I want to make it clear that posters that I have allowed to post on my blog are not part of my concern.  I have a brand new poster who has not gone past my moderation who is out of order.  I will not be posting their comments nor will I publicly (on this blog) be addressing their issues against other Christians.  This is not the place for this.  I am not interested in engaging those who specialize in threatening law suits against other Christians in order to silence their criticism.  When honest criticism is “answered” by threatening lawsuits and having someone’s biblical critique shut down by their service provider, I will not be a part of this.  I ask you to go and deal biblically with those whom you find offensive and please leave me alone.

Sometimes there are those who try to post on my blog with the thought to hijack my blog for their own purpose and their own agenda.  This is one of the reasons why I have moderation for new posters.  It is extremely rare that I do not allow a new person’s post to go through.  There have been a couple of people who have come to my blog in the past who have been extremely abusive and whose comments are designed to inflict as much pain as they can.  I can not in all good conscience allow someone to abuse others with my approval.  I also will not allow the hijacking of my blog for issues completely unrelated to the purpose of my blog.  If a person wants to come here and post rants against other Christians or issues that have nothing to do with women in ministry or any of the topics that we are discussing, I suggest that they go elsewhere to find a platform to be heard.  I will not be hijacked in my own “home”.

Paula,

I think you made some good points in that we need to give other people and their communication a little more slack.  It is also a very good idea, as you suggested, that we seek first to understand.  If we are misunderstanding a person’s communication, there is no point in switching into an apologetic mode or attacking a perceived “enemy”.  If we would all work hard on trying to understand the argument that is given by a person who doesn’t share our view, then we can either embrace their argument or argue against it in an understanding way.  Often people just end up talking past each other and getting no where.  Why does this happen?  Likely it is because people come to the communication “table” with an opinion that they have already decided is set in stone.  This doesn’t make them willing or able to listen to what someone else has to say.

It is not wrong to have a strong stand on one’s view.  However the more confident one is on their own view should allow them to actually hear what others say because other viewpoints should not be a threat.  And if perchance someone has a point that one had not thought of before and it lines up with the scriptures and it is logical and reasonable, we would do well to humble ourselves to be proven wrong.  Truth should be more valuable than one’s own ego.

Janice,

You are welcome and thank you for sharing an encouraging word with me today!

Christy, welcome to my blog!

Paula,

You are exactly right.  Familiarity of the text is very important.  What I also ask myself is why did God do or say it a particular way.  For example we know that God is omniscient so if he waits until after the wise men show up before he sends Joseph and Mary and the baby Jesus to Egypt, we can know he did this for a purpose.  It wasn’t a mistake or a haphazard event.

Don,

I have never done a research project to see how many wise men there were, but I think that tradition says three because there were three gifts.  Each gift, I believe, had a particular meaning and it was God who moved these men to bring what they brought before the Lord Jesus.  If you know the answer to how many men there were from the text, you certainly can educate me.

When I look at the text I have a particular world view.

1.  I believe that God wants us to know and understand the message he has given in the text.

2.  I believe that each piece of grammar is there for a reason.

3.  I believe that the answer to important spiritual questions are in God’s word and so I always try to remain sensitive to the text.

4.  I believe that God says what he meant and meant what he said.  Yet this meaning will never contradict the context, other passages of scripture, or the big picture of the entire bible.

Often it is hard work to mine all that God has in his word, but I believe that it is worth it for us and it pleases God.

Cindy comment #101,

Amen!  This is the whole thought of this blog, is that we can discuss these issues with love and with grace.  These are fruits of the Spirit that we need to allow to flow through us because we are required, yes we are commanded, to love one another.

How do we show love?  We show it through patience.  We show it through gentleness and understanding.  We show love through acceptance as a dear brother or sister in Christ.

I am very patient, but boy oh boy, I am still waiting to read that “law” that commands women (or all married women) to be silent in the assembly.  We will sure know more about 1 Cor. 14:34, 35 when we find the “elusive law”.  😉

John,

In your comment #97, you copy and paste from a scholar that you say gives an excellent exposition.  This scholar says:

Paul with this explanatory injection states the reason why these women were to keep silent in the church. The applicable teaching to which Paul alludes probably looks to Genesis 3: 16 as its inception. There was something that these women were doing that was in violation of this general law of submission.

Notice the author says “applicable teaching” “Paul alludes” and “probably”.  This is the the problem I see everywhere for those who claim there is a scriptural “law”.  They just cannot find the “law” in the Old Testament.  Without admitting that the only “law”exists in the Rabbinic tradition of the oral law, they must say “probably” because there is no such “law” in the Old Testament.  This author does not state that Genesis 3:16 is the “law”.  He also says this is a “general law of submission”.  Really?  There is no such “general law” of submission in Genesis 3:16.  The word submission or submit doesn’t even appear there.  There is no command by God for Eve to submit and most genuine scholars now admit that the “rule” that God predicts will happen after sin is not a good thing but a harsh and severe domination of the man over the woman, hardly a command by God.

The author says:

The original is literally, “…let them question at home their own husbands”

This is not quite right.  The literal wording is for the woman to ask, to seek to demand to beg of.  This is a demand or a seeking to learn.  It follows then that the seeking to learn is commanded to be done at home, not in the congregation.

The author says:

These “women” were not all the women at Corinth, but they were married women. It is also implied that their husbands of whom they were to inquire at home and not in the assembly were in a position to provide the answers to their questions. Moreover, it is highly likely that their husbands were the prophets concerning whom the immediately preceding verses pertain. Hence, these women were to remain silent or without sound (as opposed to speech) IN THE MATTER contextually being discussed, confusion and lack of submission to their husbands.

This explanation has a lot of problems.  Is he saying that there is a “law” that silences only married women in the church?  That single women can prophesy and learn and ask questions but married women had to learn at home and keep their mouths shut in the congregation?  Where is such a law that restricts married women from speaking in the assembly?  He hasn’t provided such a law.  He also gives the context of “confusion” for chapter 14, when it is edification of the church that is the subject.  Paul was concerned that all would be able to learn, so that all would be edified, not just the speaker.  The context throughout the chapter is not confusion but edification.  Avoiding confusion is listed in verse 33 as the reason that the spirits of the prophets are to be subject to prophets.  The fruit of the Spirit of self-control goes right along with the gifts of the Spirit.

There is nothing in the context that says women were not submitting to their husbands in the assembly.  This is a tradition that is not found in the text.

Lastly the author said:

While I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 is characterized by specificity, women today can also create confusion in the assembly and be guilty of not being in subjection to their husbands by speaking out in such a way to similarly cause confusion. This is the paramount lesson found in I Corinthians 14: 34, 35. However, to simplistically, arbitrarily left verses 34, 35 out of their context and contend that there is contained in these verses a blanket requirement of the silence of women in the assembly is to defeat and ignore Paul’s original application of I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 and make the passage collide with a number of other matters.

This is the problem.  1 Cor. 14:34, 35 as it is without some kind of explanation causes it to conflict with what Paul had already said about women.  So the author adds in a “law” that only forbids married women from speaking in the assembly, assuming that if they speak out they will be creating confusion and they will not be in submission to their husbands.

How does this fit?  For one thing there is no such “law” that one can find in the OT.  Secondly, it seems out of line for Paul to be forbidding married women from speaking while allowing unmarried women to freely prophesy and speak out as their gifts give them the freedom.  Are married women suddenly all disrespectful?  And single women are just fine?

It also doesn’t fit because many married women like myself have husbands who insist that I speak out and who encourages me to do so for the common good.  How would that fit within a blanket “law” that forbids married women from speaking in the assembly?  No matter which way you slice it, there is still the issue of the missing “law”.  Where is such a law that either outlaws all women or all married women from speaking in the assembly?  Folks, it just isn’t in the bible.  But it is in the Rabbinical oral law of the Jews.

The other thing that I notice is that the author says nothing about verse 36.  Why is that?  Verse 36 is clearly worded to contradict what was just preceding it.  What is Paul contradicting and why? If verses 34 & 35 are Paul’s own commands given to him from the Lord, then why would he contradict this command in verse 36?  Here we have the contradictions again that have not been addressed by complementarians.

There is a way to tie together all the commands of Paul’s in the preceding verses that command women to seek for spiritual gifts, and the command for them to use these gifts for the edification of the church.  When we understand the extreme misogynist culture of that day and the strong Jewish roots that some had that demanded women to be silent, we can understand why Paul highlighted the quote from the Corinthian letter and then promptly refuted the demands to silence women.  Paul would not stand for even one minute to allow anyone to silence the gifts of God.  Paul commanded that the gifts be earnestly desired and then used for the benefit of all.  For anyone to silence half the gifts of the congregation because they belonged to women would cause Paul to hit the roof.  The commands of the Lord listed throughout 1 Cor 14 override and refute the demand of men in verses 34 & 35.  Verse 36 proves this case and Paul allows women to also have the word of God “come to them” (allowing them to learn) and “go out through them” as they too minister for the benefit of all.

John,

I am thankful that you are still here.  It must mean that you are willing to try to hear us out.  Coming into a blog atmosphere where the majority believe in women’s freedom to serve without restrictions and serve without having to be prejudiced against their brothers must feel a wee bit intimidating.  I can understand that.  But if we are all brothers and sisters “in” Jesus – the one who paid the price for all of us with his own blood, then we have this opportunity to show some compassion and love even if we do not agree.

You made some corrections here:

What I did say which is correct is that the context of Pauls letter and instructions to the Corinthians was because the church body as a whole were being unruly and disordered in their gatherings as a body.
Eveyone wanted to Prophecy,

What I am hearing you say is that Paul was giving instructions because the entire body were being unruly and the entire worship service was being disordered.  Is this correct?

In looking back through the entire chapter 14, I see Paul encouraging the Corinthians to earnestly desire spiritual gifts.  He then instructs them on the importance of the gifts that are for the common good.  He does this by saying a common phrase “edify the church”.  In verse 5 Paul emphasizes the importance of body ministry so that all are edified.  Up to this point he is not speaking about anything unruly, but only about the importance of all being edified.

In verses 6 to 11 Paul is reinforcing the message that the church is edified by the gifts that are for their benefit – by words that they can understand.  He has not mentioned anything unruly to this point and his message is still about edification of the entire church, not about anything unruly.

In verse 12, Paul again encourages the Corinthians to be very zealous for spiritual gifts.  He isn’t putting them down for desiring the gifts but instead he is encouraging them and it is a command.  But again he notes that the purpose is for the “edification of the church”.  This is a common edification so that all may be edified not just the person speaking.  Paul is not stopping the speaking of tongues in the church, but by verse 13 he is encouraging those who do speak publicly to ask God that their gift may be accompanied by interpretation so that everyone – the whole body can be edified by the message.

In verses 14 to 18 Paul highlights the importance of body ministry so that the worship time is not about only one person being edified by their speaking in a tongue that no one understands.  Again, the common words here are “edified” and the common theme is whole church edification.

In verse 18 Paul shows that his motive is not a personal dislike for tongues, because he admits that speaking in tongues is something that he does all the time, but he moves from personal edification to body ministry by saying that the common language that everyone understands is beneficial for body edification.

In verse 20 Paul tells the Corinthians not to be children in their thinking, but to be mature.  Children are known for their selfish attitude where everything is about them.  Paul is teaching the Corinthians that the gifts are not about our “rights” but about our ability to serve the needs of others.

In verse 22 Paul states the difference between tongues used as a sign at Pentecost (and for the salvation of unbelievers) and its use in the congregation.

It isn’t until verse 23 that we see anything that would be considered unruly.  But notice that Paul says “if” all speak in tongues and unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are all mad?  Paul states a hypotetical situation.  He isn’t saying they are doing this unruly thing, he is saying “if” they did it.  So we can see that Paul is not saying the Corinthians are unruly, but he is commenting on an “if” situation.

Now in verse 24 Paul reveals that if all are allowed to prophesy that this would be a good thing and would convict an unbeliever who came into their midst.

Now we come to verse 26.  Here Paul talks about the entire assembly using their spiritual gifts to teach, give a message in tongues, interpretation, etc.  Paul does not say they are unruly doing this.  He only says that all things are to be done so that the entire congregation will be edified.

In verse 27 Paul does indeed put a limit on the tongues speaking.  The reason is that while someone is going on and on in tongues, people are not edified.  It isn’t until the interpretation is given that they will be edified.  If there is no interpreter, then Paul commands the tongue speaker to be silent since the goal is the same as it has been in the entire chapter – one of full body edification.

In verses 29 to 32 Paul again gives the goal of body edification.  There is a limit on the number of prophets so that there will be opportunity to judge the message.  All may prophesy one by one, Paul says, so that all can hear the individual messages so that all are edified.

The reason, Paul gives is in verse 33 for one by one edification, he says that God is not a God of confusion but of peace.  This is the first and only time that Paul mentions anything that could be taken as a concern about something being unruly because too much going on at once without it being one at a time is confusing and will not edify the entire congregation.

That’s it.  Where are you getting all of this “unruly” stuff going on in Corinth?  Paul’s entire instruction to this point is all about earnestly desiring the spiritual gifts and then how to use the gifts when they are given for the edification of the church.  Everything has been pretty much positive until now with the emphasis on edification.

Now we have an entire change of tone as an entire group (all women) are commanded to be silent in the assembly.  The reason is given “for” or “because” they are not permitted to speak.  The Greek word for permit means to be allowed or entrusted to have the commission to or privilege of speaking.  So women are not allowed to speak not because they are unruly, but because they have not been entrusted with the commission or permission to speak.  Why?  Because the “law” says they are not allowed to speak but are commanded to be put under subjection.

Verse 34 shows that the subjection is in regard to speaking.  They are to be under subjection to the leaders and to the law.  Verse 35 says that if these women are willing to learn, they must ask permission from their own husbands to learn at home because it is a vile and shameful thing for a woman to speak in the assembly.

You said:

He was not giving a blanket proscription of women speaking in their gatherings. He was addressing an out of control situation by the entire body including women!

Where does it say that they were “out of control”?  Are you not reading into the passage something that is not there?  There is nothing about being out of control or unruly.  There is an “if” statement and a caution that speaking one at a time in order to allow people to learn without confusion.  It is all about edification, not all about unrulyness.

You said:

He was reminding wives of their God ordained role to submit to their husbands and not be part of unruliness or disorder thereby shaming their husbands in public!

I want you to take a good look at what you said.  The verse says “submission” but it doesn’t say they are to submit to their hsubands in the assembly. There is nothing at all about “shaming their husbands” here either.  The verses also say not one word about unruliness.  All of these things have to be read into the passage because they are not there.  Why are you adding in shaming of husbands, and unruly women, and submitting to husbands instead of to the leadership and the law?  These things that you have added are not in the passage.

The focus is on a non-permission to speak according to some “law” that they must submit to.  It is the “law” that requires submission in the assembly.  The only submission to the husband that is implied is in getting permission from him to learn at home.  This is pure Talmudic law.  The man of the house – either the husband or the father – held a woman’s future in his hand.  He was told that if he taught his daughter the Torah, it was like teaching her something shameful for her.  But he did have the power to teach his daughter and/or his wife it he chose to because he was the boss.  It was not allowed in public, but he had control in his own home.

You said:

It is utterly ludicrous to say that verses 34 & 35 are attributed to “Judaizers” when there is no context within the passage to even vaguely suggest that!

Here is the deal – I think that we can agree that Paul would never teach the Rabbinic law as a tradition that is binding on Christians.  So if the “law” is indeed the Talmudic law that was demanded by the Rabbinic tradition, then we should be able to agree that these words weren’t part of Paul’s demand on the Christians, but the demands of those who held to the Rabbinic law.

So here is where the rubber meets the road.  Where is this “law” found?  It is easily found in the Talmudic traditions of the Jews.  Is it also found in the scriptures?  There is no way this “law” that forces women to submit to silence in the assembly is found in the OT.  If so, please show me where it is.  It certainly is not found in Genesis 3:16 and this is now being admitted by serious complementarian scholars.

So unless you can find such a “law” that forces submission on women to silence in the assembly, then we must accept that this is not God’s command but man’s command being forced on the Christians.  If it is man’s command, then without a doubt it is the Talmudic law that was being demanded by false brethren that had infiltrated all the other churches too.  Are there any other options?  I don’t think so.

You said:

Just because you have found an oral tradition that discriminates against women under all circumstances does not mean you can shoe horn the interpetation of verses 34 & 35 into being that oral law!

You are right.  Just because this Talmudic tradition discriminates against women does not have to mean that the scriptures could not also have the same type of law.  If this “law” is also found in the scriptures, then we can attribute it to Paul even though it appears to contradict everything that Paul has said up to this point about women speaking in the assembly and all women learning in the assembly (not just at home!)  So where is this law?  Where is the scriptural location of the law that commands women to submit to silence in the assembly?

Where is this law that says that women’s voices are filthy and they are not allowed to speak in the assembly?  I can find this in the Talmud, but can you find it in the scriptures?  If you cannot, then your exegesis has a serious problem.  Now you have a “law” appealed to that doesn’t exist in God’s word.  You also have a “law” appealed to that is exactly the same as the immoral man-made laws of the Jews.  You also have a “law” that is appealed to that contradicts Paul’s injunction for women to learn in the assembly and for them to speak in the assembly.  This is major bad news for you because it is an unsolvable contradiction.

But we have Paul to the rescue.  In verse 36 he uses the Greek construction that would come close to us saying “What!?!  No way!  Who told you that only men can speak (the word of God coming only from men) and only men can learn the word of God (only men can have the word of God come to them)?  Nonsense!  If anyone is spiritual and mature, Paul says, let them acknowledge that everything I have been telling you is the commands of the Lord.  It is the command of the Lord that women are to earnestly desire to have the spiritual gifts.  It is the command of the Lord that women are allowed to prophesy and to speak in tongues and to interpret and to teach.  It is the command of the Lord that women are to learn.  The man-made command of the Rabbinic law are to be rejected as ignorant and not from God.

You also said:

And again in regards to someone demanding equality within a Body, No it is not of God to demand equality, man or woman. Because what they are demanding is fallen fleshly equality. God does not honor a request like that.

Let’s go back through 1 Corinthians 14.  Does Paul say that the body is to demand the spiritual gifts?  No.  But he does say that all are allowed, in fact all are commanded to earnestly desire spiritual gifts.  Men and women are also given the freedom to use those gifts for the edification of the church.  This is not a fleshy thing but a God-commanded revelation from Paul.  God does honor our request as we earnestly desire spiritual gifts for the edification of the church.

You said:

But it is misplaced and when you rely on wronged feelings to drive your theology this is where it leads!

My friend, I think you have been reading the wrong blog.  I have said not one word about interpreting scripture by “feelings” or by a sense of being “wronged”.  What drives the theology here is a whole hearted desire for the truth of God’s word in context and to let go of man-made traditions that are faulty.  When we go through the scriptures verse by verse, the false doctrine falls away as the truth of God has our attention.

You said:

I have no issue with women in leadership, i have no fear of women in leadership, or women as preachers, I know many! But what I do not like is people mishandling Gods word to try and manipulate it to fit their skewed ideology.

That is good that you say you are not prejudiced.  I too do not like people mishandling God’s word.  I have given a very careful verse by verse explanation of the passage in context, so if I am guilty of manipulation, then surely you should easily be able to show me my “manipulation” of the text.

You said:

God’s Word is antithetical to Rabinnical Tradition! for anyone to attempt to use it to interpret the New Testament is Spiritually blind!
I reject your position not because I fear an different “viewpoint” I reject it because it is clearly false,  and it mishandles a passage for a personal fallen agenda.

I have not tried to interpret the New Testament by Rabbinical tradition at all.  All I have done is show the context of the passage and shown the link to the Rabbinical prohibition and then I have challenged you to show me a “law” from God’s word that could fit the prohibition.  So far you have failed to do this.  If you have something where you can correct me and how me my errors, I am willing to listen.  Correct me if I am wrong.

I would also ask you to stop using personal attacks.  You have not shown in any way that I have a “personal fallen agenda” and you and I both know that you cannot read my heart neither do you even know me as a person.  I love complementarians to stop by here to give their input and their thoughts on the text, but personal attacks are unwarranted.  Do I have your agreement to stop with the personal attacks and just stick to the issue at hand?  I have a great deal of patience but I do not want to see others who read this blog hurt and ripped apart by attacks from someone who should love and care for them as a dear brother in Christ.  Deal?

Okay, I will go through your last post as I can.  It looks like a cut and paste.  It is far better to have you say it in your own words, but I will allow it this time.  When one paraphrases using their own words, one shows their own understanding.

I would also like to comment on John’s quote:

“A person who pushes for equality in the Church to their own benefit is doing it from their own flesh and not from a pure heart.”

I agree with what Lin has said.  Not only is spiritual equality given through Christ by the Holy Spirit, but in the church it is primarily for the benefit of the body of Christ, not our own benefit.

We we serve the body of Christ, we are benefiting all.  Paul said in 1 Cor. 14 that all may prophesy so that all may learn.  When I give of myself, I am a servant to all.  We are to meet the needs of our brothers and sisters in Christ and serve them with our gifts.

Can you imagine a pastor saying that he needs volunteers to serve the body.  The volunteers need to serve the body by meeting the needs of the body.  They must give and give and give of themselves for the benefit of the body.  When a few hands go up, will the pastor say to them, “Your hand went up to benefit your own flesh and you do not have a pure heart”?  No, a servant who serves all is not lifting himself/herself up.  They are serving the body with love of their brothers and sisters in Christ and love for the Lord who died and bought them.

What I don’t understand is what manner of logic that consistently questions our motives?  If we would question motives, would it not rather be a question of the motive of the one who stands at the door of the church and will not allow in people who are not of the “right” nationality or the ones who have a certain standard of education or money?  Those who hold people back are not to be questioned but the one who wants to give of themselves as a sacrifice for the body of Christ should be questioned regarding their heart attitude?

Something is not right here.  It makes me think that there MUST be an attack on the person when there is a weak or nonexistent argument.

Those who pull at the apron strings will find an angry response because people do not like to have to rethink their theology when their theology is comfortable.  Five years ago I had to rethink my theology when I was confronted with someone who told me that God didn’t allow women to teach the bible to men.  Is this true?  I needed to find out for myself.  What I found in the scriptures was a whole bunch of contradictions that had to be examined.  Why so many contradictions internally within the passage and with other passages?  Those complementarian scholars who have dealt with me with charity have told me that my exegesis is thought-provoking and my questions deserve to be asked and answered.

Charis, I will have a look at the link later today.  Thanks for taking the time to post it!

I thought the cover was hilarious.  I just heard from Jon Zens today and he is sending me the magazine.  I am going to take Lin’s suggestion and put some links into my post.  Pastor Jon Zens has done some very good work on the hard passages of scripture and his material deserves to be read.  He is also a very big supporter of my ministry and the hard work I have put in on the hard passages of scripture.  He is one of the ones who buys our WIM DVDs in bulk and sells them in his bookstore.  I praise God for godly men who are willing to stand up and be counted.

John,

You said:

Paul is giving instructions and later in the chapter he clearly says:

If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.

This is correct.  What are the “things” (plural) that Paul said ARE commandments from the Lord?

We should have no problem agreeing that the commands from Paul in most of chapter 14 are from the Lord.  What are some of these commands?  The commands are in the imperative and they are “pursue love” “desire earnestly spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy” again “desire earnestly to prophesy” and “do not forbid to speak in tongues”.  These “commands” contradict the command that silences women.  All may speak out, Paul says, and then a few verse later it is written that women are to be silent, and then a few verses later Paul says do not forbid to speak.  What is going on?  Paul has alluded to the letter written by the Corinthians to him and he quotes from the letter in several places.  Look at 1 Cor. 7:1 in the ESV and you will see that they have put in quotation marks showing that they believe this is one of the passages quoted from the letter written by the Corinthians.  The NET bible also has quotations in this verse.  The Montgomery bible has quotation marks in 1 Cor. 14:34 & 35 showing that it is a quotation from the Corinthians.  If different bibles put in quotation marks around what they believe to be the words of the Corinthians including 1 Cor. 14:34 & 35, then it is not a phantom idea to have the reference to women’s filthy speech as coming from the Jews who wanted to follow the Rabbinic laws.

Note also that every place that Paul quotes from the OT, he says “it is written” or “In the Law it is written”.  In each case we can identify the OT scripture that is quoted.  However the “law” from verses 34 & 35 cannot be identified in scripture.  Why is this?  Why is this “law” written as “for the law SAYS” when in every other place where Paul quotes scripture it is always “it is written”?  These are very important questions and they deserve to be asked and thoughtfully answered.

John,

I am afraid that you are protesting too much without a shred of evidence offered.  You said:

Again you are making a declarative statement that is false.

Again “The Law” only refers to the Oral Law when that statement is used in Classical Rabbinical literature and Rabbinical Talmudic law which is based on the Mishna. And the Mishna is based on the Oral Law of the Pharisee’s

You say that Don’s statement is false and yet you ignore the context that proves Don right.  The fact is that the “law” in 1 Cor. 14:34, 35 IS classic Rabbinical literature and Talmudic law.  The key points that line up with the Talmudic law are 1) women were forbidden to speak in public  2) women were forbidden to publicly learn Torah and 3) a woman’s voice in public was called filthy.

Now let’s examine these points from scripture.  Were women anywhere in scripture forbidden to speak in public?  Did the scriptures forbid women from learning in public?  Were women’s voices ever called “filthy” in the scriptures?  The answer to all is “no!”  This creates quite a problem.  How do we handle these contradictions?

You said that these were unruly women that were speaking.  Where does it say this?  First of all there is nothing at all in the passage talking about unruly women.  Secondly there is nothing in the passage that speaks about a loud boisterous voice.  The inspired word is plain talk, speech.  No woman’s speech is to be heard in the assembly.  So for one to get an “unruly” woman in these verse, one must add this concept into the passage.  We choose to not add in what is not there.

When I was in Israel in 1986, the instructor told us that women were calling over to their husbands across the room to ask them questions about what the speaker said.  I did accept this for a lot of years until I did research on my own and there were discrepancies that I could not get rid of with this view.

The first discrepancy is that most churches met in homes not in synagogues.  Secondly Paul had already made it clear in verse 31 that “all may learn”.  There is nothing that said that one may not ask questions in order to learn.  Thirdly, how could Paul tell women to ask questions of their own husbands at home when this wouldn’t work for many of the women?  Many of them had unbelieving husbands a fact that is addressed in scripture regarding how to deal with an unbelieving mate.  Would Paul suggest that unbelieving husbands will answer their wives questions?  And what about those who are not married?  They have no husband to ask.  How would this command work for them?  Then there is the word “filthy” which would never be used of spiritual questions.  How would a question asked about the faith by a woman said to be filfthy?  Scripture never once speaks about questions this way but it is consistent with the Rabbinic laws found in the Talmudic law.

Lastly, and the question that I have repeatedly asked you, is where is this “law” found in scripture?  There is no such “law” that silences a woman in Genesis 3:16.

There are many more inconsistencies too.  Is a man allowed to ask questions, but a woman is not?  Why is only a woman’s voice considered “filthy”?  It makes complete sense if Paul is quoting a “law” that is being forced onto the Christian congregation.  But it makes no sense at all if this is Paul’s command.

Then there is verse 36 which has a disjunctive conjunction which in the Greek grammar means “it is used frequently to introduce rehetorical questions to which a negative answer is expected”  per the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament Vol. 2 pg 111 by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider.  1 Cor. 14:36 is given as such an example and of a double question that we are to understand a negative answer to.  This clearly lists verse 36 as standing in opposition to the verses just preceding.  If Paul is contradicting the previous statements which 36 stands in opposition to, then how can verses 34 & 35 be God’s word?  Would Paul contradict God’s word?

There are so many contradictions in the passage if we take these are God’s “law” quoted by Paul.  But the contradictions are removed if we consider that Paul is quoting from a demand made by some of the Corinthians concerning what they wanted Paul to do with the women.

Now, you will notice that by presenting the argument using the inspired words and the inspired grammar, I did not use prejorative terms like “fall into the ditch” nor did I accuse you of having pride or lacking in wisdom.  These things are unnecessary when one argues from the text itself instead of making the issue about a person’s motives or their soundness of mind.

So, I am still waiting to find out where God’s law is in scripture that silences women in the assembly.  Genesis 3:16 just will not do.  It is not a command, but rather a statement of what will follow from sin.  God doesn’t tell Adam to silence Eve and there is no mention of the assembly in the verse.  God doesn’t say that Eve’s voice is filthy or that she cannot learn in the assembly but must learn from Adam in the home.

This kind of interaction, I think is very good for all of us to see.  This is where the lurkers can see that the argument that we have is based on what the text says and the argument refuses to add in what the text doesn’t say.  There is nothing about “unruly” women nor about yelling and no “law” that the Corinthians or the Bereans could check out in the Old Testament to see what was required of women in the assembly.  God is not the one who silences women in the assembly.

John,

I have to run out the door again for another appointment so I can’t go through all of your posts to answer them.  I would like you to take the time to show how Genesis 3:16 is a law.  What is a law?  How is a law given that makes it a law?  Who is Genesis 3:16 spoken to and what are they commanded to do in this verse?  Is submission commanded or even mentioned in this verse?  What is commanded?

Can you also explain why other strong complementarians have rejected that Genesis 3:16 is the “law” that is referred to in 1 Cor. 14:34, 35?  Do they also have an “agenda”?  Or is finding the truth of scripture a cause to reevaluate some of our misconceptions about a “law” that is never listed in scripture as demanding women to be silent in the assembly.

I look forward to your response.  I think that if we keep this to the argument and not color our response with a questioning of someone’s motive, being that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, we should be able to have a great and lively discussion.

Thanks!

My Dentist awaits me.

73 Nicole,

What wonderful questions you have!  For a 17 year old you show a great deal of maturity.  I would like to touch on some of your questions, but since they are mainly geared to complementarians, I will first see if anyone is willing to engage your questions.  Very good questions!

John,

I think you are pushing some buttons here that are not helpful.  You said:

Only people who have an agenda wish to make the passage appear as if it requires some deep insight to reveal its meaning.

When you say things like this, it comes across as if you are judging people’s motives. Are you willing to even consider that someone might see something in the scripture that you don’t see unless they are mistreating the scriptures?  If so, then there can be no dialog because who could convince you if you have your mind already made up that some one has an ulterior motive?

I think it is much more helpful to discuss the issues rather than speculate about a person’s motive or agenda.  When Jesus said not to judge lest you be judged, he is speaking about things that we are not allowed to judge.  We can work through doctrine to clearly understand our opponent’s view and then lovingly dismantle the view in order to respectfully show a person where they are wrong.  If we judge their heart attitude instead of working through any errors in their understanding of the scripture, we in essence will find ourselves with a wall built between ourselves and the opposition.  Walls divide Christians, while gentleness and respect dismantles the stumbling blocks.  While we work to correct wrong doctrine with a spirit of true love for fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, the Holy Spirit will do his work to open blind eyes to the truth of God’s word.  For those who want to be true bond servants of Jesus Christ we have a mandate for us to correct with an attitude of gentleness and reverent respect (1 Peter 3:15).  If we judge motives, we shouldn’t be surprised when people get upset and judge our motives.  It is a vicious circle.

John,

Just in case I wasn’t clear enough.  Show me the law that is quoted in 1 Cor. 14:34, 35.  Where is this law of silencing women in the assembly given, where is its origin, where is the LAW?

Thanks!

Out the door.  😉

One last comment and I do need to run.  No where does scripture call the man the “spiritual head” of a woman.  The only spiritual head that a woman has is Jesus Christ.  The husband is the head in a one-flesh union with her.

Neither men nor women are to shame anyone in public.  We are also not to shame Christ.  But we are all allowed to speak forth in the assembly and we are allowed to test all things and hold fast to what is good.

Since it is clear that there is no OT law that silences women in the assembly, perhaps you can explain why Paul comes out so strong in refutation in verse 36?  What is Paul refuting?

John,

Now does 1 Corinthians 34,35 mean that women are to remain silent at all times in a gathering of the Church body? No!

The word used in the Corinthian 14 passage is about complete silence.  It is not the Greek word used for not talking so loud but keeping completely silent. Also remember that a “law” is appealed to.  One cannot understand the passage without finding the “law” that is appealed to.  This is an elusive law, because it cannot be found in the OT.

John,

Please show me where the “law” exists in Genesis 3:16 that commands a woman to be silent in the assembly?  The Counsel on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has admitted that there is no such law that could be pointed to in Genesis 3:16.  They are the ones doing the most writing defining what is the complementarian view, so If you insist the “law” from 1 Cor. 14:34, 35 is in Genesis:16,  please show the command for silence there.

Oh, and one other thing, John, you said:

The things he WRITES TO THEM ARE FROM THE LORD! Not from the Pharisee’s fallen and false Oral Law!

This is correct.  The things Paul writes in chapter 14 ARE from the Lord!  When Paul says that all may prophesy one by one, this is from the Lord.  The silencing of women and refusing to allow them to prophesy in the church is not from the Lord and Paul promptly refutes this man-made law that brings a contradiction to what he has already command in the beginning of chapter 14.  The oral law that disallows the commands from the Lord Jesus to be followed in the congregation is to be strongly refuted and this is exactly what Paul does in verse 36.

John,

I am in and out of the office today so it will take me some time to get through all the comments.  I just read your last comment and I would like to correct your misunderstanding.  You said:

To actually suggest that the Apostle Paul was telling the Corinthian Church, a Gentile Church to follow the Pharisee’s Oral Law is ludicrous! It is an insult to the Apostle Paul who stood against the Pharisee’s oral law!

This is not correct.  No one here is saying that the Apostle Paul was telling the Corinthian Church to follow the Pharisee’s oral law.  What is being said is that Paul quotes from the letter sent to him from the Corinthians (see 1 Cor. 7:1) and then refutes the quote in 1 Cor. 14:36.  Therefore the injunction for women to be silent that appears in the oral law is not held by Paul but rejected by Paul.

Those who hold to verses 34 & 35 as coming from Paul himself are stumped at trying to locate such a law.  The fact is that the law does exist.  It just isn’t God’s law and Paul never appeals to man’s laws as applicable for Christian living.

It is a godly thing to refute false doctrine.  Paul does this quite well.  I also do not mind having my own doctrine being challenged, but it is important to properly identify my view before it is refuted.  No one here on this blog has ever contended that we need to obey man’s laws that silence women.  And no one is claiming that this is what Paul is doing.

I hope this makes it clearer and I will be back to look at the other comments later on in the day.

Cheers 🙂

Yalo,
That is a thought-provoking quote.

Lin,
Oh boy, that is a good example of why we need each other.  Some say that “men only” are designed for church “office” (whatever that is), but the fact that God made us different and put us together shows that it is God’s design to provide balance in all things.  No matter how good men are, they cannot provide the balance that women provide.  It is when we work together that we are the most powerful.

That was a good example that you gave of Diotrephes.  Those who want first place, like Diotrephes, are harming the church.

John,

I would encourage you to have a look at the articles on 1 Cor. 14. that I have written especially:
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/09/16/the-elusive-law/
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/09/19/is-a-womans-voice-filthy/
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/09/21/who-dared-to-contradict-paul/

These should help you to understand why we must see the prohibition demanding complete silence of women in the assembly as a demand from the letter written to Paul.  If not we have a serious problem with verse 36 because the inspired Greek contradicts the verses that are just preceding.

Again, thanks for joining the conversation!

John,

Welcome!  Thanks for your comments.

You asked:

I am just absolutely stunned! I dont know how you can attribute that passage to “Judaizers”!

The Judaizers were a problem in many of the Gentile churches and Paul said in Galatians 2:4 that it was these “false brethren” who had sneaked into the congregation in order to spy out their liberty in Christ in order to bring them into bondage.

When we look at 1 Cor. 14:34, 35 we should be able to clearly see these false brethren because of the “law” that is quoted.  There is no such “law” in the scriptures that silences women in the congregation but there is a law in the oral law of the Pharisees.  This oral law, now written in the Talmud, silenced women in the assemblies and stopped them from learning in the assemblies.  If you do not see this manmade “law” quoted by Paul (Paul quotes from the letter written to him by the Corinthians – see 1 Cor. 7:1), please do show me where this “law” is in the bible?  Those who are in the Christian church such as CBMW who want to have role distinctions between Christians admit that there is no such law and can only guess at what “law” Paul is referring to.

You said:

“No where in God’s word does it say that man and women are to be considered as equal in earthly roles!”

We are not talking about earthly roles.  We are talking about spiritual equality.  It is all about our relationship with God and his working through us for the benefit of the body of Christ.

You said:

Yes men and women are equal in salvation, and as Children of God.

However I would seriously check yourself and your motivations in trying to read too much earthly equality into God’s Word!

I would recommend that you reread my article again.  The equality I have been talking about is our inheritance in Christ and thus our spiritual equality.

You said:

Otherwise you make the same error that homosexuals make in trying to extend passages far beyond their plain readings to try and say that homosexuality is not a sin.

Thanks for the concern.  This isn’t something that we are doing at all.  We must read the passages in their context, which is something that I had done in my article.  I have taken Gal. 3:28 in its complete context which includes our inheritance as “sons” of God.  Galatians 3 read in context will include Galatians 4.

As far as homosexuality, the scriptures are clear in context, that homosexuality is a sin and that no one who practices this sin will inherit the kingdom of God.  Can you show me one scripture that states that women who teach the bible to men are sinning against God and will not inherit the kingdom of God?

If you truly think that God’s Word infers earthly role equality for men and women then tell me why Paul did not demand that Philemon free the slave Onesimus to be earthly equal men?

Again, we are talking about spiritual equality.  The Christian influence did eventually bring about the freedom of the slaves, but the importance that Paul was bringing about was not the physical removal of slavery, but the spiritual removal of slavery.  Slaves were to inherit with the free men.  Slaves were spiritually equal as “sons” of God just as the free born were.  Slaves then would be free in their spiritual inheritance to use their God-given gifts for the benefit of the body of Christ.  No one should discriminate against a slave because of his earthly situation.  He was as equal to serve as any other free born “son” of God.

However it is not of God for individuals to demand leadership roles because they believe they have a right to equality.

I do not believe that any Christian can demand any “rights”.  In fact our inheritance is the ability to serve.  We are to follow our Lord Jesus into service as slaves.  We are not our own.  We are bought with a price.  And when we serve each other in submission and love, we serve the Lord Jesus who bought us.

I greatly appreciate your comments here and I hope you feel welcome and valued.  We should never fear being challenged on our exegesis or our service for Christ.  Truth is provable and can stand the test.  Thank you for your thoughtful questions.  If I can help you further to understand a side that you do not embrace, I am at your service.

Amla,

Welcome!  Thanks for your comments.

I have not taken John MacArthur’s comments out of context at all.  In fact in my DVD where I refute his exegesis of the hard passages of scripture, I received permission to use his quotes and even gave his organization a copy of my DVD for their review.  I have been very careful to let Dr. MacArthur speak for himself.  In the introduction to my DVD (which can be viewed here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e9TL5TWdac) I make it clear that Dr. MacArthur and other men like him are not our enemies but are our brothers in Christ, but the doctrine in this area is faulty.

We must be very careful to take scripture in its context and not helicpoter verses out of context.  We also need to be very careful not to accept tradition that doesn’t match up with the scripture.  This is where we run into trouble, if we do not test everything by God’s word.  Even a well respected leader and bible teacher must be tested by God’s word.  Paul commended the Bereans for their willingness to check even this great Apostle against the Old Testament scriptures to make sure that what he said was God’s truth.

You said:

Do study 1 Corint 11, go back to the original text, he is not making it up, he is teaching God’s word. I believe God had a good reason for having Paul wrote those things.

I also believe that God had a good reason for having Paul write the hard passages of scripture.  Unfortunately people like John MacArthur mix in tradition with the biblical text.  1 Cor. 11, for example, does not teach that it is shameful for men to have long hair.  Paul himself took a Nazirite vow and this vow says that one must let their hair grow out and then after the vow is completed both men and women who have taken the vow are to shave off their hair.  It is not a shame to have long hair at all and it was something that God required.

You mentioned that you do Precepts bible study.  I love those bible studies.  They are very well done studies by Kay Arthur.  Kary Arthur does not refuse to teach men.  She teaches whoever comes to her studies and she does not discriminate against men.

You also said:

I love knowing that the man is responsible and accountable for his wife…

Where is this found in scripture?  When Eve sinned, God did not call Adam to account for his wife.  Also when Ananias and Sapphira sinned, God did not hold Ananias accountable for his wife.  Both were accountable for their own sin.  It is a tradition in the church that men will be held accountable for their wives.  But scripture does not say this.

My DVD set on women in ministry was given to Kay Arthur’s organization and one of Kay’s teaching instructors reviewed it and said that there was a lot of things in the DVDs that really helped her and would set women free to serve.  I would encourage you to check out the evidence and test it against God’s word to see if what I teach is biblical.  Do not test by another teacher, such as John MacArthur.  Test things by the only reliable measuring stick that we have – and that is God’s word.

Keep up the good work in your bible studies!  The Precept courses are one of the best there is out there.  I have also been trained as an instructor.  I would never refuse to teach anyone who came to me to learn.  I would not refuse to share my gifts with someone because of their race, their social status or their gender.  What God has freely given to me is meant to be given freely to whoever wills to learn.  Priscillia did not shy away from teaching Apollos but shared from the wealth of knowledge that she had.  Priscillia was a woman of God who knew that God does not withhold his gifts from men.  I desire to be like her growing with wisdom and knowledge without prejudice.

Yes, I too think that is amazing.  It appears to me that they want women’s gifts to be used outside the church instead of inside.  Let them evangelize and win the lost, they say.  That is all good and well, but aren’t the gifts of the spirit especially given to grow and mature the church?

Their job as “keeper” of the door to the church unfortunately is restricting the Holy Spirit as they work hard to keep him out with his work through his female “sons”.  Such a shame.

Arlene, very well said!

Yalo,

Good comments and welcome!  (I removed the duplicate comment that had formatting problems)

I don’t see any problem in making men welcome in the church, but I agree that we do not welcome them by forcing women to be silent or remove any sign of their feminine presence.

I believe that the offense is not the presence and work of women.  The offense comes from an ego that harbors prejudice.  I see no need to reward ego, pride or prejudice.  I believe that if we work hard to make church all about Jesus and much less about human personalities and their egos, we will put ourselves back in line to be the affirming and loving communities that we were intended to be.  The cry should always be Jesus first, not men first.