|
Post by jocelyn andersen on Jan 11, 2015 15:59:27 GMT
The context reveals these are unsaved—married—women who are commanded to maintain a silence in the churches as only married women have husbands.
So, in this verse, the word “women” is correctly translated as “wives.”
To narrow things down even further (as far as women were concerned), only unsaved Jewish women could be said to be “under the Law.” Saved people are no longer under the Law
34: Let your wives 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 anything let them ask their husbands at home
To make things even more interesting, the Law of Moses never commands women to silence, so the reference to "The Law" is obviously a reference to Jewish tradition and not to the Law of Moses itself. In light of these facts, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 should never be used to govern either Christian or Jewish women today.
|
|
|
Post by Greg Hahn on Jan 12, 2015 2:50:47 GMT
The context reveals these are unsaved— married—women who are commanded to maintain a silence in the churches as only married women have husbands. Which part of the context indicates this? That's an interesting thought that I don't believe I have heard before. My take on these verses are that when Paul wrote them in his letter to the Corinthians he was quoting the Corinthians, just like I quoted Jocelyn above. 1st Corinthians was a letter written by Paul to the Corinthian church. And beginning in Chapter 7 we find that the Corinthians had previously written a letter to Paul, apparently asking him questions. 1 Corinthians 7:1 begins with, "Now for the matters you wrote about"... and he begins to address the things that were in their previous letter. He marks his responses with a particular Greek phrase, and so we can see him moving on to another topic of their letter in 7:25, 8:1, 12:1, 16:1, and 16:12. In the Greek it is περὶ δὲ (peri de). The NIV translates this, "now about" - referring to their previous letter: 1 Cor 7:25 Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. 1Cor 8:1 Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that “We all possess knowledge.” But knowledge puffs up while love builds up. 1 Cor 12:1 Now about the gifts of the Spirit, brothers and sisters, I do not want you to be uninformed. 1 Cor 16:1 Now about the collection for the Lord’s people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. 1 Cor 16:12 Now about our brother Apollos: I strongly urged him to go to you with the brothers. He was quite unwilling to go now, but he will go when he has the opportunity.
So here in the middle of this section in which Paul is quoting their own letter back to them, he says something that seems completely out of context and unlike Paul.
I quoted the ASV for a reason, and that reason is that little word at the beginning of verse 36: "What?" The 1977 New American Standard also included that word, as des the KJV, but the 1995 New American Standard, NIV, and many others do not. It's there in the Greek and it is very significant
That word is used in the Greek to express shock and rejection of the previous statement. It is very much like us saying, "Horsefeathers!"
I say verses 34 and 35 were part of the Corinthian letter to Paul, and that he is now responding.
There are two more bits of evidence that I believe support this view:
1. Verse 34, "as the law also says." Joceyln already points out that this is nowhere in the Old Testament. I'd like to add that Paul quotes the Old Testament over and over and over in his epistles but he never ever quotes Jewish tradition to support his views. For Paul to do so here would be completely unlike him.
2. Paul was was friends with several women who ministered in the churches. He often commends their ministry. (See Romans 16 for example). And only 3 chapters before this one in 1 Corinthians 11:5, Paul tells women to speak in the church. It is very unlike Paul to tell women to be quiet in the church!
For these 3 reasons, I don't believe that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 were intended by Paul or by the Lord to restrict women from speaking in the church.
|
|
|
Post by wanetadawn on Mar 2, 2015 4:26:42 GMT
"1. Verse 34, "as the law also says." Joceyln already points out that this is nowhere in the Old Testament. I'd like to add that Paul quotes the Old Testament over and over and over in his epistles but he never ever quotes Jewish tradition to support his views. For Paul to do so here would be completely unlike him"
Since this was written to the Corinthians, I doubt Paul is referring to Jewish tradition. It is more likely he is referring to the law or tradition of Corinth, Athens, and/or Greece. After all, Athens and Corinth are both in Greece and close to each other. In fact, what Jocelyn reports about the customs of Athens in her book "Woman this is War," where (wealthy) wives were not allowed outside the inner door of their homes, brings some sense to this. Paul refers to this in I Cor 7:39-40 which suggests men in Greece were so controlling that widows would be happier to not marry. "The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord. But she is happier if she so abide after my judgment; and I think also that I have the Spirit of God."
There were a lot of things to address when Jew and Gentile gathered in the same religious service; many differences of rules, laws, customs to be ironed out. It is likely men and women were not seated together in the assembly, wives may be calling across the aisle, and perhaps even to another room to ask their husbands a question. This would be far outside the strict rules for wives in Greece (and in Israel). Greek wives were mostly kept indoors at home. Going to the Christian assembly would have been a new thing for Gentile wives especially. It would make sense for some pro-Jewish-law writers to address the issue of women speaking out of turn in the assembly. But why would Paul bring it up? He already gave directions for order in the service when he talked about speaking in tongues and interpretation of tongues and taking turns speaking previously in the chapter. He sums it up in I Cor 14:26 "Let all things be done unto edifying." As Greg noted, he already gave women rules for speaking in the assembly in I Cor 11, it makes no sense for Paul to command their silence in the same letter.
I find Greg Hahn's suggestion that Paul was refuting what the pro-Jewish writers had said to be more likely. I, too, have read elsewhere that when Paul follows a statement with a "what?" that he was emphatically not just refuting it, but also pointing out it's ridiculousness.
The "what" is followed by Paul's reasoning. "Came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?" That question makes more sense if Paul is addressing the men who would silence women. Did the word of God come out from Corinthian men? Or did it come to Corinthian men only? It is doubtful Paul would be chastising women for thinking the Word of God came to them only. Especially considering the context, where many people were speaking at once, some speaking in tongues, some prophesying, etc. And in those directives, absolutely nothing is mentioned about all or even most of the speakers being women. If women taking over the meeting was the issue, Paul would have mentioned that first. After all, if three/fourths of those speaking in tongues were female, just tell the women to shut up and the problem would go away.
A side idea. Does anyone want to check? should that be "Word of God?" Is Paul referring to the fact that Jesus "came out" from his mother, Mary? A quick Google search shows that "Godvine.com capitalizes Word, but doesn't seem to refer to the Word as Christ.
|
|
Ian
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by Ian on Mar 3, 2015 16:29:51 GMT
I've always believed that Paul was quoting back the views of the Judaizers who were present in the church and causing all sorts of problems. We know this faction was present as Paul engages in a heated debate with them in his second letter to the Corinthians (2 Corinthians, chapters 11-12). In truth, the church at Corinth was in need of some discipline. Both the men and the women were shouting out in tongues or prophesying, but talking over each other. Adding to this were the new gentile believers who would call out questions if they did not understand the teaching or some aspect of the service. Hence, the meetings were a somewhat rowdy affair, and the value of much of the tongues and prophecy that was given was lost. In order for the benefit of these gifts to be fully realised , Paul lays down in his letter the proper process that will ensure their useful manifestation. However, in the guise of a solution of their own, the Judaizers were trying to impose their tradition that demanded that women should not talk in the presence of men, ‘for it is shameful for a woman to let her voice be heard amongst men’ according to their Oral Law. This was a thinly veiled attempt to subordinate the women in the church as they were in Jewish society. In order to deal with this error, Paul quotes back to them the harsh and bigoted views that he knows they have, and then dismisses it in no uncertain fashion. The sarcasm is biting: 'What! Came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?' In other words, Paul ridicules their position by pointing out that there is no support for it in the Word of God that he is acquainted with so well; unless, of course, God has privileged the Judaizers with a unique Word from Him that He has not given to anyone else! Paul then exerts his apostolic authority in no uncertain fashion: 'If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord. If any one does not recognize this, he is not recognized.' So, if anyone believes they have some genuine spiritual understanding and maturity from which they can teach the people, then they should acknowledge that his instruction on the operation of spiritual gifts (for both men and women) is from God, while that of the Judaizers is most certainly not. If anyone does not accept this edict, then they should not be recognised as any sort of spiritual authority in the church, and are disqualified from any teaching, pastoral or other positions of influence and responsibility.
|
|