Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 14:35
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.
35. let them ask their husbands at home ] Rather, ‘their own husbands.’ The women were not only not permitted to teach (see 1Ti 2:11-14) but even to ask questions in Church, a privilege, says. Grotius, permitted to men, but denied to women, among the Jews. It seems to be assumed that the unmarried ones would not think of doing so. This rule applies in its strictness only to the East, where women were kept in strict seclusion, and only permitted to converse with their male relatives. Calvin remarks, “When he says husbands, he does not prohibit them, in case of need, from consulting the prophets themselves; for all husbands are not qualified to give information on such subjects.” Estius allows the right of women to consult pious and prudent men, so long as it be done without giving occasion of scandal.
for it is a shame ] The original is even stronger. It is disgraceful.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And if they will learn anything – If anything has been spoken which they do not understand; or if on any particular subject they desire more full information, let them inquire of their husbands in their own dwelling. They may there converse freely; and their inquiries will not be attended with the irregularity and disorder which would occur should they interrupt the order and solemnity of public worship.
For it is a shame – It is disreputable and shameful; it is a breach of propriety. Their station in life demands modesty, humility, and they should be free from the ostentation of appearing so much in public as to take part in the public services of teaching and praying. It does not become their rank in life; it is not fulfilling the object which God evidently intended them to fill. He has appointed people to rule; to hold offices; to instruct and govern the church; and it is improper that women should assume that office upon themselves. This evidently and obviously refers to the church assembled for public worship, in the ordinary and regular acts of devotion. There the assembly is made up of males and females, of old and young, and there it is improper for them to take part in conducting the exercises. But this cannot be interpreted as meaning that it is improper for females to speak or to pray in meetings of their own sex, assembled for prayer or for benevolence; nor that it is improper for a female to speak or to pray in a Sunday School. Neither of these come under the apostles idea of a church. And in such meetings, no rule of propriety or of the Scriptures is violated in their speaking for the edification of each other, or in leading in social prayer. It may be added here, that on this subject the Jews were very strenuous, and their laws were very strict. The Rabbis taught that a woman should know nothing but the use of the distaff, and they were specially prohibited from asking questions in the synagogue, or even from reading. See Lightfoot. The same rule is still observed by the Jews in the synagogues.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 35. For it is a shame for women to speak in the church.] The Jews would not suffer a woman to read in the synagogue; though a servant or even a child, had this permission; but the apostle refers to irregular conduct, such conduct as proved that they were not under obedience, 1Co 14:34.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
This must be understood of speaking to the congregation, for the instructing them, or speaking in the congregation to the minister, or any of the people, for her own instruction, for the woman might, doubtless, say Amen to the public prayers, and also sing with the congregation to the honour and glory of God. But for her to speak in an ordinary course of prophecy to instruct people, or to call aloud to the minister, or any members in the assembly of the church, to be satisfied in any thing wherein she was in doubt, this she is forbidden.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
35. Anticipation of anobjection. Women may say, “But if we do not understandsomething, may we not ‘ask’ a question publicly so as to ‘learn’?Nay, replies Paul, if you want information, ‘ask’ not in public, but’at home’; ask not other men, but ‘your own particular (so the Greek)husbands.'”
shameindecorous.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And if they will learn anything,…. If they are desirous of learning anything in relation to doctrine, duty, or discipline, and of improving their knowledge of divine things, which is very commendable in them; if any difficulty arises in their minds whilst hearing the word, which they want to have removed, or any question to ask for information sake,
let them ask their husbands at home; privately, when retired from the public assembly; for though men might ask one another concerning this, and the other point, in the church, as was usual in the synagogue worship, to which this church at Corinth in many things conformed; yet women were not allowed this freedom, and even in things which belonged to women to do; as for instance, making the cake of the first of their dough, which was to be an heave offering to the Lord, the men were to teach the women at home how, and when to separate it from the rest d. So the apostle directs women, when they wanted to be informed about any point, to apply to their husbands at their own houses, if they were such as were capable of instructing them; if not, they might apply to other men that were Christian men, and men of knowledge, especially to the prophets, pastors, and teachers of the church, at their habitations:
for it is a shame for women to speak in the church; it is a shame to themselves, as being contrary to the natural modesty and bashfulness of the sex, and a shame to the church, to the non-members of it, and especially to the elders, and more experienced part of it, to be taught and directed by a woman; it is a disgrace to herself and sex, as betraying uncommon pride and vanity, and an unnatural boldness and confidence; and a disgrace to the church to be under such a ministry and conduct.
d Bartenora in Misn. Challa, c. 3. sect. 1.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
1) ” And if they will learn any thing,” (ei de ti mathein thelousin) “Yet, if they have a strong will to learn a thing,” If a genuine desire to learn is the motive of their speaking up in the church assembly – this recognizes a possible strong will of a woman to learn.
2) “Let them ask their husbands at home:” (en oiko tous idious andras eperotatosan) “Let them inquire of their own husbands at or in their homes.” Paul laid down their speaking at all church services. Women were not as generally knowledgeable or educated as today, nor were they as apt to understand other languages as their husbands.
3) “For it is a shame.” (aischron gar estin) Because it is a shame or scandal,” Women by simple custom were not recognized as public teachers or leaders in either secular or religious assemblies. To assume such an attitude was scandalous.
4) “For women to speak in the church.” (gunaiki lalein en ekklesia) “To or for a woman to speak in an assembly, congregation, or church assembly.” This order was given as a general, predominating principle of Divine and secular sanction, for church worship and polity or government. Note the exclusion of their speaking was relative, not absolute. It was relative to 1) usurping authority in teaching over men in the church activity and 2) to speaking in tongues, which required that either the tongue speaker be able to interpret what he had said or that an interpreter be present. The exclusion of speaking and direction of silence was not absolute, else they could not pray, sing, testify, or request a prayer or audibly be heard in worship, which position would contradict other divine orders, instructions and precedences of New Testament worship and service.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
35. If they wish to learn any thing. That he may not seem, by this means, to shut out women from opportunities of learning, he desires them, if they are in doubt as to anything, to inquire in private, that they may not stir up any disputation in public. When he says, husbands, he does not prohibit them from consulting the Prophets themselves, if necessary. For all husbands are not competent to give an answer in such a case; but, as he is reasoning here as to external polity, he reckons it sufficient to point out what is unseemly, that the Corinthians may guard against it. In the meantime, it is the part of the prudent reader to consider, that the things of which he here treats are intermediate and indifferent, in which there is nothing unlawful, but what is at variance with propriety and edification.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(35) If they will learn any thing.Better, if they are desirous to learn anything. They are not even to ask questions in public assemblies. They are to ask their husbands at home on every point on which they desire special instruction. (See 1 Corinthians 8.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
35. Ask their husbands With whom, according to the Jewish custom, all the education was. According to Schoettgen, women were allowed in the rabbinical schools; but only to hear, and never to speak, or ask a question.
Shame Contrary to the existing views of propriety. Just as in 1Co 11:14, (where see note,) it is a shame for a man to wear long hair. When women are so cultured that it is not a shame, but a beauty, for a woman to speak, then the prohibition ceases because the reason for it ceases, just as the prohibition of long hair to a man ceases.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1Co 14:35 . Even questions for their instruction should not be brought forward by the women in the assemblie.
] has the emphasis. At home , not in the assembly, they are to obtain for themselves by inquiry the desired instruction, and that from those to whom they, as women, are naturally referred, from their own husbands .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
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.
Ver. 35. Ask their husbands ] Who therefore must dwell with them according to knowledge, 1Pe 3:7 , and be manly guides unto them in the way to heaven. The master’s breast must be the household’s treasury.
For it is a shame for women, &c. ] She was a singular example that taught the Greek and Latin tongues at Heidelberg, A.D. 1554; her name was Olympia Fulvia Morata, an Italian, of the city of Ferrara. Ancient histories indeed make mention of one Aratha, who read openly in the schools at Athens 25 years, made 40 books, and a hundred philosophers to her scholars. Leoptia likewise wrote against Theophrastus; Corinna often contended with Pindarus in versifying.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
35. ] This prohibits another kindred irregularity their asking questions publicly. They might say in answer to the former , ‘But if we do not understand any thing, are we not to ask?’ The stress is on .
, confining them to their own husbands , to the exclusion of other men.
] See ref.: indecent , bringing deserved reproach.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1Co 14:35 . : “But if they want to learn something” if this is the motive that prompts them to speak. This plea furnishes an excuse, consistent with the submission enjoined, for women raising their voices in the Church meetings; but even so P. deprecates the liberty. As between and after and the like, El [2198] thus distinguishes: “when attention is directed to the procedure of the action specified, the pr [2199] is commonly used; when simply to the action itself, the aor [2200] ” In bidding the Cor [2201] women of enquiring minds to “ask at home of their own husbands,” P. is laying down a general rule, not disposing of all cases that might arise; since the impv [2202] of 1Co 14:35 admits of exceptions, so may that of 1Co 14:34 : the utterances of Pentecost (Act 2:4 ) proceeded from “all,” both men and women ( cf. 18 f.); there is also the notable instance of Philip’s “four daughters which did prophesy” (Act 21:9 ). At Cor [2203] there was a disposition to put men and women on an equal footing in public speaking and Church leadership; this is stigmatized as ( turpe, inhonestum ; cf. 1Co 11:6 ; 1Co 11:13 ff.); it shocks moral feeling. For , see 1Co 11:18 .
[2198] C. J. Ellicott’s St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians .
[2199] present tense.
[2200] aorist tense.
[2201] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.
[2202] imperative mood.
[2203] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
if. App-118.
will = wish to. App-102.
their = their own.
husbands. App-123.
at home = in (Greek. en) the home.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
35.] This prohibits another kindred irregularity-their asking questions publicly. They might say in answer to the former , But if we do not understand any thing, are we not to ask? The stress is on .
, confining them to their own husbands, to the exclusion of other men.
] See ref.: indecent, bringing deserved reproach.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Co 14:35. , to learn) by speaking.-, they wish) This is the figure[130] occupatio.-) their own, rather than others.-) let them ask. It was the exclusive privilege of the men to put questions in the assembly.- ) in the assembly either civil or sacred.-, to speak) either in teaching or asking.
[130] See Append. Anticipating a reply or objection which might be made by a supposed opponent.-T.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Co 14:35
1Co 14:35
And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home:-She should not ask questions as leading to the teaching. She should ask her own husband concerning the things she would learn.
for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.-It is shameful because it does not comport with propriety and her womanly modesty, which in all nations is her shield and power. It is contended that, since there is no specific law forbidding women taking public part in the service under the law of Moses, Paul is wrong in forbidding her doing so in the church. But to assign all duties to men and none to women is to prohibit their performing such duties. It shows that such a thing as their taking active part was never considered. This epistle was not addressed to the Corinthians exclusively, but unto the church of God which is at Corinth, even them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, their Lord and ours (1Co 1:2), showing clearly that it was written for the guidance of all Christians in every place and for all time.
This cannot be interpreted as meaning that it is improper for women to speak or to pray in meetings of their own sex, assembled for prayer or Bible study.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
let: Eph 5:25-27, 1Pe 3:7
a shame: 1Co 14:34, 1Co 11:6, 1Co 11:14, Eph 5:12
Reciprocal: 1Co 14:31 – all may learn 1Ti 2:11 – General
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Co 14:35. Since it is the wives of gifted men who were commanded to keep silence, it follows that the things they might wish to learn about are those pertaining to the gifts of their husbands; wish to know n.ore details about them. Otherwise they could not hope to obtain such information even at home. Furthermore, we know it does not pertain to information in general, for that was supposed to b obtained in the assembly (verses 3, 5 12, 19).
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
1Co 14:35. And if they will learn anythingan explanation of something spoken at the meeting,let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman[1] to speak in the church.
[1] The singular here is best supported.
Note.On the subject of women officiating in the public assemblies, there is an apparent discrepancy between chap. 11 and chap. 14. In the one chapter they are supposed to pray and prophesy in the public assemblies, without a word of disapproval, nay, with directions how to do it: here, the thing is expressly forbidden. That the female sex were to be endowed with the gift of prophecy, and this of course to be exercised, was predicted as one of the characteristics of the dispensation of the Spirit (Joe 2:28-29); and on the day of Pentecost it was realised (Act 2:4, Act 2:16-18), as afterwards (Act 21:9), and in the Church of Corinth (1Co 11:5). What forced on the question whether such a gift should be exercised in the public assemblies, was a certain unseemliness about it, as practised at Corinth, which so impressed some in that Church as to occasion one of their questions for the apostle to answer. The practice of these prophesying females at Corinth seems to have been to put off their head-dress on rising to pray or prophesy in the spirit, that being the usual practice of the male speakers. But in a woman that would be instinctively felt to be indecorous, and the impression would gradually arise that by such public appearances woman was drawn out of her natural sphere. Supposing, then, that this was the actual state of things at Corinth, and the apostle had to deal with it in this form, the method actually taken here seems most naturalto deduce, first, from the relation of the sexes to each other, how each should exercise those gifts in public, if so exercised at all, namely, by the males uncovered, and the females covered; reserving for a subsequent stage the consideration of the further question, whether such a practice should at all be encouraged in the Church. And that further question comes in most suitably where we find itch. 14.under the head of how those extraordinary spiritual gifts, which were so abundantly possessed at Corinth, should be exercised so as most to promote spiritual edification. And the decision here given is so explicit and so peremptory, that the only wonder is how any candid reader should question it. To Timothy the prohibition to females of the right to exercise their gifts in the public assemblies is even more explicit: I desire therefore that the men (Gr. the males) pray in every place. … In like manner, that women (the other sex) adorn themselves in modest apparel. . . . Let a woman learn in quietness, with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man. Attempts have been made to shew that only despotic teaching is meant; but the next wordsbut to be in quietness, should shew that entire silence in the public assemblies, in the exercise of gifts, is manifestly intended. Doubtless there are exceptional cases, as in everything else. And to disown all saving benefit experienced in exceptional ways is to sacrifice the end out of concern for the means. It is the truth that saves and sanctifies; and howsoever that truth enters any heart, if the result is undeniable, the hand of God in it is to be recognised, even though the instrumentality employed should be inconsistent with good order.
Having finished these directions, the apostle has a word to say to those who would demur to them.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
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. [This is usually regarded as a very difficult passage, but the difficulties are more seeming than real, if we regard it as a general rule. Paul gives two reasons why the women should keep silence: 1. The Old Testament law made her subject to her husband, and hence not a teacher, but a pupil. 2. The customs of the age made it a shameful thing for a woman to speak in public. Of these, of course, the first is the weightier, and yet we find exceptions to the rule in both dispensations. There were several prophetesses who exercised their gifts in public (Exo 15:20; Jdg 4:4; 2Ki 22:14; Isa 8:3; Neh 6:14; Luk 1:41-42; Luk 2:36-38; Act 21:9). Moreover, the fullness of prophetic endowment granted to the New Testament church was matter of prophecy (Act 2:17), and Paul himself gives directions as to the attire of women when exercising the prophetic office in the church (1Co 11:5). Paul’s rule, then, admits of exceptions. Some would do away with the rule entirely as obsolete on the ground that in Christ there is neither male nor female (Gal 3:28); but this is undoubtedly unwarranted, for while the gospel emancipated woman, it did not change her natural relation so as to make her the equal of man. The powers of woman have become so developed, and her privileges have been so extended in gospel lands, that it is no longer shameful for her to speak in public; but the failing of one reason is not the cessation of both. The Christian conscience has therefore interpreted Paul’s rule rightly when it applies it generally, and admits of exceptions. The gift of prophecy no longer exists in the church, but, by the law of analogy, those women who have a marked ability, either for exhortation or instruction, are permitted to speak in the churches. Moreover, the apostle is speaking of the regular, formal meeting of the church; and it is doubtful if his law was ever intended to apply to informal gatherings such as prayer-meetings, etc. There is some weight to the comment that to understand the apostle we should know the ignorance, garrulity and degradation of Oriental women. Again, women are indeed subject to their husbands (Eph 5:22; Col 2:18; Tit 2:5; 1Pe 3:1). The law is permanent, but the application of it may vary. If man universally gives the woman permission to speak, she is free from the law in this respect.]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
35. But if they wish to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is a disgrace for a woman to gabble in church. This verse is exegetical of the preceding, as we have here an antithesis whose logical arms are always co-equal. Hence the prohibition in 1Co 14:34 is coordinate with the permission in 1Co 14:35, and, as you see, the permission in 1Co 14:35 is to ask their husbands at home in case they wish to learn something from them, showing clearly that the prohibition in the meetings was simply that of asking their husbands to give them explanations while the person is speaking. The popular idea that this is prohibitory of women taking part in public worship is utterly untenable, for the simple fact is that Paul is not on that subject at all, but that of order in the meetings; this entire paragraph being corrective of those disorders which had developed as the result of their incorrigible zeal and enthusiasm in the appropriation and exercise of the spiritual gifts and graces, really appertaining to men as pertinently as to the women.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Rather than calling out a question in the middle of some male or female prophet’s message, a woman was to wait and ask her husband about it at home after the service. Presumably unmarried women would ask their fathers or some other man in the church after the service. Men could raise questions or make comments, but too much of this could ruin the order of the service and the edifying value of the message. Consequently Paul asked the women, evidently in harmony with their position of subordination, to refrain. It is improper for a woman to speak in church meetings in the situation Paul addressed in the context. That situation is the questioning and perhaps challenging of what a prophet said who was sharing something he or she believed God had given him or her to pass on to the church. [Note: Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, pp. 136-37; Morris, pp. 201-2; Robertson and Plummer, p. 325; James B. Hurley, Man and Woman In Biblical Perspective, pp. 188, 190; the NET Bible; et al.]
"To suggest that the women should learn by asking their husbands at home (1Co 14:35) would sound repressive to most of us today (at least where questions can be asked in public meetings), but probably seemed comparatively progressive in Paul’s environment (and in some traditional cultures today)." [Note: Keener, 1-2 Corinthians, p. 119.]
There have been many other explanations of this apparent contradiction. The view that women should not speak at all in the church, under any circumstances, has a long history. [Note: One fairly recent advocate was James Greenbury, "1 Corinthians 14:34-35: Evaluation of Prophecy Revisited," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 51:4 (December 2008):721-31.] But it does not resolve the apparent contradiction. Richard Lenski assumed that all of what Paul said in 1Co 14:26-32 applies only to men and that he added 1Co 14:33-36 as an appendix to deal with women’s participation. [Note: Lenski, p. 614.] However this does not harmonize with 1Co 11:4-5. William Barclay believed at this point Paul was not able to rise above the spirit of his age that said women should not participate in intellectual activities on a par with men. [Note: Barclay, The Letters . . ., p. 151.] This view fails to appreciate the implications of Paul’s inspiration by the Spirit as he wrote as well as his high regard for women that he expressed elsewhere in his writings. G. Campbell Morgan seems to have regarded Paul’s prohibition as necessary in view of conditions unique in Corinth. [Note: Morgan, pp. 180-81.] C. K. Barrett believed Paul did not write 1Co 14:34-35. He presumed some other person added them to the text later when Christians thought good order was more important than the freedom of the Spirit. [Note: Barrett, pp. 332-33.] Gordon Fee also argued that these verses are inauthentic. [Note: Fee, The First . . ., pp. 699-702.] Harry Ironside believed the occasions at which women could speak were different from the official meetings of the church at which they were to be silent. [Note: Harry A. Ironside, Addresses on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, pp. 454-55. Cf. Wiersbe, 1:616.] David Lowery wrote that Paul wanted the married women whose husbands were present in the meeting to be silent, but that other women could speak if properly covered. [Note: Lowery, "1 Corinthians," p. 541.] S. Lewis Johnson Jr. seems to have felt women could never speak in the church meetings except when they prayed or prophesied. [Note: S. L. Johnson Jr., "The First . . .," p. 1255.] H. Wayne House concluded that women could not speak if others considered that what they said was authoritative. [Note: H. Wayne House, "Caught in the Middle," Kindred Spirit 13:2 (Summer 1989):14; idem, "The Speaking of Women and the Prohibition of the Law," Bibliotheca Sacra 145:579 (July-September 1988):301-18.] Anne Blampied said Paul told the women to keep silent because they were violating the principle of order in the church, not because they were women. [Note: Anne B. Blampied, "Paul and Silence for ’The Women’ in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35," Studia Biblica et Theologica 18:2 (October 1983):143-65.] Andrew Spurgeon interpreted the imperatives as permissive; he believed that they expressed Paul’s approval of what the Corinthian women were doing. [Note: Andrew B. Spurgeon, "Pauline Commands and Women in 1 Corinthians 14," Bibliotheca Sacra 168:671 (July-September 2011):317-33.]
The most common view is that Paul forbade some form of inappropriate speech, not all speech. [Note: E.g., Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, p. 135.] The second most popular interpretation is that Paul forbade some form of "inspired" speech other than prophecy, perhaps contradicting the prophets or speaking in tongues.
"Paul’s long response to the Corinthians’ enthusiasm for tongues is now finished. The basic issue is over what it means to be pneumatikos (’spiritual’); and on this issue Paul and they are deeply divided. They think it has to do with speaking in tongues, the language(s) of the angels, the sure evidence that they are already living in the pneumatic existence of the future. For this reason they have great zeal for this gift (cf. 1Co 14:12), including an insistence on its practice in the gathered assembly. Apparently in their letter they have not only defended this practice, but by the same criterion have called Paul into question for his lack of ’spirituality.’ Hence the undercurrent of apologetic for his own speaking in tongues in 1Co 14:6; 1Co 14:15; 1Co 14:18.
"Paul’s response to all this has been twofold. First, they are to broaden their perspective to recognize that being Spirit people by its very nature means a great variety of gifts and ministries in the church (chap. 12). Second, the whole point of the gathered people of God is edification, the true expression of love for the saints. Whatever they do in the assembly must be both intelligible and orderly so that the whole community may be edified; thus it must reflect the character of God, which is how it is (or is to be) in all the churches of the saints (1Co 14:33)." [Note: Fee, The First . . ., p. 709.]