john

An excellent exposition on 1 Corinthians 14:34,35:

Relative to every truth, there are extremes. Extremes are not seen on God’s part, but they enter in as a result of man. Man’s failures to correctly understand and teach God’s word are the product of many things. Some having a preconceived idea only use the Bible in an effort to support their belief, some approach the scriptures with attendant bad study practices, and some set out to deliberately distort the word of God (Matt. 13: 15; 2 Tim. 2: 15; 2 Pet. 2: 1). In addition to these cases, some verses are admittedly difficult and require extra care in effecting a correct exegesis (cp. 2 Pet. 3: 16). One passage that has certainly had its share of abuse is I Corinthians 14: 34, 35. The passage reads as follows:
“34: Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35: And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church” (I Cor. 14).
On one end of the spectrum, we have the teaching today that women may serve as preachers and elders in the Lord’s church (cp. I Tim. 2: 12; I Tim. 3: 1ff.).
The antithetical position is women are not even allowed to speak in the assembly. We are told that I Corinthians 14 verses 34, 35 preclude even speech on the part of godly women in the assembly. Some present I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 in a way that manifestly contradicts what Paul taught in I Corinthians 11: 4-16 regarding the prophetesses and how they were to “pray or prophesy.” One view is that after telling the prophetesses how to do what they were doing in public places in chapter eleven, Paul now decides to change his teaching and tell the prophetesses to be silent in the assembly. Some have introduced these two texts as an example of ambivalence and indecision.

Others, based on I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 have concluded that public places such as the assembly were not included in the text of I Corinthians 11: 3-16. If this be the case, how could there have been the doing of the same thing and in the same circumstance that occasioned the need for the head covering enjoined by Paul in the case of the prophetesses (I Cor. 11: 4-16)? Could it be that I Corinthians 11: 4-16 and I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 are addressing entirely different people and circumstances? We shall attempt by careful exegesis to ascertain exactly what Paul is and is not teaching when he penned I Corinthians 14: 34, 35.
“Let your women keep silence in the churches….”  The original is, “Let the women in the churches be silent” (sigatosan ai gunaikes en tais ekklesiais). The King James translators infer “your” from the idea of the Corinthian women being addressed. However, it is evident that the women being addressed are not limited to Corinth. I say this based on the plural “churches” (ekklesiais, see also vs. 36). By “churches,” the local church is meant. More precisely, “in a church” (en ekklesia, vs. 35) refers to the assembly as opposed to “at home” (en oiko).
Chapter fourteen of I Corinthians is a chapter in which we find regulation that especially pertained to the assembly. The use of spiritual gifts, especially tongues and prophesy, had a special utility and function, therefore, Paul is stressing how these miraculous gifts were to be exercised. As a consequence, we read such language as, “in church” (en ekklesia, vs. 19; 28). Paul speaks of “the whole church be come together in one place” (he hole ekklesia sunelthe epi to, vs. 23).
Such spiritual gifts as prophesy were designed for the edification of the church and were used in the assembly to edify the saints (vs. 3, 5, 22). Hence, we read of, “But if all prophesy, and there come in…” (vs. 24). To “come in” (eiselthe) means to enter the assembly where prophesy was being done. Paul delineates the protocol and order for the exercise of spiritual gifts in the assembly (vs. 26-32). It, therefore, was in the assembly that these women were told to “be silent.” “Silent” is from the Greek sigao and means, “To be silent” and “to keep silence, hold one’s peace” (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words and Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, respectively).

Sigao is used nine times in the Greek New Testament and always with the idea of silence as opposed to sound (see Lk. 9: 36, “kept it close,” KJV, is from sigao). In fact, sigao is used twice in the context of I Corinthians 14: 34, 35. Paul wrote, “But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church…” and, “If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace” (vs. 28, 30). “Keep silence” (vs. 28) and “hold his peace” (vs. 30) is translated from sigao.
“…for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.” 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.
“And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home….” All were to learn and be edified, but there was a circumstance in which Paul tells these particular women that they should ask their husbands at home. The original is literally, “…let them question at home their own husbands” (eperotatosan en oiko tous idious andras). Hence, these were women at Corinth who had “their own men” and they had, therefore, the opportunity to question their own men at home (they lived together as husband and wife).
“…for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” Paul ends this with another statement of explanation as suggested by the introductory word, “for” (Greek, gar). The question remains, who were these women and what were they doing that constituted a violation of submission and resulted in shame?  The answer, “…they were speaking” is simplistic.
It is obvious that I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 demands qualification and stipulation. In the first place, to take this passage and simply say women are not allowed to speak in the assembly negates the general command to, “speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs…” (Eph. 5: 19). Hence, qualification is necessarily inferred. As mentioned, to insist that women, all women and in all circumstances, be without sound in the assembly is to make Paul contradict himself (his teaching relative to the prophetess, I Corinthians 11: 4-16).    
We have engaged in an exegesis of the passage and now let us look to the context for additional meaning.
 I Corinthians chapter 14 is replete with instructions as to how to conduct themselves to avoid and obviate confusion (vs. 5, 6, 9, 16, 19, 23, 26-31). Paul plainly and cogently informed them that they were to be in control of themselves, even those who possessed spiritual gifts (vs. 32). I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 is sandwiched between verses that forbid confusion and disorder (vs. 33, 40). I, therefore, submit that what these women were doing was asking questions (the specific speaking) in the assembly of their husbands in such a way that both precipitated confusion and also resulted in lack of subjection to their husbands.

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. As to other regulating teaching that is broader in its scope, we must look to such texts as I Timothy 2: 12-15.
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.
 good night!

Let me state very clearly here, I never said that Women speaking in pubic were being unrully in the context of verse 34 & 35.
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, Everyone wanted to speak in Tongues, everyone wanted to interpret and it was causing their gatherings to be chaotic, unruly and with out order! He then addresses how they should conduct themselves in their gatherings and part of his instructions included those to the women of that body, and that is the context that the verses 34 & 35 are included in. 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!
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!
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!
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!
It is a stretch of that passage that goes far beyond logical reason for a specific agenda. A demanding agenda!
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.
Yes there is Spiritual Equality in the Church in Christ, but that is not the same as fallen fleshly equality that is being demanded here. And in regards to the statement that I benefit from the as is, again betrays a heart that feels slighted, wronged and wants justice for that perceived wrong!
But it is misplaced and when you rely on wronged feelings to drive your theology this is where it leads!
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. And thats what is being done with this passage.
Rabbinical tradition is the avenue today that all kinds of groups have latched onto in order to manufacture their very own interpretation of God’s word to fit their own fallen agenda! It is a false avenue and one that destroys the very clear context of passages such as this.
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.
In God’s economy you do not demand! And it matters not the gender of the messenger  in regards to that truth!

To Lin and Don,

you both still hold to a false premise and that is:

verses 34 & 35 are the words of “Judaizers” in the Corinth Church who wanted Women to remain silent in church in accordance with The Oral Law.

Yet the basic grammatical composition of the passage clearly shows that this is not true!

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.

And in regards to an Old Testament Written Law stating that women should remain silent at all times in Church, I did not say that there was.

If you will review my comments you will see what I said Paul is referring to when he instructs the women to remain silent in verse 34.

It is not a blanket proscription against women speaking or teaching in Church ever!

The context of chapter 14 is in regards to the Corinthian church body being unruly and disordered with the “gifts of the spirit” when they got together.

The Corinthian Church had a lot of issues going on that Paul was attempting to address and correct. The Corinthian Church was in many ways similiar to today’s Charismatic and Pentecostal Churches where the people speak in “tongues”, “Prophecy” etc and are very unruly and disordered about it. And many Pentecostal Church goers can be very carnal in their personal lives.

Paul in verses 34 & 35 is reminding women of their God ordered role and place in regards to their husband. And that God ordered role and place is established in Genesis 3:16. And in Paul’s other writings in regards to marriage he speaks of this order.

So again, verses 34 & 35 are not blanket proscriptions against women speaking in Church. Paul is addressing a specific situation in the Corinthian Church and he is giving instructions of how women are to conduct themselves in that situation so as to not shame their husbands who they are to submit to.

And I will also say this for the final time.

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.

God does not choose those to lead who demand equality. God chooses those for leadership who are content with what they have and the position they are in.

The mistake the visible chuch makes today is to assume that since a person is in leadership then they have been chosen by God to be there.

Leadership in churches today owes more to a “corporate” type system than it does to God’s intended system for picking people for leadership.

Paul is instructing them to

Don said:

I agree that “the law” can refer to many things.  My point was that “the law says” refers to the oral torah of the Pharisees.  This was the standard convention of the 1st century to refer to it.  One needs to read Paul with 1st century context.

I say:

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

So when you say the “standard convention of the 1st Century” you are saying the Standard 1st century Pharisaical Oral Law standard and context.

And hence you wrongly assume that all 1st century standard and context was via the Pharisaical Oral Law, which it was not!

Today It is only a specific group of people who have chosen to recast and reinterpret the New Testament via 1st century Pharisaical Oral Law and Traditions, and further they are teaching people this as well.

And it is a false assumption. both Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul clearly rejected the Pharisee’s oral law! to them, in the 1st century,  “The Law” was the written old Testament.

And when the Apostle Paul is directly addressing someone with instructions as he is clearly doing in the passage in question he is referring to the Written law not the Pharisee’s Oral Law which he rejected.

Cheryl,

Your questions are immaterial as you cannot defend the position that the basic grammatical structure of the passage or even any of 1 Corinthians supports the very phantom hypothesis that the Apostle Paul in this passage is referring to a letter that he has received from Corinth that attributes verses 34 & 35 to Judaizers and the Oral Law. And then later in the Chapter Paul refuting this premise.

You and others on this thread refuse to accept what is clear. And instead you chose to turn simple grammatical clarity on its head to try and force what is not there simly because you believe that “as also saith the Law” refers to the Pharisee’s Oral Law.

And hypothetically speaking even if it did refer to the oral law it would render the passage as complete nonsense.

It is sad that people refuse to accept clear grammatical structure and instead fall into a ditch while trying to construct a whole phantom context.

And in regards to whether a person is a complementarian or an Egalitarian. You can come at Scripture with with preconcieved notions that obscure the clear text. And people do not always have to have overt agenda’s. They can be blinded by their own fallen flesh (pride) and not allow themselves to accept what is being said in God’s Word because it cuts their pride.

God’s word stands apart from complementarianism or Egalitarianism. Both concepts in and of themselves are lacking in understanding and Spiritual Wisdom.

Don said:
Are you aware that the term “the law says” refers to the oral law of the Pharisees?

I say:

You are making a declarative statement as if it is a matter of fact. and you are incorrect. The meaning of “the law” does not always refer to the oral law of the Pharisee’s.  It depends upon the context with which it is used in and the person using those words.

Only in classical Rabbinical literature does the statment “The Law” refer to the Pharisee’s Oral Law since Classical Talmudic law is based upon the Pharisee’s oral law.

And in regards to this passage it does not refer to the Oral law of the Pharisee’s. And regardless of which law it in fact did refer to matters not.

As the main point of error here is to say that Paul is quoting from a letter that he has received and then proceeding to refute it.

No where in the context of the letter or this passage can that  premise be supported, either in basic english grammar or in  the Greek grammar.

So since it cannot be supported by the basic grammatical context that Paul is reading from a letter he received and since we know that Paul was vehemently against the Pharisee’s oral law. Then we know that he could in no way be referring to an Oral Law.

And speaking hypothetically, lets say the passage did support that Paul was reading from a letter he had received, where is the letter?

You are making assumptions that go beyond even faith.

First you deny the basic grammatical construction of the passage, which then leads you into deeper error of assuming that “The Law” refers to the Pharisee’s oral law and then you extend it even further to try and say that Paul is making a case for equality!

When that is not even in the context of the passage. Paul is talking in the passage of not being unruly and out of order in a gathering of the Corinth Church Body when the spiritual gifts are functioning.

Have you ever been in a Charismatic or Pentecostal service? Then you would know what Paul is speaking of. Many charismatics and Pentecostals get lost in the “gifts of the spirit” and let the whole order of the service collapse into confusion and disorder.

Paula said,

“What shoe, John? The one you’ve been wearing? The one where only YOUR interpretation is right? The one where only YOU can decide which passages are open to interpretation and which are not?”

I say:

Apologies but you are making some very elementary ridiculous claims here. You are making a claim that a passage that IS very clear and needs no interpretation skills, says something that even a third grade elementary student could read and understand that Paul is giving an instruction in this passage. and I am not basing that on my personal opinion but on what is considered very basic and general grammatical composition.

It requires no linguistic skills or Biblical interpetation skills in this passage to understand who is saying what and who they are directing it to.

Only people who have an agenda wish to make the passage appear as if it requires some deep insight to reveal its meaning. And conveniently their deep interpretation fits with their agenda.

No where can you provide any support to infer that he is reading from a letter to him and then refuting it. Other than in your own personal opinion, which under any case, again violates the very clear grammatical composition of the letter.

you refuse to accept that the passage along with its surrounding context clearly shows under BASIC grammatical standards a person giving an instruction.

Now it is very obvious as I said before that you have a belief that ALL of scripture is open to personal subjecitve interpretation, even when that interpretation goes against explicit third grade logical grammatical sense within the passage and its context.

You make the same serious errors that Homosexuals make in attempting to extend passages beyond ANY logical sense to justify their agenda.

And since you cannot show using even basic grammatical standards proof for your personal view on this passage you resort to anger and personal attacks.

Hence any benefit of continuing a discussion with you is fruitless.

Paula said:

The “correct exegesis” is a matter of opinion. So you have judged Cheryl as having faulty exegesis when you have not proven it to be faulty, but merely made the accusation– hence judgment.

I say:
And now the other shoe falls. We now see how you view Scripture! Just a book open to various widely divergent interpretations.
What is so ludicrous about this proposition is that it even puts into question those passages that have good perpescuity (clarity) by even basic third grade grammatical standards in the English and in the original Greek!
There are areas of the Bible such as Eschatology that are open to different interpretations. But the passage in question is not one of those!
It goes against basic grammatical composition and good common sense to even imply that Paul is not giving direct instructions in this passage. And hence it is indeed bad exegesis to imply that Paul is quoting a letter to him and then refuting it!

And I have answered all of Cheryl’s questions.

Don said:
You are using a translation that inserts some words into the verse,
I say:
Actually no I am not. I have read this in English and in the original Greek.  the basic premise you and others are putting forward is a false one! And that is the Apostle Paul is quoting from a letter sent to him by the Corinthians and using it as an example to stress the ewquality of men and women, And this is very bad exegesis!
Never in Theological History has any Biblical Scholar made such a false assumption! The grammatical content of the letter in no way suggests Paul is quoting from a letter sent to him.
The Grammatical composition of the letter in English and in the original Greek clearly show that The Apostle Paul is giving his own instructions!
The context of the chapter is about there being unruliness and disorder in the gathering of the Corinthian Church body and in that gathering Men as well as Women were being unruly an disorderly! The Apostle was reminding Women of their roles in regards to their husbands and that they should not shame their husbands publically by being unruly and out of order. And he uses the written law to show that wives were to be subject to their husbands and this is consistent with the rest of the Apostle’s writings in regards to marriage!

Paula Said:

“And I say, he’s not here to listen or learn but only to lecture and judge. Good luck, Cheryl. I’ve got better things to do too. ”

I say:

Why is it when someone applies the correct exegesis to a Bible passage they are suddenly accused of “Judging”

I am always open to learning, but what I am not open to is someone misusing a Bible passage for their own personal non-Biblical agenda!

What you and others are trying to apply to this passage is in no way inferred by the passage! The context of the passage does not even address issues of equality! It addresses issues of unruliness at gatherings of the Corinthian Church Body!

And further to actually say that Paul is quoting from a letter sent to him is not supported even by the basic grammatical composition of the letter in English or in the original Greek!

You are reading into the passage your own agenda!

Cheryl said

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.

“God’s Word says: Ephesians 5:22-24:

Marriage—Christ and the Church
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.  For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.  Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.

Cheryl said:

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?

I say:

Read my comment just above yours.

Cheryl said:

“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”

I say:

This is a personal interpretation of your own, which does not hold to the context of the chapter nor the wider 1 Corinthians letter! Paul is not quoting froma letter sent to him in reply to the Corinthians!

Paul is speaking his words to the Corinthians!

Again you are mishandling this passage out of personal desire to see earthly equality in roles for men and women!

While true Paul was not forbiddding women from ever speaking or asking questions in a gathering of a Church body. What he was saying was that Wives in public should give deference to their husbands and not shame them by being unruly!

Yes they may ask questions, yes they may speak, and yes they may prophecy or speak in tongues, but it was all to be done in good order and in respect of the roles for husband and wife.

And for women to be in good order in a gathering of the Church Body was to not be unruly and therefore shame their husbands!

I have never said that women should not preach, teach or speak in Church! What I am saying though as The Apostle Paul says in this passage which is from God’s Written law is that women are not to appear as unruly in public thereby shaming their husband.

If a husband agree’s that his wife should preach, so be it, but she still must be under the spiritual leadership of her husband and honor her husband in that role! And then God will honor her in her preaching!

just some further clarifications

In regards to the statement in verse 35: “As also saith the Law”

Does not find its root in the oral law. Its inception comes from Genesis 3:16:

To the woman He said:
      “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
      In pain you shall bring forth children;
      Your desire shall be for your husband,
      And he shall rule over you.”

This does not mean that a man should be a tyrant over his wife. What it means is that the Man in God’s plan, after the fall, was to be the Spiritual Head!

As Paul said in Ephesians 5:23:

“For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.”

Now does 1 Corinthians 34,35 mean that women are to remain silent at all times in a gathering of the Church body? No! But it also does not imply an equality in the roles of Men and Women in a Church Body, beccause the Man is the Spiritual head of his wife.

The passage simply means that women are not to be unruly in a Church body and shame their husbands by not showing submission to them in front of a gathering of the Church body! If they have questions in regards to something they are to hold their question, remain silent and ask their husband in their home!

It does not imply silence at all times by women in a gathering of a Church Body but what it does mean is that women are to not shame their husbands by acting against God’s Written Law, which says that the Man is the Spiritual head and leader of the family!

Women are not to try and upset God’s intended order and roles against their husband thereby shaming him in public!

Don said:

“My suggestion is you need to learn how to understand these verses are they would have been understood by the original readers, else you end up siding with Judaizers.”

I say:

This comment thread is just unbelievable! 1 Corinthians was a letter from the Apostle Paul to the Corinthian Church!

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!

Again all of you are reading far too much into that verse due to a desire to impose a fallen earthly equality where it has no place!

This is what the Apostle Paul says in verses 37 and 38:

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. But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant.

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

You are guilty of mishandling the Word of God!

Cheryl Said:
“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. ”

I say:

Again I am Stunned! You have NO Biblical support for what you are saying in regards to this passage!

Paul was not qouting the Jewish Oral “Law” of the Pharisee’s in this passage! These were Paul’s words! Paul’s instructions on how women should conduct themselves in a gathering of the Corinthian Church Body! And if there was ANY Apostle who clearly showed that Gentile Christians were not under any Jewish  Oral “Law” it was the Apostle Paul!

So again this makes your statements in regards to 1 Corinthians 14:34,35 absilutely FALSE! And I am sorry but your twisting of this scripture comes from someone demanding earthly equality! Something as Christians we are not to do!

You ARE extending the meaning of that passage far beyond its plain reading!

If by the grace of God, God chooses to confer a leadership role on anyone, again God will make that known to multiple people within a church body and then it will be offered to an individual, regardless of gender, but on a case by case basis and not as a general rule!

However WE ARE NOT TO DEMAND IT.

No where in Scripture is there support for saying that people who demand equality should have it! On the contrary the prevailing theme in God’s word is to be content with what you have and the position you are placed in by God who is sovereign!

And further the people who are content in what they have and in the position they are in, THESE are the people God find’s worthy, at his will and timing for his plans to raise up in a leadership role to be used by him. Because these people have the humitlity to be used.

There are also some false straw man arguments being used in the comments on this article.

Namely that No Christian should want to keep a position of superiority over another Christian, to infer that individuals of the make persuassion who rightly divide the word in this regard are somehow wanting to maintain a position of superiority over women!

When this is a false argument! In Spiritual terms it has nothing to do with Superiority! It has to do with God ordained roles!

Roles are not the same as superiority!

The mingling and confusing of superiority with roles is a secular aheistic and modern humanist ideology that has been injected into Christian teaching! But one which has no Biblical Basis!

By women coveting roles of leadership within a Church body they are inserting the fallen belief of there being a superiority of roles and ignoring the Spiritual God given instruction of a difference in roles but NOT a difference in superiority of roles!

Superiority is a fallen sinful concept!

Again I will close with this, show me a single Bible passage where God’s choice of a person for leadership was one who demanded it!

Wow! Talk about some bad exegesis of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.

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

That passage was the words of the Apostle Paul instructing the Corinthians in what their conduct should be while they were gathered as a Church body!

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

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!

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.

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?

There are some deep insights into why The Apostle Paul did not delve into Social and Political issues, and because of that he did believe that there should be a spiritual reordering of the relationship between Philemon and Onesimus bur He did not reorder their earthly relationship.
It is one thing for God to confer on an individual: man or woman a place of leadership, and that conferring would come through the Holy Spirit speaking to multiple individuals to confirm it, men if needed to allow that leadership role to happen.
However it is not of God for individuals to demand leadership roles because they believe they have a right to equality.