YHWHYahuahWomen speaking in the assembly

Women speaking in the assembly . . . is it proper?

In my view, there is no distinction between men and women in their fellowship with Yahuah,

however as we interact with one another there are subtle distinctions and rules WE make up.

Let's consider women, and what Shaul is accused of saying about them, shall we?

Shaul (Paul) seems to make a statement that sounds very discriminating against women:

"As in all the congregations of the qodeshim*, women should remain silent in the assemblies. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the assembly." 1 Cor 14:32-35 (*qodeshim, "saints", would be all Israel of Shaul's day, who met together to study).

What "law" is Shaul speaking of here? I've not found any TORAH prohibition which forbids women from speaking in a group-study of Torah. Could it have been an Oral Law (Talmud) tradition that clung to this Pharisee of Pharisees? Possibly, but there are more likely possibilities. Every scholar's commentary on this subject stumbles in the dark to find a shred of evidence in Torah against women speaking, so the "law" which Shaul seems to be citing about women not speaking could be a social norm in that time and place. To Shaul (or whoever monked with the text) it may have been "disgraceful" for a woman to speak in the assembly, but he also seems to be using the word "law". The Greek word "law" in this sentence is #3551, NOMOS - and generally is defined as LAW. However it can mean principal, or RULE. In that life-setting, it may have been an acceptable RULE or principle to wear a toga and go barefoot into an eating establishment. That would not be acceptable today, in most modern, civilized areas of the world. It should be clear that people can't pick and choose which Commandment to obey, but Shaul's writings are twisted constantly to say what people want to hear; to negate a Commandment, or make NEW ones. Shaul doesn't have the authority to ADD or TAKE AWAY from the Torah, yet in practice that's exactly what we see people doing with his writings. Someone ELSE may have done this, as we'll see. Keep your mind open to the possibility that monks may have caused certain doctrinal details to appear in the Greek texts, to give their behavior credibility.

When Yahuah clearly declares we are NOT TO WORK, but rather to rest on the seventh day of each week as He rested, many people dodge obeying this and explain it away. But, when Shaul declares that women are NOT TO SPEAK, even though Yahuah didn't mention it, THAT RULE THEY WANT TO ENFORCE.

Here's proof that marriage exists in the animal kingdom:

No one is sure about Shaul's marital experience, but we assume he was single for the latter part of his life. Personally, I'd rather take advice on marriage from someone who has at least been married, and even more preferably from someone who is in a successful relationship. In the Scripture quoted above, "they should ask their own husbands at home", "they" would be women in the assembly, and married in order to have "husbands at home". Shaul doesn't assume that any woman in the assembly would be unmarried if we take this verse to its logical conclusion, yet in other places he clearly recommends "singleness". Taken as a whole, Shaul's advice sends mixed messages (or whoever monked with the text didn't clean up their mess very well). His personal advice can be different from yours, or mine, and yet we can still accept one another. One person may want to wear a hat, another may show up without one - no big deal.

What we have today that we know as the "gospels" and letters of the earliest disciples of Yahushua were all passed down to us through what is known as the "Alexandrian Cult". These were early "church fathers" such as Origen, Augustine, Chrysostom, and many others. It started during the second century with Marcion and Irenaeus. They chose what was "in" and what was "out" -- and they fiddled and tweaked what was accepted, but you'll have to study about that for yourself. From what they passed down to us in the Greek today, which only dates back to the 4th century at the most, Shaul would apparently forbid women in the assembly to open their mouths; I want to hear the Voice of Yahushua no matter who it is that is speaking. Some "leaders" prefer that young children and babies be kept out of the assembly, to minimize the crying and disruption. I vote that we accept all, and let the women speak, answer questions, and live with it -- like the male lion is doing in the photo above! I recognize what men have done to this planet. I also recognize the blazing intellect that my wife has. If I were to have to live without her wisdom, I'd be in serious trouble. This coming August 18, 2006 we'll have been married for 33 years. She learns things from me, however it's a 2-way street in our house.

The best Scriptures I know of concerning how women are to conduct themselves in general

as wives and among the believers are:

Acts 21:5

Ephesians 5:22-28 (probably the very best)

Col. 3:18

1 Tim. 3:11, 5:1,2

1 Pet. 3:1-6

Titus 2:3,4

These were penned by an unmarried man, and yet they are generally VERY good advice. Shaul may have had some traumatic experiences with the female species, because he recommended that single people remain so, as he was. This advice goes against not only the normal pattern of every historical society which have all been based on the family unit, but is also very different from his own culture. Rabbis, Lewite priests, and practically any average man of Shaul's time would have been an oddity (QUEER, FREAKY) if they were unmarried. I'm not suggesting that Shaul was a recovering homosexual, but he had obviously chosen to remain single for the reign of Yahuah - as had Yahushua.

The topic of "celibacy" is against the Command to "be fruitful and multiply", given directly from the Voice of Yahuah to men at Gen. 1:28, 8:17, 9:1, and 9:7. In fact, the word "celibacy" is not found in the Scriptures - check any concordance. If it is a good thing, and Yahuah would have us be celibate to serve Him better, why did He not tell us or instruct us? Those who may seem to read it into what Shaul taught in his letters have 2 possibilities to decide between. Either the idea of "remaining single" was figurative language and simply misunderstood, or it was ADDED by Catholic monks to give legitimacy for their own vows.

Shaul's "orders" to not allow women to speak in the assembly is one that causes a great deal of

confusion, but when we assemble to study together, it's the women that bring the most to the

whole affair. In the context of the verse quoted above, Shaul was discussing the details of how to conduct and maintain order in the assemblies. What Shaul may have meant was he didn't want "women-talk" in the assembly, or the clucking, gossiping, and prattling that often is seen at common family gatherings or social affairs. But, men are equally capable of being "boisterous", so that needs to be toned-down also. Our gatherings are moderated and led, but everyone has the opportunity to speak to the whole group from their seat, as it should be.

At 1 Cor. 14:26, Shaul tells us that when we assemble, EACH ONE has the ability to speak; then a few verses later states that the women can't speak! You can't have it both ways. What if Shaul had said it was his opinion that MEN should not speak in the assembly, but should rather learn from their wives at home? If a woman believer has an unbelieving hubby, wouldn't you suppose it would be natural for her to teach him? We teach our children IN OUR HOMES, as the Torah instructs - yet people often find themselves carting-off their children to hear someone else teach them.

"What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification".
1 Cor 14:26

Here's 2 witnesses from Scripture:

At Exodus/Shemoth 15:20, Miryam "the prophetess", the sister of Mosheh and Aharon, went out before the assembly of all Yisrael with "all the women", and they lifted up their voices in praise, and with dances.

A similar thing happened at Judges/Shophetim 5, where Deborah sang before Yisrael and Yahuah. There are many other examples we could use, but all we need is the minimum of 2 witnesses.

In the final analysis, a logically thinking person would have to come to the conclusion that someone monked with the Greek, just a little bitty-bit. For many centuries, the Catholics purged any scrap of Hebrew they found from the libraries, synagogues, and homes - killing and burning people who had knowledge. The only remaining documents were what they held, written in Greek. Among the thousands of copies of these Greek manuscripts, NO TWO HAVE BEEN FOUND THAT MATCH ONE ANOTHER. There you have it folks. Contradictions and weird policies that don't seem to have any precedents may have to be attributed to manipulation of the text, the "lying pen" of the scribes. I don't doubt Shaul, but there's plenty of room for doubt in my mind concerning the monks and their copying work. They were forced to take VOWS OF SILENCE so they couldn't discuss the Truth, nor what they were working on with one another. The Catholic tradition, rooted in the Pagan fusion of religions, required VOWS OF POVERTY AND CELIBACY. Did they bring these things into the text, or twist out of shape what Shaul really meant? Contradictions don't point to any flaws in what Shaul originally wrote, but they sure seem to point to what was done to his writings later on. Shaul wouldn't have said "each one", then a few verses later say "women can't speak". He knew that the Scriptures clearly revealed this:

"Then you will know that I am in Israel, that I am Yahuah your Elohim,
and that there is no other; never again will my people be shamed.

'And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,

your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions.

Even on My servants, both men and women

I will pour out my Spirit in those days.

I will show wonders in the heavens and on the Earth,

blood and fire and billows of smoke.

The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood
before the coming of the great and dreadful day of Yahuah.
And everyone who calls on the Name of Yahuah will be saved;
for on Mount Tsion and in Yerushaliyim there will be deliverance,
as Yahuah has said, among the survivors whom Yahuah calls.
Joel 2:27-32

Shaul didn't necessarily contradict this, someone else who was "towing a company line" probably did.

Yahushua is recorded speaking to a "Samaritan woman" for most of Yahuchanon chapter 4. If this woman could address the Creator-in-flesh Yahushua, converse with Him, then why do we imagine that women are not able to address others (regular human beings) in an assembly? There is a cultural blockage now, and there was then; notice that Yahushua's own talmidim thought it to be inappropriate that He be engaged in a conversation with a woman:

"Just then His disciples returned and were surprised to find him talking with a woman. But no one asked, 'What do you want?' or 'Why are you talking with her?'" John 4:27 Note the argument below, based on "the body of Scriptural law", (whatever that may be).

Here's a quite simple, and I feel correct, view on this topic from Barron:

RE: Your article "Women speaking in the assembly"

Almost all people lock onto the upsetting phrase "They [women] are not allowed to speak, ..., as the law says", but cannot find it in the Torah. Actually, it says, "They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission as the law says." Submission is the Torah issue here; speaking is the local application. The Torah says this in Genesis 3:16 - "and he shall rule over you." Don't forget 1Peter 3:1-6.

Basically, if the husband instructs his wife to remain silent in the assembly, then it is certainly disgraceful for her to not submit. (Just as we submit to Messiah). If a man allows his wife to speak in assembly, then she can speak freely and it is not a violation of Torah. Presumably, the Corinthian assembly followed some Jewish traditions that segregated the women and children in the synagogue, such that they remained silent (or whispered among themselves) while listening to the men's questions and discussion. Our American traditions are far different since we married folk sit together and naturally encourage each other to join the discussion, and then have difficulty understanding Paul's culturally-distant application of Torah.

I'm enjoying your articles. Thanks.

Here's one opposing view, with my comments following:

Dear Lew,

You say there is no "law" against women speaking in the assemblies. However, I think you are disregarding the body of scriptural law, which makes it clear that a wife is the property of her husband. He pays a bride price for her to her father. She becomes the property of the husband, as are the children of the marriage. It would be very disrespectful for these servants, the women, to be usurping the authority of their masters in public. After Eve was deceived by Satan, God placed her under the authority of the man. A woman's natural place is in the home as homemaker, as in Proverbs 31. It is a shame for a nation to have women in position of authority. It is a shame on a husband for his wife to be running her mouth in public assemblies. No place in scripture is a woman given the authority to give a bill of divorce to her husband. ~ name withheld

Lew responds to the idea of the "body of Scriptural law":

Calling a wife "property" in the way a despot might refer to it

is probably an extreme view of the idea. A marriage is more

than one person "owning" another, but is a voluntary giving

of oneself out of loving motivation. Scripture tells us that the

woman's body is the property of the man, and that the man's

body is the property of the woman. They "belong" to one another,

and in fact are no longer individuals, but the same body.

If a loving, unselfish approach is maintained toward one another,

both will seek to please the other and their joy will become maximized.

If the man is a tyrant, and is offended if his wife speaks to others who

love Yahushua in a gathering, he's the one with the problem.

I didn't buy my wife from her father. If that means we aren't properly wedded in Yahuah's eyes,

are we to go to a man or institution to get the proper permission and their blessing?

My wife came with no "dowry" either. It's a good thing we Natsarim aren't "policemen", empowered

to say who is and who isn't doing everything perfectly, according to the "body of Scriptural law".

This is how the Talmud, and the "traditions of the fathers" found their basis -- interpretation.

Adam didn't buy his bride, but he did make a "contribution" of sorts (his side, or "rib" area).

I can't teach people to obey something that isn't in the Torah, but was

invented by men to control their women or put them in a lower status

with men. Shaul himself tells us that there is no distinction between

men and women with Yahuah, so if they speak it only "offends" the tyrant,

not Yahuah. Why bring women out into public at all? In the despotic regimes where Islamic laws are set up to keep women in a low status as slaves or chattel, they cover them from head-to-toe so as to not see them. The next logical step is to make them completely disappear, and the only thing we'd ever see or hear would be men. That sounds like a real bummer, and a seriously bad plan for society to me. ~ brother Lew

"America -- Freedom to Fascism", a new movie!

Support Torah Institute

WAS PAUL A HERETIC?

THE WORD "CHRISTIAN" What were they REALLY called?

WHAT IS THE "GOSPEL"? The true message is a SECRET

OCCULT HISTORY OF THIRD REICH

WHO ARE THE THE JUDAIZERS ?

Is the author of Revelation still alive?

Q: Where did we get the form "JESUS" from?

RULERS OF EVIL A NEW BOOK WE'RE DISTRIBUTING . . .

JESUITS'S EXTREME OATH OF INDUCTION

ARTICLES
CLICK FOR LISTINGS