Hi, guys.
Well, 3:30 am rolls around, and here I am at the computer writing. I'm crazy! But this is what's on my mind...
I shared a fair bit of stuff last night, and I hope that it wasn't overbearing or harsh. My intent is to build the body of Christ. This weekend we are going to be gone to a family camp near Grand Coulee Dam, Lord willing. Next weekend, nothing is planned. I thought that you guys might be interested in us coming over for church then, seeing as you asked last weekend. So I thought that I'd give you both a few week's time to answer a question for me. It's nothing deep or tricky, (Paul says that scripture states it), and I don't want to be errant or demanding or such-like, but rather patient.
Regarding what we talked about last evening on these verses...
1Cor 14:34-36 "Let your women be silent in the churches; for it is not permitted to them to speak, but to be in subjection, as the Law also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home; for it is a shame for a woman to speak in a church. Or did the Word of God go out from you? Or did it reach only to you? If anyone thinks to be a prophet, or a spiritual one, let him recognize the things I write to you, that they are a commandment of the Lord."
It is a common statement that it is speaking of women teaching. However, it clearly states that the wife isn't even allowed to ask her husband something in church! I brought this up, but it was not addressed by either of you. In fact, it was ignored. So I granted you both your position, and then I addressed other manifestations of the heart that reveal our spiritual state and understanding. I'm concerned that the correlation might have been missed. In addition to that, I fear that I erred in not simply sticking to the word of God openly, but trying in a round about way point something out.
If the wife isn't even allowed to ask her husband a question in church, it is very obvious that it is going way beyond simply not allowing the woman to teach: she can't even ask her husband a question! In fact, it says that it is shameful for a woman to even ask a question of her own husband even, during church! That's way more stringent than not merely being able to teach. This is very evident. I wonder why this is not seen: is it because we have been taught that this is what the bible says, like we have received so many of our beliefs? It appears to be very much the culture dictating our understanding of the word of God.
In fact, it states that if the woman wants to learn something, she should do it privately from her husband. But don't we in our culture have our wives go to church so that they can learn spiritual things? It would appear that there's much in this simple little passage that doesn't fit us and our beliefs. We even let our wives go to church on their own, being taught by other men without us even being present, and consider this godly. Is it?
Apparently not. In fact, why do we go to church? Does it fit this passage and the other passages?
Apparently not. These things concern me.
So I ask you this: If a woman can't even ask her husband a question in church, where does it teach this in the scriptures, (it says "as the law also says") and why does it teach it?
I hold five resulting things:
1) the fact that it is far more stringent than a woman can only "not teach doctrine" in church as so many believe it to say, (she can't even ask her own head a question in church!), it is self evident that you do not understand the passage and do not admit what it clearly states.
2) If you cannot answer the question of where in the scriptures it states this, and why it states this, again it is self evident that you do not understand the passage.
3) We do not then have the Lord's blessing on our "church" time, for we obviously contradict God's word, and can't even explain it.
4) Our eyes are yet veiled to spiritual wisdom and understanding, for we obviously contradict God's word, and can't even explain it.
5) The proof is in the pudding -- our fruit really isn't any different than the damned.
My conclusion is thus:
Upon what basis, then, do you assert that your belief is correct? It obviously doesn't fit the passage or the other scriptures from which Paul is teaching this in 1 Cor. 14. If you cannot explain it, then your belief is unfounded: you do not understand it. To then hold that your belief is correct is problematic, to say the least.
I'm asking you both this now, so that you have two weeks to give me the scriptures and how they teach this truth, or to correct me with the word of God rightly used. If you cannot give this to me, then it is obvious that you do not understand it but still insist that you understand it -- and I will not partake of assumption on spiritual things as though they are the truth of God's word. Especially when they do not fit the clear constraints of the word of God. If two weeks isn't more than enough time, again your position is shown to be problematic.
Why do I hold this position? Those verses state it for me: "If anyone thinks to be a prophet, or a spiritual one, let him recognize the things I write to you, that they are a commandment of the Lord." This is quite obviously a command of the Lord. A spiritual one obviously will not then contradict it. You both hold that you are spiritual: that's why you do the home church thing and lament the sinful state of the common church. If you are spiritual in God's eyes, you will be able to answer my question. "Let not a man think more highly of himself than he ought." "Test yourselves; prove yourselves...." "And everyone who hears these sayings of Mine and does not do them shall be compared to a foolish man who built his house on the sand." "To the Law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this Word, it is because no light is in them." "
For I earnestly testified to your fathers in the day I brought them up out of the land of Egypt, even to this day, rising early and testifying, saying, Obey My voice. Yet they did not obey nor bow down their ear, but walked each one in the stubbornness of his evil heart. So I will bring on them all the Words of this covenant, which I commanded them to do; but they did not do them." "And they come to you as the people come, and they sit before you as My people, and they hear your words. But they will not do them."
I end with this:
"My people perish for lack of understanding." And, "that the fellowship of your faith may operate in a full knowledge of every good thing in you in Christ Jesus."
Blessings from the Lord as you use the word to explain the word. Have a good week, men. I look forward to your scriptural answers.
Norm
Now, in addition to that, after I had sent it, I decided to put down something else on that passage that they need to explain, or it is shown that they do not understand the passage. I did not require this to be answered, as I considered what I had already written to be more than enough: I do not want to overwhelm, but to piece by piece reveal the truth about these things regarding what the scriptures clearly say, regarding their understanding and thus regarding how they live before both God and man.
We have many scriptures that are blunt. Harsh even, by some standards. God seems to be rather unequivocal. He seems to draw a fairly deep line in the sand on many things. This creates a problem at times: when they are applied just as bluntly as the word of God gives them, they often seem harsh to the recipient. I do not want to be harsh, but in truth, I have no deep patience for those who: 1) have known Christ for many years, or 2) state that they know the scriptures as well as, or even better than many other believers, or 3) state that they are not fakes like so many seem to be ---- yet they don’t seem to know the scriptures, don’t seem to actually accept their blunt statements, and don’t obey the simple statements of the word of God, whether they understand them or not. Like scripture states of them, they have arguments, for they don’t simply accept it. “Casting down arguments…”
When I read the prophets, I see hard, blunt statements. God seems to think them fully warranted. When I read the gospels, I see Christ respond two different ways, for the most part. And that depends on whether the hearer/one interacting with Christ thought that they knew it or lived it, or not. If they came in humility and repentance, he did not condemn them. If they came in ignorance and admitted it, he did not condemn them. Yet if they professed to know, but did not live it, he rebuked them openly before everyone else: whether the others were followers of his or not. He even did this with his own disciples. Food for thought?
So what are some of the blunt, hard statements by God? Here’s one: God says that Israel was like a whore who not only slept around, but refused payment for it. Not being content with this, she even paid her paramours! We seem to sanitize that so much, we don’t see the crass, almost offensiveness of even speaking that. Yet God goes way, way beyond that. It’s amazing. He says that she is a whore that lays at the side of the road and spreads her legs open for the passersby to see her private parts and she tries to entice them this way and give herself this brazenly. On one “Christian” forum, I was banned for quoting those verses, as they were “rude and offensive”. But God said them!
The NT is rife with passages, such as in Jude, Peter, James, which speak hard words of complete condemnation, calling them names and what-not. And who are they speaking of? Simply the fakes that abound in Christendom. Simply the simple minded that don’t seem to grasp the word of God, even rejecting simple statements by God. Read those passages in Jude, James, Peter, etc.. Sobering.
Let’s not stop there, though. Christ called them names. He belittled them. He was rude to them. He even got quite violent with them. In fact, he took the time to make a whip and went berserk against them. The other time that he cleansed the temple, he didn’t make a whip. But one time he did. Then he used it! Why make it if you aren’t going to use it? Talk about premeditated anger and violence!
Yet what about our beloved Paul? He mocked them. He belittled them. In fact, once he even told them that he was demeaning them they might have been blind enough to take it the wrong way! Talk about rubbing it in their faces. Somehow, though, we have this sanitized, innocuous picture in our mind of God, Christ, the prophets, and the apostles, even after we have just read the brutal passages. Why is this? Could it possibly have any bearing on how we perceive a man when he writes a rebuke? Could it possibly be much more serious than that – could it affect how we accept the very word of God given to us, how we apply it to our own lives?
Look up Ezekiel 5:15. Is this really the mind and heart of God? Apparently so. But we consider it wrong or offensive, a bad attitude. Why? Maybe even bitter? Hardly. It’s called righteous anger and righteous hatred and righteous indignation.
How could it not be considered this way in Christendom?! I am very concerned about these things that seem to be so prevalent in Christendom. However, should it constrain me? It didn’t constrain Christ, his prophets, the apostles, or God himself. Surely there comes a point when a spade must be called a spade. And this is to be done with the intent of seeing one accept the word of God fully, then repent and turn and be healed by God, after which wisdom will come as they continue in the truth so bluntly given in the word of God – but not for all was it done this way.
Chad, you hit the nail on the head when you said that nobody in Christendom seems to know anything about being rebuked. You also stated that fewer yet seem to be able to take a rebuke in meekness and humility. Even David took a rebuke by a wicked man, in meekness and humility. This is the heart of God which you see lacking in Christendom. It is the heart of God that bemoans this travesty. And it is equally the heart of God that receives a rebuke in meekness and humility. Are not the Psalms and Proverbs replete with such admonishments? Here’s just a few: Psalm 141:5, Prov. 27:5, Ecc. 7:5, etc.. Actually, Amos 5:10 seems to be true of many believers. It’s heart breaking to see.
When I read the rest of the New Testament, I see the same thing. Hard, uncompromising statements to those who should have known the truth, but did not. (Read 1 Cor. 3, Heb. 5:13, Gal. 4, Acts regarding Simon the sorcerer, etc..) The same thing to those who should have been living the truth, but were not. (James 1, James 4, Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, et al.) And of course, the gentle restoration (acceptance and hanging out/fellowship with) of those who repented when confronted with the truth. Both are the true expression of godly love. Leave out either one and it is a skewed, twisted, perverted love. Each is specific for the situation. And the contrasting two types of situations are clearly delineated in the word of God.
I fear that our Christendom is so much a stranger to rebuke or chastisement, they have no clue about what is harsh or what is not harsh. Is a spanking ever pleasant? No. But just because it is a spanking by no means demands the conclusion that it was harsh! The world perverts this most basic fact, and tries to outlaw any form of chastisement lest one “damage” the one needing the chastisement! We have little to no church discipline occurring. No one denies this obvious truth.
So I am trying to instruct and discipline and chastise, yet how to do it without it being harsh? Also, I need to keep learning and growing in doing this, just as a parent learns and grows in disciplining and chastising a child. I’ve had no examples of leaders rebuking, disciplining, or chastising other believers for me to follow or learn from, thus I feel behind the eight-ball, so to speak. So please forgive me if I err in my zeal on your behalf to present you pure and spotless, without reproach before the Lord and all men.
I will give some of those scriptures here. Yet by no means are they meant to be a final, condemning verdict. On the contrary, they are used to convey the truth as God sees it, and do we see it as seriously as God does? Perhaps it is indeed pertinent to judge ourselves by his bold, blunt statements that leave absolutely no wiggle room. When we do so, we will indeed learn and be taught of God himself, and will grow in wisdom and grace, compassion and justice. And until we accept them fully, no matter how unpleasant they are for us, we will not grow as we need to grow in Christ. And until we do that, we will not have the wisdom and discernment to mature in them and not be extreme in them. So please bear these things in mind when you read this letter, men.
Paul asks two questions. Why does he ask them? It is obvious that they have much import to what he was saying is clearly taught to the spiritual person in the word of God regarding this issue of women remaining silent in the church. The first question, “Or did the Word of God go out from you?”, needs to be explained with scripture. What bearing does it have when he asks this? Why is it seen as something that should be clearly a foundation, or at the very least an integral part of women remaining silent in church? If that cannot be explained by scripture (OT scripture, by the way, is what Paul was using!), it is abundantly obvious that the person does not have a scriptural, a godly understanding of the teaching. It is fully correct to then conclude that to say anything contrary to that passage, such as women can speak up – they just can’t teach, such a person is self-deluded and arrogant, speaking on things he/she does not understand, and clearly so. God has some very, very harsh words for those who do such a wicked thing. It would behoove us to actually fear God in simple things, the simple teachings and statements of the word of God.
Paul’s next question must also be explained by scripture (OT!): “Or did it reach only to you?” Again, why does this have such a convincing, such an airtight argument in Paul’s eyes? Do we actually have any clue to these two rhetorical questions of Paul’s? They are just like James’ question: “Can such a faith save a man?” The answer is so obvious, it isn’t belabored.
However, I have yet to hear any man explain these questions with the OT, or with any scripture, for that matter. This gravely concerns me. Why don’t I see other men tremble at the word of God and withhold their tongue until they actually can explain well with scripture? “The fear of God is not before their eyes”, seems to have some extant merit here, I fear. It matters not whether one is this way because they’ve been duped into it, or if they’ve knowingly chosen it, or have merely followed the crowd in it: they are still way off base and fall desperately short of the glory of God in it. They still teach a lie, thereby making God to be a liar. Scripture itself states that this is the case, when it states that when they contradict the word of God they make God out to be a liar.
This is not rocket science. It is the simple underpinnings of the gospel of Christ.
I have grave concerns for Christendom.
NOTE: I sent the previous, additional part to Scott for his feedback. It is now Tuesday, after the long weekend, that I’ve written the following:
Now, a week later, I’ve decided to put down a few more thoughts. I see where Christ did a few things, and I’ve tried to follow his example in them. I was hoping to see the answers from Chad and Joe, and then I’d give some additional stuff from this 1 Cor. passage being looked at. I see that I wasn’t clear at all, as I didn’t state that I would give some answers if they first answered. Christ did that, but I blew it in not being clear in doing the same thing. Please accept my apology. Secondly, I see that he had the disciples for a reason, and therefore he explained things to them that he did not explain to others – to them was given the kingdom of God, so it was required of them to know! This is why I’ve thought it prudent to send the gist of my thoughts on this. It is incumbent upon us to not only rebuke, exhort, admonish in all love, but to build, equip, edify, encourage in the word of God and truth.
Driving home from the long weekend, I pondered these things, and knowing that I would write this, I pondered when I should send it to you guys. Should I send it right away, or wait until the weekend, say, Friday, so that you’d have some time to talk about it on the weekend? But that was based upon an assumption regarding the next weekend. So I decided to just wait with it until one of two things, whichever came first: I hear from you guys, or Saturday evening comes without my hearing from you guys.
I shared this stuff with a couple on the long weekend. I asked them these questions, but they didn’t know the scriptures or the answers, even though they believed that women should remain silent in the church, and had believed it for years. I was encouraged that they simply believed the word of God. I told them of the addendum that I had written, and that I was waiting for an answer before I would give answers on other parts of that passage. It was then that I suddenly realized that I hadn’t actually stated this in my first email to you both, so I purposed to do that to a certain degree in this email, and not only that, to write more so as to counter my error in this regard in the first email. I rejoiced that they had just taken the word of God at face value and believed it, even though many might think simply of them for it. They just live the word of God: they tremble at the word of God, and God responds by keeping them and their children (10) pure with good attitudes toward each other and others. Seems to be scriptural! I told them Genesis chapter 2, midway, gives the answers. Genesis 2:15-18 state: “And Jehovah God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, You may freely eat of every tree in the garden, but you shall not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die. And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
Paul says that the spiritual man sees the spiritual truth taught here, and that the spiritual man won’t disagree with it. He also portrays that it is a plain truth, for when he asks his rhetorical questions, he has assumed that they all know the obvious scripture and truths taught by it!
So, just some thoughts about these verses….
Just like Paul in writing about Abraham by faith, and writing about Levi paying tithes while still in the loins of Abraham, we have that truth being the foundation of being in Christ, and of who was in who when the world was created. In like manner these verses are very clear: God created man, and before he made the woman of the man, God gave the only command on the earth that had a penalty to it, to Adam. There was NO woman at that time. Why not? The spiritual answer is just as obvious as the answer to Paul’s rhetorical questions and most basic statements. The command, the spiritual truth was given to Adam alone. This is why Paul states that the word went out from man, not woman. Adam told it to Eve – God didn’t. God told it to Adam only, and did so before Eve ever existed. Why? She had absolutely no spiritual authority and little spiritual strength. This is taught elsewhere. And the proof is in the pudding. In one place it even states that the woman is the weaker spiritual vessel. And in other places it states that it was Eve who sinned first! But, even though it was Eve that sinned first, sin entered the world through Adam. If a person can’t explain with scripture how and why this is true, again, I hold that they do not understand the most foundational, basic statements such as this one regarding women remaining silent -- not even being allowed to ask their husband a question in church. I would appreciate it if either Chad or Joe would explain how sin entered through Adam, even though Eve sinned first. Thanks.
Paul’s question, “Or did the Word of God go out from you?”, is very basic. It went out from Adam to Eve. NOT the other way around, and God did this for a reason. As far as humans went, and how God wants it to be, it was from man to woman only. God’s order of things in the creation account expressly state these things by the Spirit of God. And to just toss a little side note in here, we see that the command that went out to give life, actually brought death to the very one that it went out to, because of Eve! (Rom. 7:10, Rom. 8:2,6, 2 Cor. 2:16, Acts 15:10, etc.) The conclusion of this is so obvious, and it is given elsewhere (1 Peter 3:7, 1 Tim. 2:13-15): Eve, (women) are weak spiritually, easily deceived and lead astray by the Evil One. This is written about yet again by the apostle of Christ, stating that the Evil One is used by wicked men to deceive whole households and lead the church of God astray through women. No small wonder. This does not mean that men are to look down on women. On the contrary, we are to treat them as what? – the weaker vessel, caring for them, disciplining and training them in order to present them pure and spotless before God in Christ. God would not have said that husbands have to do this, if the wives didn’t need their spiritual heads to do this for them. Does this have any correlation with Christ presenting the church pure before God? Obviously! But Christendom considers that sinful for a woman to submit like that, and for a man to think that he can, let alone needs, to do this for/with/to his wife! And no small wonder. Look at our fruit to see if our beliefs are correct!
In fact, 1 Tim. 2: 9-15 has much merit here: “In the same way also, I desire that women adorn themselves in decent clothing, with modesty and sensibleness, not adorned with braiding, or gold, or pearls, or costly clothing, but with good works, which becomes women professing godliness. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I do not allow a woman to teach, or to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. But she will be kept safe through childbearing, if they continue in faith and love and holiness with sensibleness.” If a woman isn’t silent in church, she is not in spiritual submission (subjection, although we consider that anti-woman, even though God thought it proper to use that word).
How interesting that Paul states it so clearly here. It ties inexorably into Adam being created first. Paul even stated that for us, so it shouldn’t be anything new to us. Have we ever really meditated on these things? It doesn’t seem like it. We have this clear truth presented a few times in the New Testament now. Is there any reason for us to deny the spiritual truths that are openly stated? Is there any reason to deny the word of God given to us in both the OT and the NT? How is it that we have come to the place where we argue away the blunt word of God and consider ourselves spiritual? Are there not scriptures which condemn quite aggressively those who do this? James. Peter. Jude. Paul and Christ don’t sidestep it either. When do the blunt statements in the word of God apply to us? Or are they to only apply to others? Somehow it’s always the others that fit into the unpleasant scriptures – never us. What makes us so special? When does Col. 3:25 ever apply?
That which is not in submission, is in rebellion. Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft. Remember that verse? It is raised up against God. But why is it that way? That is the very definition of witchcraft, for it is worshipping that which is not God. It doesn’t get any more basic than that, yet we deny these truths that are so bluntly, simply given in the word of God. This indeed concerns me, but what concerns me even more, even to the point of angering me, is that we consider this wickedness to be godliness.
Yet didn’t God speak to this also? Surely he did! Ezek. 18:28-32 and 33:17-20 seem fairly clear on this.
The command of God, given only by authority and only to authority, to the only authority on earth at that time, was given only to Adam. And from Adam to Eve once she had been brought forth from Adam, for it had been given before she even existed. Even Eve’s very existence, her very being, was from Adam. So we clearly see that the command of God AND her very existence, came through Adam and from Adam alone. “Shall the clay so to the potter….” It concerns me deeply, angering me in the Lord, when I see these basic truths mostly perverted and denied by those that profess to love the Lord more purely and obey his word more purely than openly rebellious Christendom. When I see it in those that I consider friends and that I love in Christ, I cannot sit by any longer and hold my tongue. What kind of love would that be? Are we not our brothers’ keeper? Surely these common scriptures are to be applied to life sometime or other.
The command of God did not go directly to Eve, by any means. The command of God went only through Adam to Eve. This clearly places Eve under Adam for all things from God. God clearly went via Adam to Eve, and Eve was without sin when this was done! How much more so now that she is under sin! Thus we see, that just as Abraham was credited righteousness by faith BEFORE he was given the command of circumcision, so too we see that Eve received no commands from God except through her head, Adam, before she even sinned! And just as Paul states elsewhere, “how much more so…”, if this be true before she sinned, is it most definitely true after she sinned! I’ve heard many people bungle up Paul’s teaching on “how much more so…”, and no wonder – they can’t seem to grasp much of anything of these basics in the word of God that Paul and Peter and James consider so basic that they ask rhetorical questions, the answers of which are so obvious that they consider even those who are having problems with a carnal mind to still understand the fully known conclusions. Indeed, is it not proper for a man to be very gravely concerned for Christendom, when it seems to be openly obvious that very few can give the scriptures or their truths on these simple things?
So why were the punishments from God, and what they were to Adam and Eve, and how did they fit so perfectly to the sin per individual? The answer is obvious: Eve didn’t obey her command, her one and only command, given directly to Adam before Eve existed, and given directly to Eve by her head, her one and only head and conduit from God: Adam her husband. Thus, given directly by God through Adam. This is a beautiful correlation of Christ to the church, from God. Thus the simple basis of Paul’s other statement, “God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of man, and man is the head of woman”, and another like unto it, “just as Christ… So likewise wives submit…”, and even more simply, “I speak nothing except that which my Father tells me.” It’s all so simple, and it all comes from Genesis and the creation and sinning accounts in it. I will not belabor any more points on this one.
The next question was this: “Or did it reach only to you?” This, too, comes from that same passage. It reached only Adam. Eve didn’t even exist. Then Adam gave it to Eve after she came into being from himself. Thus, “flesh of my flesh, bone of my bone”, and “they shall become one flesh”. This is a perfect picture of Christ, from God, to man. To say that there is any less truth to that fact now, as it was with Adam and Eve and the command being given to the man before the woman was even around, before she was even one with/of him solely to be a helper to him, completely under his authority spiritually and in all things, is to evidence a wholesale lack of spiritual understanding, I fear. Then Eve perverted it by believing the perversions of Satan given directly, or only, to her, via the lusts of the flesh that war against the soul. Recall that verse? (1 Peter 2:11) Satan did with Eve what God had done with Adam, giving her the word of God which she had received from Adam, but he used it against her to deceive her. And Satan did this via bypassing her head and going directly to her, bypassing the authority God set over her. He couldn’t get to her through Adam. Does “hid in Christ” have any correlation here? She did not go to her head, Adam, but responded on her own. The results were catastrophic. And we see the fruits of it ever since: sin and whatnot for all mankind. Seems to be strikingly familiar to Christendom today and it’s many sins that it considers to be the goodness of the gospel, listening to the wrong voices, voices that speak against the most basic spiritual truths of God’s word. Anathema! I cannot say it strong enough: ANATHEMA!
The word did not go to Satan. He knew it and used it to deceive the one UNDER authority, UNDER Adam completely in every way: the one to whom the word of God did not come except through her head, Adam. The word of God did not go directly to Eve, but it came only through her head, Adam. She heard it second-hand, and rightly so. She received it no other way. She was created to help him. We seem to not understand that, either, in Christendom. These are such basic yet undeniable truths, the whole of our function in Christ is based upon them. Is it any wonder that Christendom has problems with the role of women, the role of men, hair, dress, speech, actions of the two genders, training their children to be meek and submissive instead of aggressive, and in marriage? Crazy. Paul understood this, and assumed that even the carnally minded in the church should know it.
We, on the other hand, are so learned in the scriptures a few thousand years later, we don’t seem to see any of this. These things gravely concern me. “If the light that is in you is darkness, how great is that darkness!” At times, I honestly do not know whether to weep about it or to rage against it. Christ is my example in all things, and we will have His mind when born of Him: “And he, being grieved at their hardness of heart, burned with anger.” Seems to be the mind of God. Yet Christendom (I can’t imagine why!), considers it harsh and unloving. Even when God himself states that true love, God’s love, rebukes and disciplines, and if you don’t receive rebukes and disciplines when in error you are not loved by God, we can’t seem to get around our belief that it’s unloving to rebuke or discipline. “Those he loves, he rebukes and disciplines”, 1 Cor. 11:32, 2 Cor. 6:9, Heb. 12:10, Deut. 21:18,19, Psalm 73, Psalm 118, and many others. Just look up “chasten”, “chastened”, “chastens”, etc. Look up rebuke, rebuked, rebukes, etc. In fact, God said in 1 Cor. 13 that if we don’t rebuke and discipline, as Godly love does, we are empty, a clanging cymbal, a useless gong. We seem to have many critical errors, indeed. This concerns me.
So his second question, “Or did it reach only to you?”, is so very clear that it didn’t reach to her! It reached only to Adam: Eve didn’t even exist when it was given. Eve failed in it, even second hand! And Eve wasn’t told it by God: it was given only to Adam – Eve didn’t even exist when God gave the command! So we see the double barreled shotgun by God, given so simply and clearly in Genesis 2 and assumed by Paul that anybody with spiritual understanding knows it! If it was given only to Eve, INSTEAD of only to Adam, or if it was given to Eve WITH Adam , she would have the right to speak up in church. She’d have the right to teach doctrine. She’d even have the right to ask her husband a question. But it wasn’t given to her. It was given only to Adam. Therefore, she has no spiritual right or authority to teach in church, speak up in church, or to even ask her spiritual head a question in church! Paul seemed to be rather clear on that one: it is shameful for her to even ask her husband a question in church! Wow! And this teaching from Genesis 2 is the obvious spiritual truth that we should all know.
So I ask this: is it proper for someone to rebuke another person when they don’t see even these most basic truths that Paul assumes that even the carnally minded believer should know – yet they consider themselves wiser than the average church goer? Is it proper to discipline “weak and self-deceived, sinning” believers? Is it proper to put the sin out of our midst? Is it proper to believe that if we don’t put the sin out of our midst, God will indeed withhold common sense from us spiritually, as it states so many times elsewhere? Is it proper to believe that God will judge us either now or on the last day for this travesty?
Or is it proper to ignore it, accept it, put up with it, “fellowship” with it, even believe it, and then also consider it rude, harsh, and unloving if we aren’t partakers of these sins and this spiritual blindness and arrogance, let alone speak up against it unabashedly with scripture?
Some things are so obvious, why do we even ask rhetorical questions? Because for some reason, it’s still a problem. “My brethren, these things ought not be so!”
It is always for those who say that they have understanding but live contrary to scripture that I don’t beat around the bush very much, having little patience with them. And it is always for those who say that they don’t have understanding that I am gentle as a lamb with, being very longsuffering before I offer any type of soft rebuke. Thus the tone of this email, men. This is why God said, “because you say that you know, it will be held against you. If you had said that you didn’t know, mercy would have been granted to you.” Christ said that. Is this one of those blunt, “harsh” statements that we are to water down and not apply to ourselves rightly at any time, sterilizing it so that it is somehow palatable to us?
Or did God lie to us on this one, too: “do you not know that bad company corrupts good character”? There are so many scriptures, many in Proverbs, which speak of being affected by those we hang out with. Perhaps we should simply hang out with those who obey the word of God and do have a basic understanding of them, being as Paul stated, that they are proven to be spiritual by how they live and their grasp of the most basic, obvious truths in scripture, such as in Genesis 2:16-18. Perhaps we should hang out with those who have not only obedient children, but children with clean spirits, with good attitudes, that don’t fight or argue or be mean to each other. Humble ourselves and do that? Never. We can’t seem to escape the arrogance that permeates every aspect of our North American society called Christendom. It’s harder to find a more heart breaking tragedy than that. Especially when Paul writes so clearly with this foundation, leaving no room except for those who deliberately choose their own ways over God’s ways.
Eph. 5:22-24 states “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.” No ifs, ands, or buts in there. And when we tie it with the other passages, it is abundantly clear.
I hold that the answers are very obvious indeed. I also hold that it is equally obvious that almost nobody wants to be corrected in true godly love. “Let the righteous strike me; it shall be a kindness; and let him correct me, it is oil on my head, let not my head refuse it; for still my prayer also shall be against their wickedness.” It seems tragic indeed when they cannot accept the striking by a friend, a man who actually loves them enough to speak up to them for God and for their own sake and for their families’ sake. There are far too many scriptures to quote along that line. I have given a smattering throughout this. I will give no more here. “Search the scriptures” is a command from God. Do we do this? Actually do this? A concordance or word search isn’t searching the scriptures, for unless we know the exact words to look for, we won’t find them. Also, many things are stated openly but not with the words that we would want them to be stated with. Therefore, we must read the scriptures in order to find them. Such as this passage in Genesis which Paul refers to so bluntly for women being silent in church. That takes some sort of wisdom. It takes meditation, pondering, thinking, deducing. A word search or concordance completely bypasses all such passages. Yet we think that we have studied the word of God or searched it on a topic? I beg to differ.
It breaks my heart when these things are true of those that I love. And then I burn with anger over it. “May this mind be in you, which was in Christ Jesus….”
No, I have not been soft in this. But neither have I been harsh. Should I have been? Should I have come meekly, or with a rod? I have done neither. I have merely been blunt. God is too. “We have the mind of Christ”, “may this mind be in you, which was in Christ Jesus”, “renew the mind in Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior”, etc.. Forgive me my weakness on your behalf.
If these foundational truths are now seen, I will gladly discuss with you about the remaining statements of Paul in those verses -- which statements further verify these things.
For Christ,
Norm
Well, 3:30 am rolls around, and here I am at the computer writing. I'm crazy! But this is what's on my mind...
I shared a fair bit of stuff last night, and I hope that it wasn't overbearing or harsh. My intent is to build the body of Christ. This weekend we are going to be gone to a family camp near Grand Coulee Dam, Lord willing. Next weekend, nothing is planned. I thought that you guys might be interested in us coming over for church then, seeing as you asked last weekend. So I thought that I'd give you both a few week's time to answer a question for me. It's nothing deep or tricky, (Paul says that scripture states it), and I don't want to be errant or demanding or such-like, but rather patient.
Regarding what we talked about last evening on these verses...
1Cor 14:34-36 "Let your women be silent in the churches; for it is not permitted to them to speak, but to be in subjection, as the Law also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home; for it is a shame for a woman to speak in a church. Or did the Word of God go out from you? Or did it reach only to you? If anyone thinks to be a prophet, or a spiritual one, let him recognize the things I write to you, that they are a commandment of the Lord."
It is a common statement that it is speaking of women teaching. However, it clearly states that the wife isn't even allowed to ask her husband something in church! I brought this up, but it was not addressed by either of you. In fact, it was ignored. So I granted you both your position, and then I addressed other manifestations of the heart that reveal our spiritual state and understanding. I'm concerned that the correlation might have been missed. In addition to that, I fear that I erred in not simply sticking to the word of God openly, but trying in a round about way point something out.
If the wife isn't even allowed to ask her husband a question in church, it is very obvious that it is going way beyond simply not allowing the woman to teach: she can't even ask her husband a question! In fact, it says that it is shameful for a woman to even ask a question of her own husband even, during church! That's way more stringent than not merely being able to teach. This is very evident. I wonder why this is not seen: is it because we have been taught that this is what the bible says, like we have received so many of our beliefs? It appears to be very much the culture dictating our understanding of the word of God.
In fact, it states that if the woman wants to learn something, she should do it privately from her husband. But don't we in our culture have our wives go to church so that they can learn spiritual things? It would appear that there's much in this simple little passage that doesn't fit us and our beliefs. We even let our wives go to church on their own, being taught by other men without us even being present, and consider this godly. Is it?
Apparently not. In fact, why do we go to church? Does it fit this passage and the other passages?
Apparently not. These things concern me.
So I ask you this: If a woman can't even ask her husband a question in church, where does it teach this in the scriptures, (it says "as the law also says") and why does it teach it?
I hold five resulting things:
1) the fact that it is far more stringent than a woman can only "not teach doctrine" in church as so many believe it to say, (she can't even ask her own head a question in church!), it is self evident that you do not understand the passage and do not admit what it clearly states.
2) If you cannot answer the question of where in the scriptures it states this, and why it states this, again it is self evident that you do not understand the passage.
3) We do not then have the Lord's blessing on our "church" time, for we obviously contradict God's word, and can't even explain it.
4) Our eyes are yet veiled to spiritual wisdom and understanding, for we obviously contradict God's word, and can't even explain it.
5) The proof is in the pudding -- our fruit really isn't any different than the damned.
My conclusion is thus:
Upon what basis, then, do you assert that your belief is correct? It obviously doesn't fit the passage or the other scriptures from which Paul is teaching this in 1 Cor. 14. If you cannot explain it, then your belief is unfounded: you do not understand it. To then hold that your belief is correct is problematic, to say the least.
I'm asking you both this now, so that you have two weeks to give me the scriptures and how they teach this truth, or to correct me with the word of God rightly used. If you cannot give this to me, then it is obvious that you do not understand it but still insist that you understand it -- and I will not partake of assumption on spiritual things as though they are the truth of God's word. Especially when they do not fit the clear constraints of the word of God. If two weeks isn't more than enough time, again your position is shown to be problematic.
Why do I hold this position? Those verses state it for me: "If anyone thinks to be a prophet, or a spiritual one, let him recognize the things I write to you, that they are a commandment of the Lord." This is quite obviously a command of the Lord. A spiritual one obviously will not then contradict it. You both hold that you are spiritual: that's why you do the home church thing and lament the sinful state of the common church. If you are spiritual in God's eyes, you will be able to answer my question. "Let not a man think more highly of himself than he ought." "Test yourselves; prove yourselves...." "And everyone who hears these sayings of Mine and does not do them shall be compared to a foolish man who built his house on the sand." "To the Law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this Word, it is because no light is in them." "
For I earnestly testified to your fathers in the day I brought them up out of the land of Egypt, even to this day, rising early and testifying, saying, Obey My voice. Yet they did not obey nor bow down their ear, but walked each one in the stubbornness of his evil heart. So I will bring on them all the Words of this covenant, which I commanded them to do; but they did not do them." "And they come to you as the people come, and they sit before you as My people, and they hear your words. But they will not do them."
I end with this:
"My people perish for lack of understanding." And, "that the fellowship of your faith may operate in a full knowledge of every good thing in you in Christ Jesus."
Blessings from the Lord as you use the word to explain the word. Have a good week, men. I look forward to your scriptural answers.
Norm
Now, in addition to that, after I had sent it, I decided to put down something else on that passage that they need to explain, or it is shown that they do not understand the passage. I did not require this to be answered, as I considered what I had already written to be more than enough: I do not want to overwhelm, but to piece by piece reveal the truth about these things regarding what the scriptures clearly say, regarding their understanding and thus regarding how they live before both God and man.
We have many scriptures that are blunt. Harsh even, by some standards. God seems to be rather unequivocal. He seems to draw a fairly deep line in the sand on many things. This creates a problem at times: when they are applied just as bluntly as the word of God gives them, they often seem harsh to the recipient. I do not want to be harsh, but in truth, I have no deep patience for those who: 1) have known Christ for many years, or 2) state that they know the scriptures as well as, or even better than many other believers, or 3) state that they are not fakes like so many seem to be ---- yet they don’t seem to know the scriptures, don’t seem to actually accept their blunt statements, and don’t obey the simple statements of the word of God, whether they understand them or not. Like scripture states of them, they have arguments, for they don’t simply accept it. “Casting down arguments…”
When I read the prophets, I see hard, blunt statements. God seems to think them fully warranted. When I read the gospels, I see Christ respond two different ways, for the most part. And that depends on whether the hearer/one interacting with Christ thought that they knew it or lived it, or not. If they came in humility and repentance, he did not condemn them. If they came in ignorance and admitted it, he did not condemn them. Yet if they professed to know, but did not live it, he rebuked them openly before everyone else: whether the others were followers of his or not. He even did this with his own disciples. Food for thought?
So what are some of the blunt, hard statements by God? Here’s one: God says that Israel was like a whore who not only slept around, but refused payment for it. Not being content with this, she even paid her paramours! We seem to sanitize that so much, we don’t see the crass, almost offensiveness of even speaking that. Yet God goes way, way beyond that. It’s amazing. He says that she is a whore that lays at the side of the road and spreads her legs open for the passersby to see her private parts and she tries to entice them this way and give herself this brazenly. On one “Christian” forum, I was banned for quoting those verses, as they were “rude and offensive”. But God said them!
The NT is rife with passages, such as in Jude, Peter, James, which speak hard words of complete condemnation, calling them names and what-not. And who are they speaking of? Simply the fakes that abound in Christendom. Simply the simple minded that don’t seem to grasp the word of God, even rejecting simple statements by God. Read those passages in Jude, James, Peter, etc.. Sobering.
Let’s not stop there, though. Christ called them names. He belittled them. He was rude to them. He even got quite violent with them. In fact, he took the time to make a whip and went berserk against them. The other time that he cleansed the temple, he didn’t make a whip. But one time he did. Then he used it! Why make it if you aren’t going to use it? Talk about premeditated anger and violence!
Yet what about our beloved Paul? He mocked them. He belittled them. In fact, once he even told them that he was demeaning them they might have been blind enough to take it the wrong way! Talk about rubbing it in their faces. Somehow, though, we have this sanitized, innocuous picture in our mind of God, Christ, the prophets, and the apostles, even after we have just read the brutal passages. Why is this? Could it possibly have any bearing on how we perceive a man when he writes a rebuke? Could it possibly be much more serious than that – could it affect how we accept the very word of God given to us, how we apply it to our own lives?
Look up Ezekiel 5:15. Is this really the mind and heart of God? Apparently so. But we consider it wrong or offensive, a bad attitude. Why? Maybe even bitter? Hardly. It’s called righteous anger and righteous hatred and righteous indignation.
How could it not be considered this way in Christendom?! I am very concerned about these things that seem to be so prevalent in Christendom. However, should it constrain me? It didn’t constrain Christ, his prophets, the apostles, or God himself. Surely there comes a point when a spade must be called a spade. And this is to be done with the intent of seeing one accept the word of God fully, then repent and turn and be healed by God, after which wisdom will come as they continue in the truth so bluntly given in the word of God – but not for all was it done this way.
Chad, you hit the nail on the head when you said that nobody in Christendom seems to know anything about being rebuked. You also stated that fewer yet seem to be able to take a rebuke in meekness and humility. Even David took a rebuke by a wicked man, in meekness and humility. This is the heart of God which you see lacking in Christendom. It is the heart of God that bemoans this travesty. And it is equally the heart of God that receives a rebuke in meekness and humility. Are not the Psalms and Proverbs replete with such admonishments? Here’s just a few: Psalm 141:5, Prov. 27:5, Ecc. 7:5, etc.. Actually, Amos 5:10 seems to be true of many believers. It’s heart breaking to see.
When I read the rest of the New Testament, I see the same thing. Hard, uncompromising statements to those who should have known the truth, but did not. (Read 1 Cor. 3, Heb. 5:13, Gal. 4, Acts regarding Simon the sorcerer, etc..) The same thing to those who should have been living the truth, but were not. (James 1, James 4, Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, et al.) And of course, the gentle restoration (acceptance and hanging out/fellowship with) of those who repented when confronted with the truth. Both are the true expression of godly love. Leave out either one and it is a skewed, twisted, perverted love. Each is specific for the situation. And the contrasting two types of situations are clearly delineated in the word of God.
I fear that our Christendom is so much a stranger to rebuke or chastisement, they have no clue about what is harsh or what is not harsh. Is a spanking ever pleasant? No. But just because it is a spanking by no means demands the conclusion that it was harsh! The world perverts this most basic fact, and tries to outlaw any form of chastisement lest one “damage” the one needing the chastisement! We have little to no church discipline occurring. No one denies this obvious truth.
So I am trying to instruct and discipline and chastise, yet how to do it without it being harsh? Also, I need to keep learning and growing in doing this, just as a parent learns and grows in disciplining and chastising a child. I’ve had no examples of leaders rebuking, disciplining, or chastising other believers for me to follow or learn from, thus I feel behind the eight-ball, so to speak. So please forgive me if I err in my zeal on your behalf to present you pure and spotless, without reproach before the Lord and all men.
I will give some of those scriptures here. Yet by no means are they meant to be a final, condemning verdict. On the contrary, they are used to convey the truth as God sees it, and do we see it as seriously as God does? Perhaps it is indeed pertinent to judge ourselves by his bold, blunt statements that leave absolutely no wiggle room. When we do so, we will indeed learn and be taught of God himself, and will grow in wisdom and grace, compassion and justice. And until we accept them fully, no matter how unpleasant they are for us, we will not grow as we need to grow in Christ. And until we do that, we will not have the wisdom and discernment to mature in them and not be extreme in them. So please bear these things in mind when you read this letter, men.
Paul asks two questions. Why does he ask them? It is obvious that they have much import to what he was saying is clearly taught to the spiritual person in the word of God regarding this issue of women remaining silent in the church. The first question, “Or did the Word of God go out from you?”, needs to be explained with scripture. What bearing does it have when he asks this? Why is it seen as something that should be clearly a foundation, or at the very least an integral part of women remaining silent in church? If that cannot be explained by scripture (OT scripture, by the way, is what Paul was using!), it is abundantly obvious that the person does not have a scriptural, a godly understanding of the teaching. It is fully correct to then conclude that to say anything contrary to that passage, such as women can speak up – they just can’t teach, such a person is self-deluded and arrogant, speaking on things he/she does not understand, and clearly so. God has some very, very harsh words for those who do such a wicked thing. It would behoove us to actually fear God in simple things, the simple teachings and statements of the word of God.
Paul’s next question must also be explained by scripture (OT!): “Or did it reach only to you?” Again, why does this have such a convincing, such an airtight argument in Paul’s eyes? Do we actually have any clue to these two rhetorical questions of Paul’s? They are just like James’ question: “Can such a faith save a man?” The answer is so obvious, it isn’t belabored.
However, I have yet to hear any man explain these questions with the OT, or with any scripture, for that matter. This gravely concerns me. Why don’t I see other men tremble at the word of God and withhold their tongue until they actually can explain well with scripture? “The fear of God is not before their eyes”, seems to have some extant merit here, I fear. It matters not whether one is this way because they’ve been duped into it, or if they’ve knowingly chosen it, or have merely followed the crowd in it: they are still way off base and fall desperately short of the glory of God in it. They still teach a lie, thereby making God to be a liar. Scripture itself states that this is the case, when it states that when they contradict the word of God they make God out to be a liar.
This is not rocket science. It is the simple underpinnings of the gospel of Christ.
I have grave concerns for Christendom.
NOTE: I sent the previous, additional part to Scott for his feedback. It is now Tuesday, after the long weekend, that I’ve written the following:
Now, a week later, I’ve decided to put down a few more thoughts. I see where Christ did a few things, and I’ve tried to follow his example in them. I was hoping to see the answers from Chad and Joe, and then I’d give some additional stuff from this 1 Cor. passage being looked at. I see that I wasn’t clear at all, as I didn’t state that I would give some answers if they first answered. Christ did that, but I blew it in not being clear in doing the same thing. Please accept my apology. Secondly, I see that he had the disciples for a reason, and therefore he explained things to them that he did not explain to others – to them was given the kingdom of God, so it was required of them to know! This is why I’ve thought it prudent to send the gist of my thoughts on this. It is incumbent upon us to not only rebuke, exhort, admonish in all love, but to build, equip, edify, encourage in the word of God and truth.
Driving home from the long weekend, I pondered these things, and knowing that I would write this, I pondered when I should send it to you guys. Should I send it right away, or wait until the weekend, say, Friday, so that you’d have some time to talk about it on the weekend? But that was based upon an assumption regarding the next weekend. So I decided to just wait with it until one of two things, whichever came first: I hear from you guys, or Saturday evening comes without my hearing from you guys.
I shared this stuff with a couple on the long weekend. I asked them these questions, but they didn’t know the scriptures or the answers, even though they believed that women should remain silent in the church, and had believed it for years. I was encouraged that they simply believed the word of God. I told them of the addendum that I had written, and that I was waiting for an answer before I would give answers on other parts of that passage. It was then that I suddenly realized that I hadn’t actually stated this in my first email to you both, so I purposed to do that to a certain degree in this email, and not only that, to write more so as to counter my error in this regard in the first email. I rejoiced that they had just taken the word of God at face value and believed it, even though many might think simply of them for it. They just live the word of God: they tremble at the word of God, and God responds by keeping them and their children (10) pure with good attitudes toward each other and others. Seems to be scriptural! I told them Genesis chapter 2, midway, gives the answers. Genesis 2:15-18 state: “And Jehovah God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, You may freely eat of every tree in the garden, but you shall not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die. And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
Paul says that the spiritual man sees the spiritual truth taught here, and that the spiritual man won’t disagree with it. He also portrays that it is a plain truth, for when he asks his rhetorical questions, he has assumed that they all know the obvious scripture and truths taught by it!
So, just some thoughts about these verses….
Just like Paul in writing about Abraham by faith, and writing about Levi paying tithes while still in the loins of Abraham, we have that truth being the foundation of being in Christ, and of who was in who when the world was created. In like manner these verses are very clear: God created man, and before he made the woman of the man, God gave the only command on the earth that had a penalty to it, to Adam. There was NO woman at that time. Why not? The spiritual answer is just as obvious as the answer to Paul’s rhetorical questions and most basic statements. The command, the spiritual truth was given to Adam alone. This is why Paul states that the word went out from man, not woman. Adam told it to Eve – God didn’t. God told it to Adam only, and did so before Eve ever existed. Why? She had absolutely no spiritual authority and little spiritual strength. This is taught elsewhere. And the proof is in the pudding. In one place it even states that the woman is the weaker spiritual vessel. And in other places it states that it was Eve who sinned first! But, even though it was Eve that sinned first, sin entered the world through Adam. If a person can’t explain with scripture how and why this is true, again, I hold that they do not understand the most foundational, basic statements such as this one regarding women remaining silent -- not even being allowed to ask their husband a question in church. I would appreciate it if either Chad or Joe would explain how sin entered through Adam, even though Eve sinned first. Thanks.
Paul’s question, “Or did the Word of God go out from you?”, is very basic. It went out from Adam to Eve. NOT the other way around, and God did this for a reason. As far as humans went, and how God wants it to be, it was from man to woman only. God’s order of things in the creation account expressly state these things by the Spirit of God. And to just toss a little side note in here, we see that the command that went out to give life, actually brought death to the very one that it went out to, because of Eve! (Rom. 7:10, Rom. 8:2,6, 2 Cor. 2:16, Acts 15:10, etc.) The conclusion of this is so obvious, and it is given elsewhere (1 Peter 3:7, 1 Tim. 2:13-15): Eve, (women) are weak spiritually, easily deceived and lead astray by the Evil One. This is written about yet again by the apostle of Christ, stating that the Evil One is used by wicked men to deceive whole households and lead the church of God astray through women. No small wonder. This does not mean that men are to look down on women. On the contrary, we are to treat them as what? – the weaker vessel, caring for them, disciplining and training them in order to present them pure and spotless before God in Christ. God would not have said that husbands have to do this, if the wives didn’t need their spiritual heads to do this for them. Does this have any correlation with Christ presenting the church pure before God? Obviously! But Christendom considers that sinful for a woman to submit like that, and for a man to think that he can, let alone needs, to do this for/with/to his wife! And no small wonder. Look at our fruit to see if our beliefs are correct!
In fact, 1 Tim. 2: 9-15 has much merit here: “In the same way also, I desire that women adorn themselves in decent clothing, with modesty and sensibleness, not adorned with braiding, or gold, or pearls, or costly clothing, but with good works, which becomes women professing godliness. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I do not allow a woman to teach, or to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. But she will be kept safe through childbearing, if they continue in faith and love and holiness with sensibleness.” If a woman isn’t silent in church, she is not in spiritual submission (subjection, although we consider that anti-woman, even though God thought it proper to use that word).
How interesting that Paul states it so clearly here. It ties inexorably into Adam being created first. Paul even stated that for us, so it shouldn’t be anything new to us. Have we ever really meditated on these things? It doesn’t seem like it. We have this clear truth presented a few times in the New Testament now. Is there any reason for us to deny the spiritual truths that are openly stated? Is there any reason to deny the word of God given to us in both the OT and the NT? How is it that we have come to the place where we argue away the blunt word of God and consider ourselves spiritual? Are there not scriptures which condemn quite aggressively those who do this? James. Peter. Jude. Paul and Christ don’t sidestep it either. When do the blunt statements in the word of God apply to us? Or are they to only apply to others? Somehow it’s always the others that fit into the unpleasant scriptures – never us. What makes us so special? When does Col. 3:25 ever apply?
That which is not in submission, is in rebellion. Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft. Remember that verse? It is raised up against God. But why is it that way? That is the very definition of witchcraft, for it is worshipping that which is not God. It doesn’t get any more basic than that, yet we deny these truths that are so bluntly, simply given in the word of God. This indeed concerns me, but what concerns me even more, even to the point of angering me, is that we consider this wickedness to be godliness.
Yet didn’t God speak to this also? Surely he did! Ezek. 18:28-32 and 33:17-20 seem fairly clear on this.
The command of God, given only by authority and only to authority, to the only authority on earth at that time, was given only to Adam. And from Adam to Eve once she had been brought forth from Adam, for it had been given before she even existed. Even Eve’s very existence, her very being, was from Adam. So we clearly see that the command of God AND her very existence, came through Adam and from Adam alone. “Shall the clay so to the potter….” It concerns me deeply, angering me in the Lord, when I see these basic truths mostly perverted and denied by those that profess to love the Lord more purely and obey his word more purely than openly rebellious Christendom. When I see it in those that I consider friends and that I love in Christ, I cannot sit by any longer and hold my tongue. What kind of love would that be? Are we not our brothers’ keeper? Surely these common scriptures are to be applied to life sometime or other.
The command of God did not go directly to Eve, by any means. The command of God went only through Adam to Eve. This clearly places Eve under Adam for all things from God. God clearly went via Adam to Eve, and Eve was without sin when this was done! How much more so now that she is under sin! Thus we see, that just as Abraham was credited righteousness by faith BEFORE he was given the command of circumcision, so too we see that Eve received no commands from God except through her head, Adam, before she even sinned! And just as Paul states elsewhere, “how much more so…”, if this be true before she sinned, is it most definitely true after she sinned! I’ve heard many people bungle up Paul’s teaching on “how much more so…”, and no wonder – they can’t seem to grasp much of anything of these basics in the word of God that Paul and Peter and James consider so basic that they ask rhetorical questions, the answers of which are so obvious that they consider even those who are having problems with a carnal mind to still understand the fully known conclusions. Indeed, is it not proper for a man to be very gravely concerned for Christendom, when it seems to be openly obvious that very few can give the scriptures or their truths on these simple things?
So why were the punishments from God, and what they were to Adam and Eve, and how did they fit so perfectly to the sin per individual? The answer is obvious: Eve didn’t obey her command, her one and only command, given directly to Adam before Eve existed, and given directly to Eve by her head, her one and only head and conduit from God: Adam her husband. Thus, given directly by God through Adam. This is a beautiful correlation of Christ to the church, from God. Thus the simple basis of Paul’s other statement, “God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of man, and man is the head of woman”, and another like unto it, “just as Christ… So likewise wives submit…”, and even more simply, “I speak nothing except that which my Father tells me.” It’s all so simple, and it all comes from Genesis and the creation and sinning accounts in it. I will not belabor any more points on this one.
The next question was this: “Or did it reach only to you?” This, too, comes from that same passage. It reached only Adam. Eve didn’t even exist. Then Adam gave it to Eve after she came into being from himself. Thus, “flesh of my flesh, bone of my bone”, and “they shall become one flesh”. This is a perfect picture of Christ, from God, to man. To say that there is any less truth to that fact now, as it was with Adam and Eve and the command being given to the man before the woman was even around, before she was even one with/of him solely to be a helper to him, completely under his authority spiritually and in all things, is to evidence a wholesale lack of spiritual understanding, I fear. Then Eve perverted it by believing the perversions of Satan given directly, or only, to her, via the lusts of the flesh that war against the soul. Recall that verse? (1 Peter 2:11) Satan did with Eve what God had done with Adam, giving her the word of God which she had received from Adam, but he used it against her to deceive her. And Satan did this via bypassing her head and going directly to her, bypassing the authority God set over her. He couldn’t get to her through Adam. Does “hid in Christ” have any correlation here? She did not go to her head, Adam, but responded on her own. The results were catastrophic. And we see the fruits of it ever since: sin and whatnot for all mankind. Seems to be strikingly familiar to Christendom today and it’s many sins that it considers to be the goodness of the gospel, listening to the wrong voices, voices that speak against the most basic spiritual truths of God’s word. Anathema! I cannot say it strong enough: ANATHEMA!
The word did not go to Satan. He knew it and used it to deceive the one UNDER authority, UNDER Adam completely in every way: the one to whom the word of God did not come except through her head, Adam. The word of God did not go directly to Eve, but it came only through her head, Adam. She heard it second-hand, and rightly so. She received it no other way. She was created to help him. We seem to not understand that, either, in Christendom. These are such basic yet undeniable truths, the whole of our function in Christ is based upon them. Is it any wonder that Christendom has problems with the role of women, the role of men, hair, dress, speech, actions of the two genders, training their children to be meek and submissive instead of aggressive, and in marriage? Crazy. Paul understood this, and assumed that even the carnally minded in the church should know it.
We, on the other hand, are so learned in the scriptures a few thousand years later, we don’t seem to see any of this. These things gravely concern me. “If the light that is in you is darkness, how great is that darkness!” At times, I honestly do not know whether to weep about it or to rage against it. Christ is my example in all things, and we will have His mind when born of Him: “And he, being grieved at their hardness of heart, burned with anger.” Seems to be the mind of God. Yet Christendom (I can’t imagine why!), considers it harsh and unloving. Even when God himself states that true love, God’s love, rebukes and disciplines, and if you don’t receive rebukes and disciplines when in error you are not loved by God, we can’t seem to get around our belief that it’s unloving to rebuke or discipline. “Those he loves, he rebukes and disciplines”, 1 Cor. 11:32, 2 Cor. 6:9, Heb. 12:10, Deut. 21:18,19, Psalm 73, Psalm 118, and many others. Just look up “chasten”, “chastened”, “chastens”, etc. Look up rebuke, rebuked, rebukes, etc. In fact, God said in 1 Cor. 13 that if we don’t rebuke and discipline, as Godly love does, we are empty, a clanging cymbal, a useless gong. We seem to have many critical errors, indeed. This concerns me.
So his second question, “Or did it reach only to you?”, is so very clear that it didn’t reach to her! It reached only to Adam: Eve didn’t even exist when it was given. Eve failed in it, even second hand! And Eve wasn’t told it by God: it was given only to Adam – Eve didn’t even exist when God gave the command! So we see the double barreled shotgun by God, given so simply and clearly in Genesis 2 and assumed by Paul that anybody with spiritual understanding knows it! If it was given only to Eve, INSTEAD of only to Adam, or if it was given to Eve WITH Adam , she would have the right to speak up in church. She’d have the right to teach doctrine. She’d even have the right to ask her husband a question. But it wasn’t given to her. It was given only to Adam. Therefore, she has no spiritual right or authority to teach in church, speak up in church, or to even ask her spiritual head a question in church! Paul seemed to be rather clear on that one: it is shameful for her to even ask her husband a question in church! Wow! And this teaching from Genesis 2 is the obvious spiritual truth that we should all know.
So I ask this: is it proper for someone to rebuke another person when they don’t see even these most basic truths that Paul assumes that even the carnally minded believer should know – yet they consider themselves wiser than the average church goer? Is it proper to discipline “weak and self-deceived, sinning” believers? Is it proper to put the sin out of our midst? Is it proper to believe that if we don’t put the sin out of our midst, God will indeed withhold common sense from us spiritually, as it states so many times elsewhere? Is it proper to believe that God will judge us either now or on the last day for this travesty?
Or is it proper to ignore it, accept it, put up with it, “fellowship” with it, even believe it, and then also consider it rude, harsh, and unloving if we aren’t partakers of these sins and this spiritual blindness and arrogance, let alone speak up against it unabashedly with scripture?
Some things are so obvious, why do we even ask rhetorical questions? Because for some reason, it’s still a problem. “My brethren, these things ought not be so!”
It is always for those who say that they have understanding but live contrary to scripture that I don’t beat around the bush very much, having little patience with them. And it is always for those who say that they don’t have understanding that I am gentle as a lamb with, being very longsuffering before I offer any type of soft rebuke. Thus the tone of this email, men. This is why God said, “because you say that you know, it will be held against you. If you had said that you didn’t know, mercy would have been granted to you.” Christ said that. Is this one of those blunt, “harsh” statements that we are to water down and not apply to ourselves rightly at any time, sterilizing it so that it is somehow palatable to us?
Or did God lie to us on this one, too: “do you not know that bad company corrupts good character”? There are so many scriptures, many in Proverbs, which speak of being affected by those we hang out with. Perhaps we should simply hang out with those who obey the word of God and do have a basic understanding of them, being as Paul stated, that they are proven to be spiritual by how they live and their grasp of the most basic, obvious truths in scripture, such as in Genesis 2:16-18. Perhaps we should hang out with those who have not only obedient children, but children with clean spirits, with good attitudes, that don’t fight or argue or be mean to each other. Humble ourselves and do that? Never. We can’t seem to escape the arrogance that permeates every aspect of our North American society called Christendom. It’s harder to find a more heart breaking tragedy than that. Especially when Paul writes so clearly with this foundation, leaving no room except for those who deliberately choose their own ways over God’s ways.
Eph. 5:22-24 states “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.” No ifs, ands, or buts in there. And when we tie it with the other passages, it is abundantly clear.
I hold that the answers are very obvious indeed. I also hold that it is equally obvious that almost nobody wants to be corrected in true godly love. “Let the righteous strike me; it shall be a kindness; and let him correct me, it is oil on my head, let not my head refuse it; for still my prayer also shall be against their wickedness.” It seems tragic indeed when they cannot accept the striking by a friend, a man who actually loves them enough to speak up to them for God and for their own sake and for their families’ sake. There are far too many scriptures to quote along that line. I have given a smattering throughout this. I will give no more here. “Search the scriptures” is a command from God. Do we do this? Actually do this? A concordance or word search isn’t searching the scriptures, for unless we know the exact words to look for, we won’t find them. Also, many things are stated openly but not with the words that we would want them to be stated with. Therefore, we must read the scriptures in order to find them. Such as this passage in Genesis which Paul refers to so bluntly for women being silent in church. That takes some sort of wisdom. It takes meditation, pondering, thinking, deducing. A word search or concordance completely bypasses all such passages. Yet we think that we have studied the word of God or searched it on a topic? I beg to differ.
It breaks my heart when these things are true of those that I love. And then I burn with anger over it. “May this mind be in you, which was in Christ Jesus….”
No, I have not been soft in this. But neither have I been harsh. Should I have been? Should I have come meekly, or with a rod? I have done neither. I have merely been blunt. God is too. “We have the mind of Christ”, “may this mind be in you, which was in Christ Jesus”, “renew the mind in Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior”, etc.. Forgive me my weakness on your behalf.
If these foundational truths are now seen, I will gladly discuss with you about the remaining statements of Paul in those verses -- which statements further verify these things.
For Christ,
Norm
