By Maria Merola
© Copyright Double Portion Inheritance, October 2007
If there’s one thing I’ve learned over the years, is that we cannot build a doctrine around one single verse of Scripture. Our Messiah Yahuwshuwa, showed us the pattern for which we should establish doctrine, and it is based upon “two or three witnesses.”
What are these witnesses?
Luqas (Luke) 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spoke unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the Towrah (law) of Mosheh (Moses), and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
As you can see, there are two or three witnesses of scripture that must be consulted first before we can establish any kind of biblical doctrine. In Hebrew, this is an acronym called TaNaK: Towrah, Nabiym, Ketuwbiym. In other words, Law, Prophets & Writings (Psalms).
Within Christianity, there seems to be a common error that is taught, whereby people will often use the letters and epistles of Sha’uwl (Paul) in the wrong context in order to override what the prophets and our Messiah taught.
The same problem seems to exist in reverse within the Hebraic Roots Community, where some have discounted Sha’uwl (Paul) as a false apostle, because they think he is teaching against the Towrah (Mosaic Law).
My aim in this study is to bring harmony to the entire counsel of scripture with regard to the subject of women teaching in the assembly.
This topic has been a subject of much controversy within the body of Messiah for centuries, as many have used only one or two passages out of Sha’uwl’s letters as a means of silencing women who are called of YaHuWaH to preach the good news.
I am often asked about this subject since I have been called as a female to be a “Watchman to the House of Yisra’el” in these last days. The mandate that YaHuWaH has given me is to warn the body of Messiah about false pagan mixture that has crept into the Christian Church and within Judaism.
I am called to teach about the Hebraic Roots of our faith in Messiah to those who have “ears to hear” what the Spirit of YaHuWaH is saying. The message that YaHuWaH has given me to preach is without gender as both men and women alike find themselves hearing what the Ruwach (Spirit) of YaHuWaH is saying in these last days:
Ma’aseh Shlichiym (Acts) 2:18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
In the above passage, the outpouring of the Ruwach (Spirit) of YaHuWaH was not only intended for the male gender, but for females also. And what is the purpose of these women having the Ruwach (Spirit) poured out upon them? As you can see, they were meant to “prophesy,” and this word is defined in the Greek Strong’s Concordance as follows:
#4395. prophēteuō: to prophesy, to be a prophet, speak forth by divine inspirations, to predict, to utter forth, declare, a thing which can only be known by divine revelation, to break forth under sudden impulse in lofty discourse or praise of the divine counsels, under like prompting, to teach, refute, reprove, admonish, comfort others, to act as a prophet, discharge the prophetic office.
As you can see, the scriptures expressly state that the Spirit of YaHuWaH would be poured out upon “all flesh” to include females in the last days before the return of our Messiah, Yahuwshuwa. The Greek word for “prophesy” is much broader than the English word, for it encompasses all forms of speaking under inspiration---even teaching!
As a woman who is called to teach and preach to the body of Messiah, I am under apostolic authority as I answer to other men who are also ministry leaders. Now that I have cleared that up, let me get to the meat of this message concerning the role of women in ministry.
In order to understand what the Apostle Sha’uwl (Paul) was referring to in 1st Timothy 2:12 concerning women teaching men, we must first discover what was taking place in that culture, at that particular time in history. Additionally, we must get back to the original language that Sha’uwl’s (Paul’s) letter was first written in, which will give us more light on the situation.
The Male & Female Relationship in Marriage
In Sha’uwl’s (Paul’s) letter to Timothy, he was obviously addressing the marriage relationship specifically as he was telling a woman not to usurp her own husband’s authority. When you look up the original Greek word in 1st Timothy 2:12 for “woman” the actual word means “wife.”
The Greek word is “gune” which literally means “wife.”
#1135. gune: goo-nay’ probably from the base of 1096; a woman; specially, a wife:--wife, woman.
There is a more generic word for woman in Greek which means “female” and that word is “thelus.”
#2338. thelus: thay’-loos from the same as 2337; female:--female, woman.
The original Greek word in 1st Timothy 2:12 in the Strong’s Concordance here for “man” is “aner” which literally means “husband.”
#435. aner: an’-ayr a primary word (compare 444); a man (properly as an individual male):--fellow, husband, man, sir.
Some would try to argue the fact that the Greek word “aner” is sometimes used to describe “a man” in general and that this word is not necessarily always specifically referring to a husband. But in the Greek language, there is no word for “husband” that is not also used to describe “man.”
Here is a case-in-point:
Ephsiym (Ephesians) 5:25 “....husbands (aner) love your wives (gune) ....”
The original Greek word in 1st Timothy 2:12 in the Strong’s Concordance here for “man” is “aner” which literally means “husband.”
#435. aner: an’-ayr a primary word (compare 444); a man (properly as an individual male):--fellow, husband, man, sir.
Some would try to argue the fact that the Greek word “aner” is sometimes used to describe “a man” in general and that this word is not necessarily always specifically referring to a husband. But in the Greek language, there is no word for “husband” that is not also used to describe “man.”
Here is a case-in-point:
Ephsiym (Ephesians) 5:25 “....husbands (aner) love your wives (gune) ....”
The reason why the word “aner” (husband) is used in Ephesians 5:22 is because the word “aner” is more specifically used to apply to the term “husband” and not the male gender. The English translators obviously translated the Greek word as “husband” properly in Ephesians 5:25, yet in 1st Timothy 2:12, they erroneously translated the word “aner” as “man,” leading the reader to falsely believe that he was prohibiting females from teaching males.
Sha’uwl (Paul) used “aner” because that is the only word in Greek that applies to both husband and man. There is no Greek word that is used for “husband” only. Hence, in 1st Timothy 2:12 Sha’uwl was not making a case against the female gender being allowed to teach the male gender.
Sha’uwl (Paul) used “aner” because that is the only word in Greek that applies to both husband and man. There is no Greek word that is used for “husband” only. Hence, in 1st Timothy 2:12 Sha’uwl was not making a case against the female gender being allowed to teach the male gender.
The word for “male” in Greek pertaining more specifically to the male gender is as follows:
#730. arsen: male (as stronger for lifting); male, man.
In Galatians 3:28 Sha’uwl (Paul) is expressly stating that there is no difference between male & female because the genders are “one in Messiah:”
Galatiym (Galatians) 3:28 There is neither Yahuwdiy (Jew) nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male (arsen) nor female (thelus): for you are all one in Messiah Yahuwshuwa.
If the Apostle Sha’uwl (Paul) was making a ruling against females teaching males, he would’ve used the terms “thelus” and “arsen” in 1st Timothy 2:12 and he would’ve stated “I do not permit a female to teach a male.” But obviously, he was not saying this at all. Paul was obviously addressing the chain of command with regard to the marriage relationship, and this is the reason why he went on to explain that Adam came first and then Eve.
Here is another case-in-point:
Romiym (Romans) 1:26 For this cause Elohiym gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women (thelus, female) did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Romiym (Romans) 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, (thelus, female) burned in their lust one toward another; men (arsen, male) with men (arsen, male) working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
As you can see by the above passages, Paul used the Greek word “thelus” (female) even though the English translators used the more generic term “woman.” He also used the Greek word for “male” (arsen) even though the English translators used the word “men.” This tells us that Paul was being “gender specific” in this passage, whereas in 1st Timothy 2:12, he was specifically speaking to the role of a husband a wife and not to the issue of gender.
Now that I have laid the foundation for properly understanding the context of his letter to Timothy, we can read it with more clarity:
If the Apostle Sha’uwl (Paul) was making a ruling against females teaching males, he would’ve used the terms “thelus” and “arsen” in 1st Timothy 2:12 and he would’ve stated “I do not permit a female to teach a male.” But obviously, he was not saying this at all. Paul was obviously addressing the chain of command with regard to the marriage relationship, and this is the reason why he went on to explain that Adam came first and then Eve.
Here is another case-in-point:
Romiym (Romans) 1:26 For this cause Elohiym gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women (thelus, female) did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Romiym (Romans) 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, (thelus, female) burned in their lust one toward another; men (arsen, male) with men (arsen, male) working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
As you can see by the above passages, Paul used the Greek word “thelus” (female) even though the English translators used the more generic term “woman.” He also used the Greek word for “male” (arsen) even though the English translators used the word “men.” This tells us that Paul was being “gender specific” in this passage, whereas in 1st Timothy 2:12, he was specifically speaking to the role of a husband a wife and not to the issue of gender.
Now that I have laid the foundation for properly understanding the context of his letter to Timothy, we can read it with more clarity:
1st Timotiyos (Timothy) 2:
12 But I suffer not a woman (gune, wife) to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man (aner, husband), but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
You will note that the Apostle Sha’uwl is addressing the marriage relationship specifically because he goes on to describe the marriage relationship between Adam and Eve, and he explains that the woman (just like Eve) was and is saved through child bearing. In other words, the woman’s deceptive nature is purged from her when she goes through the tribulation and suffering of giving labor. In Philippians 3:10, we are shown that suffering brings us closer to Messiah as we “know him” through being acquainted with what he has suffered for us. Similarly, a woman becomes more like Messiah, when she suffers in order to bring forth her children.
Both Genders Created in the Image of YaHuWaH
I have often heard the argument that only the male gender was created in the image of Elohiym, whereas the female gender was not. These same people would argue that females were created in the image of man, but not in the image of Elohiym. So let us examine this passage:
Bereshiyth (Genesis) 1:26 And Elohiym said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
The Hebrew word for “man” in this verse is:
#120. Adam: human being, mankind, person, individual.
This word “adam” is not limited to the male gender, for it is describing the human race, in other words, all of mankind or humanity.
This is where the Greek word “anthropos” for “mankind” comes from. This word “anthropos” is the Greek counterpart for the Hebrew word “Adam:”
#444. anthropos: anth’-ro-pos from 435 and ops (the countenance; from 3700); man-faced, i.e. a human being:--certain, man.
Therefore, Elohiym made mankind (to include the female gender) in his image. The Hebrew word
Strong’s Concordance #2145 – zakar: adjective, masculine noun; male (of humans and animals).
Strong’s Concordance #5347 – nĕqebah: female, woman, female child, female animal.
Now, let us take a look at how these two Hebrew words are used:
Both Genders Created in the Image of YaHuWaH
I have often heard the argument that only the male gender was created in the image of Elohiym, whereas the female gender was not. These same people would argue that females were created in the image of man, but not in the image of Elohiym. So let us examine this passage:
Bereshiyth (Genesis) 1:26 And Elohiym said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
The Hebrew word for “man” in this verse is:
#120. Adam: human being, mankind, person, individual.
This word “adam” is not limited to the male gender, for it is describing the human race, in other words, all of mankind or humanity.
This is where the Greek word “anthropos” for “mankind” comes from. This word “anthropos” is the Greek counterpart for the Hebrew word “Adam:”
#444. anthropos: anth’-ro-pos from 435 and ops (the countenance; from 3700); man-faced, i.e. a human being:--certain, man.
Therefore, Elohiym made mankind (to include the female gender) in his image. The Hebrew word
Strong’s Concordance #2145 – zakar: adjective, masculine noun; male (of humans and animals).
Strong’s Concordance #5347 – nĕqebah: female, woman, female child, female animal.
Now, let us take a look at how these two Hebrew words are used:
Bereshiyth (Genesis) 1:27 So Elohiym created man (adam, human beings) in his own image, in the image of Elohiym created he him; male (zakar) and female (neqebah) created he them.
Bereshiyth (Genesis) 5:2 Male (zakar) and female (neqebah) created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Awdawm (Adam), in the day when they were created.
The above verses are now made much clearer as we realize that when YaHuWaH created mankind (humanity) in his image, he included both genders (male and female). Thus, the word “Adam” (man) is describing both male and female genders collectively.
Often-times whenever the subject of women teaching comes up, I will hear people quote the following verse as if it is telling us that the male gender shall rule over the female gender:
Bereshiyth (Genesis) 3:16 Unto the woman (ishshah) he said, I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in sorrow you shall bring forth children; and your desire shall be to your husband (iysh), and he shall rule over you.
As you can see by the above verse, Elohiym is telling the “wife” (ishahah) that her husband (iysh) shall rule over her. He did not tell her that the zakar (male) would rule over the nĕqebah (female).
Do you see the difference? While the Hebrew word “ishshah” can mean “woman or female,” it is the only word that is used to describe “wife” in Hebrew. However, the word “neqebah” is more specific to the female gender. If YaHuWaH was telling all females that all males on the planet would rule over them, he would have said the following:
Do you see the difference? While the Hebrew word “ishshah” can mean “woman or female,” it is the only word that is used to describe “wife” in Hebrew. However, the word “neqebah” is more specific to the female gender. If YaHuWaH was telling all females that all males on the planet would rule over them, he would have said the following:
Bereshiyth (Genesis) 3:16 Unto the females (neqebah) he said, I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in sorrow you shall bring forth children; and your desire shall be to your males (zakar), and he shall rule over you.
Obviously, YaHuWaH is not telling all males to rule over all females. He is speaking specifically to the marriage relationship.
Now, let’s take a look at the Hebrew words for “woman” and “husband” in Genesis 3:16:
Obviously, YaHuWaH is not telling all males to rule over all females. He is speaking specifically to the marriage relationship.
Now, let’s take a look at the Hebrew words for “woman” and “husband” in Genesis 3:16:
Strong’s Concordance #802: ‘ishshah: woman, wife, female, woman (opposite of man); wife (woman married to a man); female (of animals); each, every (pronoun).
Strong’s Concordance #376: ‘iysh: man, male (in contrast to woman, female); husband; human being, person (in contrast to God); mankind; champion; great man; whosoever; each (adjective).
Therefore, whenever the TaNaKh (Hebrew Old Testament) is specifically speaking to the marriage relationship, it will always use the word “ishshah” for wife and the word “iysh” for husband. In the Greek New Testament, the word that is always used to describe wife is “gune” and the word that is always used to describe husband is “aner.”
Now that I have made a distinction between male and female in scripture, versus husband and wife, we can move on to the other evidence showing that Paul was not forbidding females to teach males. In his letter to Timothy, this was a specific letter written to the Congregation at Ephesus, and this congregation had a unique situation which would necessitate that Paul write to them concerning the proper role and function of a husband and a wife in marriage. This is why he outlined in Ephesians 5, the proper function and purpose of the role of the husband and the wife as it relates to Messiah and his assembly.
The Female Dominance Cult in Ephesus
In order to understand Sha’uwl’s (Paul’s) letter to Timothy when he commanded wives (gune) not to usurp the authority of their husbands, we must first become aware of the historical background of this congregation that he was writing to in Ephesus.
Therefore, whenever the TaNaKh (Hebrew Old Testament) is specifically speaking to the marriage relationship, it will always use the word “ishshah” for wife and the word “iysh” for husband. In the Greek New Testament, the word that is always used to describe wife is “gune” and the word that is always used to describe husband is “aner.”
Now that I have made a distinction between male and female in scripture, versus husband and wife, we can move on to the other evidence showing that Paul was not forbidding females to teach males. In his letter to Timothy, this was a specific letter written to the Congregation at Ephesus, and this congregation had a unique situation which would necessitate that Paul write to them concerning the proper role and function of a husband and a wife in marriage. This is why he outlined in Ephesians 5, the proper function and purpose of the role of the husband and the wife as it relates to Messiah and his assembly.
The Female Dominance Cult in Ephesus
In order to understand Sha’uwl’s (Paul’s) letter to Timothy when he commanded wives (gune) not to usurp the authority of their husbands, we must first become aware of the historical background of this congregation that he was writing to in Ephesus.
This is the reason why the Apostle Paul made reference to this:
1st Timotiyos (Timothy) 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
Why would the Apostle Sha’uwl need to explain that Adam was formed first and then Eve? Don’t we know this already? Well obviously, the Assembly at Ephesus did not already know this because they had been taught the lie that Eve was the mother of Adam. This lie is much like the lie in the Catholic Church today where it is taught that “Mary, the mother of Jesus was born without original sin, hence it was her divinity which was passed on to Jesus…”
Why would the Apostle Sha’uwl need to explain that Adam was formed first and then Eve? Don’t we know this already? Well obviously, the Assembly at Ephesus did not already know this because they had been taught the lie that Eve was the mother of Adam. This lie is much like the lie in the Catholic Church today where it is taught that “Mary, the mother of Jesus was born without original sin, hence it was her divinity which was passed on to Jesus…”
Since Catholicism teaches that Mary is the Holy Spirit, they conclude that “Mary is the author of Jesus” just like the lie that the Ephesians were taught about Eve being the author of Adam.
In 1st John 4:3 (KJV) we have the litmus test for identifying the Spirit of Anti-Messiah. Listen to what the Apostle John wrote:
1st Yahuwchanon (John) 4:3 “....every spirit which does not confess that Yahuwshuwa Messiah is come in the flesh, this is that spirit of Anti-Messiah…”
What does this verse mean? The word “flesh” here is the Greek word “sarx” and it means “carnal, sensual.” This means that Yahuwshuwa our Messiah had a mortal body, which he inherited from his mother Miryam (Mary).
However, his spiritual nature was “incorruptible” (immortal) because he had the blood of his Heavenly Father in his veins. Yahuwshuwa had to possess both natures at the same time in order to be the perfect sinless, spotless sacrifice. He had to have a corruptible nature “physically” so that he could destroy sin in the flesh (Romans 8:3). But he also had to be sinless, having an incorruptible spiritual nature at the same time:
Ibriym (Hebrews) 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
However, his spiritual nature was “incorruptible” (immortal) because he had the blood of his Heavenly Father in his veins. Yahuwshuwa had to possess both natures at the same time in order to be the perfect sinless, spotless sacrifice. He had to have a corruptible nature “physically” so that he could destroy sin in the flesh (Romans 8:3). But he also had to be sinless, having an incorruptible spiritual nature at the same time:
Ibriym (Hebrews) 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
If Yahuwshuwa had sinned, his blood could not have atoned for us. He had to represent a male lamb without blemish according to the Towrah (Exodus 12:5).
Roman Catholicism is strikingly similar to this cult from ancient Babylon, as we can see how the deification of Mary/Miryam (the mother of our Messiah), Yahuwshuwa (Jesus) was meant to assimilate him to Nimrod and his mother/wife, Semiramis.
The Ruwach (Spirit) of YaHuWaH fertilized Mary’s egg producing a human body for Yahuwshuwa (Jesus). But the blood came from the Heavenly Father.
The Ruwach (Spirit) of YaHuWaH fertilized Mary’s egg producing a human body for Yahuwshuwa (Jesus). But the blood came from the Heavenly Father.
The research of Ron Wyatt, the deceased archaeologist, reveals that our Messiah’s blood found on the ark of the covenant had only 24 chromosomes and it had only one “Y” autosome from his Heavenly Father.
In Zechariah 12:10, YaHuWaH is speaking of himself in the first person singular when he says: “They will look upon ME whom they have pierced and they will mourn for HIM as one mourns for his only son.” This means that it was the blood of YaHuWaH that was in Yahuwshuwa when he died for us on the tree!
But how is it possible (you may ask yourself) that Yahuwshuwa could be born through a human woman with a sinful bloodline, and still be without sin?
Biology proves that the mother’s blood never touches the baby in the womb during gestation. Below is a diagram illustrating this:
“The child’s umbilical cord is attached to the placenta. It is the placenta which is attached to the mother. The placenta acts like a giant clearing house for the baby, taking nutrients and other things out of the mother’s blood and passing them on to the baby’s blood stream through the umbilical cord.”
Now, why did I go down this rabbit trail?
I am trying to show that Yahuwshuwa our Messiah was the one who is eternal, and he created Miryam (Mary)—she did not create him! The fact that her sinful blood never touched his sinless blood is now proven biologically!
Qolasiym (Colossians) 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Yahuwshuwa created Mary, not the other way around. But the Roman Catholic Church teaches that Mary was sinless, divine, and eternal.
They call her the “Queen of Heaven” just like the Babylonians called Semiramis (Nimrod’s mother & wife) the “Queen of Heaven” (Jeremiah 7 & 44).
Roman Catholicism thus denies that “Yahuwshuwa Messiah is come in the flesh” (having a mortal, corruptible physical nature) and this is the very essence of the Anti-Messiah Spirit!
Roman Catholicism teaches
This means that Yahuwshuwa Messiah (according to Catholicism) did not come with a human nature (able to be tempted in all things). And this means that Catholicism denies that he came in the flesh (sarx) which is the criteria outlined in 1st Yahuwchanon (John) 4:3 for identifying the Anti-Messiah spirit.
Roman Catholicism teaches
This means that Yahuwshuwa Messiah (according to Catholicism) did not come with a human nature (able to be tempted in all things). And this means that Catholicism denies that he came in the flesh (sarx) which is the criteria outlined in 1st Yahuwchanon (John) 4:3 for identifying the Anti-Messiah spirit.
You see, Catholicism teaches that Mary’s conception in her mother’s womb was “immaculate” and that she was born without original sin from birth making her divine. This very doctrine known as “The Immaculate Conception” is the crux of the Spirit of Anti-Messiah. If Mary was born without original sin, then she is eternal and a goddess like Venus, Diana, Isis, Semiramis, Asherah, Easter and all the other pagan goddesses whom she embodies as a supposed reincarnation according to paganism.
Many Protestants think when they hear the term “Immaculate Conception” that this is about the virgin birth of Yahuwshuwa Messiah, but it is not. It is about Mary’s alleged conception without original sin, making her divine and eternal. This would then lead to the lie that says “Eve conceived Adam” or “Mary conceived Jesus.” The Catholic Church teaches that “Mary is the Holy Spirit and that he can only work through her.”
Many Protestants think when they hear the term “Immaculate Conception” that this is about the virgin birth of Yahuwshuwa Messiah, but it is not. It is about Mary’s alleged conception without original sin, making her divine and eternal. This would then lead to the lie that says “Eve conceived Adam” or “Mary conceived Jesus.” The Catholic Church teaches that “Mary is the Holy Spirit and that he can only work through her.”
Pope John Paul II gave a speech in Lithuania in 1993 revealing that the Catholic Church believes Mary is the Holy Spirit!
Time Magazine comments in September 1993’s issue:
“According to modern Popes” Mary is “the Queen of the Universe, Queen of Heaven, Seat of Wisdom…..”
In the Pope’s September 1993 speech in Lithuania, he spoke of Mary as “Mother of the Church, Queen of the Apostles, and dwelling place of the Trinity!” Pope John Paul finalized his speech by saying, “To Mary I entrust all of you….”
His final petition was a prayer to Mary:
“Hail, holy Queen of heaven, Mother of Mercy! Our life, our sweetness, and our hope! To you do we cry, poor banished children of Eve; to you do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping, in this valley of tears. Turn, then most gracious Advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us: and after this our exiles show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus: O clement, loving sweet Virgin Mary.”
This statement is blasphemy!
Qolasiym (Colossians) 3:4 declares that Yahuwshuwa Messiah is our life---not Mary!
1st Yahuwchanon (John) 2:1 declares that Yahuwshuwa alone is our Advocate with the Father!
According to the Roman Catholic Church, Mary has replaced the Holy Spirit as teacher, guide and advocate!
Now we can understand why Paul had to go to such great lengths to deprogram the way that the Ephesians were taught. He had to re-establish the order of things that had been perverted by the Babylonian Mystery Religion of Diana Artemis. You can imagine how these women were treating their husbands and how it affected the entire family.
The answer to “female dominance” is not “male dominance” which only continues to keep the “enmity” between male and female. For this reason Sha’uwl stated in Galatians 3:28 “there is neither male nor female… for we are one in Messiah.”
Nobody likes to be dominated by another human being. In a marriage relationship wives are commanded to submit to their own husbands, because in the unique relationship of marriage, this is a picture of Messiah and his bride. The wife submits to her own husband, voluntarily (of her own freewill). If she is made to submit by brute force, then it is not submission on her part. She would then be doing it out of fear rather than love. That is why Paul commands wives to do the submitting. You will notice that Paul never said “husbands, make your wives submit to you.” His command is directed at wives, not husbands, and he is telling wives to submit to their OWN husbands:
Ephsiym (Ephesians) 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands as unto YHWH.
Nobody likes to be dominated by another human being. In a marriage relationship wives are commanded to submit to their own husbands, because in the unique relationship of marriage, this is a picture of Messiah and his bride. The wife submits to her own husband, voluntarily (of her own freewill). If she is made to submit by brute force, then it is not submission on her part. She would then be doing it out of fear rather than love. That is why Paul commands wives to do the submitting. You will notice that Paul never said “husbands, make your wives submit to you.” His command is directed at wives, not husbands, and he is telling wives to submit to their OWN husbands:
Ephsiym (Ephesians) 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands as unto YHWH.
Ephsiym (Ephesians) 5:24 Therefore as the congregation is subject unto Messiah, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
Qolasiym (Colossians) 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands as it is fit in YHWH.
At this website, more information can be gleaned about this female dominance cult at Ephesus:
At this website, more information can be gleaned about this female dominance cult at Ephesus:
Did Paul Silence Women in the Congregations?
Some people read the following verses without reading the entire letter to the Corinthian Assembly to understand what Paul was saying and they form a doctrine out of these next two verses:
1st Qorintiym (Corinthians) 14:
34 Let your women keep silence in the congregations: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also says the law.
35 And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the assembly.
One explanation that I have found during my research reveals that Paul’s statement in verse 1st Corinthians 14:34 was originally in quotation marks, because he was quoting from the Talmud (not the Mosaic Law or Towrah). Paul was correcting the thinking of these men in this congregation who had written to him in a letter and they were asking him about this law in the Talmud. Paul was quoting it right back to them and then he followed up by asking them this question: “What! Was it from you that the Word of Elohiym first went forth? Or has it come to you only?”
What person receives a 10-page letter in the mail, and then skips to the 5th page and then reads 2 lines from the letter and forms a conclusion from those 2 lines without reading the entire letter? No person in their right mind does this.
Firstly, Sha’uwl (Paul) was addressing this problem that they were having with disruptions and disorderly conduct in the congregations. It was not only the women who were being disruptive, but some of the men were as well. We know this from the previous verses in 1st Qorintiym (Corinthians) 14:1-33.
In those days and in that culture, the women and the men were segregated so that the women sat on one side of the congregation and the men on the other. One explanation that I have read is that some of these women were shouting across the room to their husbands asking them what the congregation leader was teaching about. In this explanation, it would seem that Sha’uwl was telling these certain women to “keep silence” and to ask their husbands at home.
In those days and in that culture, the women and the men were segregated so that the women sat on one side of the congregation and the men on the other. One explanation that I have read is that some of these women were shouting across the room to their husbands asking them what the congregation leader was teaching about. In this explanation, it would seem that Sha’uwl was telling these certain women to “keep silence” and to ask their husbands at home.
But how can we be sure that Sha’uwl was not forming a doctrine against women teaching in the assembly? Well, because it would be in direct contradiction to what he says in 1st Corinthians 11:5 concerning women having their head covered when they pray or prophesy.
So what was Paul talking about? Obviously he knew that women would be allowed to “prophesy” in the assembly, so long as her “head” is covered. But this does not necessarily mean a literal veil or a head covering. The veil is an outward symbol of being under the authority (covering) of her husband and her Messiah. Paul goes on to say that a woman’s hair serves as her covering. He says that if she does not have her head covered (in other words, she is under authority), let her head be shaven. Why does he say this?
Because pagan temple prostitutes would shave their heads and this was a shameful thing for a woman to do. And so if a woman is not under the authority (covering) of her husband and Messiah himself, she should have her head shaven like a temple prostitute to show that she is not under authority. But if she has long hair, this serves as a symbol of her being under authority. Are women allowed to prophesy or teach in the assembly, so long as her “head” is covered (meaning that she is under authority?) Yes, she is!
Should a woman wear a literal head covering as an outward sign that she is under her husband’s authority and the authority of her Messiah? I believe that it is optional, but there is no direct commandment in the Towrah telling a woman that she must wear a literal head covering. Some people take the following verse to be about a literal head covering. However, when we read the entire chapter, we understand that Paul is speaking about being under authority. So let us examine the verse in question:
1st Qorintiym (Corinthians) 11:5 But every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head (kephale): for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
The Greek word for “prophesy” here is:
#4395. propheteuo: prof-ate-yoo’-o from 4396; to foretell events, divine, speak under inspiration, exercise the prophetic office:--prophesy; to teach, refute, reprove, admonish, comfort others, to act as a prophet, discharge the prophetic office.
This means that a woman may speak under divine inspiration so long as she is under the authority of her husband and her Messiah,Yahuwshuwa.
If a woman is not under the authority of her husband and Messiah, she is dishonoring “her head” or her earthly husband and her Messiah.
It is necessary for a woman to wear a literal head covering as the Apostle Paul was using the word “head” (kephale) as a metaphor of the husband of the woman. How do we know? Well, in Ephesians 5:23, the Greek word for “head” is as follows:
Strong’s #G2776 – kephalē: the head, both of men and often of animals. Since the loss of the head destroys life, this word is used in the phrases relating to capital and extreme punishment; metaphor of anything supreme, chief, prominent; of persons, master lord: of a husband in relation to his wife; of Christ: the Lord of the husband and of the Church; of things: the corner stone.
Ephsiym (Ephesians) 5:23 For the husband is the head (kephale) of the wife, even as Messiah is the head (kephale) of the assembly: and he is the saviour of the body.
As you can see, this word kephale can be used as a metaphor to describe the headship of the husband over the wife. It does not necessarily always pertain to a literal skull.
1st Qorintiym (Corinthians) 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Messiah; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Messiah is Elohiym.
When Sha’uwl speaks of a woman having her “head” covered, the head he is referring to is her husband, not her literal head:
1st Qorintiym (Corinthians) 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonours his head.
In Revelation 2:15, Yahuwshuwa told us that he “Hates the Doctrine of the Nicolaitans.” This is the doctrine where people subjugate themselves to another authority, a pastor or a rabbi instead of Messiah. When a man-made institution or a man-made doctrine attempts to usurp the authority of Messiah in the life of the believer, this is called the “Doctrine of the Nicolaitanes.” Sha’uwl (Paul) was warning every man not to dishonor his Messiah (his head) by placing another man over himself as his head. Similarly, he was telling every woman not to dishonor her head by coming out from her husband’s authority, which would disqualify her from being allowed to pray or prophesy in a worthy manner.
The Corinthians were setting up denominational heads over themselves instead of Messiah:
1st Qorintiym (Corinthians) 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you says, I am of Sha’uwl (Paul); and I of Apollos; and I of Keefa (Cephas); and I of Messiah.
1st Qorintiym (Corinthians) 3:4 For while one says, I am of Sha’uwl (Paul); and another, I am of Apollos; are you not carnal?
This is why Sha’uwl said that a man should not “cover his head” meaning that he should be directly under his Messiah and not under a man-made doctrine or institution.
The woman’s “head” is her husband and she should be under her husband’s covering when she prays or prophesies. Since I am unmarried, my Messiah is my husband, and I am under his authority.
I wear a tallit (prayer shawl)-- not because I think it makes me more holy nor does it make me appear more “Jewish.” I wear one when I pray because I want to remind myself that I am under Messiah’s authority. But Paul says that a woman’s hair is given to her as a covering, so I believe this is sufficient.
1st Qorintiym (Corinthians) 11:
5 But every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of Elohiym: but the woman is the glory of the man.
This verse is not making a case against men wearing head coverings or or hats. Why would Sha’uwl (Paul) be condemning head coverings for men, if Towrah commands the priests wear them? (See Exodus 28:4, 28:37, 28:39, 29:6,39:28, 39:31, Leviticus 8:9, 16:4, Zechariah 3:5). In these verses, the Hebrew word for “mitre” is as follows:
#4701 mitsnepheth mits-neh’-feth from 6801; a tiara, i.e. official turban (of a king or high priest):--diadem, mitre.
It is obvious now that Sha’uwl was talking about a man not covering his “head” by allowing an earthly leader to usurp the authority of Messiah in his life. See my other article entitled:
The Restoration of All Things
From the beginning, YaHuWaH created male and female to work together in marriage as partners:
Bereshiyth (Genesis) 2:18 And YHWH Elohiym said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make a helper for him.
The Hebrew word for “helper” in this passage is:
#5828 `ezer ay’-zer from 5826; aid:--help.
#5826 `azar aw-zar’ a primitive root; to surround, i.e. protect or aid:--help, succour.
In Hebrew “for him” is seen below:
#5048 neged neh’-ghed from 5046; a front, i.e. part opposite; specifically a counterpart, or mate.
The dictionary defines the word “succor” as “a person that gives help, relief or aid especially in times of difficulty.” In other words, a wife is meant to be her husband’s battle partner, not his slave.
After the fall in the Garden of Eden, both male and female were placed under certain curses. To the man was given the curse of working hard with very little yield for his work and labor (Genesis 3:17). The woman was given the curse of having intense pain during child-birth and her husband would rule over her (Genesis 3:16). But in Deuteronomy 28, when the Towrah was given to the nation of Yisra’el, the promise of blessings rather than curses was given to those who obey. Here, YaHuWaH was beginning to restore mankind from the curses if we would only obey his voice. At Messiah’s first coming, his purpose was to begin the “restoration of all things” since the time of the fall:
Ma’aseh Schlichiym (Acts) 3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which Elohiym has spoken by the mouth of all his qadowsh (holy) prophets since the world began.
In the Greek Concordance, the word “restitution” is as follows:
Strong’s Concordance #605 – apokatastasis: restoration; of a true theocracy; of the perfect state before the fall.
In the days when Sha’uwl wrote 1st Corinthians 14, many women were unable to read or write for the most part. Men were allowed to go to school to learn the scriptures but women stayed at home and took care of the children and did housework. Women often-times took much abuse from men in those days because they were treated as substandard and the men looked down upon the women by treating them as property instead of as human beings.
But Yahuwshuwa changed all of that by making both male and female of the same joint heirs to the covenant promises with him, to include working for the kingdom of heaven. Husbands are now commanded to treat their wives as joint-heirs in the kingdom so that their prayers will be answered:
1st Keefa (Peter) 3:7 Likewise, you husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
The Resurrection Reversed the Curses Upon Adam & Eve
It all began when Chawah (Eve) listened and obeyed the adversary, ha’Satan. Eve listened to the lies of the enemy, and thus, she ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. She in turn repeated those lies to her husband, convincing him to obey the voice of the serpent, rather than YaHuWaH. As a result, Adam was cursed for hearkening (listening) to his wife:
Bereshiyth (Genesis 3:7) And unto Adam he said, Because you have hearkened unto the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree, of which I commanded you, saying, You shall not eat of it: cursed is the ground for your sake; in sorrow shall you eat of it all the days of your life;
However, only 18 chapters later, we see that YaHuWaH commands Abraham to hearken (listen) to his wife Sarah:
Bereshiyth (Genesis) 21:12 And Elohiym said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in your sight because of the lad, and because of your bondwoman; in all that Sarah has said unto you, hearken unto her voice; for in Yitzchaq (Isaac) shall your seed be called.
Bereshiyth (Genesis) 21:12 And Elohiym said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in your sight because of the lad, and because of your bondwoman; in all that Sarah has said unto you, hearken unto her voice; for in Yitzchaq (Isaac) shall your seed be called.
What Was Happening Here?
When the woman obeyed the voice of the adversary, (and she influenced her husband in a bad way), both of them were cursed.
When Sarah obeyed the voice of YaHuWaH, (and in turn influenced Abraham to do the same), they were both blessed.
The curse began with disobedience the woman. However, the reversal of that curse began with obedience of the woman!
When Sarah obeyed the voice of YaHuWaH, (and in turn influenced Abraham to do the same), they were both blessed.
The curse began with disobedience the woman. However, the reversal of that curse began with obedience of the woman!
The curse of Adam & Eve was beginning to be reversed when the “son of promise” was given to Abraham & Sarah as a result of their faith and obedience!
Similarly, we see that the women who visited the tomb of our Messiah, were commanded by him to tell the other disciples what they had witnessed.
In this thesis by Richard Bauckham entitled “The Women at the Tomb: The Credibility of their Story,” (Laing Lecture London Bible College), we read:
According to Luke 24:10-11, when the women returning from the tomb report to the apostles the message of the angels to the effect that Yahuwshuwa has risen from the dead, ‘these words seemed to them to be nonsense, and they did not believe them’ (24:11).
The longer Ending of Mark says the same of Mary Magdalene’s report that she has seen the risen Messiah (16:11).
The Epistle of the Apostles, in a free retelling of the stories, has Yahuwshuwa send two of the women in turn to tell the eleven disciples that he has risen from the dead. Each time they fail to believe. “What have we to do with you, O woman? He that is dead and buried, can he then live?” they scornfully respond.
Do these accounts imply simply that the content of the message the women bring is incredible, or does the gender of the messengers compound the incredibility of their message? Are the men disinclined to take such reports seriously because they are brought to them by women?
“What have we to do with you, O woman?” - seem a fairly strong hint that gender is not irrelevant here.
It is nothing short of a phenomenon that our Messiah entrusted females to give witness of his resurrection, and then, he furthermore commands them to testify to the men!
In the same way that Sarah’s credibility was restored when she gave birth to a promised son, so these women at the tomb now had credibility, because they gave birth to the promise of a resurrected Messiah!
This is why Sha’uwl (Paul) ends 1st Timothy 2:15 with this statement:
This is why Sha’uwl (Paul) ends 1st Timothy 2:15 with this statement:
“Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”
The credibility of a woman’s testimony is restored when she gives birth to a promise received in faith instead of lies!
The prophecy of “The seed of the woman” in Genesis 3:15 was a promise to reverse the curse that came upon women because of Eve’s disobedience. In Luke 1:38, Miryam (Mary), accepted the offer given to her to be the chosen one to give birth to the promised Messiah. Her obedience reversed the curse of Eve when she gave birth to the promised savior!
The Samaritan Woman Became an Evangelist
The credibility of a woman’s testimony is restored when she gives birth to a promise received in faith instead of lies!
The prophecy of “The seed of the woman” in Genesis 3:15 was a promise to reverse the curse that came upon women because of Eve’s disobedience. In Luke 1:38, Miryam (Mary), accepted the offer given to her to be the chosen one to give birth to the promised Messiah. Her obedience reversed the curse of Eve when she gave birth to the promised savior!
The Samaritan Woman Became an Evangelist
It is no surprise that our Messiah took time to minister to this Samaritan woman, since he was illustrating his restoration of the entire nation (his bride).
Yahuwchanon (John) 4:
39 And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did.
40 So when the Samaritans were come unto him, they besought him that he would tarry with them: and he abode there two days.
Now consider the dialogue that Yahuwshuwa had with the Samaritan woman. She was a member of the Ten Northern Tribes of the Lost Sheep of the House of Ephrayim (Yisra’el). The Two Southern Tribes of the Kingdom of Yahuwdah (Judah) would have no dealings with these people, because they had been divorced by YaHuWaH in Jeremiah 3:8.
Now consider the dialogue that Yahuwshuwa had with the Samaritan woman. She was a member of the Ten Northern Tribes of the Lost Sheep of the House of Ephrayim (Yisra’el). The Two Southern Tribes of the Kingdom of Yahuwdah (Judah) would have no dealings with these people, because they had been divorced by YaHuWaH in Jeremiah 3:8.
Why were they divorced? After King Solomon died, these Ten Northern Tribes broke away from the Two Southern Tribes of Judah. Under the leadership of King Jeroboam, these tribes went astray with false pagan holidays, offered up to false deities. This is why the House of Judah was not willing to welcome these other ten tribes back home again. But our Messiah informed the leaders of the House of Yahuwdah (Judah) that he had come for “The Lost Sheep of the House of Yisra’el” (Jeremiah 50:6; Matthew 10:6 & 15:24).
In John 4:9, the Samaritan woman marveled that he would even speak to her since the Yahuwdiym (Jews) “have no dealings with the Samaritans.” This woman was a prophetic picture of the Lost Sheep of the Ten Tribes of Ephrayim, and this is why he paid special attention to her. He went on to offer her “living water” in John 4:10 saying to her: “If you knew the gift of Elohiym, and who it is that says to you, Give me to drink; you would have asked of him, and he would have given you living water.”
*Explanation: Why would Yahuwshuwa, (the Messiah) offer this woman living water (the gift of the Holy Spirit) if she was expected to hold it all in and keep it to herself? I mean, what is the point of having a fountain living on the inside of you, if you are not going to refresh others who are thirsty?
Yahuwshuwa went on to explain to her: “Whosoever drinks of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinks of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.”
This woman obviously had a spiritual thirst, for she went on to ask of him the following question: “Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.”
Now, you will notice in John 4:16-26 that he asked her to call her husband, but he already knew that she was living in sin with a man whom she was not married to. He knew that she had been previously married to “five husbands,” which are symbolic of the “Five books of the Mosaic Law” (Towrah).
In Psalm 119:142, King David wrote concerning the Towrah (Mosaic Law): “Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness and your Towrah (law) is the truth.” This is the reason why he was telling this woman to worship the Father in “spirit” (having the living water inside) and also in “truth” by obeying the Towrah!
This woman symbolizes the nation of Yisra’el who had taken vows on Mount Sinai with YaHuWaH; and they had agreed to obey the Towrah! Although she had previously been married five times, (and all five or her husbands were legitimately recognized by our Messiah), she was currently in relationship to a man she was not legally married to! In other words, she symbolizes the entire nation of Yisra’el being married to Ba’al!
This woman symbolizes the nation of Yisra’el who had taken vows on Mount Sinai with YaHuWaH; and they had agreed to obey the Towrah! Although she had previously been married five times, (and all five or her husbands were legitimately recognized by our Messiah), she was currently in relationship to a man she was not legally married to! In other words, she symbolizes the entire nation of Yisra’el being married to Ba’al!
Now he could have shunned this woman just like the other Yahuwdiy (Jews) did, but what did he do instead? He gave her offered her the gift of eternal life so that she could in turn publish the “good news” to others!
Listen to what he said to her in John 4:21-22:
“….Woman, believe me, the hour comes, when you shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Yerushalayim (Jerusalem), worship the Father…You worship you know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Yahuwdiy (Jews)….
*Note: why was he telling her that salvation of is of the Yahuwdiy (Jews)? It is because in Genesis 49:10, Ya’aqob (Jacob) spoke over his son Yahuwdah (Judah) and said the following words over him: “The sceptre shall not depart from Yahuwdah (Judah), nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.”
In other words, the Tribe of Yahuwdah (Judah) were called to be the lawgivers! In Romans 3:1-2, the Apostle Sha’uwl (Paul) also reiterated this truth when he wrote the following words: “What advantage then has the Yahuwdiym (Jew)? Or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of Elohiym.”
What does this word “oracles” mean in the original text? It is Strong’s #G3051 – logion which means “the contents of the Mosaic law.”
Messiah was teaching this woman the correct way to worship by telling her that she first needed the living water (the Holy Spirit) inside of her so that he could “write his laws in her heart and in her mind” as a sign of the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31, Hebrews 8:8-16 & Hebrews 10:16).
This is why he explained to her the true pattern of worship was to first have the Ruwach ha’Qodesh (Holy Spirit) living on the inside and then he would give her the supernatural ability to obey the Towrah (Mosaic Law).
He continued in John 4:23-24: “….But the hour comes, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeks such to worship him….Elohiym is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”
But why was he telling her that worship is not limited to a geographical location such as Jerusalem? It is because under the Renewed Covenant, we are “seated in heavenly places” (Ephesians 2:6) when we worship the Father through Messiah and his blood atonement, therefore we are in the New Jerusalem in spirit!
Then in John 4:25-26, the woman replied:
*Note: why was he telling her that salvation of is of the Yahuwdiy (Jews)? It is because in Genesis 49:10, Ya’aqob (Jacob) spoke over his son Yahuwdah (Judah) and said the following words over him: “The sceptre shall not depart from Yahuwdah (Judah), nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.”
In other words, the Tribe of Yahuwdah (Judah) were called to be the lawgivers! In Romans 3:1-2, the Apostle Sha’uwl (Paul) also reiterated this truth when he wrote the following words: “What advantage then has the Yahuwdiym (Jew)? Or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of Elohiym.”
What does this word “oracles” mean in the original text? It is Strong’s #G3051 – logion which means “the contents of the Mosaic law.”
Messiah was teaching this woman the correct way to worship by telling her that she first needed the living water (the Holy Spirit) inside of her so that he could “write his laws in her heart and in her mind” as a sign of the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31, Hebrews 8:8-16 & Hebrews 10:16).
This is why he explained to her the true pattern of worship was to first have the Ruwach ha’Qodesh (Holy Spirit) living on the inside and then he would give her the supernatural ability to obey the Towrah (Mosaic Law).
He continued in John 4:23-24: “….But the hour comes, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeks such to worship him….Elohiym is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”
But why was he telling her that worship is not limited to a geographical location such as Jerusalem? It is because under the Renewed Covenant, we are “seated in heavenly places” (Ephesians 2:6) when we worship the Father through Messiah and his blood atonement, therefore we are in the New Jerusalem in spirit!
Then in John 4:25-26, the woman replied:
“I know that Mashiyach comes, which is called Messiah: when he is come, he will tell us all things.”
Now what he says to this woman next absolutely blows my mind, because he revealed his true identity to her as the Messiah, yet he would not reveal himself to the religious male leaders of the Jewish Sanhedrin! He replied to her with the following words: “I that speak unto you am he!”
Now what is this woman supposed to do with this encounter that she just had with the Creator of the Universe? Is she supposed to keep silent?
In Luke 19:38-40, the multitudes were crying out “Blessed be the King that comes in the name of YaHuWaH: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest!” But some of the Pharisees asked him to silence them. And what did our Messiah say to these Pharisees? He answered them “I tell you that if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out!”
Now if stones (which are inanimate objects) are allowed to cry out to proclaim the King of Kings, why should women (human souls with the very breath of YaHuWaH) keep silent?
Why Didn’t Messiah Silence the Samaritan Woman?
This account of the Samaritan woman being sent by our Messiah to testify would seem to contradict what Sha’uwl commanded in 1st Corinthians 14:34 concerning women keeping silent in the congregations. But if we read the entire letter of 1st Corinthians in context and more specifically chapter 14, Sha’uwl is addressing this problem of people speaking out of turn as there was much confusion in the services. He is laying out the guide-lines for giving prophecy and sharing revelation in the previous verses:
Why Didn’t Messiah Silence the Samaritan Woman?
This account of the Samaritan woman being sent by our Messiah to testify would seem to contradict what Sha’uwl commanded in 1st Corinthians 14:34 concerning women keeping silent in the congregations. But if we read the entire letter of 1st Corinthians in context and more specifically chapter 14, Sha’uwl is addressing this problem of people speaking out of turn as there was much confusion in the services. He is laying out the guide-lines for giving prophecy and sharing revelation in the previous verses:
1st Qorintiym (Corinthians) 14:
27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the congregation; and let him speak to himself, and to Elohiym.
29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
30 If anything be revealed to another that sits by, let the first hold his peace.
31 For you may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
33 For Elohiym is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all congregations of the saints.
Sha’uwl was obviously addressing this problem with people talking out of turn, and this is the reason why some of the Corinthian men wrote to Paul questioning him about the Talmudic law which forbade women to speak in the assembly. There may have been certain disruptive women as well as men whom Paul was addressing, in his letter. But he was by no means agreeing with these men who had written to him about the Talmudic law forbidding women to speak in the assembly.
In those days in Jerusalem, the women sat across the room segregated from the men due to the “Law of Niddah” for when a woman was on her menstruation cycle. See my other article entitled “What is the Law of Niddah?”
The women would remain segregated from the men, also due to the fact that they were often-times breast-feeding the babies and they had to cover themselves. One theory that I have heard, purports that the women would shout across the room to their husbands, and this became a problem.
In those days in Jerusalem, the women sat across the room segregated from the men due to the “Law of Niddah” for when a woman was on her menstruation cycle. See my other article entitled “What is the Law of Niddah?”
The women would remain segregated from the men, also due to the fact that they were often-times breast-feeding the babies and they had to cover themselves. One theory that I have heard, purports that the women would shout across the room to their husbands, and this became a problem.
At first, I found it difficult to believe that these women would be doing such a thing, when it was already the cultural norm via the Talmud to silence women in the Synagogues. If women were shouting across the room to their husbands, this would have been considered socially unacceptable. However, because Paul wrote his admonition to the Corinthians, (who were not accustomed to Talmudic laws), it is plausible that women were behaving this way, and it needed to be addressed.
When a woman is asked by a Pastor or an Apostle to get up and speak or testify, then she has the validation or the ordination of the man in office do to so, and therefore she is not causing disruption or confusion. This is why Sha’uwl (Paul) was asking the congregations to help Phoebe, Euodias, and Syntyche in their ministries of preaching the besowrah (gospel). Was he telling these women to keep silent? No! Why not? Because he was not building a doctrine against women speaking in 1st Corinthians 14:34.
All throughout the Scriptures, women have been given leadership roles by whom? Men! It is the men who ordained women into their positions of leadership, just as Barak ordained Deborah as chief commander of his army. And Sha’uwl (Paul) was not doing anything out of character from the Towrah by ordaining these women and asking the congregations to assist them in ministry. You will note that the Apostle Sha’uwl (Paul) was giving certain women his “stamp of approval” for ministry as seen by some of the examples below.
When a woman is asked by a Pastor or an Apostle to get up and speak or testify, then she has the validation or the ordination of the man in office do to so, and therefore she is not causing disruption or confusion. This is why Sha’uwl (Paul) was asking the congregations to help Phoebe, Euodias, and Syntyche in their ministries of preaching the besowrah (gospel). Was he telling these women to keep silent? No! Why not? Because he was not building a doctrine against women speaking in 1st Corinthians 14:34.
All throughout the Scriptures, women have been given leadership roles by whom? Men! It is the men who ordained women into their positions of leadership, just as Barak ordained Deborah as chief commander of his army. And Sha’uwl (Paul) was not doing anything out of character from the Towrah by ordaining these women and asking the congregations to assist them in ministry. You will note that the Apostle Sha’uwl (Paul) was giving certain women his “stamp of approval” for ministry as seen by some of the examples below.
Examples of Female Leaders in the Bible
The Female Apostle Junia:
Romiym (Romans) 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Messiah before me.
The Female Disciple Tabitha/Dorcas:
Ma’aseh Shlichiym (Acts) 9:36 Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Dorcas: this woman was full of good works and almsdeeds which she did.
The Deaconess Phoebe:
Romiym (Romans) 16:
1 I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the congregation in Cenchrea,
2 that you may receive her in YHWH in a manner worthy of the qadowshiym (saints), and assist her in whatever business she has need of you; for indeed she has been a helper of many and of myself also.
Female Evangelists Eudodias & Syntyche:
Philippians 4:
2 I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in YHWH.
3 And I intreat you also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the besowrah (gospel), with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.
The Prophetess Channah (Anna)
36 And there was one Channah (Anna), a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity;
37 And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years (84 years old), which departed not from the temple, but served Elohiym with fastings and prayers night and day.
38 And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto YHWH, and spoke of him to all them that looked for redemption in Yerushalayim (Jerusalem).
*Note: You will notice that this elderly woman had no earthly husband as her covering and yet she spoke to “ALL” not just women and children! In other words, Channah (Anna) also spoke to men and preached the word of YaHuWaH to them!
*Note: You will notice that this elderly woman had no earthly husband as her covering and yet she spoke to “ALL” not just women and children! In other words, Channah (Anna) also spoke to men and preached the word of YaHuWaH to them!
The Prophetess Deborah
Shophetiym (Judges) 4:4 And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Yisra’el at that time.
Shophetiym (Judges) 5:7 The inhabitants of the villages ceased, they ceased in Yisra’el, until that I Deborah arose, that I arose a mother in Yisra’el.
Deborah the prophetess was called by YaHuWaH to lead a 10,000-man army!
The following is a Bible Commentary about Deborah:
http://www.usnews.com/news/religion/articles/2008/01/25/as-a-military-leader-deborah-is-a-rare-biblical-character
In answering the call, Deborah became a singular biblical figure: a female military leader. She recruited a man, the general Barak, to stand by her side, telling him Elohiym wanted the armies of Israel to attack the Canaanites who were persecuting the highland tribes. Barak was reluctant, and he insisted that Deborah go with him to the battle. Her answer was assertive and prophetic: “I will surely go with you; nevertheless, the road on which you are going will not lead to your glory, for YaHuWaH will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.”
Deborah the prophetess was called by YaHuWaH to lead a 10,000-man army!
The following is a Bible Commentary about Deborah:
http://www.usnews.com/news/religion/articles/2008/01/25/as-a-military-leader-deborah-is-a-rare-biblical-character
In answering the call, Deborah became a singular biblical figure: a female military leader. She recruited a man, the general Barak, to stand by her side, telling him Elohiym wanted the armies of Israel to attack the Canaanites who were persecuting the highland tribes. Barak was reluctant, and he insisted that Deborah go with him to the battle. Her answer was assertive and prophetic: “I will surely go with you; nevertheless, the road on which you are going will not lead to your glory, for YaHuWaH will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.”
So it was an unlikely commander who led the Army to a decisive battle with the Canaanites. Faced with “900 chariots of iron,” the height of military technology at the time, Deborah’s army of 10,000 Israelites rushed down from the hills, clashing with the Canaanite general Sisera near the Kishon River. The “Song of Deborah,” one of the oldest in the Bible, says the stars strayed from their courses and the river washed Sisera’s armies away in a massive flood. The battle was a total victory. “All the Army of Sisera fell by the sword; no one was left.”
Defeated, Sisera fled, taking refuge in an ally’s tent. Expecting refuge from the army chasing him, the Canaanite general was greeted by a woman named Yael (Jael). Sisera demanded shelter and water. Instead, Yael (Jael) gave him a bowl of milk—and a tent peg through the skull.
*Note: You will notice that this woman named “Ya’el” killed the Cannanite General. YaHuWaH used two women, Deborah & Ya’el to take authority over these wicked men and defeat the Cannaites! If all females are expected to submit to all males, then why did YaHuWaH allow this?
*Note: You will notice that this woman named “Ya’el” killed the Cannanite General. YaHuWaH used two women, Deborah & Ya’el to take authority over these wicked men and defeat the Cannaites! If all females are expected to submit to all males, then why did YaHuWaH allow this?
The violence of Deborah’s story is a radical departure from standard biblical themes, which rarely place women in roles as warriors and generals. “Every other instance we have of women acting in a military context is of a woman acting as an assassin, using sexual attraction to lure male war leaders to their deaths,” says Susan Ackerman, a religion and women’s and gender studies professor at Dartmouth College. “Deborah, in terms of the portrayal of her taking the lead as a military commander, is unique.”
Deborah’s story would stand out even without her unusual role as a military leader. It’s essentially told twice: first in a sort of prose summary in Judges 4 and then in a poem or song in Judges 5. The song may be one of the Bible’s oldest texts, “probably composed not long after the original events, possibly by Deborah herself,” writes University of Chicago Divinity School Prof. Tikva Frymer-Kensky in “Women of Scripture.” The song’s archaic language also sets it apart. Ackerman says the song’s Hebrew is as distinct from the Hebrew in the rest of the Bible as the English of Beowulf is from the modern tongue.
The Prophetess Huldah
This women lived at the college in Jerusalem, and the priests and elders came to her with questions, and she advised them in matters of the Towrah. In other words, she was teaching men! As a matter of fact, she was an adviser to King Yashiyahuw (Josiah).
2nd Kings 22 - Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary on the Bible
Josiah Consults Huldah the Prophetess
The generality of the people were hardened, and their hearts unhumbled, but Josiah’s heart was tender. This is tenderness of heart, and thus he humbled himself before the Lord. Those who most fear Elohiym’s wrath, are least likely to feel it. Though Josiah was mortally wounded in battle, yet he died in peace with Elohiym, and went to glory. Whatever such persons suffer or witness, they are gathered to the grave in peace, and shall enter into the rest which remaineth for the people of Elohiym.”
2nd Melekiym (Kings) 22:14 So Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam, and Achbor, and Shaphan, and Asahiah, went unto Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe; (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the college;) and they communed with her.
2nd Melekiym (Kings) 22:14 So Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam, and Achbor, and Shaphan, and Asahiah, went unto Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe; (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the college;) and they communed with her.
2nd Dibrey Ha’Yamiym (Chronicles) 34:22 And Hilkiah, and they that the king had appointed, went to Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvath, the son of Hasrah, keeper of the wardrobe; (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the college:) and they spoke to her to that effect.
Queen Esther of Persia
Every woman who is called into ministry by her Messiah is exercising “HIS” authority under the of Yahuwdah (Judah) as prophesied by Jacob in Genesis 49:10. It is no coincidence that Hadassah (Esther) was from the Kingdom of Judah, (from the Tribe of Benjamin), and she given “The golden scepter” by her husband, who was King Ahasuerus. This means that he handed down his authority to her to write decrees and laws!
Queen Esther (Hadassah) is a prime example of a woman who was given the “scepter” to rule up to half of the Kingdom of Persia (Esther 5:6 & 7:2).
Was she not given political authority when King Ahasuerus extended to her the golden scepter? The prophecy of Genesis 49:10 was being fulfilled through Esther “The scepter shall not depart from Yahuwdah (Judah), nor a lawgiver from between his feet until Shiloh come.”
Even though Esther was from the Tribe of Benjamin, the Tribe of Benjamin was part of the Two Southern Tribes of the House of Yahuwdah (Judah).
Esther was exercising her political power when she made a decree that the House of Yahuwdah (Judah) should keep the “Days of Puwriym” in remembrance of the great deliverance and salvation that YaHuWaH won for the Yahuwdiy (Jews) against their enemies in Persia. Also see my other article entitled: “How Does Puwriym Point to Messiah?”
Shemoth (Exodus) 15:20 And Miryam the prophetess, the sister of Aharown (Aaron), took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances.
The only place where the distinction of male and female plays an important role is in the marriage covenant. Why? Because marriage is a picture of the relationship between Messiah and his assembly, his covenant bride (Ephesians 5:23-32).
Shemoth (Exodus) 15:21 And Miryam answered them, Sing you to YHWH, for he has triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider has he thrown into the sea.
In the passage above, Miryam, the sister of Mosheh & Aharown (Moses & Aaron) is being called a “prophetess” which is defined in the Hebrew Strong’s Concordance as follows:
#5031 – nĕbiy’ah nbiy’ah neb-ee-yaw’ feminine of 5030; a prophetess or (generally) inspired woman; by implication, a poetess; by association a prophet’s wife:--prophetess; one who is consulted for a word; inspired in song.
#5031 – nĕbiy’ah nbiy’ah neb-ee-yaw’ feminine of 5030; a prophetess or (generally) inspired woman; by implication, a poetess; by association a prophet’s wife:--prophetess; one who is consulted for a word; inspired in song.
If YaHuWaH wanted to silence women, why did he call Miryam a prophetess or one who spoke the word of Elohiym? If the Apostle Sha’uwl (Paul) was commanding all women to be silent in the midst of the assembly, he would’ve been condemning Miryam and all of the other women in the TaNaKh!
One man in particular pointed out to me that Miryam became leprous and she was put out of the camp for seven days in Numbers 12:15 while Aaron was not, even though both Miryam & Aaron spoke against Moses for his marriage to the Ethiopian woman in Numbers 12:1. This man was trying to imply that Miryam was punished because she was a female, while Aaron was not punished because he was a male.
I found this man’s logic most offensive because his attitude against the female gender defies all logic. My response to this man was simply this: “The reason why Aaron was not struck with leprosy and put out of the camp is because he had been ordained as the High Priest and if he was removed, then the people would not have had a High Priest for those seven days. Miryam was an example of the entire nation of Yisra’el, and so she was used to show the people what would happen to all who spoke against YaHuWaH’s anointed one, Mosheh. This had nothing what-so-ever to do with her gender.”
Gender Distinction for Marriage Only
One man in particular pointed out to me that Miryam became leprous and she was put out of the camp for seven days in Numbers 12:15 while Aaron was not, even though both Miryam & Aaron spoke against Moses for his marriage to the Ethiopian woman in Numbers 12:1. This man was trying to imply that Miryam was punished because she was a female, while Aaron was not punished because he was a male.
I found this man’s logic most offensive because his attitude against the female gender defies all logic. My response to this man was simply this: “The reason why Aaron was not struck with leprosy and put out of the camp is because he had been ordained as the High Priest and if he was removed, then the people would not have had a High Priest for those seven days. Miryam was an example of the entire nation of Yisra’el, and so she was used to show the people what would happen to all who spoke against YaHuWaH’s anointed one, Mosheh. This had nothing what-so-ever to do with her gender.”
Gender Distinction for Marriage Only
The only place where the distinction of male and female plays an important role is in the marriage covenant. Why? Because marriage is a picture of the relationship between Messiah and his assembly, his covenant bride (Ephesians 5:23-32).
In the parable of the ten virgins in Matthew 25, it is commonly understood that the virgins symbolize the bride of Messiah which are made up of both male and female gender collectively. It would be absurd for people to believe that the bride of Messiah is only made up of females wouldn’t it? When it pertains to the kingdom of heaven, the female role represents the bride of Messiah and it is “she” who brings in the harvest like Ruth who worked for Boaz. It is the “bride” whom he comes for and her oil lamp must be ready and filled.
In the kingdom of heaven, the body of Messiah represents the female gender and the bridegroom symbolizes the male gender. That is why in an earthly marriage relationship the distinction of male and female is still unique in function.
The word of Elohiym clearly teaches us that gender does not matter in the kingdom of heaven except for in the unique relationship between a husband and a wife. In that scenario, a woman must not usurp the authority of her husband. But outside of the context of marriage, there are no gender distinctions:
Galatiym (Galatians) 3:28 There is neither Yahuwdiy (Jew) nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Messiah Yahuwshuwa.
Under the order of Melchizedek, all believers (male & female) are part of Messiah’s priesthood.
1st Keefa (Peter) 2:9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people; that you should show forth the praises of him who has called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
Even though the Lewiytes (Levites) were all made up of males, they are the bride of YaHuWaH collectively (symbolic of the female role).
If a husband recognizes his wife’s gift of teaching and he covers her to do so, then she is not usurping his authority. Even if a husband asks his wife to teach him something for which he knows she is more qualified then she is doing so under his authority. An example is with the case of Smith Wigglesworth, an evangelist from England back in 1800’s. His wife Polly Wigglesworth taught him to read and write because he never received more than a 6th grade education. Since he asked her to teach him, was she wrong for doing so? Of course not, because, she was granting his request.
The Doctrine of the Nicolaitans
The word “Nicos” means “to dominate” and the word “Laity” means the lay people in the body. Nico-Laity means “The leadership lords themselves over the laity.”
Chazown (Revelation) 2:15 So have you also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.
The Greek Concordance defines this word: #G3531 Nikolaïtēs
Nicolaitans = “destruction of people.” A sect mentioned in Rev. 2:6,15, who were charged with holding the error of Balaam, casting a stumbling block before the church of God by upholding the liberty of eating things sacrificed to idols as well as committing fornication.
YaHuWaH Elohiym hates this, because it is idolatry when we elevate one person over another in the body of Messiah. This is why Paul wrote in Galatians 3:28 that “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor freemale nor female, bond nor slave, Jew nor Greek.”
Does Paul Really Believe Towrah Silences Women?
I often will encounter those who would try to discredit the validity of the Apostle Sha’uwl (Paul). One of the arguments that they will often use to convince me that Paul was a false apostle was the fact that he seems to be silencing women in some of his letters to the local assemblies. Of course, if Paul was really teaching this, he would be in contradiction to his own letters in other places, as well as the rest of scripture. One man in particular who is “Anti-Paul” wrote to me with the following explanation of why Paul could not be a legitimate apostle:
“In 1st Corinthians 14:34-35 and I quote: ‘Let the women keep silent in the assemblies. 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 a disgrace for a woman to speak in the assembly.’
This man went on to try and convince me that Paul was a false apostle with the following words:
“It is interesting how he says it is according to the Law (Towrah) which I can find no such ordinance in the Towrah prohibiting a woman to speak in the assembly…”
My response this man was as follows:
“It is interesting how he says it is according to the Law (Towrah) which I can find no such ordinance in the Towrah prohibiting a woman to speak in the assembly…”
My response this man was as follows:
“…The letters written by the Apostle Sha’uwl (Paul), are commentaries to various congregations for various situations, and they were answers to questions that they had written to him about. In order for us to accurately understand his letters, we must first have the original letter that was sent to him by that congregation, and then we can understand his reply back to them…
…But since we don’t have those letters that were written to him in the first place, we have to sift through all the misunderstandings by gaining historical background. We must also look into the original translation of the Aramaic, Hebrew & Greek to find some of the missing pieces to the puzzle. One such missing piece is the fact that there were quotation marks around Paul’s sayings that were removed by the translators, whenever he was quoting the Talmud or the Gnostic writings, which contradict scripture. Paul was attempting often-times to answer a question with a question, and using the quotes from these other sources to explain in contrast what scripture had to say….
…In my other articles, I address the fact that Miryam, Deborah, & Huldah, were prophetesses ordained by YaHuWaH, and they were given authority to judge and teach men. And so, I agree with you that women are allowed to teach in the assembly according to the Towrah and the TaNaKh. However, the Apostle Sha’uwl was not in contradiction with the Towrah. He is often misunderstood, because of translation problems, missing quotation marks, and lack of historical background to understand the context of the letter written to that particular congregation….
…The Apostle Sha’uwl even endorsed certain women in helping him advance the gospel such as Junia, Tabitha/Dorcas, Phoebe, Eudodias & Syntyche. This proves that Sha’uwl was not against women teaching or preaching or else he would not have endorsed these women.”
In addition to this dialogue with this Anti-Paul gentlemen, I also found the following research quite enlightening, and my hunch that Paul was referring to “Talmudic Law” concerning the silencing of women, proved to be correct. Below is a study that was done by Jon Zens, the author of the book “What’s With Paul & Women?”
In addition to this dialogue with this Anti-Paul gentlemen, I also found the following research quite enlightening, and my hunch that Paul was referring to “Talmudic Law” concerning the silencing of women, proved to be correct. Below is a study that was done by Jon Zens, the author of the book “What’s With Paul & Women?”
Would Paul Call the Speaking of Women “Lewd & Filthy?”
A Summary by Jon Zens
July 2007
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).
I’ve been wrestling with the issues raised regarding women in 1st 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 1st 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 1st Corinthians 11.
For a long time I’ve wondered what “law” was in view in verse 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 200A.D. and 500A.D. 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.
1.) Only the Talmud silences women.
2.) Only the Talmud designates the speech of women as “shameful.”
The Talmud Silenced Women
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.”
Josephus, a Jewish historian, asserted that “The woman, says the law, is in all things inferior to a man. Let her accordingly be submissive.”
The Talmud clearly affirms the silence of females:
“A woman’s voice is prohibited because it is sexually provocative” (Talmud, Berachot 24a).
“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 Talmud Called the Voice of a Woman “Shameful.”
“It is a shame 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).
The English translation of the Greek word, aiskron, as “shameful” or “improper” hardly convey the strength of what the word encompasses. The affirmation in verse 35, Cheryl notes, is that a woman’s speaking is “lewd, vile, filthy, indecent, foul, dirty and morally degraded.”
Male and female prophesying was inaugurated on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:17-18). Paul approved the prophesying of women in 1st Corinthians 11:5.
In 1st 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.
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.
This is further confirmed in verse 36 when Paul exclaims “What! Did the Word of Elohiym 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.”
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.”
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 Messiah. The Talmud, on the other hand, viewed female voices as “shameful” and as “filthy nakedness.”
We know that various concerns and questions came to Paul from the Corinthians in a letter. He refers to this communication several times in 1st 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.
Those who use 1st 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.
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).
The Context of 1st Corinthians:
What does the rest of 1st Corinthians tell us that will shed light on these verses?
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.
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:
1:11 – “For it was declared to me about you, my brethren, by the ones of Chloe, that there are strifes among you ...”
7:1 – Paul says, “now concerning the things about which you wrote . . .”
7:25 – “now concerning virgins . . .”
8:1 – “now concerning things sacrificed to idols . . .”
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.
12:1 – “now concerning spiritual gifts . . .”
Other times Paul repeated the Corinthian’s erroneous statements and then proceeded to correct or bring balance to their thinking.
6:12 – Paul seems to be quoting them: “All things are lawful for me,” then he counters with “but all things are not profitable.”
*Note Added by Maria Merola: Paul was quoting a mantra used by the Libertine Gnostics who believed that all things were lawful. Paul was not declaring that all things were lawful in 1st Corinthians 6:12. He was quoting the Libertine Gnostics and then countering their false mantra by saying “But all things are not profitable.” It would be the equivalent of saying “Just because it is legal to smoke cigarettes, does not mean you should do it.”
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 the [Talmudic] law, but under grace.”
The portion in question here, in 1st Corinthians 14:34-35, finds Paul describing in some detail how the gifts of the Holy Spirit are to be in operation in the 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.
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:
“Let the women keep silence in the congregations; 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 the assembly.”
What follows in verse 36 seems to rebut their statement when he says, “What! Was it from you that the Word of Elohiym (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.
Which Law?
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” (TaNaKh) 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 TaNaKh (Old Testament). Does Paul have the right to silence all the prophetesses of the TaNaKh such as Deborah, Miryam & Huldah? Inconceivable!
However, for those who were living according to the Talmud, the law that Paul was quoting from was not the Towrah (Mosaic Law). Remember, the Talmud contains regulations and traditions that had become more important than the Towrah (Old Testament book of the Law).
When Paul 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.
When Paul 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.
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.”
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 (Pharisaic) Law, not hold them to it (Romans 6:14; Galatians 2:16, 5:1).
By Paul’s response in verse 36, he is saying, “Who do you think you are, setting yourselves up to proclaim something as from Elohiym that is not supported by Scripture?”
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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
Women are the Weaker Sex?
I have often heard people misquote 1st Peter 3:7 as if it says “Women are the weaker sex.” But it does not say this. It actually says the following:
“Likewise, you husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.”
The Greek word “vessel” is #4632: skeuos: a vessel, equipment, implement, apparatus.
Sha’uwl (Paul) is saying quite the opposite of what most people are trying to imply from 1st Peter 3:7. He is telling men to honor their wives as being physically weaker, and thus, they have special needs that they must attend to. It does not mean that a woman is spiritually or mentally incapable.
Sha’uwl (Paul) is saying quite the opposite of what most people are trying to imply from 1st Peter 3:7. He is telling men to honor their wives as being physically weaker, and thus, they have special needs that they must attend to. It does not mean that a woman is spiritually or mentally incapable.
The Warrior Bride
If you want to have an accurate picture of what a bride is meant to be (in relationship to her husband), Proverbs 31 has a wealth of revelation. Because of the way that society has misinterpreted Scripture, we have made women feel as if they are meant to be weak and helpless victims. But Scripture paints an entirely different picture of the Proverbs 31 woman.
Mishley (Proverbs) 31:10 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.
Let’s look up the word for “virtuous” in Hebrew to see what it means:
Strong’s #H2428 – chayil: strength, might, efficiency, wealth, an army, ability; wealth; force.
Did you see this, beloved? A virtuous woman is a powerful and mighty warrior! She is her husband’s battle partner!
Chazown (Revelation) 19:
7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife has made herself ready.
8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of qadowshiym (saints).
Chazown (Revelation) 19:
11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he does judge and make war.
12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of Elohiym.
14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
Where has the bride been that she is now returning with Messiah? Scripture reveals that “Immediately after the tribulation,” the bride will be “caught up” to meet YaHuWaH in the air (1st Thessalonians 4:17; 1st Corinthians 15:50-54; Matthew 24:29-31; Ezekiel 37:1-14).
And where will she be taken? In Revelation 14:4 we read that the bride has washed her garments in the blood of the lamb, and she is now on Mount Tziyown (Zion) in the New Jerusalem with the lamb. This means that she will be taken to the New Jerusalem where she will be in the bridegroom’s chamber (chuppah) for literally seven days (just like Leah & Jacob) in Genesis 29:29.
This will take place on Yom Teruw’ah (Feast of Trumpets) as she will be with the bridegroom consummating during the “Ten Days of Awe” (Revelation 2:10). She will then return with Messiah riding white horses with him as an army, changed and fully clothed in fine linen on Yom Kippur for the day of vengeance!
This bride is a mighty warrior who will fight with her bridegroom on the great day of his wrath. This is no helpless bride, for she is strong and mighty as his battle partner. The role of women in the assembly is therefore meant to portray this warrior bride who is mighty, powerful and victorious!
No comments:
Post a Comment