A Better Covenant

Posted in Ecclesiology, Studying the Scriptures | Tagged Ecclesiology, Priesthood | 76 Comments

76 Responses

1. on August 29, 2008 at 5:33 pm | Reply SOwen

   Lionel,
   Once again another thought provoking post.
   I just have a question to throw out their on the submiision issue. Wouldn’t submitting to one another be like the way a wife is to submit to the husband and the husband to the wife as unto Christ? If this makes any sense. I just thought about this as I was reading your post. Really no one is in “charge” per se but both submit to each other in order to be in submission to Christ the head. A hand must submit to the arm in order to function and vice versa. I hope this is sticking to the topic in your post. I don’t want to start a rabbit chase. Love you guys in the Lord…….Steven O.

   
   
2. on August 29, 2008 at 5:39 pm | Reply lionelwoods7

   I never thought of it that way can anyone help? Yep it is you just hit on something I didn’t consider.

   
   
3. on August 29, 2008 at 5:40 pm | Reply lionelwoods7

   I never thought of it that way can anyone help? Yep it is you just hit on something I didn’t consider.

   What do you think given the way the church is to function with one another? Do you think the way a wife submit to her husband should be played out between saints? I know I am asking the same question but lets start a conversation about it and see where it lands us.

   
   
4. on August 29, 2008 at 7:35 pm | Reply DTG aka love me or hate me

   This should be the prayer for all in the body to be carried out and fulfilled in our lives. Colossians 1:9. This is for all not some. This should be done in or out of a building setting or house. We should all teach that there should be no class system in the priesthood of Christ. Btw Matthew,20:25 to 28
   we all know what they “loved” to read is Hebrew,13:17 somebody has the wrong context of “rule”

   
   
5. on August 29, 2008 at 7:43 pm | Reply Like a Mustard Seed...

   I’d have to say it is exactly the same. A husband and wife relationship, if both know Christ, is supposed to be a microcosm of the whole Body. Each side brings many unique qualities to the relationship that make a complete whole. They have different strengths, and different functions, but yet are totally equal. Only God could orchestrate the combining of two different people in a way that results in such an incredible new creation…

   I think the whole mutual submission thing even carries into the parent/child relationship too, even though I don’t quite know how to explain it very well yet. Even though our children are to submit to us, we are not to lord our authority over them either. I’m trying to remember that verse in Proverbs about not embittering your children…. Anyways, I see the servant-leader component being totally built in to marriage and parenthood, just think about all those dirty diapers we’ve had to change…

   
   
6. on August 29, 2008 at 8:35 pm | Reply Aussiejohn

   Lionel,

   Brother! You are so right!

   This contribution and the recent one “Equipping Ourselves….” are on target. My advice to others, for many years was that teachers of Scripture should work themselves out of a job.

   There is only ONE who is “in charge”, the ONE Shepherd, the Lord Jesus Christ.

   What a delight you are.

   
   
7. on August 30, 2008 at 5:23 pm | Reply lionelwoods7

   Thanks brother Aussie John,

   Your words are an encouragement to me. Given your wisdom and expeirience (a true elder) these are sweet melodies brother. Thanks again. One Lord, One Faith……

   DTG,

   True indeed we are all priest/brothers/disciples of Christ. We need to function that way.

   
   
8. on August 30, 2008 at 10:48 pm | Reply Hutch

   I have come to understand and believe that the Greek renders Hebrews 13:17a more accurately as:

   Be persuaded by your leaders and give consideration to their example, …(Hebrews 13:17a)

   This falls is line with what is written 10 verses earlier:

   Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith. (Hebrews 13:7)

   This also falls in line with what is to be the benchmark of biblical or Christian leadership according to Mark 10:42-45.

   I agree with Jon Zens and others that the leadership role the elders are to play is one of exemplary leadership-a fancy way to say that they merely lead by example.

   The congregation as a whole has the final authority in all matters of the local gathering.

   I cannot tell you how many times I have gone round and round with “pastors” regarding the fact that an elder acting alone or even a group of elders does not have the authority to enact church disciple or to excommunicate anyone from a local gathering. In all the verse that discuss this issue, the entire local church as a whole is addressed and only the entire local assembly acting as a group in concert has the authority to do such a thing. This is a great safeguard against abuse.

   Once you correct the false doctrine of a one man pulpit ministry and start to operate with a priesthood of all believers model, the true and proper ministry of the elders comes into focus.

   The elders are the ones who lead us and exceed us as those who meet the qualifications to be an example to the congregation through their sacrificial life of serving the body and the entire congregation is encouraged to follow their example. If we were to have the elders wear name tags, they would read: Lead Servant-how may I serve you?

   But I do not suggest that they wear a name badge to distinguish themselves as that would defeat the purpose of understanding they are just another vital part of the priesthood of every believer and those who are elders in the congregation should be readily apparent by their actions as servants and examples anyway.

   
   
9. on August 31, 2008 at 2:26 am | Reply mrs. maverick

   hi lionel and hutch,

   i’ve been wondering how you guys see the role of women in the Church gathering if we’re all priests and should be using our gifts to minister to one another.

   would the women only be allowed to minister to the women and/or share what God has revealed to them from the Scriptures/ their sharing from the Word could be “construed as teaching men”. in this idealic state of mutuality, where do you see us women?

   
   
10. on August 31, 2008 at 3:21 am | Reply lionelwoods7

    Angela,

    I might be labeled a heretic for this. But I think women are to function FULLY in their gifts in the local gathering and outside of that gathering. However the bible seems to limit womens rolls as it relates to being Elders within the congregation. I believe women can function fully as Deaconess but as it relates to elders who serve the church that ministry seems to be off limits.

    I think the problem with 1 Timothy 2 as it relates today has to do with pulpits and authority. But lets see what the responses are and we can go from there. But women are to fulfill the imperatives of Colossians 3 and Ephesians 4.

    
    
11. on August 31, 2008 at 4:27 am | Reply lionelwoods7

    Hutch,

    Agreed again brother.

    
    
12. on August 31, 2008 at 12:39 pm | Reply Hutch

    Hi Angela-

    At this time I will say this: I was always taught since being born again in 1989 that 1 Timothy 2:11-15 was to never be taught only in connection with and in the context of the local issue that Paul was addressing.

    That is interesting since I was also taught that it is always very important that all scripture be interpreted in light of the issues being addressed and in the proper context! Grin.

    I do not wish to hijack Brother Lionel’s blog, but I could go on and on about how these verses have historically and with great detriment to the body of Christ have been misinterpreted.

    It is very important to know the religion these female believers just came out of as they embraced the gospel of Christ and how that religion subjugated men under female authority.

    I will just say that if a central one man pulpit is not presented in scripture and if elders exercise only exemplary authority (only leading by being examples of a maturing Christian) and if God’s Word tells us that all born again believers are distributed spiritual gifts for the edification of the body, then I will never suggest that any believer should be limited in the exercising of their gifts.

    The main point in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is that women are not to teach in a way to exercise authority over people like the prostitute priestesses of Athena did in their pagan beliefs.

    Accordingly as we have discussed band discovered on this blog men are not to teach with the goal of exercising authority over people either.

    There is not to one man or one woman who is the central focus in a local gathering, only the Lord Jesus Christ is to be the one and only central focus and authority.

    So when people ask me if women should be preachers from the pulpit, to me it is a mute issue.

    No, no man or women is to occupy that position, but each is to exercise their gifts in an orderly fashion with the right motivation.

    Yes, I would be considered a heretic by the standard of what I was originally taught on this issue.

    Worse yet, they would say I am a “liberal” or a “feminist”. None of which is true.

    Blessings.

    
    
13. on August 31, 2008 at 12:57 pm | Reply Hutch

    Correction:

    The main point in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is that women are not to teach in a way to exercise authority over people like the prostitute priestesses of (Artemis of the Ephesians) did in their pagan beliefs.

    
    
14. on August 31, 2008 at 2:21 pm | Reply SOwen

    Hey guys can I interject about the women issue?
    I guess I will since I have already started. LOL
    The group I have fellowship with recently went over this issue in 1Cor. about the women being silent also. I would just say that not many ever teach on this. Could this be because they are afraid? But if the scripture says something as it does in ! Cor and ! Tim. where do we have the right to interpret ourselves? That is dangerous. The bilbe is very clear. That said, let me put some scripture and research to this.
    1 Cor. 14:34-35, 1 Tim. 2:11
    Now women are to help in the ministry outside the church of the saints as in Phil. 4:3
    The role of the women is also laid out in Titus 2:3-5 The older women likwise, that they may be reverant in behavior, not slanders, not given to much wine, teachers of good things, that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be dicreet ( definition is”judicious in ones conduct or speech. esp. with regard to maintaining silence about something of a debate nature.”),chaste, homemakers, that the “word of God may not be blasphemied.”
    Now they should also be able to prophecy Acts 2:17
    Now all of this in context with Ephesians 5:22 ” Wives submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as also Christ is the head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. (IMPORTANT) Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ,(not Men) so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her….”
    Again it would be a Godly submission tht we do these things. It is out of a Godly submission that the women should be silent in the church (1Cor. and 1Tim)
    It is the husbands responsibility to teach his wife and family.
    The men came together to learn and in turn went back to their home to teach what they learned? I pose that as a QUESTION. Now in Luke 2:42 Anna was a prophetess. Acts 21:9 the man had four daughters who were prophetesses.
    Read 1peter 3:1 this is powerful.
    All that to say please don’t stone me. I have been struggling with this very thing with my family. And my wife has come to the conclusion that she won’t speak when we are in an assembly. I again say, SHE came to that conclusion! I don’t rule over my wife. She is a wonderful servant and hears from God. Anyway maybe this will help or it will stir the pot. I am not saying I am the only one right. But it seems that scripture is pretty clear and we should not assume.
    Love your brother in Christ, Steven O.

    
    
15. on August 31, 2008 at 2:29 pm | Reply SOwen

    One more thing Phils wife Nicolle has a great post on this very subject also at her blog site: woman on the vine.
    I can’t remember the title, but it is a fairly new blog so it should still be posted on the first page. Thanks again, Steven O.

    
    
16. on August 31, 2008 at 2:40 pm | Reply lionelwoods7

    Thanks Steven,

    No problem at all. My question then leads to 1 Corintians 11 and we can go from there.

    Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.

    We have to believe that they were both praying and prophesying in the context of the gathering becaus Paul’s next issue is that of the Lord’s Supper. So if they were allowed to pray and allowed to prophecy the only prerequisite being covered heads, how do we get to silent?

    
    
17. on August 31, 2008 at 3:33 pm | Reply SOwen

    Lionel, we get to silent further down in Cor. as was stated.
    Paul carried his point through and then went into the silent part. Again I don’t have all of the answers. I just know what the scripture says and am trying not to interpret it from the standpoint as some in the past have ie. The culture of that day or this is speaking of women speaking in tongues etc. . Those points seem weak. When you look at all the other scriptures concerning this issue. Again just thoughts as I am not the author you know. But wouldn’t it be better to err on the side of scripture and be safe then to find out later we had it wrong? I don’t know.
    I just think we have ended up with too many Paula Whites, Joyce Meyers etc. because of error. More Jezebels because the men won’t become who they are in Christ for the most part. I am not advocating legalism as in some denominations. But their is a balance.

    
    
18. on August 31, 2008 at 3:36 pm | Reply SOwen

    Lionel, email me on this and I will answer somethings more on this off post. rockhasspoken@yahoo.com
    There are some thoughts that my wife has said on this and I will tell you about them also.

    
    
19. on August 31, 2008 at 3:48 pm | Reply lionelwoods7

    Hey Steven,

    I am glad we disagree on something. Hutch want to expound a bit on your perspective? Steven as of the last 4-5 months I have really came to the conviction more similar with Jon Zens. I know you guys have come to some type of resolution, but here is a link just in case you want to wrestle through it or even solidify your own position

    http://searchingtogether.org/free-to-function.htm

    
    
20. on August 31, 2008 at 3:56 pm | Reply Hutch

    Lionel-

    Sorry, I could not resist. If this is too long, feel free to delete it.

    Steven-

    As mentioned, I had a view that was similar to yours for many years.

    I am not judging your conscience or that of your wife.

    I too agree that it is very important that we not misrepresent or misinterpret scripture. Rightly dividing the Word of Truth is not a small issue with me either.

    This is submitted for your consideration.

    My position is that the Patriarchy crowd is the group who are misinterpreting the original inspired words of the Apostle Paul.

    What follows contains portions taken from Let the women be silent? By Dr Dennis Swift.

    What becomes obvious when you study the culture, Greek grammar, and corresponding scriptural passages is that Paul was not forbidding women from ministry, but he was addressing at Corinth disruption in the services, women speaking out of order, and at Ephesus, false teaching.

    Let’s take a moment to consider 1 Timothy 2:5-15. There was a fertility cult in Ephesus, and as part of the initiation, men went up to the Temple of Artemis and engaged in sexual relations with women priestesses who were supposed to be the mediators between the gods and man. Women served as the prime movers and mediators who were the conduit for contact with the gods. The cult personnel of the great Temple of Artemis of Ephesus numbered in the thousands, and the women were believed to stand in the intermediary position between the deity and her worshippers. At Ephesus, the cultic religion was a female monopoly that was believed to be the mediators between the gods and mortals.

    In 1 Timothy 2 verse 5, Paul corrects this false teaching (“for there is one mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ”). As part of the Gnostic Religion, female mediators were supposed to initiate men into their special knowledge, gnosis, during sexual rites. At Ephesus, there was a prevalent teaching that Eve was created before Adam and received “special knowledge” when she ate the forbidden fruit. The Temple of Artemis at Ephesus was a massive structure that dominated the area, and as befitted worshippers of a female deity, the priests were all women. They ruled the show and kept men in their places. The women priests were considered to be the teachers of men.

    Paul corrects this false teaching by saying the Adam was formed first and then Eve; that Adam was the source of woman. Paul had earlier warned Timothy (1 Timothy 1:3-5) that people were teaching false doctrines, devoting themselves to myths and endless genealogies. There was a widespread belief among the Ephesians that warrior-women, Amazons, who were superior to men, had founded the city of Ephesus. People were caught up in these myths and pursued genealogies trying to trace their ancestry back to these superior women. Women, who were uneducated and full of these fables, were going house to house teaching these tales and superstitions.

    An early Amazon queen, Lysippe, decreed that women should go forth to battle and govern while the men were to stay at home and do the household work. “Lysippe said to the men they were assigned the spinning of wool and the household tasks of women.” She introduced laws by which she led forth the women to battle, but she hung humiliation and servitude upon the men.

    Artemis was the female goddess that the Ephesians worshipped, and her name, Artemis, means “safe”. She was the one who protected women. Sacrifices and prayers were offered to her throughout the woman’s life. It was Artemis who would safely guide the women through childhood. On a woman’s wedding night, her garment was loosed and given to Artemis as an offering. Women prayed to her for a safe childbirth, to be saved and not harmed throughout the delivery of the child. Beautiful garments, woven by the woman, were given to Artemis as an offering for safe childbirth.

    In verse 15, Paul says, “But, the woman will be saved during childbirth . . .”. In the Greek, Paul seems to be making a play on words, “But she, the woman, will be safe throughout the childbearing.” Implied, God is the protector, not Artemis (safe). The Phillips Bible comes closest with, “The woman will come safely through childbirth.” Paul is saying that the women should not fear harm during childbirth because Artemis has no power to keep one safe or to harm them. It is rather, God, who can keep you safe throughout the whole process of childbirth. In this case, Paul is not saying that childbearing is a curse upon a woman, but rather, that God gives grace.

    In verse 14, Paul says that it was the woman, Eve, who was deceived. Now in verse 15, he says, “Yes, there was a woman who was deceived. But remember, God chose a woman to save the world through childbirth, Mary.” It is obvious that a woman is not saved through childbirth. Only Jesus Christ can save her. This may be an allusion to Mary. It is interesting to note, that it was Ephesus that was the first place to worship Mary and develop a cult of Maryology. William Ramsey insists that it is “no coincidence that the Virgin Mary was first given the official title, Theotokos, ‘bearer of God’ at Ephesus where Artemis herself had earlier borne the same title.”

    These women who were the dispensers of mystic knowledge twisted and perverted Paul’s teaching about women.

    Paul, in his letter to Timothy, who was facing false doctrines and fierce female foes, addresses every evil practice, woman dominance, false doctrine, and sexual impropriety.

    Paul also deals with the problems of men in public prayer. In verse 8, he says, “I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer without anger and disputing.” Men, you are to lift up your hands in public prayer and pray not just outwardly but inwardly, without harboring hostility over some dispute or hidden anger. This is a problem men still need to handle.

    Now in verse 9, he begins with the Greek word, hosautos, “in like manner or similar”, women are to dress modestly while praying outwardly in public. They, too, lift up holy hands and outstretched arms, which was the practice while blessing God’s people in prayer. There is no getting around the Greek word, hosautos. Just as the men are to pray without inner anger, the women are to lead in public prayer, dressing modestly without drawing public attention to themselves. Thus, the Greek word, “for in like manner” repeats the whole previous sentence in verse 9, except that the warning is different. Men have trouble in overly internalizing anger and disputes while trying to pray effectively in public, whereas women have trouble sometimes not realizing that God meant them to be beautiful and attractive to men but not while praying publicly in the service. According to these two verses, Paul wants women and men to participate together in the public service of the church, in the offering of prayers. There can be no debate over this point unless someone knows how we can get rid of hosautos.

    Paul said in 1 Corinthians 11:5, “Every woman who prays or prophesies (in public)”, and in 1 Timothy 2:10 (public prayer). A.J. Gordon wrote, “It is quite incredible on the contrary, that the Apostle should give himself the trouble to prune a custom, which he desired to uproot, or then he should spend his breath condemning a forbidden method of doing a forbidden thing.” Paul was encouraging men and women to participate in the service openly with prayers and prophecies. But the women were to be modest in their dress so that they would not draw attention to themselves. May I remind the reader that prophecy contained teaching as well as direct revelation. Wow!

    Some patriarchal pastors interpret these passages as though Paul was saying that women are second class citizens at every level. They are not to be educated, they are not to dress attractively, they are daughters of Eve, the original troublemaker, a deceiver. Women are easily deceived. The best thing for them to do is to get married, have children, behave themselves, keep quiet, and let the men be the spiritual authorities. The Apostle Paul is not in agreement with this myopic viewpoint.

    In verse 11, Paul instructs that women are to be educated. They are to learn in quietness and voluntary willingness to be responsive. The Greek is transparent here. It does not mean that women are to keep their mouths shut and submit to someone of higher rank. Hupotassomai means “a voluntary responsiveness to learn to take a subject in, in an attitude of openness”. It means to be receptive and responsive. Paul told all the members of the church to be subject to (hupotassomai) to one another: wives to husbands, husbands to wives (same Greek word, hupotassomai). Hupotassomai never means a ranking of a person as ruler and ruled. The directives in the New Testament are for Christians to live together linked by love, serving one another, and not lording it over one another. Men and pastors are not to be like some tin-pot oriental monarch lording it over his subjects, but rather as servants.

    Paul was just like Jesus. He wanted the women to be properly educated and instructed so that they could be teachers. In Luke 10:38-41, the story of Mary and Martha, Martha is in the kitchen distracted by all the preparations while Mary is sitting at the feet of Jesus. What would be immediately understood in Jesus’ day and in the Middle East today is that Mary was sitting at Jesus’ feet within the male part of the house rather than being in the back room where she belonged with the other women. I am sure Martha was bothered by having to do all the work, but the real problem was that Mary had just committed an absolute social “no, no”. A woman was never allowed to go into the men’s part of the house where a male was teaching. It would be as if you were to invite me to your house to spend the night, and when it became bedtime, I would put up a tent in your bedroom. We have our social appropriateness. Mary had just violated the social mores. In fact, she flaunted them, and Jesus declares that she has a right to do so. She is sitting at his feet. A phrase which doesn’t mean what it would mean today, the adoring student gazing up in admiration at the wonderful teacher. It is clear from classical Greek literature, the customs of the day and the usage of the phrase elsewhere in the New Testament (Paul -Gamaliel), to sit at the teacher’s feet is a way of saying you are being a student, you are his disciple, picking up the teacher’s wisdom and learning, and in a practical world, you would not be doing it for the sake of cramming your mind with information, but you were in training to be a teacher, a Rabbi, yourself. Jesus commends Mary and says, “You have chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from you.”

    Americans miss the point, and clergy who have an insufficient theological education and interpret the Bible through the lens of Western Culture just don’t get it, but I assure you, no one in Jesus’ day would have missed the scandal at Bethany. Indeed, today in the Middle East and in Central Asia, when this story is told, the men protest, “What, what? Jesus would allow a woman to sit at His feet? Women are not to be teachers.” What they mean by “teachers” would be a Rabbi, Priest or Mullah. Here, Paul is at one with Jesus.

    In 1 Timothy 2:11, “Let the women learn in openness and voluntary responsiveness;” uneducated women were causing problems, so he wanted the women properly educated and prepared to defend and teach the faith. The women are to be well taught in the Word. The rabbinical rabbis taught, “It is better to burn the Torah than let it fall into the hands of a woman.” Paul decrees, “O contraire,” women should learn just as the rabbis. This was a pedestal-smashing blow to the patriarchal legalists. Indeed, the rabbinic scholar himself was required to learn in silence. The people of Israel were told to keep silence before the Lord (Isaiah 41:1, Zech. 2:13), and they were instructed “Be still, and know that I am God” (Psalm 46:10). Silence was a wall around wisdom. Silence was the duty of the learner. The phrase, “Silence and submission” is a Near Eastern formula implying a willingness to heed and obey instructions from the Word of God.

    In 1 Timothy 2:12, Paul says, “I suffer not a woman to teach.” Here, Paul is not voicing a timeless command but a temporary directive application to a specific situation. In the Greek, it is not a command-not in the imperative. Paul uses the Greek form that indicates present action not a command form. “Presently, I am not allowing!” Paul is not setting down a permanent prohibition. The temporary character of the prohibition in Paul’s use of the but ( de) to join the two verses.,[6] “Let the women learn . . .but not at this time am I allowing them to teach.” In other words, we have to correct this false teaching, but once it is corrected, the women can teach sound doctrine.

    What are we to make of Paul’s declaration in verse 12? “I do not permit the women to have authority over the men.” The Greek word (authentein) does not mean “authority” in the sense of the English understanding of the word. It meant, in the First Century, to gain domination by claiming special knowledge (gnosis), a knowledge that could be passed on to the men through sexual rites. It was a common problem at Ephesus that women were using deceit, trickery, and underhanded means to trap men into believing that the sexual rites initiated them into the mystical realms of communion with the gods.

    Charles Thrombly argues convincingly, authentein had a sexual meaning. He links the word to temple prostitutes that believed fornication brought believers into contact deity. Authentein, in the First Century Greek world, meant to engage in sexual immorality as in a pagan religious setting. John Chrysostom, an Early Church Father, used authentein to express sexual license. Clement of Alexandria used the same word, authentein, for a group of Christian women who turned Christian love feasts into sexual orgies.

    If we believe the scriptures are truly inspired, and if Paul had meant “authority”, he would have used the normal Greek word that he uses repeatedly in his writings, exousia. Instead, he uses this word authentein, a word loaded with sexual connotations and images of someone dominating as a despot over men. Authentein is a haphax legomenon. It is only used once in the entire New Testament and is a fitting word of a society ripe with women supposedly superior to men: bearers of mystic knowledge and sexual liaisons, serving as mediators between the gods and men. Undoubtedly, Paul applied a specific word for a specific setting.

    Now if you were writing a letter to someone in a small, new religious movement with a base in Ephesus, and wanted to say that because of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the old ways of organizing male and female roles from top to bottom were invalid; with one feature, that women were to be encouraged to study and learn and take a leadership role, thus, you might want to avoid giving the wrong impression. People would wonder, is Christianity just another cult like the cult of Artemis where women do the leading and keep the men in line? No, Paul says, in verse 12. Women are not to try to dictate to the men with the overtones of being bossy or seizing control or using female charms to seduce them into a false religion. Paul is saying, like Jesus in Luke 10, that women must have the space to learn, to study in their own way, not in order that they may muscle in and take over the leadership as in the Artemis cult, but that both men and women alike are to develop whatever gifts of learning, teaching, and leadership God is giving to them.

    Pride grows on the human heart like lard on a pig. Men have used 1 Timothy 2:12 to clobber women. After all, some men say, Eve was deceived, and God said in Genesis 3:16 that man is to rule over the woman. If that is your belief, then it is the men who are deceived. For Genesis 3:16 is not a command for man to rule over the woman, but is a curse . . .”man (unfortunately) who walks after his fallen nature, will rule over woman”.

    Genesis 3:16 is not a demand or a command for man to take charge over woman, “to rule over them.” This is not a normative and prescriptive text found in the Mosaic Law and revealed by God, it is a curse passage predicting what will happen when women “turn” towards their husbands instead of turning towards God. This is what can happen if you marry a dictatorial, immature, or childish man. Paul said, “When I became a man I put away childish ways behind me, “ (1 Corinthians 13:11). I repeat, Genesis 3:16 is not a command but a curse. In effect, if God were explaining this today in plain English, God might have phrased it like this, “The truth is, that as a result of the fall, do not be surprised, my good lady, if that guy just plain lords it over you.” The statement in Genesis 3:16 does not have the slightest hint of a command or a mandate for men to assume that they are in charge, nor is it a prescriptive command from God by any means. The Hebrew grammar may not be rendered as, “the man must (shall) rule over you.” Such a misguided notion demands that you would have to translate verse 18 the same way, “the ground must produce thorns and thistles for you.” Farmers (should this be the accurate way to render the text) would need to stop using weed killer or pulling out thorns and thistles for God demands they must be left in place on the farm, for this was meant to be God’s normative order of things. But of course, this is utter nonsense, and so is the same logic in verse 16. Genesis 3:16 is not normative for the scripture lifts up Genesis 1:27 and 2:23-24 as the norm for male/female relationships. Those relationships are not to be lived out in light of the fall but in light of God’s design to create two sexually distinct beings in partnership. In fact, God in Jesus Christ was introducing a new order of relationships. This is clear from Jesus’ corrective that from the beginning God had made them male and female (Matthew 19:4; Mark 10:6). Jesus evokes the mandate that the marriage relationship is a functional (oneness) not a hierarchical “two-ness”. In God’s sight, “They are no longer two but one” (Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:8). The Pharisees were incensed that Jesus would make women equal to men. In the Pharisees patriarchal prison women were mere chattel. Daily, the Pharisees proudly prayed, “I thank God I was not created a Gentle, a slave, or a woman.” As F.F. Bruce notes, “The pious expressed such gratitude because the other persons “were disqualified from several religious privileges which were open only to Jewish males.”[8]

    The Bible is not a book of oppression but liberation. Jesus said He came to set the captives free (Luke 4:18-19), and that includes women. Those who attempt to set up a patriarchy are saying in effect, we are to live out male/female relationships under the curse and not from the cross. Patriarchy is fundamentally flawed from the first because it forms an institution of Pharisaism and not of our liberator, Jesus Christ, the High Priest. Paul did not reintroduce Pharisaical beliefs but presented a radical new order of creation. In Galatians 3:28, the Greek reads, “Neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, no, ‘male and female’.” We flatten out the verse, but the rich meaning of it is contained in the Greek. He says, “no male or female” rather than “neither male nor female”, and he is actually quoting Genesis 1. We should see the phrase, “male and female” set off in quotes. Paul was battling the Pharisees and Judaiziers who wanted to enforce Jewish regulations, Jewish ceremonies, and Jewish ethnicity on Christian converts. Remember the synagogue prayer that the Jew prayed thanking God that he was not made a Gentile, a slave, or a woman. When that prayer was prayed, the women in the synagogue were to mentally agree thanking God “that you made me according to your will.” Paul, in Galatians 3:18, is deliberately marking out the family of Abraham as a new order of creation under Jesus Christ as a people who cannot pray that prayer since, in this new family, these distinctions are irrelevant. There is much more embedded in this text, because the raging controversy in Galatians is circumcision. Circumcision was a painful experience for the male, but it was also a matter of pride and privilege. It not only marked out Jews from Gentiles, it marked them out in a way that automatically put them in a privileged class above Gentiles, slaves, and women. By contrast, think of the equality brought about by baptism, the identical rite for Jews and Gentiles, slave and free, male and female. They are in effect equal in the new creation in God’s forever family. Paul is aware that in some ways, the story of Abraham did, of course, privilege the male line of descent (Isaac, Jacob, etc). What is incredible, is that we find Paul, in both Galatians 4 and Romans 9, carefully paying attention to the women in the story, rather like the genealogies of Matthew 1, though from a different angle. He is highlighting the role of the women in the Abrahamic Family. In effect, Paul is saying that those in Christ are the true family of Abraham, which is the whole point of the story, that the manner of this identity, unity, which takes a quantum leap beyond the way in which First Century Judaism construed them, brings male and female together as equals, just as Jews and Gentiles are equals. Paul is kicking the props out from under those Pharisees who are attempting to back up a continuing line of male privilege in the structuring and demarcating of Abraham’s family in Genesis 1, as though someone were saying, “But of course, the male line is what matters, of course male circumcision is what counts, because God made male and female.” No, says Paul, none of that counts when it comes to being in the renewed family of Abraham (no male, no female). Paul is taking a wrecking ball and demolishing those who would enshrine a continuing line of male privilege and patriarchy in the new family of Jesus Christ. The point Paul is making in this passage is that God has one family, not two, and His family consists of all of those who believe in Jesus, that this is the family that God promised to Abraham, and that nothing in the Torah can stand in the way of this unity which is now revealed through the Messiah, Jesus Christ.

    For those who are trying to build a hierarchy, a patriarchy, to distinguish the roles of male and female, place themselves under the curse. You would also have to abide by the Old Testament and would not be able to be a minister because you are a Gentile.

    Paul gave a thundering pronouncement that reverberated throughout Christianity. The dividing wall has been torn down, the barrier obliterated. The wall between Jew and Gentile, slave and free, woman and man, has been destroyed. There was an inscription on the wall outside the temple stating that Gentiles and women could not enter under penalty of death (Ephesians 2:14-16). Patriarchal teachers attempt to hand pick five scriptures and build a scaffolding that excludes women. It is like trying to build a scaffolding that will reach the moon. They found that in the one hundred sixty-three pounds of rocks brought back from the moon by Apollo 11, insects. What kind of insects? Luna ticks (just joking)! It is the height of lunacy, or shall I say, if you want to be a lunatic, to believe the dividing wall torn down allows a Gentile man to minister but keeps the women outside the courts beyond the temple of God’s grace-they are still under the curse. No, if you return to the Pharisaical system, you once again place yourself under the curse and the invariable result is you will try to control or rule over women by human means.

    A comprehensive study by L. K. Maxwell, past President of Prairie Bible Institute, found that there were more than one hundred passages in the Bible that affirmed the roles of women in leadership and fewer than half a dozen can be interpreted in opposition. Furthermore, men who site 1 Timothy 2:12 do so out of its cultural and exegetical context. If this solo verse is used to construct a major doctrine against women, it is absurd, for no other major doctrine in the Bible comes from one single verse. I have demonstrated that there is a strong male cultural bias that attempts to subjugate women to the category of second class citizens in God’s kingdom.

    Genesis 2;18 is not a text indicting the subordination of women as if she was to be man’s helper. Several translations interpret the Hebrew word ‘ezer as “helper”. “I shall make a helper fit for him (RSV).” “I will make a fitting helper for him (NJPS).” “I will make a helper compatible to him (NKJV).” The patriarchists proudly point to Genesis 2:18 as proof of gender hierarchy. They translate ‘ezer as “helper” and argue that implicit in the term is the notion of subordination. To be a helper is to offer (submissive assistance) as one who gives help.[9] The fatal flaw of such flimsy, shallow, shoddy, shortsighted, slipshod hermeneutics is the fact that all other occurrences of ‘ezer in the Old Testament have to do with the assistance that one of strength offers to one in need. The ‘ezer is a king, an ally, or an army coming to the aid of one in trouble or need. There is no exception.[10] Moreover, fifteen of the nineteen other references speak of the help that God alone can provide (Exodus 18:4; Deuteronomy 33:7, 26, 29; Psalms 20:2, 33:20, 70:5, 115:9-11, 121:1-2, 124:8, 146:5; Hosea 13:9). Deuteronomy 33:29, “God, He is your shield and helper (‘ezer—strength).” Psalm 121:1-2, “I will lift up my eyes unto the hills, where does my help (‘ezer—strength) come from. My help (‘ezer) comes from the Lord, the maker of heaven and earth.”

    It is quite evident; help is given to one in need. It fits Genesis 2:18-20 very well. Adam’s situation was that of being alone, and God’s evaluation is, “It is not good for man to be alone.” The woman was created to relieve man’s aloneness through “strong partnership.” R. David Freedman, has argued quite convincingly that our Hebrew word ‘ezer is a combination of two older Hebrew/Canaanite roots, ‘-z-r, meaning “to rescue or to save”, and g-z-r, “to be strong”.[11] The difference between the two is the first letter in Hebrew that is today somewhat silent in pronunciation and coming where the letter “o” comes in the English alphabet. The word had a guttural sound pronounced in the back of the throat. The initial ghayyin fell together and somewhat represented by the one sign ‘ayyin’. However, we know that both letters were originally pronounced separately for the sounds are preserved in the “g” sound, still pronounced in English today in such place names as Gaza or Gomorrah, both of which are now spelled in Hebrew with the letter ‘ayyin’. It is a tremendously tedious task to untangle the threads of the original meaning, but Freedman successfully traces the root to around 1500 B.C., where the two signs began to be represented by one in Phoenician. Consequently, the two, “phonemes” merged into one “grapheme”. Irrefutable evidence appears in the Old Testament of the two roots merging as one because ‘ezer in the twenty-one times it is used in the Old Testament, often is in parallelism with words denoting “strength” or “power”. The only salient conclusion is that Genesis 2:18 is best translated as “I will make a power or strength suitable to him.” ‘ezer kenegdo together in 2:18 is suggestive that God was saying “I will make for man a strong power equal to him.” Instead of the woman being an assistant, helper, or subordinate, the text teaches that the woman has been given authority, strength, or power that is equal to man’s.

    This line of reasoning is borne out in Genesis 2:23 where Adam says to Eve, “This is bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh, she will be called woman for she is taken out of man.,” hardly something someone would say about a subordinate. The idiomatic expression of Adam points to family propinquity, one’s close relative, in short, “my equal”.

    In a case of nutty buddy scripture twisting, some patriarchists insist that Adam was calling her a subordinate because it is the language of paradox. Furthermore, they resort to saying that God, in offering help (‘ezer) becomes the human subordinate or servant.[12] Divine accommodation, maybe. But, divine subordination, impossible.[13] Of course, if you want to dominate women, you ignore the scriptures that confront your fallen fleshly desire to be the master of women, “to rule them”. We have several scriptures where Judah and Israel were helped by their allies. Are you going to say that the help (‘ezer) came to them in a subordinate capacity? This is not tenable.

    There is no equivocation that ‘ezer kenegdo in Genesis 2:18 does not mean “helpmate”. The Hebrew expression conveys the full meaning of woman as “one who is the same as the other: protects, aids, helps, supports, as a powerful, strong equal partner”. The Hebrew leaves no room to intimate that the woman is an inferior or in a secondary position in a hierarchical male pyramid.

    There are those who cart out the canard that women were not deacons. They are not mentioned in 1 Timothy 3:1-11. The opening statement of Paul in 1 Timothy 3:1-2 says, “This is a true saying, if anyone (ei tis) desires the office of a bishop, he desires a good thing.” First, the original Greek does not say “man” at all but instructs, “If anyone desires the office of a bishop,” (he/she) desires a good work.” If Paul was limiting overseers to males, he would have used the male word (aner) in the text. Paul did not slip up and accidentally use a word that includes both sexes. Yet, translation committees, teaching the traditions of men, in some cases, ignore the Greek and translate it as a man. The question is would Paul have given such instructions to the women at Ephesus serving in leadership roles? A thorough knowledge of the Greek City of Ephesus sheds important light for Greek married women were not prone to multiple marriages or illicit dalliances, while Greek men were.[14] In fact, extramarital affairs were par for Greek males but not tolerated for women (because of the concern for legitimate sons). The divorce rate among Greek men was exceedingly high. So, the fact that Paul includes this qualification, that male deacons “are to be a one woman man, or the man of one woman” and omits them for the female deacons is exactly what one would expect. Anything else would be surprising.

    In 1 Timothy 3:11, Paul does not use the term, diakonos, deacon in reference to women, but gynaikas, and this seems to be a reference to women office holders and probably not to the wives of deacons. The usage of the feminine noun is supportive of a case of the ministerial office for the women. Ample evidence is marshaled for the suggestion that in the midst of Paul’s discussion of the qualifications for deacons, the Apostle suddenly singles out women serving in that capacity.[15] Some patriarchal pastors have screamed, Paul, yes! Women deacons, no! Dennis, who? I’m sticking with the King Jimmy. I’m standing with Paul. Men, don’t give me your sentiments, give me your sound scholarship. Did not Paul say, “Study to show yourself approved, a workman who need not be ashamed.”

    In Romans 16:2, Paul is not the least ambiguous. For in his lengthy greetings which closes the Epistle to the Romans, Paul commends to them “Phoebe, diakonos, of the Church at Cenchreae”. The King James Version in Romans 16:7 reads, “Salute, Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.” There is no mistaking it, Junia was a female apostle. One female apostle destroys every argument against women being in the ministry. I am standing by the words of Paul in Romans 16:7. Someone moved, and it wasn’t Paul. It looks to me like Paul stands with those who stand by Romans 16:7.

    In the Upper Room, in Acts 1:13-14, we are told that women were among those with the disciples, Mary, and other men. “They all joined together constantly in prayer along with the women and Mary, the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.” What! It says in Acts 1:13-14 that women were praying openly in a meeting with men and the disciples! What! Why didn’t the disciples say, “Keep them women silent!” They were waiting for the promise of Joel, Acts 2:17-18, “That both sons and daughters will prophesy. On my handmaidens I will pour out in those days my Spirit and they shall prophesy.” Many traditions agree that on Pentecost, the Spirit poured out and the women went forth prophesying. It’s a good thing that pastors of the patriarchal mindset, fundamentalists, Southern Baptists, and Church of Christ, weren’t there. They would be shouting, “Keep them women silen!. This is of the devil! They’re out of order! Women are not to prophesy!” On several occasions, I have seen church buildings with the inscription carved on the cornerstone, “The Lord’s Church, Established 33 A.D. Jerusalem”. I asked the preachers, “Do you let women pray, teach, evangelize, or prophesy publicly or to men?” Absolutely not! They give the invective of 1 Timothy 2:12. Then I say, “How can you be the Lord’s Church established in 33 A.D.?” Other patriarchal and traditionalists say that Joel’s prophesy was for the future, a latter day outpouring of the Spirit. When those days come, will we disregard a message from God because it comes from a woman? Are those prophesying handmaidens of the Lord going to be told, it is a “sin” for them to publicly tell the entire congregation the message God has given them? In John 4:1-42, we read that it was a Samaritan woman who leads a large part of the population of her community to Jesus. She was a triple outcast: Samaritan, despised by the Jews; woman, second class citizen; and, she had had five husbands and was currently living with a man. She was an outcast, but Jesus didn’t cast her out. She was a triple threat to the kingdom of Satan. God uses king pins (queen pins). The disciples were shocked that he was talking with a woman, but she went forth evangelizing her town, speaking, teaching, and preaching to men, women, and children. How else can you evangelize your town? Jesus trusted her. And it says that many came to him. It’s a good thing that the Lord’s Church wasn’t there, because they would have said, “Keep that woman silent. She’s not supposed to be evangelizing or teaching. That is a man’s job.” Excuse me, the Lord’s Church wasn’t there with the Lord. They were established in 33 A.D. in Jerusalem. The patriarchs and the Lord’s Church claim they are doing the Lord’s work the Lord’s way by silencing more than half of the Lord’s workforce. “The field’s are white unto harvest,” Jesus said, “But the workers are few.” Do you know why Tigger hops around all day on his tail in the forest? He’s afraid he will step on Pooh. Any teaching that dramatically shrinks the Lord’s workforce is a bunch of patriarchal “pooh”.

    Last point: In 1 Corinthians 12:7-30, Paul lists gifts of the Spirit. Repeatedly, he uses the Greek words-to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given (verse 7), to one is given the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge, to each one . . .to another . . .(verses 7-11). It’s an airtight case; there is no getting around the Greek. It is to each one male and female. The Spirit sovereignly gives the gifts of teaching, exhortation, words of knowledge, wisdom, not just to men but to the women. God is no respecter of persons. Why would God give gifts to women and not allow them to exercise them? The ministry is not according to gender but according to the gifts given to male and female that Paul says are irrevocable and without repentance.

    Male domination is a personal moral failure not a Biblical doctrine. We are to properly distinguish between male headship and male domination (lordship). Male headship to quote Ortlund is defined as,” In the partnership of two spiritually equal human beings,male and woman,the man bears the primary responsibility to lead the partnership in a God-glorifying direction.” This is not a contradiction but a divine paradox; a God created creative tension for male and female as equal but there is leadership (headship). They are made in the image of God and are spiritually equal. Their sexual identities are not a biological triviality or a mere accident but a divine design and I say,” Viva La Difference.” The man assumes a loving, leading, and servant leadership. That is, God calls the man, with the help and counsel of the woman, to see that the male-female partnership, serves the purposes of God, not the sinful urges of either member of the partners. The man is to lead, you can’t follow a parked car, but he is not to assume the role of a dictator.

    The Patriarchal Model always fails because it institutes a form of lordship and not of headship. Robin Morgan has aptly said, “Every organized patriarchal religion works overtime to contribute to its own misogyny.” Patriarchal systems have an abysmal history of being models of smothering male domination. There are patriarchal husbands, pastors and elders who are little more than glorified Archie Bunkers. Their wives and members are to play the part of Edith whose shrill voice, “Yeees, Archie” echoes compliance to the all knowing superior one. Having an Archie Bunker as a pastor is like sailing the high seas of life with Captain Bligh at the helm.

    When truth is abused in the opposite direction, a rival position takes hold that is a compelling and powerful form of feminism that is both radical and diabolical. The female morphs into a femi-Nazi. The answer is not the Women’s Lip (lib) Movement. The denigration of subordination crushes God’s creatures. Women are not to be treated as sex objects and neither are men to be treated as success objects. We are to be fully male, fully female, fully equal and fully made in Gods image.

    For the Bible to describe a male dominated society is not to prescribe it. The Old Testament scripture portrays women as chattel, as victims of polygamy, of religious sex rituals, of physical abuse, and as depersonalized subjects. Women were portrayed as second class citizens. James Borland points out, “The cultural mores and the historical setting into which God spoke His revelation must be distinguished from the revelation itself.” The Biblical description is not a Biblical prescription. Dwight Pratt says, “Every decline in her (woman’s) status in the Hebrew commonwealth was due to the incursion of foreign influences”. The influences of Babylonia, Medo-Persia, Egypt, and other pagan societies eroded God’s purposes for the male/female relationship. God’s Old Testament revelation explicitly forbids a patriarchal form of society, because patriarchy in the Bible was partly a heathen patriarchy that God didn’t condone but condemned. Modern patriarchy is prescribing what the Bible was describing as forbidden and God condemning.

    
    
21. on August 31, 2008 at 4:05 pm | Reply SOwen

    Hey brother,
    Thanks for the info. on the site. I will study that more. I just want to clarify that I am not advocating women not prophecying. Or not speaking outside in the mission field.
    I just am questioning the other issue from 1 Cor. 14 when you get to the point of Paul stating about it being a commandment from God. I am including all that Paul said throughout 1 Cor. up to that point. I am wrestling with this right now.
    I know there were and are great women used in the bible and even today. Ruth, Esther, Mary, Katherine Kulhman (60s and 70s). Again so I don’t disagree that they were out doing the work along side Jesus and the Paul etc. The issue just seems to be from the standpoint of the assembly. I don’t want to push this as we all need to seek God on it. I just love the dialogue. As I am continually learning from all who walk with Christ.
    Thanks, Steven O.

    
    
22. on August 31, 2008 at 4:15 pm | Reply lionelwoods7

    Hey Steven,

    This blog accepts all views. Ridiculous ones will be ignored (Jon on no eternal damnation) others that Christians have been debating is acceptable as we all strive to honor Christ. So no need to preface anything here. Bring your position and we can all work through like brothers and sister should do it. With patience, love, peace and ultimately grace if we can’t agree.

    
    
23. on August 31, 2008 at 4:24 pm | Reply SOwen

    Hutch, give me a few days to read what you wrote brother.LOL WHEW!!!!
    I’m not advocating a male dominant society. I am not against women speaking at all concerning outside the assembly,or other issues as I may be sounding a bit harsh. I am not trying to crawdad this issue either.
    I respect all of you and always will.
    I just have been struggling with the whole church one leadership dominated issue for a while and this was one issue that was brought up in our group a few weeks ago. I will say that I want to be corrected if I am wrong. And I greatly appreciate the understanding from the original greek context. That’s why I love this site. I am learning something.
    So again Hutch man…what can I say, but to let me digest all that you said. Thanks from the bottom of my heart. Coming out of the catholic church, then going into a charismatic and into a baptist/ charismatic I am just trying look through all of this. I learned a lot of the reformed teaching from my last home. Now I am just trying to be balanced on these other issues as the Lord leads.
    Steven O.
    Lionel, is Hutch your pit bull you have tied up until you need him..LOL….just kidding…or am I????

    
    
24. on August 31, 2008 at 4:32 pm | Reply Hutch

    Steven-

    I am more like a warm fluffy little maltese. Grin.

    Angela-

    O.K. I took your bait, with such a simple and non controversial subject that you brought up, how do you see it?

    
    
25. on August 31, 2008 at 4:54 pm | Reply lionelwoods7

    I have no pitbulls, I am learing here and wanted to see to godly man wrestle through it lovingly. I am just a moderatorr becuase I post the comments I guess. So again I just ensure nothing wacky makes it on here.

    
    
26. on August 31, 2008 at 5:14 pm | Reply SOwen

    Lionel and Hutch,
    First of all Lionel I know brother I am just jesting you. And I want to hear from others also. Maybe you should call this the Lionel group…as to mimic the Mclaughlin group on PBS LOL….
    I just want to sum up how I feel about this site from the word,
    Proverbs 11:14 “Where there is no counsel, the people fall;
    But in the multitude of counselors there is safety.”
    This is why I keep coming back here, is for the multitude of counselors and the safety.
    We are brothers and sisters in Christ and though we may have issues we still have each other in Christ.
    That’s what it is about. Learning, discerning and walking out our own salvation.
    Hutch, man my mom had a maltese when I was a kid and we didn’t get along…grin….but I won’t hold you to that….grin….I may sound like a broken record but thanks for all of the input. I must be about my family as this is the day the Lord has made and let us rejoice and be glad in it….
    Talk with you all later…Steven O.

    
    
27. on August 31, 2008 at 5:43 pm | Reply mrs. maverick

    hutch, i am so loving this! (but then why wouldn’t i- LOL) i will delve into this more because i always felt something was wrong with the man has the final decision in all matters teaching.

    i would ask, but why should he have the final say- what if his decision is dumb? or what if he’s just being plain selfish and wants to have his own way? of course i was told the usual- just trust God to work it out, just as He did for sarah when abraham put her in a precarious situation. The Lord protected sarah in spite of abraham’s cowardly act. i hardly believe that that’s the prescription we all should be following today. i know the Lord would have to work on me to trust of have affection for my husband again if he threw me under a bus just to save his own neck!

    i once heard a pastor boast about his wife’s submissiveness when he told the story about how he wanted to sell his home and buy a winnebago and move to the boonies. his “city girl” wife hated the idea and begged him not to do this. nevertheless he did it anyway!! and she abided by his final decision. he talked about all the trials they had since moving away from the city and how his submissive wife never complained. he said the Lord is going to reward his wife for her obedience. even as i recall this story, i’m sitting here smh because i know this is the type of stuff women are forced to swallow. whatever happened to do unto others as ye would have others do unto you? would that same adoring pastor like for someone to yank him from his surroundings, sell his home and put him in the boondocks somewhere just because they could? i don’t think so! this lord over, dictatorial, top dog mentality is wrong on so many levels no wonder people rebel against it.

    as far as that pastor’s story goes, there are far too many more like it. i was at a women’s retreat and the topic of marital submission came up. of course i heard the standard admonishments and the usual Scriptures were used without their historical context and how it can be applied today. one woman even said that in a marriage, submission means “duck so that God can hit your husband”.

    why should God have to hit anyone? why can’t we just count the cost when it comes to making a decision that’s going to affect our spouse’s and family’s lives. why can’t we treat one another the way we want to be treated? why not trust that the Lord gave men a good thing when He gave them wives and that they find favour with Him? a married couple is one flesh and both feelings and thoughts are equally important so what’s all this, the husband has the final say, stuff?

    i know that this isn’t going to sit well with some folk but i can’t “submit” to someone’s ideology when it’s steeped in harmful tradition. (not that tradition is harmful in itself but traditions that bind people and oppress them).

    now that i’m looking at the Church as the priesthood of all believers, i am seeing things from a totally different perspective.

    as for the examples of joyce, paula, juanita and such like- these women are not representative of true Christianity. beside the fact that they teach false doctrine, they are committing the same error of being the head honcho in charge as many male pastors do in their congregation.

    thank you lionel and hutch.
    ps. any man that needs an edith bunker type of wife has got some serious issues.

    
    
28. on August 31, 2008 at 6:01 pm | Reply lionelwoods7

    I could be wrong ladies and gents; however, I think most of what we believe comes into play because of Old Covenant principles superimposed into the New Covenant. There is a false dichotomy between the assembly and ministry. For example if a woman can bring a word of encourgament in a bible study/small group/or when a wife meets “privately” with her husband with another couple she can also bring a word of encouragment/exhortation within the assembly of believers. We don’t outside the “assembly” what we can’t do inside. So if a woman can pray with and for a man in her home away from the assembly she can do it inside the assembly. Why? Because whenever and where the people gather there is an assembly.

    
    
29. on August 31, 2008 at 7:25 pm | Reply Hutch

    Lionel-

    I am with you; you know I feel all the legalisms that people fall prey to and enslave other people with are derived by a misunderstanding of the nature of the New Covenant and the Law of Christ.

    My journey slaughtered my sacred cows in this order:

    By Embracing NCT it…

    1. Made me look at my Eschatology and it had to fall away to a Christ centered Eschatology

    2. Then I had to examine my Ecclesiology and I had to embrace the Priesthood of every believer where authority is congregational with no central one person pulpit and no man or woman is to teach for the wrong motives or in order to exercise authority over another. We are to teach with wisdom in order to edify and build up-you see both men and women in congregations today trying to manipulate people with their teachings-this is evil.

    The fact is the traditional church has no place for people like us because they cannot use us or manipulate us to help them build their man centered kingdoms. We are only interested in exalting Christ and being a part of building His kingdom and lovingly serving the least of His children.

    3. Finally I had to evaluate my views of women and stewardship.

    Steven-

    I have greatly benefited from your comments, teaching and admonitions as well… I have two Maltese, they are named Somerled and Angus Og, you would like them.

    
    
30. on August 31, 2008 at 8:05 pm | Reply lionelwoods7

    I believe many of those with NC convictions don’t follow this alway through. I believe many stop at the theological but don’t follow it through in their ecclesiological practice.

    
    
31. on August 31, 2008 at 11:09 pm | Reply SOwen

    Hey brothers and sisters, I back for some more…..no not really. I just want to bring into light our fellowship meeting last night and what was expericenced. Not by any legalism as I am far from that. As I said I came out of the catholic church. Again last night as we sat and read scripture as the Lord put it on our hearts. We praised God and prayed again with no “pastor” leading, but the Lord. Also there were times of complete “silence” from all. The stillness of the Lord. Those who wait on the Lord. Ok. Again because of conviction from the Lord did my wife and another two brothers wives not say a word. Not because of legalism, but from the Spirit. Two other women in the room were sitting by each other in the same room and started talking amongst themselves. Not about the word. And so there could be an expample again a small minute example. Also one time last year at my old fellowship we had a man from Kenya speaking. A lady had just been prayed for and as the gentleman started his teaching. She just busted out screaming and shaking. During his teaching. This went on for a while. She interrupted the service. Also there were some “elders” wives as the old fellowship calls them having a get together they try to meet once a month. Anyway instead of building up the body they were talking smack about their husbands. I am not against a woman speaking again it is not what I think or man thinks or women think as we are depraved, prideful, boastful and full of envy. We are or were a wretched fallen being. As God is not. He spoke the words in the bible whether Greek or Hebrew. I don’t want to go that far into it. So again who are we to complain to the potter about making us a pot?
    Let me say something else this is not an idealogy. It is the inspired word of God. I will not go against what scripture says. I am not 100% on the women being silence issue either though I may be sounding that way now. I am only presenting a case of what is in scripture. And again I don’t want to err on the wrong side. Though I will not tell a woman not to speak amongst a gathering in a home or building setting as that is something they must work out. I hope I am making sense here. We must be careful of not being full of pride. That’s what we’re fighting against concerning the whole traditional church issue. Right now I have an old pastor who I invited to the NTRF conference referring to them as a cult, and divisive. We are in a process of seeing God reform His church the way He laid it out. He does not need our help. He may use us, but He is still in control. Luther was used to bring the church back and now we are being used to bring the church back. Not forward since it was forward thinking that got us where we are now. I am not advocating OLD Testament either. I am 100% New Testament. Amen and so be it ………because no truth is of the lie………..Steven O.

    
    
32. on August 31, 2008 at 11:15 pm | Reply SOwen

    Hutch,
    I really do like Maltese. I have been wanting to get one for my mom. We have a Chiweenie. It’s part Chiuahua and part daschund. So now I have to compete with him for attention.

    
    
33. on September 1, 2008 at 12:02 am | Reply christgloryalone

    Hey all,

    Hutch you gave a thundering essay and it was well written.
    After looking at your Greek references in 1 Tim I would say the following:

    1. I agree with your reading of epitrepo(2010) as being a word in the present with an indicative and not an imperative.

    2. In regards to “authentein(831),” can you provide some reference to it being used in connection with sexual rites?

    3. In regards to 1 Tim 3 “if” epithume(1937) refers to “he/she” and not “he”(I’ve seen cases for both), can you provide explanation on the remaining qualifications that Paul lays out? It appears he zeros in on the male and if it is “he/she,” as you state, why does he not deal with women as well?

    4. Thanks for the insight on the “woman being saved through child birth”

    Lastly, the bible never argues for a patricarchial system but it does present headship that is characterized by servanthood. Christ is the head of His Body the Church, Paul this same author relates our marriages to this great mystery of Christ and His bride. So I take exception to the whole “curse,” statement.

    Yes men and women are most certainly equal because they are made in God’s image. In fact throughout the Gospel of Luke, the good doctor takes careful pains to show Christ interaction with women.

    Now to all,

    Last night when our families gathered, I was taught by the women who said absolutely nothing. In a time of gathering the men led their families in song, reading of Scriptures, teaching of the Word. It was there I saw how we as Christ Bride are to be taught by our head. The beautiful submission of these women in quietness taught me how I as a man need to be in submission and quietness being taught by my Head. Is this patriarchial or headship? The women did this unto the Lord willing.
    Before and after the formal gathering women were speaking, encouraging one another and requested songs.

    The larger sweeping issue is men. Men who will not lead their families, who will not teach their families or who are unable to answer the questions of their wives at home concerning the Christian faith. Why do we have “churches,” that are predominately full of women? Because men are not being told that they are to live as heads who are give their very lives if need be. We go back and forth about women. It is time to look at men. Christ did not come as a woman, He came as a man. So reflect the Head men!

    Hutch thank you for this statement:
    “Male domination is a personal moral failure not a Biblical doctrine. We are to properly distinguish between male headship and male domination (lordship). Male headship to quote Ortlund is defined as,” In the partnership of two spiritually equal human beings,male and woman,the man bears the primary responsibility to lead the partnership in a God-glorifying direction.” This is not a contradiction but a divine paradox; a God created creative tension for male and female as equal but there is leadership (headship). They are made in the image of God and are spiritually equal. Their sexual identities are not a biological triviality or a mere accident but a divine design and I say,” Viva La Difference.” The man assumes a loving, leading, and servant leadership. That is, God calls the man, with the help and counsel of the woman, to see that the male-female partnership, serves the purposes of God, not the sinful urges of either member of the partners. The man is to lead, you can’t follow a parked car, but he is not to assume the role of a dictator.”

    Phillip

    
    
34. on September 1, 2008 at 12:10 am | Reply mrs. maverick

    steve, i agree with you that we are made up of the same stuff as far as the flesh goes. and i agree God’s Word isn’t a ideology but the truth. however, i wasn’t refuting God’s Word- just men’s distorted traditions. this is one of the beautiful things i like about having liberty in Christ. i can disagree with someone’s personal convictions and abide by the dictates of my own conscience. we’re both fully persuaded in our own minds concerning this matter and so i won’t belabor my point.

    blessings&peace 2u.

    
    
35. on September 1, 2008 at 12:38 am | Reply Hutch

    Phillips-

    I cannot take credit as mentioned the lions share of that post came from the scholarship of Dr. Dennia Swift.

    I will check into your questions and try to get back to you with an example of “authentein(831) referring to sexual rites.

    Regarding 1 Timothy 3 are you asking for more of an answer than verse 11?

    
    
36. on September 1, 2008 at 1:50 am | Reply Nicolle Fletcher

    So much has been said, yet again this is a subject that is close to my heart as a woman. So here goes!

    I am a woman who in the assembly of the saints chooses to be silent as stated in scripture. Many women and men find it hard to believe or wrong in someway because we are so submerged into this modern day society.

    Mrs. Maverick can we not consider Eph 5 which states men as the head= Christ and women as the Bride= the church. Now would the Bride of Christ say to Him your decision is dumb or selfish? No, certainly not!

    There is great balance. Men are called to servant leadership to exemplify Christ. So he is to love, care for, and even die for his wife. Likewise the wife should respect and obey her husband as unto the Lord. We don’t set qualifications on Eph 6 (children obey your parents). Why? As a parent you feel you earned the right to be obeyed. No you have not! It is simply God’s order. We all have a place to function properly in the body.

    A womans silence in a gathering reflects Christ, bears fruit of self control, is loving, and kind. Silence in itself is a teaching tool. Here is a perfect example of submission. God sent Jesus for lost men and women. Jesus obeyed the Father in all things. There was a point when Jesus said could this cup pass…not my will but Yours. We as women must come to the place that we can say not my will but yours to our husbands but ultimately to the Lord.

    Submission is not a doormat issue. Rather it is a yielding of ones will…in fact it is a military term to rank oneself under. I am under my husband. I am to help, assist him, and respect him. I am not to take authority over him. If he leads in the “wrong direction” as your example shows. The woman should make her claim privately and respectfully showing the possible fawls in the plan. He should then out of love for the women God give him, go to the Lord in prayer. She then should follow which ever way.

    Godly marriage is a reflection of Christ with His Bride the church. We are to show that relationship to the world. Will a husband make wrong choices and decisions at times…yes he is human. So will the woman and wife. We can no longer say that this scripture or that scripture was for them because of some corrections they needed. It is clear to me that we need those same corrections today!

    Lionel to your post…I think it is wonderful. We are all called to submit in one form or another and again our example is Christ. We can’t go wrong if we support and love one another.

    
    
37. on September 1, 2008 at 3:58 am | Reply lionelwoods7

    Hey Steven and the Fletcher’s,

    I am just curious do you guys also do headcoverings when you meet? This is really a question of clarity. Thanks.

    
    
38. on September 1, 2008 at 4:00 am | Reply lionelwoods7

    Another question,

    Do you believe the New Covenant makes a distinction between women exhorting and encouraging and edifying man outside of the assembly versus in. Or can a group of young college students move into my home and some be male some be women and my wife colabor with me teaching them? How does that work outside and in and doesn’t that perpetuate a sacred worship place?

    
    
39. on September 1, 2008 at 4:01 am | Reply mrs. maverick

    hi nicolle,

    ty for sharing your convictions about how you believe you should conduct yourself in the gathering of the saints. while i don’t share your sentiments, i certainly understand them. as i’ve said, i’m familiar with the Scriptures, the examples that are often used to support this belief.

    i’m certain you know that this is one of those in house debates that is not likely to be reconciled on this side of heaven. i have read and own a few books on how to be a submissive wife and while i agree with some of the things said, there is still a lot that i don’t think i’ll ever agree with. the Lord has brought me from a long way and in my 17 years of marriage, i am definitely not the woman i used to be as a wife and mother. i trust that the Lord is still working out all the kinks (smile).

    but again, i’m still hearing a onesided view. the wife is to approach the husband respectfully- why not, they should approach one another respectfully? and again what about luke 6:31 and matt. 7:12? i believe the husband is the head of the woman and at the same time, i believe in mutual submission.

    one other thing, i never said women who choose to be in silence are wrong, i will not violate another’s conscience. it’s just that i see the saints gathering differently than you do. for example, i’m free to express myself on this man’s (lionel’s) blog but if we gathered together in one place, i would have to sit there quietly? this doesn’t make sense to me. what’s the difference between here and there? the difference is in how we interpret these gender specific Scriptures.

    
    
40. on September 1, 2008 at 12:23 pm | Reply SOwen

    To all, I think we just need to redirect our thoughts on the original post. Because for some reason God allowed us to discuss this othe postion maybe someone needed to hear something about it. You know there comes a time that we must disagree about something and walk away. As the Lord leads maybe this subject will come back up. It seems that there could be no end to this. As what I originally said way up the post some key points must have been overlooked. It is all about the glory of CHRIST not man and not women. We are all servants in whatever capacity. Servants to Who? CHRIST.. So Lionel,Hutch and Mrs. Maverick, you all know my stance on this and I know yours. And yet this could go on forever. I would urge everyone to seek God on this and not mans wisdom. Again I love you all in the Lord and yes we are all priest in Christ and yet we are also servants. As was clearly seen by Nicolles post she feels the leading of the Lord for her as with my wife. Myself and the other husband “did not tell them” what to do. I could go on further on the head coverings I don’t know although there is a woman in our group who always wears a head covering. Maybe that is her conviction. This is not Pentocostalism where women should not wear makeup and must wear earthtones. There is freedom in Christ and yet to exercise that freedom in Christ we must “all submit” to his authority. I wrestled with this all night last night and this is as far as I am personally going with it. I respect and love all of you. Amen!!!! Steven O.

    
    
41. on September 1, 2008 at 1:05 pm | Reply Hutch

    Steven-

    I agree.

    You and your wife are free to make a decision before the Lord as to if you feel your wife needs to be silent in the local church gathering.

    It only becomes a legalistic practice when someone takes a personal issue of conscience that is not a command of scripture and tries to bind others with the idea that they must adhere to your personal decision in order to be acceptable to God or to be part of a local body.

    The overarching principle is that things must be done in order with the goal of edifying others and bringing glory to Christ.

    I do not advocate an anything goes free for all within the local meeting as that is obviously what Paul was addressing in 1 Timothy and the Corinthian passages.

    I have mentioned that I have changed my positions on these issues recently after deep introspection and prayerful consideration and study-my conclusion were not made at the prompting of my wife demanding to be heard, she does not feel that she has the gifts of teaching and to her it is not an issue.

    I feel very strongly that all scripture must be placed in the context of the issues being addressed as the admonitions given in scripture while addressing a specific behavior; we know that outward behavior is merely a symptom of the real problem which is always a spiritual one.

    I do not feel that you must agree with me on this issue for us to have fellowship, not all from the Hyper-Patriarchy camp share the same gracious position.

    No, I am not lumping you into that group.

    Praise the Lord, Priestesses of Artemis of the Ephesians were being born again and had to unlearn what their previous pagan religion taught.

    Can anyone relate?

    My wife as scripture admonishes her submits (gives consideration to) her own husband and I endeavor to love her as Christ loves the church. God help us.

    I was going to do a Remix like Lionel is so good at on Acts 21:8-9 but I changed my mind as I do not want to appear mean spirited on this issue.

    But it was rather humorous.

    Blessings in Christ.

    
    
42. on September 1, 2008 at 1:31 pm | Reply SOwen

    Hutch, a question off the point and more in line with the hurricane issue. Is it my understanding that you live in the southern Texas area? And if so how is the weather looking. Man I have a heart for all that are in that path. I know a native missionary who lives in Haiti and I don’t know how to get info. on him and his orphanage. So I just want to ask that we keep the people affected by this in prayer.

    
    
43. on September 1, 2008 at 1:48 pm | Reply Hutch

    Steven-

    We are in a suburb of Houston called Katy, Tx it is just West of the city-right now the sun is shining, but I can see dark clouds coming from the East.

    Everything is fine here at this time, but we expect to eventually get some potentially serious rainfall.

    Indeed we will pray.

    
    
44. on September 1, 2008 at 4:31 pm | Reply Nicolle Fletcher

    Hey all,

    Lionel, in regards to head coverings, Paul gives us a clear answer in 1 Cor 11:16.

    In regards to the second question concerning the New Covenant, can we approach this topic asking for what reason are we gathering? It appears from 1 Cor 11:17 through the end of chapter 14 Paul is addressing when they come together to celebrate the Lord’s Supper, the use of gifts and the orderly worship. So here is the only limitation of women speaking. In fact Paul limits the number of prophecies and tongues. He concludes with the statement “the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord.”

    Now what if college kids come together in your home, etc., etc,. We find good examples of this, of men and women laboring side by side: Priscilla/Aquila teaching Apollos. Timothy was taught by his mother and grandmother. Philip’s daughters were prophetess, Eudoia and Syntyche who labored with Paul. Of course one of our favorites, older women TEACH the younger women (Titus 2). When we evangelize on Sundays, my wife is speaking, teaching exhorting and all that good stuff.

    So in the end no sacred place of worship is being advocated rather we need to look at the context of the gathering.

    Hutch, I am wondering about this statement:

    “It only becomes a legalistic practice when someone takes a personal issue of conscience that is not a command of scripture and tries to bind others with the idea that they must adhere to your personal decision in order to be acceptable to God or to be part of a local body.”

    Would you agree or not that a woman’s silence in the gathering is a command of the Lord? (1 Cor 14:37) Could we not say that your’s and Mrs Maverick’s view is not a command of the Lord? Truly the burden of proof is on you to present from Scripture where women are to speak in the context as addressed by Paul to the Corinthians.

    I do not want to come off as strong, but I bristle at the term legalism when applied to something that is clearly stated in the New Covenant as a command of the Lord. Legalism is where I would tell you: you are in sin because you don’t gather the same time I do. You are in sin because I use a guitar and you choose to use a harmonica to praise the Lord.

    So I would like to conclude this way. Remember Paul and Romans 14. If you (Hutch, Mrs. Maverick) were to come and fellowship with us(which you are more than welcome) knowing how we view 1 Cor 14, then the loving and edifying thing to do would be for the women not to speak. Why? The answer is in Romans 14:13. We should not seek to be stumbling blocks to each other or judge one another because if so we are no longer walking in love.

    Enjoyed the learning.

    Phillip

    
    
45. on September 1, 2008 at 5:09 pm | Reply Nicolle Fletcher

    Good Morning All. It is a beautiful day in the neighborhood! I was excited to see the responses to the post and I will attempt to answer as much as I can. Mrs. Maverick I am thankful for our liberty and convictions in Christ as well.
    Let’s look together at 1 Corinthians 14:26-40 highlight verses 26b, 27,30b, 34, 35, 37b, 38, 40
    Pay special attention to the highlighted sections of this text. Men and women for different reasons at different times are told to be silent. Again that silence is to be in submission to the other. Everything that is done in the main gathering is done for the edifying and building up. One thing I think we miss is how men are called by God to lead. Adam brought transgression into the world, not Eve. The woman was made for the man not the other way around. So if we gather and for 45 minutes we are told to be silent as one who may have a tongue is to be silent (v.27, 28) it is okay. This is only an issue when we effort to really do the scriptures. In a traditional church setting no one but the Pastor, or Praise team speaks. Anyone else needs permission from the pastor to speak in the open setting. Why is it such a big deal for us to do the Bible? If we are trying to break away from mans tradition and live God’s purposed plan, then we have to be willing to change our thoughts. We need to be transformed and not try at every hand to make an excuse to do what we want to do. I by my nature am a very outspoken woman. On most things I have an opinion. My husband was called into the ministry ten years ago. At that time we were in a traditional COGIC building setting. All the elders and new ministers wives were to meet and be trained (Titus 2). However at that time I was not ready for what I was going to receive in that meeting. I was told to submit, respect and honor my husband, manage the house and basically take care of everything. I was VERY, VERY ANGRY! I thought she must be crazy to tell me to listen to what he has to say all the time. I am an educated woman and I will not be at home taking care of children and being his “call girl”. That was the craziest thing to me. I was really a mess over that whole thing. However over time the Lord graciously removed the scales from my eyes. Now I KNOW submission is beautiful and as a woman I am called to it. I am only heavy on the woman side because I am a woman. Mutual submission is a given as a whole.
    Mrs. Maverick I would love for you to visit my site http://www.womanonthevine.blogspot.com and read the article Does a Fish Know it is Wet? And Submission: A Woman’s high calling.

    Blessings in Christ
    Nicolle

    
    
46. on September 1, 2008 at 5:25 pm | Reply lionelwoods7

    Hey Phillip,

    I have to now ask what exactly was Paul conveying in 1 Corinthians 11 when the women had the right to prophesy and pray in the assembly? This would have been audible then that leads to the “new covenant commands” for us to admonish one another, teach one another, sing to one another and pray for one another (without ceasing).

    The next issues would be that Lydia had a church that met in her house, in Acts the 120 that spoke in tongues included women, in Acts 12 they were gathered praying in Mary’s home, in Colossians 4 Nympha had a church in her home (where they were admonishing, teaching and singing to one another Colossians 3). It doesn’t seem to me that women were excluded from praying, prophecying, singing. As a matter of fact we know that these women were praying and prophecying. So I have to ask what do I do with those scriptures.

    
    
47. on September 1, 2008 at 5:27 pm | Reply lionelwoods7

    Hey Steven,

    Brother it would inconsistent not to discuss this issue but then fight for ecclisiology in other places. I don’t understand how we pull the agree to disagree, we can do that but that would defeat the purpose of what we have been doing and arguing for.

    
    
48. on September 1, 2008 at 5:46 pm | Reply christgloryalone

    Hey Lionel,

    1. In regards to your first question, Paul makes a distinction between what he just stated in 1 Cor 11:2-16 and then the transition in verse 17. That being the context described with the Lord’s Supper and the prescription for orderly worship.

    2. I am not excluding women from doing any of the above that you pointed out. What I am trying to nail down is the context for the gathering of the believers. Is it in the context of what we are looking at in 1 Corinthians? Is it just to pray? Secondly, just because they met in Lydia’s home, Nympha’s home and Mary’s home, this can not negate the clear in 1 Cor 14.

    Man I just want clear understanding like all of us here. Like I explained earlier how is Paul’s written command of the Lord to be understood? Is it cultural or for all time and in all assemblies? I have yet to see this answered.

    look forward to hearing from you

    
    
49. on September 1, 2008 at 6:21 pm | Reply mrs. maverick

    hi bro. philip,
    i hope that this doesn’t come off wrong, but if i were to come and “fellowship” with you and your family and i had to sit there in complete silence- then i would not consider it fellowship.

    we obviously disagree on what constitutes fellowship. and again, this is an in house debate that is not likely to disappear on this side of glory. and why is it that often what we perceive to be “clear in Scripture” is not always the case with other believers? if things are so clear, why are there so many divisions amongst us (the Church). i know the answer, it’s because “the other guys” are wrong. lol

    btw, as a mature sister in Christ, i would refrain from doing anything that i know would be a stumbling block to my brother or sister.

    ps. is there a difference between me “talking” on a pc on lionel’s blog where men are present and me talking if we were all together in the same room?

    
    
50. on September 1, 2008 at 6:26 pm | Reply lionelwoods7

    Phillip,

    1. I don’t understand your first point can you define it a bit more? What I am asking is, is it true that women prophecied (and was never discouraged) and prayed (likewise) in the assembly?

    2. How many believers? Can woman sing when 10 are gathered in a home for a friendly game ofs pades? Can she give encouragment at a home when there are 5? What I am saying is that is seems that you are making a distinction between the worship “service” and believers gathering. That leads to the my previous question or examples, it is true that women spoke in tongues “while their was a gathering” that women prayed and not only that one young woman speaks and says that Peter was at the door. Next we see that women was some how speaking in Phillipians because they had some problems and Paul tells them to reconcile. I am fighting for the case that if a woman can speak when 5 gather she can speak when 1 million gather. So I have to ask again can women pray and sing in the assembly or is this an absolute muteness?

    3. If we follow this the way you say that means that she can’t pray, can’t sing, can’t request clarification and can’t prophecy, which would be absolute and I see too many cases where women did do just this throughout the book of Acts. So next question would be is it cool in Jersualem and not in Corinth?

    
    
51. on September 1, 2008 at 7:22 pm | Reply christgloryalone

    Alrighty this will be a two part response:

    1. Mrs. Maverick I’m sorry that you feel that way. But are we then saying that the women present in the text we are dealing with were not in fellowship? Our fellowship is based soley on Christ Jesus and Him bringing us together as one Body. That is my definition of fellowship. I’m in fellowship with you and we have never met.

    2. If you were not to come because of this above reason, is that not the very reason for division? You appealed to not being a stumbling block to another brother or sister which is the substance of Romans 14. So that being the case would you not come, learn, be encouraged and walk in love with us? So I do appeal to your maturity that you would come.

    3. Your last comment is a perfect transition to Lionel’s responses addressing the context of all this occurring.

    4. Lionel I was answering your question concerning head covering. Clearly women are to pray and prophecy that is all throughout Scripture.

    5. I have never or will I ever state that a woman can not pray or prophecy, she can not sing songs or spiritual psalms, etc., My wife sings and she prays. Paul clearly is addressing a specific context to the Corinthians but then he applies “the command of the Lord.” I am not disputing the truths of Scripture in your second question above referring to “How many believers?”

    Dear people, your qualm can not be with me, I did not write the letter to Corinth. But what Paul wrote down at the end of 1 Cor 14 is clear as day.

    1. I’m just asking what is the context of 1 Cor 14?

    2. Is it cultural or is it for all time?

    Phillip

    
    
52. on September 1, 2008 at 8:25 pm | Reply Hutch

    Hutch, I am wondering about this statement:

    “It only becomes a legalistic practice when someone takes a personal issue of conscience that is not a command of scripture and tries to bind others with the idea that they must adhere to your personal decision in order to be acceptable to God or to be part of a local body.”

    Would you agree or not that a woman’s silence in the gathering is a command of the Lord? (1 Cor 14:37) Could we not say that your’s and Mrs Maverick’s view is not a command of the Lord? Truly the burden of proof is on you to present from Scripture where women are to speak in the context as addressed by Paul to the Corinthians.

    Nicolle-

    I have already posted extensively regarding why the verses that appear to teach that a woman is to be silent are not a blanket prohibition about women speaking in the local gathering.

    Women who were saved out of a pagan religion where women exercised authority over men, needed for a time to sit quietly and listen and learn before they would have anything edifying to teach or contribute.

    Neither men nor women are to teach in order to exercise authority over another; the bible has a term for those folks: Nicolatians.

    Christ is not fond of them.

    So yes, if a woman wants to teach in order to subject men under her authority as an intermediary between him and God like the followers of Artemis of the Ephesians, we would make sure she was not allowed to speak and teach false doctrine.

    We have to deal with the entire supporting passages around these verses, are women saved through having children? Of course not, Paul is saying that God will protect women when they give birth not Artemis of the Ephesians.

    Regarding your question about visiting your gathering, if the opportunity came up, if your group would allow, I would be happy to visit and my wife and I would conduct ourselves as Paul commands us in Romans 14:1-13, Romans 15:1-7. As mentioned a gathering is to be edifying, neither I nor my wife would act in a way that would cause a scene, strife, division or in way that would cause another weaker brother to stumble. We would limit our liberty for the sake of our brothers and sisters in Christ. Stacy would not speak in your gathering.

    But, my wife would not live her entire life under an unbiblical yoke of bondage as we understand that Paul is not commanding all women at all times to be silent in the assembly.

    We would limit ourselves for your sake and benefit, not our benefit.

    BTW: It is prudent that men be silent and learn quietly from others when they do not really know what they are teaching as well. There are many times that it is best that I sit quietly and learn from say Lionel or Steven or Phillip or Angela and I am sure you know some things that I do not know as well.

    If Paul was teaching that women are always to be silent and to never teach/speak in a local gathering, then Stacy and I would observe that as a part of the Law of Christ under the New Covenant.

    
    
53. on September 1, 2008 at 8:33 pm | Reply SOwen

    Lionel, and all if the reason I stated what I said is that this is my wifes day off and she was fussing at me for being on the computer so long.
    So if I don’t do some submitting also I will be violating another command. The command of my wife to give her some attention……..choose this day whom I will serve….. this computer or my wife unto the Lord…lol. I will continue this later as time permits.
    I, would like us to realize though on the head coverings read vs. 16 ” But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.” That speaks plainly. So no we don’t have head coverings.
    Another point Paul is making in 1 Cor. is addressing ORDER…somewhere there was confusion and disorder. So then he stated all he did and came to the women being silent issue. You can’t argue with that. You all had been hung on 1 Tim. and I have been trying to bring it from 1 Cor. . So that is why I am not saying we must agree to disagree because it also states in 1 Cor.”If anyone be ignorant, let him be.” It is almost as if Paul new a group of bloggers were going to be hashing out this issue in 2008 and so he addressed the issues from every angle.
    Sincerely, Steven

    
    
54. on September 1, 2008 at 8:41 pm | Reply Hutch

    Phillip-

    Was the Bible written with the chapter numbers/breakdowns, verse numbers/breakdowns that we use today or where those added later?

    
    
55. on September 1, 2008 at 9:00 pm | Reply mrs. maverick

    philip,

    1. yes, i think it was cultural and not perpetual. i refer back to hutch’s post. we can disagree here and that’s fine with me. no harm, no foul.

    2. you say you are in fellowship with me now, but i am not silent because i am speaking thru my typing. why should this change because the venue does?

    3. would i come? depends on what’s going to take place once we assemble ourselves together. i don’t consider mutual sharing to be women usurping authority over men.

    4. i consider fellowshipping a mutual sharing of ideas, and free exchange. our hearts knit together by the common thread of Christ’s blood and genuine love borne of the Holy Ghost. dining with one another, praying with/for one another, exhorting one another with the Scriptures, encouraging one another and more. what i don’t consider fellowshipping is what you suggested for me- come and learn. as far as walking in love, forgive me for sounding heady (Lord knows i wish i could convey this better) but i believe i know how to do this already. which is not to say, i do it perfectly or consistently at all times but i strive to through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

    5. i’ve had this discussion many times and i understand that people won’t agree with me and will think i’m way off in my assessments. i’m fine with that because i’ve grown to realize that we all won’t see eye to eye even if we feel we are 100% dead on. i like to leave off from debating the issue and allow people the liberty to be fully persuaded in their minds about the Scriptures.

    
    
56. on September 1, 2008 at 9:13 pm | Reply mrs. maverick

    ps. philip, if my husband and i did come to your gathering, please rest assured i would remain silent and govern myself accordingly so as not to create unnecessary strife or discord. i don’t know hutch- but i’m in agreement with what he’s been saying so far and like he said, i would humbly submit myself for your sake.

    blessings&peace 2 u and sis. nicolle.

    
    
57. on September 1, 2008 at 9:39 pm | Reply Hutch

    If anyone reading this is interested in further study Jon Zens has an excellent piece entitled: Are the sisters free to function?

    http://www.searchingtogether.org/free-to-function.htm

    He also lists a number of additional references for further study at the end of this article.

    
    
58. on September 2, 2008 at 12:41 am | Reply Nicolle Fletcher

    My heart breaks right now! I will conclude with this. Can anyone tell when is a woman to be silent as stated in scripture. I agree that we are able to teach other women, pray and prophecy in a mixed setting. However not one person is arguing for scripture. We are looking for ways to say “you are weak in the faith and I am strong and I will not speak for your benefit”…what about the WORD! Forgive me if I sound harsh etc. I must contend for the Faith.

    Not Steve, not Phillip, not me, nor Steve’s wife are saying sit down shut up and don’t worship the Lord. I am willing to learn. Steve’s wife is a wonderful woman full of knowledge and understanding of God’s word and love for brothers/sisters. What about SCRIPTURE. Do we ignore a part for our personal gain?

    Hutch,
    “But, my wife would not live her entire life under an unbiblical yoke of bondage as we understand that Paul is not commanding all women at all times to be silent in the assembly.” That is a real deep statement Hutch. Are you then implying that Paul by inspiration of the Holy Spirit told the Corinthians to submit to a yoke of bondage? I don’t understand this statement.

    Chapters and verses? Come on Hutch.
    Context, got that too. That is how we should approach Scripture.

    Lastly Mrs. Maverick what is the Scriptural support for claiming it is cultural and not perpetual? In regards to fellowship I defined it. I don’t understand how you missed it. Please reread my comment #1 posted on Sept 1, 7:22 pm.

    For me and my wife, thank you for the discussion and interaction as this is our last post concerning this topic.

    There can only be one interpretation of Scripture. Either our understanding is wrong or yours is. One of us is weak in the faith. We both can not be right. So the Lord shall determine in a manner and time fit for Him.

    Much Love and respect in Christ.

    Phillip and Nicolle

    
    
59. on September 2, 2008 at 1:06 am | Reply Lionel Woods

    Hey Flethchers and Steve,

    I came from 1 Corinthians and I came from all over the New Testament. Read my post again, here it is just in case we got lost in the shuffle,

    Phillip,

    1. I don’t understand your first point can you define it a bit more? What I am asking is, is it true that women prophecied (and was never discouraged) and prayed (likewise) in the assembly?

    2. How many believers? Can woman sing when 10 are gathered in a home for a friendly game ofs pades? Can she give encouragment at a home when there are 5? What I am saying is that is seems that you are making a distinction between the worship “service” and believers gathering. That leads to the my previous question or examples, it is true that women spoke in tongues “while their was a gathering” that women prayed and not only that one young woman speaks and says that Peter was at the door. Next we see that women was some how speaking in Phillipians because they had some problems and Paul tells them to reconcile. I am fighting for the case that if a woman can speak when 5 gather she can speak when 1 million gather. So I have to ask again can women pray and sing in the assembly or is this an absolute muteness?

    3. If we follow this the way you say that means that she can’t pray, can’t sing, can’t request clarification and can’t prophecy, which would be absolute and I see too many cases where women did do just this throughout the book of Acts. So next question would be is it cool in Jersualem and not in Corinth?

    
    
60. on September 2, 2008 at 1:19 am | Reply lionelwoods7

    Phillip are you saying that women MUST wear head coverings? I don’t understand you answer.

    
    
61. on September 2, 2008 at 2:32 am | Reply mrs. maverick

    sis. nicolle,
    you don’t sound harsh at all. you sound passionate about what you believe the Scriptures are saying and i don’t think there’s anything wrong with that?

    as far as your definition of fellowship, i didn’t miss it- i just don’t agree with it. that’s ok, isn’t it?

    finally, i think we’ve arrived at the point i’ve been suggesting for a few posts, and that is let each one abide by the dictates of their own conscience when we disagree about what we believe the Scriptures are saying. i agree with you that the Lord is faithful and will settle this in His time and in His way. i’ll admit for arguments sake that i could be as wrong as two left feet but until God brings me to that realization i have no choice but to abide in Christ with the understanding i have now.

    i think our dialog was healthy but we’ve arrived at an impasse. yes, indeed- one of us is wrong, so let’s earnestly pray for one another that the Holy Spirit, our Teacher, will illuminate His truth to us. i hope there are no hard feelings because i certainly don’t have any towards you or your husband.
    i sincerely bid you grace & peace.
    warmest regards,
    angela

    
    
62. on September 2, 2008 at 12:07 pm | Reply Hutch

    Nicolle-

    I can see that one of my last posts had a much unintended outcome and for that I am grieved. I cited the verses that tell us when to lovingly limit our freedom in Christ and I caused an offense. Please forgive me.

    I will answer your question one more time, and then I will not respond to this issue again. I feel it is abundantly clear what my position is and I have cited a large amount of supporting evidence as well as additional research opportunities.

    This started with a response to a legitimate question posed by Mrs. Maverick. I really have no ax to grind and I do not expect or need everyone to agree with me. I have settled this issue in my heart in light of scripture and before the Lord.

    When should a woman remain silent in the gathering of the local church?

    1. When her desire to speak/teach is from the wrong motivation
    2. When she desires to speak/teach in order to propagate false doctrine
    3. When she desires to speak/teach in order to exercise authority over men
    4. When she desires to speak/teach in order to act as if she is an intermediary between men and God

    I Timothy 2:12

    5. When her speaking is out of order and causing disorder within the church

    1 Corinthians 14:34-35

    Paul speaking by the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit is not confused and he is not in error, God’s Word is consistent. Women are shown as speaking/prophesying in the assembly and instructed on how to do so in other verses. The verses above must be interpreted in light of the correct meaning of the words used in the authographs and in light of the problems Paul was addressing otherwise we have an unreliable and confused document that instructs women on how to prophecy in the assembly and then in the very same letter instruct women not to speak in the assembly.

    But we know that even if we do not all come together on this issue, we do indeed have the very authoritative Words of God.

    Prasie the Lord! God saw fit to speak to the likes of me.

    In Christ,

    Mike Hutchison

    
    
63. on September 2, 2008 at 12:11 pm | Reply Hutch

    Lionel-

    This is your blog, so obviouslly you have the right to moderate my comments.

    But I am curious as to if you feel I have done something wrong or said something inappropriate?

    
    
64. on September 2, 2008 at 12:55 pm | Reply lionelwoods7

    Hutch,

    Nope! Not at all why you ask?

    
    
65. on September 2, 2008 at 1:01 pm | Reply Hutch

    Lionel-

    I am such a knucklehead, I see that I entered my e-mail address in wrong. That is probably why my post is awaiting moderation.

    
    
66. on September 2, 2008 at 2:20 pm | Reply mrs. maverick

    oh sure, hutch. blame it on me whydontcha. lol. anyhoo, do you have a blog or website?

    
    
67. on September 2, 2008 at 3:00 pm | Reply Hutch

    I used to have a blog entitled New Covenant Theology Houston, but I took it down due to time constraints and now I am addicted to reading Lionel’s.

    Story of my life!

    
    
68. on September 2, 2008 at 3:05 pm | Reply SOwen

    Good Morning all,
    After somewhat of a good nights sleep and a lot of intercession prayer over a lot of issues. I just want to say a few things not as to stir the pot anymore than it already has been. Years ago I would have been so angry about all of this. BUT by the glory of God I am able to say thank you all for the passion and this is why we do this. You all are a wonderful group. Ok, that said….dun dun dun….grin…I want to clarify some things from my experience:
    Yes women can prophecy!
    Yes women can speak in tongues!
    Yes women should be allowed to pray and do!
    Yes women should not have to wear head coverings!
    Yes women dream dreams…my wife does and she also has interpreted dreams!
    Yes I do pray in tongues have prophecied, prayed for people to be healed and it happened.
    Yes I used to go to prayer groups where I was the only man. (I was like a young Timothy learning) and yet also leading. I was able to discern when the prayer meeting was becoming fleshly and the Lord would turn it around.
    Yes, I have been in a group of believers, men and women and sang in tongues for hours with the intepretation coming through a man. And the reason I know it was of God. The words that were spoken that time in 1998 have all come true.
    I am here in Conway Arkansas because a word spoken through men and a woman plus it confirmed what I was hearing in my quiet times.
    Now I don’t by the culture thoughts since that is why we are in the mess we are in with the traditional churches. Also I am always hearing “the scripture is silent” on such and such issue so that is why “we” do this as the Lord doesn’t say one way or another. Well, in the context of what we have been discussing the scripture is not silent. Now there were different types of meetings in the New Testament. Prayer, fellowship or breaking of bread meetings. Now when we come together guess what all the people, men and women talk. When we sing the men and women sing, when we pray the men and women pray. When the teaching comes is when my wife and Nicolle as well as the other lady in our group stay quiet. By the way the one woman who wears a head covering in our fellowship came out of the Quaker movement and yet she still wears it all the time. Now as I was reading about an incident in England from a woman who was making waves in her religion she stated…that all women who commit adultery and fornicators should be stoned on the spot. And others were agreeing with her. Guess what she was Muslim. So men and women I don’t want that. Christ is the fullfillment of all the law and the prophets. So we don’t have to do those things anymore. As with the vs. and chapters being original that is something added to the word. So would that constitute adding to the scriptures as we have been warned not to do. I am and will continue to search the issue of women being silent out. But, until I know for certain what Paul really meant one way or the other I will stand with what is written. That is my stance on this issue. I deeply appreciate all of the references you all pointed out from other men’s teachings. Maybe that has convinced you, but don’t condemn us if we don’t see that yet. We are all responsible for walking out our own salvation. Maybe you all are a little ahead of us on this issue or vice versa. But, I really feel a lot of the issue got out of hand. We should be obtaining to the one faith. I have no hard feelings toward anyone on this blog site. I consider you all family and we are just having a reunion where we hash out our inheritance. So all this in love. Now I know I probably have stirred up some more questions on my other comments, but I am taking a sabbatical on this for now. This has wore me out. I just turned 41 last month and it is catching up with me…..LOL…..IN the LOVE of CHRIST…Lionel, Hutch, Mrs. Maverick..I love you all….Phil and Nicolle…you are loved…Thanks, Steven O.

    
    
69. on September 2, 2008 at 3:27 pm | Reply Hutch

    Blessings to you your family and your ministry Steven.

    
    
70. on September 3, 2008 at 3:54 pm | Reply Hutch

    Steven-

    You said: “You all had been hung on 1 Tim. and I have been trying to bring it from 1 Cor. . ”

    If you want to know why I believe 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is not commanding that women be silent in the assembly, I would be happy to resume the conversation.

    I promise no insinuations about one side or the other being “the weak believer”.

    If not, I am willing to let it go

    
    
71. on September 3, 2008 at 4:38 pm | Reply SOwen

    Hutch, I am willing to hear. I even went to read John McArthurs points on it and he falls on the side that I have been going. Again I don’t put a lot of emphasis on one mans teaching over another. My old pastor preached on this and said it concerns tongues. He is not the only one who says that either. So I am willing to have simple dialogue. The other day brother I was at home with my wife and kids. So she was getting frustrated that I spent so much time on the computer. I have been reading the other post and have purposly stayed off them as everyone seems to be going at it pretty good.
    Thanks, Steven O

    
    
72. on September 3, 2008 at 8:31 pm | Reply Hutch

    Steven-

    I love Macarthur; I have his life works library on my computer. While serving as an elder in a traditional congregation, I had the great experience of attending Grace Churches Shepherds Conference. I went to all the expository preaching electives as I really thought I was called to a traditional pulpit ministry and was working to that end.

    I hope you understand that after reading my other numerous posts in this thread and others that I am not arguing for one female pastor to have a one woman pulpit ministry any more than I am arguing for a one man pulpit ministry. God’s Word knows nothing about that structure.

    I used to think that Macarthur was a bit liberal and edgy as he does believe that Gods Word does speak of female deacons! I used to disagree with him on that and thought he was in error! Grin. Now I agree with him on that and disagree with him regarding women speaking in the assembly. Too funny.

    NOTE: Some people who argue that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 does not teach that a woman cannot speak/teach in the assembly do so because they do not believe that vs. 34-35 were in Pails letter. That simply is not true and I will not go into all the details as to why as that is not the focus of this conversation. Suffice it to say, that I fully believe that vs. 34-35 are in 1 Corinthians Chapter 14 and in the exact location as written and carry the weight of Apostolic authority as the very Words of God.

    BTW: I asked about the chapter breaks before to underscore the fact that the entire letter of 1 Corinthians runs together as one long letter. Paul was the king of run on sentences! The chapter breaks are made often times in places where Paul is still finishing his thought. Many times the next chapter is not a new thought at all.

    1 Corinthians 14:34-35, “Let your women keep silent in the churches: For it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also says the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husband at home: For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.”

    How is the letter of 1 Corinthians laid out?

    This is essential to understanding women in ministry. In chapters 1 through 4 the Apostle Paul is mainly writing about his ministry, reproof, his visit, explanations, and Timothy. In chapters 5 thru 6 he writes concerning things he heard were going on in the church at Corinth. But in chapters 7 through 14, Paul was responding to questions and statements that the Corinthians wrote to him. Let’s take a look:

    1 Corinthians 7:1 “Now concerning things whereof YOU WROTE UNTO ME…”
    1 Corinthians 8:1 “Now concerning things offered unto idols…”
    1 Corinthians 12:1 “Now concerning spiritual gifts…”
    Paul steps through the concerns, statements, and questions that they have written to him. In 1 Corinthians 12:1 Paul finally gets to the questions and matters about spiritual gifts and says, “Now concerning spiritual gifts…” and states that the “manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man (every person male and female)” (verse 7). He mentions different types of manifestations including the word of wisdom, the word of knowledge, tongues and the interpretation of tongues, etc. Pay particular attention to the words “every man, each man, all members” etc. In these cases, the Greek word for “men or man” means people, humans–not only males, but both genders. The word “all” in the Greek means ALL, not half, not a certain few, not just males, but ALL!

    Before we go any further, certain truths must be revisited

    First, the church is not a building, but God’s people as individuals, two or more meeting together creating “church.” It’s an assembly of believers, collectively the Temple of God (see Colossians 1:24 and 2 Corinthians 6:16).
    Secondly, that “there is neither male nor female (in the church): for you are all one (type of being born of God) in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).
    The ironic thing is that the Apostle Paul, who wrote these truths stated above, seems to contradict 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 just a few sentences later. Here is the reason for the contradiction: Those statements (Scriptures) in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 never ORIGINATED with Paul. Paul only REITERATED them as a rebuke to the Corinthian church in the letter we now read as Scripture. The Corinthians originally wrote them TO Paul. Paul told them how absurd it was for them to say that the Law commands women to be silent in the church – THEY ARE THE CHURCH. Paul said that they WERE NOT commands from the Lord but “ignorance” of what they were teaching God’s people. (We will explore this in a moment).

    We have been taught that 1 Corinthians 11 has to do with women and men having their heads covered or uncovered, but it’s not just that. Paul was setting them up to show them just how foolish they were in saying that God wants “the women to keep silent in the church.” Let’s examine this and follow this thought through to its proper end.

    In 1 Corinthians 11:4 notice that Paul jumps right in about the “head covering” and says, “Every man (this case literally means male in the Greek) praying or prophesying having his head covered, dishonors his head.” But in verse 5 he says, “But EVERY WOMAN (FEMALE) that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head…” NOTICE THAT THE WOMEN ARE PRAYING AND PROPHESYING! The whole section of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 is to establish that ladies (in their culture) when they prayed or prophesied in church needed to have their heads covered, NOT that they couldn’t pray or prophesy at all!

    Paul then talks about the spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 12. Notice that “the word of wisdom, the word of knowledge, speaking in tongues and the interpretation” all require SPEAKING speaking in the church, and the speaking is done by ALL, both men and women. “And the Spirit dividing to every man (person, male and female) severally as He will” (v11).

    As soon as Paul finished establishing that the body of Christ is “one” (meaning, nobody is excluded no male or female excluded from the gifts, callings and offices of God) he then said that, “God set some” some who? Some males? No! Some of the members of the body of Christ because there is no “male or female” when it comes to being an apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, teacher, moving in the gifts of the spirit, miracles, healings, speaking in tongues or anything in Christ (See 1 Corinthians 12:28-31.)
    Then in 1 Corinthians 13 Paul shows the “more excellent way” to move in the anointing of the office and the gifts that God has given us.

    When Paul reaches 1 Corintians14, he focuses on “speaking in tongues” and “speaking in unknown tongues”. In verse 4 he says that, “He that speaks in an unknown tongue edifies himself; but he that prophesies EDIFIES THE CHURCH.” Paul wants the whole church to edify the WHOLE church. He then says in verse 23, “If therefore the WHOLE CHURCH (EVERY MALE AND EVERY FEMALE) come together into one place, AND ALL (ALL MALES AND ALL FEMALES) SPEAK WITH TONGUES…” and continues in verse 24-26, “If ALL (MALES AND FEMALES) PROPHESY… let all things be done unto edifying.”

    In 1 Corinthians 14:27-31 Paul sets the ground rules for “speaking in the church:”

    IF ANY MAN (any person, male or female) SPEAK:

    Unless there is NO INTERPRETER (male or female)…
    Let the (male or female) PROPHETS SPEAK…
    If anything be revealed to ANOTHER THAT SITS BY (whether male or female)…
    For you may ALL (male and female) PROPHESY ONE BY ONE, THAT ALL (male and female) MAY LEARN AND ALL (male and female) may be exhorted.

    I pointed out earlier that Paul was responding to the things that the Corinthian church wrote to him? Paul actually used their words in his letter when he addressed some of their concerns and said they were foolish and they weren’t of God. We have come to the place of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.

    While Paul wrote his response (1 Corinthians) BACK to the Corinthian church, he previously read their letter that they sent to him – 1 Corinthians 7:1, “Now concerning things whereof YOU WROTE UNTO ME….” In fact, he wrote down parts of their letter back to them and rebuked them for their foolish teachings.

    Paul established through his entire letter and particularly in chapters 11 thru 14 that there is no difference between a male and female being appointed and/or receiving the gifts, callings and offices of Christ. Before he wrote down their “foolish scripture” that they wrote to him, he wrote this preface: “God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints” (1 Corinthians 14:33). Then in verses 34-35 he repeated what they first wrote to him: “Let your women keep silent in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also says the Law. 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.”

    Immediately after Paul wrote this, the next word he wrote was, “WHAT?” (v36). In the Greek, the word “what” is a negative disclaimer. We would say, “What, are you nuts?” Paul said, “What? Came the word of God out from you? Or did it come unto you only?” (v36). Meaning, that the previous statement that he wrote from the letter he received from them referring that women are to keep silent in the church was not from God at all. In fact, it was pure silliness. He just finished writing in a few paragraphs before this what we now know as 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, establishing that when women prophesy, teach or speak in the church they are to have their heads covered. “But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered….” needs to put on her head covering and then it would be acceptable (1 Corinthians 11:5).

    Paul goes on to say, “If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that THE THINGS THAT I WRITE UNTO YOU ARE THE COMMANDS OF THE LORD, (NOT THE THINGS THAT YOU WRITE)” (1 Corinthians 14:37). Paul was saying that he was appointed to write the Scriptures and the Commands of God, not the Corinthian church.

    Paul continues with: “If any man be ignorant (meaning the person who wrote this stupidity) let him be ignorant (if he does not acknowledge that what he wrote is not from the Lord”) (v38).

    Paul then closes the subject and firmly establishes about males and females being in ministry and speaking in the church: “Wherefore, brethren (brethren does not mean male, it means ‘born out of the womb of God, born again’ — males and females), COVET TO PROPHESY AND FORBID NOT TO SPEAK WITH TONGUES” (v39).

    Anyhow, that’s how I see it.

    
    
73. on September 3, 2008 at 8:48 pm | Reply SOwen

    Thanks, Hutch I have one favor. Could you please send this to me on email? rockhasspoken@yahoo.com this way I can have a time of really examing this. By the way I have just left the traditional church and am in transition. I have already been called divisive and cultish. That was from my old pastor and new one. So if anyone else has a story when they came to see the church not as a building I would like to hear about it. As I am not a divisive person I am really just seeing how God is changing us back to the truth of scripture. Anyway thanks Hutch…as was said earlier no hard feelings from me brother. Steven

    
    
74. on September 4, 2008 at 2:22 am | Reply Bro. Lawrence D.

    Bro. Hutch and SOwen check out this quote from Walter Kaiser’s book “Toward An Exegetical Theology: Biblical Exegesis for Preaching & Teaching”. This comes from Section 3 entitled “Contextual Analysis: The Syntactical-Theological Method” on pages 76-77.

    “And could it not be that the debated passage of I Corinthians 14:34-35 is a quote from the Rabbinic law? Surely is is not from the Old Testament, for the Old Testament nowhere states: ‘Women should keep silence….They are not permitted to speak, but should be in subordination as even the law says. If they desire to know anything, let them ask their husbands at home.’ Note, too, that Paul had commanded, as a matter of fact, that the Church should teach the women and let them learn (I Tim. 2:11). Furthermore, he had instructed that the women be allowed to speak and pray in Church ‘in like manner as the men’ (I Cor. 11:4-5; I Tim. 2:8-9) No wonder then that the immediate context of I Corinthians 14:36 blares out such a strong disclaimer of the Rabbinic restriction: ‘What! Are you men the only ones the Word of God has reached? Did the Word of God originate with you?”

    Walter C. Kaiser is undoubtedly one of the most conservative theologians around. He’s no liberal or feminist. Because of the teaching found in his book, the things that Hutch has already mentioned, that Bro. Lionel has been addressing, and a committment I have to be honest with the Word of God, it has been impossible for me to maintain my position on the participation of women in the local gathering. I still reserve eldership as a uniquely male role but other than that I can’t see any other true restriction on their involvement.

    I hope I added something to the discussion.

    
    
75. on September 4, 2008 at 9:33 am | Reply Hutch

    Bro. Lawrence D.-

    Good stuff.

    Of course you have added to the discussion, you have added to the discussion all over this blog and it is much appreciated.

    I will check into Kaiser.

    Thank you for pointing that out.

    
    
76. on October 30, 2008 at 2:31 pm | Reply Who’s Got you Covered? The Same Person Who Covers Your Pastor « A Better Covenant

    [...] Holy Spirit. Not to mention every single Christian. I wrote something a while back called “Submitted to All Under the Authority of Christ“. You see we believe in hierarchy not giftedness. We believe that every Christian should be [...]