Abraxos
Nemo vir est qui mundum non reddat meliorem.
- Jan 12, 2016
- 1,116
- 599
- 123
- Country
- New Zealand
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
In regards to 1 Cor. 14:34-35, there are several Greek theologians who have come to designate vs. 34-35 as an interpolation. That means that they are a quote from someone else's words, and if you ask me, this suggestion of subordination read in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 isn't the words of Paul, but it is a quote from a letter received from the Corinthian church. It's likely verses 34-35 came from the Talmudic law, and not of Paul since he promoted women in ministry, honoured and acknowledged their service in the Lord. It is likely though that there were Jewish Christians who still thought that way, hence Paul's rebuke in vs. 36.Hello!
1 Corinthians 14
It seems the point of 1 Corinthians 14:27-28 is that if someone speaks (2980 laleo) in tongues, they shouldn't address an assembly that doesn't know the language unless there's one to interpret. Instead, they should "keep silent" (4601 sigao) in church. Likewise, the point of 1 Corinthians 14:29-30 is that two or three prophets should speak (2980 laleo), but if something is revealed to someone else, the first speaker should not address the assembly but should "keep silent" (4601 sigao) so that this new speaker can do so instead.
In the first two cases, the subjects addressed (tongue-speakers and prophets) could speak in church but had to "keep silent" under certain circumstances. However, when Paul gets to the third subject, the women, there are no qualifiers given. Instead, he writes in 1 Corinthians 14:34, "Let your women keep silent [4601 sigao] in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak [2980 laleo]; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says." Paul then goes on to add in 1 Corinthians 15:35: "And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak [2980 laleo] in church."
Naturally, wouldn't "speak" (2980 laleo) and "keep silent" (4601 sigao) mean the same in verses 34-35 that the terms mean elsewhere in the chapter, i.e., addressing the assembly versus not addressing the assembly, respectively? If so, Paul would seem to rule out women preachers here, as they would not be permitted to address the church assembly. (Note: There's a specific context to this passage, "in church" [vv. 26, 28, 34-35, etc.], so this certainly can't forbid women from teaching in other contexts, such as when Priscilla and her husband Aquila taught Apollos [Acts of the Apostles 18:26].)
The legalistic connotation of the "Law" stated in verse 34, "It is not permitted... as also saith the law," is nowhere to be found in the OT. It was however a common practice in Jewish synagogues where women were not allowed to speak.
Mishnah sotah 3.4; B sotah 20a:
"Out of respect to the congregation, a woman should not herself read in the law. It is a shame for a woman to let her voice be heard among men. The voice of a woman is filthy nakedness."
J. Lee Grady said this about it:
"It should be noted that the Jewish Talmud is a collection of comments by rabbis who disagree, and the statement here about the "obscenity" of teaching women the law of God is challenged. However, many scholars of early Jewish thought believe the quote here represents the prevalent opinion of rabbis in the first century. Women were not allowed to study the Torah or to become disciples of rabbis."
So, the Law being referred to is most likely the Jewish Oral Law, the same one Jesus spoke against with his Sermon on the Mount on the contrasts of their "law" adjacent to the written word of Scripture. In other words, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 has been terribly mistranslated.
Some handy references:
God's Word To Women by Katharine C. Bushnell
Let Women Speak In Church by David W. Odell-Scott
Did Paul Put Down Women In 1 Cor 14:34-36? by N.M. Flanagan
Upvote
0