Christ's Instructions

[Webers_Home]

.
176) Eph 5:1 . . Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children

Webster's defines "imitate" as to follow as a pattern, model, or example, i.e.
copy.

The imitation mentioned herein is related to the previous exhortation to be
compassionate to one another and forgiving; which is a reflection of Matt
5:44-48.

* One's dad is probably the most important role model a kid can have, that
is, if he's a good man; otherwise, he'll just be another bad influence. It's
pretty kool when a kid can look at their dad and honestly say, from the
bottom of their heart: "Dad; when I grow up, I want to be just like you".
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
177) 1Cor 11:1 . . Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.

In the Catholic religion, a "saint" is a role model for others. Well, 1Cor 11:1
lists an exceptional model for everyone regardless of their age, race, gender,
and/or religious affiliation.

Christ is very famous 'round the world for exemplifying the virtues of
kindness, loyalty, forgiveness, lenience, and generosity.
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
178) 1Cor 11:3 . . But I would have you know, that the head of every man
is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is
God.

It never seems to fail that somebody will actually attempt to refute Paul's
statement by quoting another of his own statements.

"You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were
baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew
nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ
Jesus." (Gal 3:26-28)

(chuckle) Paul pitted against Paul; the clash of the titans, only in this event,
both titans are one and the same titan. Yes, both genders are one in Christ;
but then Jesus and God are one also, yet there is a hierarchy in the Divinity
because "the head of Christ is God"

NOTE: Beware making this a gender issue because it's not that. This particular
arrangement is based upon seniority, i.e. primogeniture. (Gen 2:21-22, Gen 3:16,
1Tim 2:13)
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
179) 1Cor 11:4-5a . . Every man who prays or prophesies with his head
covered disrespects his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies
with her head uncovered disrespects her head

That's a little tricky seeing as how the word "head" can refer to a skull
and/or a superior; so to clarify this a bit, I'm going to revise some of the
above a little.

"Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered disrespects
Christ. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered
disrespects Adam."

Some of the world's women have made disrespecting men their life's work;
and nothing makes them happier than finding ways to chafe one. When they
become a Christian, it's imperative they give up that particular ambition.

This issue isn't really a gender issue, it's a progenitor issue.

The woman wasn't made directly from the dust of the ground like the man
was. She was constructed with material taken from the man's body; which
makes him every woman's daddy. So that when women disrespect men,
they are actually disrespecting their paternal ancestor; which is a shameful
thing to do in any culture; not just the Christian religion.

Christian women aren't required to cover their hair all the time; only
whenever they pray and/or prophesy; especially in the presence of men.

No doubt this is very disagreeable with a certain number of Christian women
whose heart's ambition is to assert their independence and demand equality.
Well, if they don't want to cover their hair when praying and/or prophesying
out of respect for the principal of seniority, then they should at least woman
up and do it out of respect for Christ's feelings about it; after all, he's
supposed to be every Christian woman's lord and master. In other words;
this is more a test of one's loyalty than a test of their politics.

● John 14:15 . . If you love me, you will comply with what I command.

● John 14:21 . .Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one
who loves me.

● John 14:23-24 . . If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching . . He who
does not love me will not obey my teaching.

● John 15:14 . .You are my friends if you do what I command you.

According to 1Cor 14:37 and 1Thess 4:1-2, the apostles' doctrine is Christ's
doctrine; it's a domino effect all the way to the top.

● Luke 10:16 . .Whoever listens to you; listens to me. Whoever rejects you;
rejects me. And whoever rejects me; rejects the one who sent me.
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
180) 1Cor 11:5b-6a . . it is just as though her head were shorn. If a woman
does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off

It's tempting to construe these rules as demeaning to women; but we're
getting at something fundamental here that goes all the way back to the first
few chapters of Genesis.

Women, by nature, are far more alluring than men. And that's okay @ home
and/or out in the world where they're allowed to pour on the glam and look
amazing. But in the presence of God, they ought to dull their shine a bit due
to Adam's seniority in the grand scheme of things which, in the long run,
professes a Christian woman's belief in intelligent design. (The principle
underlying this rule is quite a bit different than the reasons why conscientious
Muslim women wear hijabs.)

● 1Cor 11:6b . . If it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or
shaved off, she should cover her head.

If Christian women would be somewhat embarrassed to show up in church
with a man's haircut, then they have only one other option; and that's to
show up in church with a women's. But in order to retain their femininity in
the presence of God; they are simply going to have to tone their allure down
a bit by obscuring their hair with something or heaven will have no choice
but to assume the worst about them.

FAQ: Christianity's hierarchy is based upon primogeniture, viz: the man was
created before the woman; plus she was constructed from the man and for the
man; and thus owes her existence to a man; and her role is a supporting role
rather than a starring role.

These rules are no doubt unacceptable to modern feminists, but if we attempt to
appease their discontent we'll end up disappointing our superior in Heaven.
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
181) 1Cor 11:7-10 . . A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the
image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not
come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for
woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the
woman ought to have a token of authority on her head.

* There's probably as much disagreement about the identity of the angels in
that passage as there is about the sons of God in the 6th chapter of Genesis.

But according to Ps 8:1-5 and Heb 2:6-7, the angels are a step above
human life so for sure women rank below celestial beings just as they rank
below the image and glory of God.

Well anyway; whoever these angels are, or whatever they are, they're
apparently indignant when they see women in church acting as though
they're equals with men in the presence of God.

Christians have simply got to come to grips with the reality that women are
not equal to men in the divine order of things. No, they will always be
daddy's little girl. Ergo: women aren't from Venus after all; no, they're
actually the daughters of Mars (so to speak).

POSIT: Paul meant that hair coverings are optional when he said: "But if any
man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches
of God" (1Cor 11:16)

REPLY: Apparently the Jews' synagogues, and all the rest of the Christian
churches in the Roman world, required their women to attend worship
services with something on their heads. Were the Corinthians' women
allowed an exemption, they would stand out as heretics.

"Judge in yourselves: is it proper that a woman pray unto God uncovered?"
(1Cor 11:13)

The answer of course is NO; it isn't proper-- it's insolent, inappropriate, and
irreverent; plus it's conduct unbecoming for women professing Christ's
divine prerogative to tell his followers how to be a Christian.
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
182) 1Cor 11:27-30 . .Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord
in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood
of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and
drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the
body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many
among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

The Greek word for "unworthy" basically means: irreverently; which
Webster's defines as: lacking proper respect or seriousness. In other words
"sacrilege" which is gross irreverence toward a hallowed person, place, or
thing.

"sinning against the body and blood of the Lord" is very similar language to
1Cor 6:18, which states: The immoral man sins against his own body. There,
as here, we're not talking about suicide and/or homicide; were talking about
desecration; which Webster's defines as: to violate the sanctity of, to
profane-- viz: to treat with disrespect, i.e. irreverently and/or outrageously.

People sin during the Lord's supper when they fail to take it seriously that
the elements represent his body-- not his so-called glorified body; but the
one that was crucified; viz; his disfigured, bloodied body.

"A man ought to examine himself" is an imperative to make double sure that
one's heart is in the right place when consuming the elements (a.k.a.
species). Some people gulp them down as if they were nothing more than a
snack of hot wings and cold beer during a Super Bowl game instead of a
sacred reminder of what God's son endured to ransom their souls from a
second death in the lake of brimstone depicted at Rev 20:11-15. Those
people have to expect that a very indignant father is going to come down on
them for that-- maybe not with sickness, maybe not with death, and maybe
not right away; but eventually with something; and really, who can blame
Him?

NOTE: Observance of the Lord's supper isn't a mandatory requirement; so if
you are a bit nervous about going about it in the wrong way, then don't take
chances; play it safe and pass on it.
_


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[Webers_Home]

.
183) 1Cor 11:33-34 . . My brethren, when you come together to eat, wait
for each other. If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when
you meet together it may not result in judgment.

The command doesn't frown upon things like church banquets, men's'
breakfasts, ladies' luncheons, and/or potlucks per se. What it's criticizing is a
lack of congregational unity. Here's some comments leading up to that
verse.

● 1Cor 11:17-22 . . Now in giving these instructions I do not praise you,
since you come together not for the better but for the worse. For first of all,
when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among
you, and in part I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, that
those who are approved may be recognized among you.

. . .Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat The
Lord's Supper. For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others;
and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses to
eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who
have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not
praise you.

Their lack of courtesy and unity during church functions was nothing short of
hypocrisy seeing as how The Lord's supper speaks of sacrifice rather than
selfishness, elitism, and hoarding. In other words; seeing as how Christians
all share in Christ's blood equally-- and deserve Hell equally --then everyone
should be given equal treatment at church regardless of age, gender, skin
color, intelligence, income level, nationality, what side of the tracks they live
on, or social status.

None of Christ's body parts are untouchable as if Christianity is a caste
system; nor are any expendable and/or non essential. God forbid that there
should be some sort of value system in a gathering of people for whom Christ
suffered and died equally for each one. That just wouldn't be right: it would
be an insult to the principles underlying The Lord's supper.

● Matt 26:27 . . Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them,
saying: Drink from it, all of you.

If Christians are all drinking from the same cup, then they should all be, at
the very least, eating the same food and not be overly concerned about
where they sit and/or who they sit next to and/or who they're seen with.
And they should also make double sure that everyone gets enough to eat
and that no one gets left out and nobody gets more than his fair share. And
they should all sit down together at the same time. I just hate it when
people don't wait for each other. Some get back to the table and start in
gulping, slurping, clattering, and clanking while others from their table are
still in line.

And they should also take into consideration the possibility that a number of
their congregation are in assistance programs like TANF and SNAP. In other
words; don't just bring enough food from home for yourself; but, if you're
able, bring enough for those among you who can't bring anything at all. And
for heaven's sake, don't bring a side dish of gourmet food along just for
yourself. Leave your special gourmet stuff at home. There's just no excuse
for flaunting your "sophistication" around church thus giving everyone the
impression that everyone else's tastes are below yours.
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
184) 1Cor 12:24-27 . . God has combined the members of the body and has
given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no
schism in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each
other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored,
every part rejoices with it. Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of
you is a part of it.

In the beginning, Man was made in the image and likeness of God, which is
a degree of kinship with deity that makes all of us equals on the human
plane. It's likely because of the image and likeness of God that the Golden
Rule is so appropriate; same as capital punishment is so appropriate for
murder. (Gen 9:5-6)

In other words: the Golden Rule gives your fellow man the respect and
dignity that the image and likeness of God deserves. I believe the very same
principle applies to fellow members of the body of Christ. (cf. Col 3:10)
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
185) 1Cor 14:1a . . Pursue charity

The Greek noun for "charity" in that command is agape (ag-ah'-pay) which,
in most cases, is a very easy kind of love to practice. Though agape may, or
may not, include the sentiments of fondness and/or affection like the Greek
word phileo (fil-eh'-o), it always exemplifies benevolence; defined by
Webster's as the disposition to do good, i.e. kindness, consideration,
generosity, courtesy, lenience, tolerance, patience, sympathy, assistance,
civility, friendliness, etc.

Agape love does no harm to its neighbor. (Rom 13:10)

In a nutshell, agape love allows us to be nice to people without particularly
liking them.
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
186) 1Cor 14:1b . . eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of
prophecy.

This particular prophecy genre is different than prognostication. This relates
to inspirational speakers.

● 1Cor 14:3 . . Everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their
strengthening, their encouragement, and their comfort.
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
187) 1Cor 14:13 . . anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may
interpret what he says.

If Acts 2:1-12 is the model; then a genuine Spirit-endowed tongue should be
an honest to gosh real-life working language instead of incoherent blabber
that's intelligible to no one, not even the speaker.

"Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation
under heaven. When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in
bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language.

. . . Utterly amazed, they asked: "Are not all these men who are speaking
Galileans? Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native
language? Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea
and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the
parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts to
Judaism); Cretans and Arabs-- we hear them declaring the wonders of God
in our own tongues!"

Mozart composed some amazing music; but had he not arranged the
components sensibly, it would likely grate on people's nerves instead of
entertaining them; sort of like when an orchestra verifies the pitch of its
instruments just prior to a performance. The discordant din that the
orchestra makes is a cacophony instead of a rhapsody.

● 1Cor 14:7 . . Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as
the flute or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless
there is a distinction in the notes?

Modern tonguers typically don't compose anything pleasant to the ear. At
least if they would chirp like birds their speech would be a discernible song
instead of an unintelligible squawk.

I was informed by a Charismatic friend that he prayed in a tongue because
he couldn't express his deepest feelings any other way. Mind you this was an
American adult of almost fifty years old; educated in America and spoke,
wrote, and read English-- his native language --his entire life. So I asked
him how it is that his command of English was so poor that he could only
express his thoughts in a language that not even he himself could either
identify or understand?

● 1Cor 14:13-15 . . If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is
unfruitful. So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray
with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind.

In other words: there are Christians out and about blabbering incoherently
because they choose to, rather than because they have to. With just a
simple act of their own will they could easily switch to something composed
with real words.

Why on earth would a grown-up prefer incoherent blabbering? Isn't that the
way small children communicate? Well, I can excuse small children because
they're uneducated. But shouldn't supposed educated adults be just a bit
more mature with their language and grammar than small children?

The true gift of tongues is very handy for communicating with foreigners.
But in our day and age, Charismatics typically don't communicate with
anybody, either foreign or domestic . As a result, Charismatics are looked
upon with the same disdain as the kooks that hurl themselves on the floor,
faint, scream, writhe, shout, and dance with rattlesnakes.

Well; not too many sensible people care to accommodate kooks, so if you're
serious about influencing people for Christ, I highly recommend sticking to
an intelligible language. Here in my country, English is a good choice
because most people can understand it without requiring the services of a
translator.

And for heaven's sake, please do not allow yourself to be drawn to
participating in a tongues meeting.

● 1Cor 14:23 . . So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks
in tongues, and some who do not understand, or some unbelievers come in,
will they not say that you are out of your mind?
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
188) 1Cor 14:22a . .Tongues are for a sign

The sign isn't intended for the benefit of believers, but rather, for non
believers.

● 1Cor 14:22b . . Not to them that believe, but to them that believe not.

The purpose of any tongue is communication.

● 1Cor 14:9 . . Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how
will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air.

So if a tonguer is speaking a language nobody understands, they've actually
created a barrier to communication; viz: a regression to the tower of Babel;
and you can see for yourself how destructive that was to unity (Gen 11:1-9).

* Webster's defines "regression" as: movement backward to a previous, and
especially worse or more primitive state or condition; viz: backwards
thinking.

Since tongues are for the benefit of unbelievers, then it's de facto that a
tongue should be a valid language that the unbeliever himself speaks and
understands (cf. Acts 2:4-11). Somebody who exercises a tongue for any
other reason has missed the point; and they're behaving like a little kid with
a toy.

● 1Cor 14:20 . . Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be
infants, but in your thinking be adults
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
189) 1Cor 14:27-28 . . If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by
two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But
if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him
speak to himself, and to God.

Tonguers (folks with the actual gift) are not permitted to speak all at the
same time like a mob of howling political protesters. One of the reasons why
I get so annoyed by talk shows like ABC's The View is because everyone
talks all at once like a bunch of undisciplined dogs barking and yapping in a
kennel. And the way they interrupt each other back and forth before the
other can even finish a sentence is one of the very things we teach children
not to do. You'd think those supposedly mature adults grew up without
supervision the way they conduct themselves in a conversation.

NO! tonguers (folks with the actual gift) are to take turns; speaking one at a
time, rather than an entire congregation of tonguers barking and yapping
like dogs in a kennel whenever they "feel the Spirit" moving them. And if
there's no one to interpret, tonguers are not permitted to speak at all. If
Christians the world over followed those rules, it would put the charismatics
out of business right quick.

FYI: These directives regulating the exercise of tongues in a church meeting
were written by the apostle Paul-- a duly authorized agent speaking on
behalf of Christianity's Christ.

● 1Cor 14:37 . . If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let
him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the
commandments of the Lord.

Therefore, when Christians proceed to defy the rules regulating the exercise
of tongues, they are in shameful rebellion against the very lord and master
of Christianity; and yet, ironically, many tongue violators still have the
chutzpah to pass themselves off as the Lord's Spirit-filled followers.
However; a follower can be defined as someone who gets in step and/or falls
in line rather than going off-reservation to do their own thing.

● 1Sam 15:23 . . Rebellion is as the sin of divination; and insubordination is
as iniquity and idolatry.

● 1John 1:6 . . If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in
darkness, we lie, and do not the truth
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
190) 1Cor 14:29-32 . .Two, or three, prophets should speak, and everyone
else should weigh carefully what is said. If a revelation comes to someone
who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy
in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. The spirits of
the prophets are subject to the prophets.

Though God endows certain Spirit-selected people in church with the gift of
prophecy (1Cor 12:4-11) it is not He who endows them with the compulsion
to talk all at once and/or talk out of turn. Chaos prevention is their
responsibility; not His, no matter how inspired they might be, nor how
important they think their information is.

* Actual prophets channel God's thoughts; viz: they speak as the voice of
God. People with opinions don't speak as the voice of God at all; they speak
as themselves. True prophets are revelators whereas people with opinions
are little more than a nuisance; they muddy the waters and if not kept in
check will quickly derail a Sunday school class and drag it down into an
abyss of food fights and perpetual debating that never get to the bottom of
anything.
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
191) 1Cor 14:34 . . Women should remain silent in the churches. They are
not allowed to speak; but must be in submission (i.e. defer to the men)

It could be argued, with some merit, that this rule applies only to tongues
and prophecy; but Paul expands its scope in a letter to his friend Timothy.

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman
to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam
was first formed, then Eve." (1Tim 2:11-13)

It's important to note that this is neither a gender issue, nor a competence
issue, nor an intelligence issue when it's so obviously a seniority issue. For
that reason it's an act of contempt for one's betters when Christian women
step up to govern Christian men in a Christian congregation.

FAQ: Doesn't 1Cor 11:3-10 permit women to pray and/or prophecy just so
long as they cover their hair?

REPLY: There is a limit to that privilege. In other words: Christian woman
are not allowed to pray and/or prophecy in the hearing of a mixed
congregation; i.e. where Christian men are present.

FAQ: What about women like Anne Graham Lotz and/or Tara-Leigh Cobble?
Aren't they out of order?

REPLY: The rule is limited to congregational meetings. It doesn't include
public venue's, e.g. forums, town squares, street corners, coliseums,
stadiums, convention centers, radio, television, or social media like YouTube
and/or Facebook.

FAQ: What about Deborah in the Old Testament book of judges? Exactly how
was she an exception to the rule, if indeed she was?

REPLY: Things are quite a bit different now with Christ at the helm, i.e.
Christ's association with his church trumps Deborah's association with the
Jews. I do not recommend using her, or any other woman in the Bible, as an
excuse to defy Christ's edicts in matters pertaining to the governance of
Christian congregations.

NOTE: Debbie was neither a priest nor a member of the Sanhedrin; her
involvement in the Jews' affairs was limited to her position as a judge, viz:
the Temple's sacred business was none of her business; that was strictly a
man's world.

* Paul appealed to "the law" as the basis for 1Cor 14:34. Normally when
Paul speaks of the law he's referring to the covenant that Moses' people
agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

Exactly where in the covenant that women are forbidden to preach, or teach,
or usurp authority over men in matters of religion, I don't know. However,
it's quite obvious that the covenant is very sexist, i.e. women are not
permitted in either the priesthood or the Sanhedrin.

However; the law doesn't always speak explicitly about certain things.
Sometimes the law's rules and procedures imply principles that we call "the
spirit of the law". For example Jesus' critics were educated experts in the
black and white letter of the law relative to the weekly routine sabbath but
they were as illiterate as mannequins in regard to applying the spirit of the
sabbath. (Matt 12:1-13 & Mark 3:1-5)
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
192) 1Cor 14:35 . . If women have questions, they should ask their own
husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

What's an inquiring wife to do if her husband is spiritually inept? I'd suggest
that women married to spiritually inept Christian men, and/or women
married to non-Christian men, and/or unmarried women; seek assistance
from one of the ladies in church known to be somewhat of a Bible expert.

But for safety's sake, she shouldn't seek assistance from another woman's
husband; even if he's the pastor, or a deacon, or an elder; it's not only
disobedient, but that's also how rumors (and other things) get started.
_

 

[RedFan]

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman
to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam
was first formed, then Eve." (1Tim 2:11-13)

It's important to note that this is neither a gender issue, nor a competence
issue, nor an intelligence issue when it's so obviously a seniority issue.

But it is a gender issue. I agree that women and men are both competent enough and both intelligent enough to teach, including to teach men. As for "seniority," Paul's extracting this "seniority" notion from Adam's earlier formation is illogical. Why in the world should that matter? If she's got the tools and got the talent, let her speak!

 

[RedFan]

1Cor 14:35 . . If women have questions, they should ask their own
husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

What's an inquiring wife to do if her husband is spiritually inept? I'd suggest
that women married to spiritually inept Christian men, and/or women
married to non-Christian men, and/or unmarried women; seek assistance
from one of the ladies in church known to be somewhat of a Bible expert.

How many such Church ladies ever become Bible experts? The repression regime that Paul espouses militates against that. And as you say, inept husbands are a poor source of instruction. (My wife is a Bible expert, but she sure didn't get that way by asking me anything!)

 

[Webers_Home]

.
193) 1Cor 14:37-38 . . If anybody thinks he's a prophet or spiritually gifted,
let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command.

If your Sunday school, or your catechism class, is being chaired by
somebody who disagrees with the Lord's commands regulating women's
place, or the use and abuse of tongues, and/or the speaking of prophecy;
then believe me you have a serious problem because it indicates that your
church's management practices are secular instead of inspired.
_