Women need to shut up and sit down

Well said, OT. I starred you for your insight. The following has been presented before but I have yet to hear your take on it.

At The Battle Front, Copyright, a Walk Worthy ministry; permission granted to repost in full.

================================================

Our dear friend and brother Jon Zens has tirelessly worked for Truth over the last several decades in order to allow our Savior to set all the captives free, especially women. We at Walk Worthy are honored to join his side in this mighty endeavor. He is a humble, zealous worker for Jesus. His wisdom and insight is far reaching and I suggest you pay particular attention to his discoveries here. Soon we'll all have to answer to Jesus for every event and spoken word in our Christian lives (2 Cor. 5:10).

"APPARENT BREAKTHROUGH IN UNDERSTANDING THE WOMEN'S "SILENCE" PASSAGES, 1 COR.14:34-35"

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 1 Cor.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 1 Cor.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 1 Cor.11.

"For a long time I've wondered what "law" was in view in v.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 200AD and 500AD 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 v.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 1 Cor.11:5. In 1 Cor.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 v.36 when Paul exclaims "What! Did the Word of God 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 Christ. 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 1 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 1 Cor.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.
*************************************************************

In America women are not nearly as oppressed as most of them believe themselves to be, however; in other countries attitudes promoting the "shut up and sit down" mentality have led to a culture of heinous crimes against women. Even fairly recently in Austria there was a story of a 70+ year old man who had built a dungeon beneath his house to keep captive for 28 years his own daughter and had fathered several children by her. How in the world did his wife living in the same house NOT know about it? She was a good submissive wife who did what she was told and never questioned anything that her husband did.

Proponents of Sharia law feel it's perfectly fine to murder female family members who dress in a way you feel is inappropriate, date (anybody not picked out for you to date), etc. They're called by the misnomer "honor killings".





[edit on 13-8-2008 by whitewave]

Whitewave,

I hope you understand that I am not Talmudic...??

I do however understand certain Occult principles whether applied by men or women. And the Talmud is of the Occult. The very thing the Hebrews were told not to get involved into by God. The very thing the nations surrounding them were doing to defile the land. THe Hebrews did these very things and in doing so defiled themselves....just as did the nations who inhabited the land before them.
The very thing for which the Hebrews got involved into over and over and over...and for which reason contributed to their losing the land by 70 A.D.

I do not travel to the Eastl, Up Seven Steps..but I know what it means ..from ancient times unto today.

I do not worship on the hills in the daytime and in the valleys at night..but also know what this means. It is the same with worshiping in the "groves and high places."

You should also know by this that Talmud is a counterfit doctrine..and I know the name of the counterfitter ....by name.

So when I hear of an Airhead like Madonna involved in the Kaballah...which is often applied with Talmudic practices..It is all I can do to keep from busting a gut in laughter.
'
IN like manner I have little use for Sharia Law..nor other traditions of men.

I also do not approve of women preachers...though I also in like manner do not approve of much of what passes for male preachers today. Ive been to way to many assemblys where the service is a buisness meeting ..not good olde fashoned preaching. And these are male preachers...I have no use for this. IT may as well be talmudic to me.

Thanks,
Orangetom

OT, I understand you are not Talmudic and you understand that I'm not really a feminist.

Please understand this, though: If the rules of the "game" are not set up for half the players to win, place, or show then the only way to "win" is to cheat or not to play. Most women, I believe (*warning-opinion coming*) have opted to "cheat", meaning to not play by the rules.

If the rules are to "shut up, sit down, do as your told", etc. then the only option left for women is to change the rules.

You emphasize "risk", I emphasize "options". You stress that women should be willing to take the risks that men take. I stress that women don't have the option to take the risks that men take.

How is it possible for any woman to run a jack hammer all day (or even for 10 minutes)? It's not really an option. Is it an option for women to work refueling nuclear submarines? Depends on the hiring practices I guess. If the laws are set up so that women are only ALLOWED to work in certain (low paid) fields of endeavor, they are at a disadvantage right out of the starting gate. Yet their risks will remain the same. Still have a family to support, still have bills to pay, still have to get their cars fixed or yank that transmission themselves.

When I was in high school I had the option of 2 electives. I elected to take woodworking and auto repair. Both were denied on the same grounds: you're female. So the electives were only an option for the males. (I hear things have changed). I was willing to take the risks but the options for doing so were closed to me.

When I tried to rent a house after my husband left I was flat out told that I would not be rented to as a single mother because "you'll just run off with some man and I'll lose a good tenant". The landlord was someone who knew me for all of three minutes and yet he decided I didn't have the option of taking the risk to support myself or my family.

When I tried to buy a house the termite inspector would not speak to me about the results of his inspection. He kept asking if I had a husband or a grown son or a male friend he could explain it to. He insisted that I could not possibly understand what he would tell me as I was not a structural engineer (neither was he, btw). I put on a pair of dickies, crawled up under the house and yanked on one of the floor joists which came away in my hand. I took the piece of rotted wood to closing, put it on the table and told them I no longer was interested in buying the house.

I could relate 100 similar stories and events but I think you get the idea. I believe that men should be leaders but, sadly, most are not. If women have defaulted to an entitlement mentality, then shame on them. Equal shame for the equally defective males who have done the same.

reply to post by whitewave


Whitewave,

Once again I am watching the clock here. I do understand that you are not a feminist. IT is one of the things I admire about you. Also I know that in your way and hard earned you have a hard bark. No probem here with me. I figure by previousl posts that you have earned most of it the hard way.

I know and am certain that you are not cut of the same cloth as what passes for most of womanhood today. You are also not cut of the same cloth as most of what passes for malehood....little use for this either.
No problem here with me. From previous posts I happen to agree with many of your motives and understandings.

Please understand this, though: If the rules of the "game" are not set up for half the players to win, place, or show then the only way to "win" is to cheat or not to play. Most women, I believe (*warning-opinion coming*) have opted to "cheat", meaning to not play by the rules

While I understand this ..I dont agree simply because this amounts to one talmudic doctrine verses another talmudic doctrine. Both males and females here have deceived themselves about what are the "rules of the game." Also...to me it is not a game at all.

Is it an option for women to work refueling nuclear submarines? Depends on the hiring practices I guess.

I should tell you that the woman who worked with us the other night..crawled down in the hole where we were working and did the readings and documentation on the contaminated samples we took. She was right there with us. While she is new to the task..she is learning...not full of herself ..and most important ...willing to RISK just as are we. I can respect her in this. She is a Radiation monitor...and this job requires a math background..to do complex table conversions...in addition to other knowleges and skills in handling radioactive/contamiinated materials. Her's is a management position ..salaried..not hourly....with overtime. THere are two women like this on our shift.
THere are others but these are the two with which I have the most contact.
However..most women do not go into our side of the house..to phycically demanding....in addition to certain other dangers. To be frank about it..the number of men willing to do this kind of work is dwindling too.

I could relate 100 similar stories and events but I think you get the idea. I believe that men should be leaders but, sadly, most are not. If women have defaulted to an entitlement mentality, then shame on them. Equal shame for the equally defective males who have done the same.

I agree most men are not leaders...but supporters. Little thinking going on outside the sports/cheerleaders/oil shortage mentality.....and you know my views on this.
I dont agree with women or men defaulting to the entitlement mentality. This to me is no different than Talmud.
One earns their way though life or does without ..not defaults/flashdances..their way through on the RISKS of others.

What you and others are describing is a system which will eat itself up..no seed corn left for investment next year. It is barren...souless.

In closing, I take the liberty to requote what I posted eariler up on this page.

A man is not without limits over a woman..simply because of the nature of power and the responsibility which accompanys. For he too in his role needs be a help meet and is therefore not free to do as he chooses.
The structure of the Bible is not socialistic in the human sense but based on an authority structure..and it is not unlimited...in the male/female roles.
It is responsible...to God.

As per usual Whitewave...I must once again make haste...and shove off.
Thanks again for your post.

Orangetom