39.What does Paul state concerning women in the assemblies of saints? .

Back to Study the Book of First Corinthians

They are to be silent. They are not allowed to speak. They are to be in subjection. If they wish to learn anything they should ask their husbands at home. It is a shame for women to speak in the assembly of saints. First Corinthians 14:34,35 has provoked as much discussion and consternation as any passage in the Scripture, it would seem.

Some obey Paul’s words literally to this day, not allowing a woman to teach or speak in the assembly. Others who also believe the Bible is the Word of God allow women to teach but would be hard pressed to reconcile this apparently clear teaching with their own practice.

Various explanations have been offered, some of which are difficult to accept for the person who prefers to keep the Word of God intact and to believe what is said therein without introducing complexities of interpretation. What, then, shall we say about I Corinthians 14:34,35?

First, let us state boldly and without equivocation that we hold to the Scriptures as being the Word of God. The written Word still shall be intact when the heavens and the earth pass away. The Scripture is the Word of God Almighty and we shall be judged by it in the Day of the Lord.

We have learned in life that God will keep His Word. If there is any weakening of this premise our faith is seriously undermined. God gave us His Word in writing and we can depend on it.

We are not to be counted among those who attempt to analyze Paul’s character and experience and then make allowances for it by twisting what he wrote until it appears to be understandable and acceptable to the individual who desires to alter the Scriptures.

The Word of God is a joy to the saint and he meditates therein day and night. However, we worship Christ and not the Scriptures. We are not guilty of bibliolatry.

We contend for the perfect accuracy and immutability of the written Word of God. Yet it is evident the Holy Spirit uses women in the work of the Kingdom. Since it cannot be that there is disagreement between the Holy Spirit and the Scripture, we shall attempt an explanation of this problem.

There are at least five aspects of interpretation that can be applied to the New Testament writings in general, and to I Corinthians 14:34,35 in particular:

The guiding principle underlying the specific teaching.

The manner in which the teaching applies to the new covenant.

The record and evidence of what the Spirit of God has done and is doing in the area of practice being considered. The reasonable probability that the passage has local, specific application rather than universal application to the Church of God.

The judgment of praying, godly elders at the point of decision.

If decisions concerning church or individual practice are arrived at with no attention paid to these five considerations, confusion and division will reign in the Body of Christ. The new covenant is not of the letter but of the Holy Spirit.

Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life (II Corinthians 3:6).

The scholar or theologian may take comfort in the concept that we are to follow the letter of the New Testament without regard to the above five considerations, leaving him mentally free to pursue his exegeses of the Hebrew and Greek texts. But such a doctrinaire approach to the New Testament will leave human chaos in its wake. Man was not made for the Scriptures; the Scriptures were made for man.

The guiding principle underlying the specific teaching. The concept of the guiding principle can be seen in the behavior and words of Christ, and it applies to both the Old Testament and the New Testament writings.

The Sabbath day is an example. God gave the Sabbath day to man, and the observing of it is one of the "Ten Words," the Ten Commandments. Since God has incorporated the keeping of the Sabbath day into the unchanging moral law we understand that the Lord views this part of the old covenant with utmost seriousness. Why, then, did Jesus, who as Israel’s Lord gave the Law in the first place, behave in such a manner as to offend the Pharisees concerning the observance of the Sabbath day? The reason is that the Jews missed the guiding principle of the Sabbath day because their hearts were not right with God.

The learned rabbis of Israel had worked out an interpretation and application of the Sabbath day until the tail was the head of the horse. An example of such legalistic details would be the question of whether a woman who threw out dishwater on the Sabbath day was practicing agriculture because of the possibility a seed resting by chance on the ground would germinate from the moistening of the ground. If a believer throws a light switch or chews a breath mint is he violating the Sabbath?

From the standpoint of such a mentality, the Lord’s healing of people on the Sabbath day or the picking of ears of corn by His disciples so they would have something to eat would be placed in the same category as adultery and bearing false witness.

Jesus taught the Pharisees that God created the Sabbath day for man, not man for the observance of the Sabbath day. Jesus reminded them that David and his men ate the showbread. The Law prohibits all but the priests from eating the showbread. The penalty for such presumption was death by stoning—swift and certain.

The eating of showbread by men other than the descendants of Aaron was a very serious violation of Levitical Law. God never rebuked David for eating the showbread. Why not?

Because David and his men were doing God’s will and they were hungry. In their hearts there was no violation of the sanctity of the Holy Place of the Tabernacle of the Congregation. They had broken the Levitical statute but they had not violated the guiding principle behind the statute: that is, the maintenance of the sanctity of the Holy Place of the Tabernacle.

Men who have been drafted into military service have been torn in conscience by the injunction, "Thou shalt not kill." The same God who wrote that word on a slab of granite commanded Joshua to slay every living person, young and old, who inhabited Canaan. Was God giving a law with one hand and breaking it with the other? What does "Thou shalt not kill" mean?

Does it mean, Thou shalt not commit murder because of thine own lusts?

Whether we are considering a directive of the Old Testament or New Testament, we have to determine not only what has been stated but also the guiding principle behind what has been stated. What is the guiding principle behind the old-covenant Sabbath day?

It is that people set aside the seventh day of the week as holy to the Lord; otherwise, people will devote every waking moment to the earning of a living and to pursuing their own lusts and ambitions. By so doing they destroy their spiritual nature.

This is why the Lord Jesus stated that the Sabbath was made for man. It was necessary for the Jews to cease their labors on a regular basis so they would be reminded that God loved them as His people chosen from among the nations of the earth.

Therefore the healing of the sick and the picking of corn by hungry disciples who were leaving all in order to follow the Lord Jesus in no manner transgressed the guiding principle of the Sabbath day.

The Lord Jesus Himself is the fulfillment of the Sabbath day and of every other commandment of the God of Heaven. Working seven days a week, leaving no time for joyful reflection on the Lord and His goodness to the children of men, was a transgression of the Sabbath day; and the Israelite who behaved in such a manner destroyed his own spirit and body and was under the condemnation of the Law.

The commandment of the Sabbath day is greatly amplified under the new covenant, as are all the commandments of God. We Christians do not give ourselves to God part of each week. We do not slay our bull of consecration once a year. We offer ourselves and our bodies a living sacrifice to the Lord Jesus every second of every hour of every day of every week. We enter the Sabbath rest of God, that is, we seek His pleasure and do His works, ceasing from our own words and works, every moment of every day for eternity.

If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words (Isaiah 58:13).

The manner in which the teaching applies to the new covenant. To understand this aspect of interpretation we have to understand the difference between the old covenant and the new covenant.

The old covenant consisted of circumcision, the Ten Commandments, the Levitical statutes and regulations, the services of the priesthood, including the sacrificial offerings, and the Tabernacle of the Congregation. The new covenant is the forming of Christ in us and the dwelling of the Father and the Son in our transformed personality.

One of the major differences between the old covenant and the new covenant is that of the material on which God writes His Law.

Under the old covenant, God wrote His Law on granite slabs and then it was copied on the walls of the houses, on parchment, and on paper.

God will never write the new covenant on granite slabs nor can it be copied on the walls of houses, on parchment, or on paper.

The Old Testament comprises the inspired writings from Genesis through Malachi. Included in the Old Testament are the words of the Mosaic covenant, principally the Ten Commandments.

But The Gospel According to Saint Matthew through The Revelation of Saint John does not include the new covenant. The New Testament consists of the writings of men who themselves were the new covenant, or new testament. If it is true that the new covenant, or new testament, cannot be written on paper, and the Lord never inscribed it in stone, where then is it written?

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people (Hebrews 8:10).

The new covenant can be written only in the minds and in the hearts of Israel. We Gentiles must be grafted on the olive tree of Israel before we can come under the new covenant.

The new covenant cannot be expressed in the letters of words.

Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life (II Corinthians 3:6).

If the new covenant is not the writings of the book we term the New Testament, what, then, is the new testament or new covenant?

The new covenant is described in II Corinthians 3:18:

But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the Glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

The new covenant is the forming of Christ within us. All else is a means toward that supreme goal. If this is true, how are we to regard the book we term the New Testament?

The New Testament consists of the Holy Spirit-inspired, Holy Spirit-guided, words and sentences of men who had seen the New Covenant of God—who is Christ Himself. Christ, the New Covenant, was being formed in them. The Holy Spirit inspired and guided them as they described what they had seen and experienced.

If the Holy Spirit inspired and guided the writers of the New Testament writings, we are to regard the writings just as we do the writings of the Old Covenant—as the written Word of God.

The Israelite responded to the Old Testament writings by following them to the best of his ability. We Christians are to respond to the New Testament writings by following them to the best of our ability, praying to God in Jesus’ name for wisdom and strength to do His will.

We have accepted the sin offering made by the Lord Jesus Christ on our behalf. We now are living without condemnation because of the authority of the blood of Christ to keep us guiltless as we follow God’s will for our life, that is, as we "walk in the light."

The Word of God, Christ, has been born in us. Our new Divine Life is being nurtured as the broken body and shed blood of Christ are fed to our inner man in the spirit realm. Christ is being formed in us, not merely Christ-likeness. Christ, the Divine Life of God, the New Covenant, is being formed in us.

The Holy Spirit, the power of resurrection life, is dwelling in us and anointing us for service. The Holy Spirit adds Christ to our inner man until fruit is brought forth—the fruit of the Personality of God growing within us. We Christians are an integral, eternally indivisible part of the resurrected Christ, and His unlimited Glory is in us. His tremendous angels guard us night and day. We are the expression of Him in the heavens and on the earth. We see, therefore, there is a difference between the manner in which the Israelite was to respond to the old covenant and the Christian is to respond to the new covenant.

The Old Testament Scripture, particularly the five books of Moses, were the written covenant the Jew was to follow all his days on the earth.

The New Testament Scripture is a scaffolding, a guide to our faith and practice, until the new covenant is created in us. The new covenant does not come to an end when we die as was true of the old covenant. The new covenant will continue working in us after we die and on through the thousand-year Kingdom Age until we stand in the complete image of Christ, in the new Jerusalem, and behold the Face of the Father. Even then the new covenant will not be finished. We shall continue to grow in the likeness and image of God forever.

All Scripture is given by the inspiration of God. It serves as our infallible guide to faith and practice until Christ is formed in us. This is what Peter means by the following passage:

We have also a more sure word of prophecy [the Scriptures]; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts (II Peter 1:19). The "more sure word of prophecy" is the Scripture—more sure than the Word from the cloud on the Mount of Transfiguration.

The "dark place" is our own heart and mind.

The dawning of the day is the forming and dwelling of Christ in us.

The "day star" is Christ Himself.

This is the new covenant.

When we come to a specific teaching of the Apostles, such as the number of prophecies in an assembly or the behavior of women in the assemblies of saints, we must assess the teaching as to its relationship to the goal of the new covenant, which is the forming and dwelling of Christ in us.

All the writings of the Bible have as their goal the creation of the Wife of the Lamb, the eternal Temple of God Almighty. If we keep this in mind it helps us avoid being legalistic in our interpretation.

Legalism was a serious problem under the old covenant, leading to the crucifixion of Christ. Legalism under the new covenant leads to sectarianism and a doctrinaire, rancorous, Spirit-rejecting attitude on the part of the believers in Christ.

Hardness of heart, the murder of prophets, and rebellion against the Spirit of God—all take refuge and hide behind the letter of the Scriptures.

The letter kills. The Spirit of God brings life.

The record and evidence of what the Spirit of God has done, and is doing, in the area of practice being considered. If this aspect of interpretation were given serious consideration more often it would avert ridiculous and blind behavior on the part of the members of the Body of Christ.

A case in point is the speaking with tongues of the twentieth century. Many Christians are still maintaining that speaking in tongues is of the devil. Yet they are surrounded by their Pentecostal brothers and sisters. Pentecostal people are active in every Christ-glorifying activity on the face of the earth. Whether it is in the work of foreign missions, or Christian education, or excavations in the Holy Land, or errands of mercy, or Bible translating, or evangelism, the Pentecostals are there.

Can any Christian with a sane mind keep insisting that speaking in tongues is of the devil? Is Satan casting out Satan?

Is Satan now preaching the Gospel and dying for the faith?

Is he bringing new life to Bible reading, to witnessing, to prayer meetings, to jail ministry, to holy living? It is an evil heart of unbelief that hides behind a sectarian interpretation of the Scripture, defies all the evidence around it, and clamors that tongues are of the devil. It is a Christ-rejecting spirit.

Would the Pharisees have accepted Jesus if they had asked themselves if what they were beholding was characteristic of the Holy Spirit?

Equally at fault are the Pentecostals, when they witness the Spirit-directed efforts of the Christian Missionary Alliance, for example, and state that the workers do not have the Holy Spirit because they do not speak with tongues.

Who inspires and guides the missionary activities of the Alliance? The flesh?

If the Christian Missionary Alliance has accomplished its work through the flesh, then may God grant us to have more of such flesh.

Neglecting the manifest evidence of what the Holy Spirit is doing can lead to absurdities. We have a Christian who beholds someone who is prayed for in the name of Jesus instantly healed of cancer—a scriptural procedure and result. Then the onlooker goes his way and claims "Divine healing is not for today." Is this not sinful?

The Holy Spirit has a way of performing a work and then announcing: "This is what was spoken by the prophet." The Holy Spirit will, on occasion, interpret the Scripture for us if we have eyes to see and ears to hear. If we do not, there is no possible way that the Holy Spirit can add truth to us or bring us to a fuller understanding of an experience in the Kingdom of God.

And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover (Mark 16:17,18).

The above passage has caused many to stumble. One common approach is to state "There are three ‘Marks,’" and then dismiss the passage announcing that the signs that follow the believers are one of the spurious sections of the Gospel of Mark.

Brother George Gillies of Palo Alto took a different approach. He asked God to show him if the sixteenth chapter of Mark was inspired.

After his prayer each of the five signs of Mark, Chapter 16 came to pass in his life over a period of time. On one occasion, while in a restaurant, George drank a cup of lye water thinking it was coffee. The lye water had been used to clean the coffee maker.

There were no ill effects. He inadvertently had drunk a "deadly thing" and it did not hurt him. God was teaching him concerning Mark, Chapter 16.

If someone reading these words drinks lye water he probably will die. The signs of Mark, Chapter 16 are not an invitation to presumption.

We are to be alert, cautious, prayerful, observing what the Spirit of God has done and is doing today. The reasonable probability that the passage has local, specific application rather than universal application to the Church of God. An excellent example of this aspect of interpretation is a passage known to many drunkards: Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities (I Timothy 5:23). Some have attempted to apply this admonition universally to the Church. Reason suggests to us that Paul was confining his remarks to Timothy’s unique needs.

Another passage that no doubt is of local, specific application is Titus 1:12,13:

One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith (Titus 1:12,13).

The Scripture states that Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. If we are to apply this universally, every Cretian is a liar. Every Cretian is an evil beast. Every Cretian is a slow belly. This is what the Bible declares to be true.

Reason suggests to us that such is not the case. We have to interpret Paul’s declaration with a certain amount of understanding. Otherwise, we are required to rebuke sharply every Cretian whom we meet because of his degenerate condition.

A man from that area informed us that the Cretians defend their honor by stating that it was their prophet who was the liar. But the Apostle Paul stated, "This witness is true."

In any case, it is well to ask ourselves if reason suggests that a particular passage is suited to specific situations and is not a Divine decree which blindly commands without regard to circumstances.

There are passages that do indeed testify with universal authority. John 3:16 is one such proclamation. The judgment of praying, godly elders at the point of decision. The apostles and elders of the early church gathered together to discuss the relationship of the Law of Moses to the Christian redemption, particularly the role of circumcision in Christianity.

After various men had spoken, the following decision was sent by letter to Antioch:

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well (Acts 15:28,29).

God did not write the letter to Antioch. The apostles and elders came to this decision. As far as we know, God honored it for the moment. But since it was not followed up in the Epistles we understand that it was a temporary expedient as was the selection of Matthias as the twelfth apostle. The new covenant certainly does not consist of abstaining from food offered to idols, from blood, from the flesh of animals that have been strangled, and from fornication and it is obvious that Paul is the twelfth apostle.

The decision as to what books should be included in the holy Scriptures was made in just this manner. You may agree that here was a most momentous decision. Yet it had to be made by Christian elders.

In the case of the description given in the Scripture of the design of the Tabernacle of the Congregation, differences of opinion are possible. For example, we cannot be certain of the position of the grating on the sides of the Altar of Burnt Offering; or the placing of the fifth bar on the side of the Tabernacle building. Devout men have set forth the answers to these question. Other devout men have contradicted them. But God showed Moses the pattern of the Tabernacle (Exodus 25:9).

So it is true that the description given of the Body of Christ, the tabernacle of the new covenant, is not complete. The Lord must show the elders, in each circumstance, how the Scripture is to be interpreted. It is impossible to be led by the Scriptures. The sons of God are led by the Spirit. The Scriptures insure that we do not follow the wrong spirit.

Today there are various questions that arise among the believers, particularly concerning family practices and marriage and divorce. It is relatively easy to make a hasty decision based on one’s knowledge of the Bible, taking a conservative and harsh position, or catering to the flesh such that anything is acceptable if one desires it fervently enough.

Neither of these two approaches is satisfactory in the Kingdom of God.

Of course, there is no question when we are speaking of sin. For example, fornication is never of God and no amount of prayer or consideration will ever make fornication acceptable to God.

We are speaking, rather, of the complicated situations that arise in the lives of people when godly, praying men and women cannot be certain from the Scripture exactly what should be done.

The elders of the church should gather together in the name of Christ and seek the mind of the Lord. If consensus is reached, followed by the Lord’s peace, the decision can be announced in confidence; although always observing the consequences of the decision to see if correction should be made.

Today the large denominations, becoming increasingly backslidden, hold large conventions to determine if they should authorize sin, such as homosexuality. They will suffer the Lord’s judgement.

The elders of a local assembly, if they love God and are filled with His Spirit, can come to consensus on issues. If they cannot, it may be true that someone in the group is not seeking the mind of the Holy Spirit and is striving to enforce his will on the other elders.

I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not (III John 1:9).

In summary, the five aspects of interpretation are as follows:

The guiding principle underlying the specific teaching.

The manner in which the teaching applies to the new covenant.

The record and evidence of what the Spirit of God has done and is doing in the area of practice being considered. The reasonable probability that the passage has local,

specific application rather than universal application to the Church of God.

The judgment of praying, godly elders at the point of decision.

We have stated that if decisions concerning church or individual practice are arrived at with no attention paid to these five considerations, confusion and division will reign in the Body of Christ.

Let us review what Paul has taught concerning women in the assemblies of the saints:

They are to be silent.

They are not allowed to speak.

They are to be in subjection.

If they wish to learn anything they should ask their husbands at home.

It is a shame for women to speak in the assembly of saints.

The key to this teaching is the word shame. If the Holy Spirit had guided Paul to declare that it is a sin for women to speak in the assembly, no more could be said. Christ has spoken.

There is a difference between shame and sin. Sin is the transgression of God’s justice. Sin is a breaking of the law: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and your neighbor as yourself. All sin is a violation of the eternal moral law of God. All sin is of Satan even when it is expressed through the flesh of humans.

Five of the major sins set forth in Scripture—and they are unchanging from covenant to covenant—are as follows: lust, murder, covetousness, sorcery, and carousing.

It is always a sin to lust, to murder, to covet, to consult demons, or to abandon one’s self to eating, drinking, and entertainment.

It is not a work of Satan, neither is it a violation of justice or of moral law, neither is it necessarily a manifestation of the flesh, for a female to speak or to ask a question in the assembly of saints.

If a woman should speak in the church, it is not a sin that must be pardoned through the blood of the cross of Calvary. There has been no transgression of Divine justice.

The issue is one of shame. The question is one of what is becoming, what is fitting, what is appropriate, what is decent and in Divine order, what is perceived by godly people as being in keeping with the ways of Heaven and the working of the Holy Spirit.

The moral law must be obeyed because to violate it is to worship Satan. But it is not the worship of Satan for a woman to ask a question in the assembly of saints.

Let us judge the power of the prohibition and the issue of shame, in terms of the five aspects of interpretation that we have presented.

The guiding principle underlying the specific teaching. What spiritual concept gives rise to the silencing of women in the churches?

What was Paul actually saying?

Perhaps there are two concepts that form the guiding principle: the Divine establishment of the roles of male and female on the earth; and, especially, the usurpation of authority.

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee (Genesis 3:16).

God did not state that the man was more intelligent, more talented, stronger, more spiritual, or in any other characteristic more able or better than the woman. This is not the point. The point is that God set the man in authority over his wife for the purpose of doing God’s will in the earth.

It is true also that God sets rulers over us who, in many cases, are wicked. Unless they command us to do something contrary to God’s will we are required to obey their regulations. If we do not, we are in rebellion against God as well as against the laws of the land.

The issue is not one of merit but of obeying God.

Paul expands on the roles of male and female on the earth:

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man (I Corinthians 11:7-9).

It is obvious from Genesis, and from the above statements of Paul, that there is an important, Divinely ordained difference in role between the man and the woman.

It is from this difference of authority of role that the concept of usurpation of authority flows. The idea here is that of the woman claiming authority over, dominating, issuing commands to, ruling over the man. This would be a violation of Genesis 3:16.

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence (I Timothy 2:12). We cannot violate a Divine decree (Genesis 3:16) without bringing deception, confusion, and every other evil work on our heads.

Therefore the guiding principle underlying the specific teaching is that of the man ruling over the woman. The issue is not that of asking questions in the assembly. The issue is that of female dominating male. If a woman refrains from speaking in the assembly but is dominating her husband at home, she is behaving shamefully.

May we say that there is no problem with having more than three prophecies in an assembly. The problem arises when there is confusion and a lack of edification.

May we say further that there is no problem with women speaking in the assembly of saints, although the letter of the Epistle would seem to state that there is. Rather, the problem is with women ruling over men. There are women who say nothing in church but who violate this principle continually. There are women who are active in church work who are not in violation of this guiding principle.

Would Paul agree with the above?

Notice Paul’s request of the church in Philippi:

And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life (Philippians 4:3).

"Which laboured with me in the gospel"!

To maintain that the women that labored with Paul in the Gospel never spoke in a gathering of saints with Paul’s blessing probably is a weak position.

Notice also in Acts:

And he [Apollos] began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly (Acts 18:26).

From the above two passages it appears likely that some women actually taught the Gospel. Priscilla, with her husband Aquila, taught Apollos, a Jew who was learned and mighty in the Scripture. Paul says, "I suffer not a woman to teach."

Priscilla, and the women who labored with Paul, spoke and taught; but they did not attempt to govern men. Therefore they broke the letter of Paul’s directive but not the guiding principle of the commandment, as in the case of David and the showbread.

The Old Testament Law also counted women in subjection to their husbands. Yet both Deborah (Judges, Chapters Four and Five) and (Huldah, II Chronicles 34:22-28) played significant roles in the national life of Israel. The record does not indicate that Divine disapproval rested on them because of their position and activities.

Both Deborah and Huldah were prophetesses and they were married. Paul seems to allow (I Corinthians 11:5) that a woman may pray and prophesy in the assembly of saints. Therefore the issue is not one of silence but of authority. The guiding principle, then, is that God has given to men to rule the earth, and this role is not to be reversed with women ruling over men, either in the home or in the assembly of saints.

The manner in which the teaching applies to the new covenant. The new covenant is the forming and dwelling of Christ in the believer. An important part of the forming and dwelling of Christ within the believer is the believer’s participation in the assembly of the saints.

If women are behaving in the assembly in such a manner that the forming and dwelling of Christ in the saints is aided, the new covenant is developing according to the Divine purpose. If women are behaving in such a manner that the forming and dwelling of Christ in the saints is hindered, the new covenant is suffering.

The new covenant is neither male nor female. The woman in whom Christ is being formed is not limited in God because she is a woman. Because Christ is in her she will be content to adhere to all earthly requirements, and will be able to do so in a proper manner.

The record and evidence of what the Spirit of God has done and is doing in the area of practice being considered. This may be the most useful aspect of interpretation that can be applied to the conduct of women in the churches. If we step back, as it were, and examine what has happened and what is happening in the Kingdom of God, does it appear that the Holy Spirit ever gives gifts and ministries to women?

Does the Holy Spirit call women to Gospel work?

If so, does the Spirit ever bless their speaking in the assembly of saints?

If it is clear that He does, it must be true that Paul is not forbidding women to speak and teach. In this case, we need to think about what Paul is declaring. It is not possible that the Holy Spirit would act in opposition to the Apostle of Christ.

If we know anything at all about church history, past and present, we know that the Lord does call women: many times as evangelists, many times as missionaries where they sometimes act as pastors of churches and teachers of the Gospel.

Madame Guyon and Jessie Penn-Lewis were two distinguished teachers of the Gospel. Mrs. Penn-Lewis was an insightful teacher of the victorious Christian life, at the turn of the twentieth century.

Aimee Semple McPherson and Kathryn Kuhlman were outstanding women of the twentieth century, used powerfully in the gifts of healing. Both of them were teachers of the Bible.

After having read the biographies of some of the female saints one can only conclude that they entered the harvest field somewhat against their will, to a certain extent, because of the personal sacrifices involved. It becomes clear to the reader, if he is an experienced believer, that these women indeed were called by the Lord Jesus Christ. The fruit of their labors testify that they were anointed by the Holy Spirit. The question, as we have stated, is one of authority. All the writers of the Scripture were men. There is not one exception.

The Apostles of the Lamb, whose names are in the foundation of the wall of the new Jerusalem, were all men. The fundamental decisions that govern the churches of Christ are to be made by men. The gifted female Bible teachers were Paul’s fellow workers. They recognized the authority of Paul and declared what he and the other Apostles, as well as the Prophets of Israel, had written.

If a woman attempts to make governmental decisions concerning the churches of Christ, or to govern the assembly through prophecy, or to bring "new revelation," she will lead herself and her followers into deception and sin. Our conclusion, based on what we have seen of the Lord’s workings in the life of women, is that if the Lord calls a woman to work in the Kingdom of God she should do so. She is answerable to her Lord. If she obeys the Lord she will not behave in the assembly of saints in a manner that is obviously unbecoming and results in shame and the quenching of the Holy Spirit.

If people attack her solely on the basis that she is a woman and urge her to be silent, she should look up to the Lord who has called her and leave her justification with Him. If Christ indeed is with her it will become obvious to all sincere saints.

It is understandable, but not edifying from our point of view, for a woman who has been called of the Lord to turn aside from her calling and become a crusader for the "rights of women." She is not required to prove anything to her fellow Christians. She is responsible to the Lord alone. If He truly has called her He will vindicate her. The reasonable probability that the passage has local, specific application rather than universal application to the Church of God. It appears likely, from Paul’s comments, that there were some women in the church in Corinth who were behaving in an unbecoming manner.

It seems from what Paul says here and in First Timothy that he desires that women be in subjection and learn from the men in all the churches of Christ.

Perhaps we could sum up by saying that the guiding principle applies to all saints as long as we are human beings on the earth. In Christ there is neither male nor female. But in the assembly and at home, the man is the head. This is scriptural.

The judgment of praying, godly elders at the point of decision. It is impossible to conduct the Christian assembly solely on the basis of what is written in the New Testament. Christ gave us the Comforter, as well as the Scriptures, to guide us into all truth.

It is the responsibility of the elders to make certain all that is done in the assemblies is building the Body of Christ. If it is apparent that confusion is reigning, it is the duty of the elders to pray and seek the wisdom of God. They must guide the assembly patiently and prayerfully until there is orderly participation and the work of the Kingdom is moving ahead. This is Paul’s intention.

It is only by the direct intervention of Christ through the Holy Spirit that any assembly of saints can be sure it is in Divine order and is bearing a true witness of Christ.

Christ is alive and interested in His churches. If we will allow Him to do so, He will build His Church, of which our local assembly is one small part.

Back to Study the Book of First Corinthians

Back to Chapter Fourteen..