Many Christians define men’s and women’s roles in such a way that they cannot let the full weight of Scripture speak. Their views are not biblical, nor do they align with or represent the teachings of Jesus or the early Ekklesia.
The modern “church” is hemiplegic—the female half of the Body of Christ is paralyzed!
““The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”
What! Was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord.” 1 Corinthians 14:34-37
Let us dive right in and rip that band-aid right off. First Corinthians 14:34-35 are not the words of Paul! How can we know this? I am glad you asked.
- Male and female prophesying was inaugurated on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:17-18). Paul approved of the prophesying of women (1 Cor. 11:5). He even encourage it (1 Cor 14:26, 29-32). Does it make sense that Paul would then turn around, contradict himself, and unequivocally designate women's speech as "filthy, lewd, and vile"? For the record, the Greek word aiskron indicates something “lewd, vile, filthy, indecent, foul, dirty, and morally degraded.”
- "...as the Law also says" (v.34) What "law" is Paul talking about? Certainly not the Old Covenant Law. Why? Because no such command exists in the Mosaic Law. We can guarantee for a fact that Paul would never attribute something to "the Law" that simply did not exist.
- "...as the Law also says" (v.34) Considering how Paul has repeatedly tried to free believers from the Law (Rom. 6:14; Gal. 2:16; 5:1; et al), why would he suddenly be encouraging them to obey a single aspect of it (if indeed it did exist)?
Verses 34-35 should have quotations around them. Why? Because Paul is clearly quoting something that the Corinthians had written to him. Since this quotation cannot be found in the Old Covenant Law, what "law" did it belong to?
In those days, the oral traditions of the Rabbis, contained in the Mishnah, a part of the Talmud, had supplanted the Law of Moses. The Talmud required women to be silent and called their speaking "lewd and filthy." Want proof?
“A woman’s voice is prohibited because it is sexually provocative.” (Talmud, Berachot 24a)
“It is shameful for a woman to let her voice be heard among men.” (Talmud, Tractate Kiddushin)
“The voice of a woman is filthy nakedness.” (Talmud, Berachot Kiddushin)
“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)
The Old Covenant Law contains no such command. The Mosaic Law never called for women to be silent. In the Old Covenant we do find this:
“The Lord gives the word; the women who announce the good tidings are a great host.” (Psalm 68:11)
Does Paul have the right to silence that "great host"? Inconceivable! The "What!" in 1 Corinthians 14:36 is a disjunctive conjunction that indicates that Paul is not in harmony with what he quotes or summarizes from the Talmud in verses 34-35. Given how these two verses contradict a great deal that Paul has taught in his letters, we should suspect that Paul made a quotation of the Corinthian letter here.
We can surmise that Paul was making a quotation here, as he often did from a culture or religion (Acts 17:23; Titus 1:12), and reject the idea that these words came from Paul himself. Verses 36-37 contain his rebuke of those who maintained this erroneous belief.
Those who use 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 as their proof text for silencing women, are they prepared to maintain, as the anti-Christ anti-feminine Talmud did, that a woman’s voice is “dirty” and “like filthy nakedness”?