Cheryl Schatz

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.