreters, and prophets. Now curious wives or wives flaunting their freedom were also becoming actively involved in the chaos!
“let them ask” This is a present active imperative. These women are told who to ask and when to ask and why! Their actions were affecting the effectiveness of gathered worship.
Please read the note on Walter C. Kaiser’s understanding of 1Co 14:34-36 at 1Co 14:21, paragraph two.
1Co 14:36 This was a sarcastic question to shock the prideful Corinthian church into spiritual reality and their place among the other congregations. The grammatical form of the two questions in 1Co 14:36 expects a “no” answer.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
under obedience = subject, as in 1Co 14:32.
as also, &c. = as the law also saith. Reference is to Gen 3:16. Compare 1Ti 2:11-13.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
34, 35.] Regulatian prohibiting women to speak publicly in the church, and its grounds. If be placed at the beginning of this sentence, we must not, as Lachm. absurdly does, put a comma before , which would throw the emphasis on it and disturb the sense: and which besides would then be expressed , or even , but certainly not .
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Co 14:34. , the woman) Paul uses the same expression, 1Ti 2:11-12, and yet it was expedient, that this should be written especially for the Corinthians; comp. note at 1Co 11:16.- ) in your church assemblies; when there are men present, that can speak.-) it is committed [permitted, Engl. Vers.]-, to be subject) so as to submit their own will to that of another, Gen 3:16. The application (desire) of the woman is to her husband , and that too as to her lord.-) also; comp. 1Co 3:8, note.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Co 14:34
1Co 14:34
let the women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted unto them to speak;-[No instruction in the New Testament is more positive than this; it is positive, explicit, and universal; and however plausible may be the reasons which are urged for disregarding it, and for suffering women to take an active part in conducting public worship, yet the authority of the inspired apostle remains positive and his meaning cannot be misunderstood. He looks at it from every viewpoint, forbids it altogether, and shows that from every consideration it was to be regarded as improper for them to take any active part in conducting the public service.]
but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law.-This was ordained by God in the beginning when he said unto the woman: Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. (Gen 3:16). It was required all through the Patriarchal and Jewish dispensations. Sarah was subject to Abraham calling him lord. (1Pe 3:5-6). Rebekah veiled her face when she approached Isaac, and during the whole ministry of Christ and the apostles, no record is given of a woman leading in public service, although some of them were spiritually endowed and required to teach in private. (Tit 2:3-4).
The following command to Timothy was given to guide him in setting in order the churches of Christ: Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression. (1Ti 2:11-14). Here are two reasons given: (1) Adam was first created, and the precedence, the right to rule and lead, was given him; (2) the woman was deceived and led into the transgression. Both reasons are universal in their bearing, showing clearly that the rule is universal. I do not see how God could have made it clearer and more certain than he has done. The reasons given for this command apply to every woman in the world alike. There is not the least difficulty in explaining all the passages in harmony with these, if we will recognize what is true-that God intended the great burden of praying, teaching, exhorting, and admonishing to be done in private, not in public. Woman has free access to this great field. We have perverted this; we do our preaching, teaching, exhorting, and, I fear, praying often in public; so interpret the Scriptures by our practices, and not by the will of God.
The truth of the whole matter is that many of the churches are infected more or less with a spirit of modernistic infidelity that does not hesitate to set aside any order of God when it stands in the way of their fancies. The habit of women preaching originated in the same hotbed with easy divorce, free love, birth control, repugnance to childbearing and child rearing.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
obedience
Cf. Gen 3:16.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
women: 1Co 11:5, 1Ti 2:11, 1Ti 2:12
they are: 1Co 14:35, 1Co 11:3, 1Co 11:7-10, Eph 5:22-24, Eph 5:33, Col 3:18, Tit 2:5, 1Pe 3:1-6
as: 1Co 14:21, Gen 3:16, Num 30:3-13, Est 1:17-20
Reciprocal: Exo 15:20 – prophetess Num 30:8 – General 1Co 9:8 – or 1Co 11:16 – the churches
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Co 14:34. If the reader has carefully followed the teaching that has been offered from chapter 12:1 down to this verse, he will see that it has nothing to do with the subject of “woman’s duties and privileges in the church,” as that is considered today. The extremists on that question will ignore all of the context, and settle upon this one passage, because they think it justifies their unholy restrictions against a part of the body of Christ. Such a use of the verse is as gross a perversion as any sectarian ever committed against Act 2:38.
This verse is just another item in the attempt of Paul to restore order in the public assembly when exercising the spiritual gifts. Notice it says your women, which shows it was not said to women in general, but to the wives of the gifted men. The perversionists try to dodge this by saying the pronoun refers to the church as a whole. That will not do for the next verse shows these women had husbands, so the attempt at perversion fails again. To say this verse is of general application and in force today, makes it contradict Eph 5:19, where the word “speak” is from the same Greek term as the one in our verse. Yet no one denies that the women have the right to sing, and when they do they are “speaking” according to the apostle’s command. Obedience is from a word that denotes “subjection,” and it does not always require that any specific command has been given. The wives of the gifted men were to be in subjection in that they remain quiet while their husbands were performing their spiritual gifts.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
1Co 14:34. Let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the lawreferring probably to Gen 3:16, of which idea all subsequent passages of the same import are but repetitions and expansions.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
A farther rule is here given by the apostle for maintaining decency and order in the public assemblies; namely, that the women should never presume to speak or utter any thing as public teachers in the congregation; no, nor so much as ask any question publicly. Almighty God having by his law made subjection (not public instruction) their duty, of which silence is a token.
Here observe, That it is not the women’s speaking in the public assemblies, when they join with the congregation in singing of psalms and prayer, but their speaking by way of teaching and prophesying that is there forbidden.
Note farther, That the means of instruction were not denied the women; at home they might put forth questions to their husbands, for their own information and satisfaction; but to do any thing like this publicly was a shame, or indecent thing, both to the church, the husband, and herself.
Still observe, How the God of order calls for order, and delights in decency, especially in places where his religious worship is celebrated. He has unworthy thoughts of God that thinks him either a patron of, or pleased with, any disorder, either in civil affairs, or religious services.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
1Co 14:34-35. Let your women, &c. The last clause of the preceding verse is by some critics, and among the rest Bishop Pearce, joined with this, so as to make this sense; as in all the churches of the saints, let your women keep silence in the churches, namely, of Achaia. According to this reading, by the churches of the saints, are meant the churches of Judea, in which the public worship and discipline was most perfect, because they had been planted and regulated by the apostles. The sense of this clause, let your women keep silence, &c, evidently is, that they were to be silent unless they had an extraordinary revelation to communicate, made to them by the Holy Spirit; to which revelations, chiefly predicting future events, what is said of their prophesying with their heads uncovered, (1Co 11:5,) evidently refers; and therefore implies no contradiction to what is here enjoined. For In other cases, when no particular revelation is made to them; it is not permitted unto them to speak By way of teaching in public assemblies; but to be under obedience Greek, , to be under subjection to the superior authority of the man, whose proper office it is to lead and to instruct the congregation. As also saith the law In recording that early sentence on Eve and her daughters for the first transgression, Gen 3:16, To him shall be thy desire subjected, and he shall rule over thee. And if they desire to learn any thing Still they are not to speak in public, but to ask their husbands at home That is the place, and these the persons to inquire of. See note on 1Ti 2:11-14. For it is a shame , indecent; for a woman to speak in the church In an assembly of people, being inconsistent with that modesty, which is the womans greatest ornament.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. [Gen 3:16; Num 30:3-12]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
14:34 {15} 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.
(15) Women are commanded to be silent in public assemblies, and they are commanded to ask of their husbands at home.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The ordering of the women 14:34-35
Paul had formerly acknowledged that women could share a word from the Lord in the church meetings (1Co 11:4-16). Now he clarified one point about their participation in this context of prophesying.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
The word translated "silent" (Gr. sige) means just that, namely, to keep silent or to hold one’s tongue. However in 1Co 11:5 Paul spoke as though women prophesying in the church was a common and acceptable practice. I think the best explanation of this apparent contradiction comes out of the context, as is usually true. Paul had just permitted others in the congregation to evaluate the comments that a prophet made (1Co 14:29). Now he qualified this by saying the women should not do so vocally in the church meetings, as the men could. The teaching of the Law on this subject appears to be a reference to woman’s subordination to the authoritative man in her family (Gen 3:16). The "Law" then would refer to the Old Testament, as in 1Co 14:21.
"Although some philosophic schools included women disciples (and Jesus seems to have allowed them, Mar 15:40-41; Luk 8:1-3; Luk 10:38-42), most schools, whether Jewish or Gentile, did not, and society expected men rather than women to absorb and question public lectures." [Note: Keener, p. 119.]
". . . ancient society rarely allowed teaching roles to women." [Note: Idem, "Women’s Education and Public Speech in Antiquity," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50:4 (December 2007):759.]