ÿþ<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"> <html lang="en"> <head> <title>New Light on 1 Corinthians 14:34-36</title> <meta name="Author" content="Jon Zens"> <meta name="Description" content="Jon Zens"> <meta name="Keywords" content="end,times,churh"> <meta name="revised" content="2007"> <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1"> <meta name="generator" content="skedit"> <meta name="language" content="en"> <meta http-equiv="pragma" content="no-cache"> <meta http-equiv="cache-control" content="no-cache"> <meta name="robots" content="index,follow"> <meta name="revisit-after" content="30 days"> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://www.his-kingdom.net/style_orange.css" /> </head> <body> <div class='box'> <div class='boxtop'><div></div></div> <div class='boxcontent' style="display:marker"> <p><center><img src="http://www.his-kingdom.net/graphics/header-hk.png"></center></p><br /> <h1>New Light on 1 Corinthians 14:34-36</h1> <p style="margin-left: 0px; text-align: center">Would Paul Call the Speaking of Women "Lewd" & "Filthy"?</p> <p style="margin-left: 0px; text-align: center">A Summary by Jon Zens<br />July 2007</p> <p>In "The Elusive Law", Cheryl Schatz presents evidence to demonstrate that verses 34-35 are not Paul s words, but the remarks of some in Corinth based on the Talmud s restrictions on women (DVD #4, Women in Ministry: Silenced or Set Free?, MM Outreach, Nelson, B.C., Canada, 2006).</p> <p>I ve been wrestling with the issues raised regarding women in 1 Corinthians 11-14 for twenty-six years. My first article, "Aspects of Female Priesthood," appeared in 1981. For the first time I feel like significant light has broken through the lingering problems and questions. Without doubt every conceivable explanation of what is entailed in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 can be challenged from some angle. It is admittedly a difficult passage. However, the position convincingly set forth by Cheryl does the best job I ve ever seen of doing justice to what the verses actually say and the immediate context, beginning in 1 Corinthians 11.</p> <p>For a long time I ve wondered what "law" was in view in v.34. There is strong reason to believe that it is not the Old Testament, but the Talmud that is being cited. According to Wikipedia, "The Talmud is a record of rabbinic discussions pertaining to Jewish law, ethics, customs and history." In Jesus day the first part of the Talmud, the Mishnah, was in oral form, but in 200AD and 500AD it and the Gemara were put into writing. In brief, two key issues point to why the Jewish oral law (Talmud) was behind what was stated in vv.34-35.</p> <ol> <li>Only the Talmud silences women.</li> <li>Only the Talmud designates the speech of women as "shameful."</li> </ol> <h2>The Talmud Silenced Women</h2> <p>Cheryl observes that "The silencing of women was a Jewish ordinance. Women were not permitted to speak in the assembly or even to ask questions. The rabbis taught that a woman should know nothing but the use of her distaff."</p> <p>Josephus, a Jewish historian, asserted that "the woman, says the law, is in all things inferior to a man. Let her accordingly be submissive."</p> <p>The Talmud clearly affirms the silence of females:</p> <ul> <li>"A woman s voice is prohibited because it is sexually provocative" (Talmud, Berachot 24a).</li> <li>"Women are sexually seductive, mentally inferior, socially embarrassing, and spiritually separated from the law of Moses; therefore, let them be silent" (summary of Talmudic sayings).</li> </ul> <h2>The Talmud Called the Voice of a Woman "Shameful"</h2> <ul> <li>"It is a shame for a woman to let her voice be heard among men" (Talmud, Tractate Kiddushin)</li> <li>"The voice of a woman is filthy nakedness" (Talmud, Berachot Kiddushin)</li> </ul> <p>The English translation of the Greek word, aiskron, as "shameful" or "improper" hardly convey the strength of what the word encompasses. The affirmation in v.35, Cheryl notes, is that a woman s speaking is "lewd, vile, filthy, indecent, foul, dirty and morally degraded."</p> <p>Male and female prophesying was inaugurated on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:17-18). Paul approved the prophesying of women in 1 Corinthians 11:5. In 1 Corinthians 14 he saw the whole body involved in prophesying  "everybody is prophesying" (v.24), "each one of you has a teaching" (v.26), "you may all prophesy one by one" (v.31). How could the same apostle Paul a few pen strokes later turn around and unequivocally designate women s speech in the body as "filthy, lewd and vile"? It makes no sense at all. I have always felt like verses 34-35 didn t sound like Paul. Something was awry.</p> <p>The matter is cleared up by realizing that Paul did not write the negative words about women in vv.34-35. Instead, those basing their view of women on the oral law did. Paul never required women to be silent and never called female speaking "lewd and filthy." The Talmud was guilty of advocating both.</p> <p>This is further confirmed in v.36 when Paul exclaims "What! Did the Word of God originate with you?" The "What!" indicates that Paul is not in harmony with what was stated by others from the Talmud in vv.34-35. Thayer s Lexicon notes that the "What" is a disjunctive conjunction "before a sentence contrary to the one just preceding, to indicate that if one be denied or refuted the other must stand."</p> <p>Sir William Ramsey commented, "We should be ready to suspect that Paul is making a quotation from the letter addressed to him by the Corinthians whenever he alludes to their knowledge, or when any statement stands in marked contrast either with the immediate context or with Paul s known views."</p> <p>Paul contrasts his commands which promote edification by the varied contributions of all with the restrictive prohibitions upon women demanded by the anti-gospel Talmud. Paul saw the voices of the sisters as a vital part of the building up of the Body of Christ. The Talmud, on the other hand, viewed female voices as "shameful" and as "filthy nakedness."</p> <p>We know that various concerns and questions came to Paul from the Corinthians in a letter. He refers to this communication several times in 1 Corinthians. If quotation marks are placed at the beginning and end of verses 34-35, thus seeing them as the words of some Corinthians to Paul, then the apparent contradiction between Paul s encouragement of female participation and then his seeming silencing of them is resolved satisfactorily.</p> <p>Those who use 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 as a basis for requiring the sisters to be silent in the meetings would do well to consider the strong possibility that the words they cite as proof-texts are non-Pauline, and reflect the non-gospel viewpoint of the Talmud. Are they prepared to maintain, as the anti-feminine Talmud did, that a woman s voice is "dirty" and "like filthy nakedness"? I submit that it is unthinkable that Paul would assign such awful sentiments to the sisters words.</p> <p>I would encourage you to obtain this set of 4 DVD s which contain 3.5 hours of instruction. They are filled with insight and presented in a respectful, Christ-like spirit. You may not be persuaded by every point that is suggested, but you will be challenged to search the Scriptures to see what is really so.</p> <p>The set retails for $35 + postage. You can obtain it from Searching Together for $32 postpaid. Order from: Searching Together, Box 377, Taylors Falls, MN 55084-0377; 651-465-6516; jzens@searchingtogether.org</p> <h2>Excerpts from Joanne Krupp's "Woman: God s plan not Man's Tradition, Preparing the Way", 1999, pp.80-83. (used with the permission of the author)</h2> <h2>The Context of 1 Corinthians</h2> <p>What does the rest of 1 Corinthians tells us that will shed light on these verses?</p> <p>We know the Corinthian Christians had written Paul a letter (7:1) and that in that letter a number of issues were raised that Paul needed to address.</p> <p>In Paul s letter, as he addressed a question or issue that had been raised by the Corinthians in their letter to him, sometimes he simply referred to the subject in question, and then responded to it, as in the following examples:</p> <ul> <li>1:11  "For it was declared to me about you, my brethren, by the ones of Chloe, that there are strifes among you ..."</li> <li>7:1  Paul says, "now concerning the things about which you wrote . . ."</li> <li>7:25  "now concerning virgins . . ."</li> <li>8:1  "now concerning things sacrificed to idols . . ."</li> <li>9:1  he asks questions to bring up the next subject, "Am I not free?" "Am I not an apostle?," etc. He is obviously referring to their questions regarding his being called an apostle.</li> </ul> <ul> <li>12:1  "now concerning spiritual gifts . . ."</li> </ul> <p>Other times Paul repeated the Corinthians erroneous statements and then proceeded to correct, or bring balance to, their thinking.</p> <p>6:12  Paul seems to be quoting them  "All things are lawful for me," then he counters with "but all things are not profitable." Then he repeats again what probably was their statement to him, "All things are lawful for me," and again balances that statement with, "but I will not be mastered by anything." The Corinthians were justifying their license by their words because Paul had taught, "You are not under law, but under grace."</p> <p>The portion in question here, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, finds Paul describing in some detail how the gifts of the Holy Spirit are to be in operation in a church assembly, and specifically the gift of prophecy. At this point a new subject is being introduced. Paul seems to shift to the subject of women in the assembly.</p> <p>It is very much in keeping with the pattern of this letter for Paul, in verses 34 and 35, simply to be repeating the words of the Corinthians,</p> <p>"Let the women keep silence in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves just as the law also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church."</p> <p>What follows in verse 36 seem to rebut their statement when he says, "What! Was it from you that the Word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?" Then he closes this chapter with a few more remarks concerning prophecy and speaking in tongues.</p> <h2>Which Law?</h2> <p>The key phrase in verse 34 is "just as the law also says." Remember, Paul was an educated man. He called himself a Pharisee of the Pharisees. Certainly he knew the law. There is no Old Testament law or Scripture that either silences women or subjects them  none whatsoever. Check the cross reference notes in your Bible for verse 34, and you ll find no cross reference in the Old Testament. Rather, Psalm 68:11 says, "The Lord gives the command; the women who proclaim the good tidings are a great host."</p> <p>Does Paul have the right to silence that "great host of women"? Inconceivable!</p> <p>However, the Jews were living according to the Talmud, not according to the Old Testament Law. Remember the Talmud contains regulations and traditions had had become more important than the Old Testament book of the Law.</p> <p>In the "Ten Curses of Eve" listed in the Babylonian Talmud, the sixth is summarized this way:</p> <p>"He shall rule over thee," the wife being in total submission and subjugation, since the wife is the personal property of the husband.[1]</p> <p>When he quotes their statement back to them in verses 34 and 35, which makes reference to the law, he is attempting to show them that they are still living and operating by the oral law of the Jews or Jewish traditions.</p> <p>The great German lexicographer, Schleusner, in his Greek-Latin Lexicon, declares the expression "as also saith the law" refers to the Oral Law of the Jews. Here are his words: "The oral laws of the Jews or Jewish traditions . . . in the Old Testament no precept concerning the matter exists," and he cites Vitringa as showing that it was "forbidden by Jewish traditions for women to speak in the synagogue." [2]</p> <p>Paul would never have made such a statement such as is quoted in verses 34 and 35 attributing something to Old Testament law that simply did not exist. Not only that but all through his letters he tried to free believers from the bondage of the law, not hold them to it (Romans 6:14; Galatians 2:16, 5:1).</p> <p>By Paul s response in verse 36, he is saying, "Who do you think you are, setting yourselves up to proclaim something as from God that is not supported by Scripture?"</p> <p>We are doing Paul a disfavor and discrediting his intelligence by accusing him of originating this statement rather than understanding that he was simply quoting theirs. Paul is not attempting to establish the silencing of women in the New Testament Church. On the contrary, he is chiding the Corinthians for their attempt to keep women silent and thereby prevent them from freely ministering as the men were free to do.</p> <p>Paul released women to speak within the church in this chapter, but did he require them to cover their heads while doing so?</p> <p>[1] Charles Trombley, Who Said Women Can t Teach? (North Brunswick, NJ: Bridge Publishing, Inc, 1984), 30. Summarized from Genesis with a Talmudic Commentary by Herson.</p> <p>[2] Johann Friedrich Schleusner, as quoted in Katherine Bushnell, God s Word to Women (privately reprinted [ca. 1976] by Ray B. Munson, P.O. Box 417, North Collins, NY 14111, [originally published] 1923), 201. </p> </div> <div class='boxbottom'><div></div></div> </div> </body></html>