1 Corinthians 14:34

“`html

An Exegetical Examination of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35: The Nature of the Prohibited λαλεῖν and its Contextual Implications

This exegetical study of ‘Women or Wives in Acts 21:5’ and ‘Women in the Church’ is based on a b-greek discussion from August 7, 1998. The initial inquiry briefly touched upon the translation of πάντων σὺν γυναιξὶ καὶ τέκνοις in Acts 21:5, specifically questioning the implicit possessive “their” in many English translations, with one contributor noting that the article in Greek, in appropriate contexts, can indeed imply a possessive aspect, a concept familiar from Classical Greek.

The primary exegetical issue, however, centers on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, a highly debated passage concerning the role and speech of women in the Corinthian assembly. The core of the discussion revolves around the precise meaning and scope of the verb λαλεῖν in this context, whether it denotes general speech, disorderly chatter, or more formal communication such as teaching or prophesying. Furthermore, textual variants for key verbs and the interpretation of the phrase καθὼς καὶ ὁ νόμος λέγει (“as the law also says”) significantly impact the understanding of Paul’s injunction.

Greek Text (Nestle 1904)

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (Nestle 1904):

αἱ γυναῖκες ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις σιγάτωσαν, οὐ γὰρ ἐπιτέτραπται αὐταῖς λαλεῖν, ἀλλὰ ὑποτασσέσθωσαν, καθὼς καὶ ὁ νόμος λέγει.

εἰ δὲ τι μαθεῖν θέλουσιν, ἐν οἴκῳ τοὺς ἰδίους ἄνδρας ἐπερωτάτωσαν· αἰσχρὸν γάρ ἐστιν γυναικὶ λαλεῖν ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ.

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• In v. 34, Nestle 1904 reads ἐπιτέτραπται (perfect indicative passive, “it has been permitted”). SBLGNT 2010 reads ἐπιτρέπεται (present indicative passive, “it is permitted”). The difference in tense (perfect vs. present) carries nuanced implications for the duration and immediacy of the prohibition.
• In v. 34, the Textus Receptus (TR) and Majority Text tradition, from which Nestle 1904 sometimes differs but aligns on some points, presents ὑποτάσσεσθαι (present infinitive passive, “to be in subjection”). Critical texts like NA28 and SBLGNT 2010, however, present ὑποτασσέσθωσαν (present imperative passive, 3rd plural, “let them be in subjection” or “they must be in subjection”). This shifts the construction from an infinitive dependent on an implied verb to a direct command.

Textual Criticism (NA28) and Lexical Notes

The textual apparatus of NA28 generally supports the readings found in SBLGNT 2010. The variant ἐπιτρέπεται (present indicative passive) is preferred over ἐπιτέτραπται (perfect indicative passive) by strong manuscript evidence, including P⁴⁶, א, A, B, C, D, F, G, P. The present tense suggests an ongoing situation or a standing rule. Similarly, the imperative ὑποτασσέσθωσαν is favored, representing a direct command rather than an infinitive clause. This variant discussion highlights the importance of manuscript tradition in establishing the most probable original text.

Lexically, the discussion heavily focuses on λαλεῖν (λαλέω). Scholars note that while λαλέω can denote general “speaking” or “uttering words,” it is also frequently used for informal conversation, chatting, or even chattering. It contrasts with more specific verbs Paul employs elsewhere for formal communication, such as διδάσκω (to teach), κηρύσσω (to preach), or προφητεύω (to prophesy). Some argue that Paul’s choice of λαλέω, rather than a more precise verb for formal instruction, suggests he is prohibiting disruptive, informal chatter or questioning within the assembly, consistent with the broader theme of order in worship found in 1 Corinthians 14.

The term ἐπερωτάω (v. 35), meaning “to ask (a question),” is discussed in relation to its intensity. While Vine’s lexicon suggests it can be a “strengthened form of ἐροτάω” and in some contexts can mean “to demand,” BDAG lists its primary meaning as “to ask (a question)” and does not include “interrogate” as a primary translation for this context. The consensus appears to be that a “strengthened” meaning is not necessarily required or appropriate in 1 Corinthians 14:35, where women are instructed to ask their husbands at home.

The word αἰσχρόν (v. 35) is also examined. While some might interpret it as indicating an “external censuring,” BDAG defines it as “ugly, shameful, base, disgraceful.” This suggests Paul views the women’s disruptive speech as inherently shameful or improper within the context of the assembly, rather than merely subject to external criticism.

Translation Variants and Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis

The grammatical analysis of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is pivotal. The present infinitive λαλεῖν, when used in a prohibition, often emphasizes a continuing action (“to keep on talking” or “to be talking”). This contrasts with an aorist infinitive, which would indicate a general prohibition of an action. Thus, some argue Paul is prohibiting ongoing, disruptive speech rather than any and all verbal participation.

The rhetorical structure of the passage is also crucial. Some scholars have proposed that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 represents a quotation by Paul of an opinion or question from the Corinthian church, which he then refutes in subsequent verses (e.g., v. 36, “Or was it from you that the word of God went forth?”). However, a strong counter-argument, supported by discourse analysis, points to lexical and grammatical cohesion within the immediate context. The repeated imperative σιγάτω/σιγατωσαν (“let them be silent”) in verses 28, 30, and 34, along with shared vocabulary like μανθάνω (to learn), λαλεῖν (to speak), ὑποτάσσω (to subject), and ἐκκλησία (assembly), links verses 34-35 directly to Paul’s instructions regarding order in worship for glossolalists and prophets (vv. 26-33). This continuity undermines the “quotation theory” and suggests Paul’s injunctions in verses 34-35 are his own.

The phrase καθὼς καὶ ὁ νόμος λέγει (“as the law also says”) raises questions about its specific referent. Does “the law” command silence, or subjection? While some interpretations connect it to Genesis 3:16 regarding the husband’s rule, others suggest a more general principle of subordination or order. Some scholars argue Paul “spiritualizes” or universalizes Old Testament law, applying its principles to new contexts. The ambiguity here contributes to varying interpretations of the scope and nature of the prohibition.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

The exegesis of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is complex, shaped by textual variants, lexical nuances, and contextual considerations. The prevailing arguments, particularly those emphasizing discourse cohesion and the specific semantic range of λαλεῖν in context, tend to move away from a universal prohibition against all forms of women’s speech or ministry in the assembly.

1. “Women in the churches must be silent; for it is not permitted for them to talk, but they must be in subjection, as the Law also says. And if they want to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is shameful for a woman to be talking in church.”
   This translation emphasizes the ongoing, informal nature of the prohibited speech, interpreting λαλεῖν as “talking” or “conversing” rather than formal teaching or preaching, and linking the silence to maintaining order.
2. “Let the women keep silent in the assemblies, for it is not allowed for them to speak, but to be in submission, just as the Law states. If they desire to learn anything, they should question their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the assembly.”
   This rendering takes a broader view of λαλεῖν as “speak” in a more general sense, implying a more comprehensive restriction on verbal participation, particularly in a manner that challenges authority or proper order, aligning with a stricter interpretation of “submission.”
3. “In the congregations, women are to keep quiet. They are not permitted to address the assembly, but are to remain submissive, as the Law also indicates. If there is anything they wish to know, let them inquire of their own husbands at home, for it is improper for a woman to address the assembly.”
   This interpretation focuses on the disruptive potential of public address, viewing λαλεῖν as engaging in a public discourse that might challenge established order, distinguishing it from private prayer or prophecy (as allowed in 1 Cor 11:5) but still prohibiting a prominent, potentially disorderly, speaking role.

“`