Truth Magazine

By Fred C. Melton

My son, Bonny, and I, intrepid adventurers that we are, set off from Bristol last Saturday about noon to negotiate the hairpin curves and narrow passes of the Welsh mountains in order to preach for a small group of English brethren at Llandyssul (pronounced Clan-da-sil in Welsh) in Dyfed, West Wales. We quickly discovered that we – were in the heart of Welsh nationalist country for we kept seeing signs “Free Wales From The English” written on bridge embankments along the way, while road signs bearing the English spelling of Welsh towns were bashed in. As is true with most nationalistic movements, the preservation and use of native languages becomes one of the fundamental issues. Just as in Northern Ireland, the present day problems are deeply embedded in historical events of the past. When the Romans ruled Britain during the first three centuries after Christ, they drove the Celtic (pronounced Keltic) tribes into the wild Welsh mountains. This natural fortress proved so impregnable that even the formidable Roman legions could not dislodge them. Successive rulers, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings and Normans thus kept these original Britains confined into a very close community of which they are pleased to remain unto this day. Mankind can be, it seems, an incurably prejudicial creature and the poor English will probably eventually be stripped of the last vestiges of Empire, as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are subverted by growing sectionalism in these quarters.

Anyway, we met for classes and breaking of bread in the back room of an old community hall in the little village of Aber-banc, which seemed to tetter rather precariously atop a long sloping ridge that finally faded into a forest of trees in the valley below. Small cottages on the side of distant mountains were clearly marked by tiny columns of chimney smoke rising straight to the sky.

As we sat huddled around the communion table, the steam from our breath tended to obscure the words and notes in the hymn books but not the spirits of these brethren who seemed so happy to have us there to worship with them. After dinner, the English brethren drove us around through the surrounding villages surveying this new area which they purpose to evangelize in the coming months, and discussed plans for their first Holiday Bible School designed to reach the young of that community. To my knowledge, there is only one other church of Christ in Wales at the moment. However, a number of congregations were scattered throughout the countryside a century ago.

While traveling about on this little excursion, we chanced to come upon what was known in those parts as “the castle of the mad American.” It seems that some eccentric American millionaire came over to Wales some years ago and decided that he wanted his own castle perched on the side of a rocky mountain gorge so he built one after the ancient pattern of old English and Scottish castles. Although it is now fallen into ruins, I must confess it was in some ways the most fascinating castle that I-have seen in Britain — in the true Dracula tradition, if you know what I mean!

Upon our return to the home of Brother John Hunt, we were greeted by a friendly and intelligent Irishman who “loved to tell clean jokes about the Irish.” He was a farmer of no mean possessions but was all decked out in a rather ragged old sheepskin vest, baggy trousers complete with a large safety pin in the top notch, and Wellingtons (rubber boots). Actually, this is quite the common farmer-wear thereabouts. After an afternoon of lively Bible discussion with this rather strange but very likeable old gentleman, he accompanied us to the evening “gospel effort.” Although he was worried about the appearance of his working attire, we assured him that it would not make a bit of difference if he came that way or wore pinstripes, a bowler and carried a brolly.

So it was that as the evening shadows sought out the valleys and forest glades of this remarkably beautiful Welsh mountain country, the three Englishmen with their families, the ragged Irish farmer and the “ugly American” together with his young son, spread ringing choruses of spiritual hymns and praises unto our Lord to the very eaves of the old hall and through the frost flecked windowpanes into the sleepy Welsh community.

Truth Magazine XIX: 24, p. 370
April 24, 1975

By Bruce Edwards, Jr.

There are basically just two positions one may take as to the identity of the women Paul refers to in 1 Cor. 14:34, 35: (1) One is the view that Paul refers to all women, without qualification, hence “every adult human being who is not a man”; (2) The other view is that Paul contemplates a particular class of women, namely, those possessing spiritual gifts . . . gifts which would place the women on an equal standing ability-wise with men possessing such gifts in the assembly. This writer affirms the second view stated above.

Resolving the Tension Between Chapters 11 and 14

There is an obvious tension between chapters 11 and 14 of 1 Corinthians that must be resolved: does Paul grant permission, yea give instruction for the proper regulation of, women speaking in the assembly in chapter 11 and then repeal that permission just three chapters later? No doubt more brethren would be able to deal with this apparent contradiction more effectively if they did not assume that Paul was giving instructions in chapter 11 regarding “praying or prophesying” in the assembly. This assumption must be proven and not thoughtlessly granted. We would humbly suggest that the solution to this problem is to recognize: (1) that inspired speaking is involved in chapter 1 1 just as in chapter 14 and (2) that though the action for the man and woman is identical (i.e., “inspired speaking”), the place is more restricted for the woman according to 1 Cor. 14. We have now stated our position, let us now examine the evidence which compels such a conclusion.

An Appeal to the Original Language in the Context

In 1 Cor. 14:26-35, three times in succession Paul says “keep silence.” It is apparent to all that the first two times he uses this phrase he is calling for certain men to stop the exercise of a spiritual gift. In 1 Cor. 14:28, the apostle prohibits speaking in foreign tongues “if there be no interpreter.” In 1 Cor. 14:30, he prohibits prophets from constantly interrupting one another in order to gain the floor. In 1 Cor. 14:34, Paul uses the same terms (“keep silence”) to prohibit certain women from addressing the assembly. The question is: in view of the context of verses 26-35, what is the most likely explanation of the nature of the “speaking” that the women are to cease by the prohibition of the apostle? Simple logic demands that the speaking prohibited is of the same nature as the activity prohibited in verses 28 and 30, namely, inspired activity.

. .Some suggest that Paul was simply forbidding interruptive chatter or interrogative questioning but clearly the words “silence” and “speak” tie these verses into the larger context of prophetic activity. Notice the remarks of W. E. Vine regarding this section of Scripture: “The suggestion that the verb laleo, to speak, here signifies to chatter, is untenable. It has no support from its use elsewhere in this Epistle …. We may take, for instance, the use of the word in this very chapter. It is used eighteen times, of speaking in tongues, of prophesying (vv. 3, 29), of speaking with understanding, so as to instruct others (v. 19), and of the utterance of God through human agency (v. 21). Nor can the inference as to chattering be drawn from the distinction between laleo and lego, for any distinction lies in this, that laleo expresses the speaking in contrast to remaining silent (as in Acts 18:9, `speak, and hold not thy peace’), whereas lego points more to what is actually said . . . . The injunction was not against making noisy interruptions, but against taking part in oral ministry.”

In a similar way, C. K. Barrett argues in his commentary on 1 Corinthians, “Nor is it very convincing to argue that to speak (in verse 34, lalein) does not refer to such praying and prophesying, but to uninspired speech . . . . It is true that the verb does, in Classical Greek, bear the meaning ‘to chatter’, and it would be understandable that Paul should wish to stern an outburst of feminine loquacity; but in the New Testament, and in Paul, the verb normally does not have this meaning, and is used throughout chapter xiv (verses 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12., 18, 19, 21, 23, 27, 29, 39) in the sense of inspired speech.”

Our point is this: the context and the original language lend credence to the view that what is under consideration by Paul is not the correction of uninspired, interruptive chatter or loquacious questioning but rather the cessation of a vocal, spiritual gift exercised by a woman. In view of these things it seems more logical to conclude that Paul’s reference to “women” in verses 34 and 35 involves that group of women in the early church who were prophetesses-inspired speakers.

Why Would It Be a Shame?

The objection must surely be raised, “But what about Paul’s reference in verse 35 to women `asking their husbands at home’?” Does not this verse militate against the idea that prophetesses are involved? Not at all. We will have a great deal of trouble understanding Paul’s words to the Corinthians if we insist upon imposing our ideas of present-day assemblies upon the text. As can be seen from a simple reading of the 14th chapter, our assemblies have very little in common with the age of spiritual gifts and inspired assemblies. Obviously the principles of order and proper decorum still stand-God is not the author of confusion today, either. But in reality we have no comparable setting to the episode described in chapter 14 of 1 Corinthians; this period of “mutual edification,” the kind described in our text, passed away with the age of apostolic miracles.

Evidently the assemblies in Corinth were quite vigorous-every prophet wanted to “have his say” . . . but then so did every “prophetess.” Paul reminds them that “as in all the churches of the saints” the women (prophetesses) were to “keep silence.” Their assemblies were confusing enough-they were not to add to the confusion by violating a Divine standard applicable in every assembly. Why would it be a shame? Because, as Paul told the Corinthians in chapter 11, the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. The Divine order cannot be set aside by the vigorous and engrossing debates of the Corinthian assemblies. The prophetess is not to dishonor her head, either by prophesying without a veil or by prophesying in an improper circumstance (1 Cor. 11:2-16; 14:34, 35).

It is not difficult to see the dilemma that Paul faced in Corinth. A prophet has the floor and begins an inspired discourse. A discussion ensues regarding the application and meaning of the truth uttered. A prophetess, fully-endowed with the gift of prophecy-on an equal basis, ability-wise, with the prophets in the assembly-wishes to raise a further point, or ask a pertinent question. This is out of order and must be condemned. Such an action violates the order that God has established between men and women (cf. 1 Tim. 2:815; Eph. 5:22-33). If the women desire to continue the discussion or ask questions, let them do it at home with their own husbands rather than overthrow the assembly. The assembly of God is to be a model community before the world-neither the church itself nor outsiders should get the impression from the meetings of the saints that this Divine order can be leisurely set aside.

Concluding Remarks

The fact that an assembly in which spiritual gifts are exercised is under consideration in 1 Corinthians 14 does not militate against the proper application of the principles involved today in our assemblies. Women today have no more license to usurp authority, “teach over a man” and thus violate the pattern revealed by God between male and female than did the Corinthian women. We see nothing inherent in our position that prohibits the authoritative application of these verses to the modern error of women preachers. In fact, it appears that such an argument is considerably strengthened when one realizes that not even inspired women, in the apostolic age, were allowed to overthrow the order of God. How much less appropriate it is then today for any to argue that female Christians have any right to dispense with the Divine order in the assembly of God.

We are not interested in establishing “standard Brotherhood Tradition” but only in understanding what the apostle Paul said to the Corinthian church and how that passage relates to contemporary faith and practice. Perhaps if all of us were less interested in compiling clever debate notes and more concerned about pursuing the diligent study of God’s word, we would have fewer occasions of sweeping generalities and unsubstantiated assertions in our writing efforts.

Truth Magazine XIX: 23, pp. 364-366
April 17, 1975

By Dan Waiters

Brother Bruce Edwards, Jr., has presented some excellent material in his series of articles on spiritual gifts. I would like to take issue with him on one point only. This concerns the women of 1 Cor. 14:34. First let us notice certain truths which Brother Edwards has emphasized. He says, “We need not wrest the term `silence’ here to mean `behave with quietness or tranquility’ or `partake of a reserved and submissive demeanor’! Quite literally, Paul means to `Shut up!’ ” No one could have put it plainer. Brother Edwards also points out that praying and prophesying in 1 Cor. 11 both involved the use of spiritual gifts and that these gifts were not used by women in the assembly. Such teaching is sorely needed. Many brethren say that 1 Cor. 11:1-16 does apply to public worship or the assembly of the church. If so, we have an example of inspired women preachers and a direct contradiction of 1 Cor. 14:34. Brother Edwards sees the fallacy of this and points it out.

But then Brother Edwards falls into the old trap of limiting the women whom Paul referred to in 1 Cor. 14:34, 35. For years debaters have limited the meaning to “wives of the prophets” in order to score points against no-class brethren. They have never offered any proof for this assumption. Then they have said that since the entire chapter deals with spiritual gifts, then nothing in it is relevant to us anyway. Thus they have rejected God’s statement: “It is a shame for women to speak in the church,” as presumptuously as any Baptist preacher ever rejected Mark 16:16. Brother Edwards does not take this position, but rather limits the women in verse 34 to women exercising spiritual gifts. He quotes from Ron Halbrook who apparently labors under the same misconception. (This can not be established from the quotation, but at least this is how Brother Edwards interprets Brother Halbrook.) This is evidently a brand new outlook on this question. Hopefully it will not survive long enough to become standard Brotherhood Tradition. 1 Cor. 14:35 totally demolishes it. Paul here says, “And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” Here were women who wanted to ask questions concerning the teaching. They were not women prophets wishing to impart knowledge (though this would also be forbidden). They were women wishing to obtain knowledge by asking questions or entering into public discussion regarding the teaching being done. And Paul forbids this by making as plain a statement as -ever flowed from the pen of an inspired writer. He says, “It is a shame for women to speak in the church.” This is absolute and universal. Every adult human being who is not a man is a woman. All women are included in Paul’s statement. One would almost need professional help to misunderstand Paul!

The truth on this matter is of more importance than most of us seem to realize. Brethren have either limited or nullified both 1 Tim. 2:11, 12 and 1 Cor. 14:34, 35 so that most preachers dare not use either scripture authoritatively to teach anything definite. Yet these two passages, in their original power and simplicity, are the only definitive verses that stand between us and women preachers. The principle of women not exercising authority over men is not enough. Whether a woman is under subjection to the elders and to the other men of the church at the time she is delivering a public address or engaged in teaching a public class of men and women is a matter of judgment and interpretation. We could argue endlessly about it, without really convincing anyone. But if these two scriptures mean what they say, there can be no real misunderstanding or argument. There can be only rebellion if men and women decide not to be ruled by the law of God.

Truth Magazine XIX: 23, p. 364
April 17, 1975

By Ron Halbrook

Loose Use of “Legalism” By William Wallace

Others are giving forth an uncertain sound throwing the term legalism around loosely. The case of Brother William Wallace is a sad enigma. He did quite a lot of writing in his closing days of editing the Gospel Guardian that amounts to this, “There is something to be said in favor of both truth and error, so when we say our `something’ it would behoove us to come down gently in favor of truth and lightly in opposition to error-but not too hard either way.” It seems to be an application of the “there-is-so-much-good-in-the-worst-of-us-and-so-much-bad-in-the-best-of-us-that-it-ill-behooves-any-of-us-to-say-anything-bad-about-the-rest-of-us” philosophy to doctrinal error. Apparently the adage brought to mind recently by Brother James P. Needham applies to Brother Wallace, “He who lies down with dogs, will get up with fleas.” (1) Some of the articles written by Brother Wallace seem to be intended to disassociate him from the errors of Brother Fudge for which he has been covering in the past several months -but while coming out in favor of truth, he seems to fall all over himself trying to say something in favor of error.

In an editorial on “Not Under Law,” Brother Wallace proposes to discuss two “extremes.”(2) He rejects the position which denies “that there be any essential legal or constitutional aspects in the saving gospel or in saving truth” and which equates “conditional salvation or salvation by faith-plus-works” with “salvation by right, legal claim, merited or earned status.” But just about the time Brother Wallace might have turned to rebuke the other extreme claims to sinless perfection, moral uprightness, or humanistic righteousness (which do not need grace with its conditions) and the establishment of standards or norms for service to God which He did not authorize-the fleas started biting. Trying to write and scratch at the same time produced a case of profound confusion, so that the supposed rebuke of the opposite extreme came out sounding like the speech of those who hold the first extreme which he has just finished rejecting! He speaks out against legalism which thinks of salvation as involving “a condition or reward achieved by conforming to the do-its and don’t-do-its of statutes.” Such statements can only create confusion for one reading the Bible.

Is salvation not conditional on certain do-its and don’t-do-its revealed in God’s statutes? David wanted to “learn thy statutes” (Ps. 119:71). Therefore he constantly pled with God, “Teach me thy statutes” (vv. 12, 26, 64, 68, 124, 135). “I will delight myself in thy statutes: I will not forget thy word” (v. 16). “Thy servant did meditate in thy statutes” (v. 23). “Thy statutes have been my songs in the house of my pilgrimage” (v. 54). David said his safety depended on having “respect unto thy statutes continually” (v. 117). “Let my heart be sound in thy statutes” (v. 80). But why did David desire to learn, pray God to teach, delight in, meditate on, and have such profound respect for the statutes of God? “Teach me, O Lord, the way of thy statutes; and I shall keep it unto the end” (v. 33). Did David actually think his salvation was conditioned on obedience to the things revealed in those statutes-did he think he really had to keep those statutes to be saved? “O that my ways were directed to d keep thy statutes!… I will keep thy statutes: O forsake me not utterly. . . I cried with my whole heart; hear me, O Lord: I will keep thy statutes” (vv. 5, 8, 145). “I have inclined mine heart to perform thy statutes alway, even unto the end” (v. 112). David said he would not “forget thy statutes” because he recognized “Thou hast trodden down all them that err from thy statutes” (vv. 83, 118). “Salvation is far from the wicked: for they seek not thy statutes” (v. 155). If that does not teach the absolute necessity of certain “do-its and don’t-do-its of statutes” given by God, then words have no meaning.

Some who have drunk from the wells of denominational theology will complain that the attitude expressed by David applied only to the Old Law period, that because of the sinful nature of man such obedience is impossible, and that therefore God has relaxed or made provision for failure to meet the conditions of salvation. Or, that the only condition now is “faith” (used in a denominational sense). Not only are aliens told they must believe and be baptized to be saved, Christians are told they must mortify the sinful deeds of the body if they wish to continue in grace (Mark 16:16; Col. 3aff). The supposed contrast between God requiring obedience under the Old and somehow relaxing that requirement under the New is absolutely reversed by the inspired men! “For if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward; How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation” which was revealed (including facts, promises, and commands) through Christ and the inspired men? (Heb. 2:1-4) What about Gal. 5:19-23. . . is Paul saying there once was the requirement of “conforming to the do-its and don’t-do-its” but not any more???

Brother Wallace complains of “legalism” being “a law system which threatens penalties and demands lustrations.” He adds that the “motivation. . . is to merit, deserve, and earn-and to thus escape from the penalties.”(3) Now obviously “escape” cannot come by personal merit or by earning salvation. But the system of redemption does indeed threaten penalties and demand obedience to outward acts that may seem unnecessary (especially to those who do not understand what it is to “walk by faith”). It does indeed promise and deliver “escape from the penalties” of sin. “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 6:23). Sinners who come to God by obedient faith must have the right motive, but that includes a healthy fear of the penalties of disobedience along with a genuine love for the One who did so much to deliver us from such penalties.

In connection with the above quote from Wallace and one to follow, we ask our readers to recall the words of Baptist D. B. Ray already given. “. . . fear alone. . . moves the Campbellites to obedience. All those who attempt to keep the ordinances through fear of punishment alone are not the children of God.” Ray concluded, “If we are Christians, we love God because he first loved us, and then we will keep his commandments. . .”(4) Of course denominationalists teach that obedience is the fruit of salvation and of love for God who has already saved by grace. The faith which saves and which makes one already saved supposedly precedes the obedience; therefore the obedience is not enacted through fear of punishment, but only comes as the fruit of the faith which saved axed as the fruit of love for God who saved.(5)Now hear these garbled, uncertain sounds from Brother Wallace in his “Not Under Law,”

“We are not under law, seeking statutory salvation, but law is in us as we respond in appreciation of the grace of God. We are motivated and moved, by what Jesus did for us, to do what he wants us to do, for him. We do his will not because of a legalistic `have-to’ attitude, but because of an appreciative `want-to’ spirit.”

As already pointed out, he says some things which come down on the side of truth, and some which come down (lightly) against the side of error; but in statements like the above ones, he seems to be coming down on the “side” of the middle! Why must we separate the motives of loving God and fearing the penalties of disobedience? Why must we separate wanting to serve God from having to do so? Does not Eph. 5 teach the wife she ;must be in submission to the husband and at the same time show the husband how to make her want to do so? Are faith and baptism absolutely necessary (Mk. 16:16)? Does not obedience to the gospel include a clear understanding, yea a genuine fear, that “he that believeth not shall be damned”? Must we mortify the sinful deeds of the body? Do we have to? Yes, and we also want to do these things! We both have to and want to put off “the works of the flesh. . . which are these . . . . ” We both have to and want to bear “the fruit of the Spirit” in our lives (Gal. 5:19-23). What about preaching lessons on a text like this one: “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man” (Eccl. 12:13). Or what about lessons on the return of the Lord “in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Thess. 1:7-9). Similarly, we should preach “the goodness of God (that) leadeth thee to repentance” (Rom. 2:4). “Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God” (Rom.11:22). (To Be Continued Next Week)

Endnotes

1. James P. Needham, “Gospel Preachers, Scholars and Scholarship,” Torch, Aug. 1974, p. 4.

2. William E. Wallace, “Not Under Law,” Gospel Guardian, Vol. 26, No. 19 (Sept. 12, 1974), pp. 290-292.

3. Ibid.

4. Ray, op. cit.

5. A typical expression of this view is found in material published by the Southern Baptist Convention. The “condition on which we are saved” is “faith.” Once we are saved, ‘faith produces works …. Our works exhibit our faith as the fruit exhibits the life of the tree.” Since the works exhibit faith and life which already exist, anyone who thinks the works themselves are required in order to save does “not understand the nature of the saved life.” Harold W. Tribble, Our Doctrines (Nashville: Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1936), pp. 80-81. Before brother Wallace found it necessary to say something in favor of error-which grew out of his efforts to cover up for Edward Fudge-he could write in marked contrast both to Baptist doctrine and to Ed Fudge’s warmed-over denominational doctrine. Brother Wallace dug an article out of “A file of old articles,” so old he did not remember writing the article, and therefore an article written before the Fudge debacle. The title is “The Two Great Commandments” and demonstrates his ability to speak in words too plain to be misunderstood. His unambiguous comments there would have been an excellent substitute for his ambiguous “Not Under Law” article. The old article says nothing in favor of error, and constitutes legalism by Fudge’s terms. Wallace~ says, “The only adequate expression of the sinner’s love for God is his full obedience to the things which God has enjoined upon Him …. obedience to God is not only a fruit, but also a root-both an effort and a cause, as shown in the latter part of John 14:21. Our obedience not only expresses adequately our love for God, but keeps us within the grace and blessings of the Heavenly Father …. As love for God requires action, so does love for neighbor. These rules of action are found in the word of God. Some of them are negative, while others are positive . . . . The test of our love for God and neighbor is in our submission to the laws or commandments, by which these relationships have been regulated. There is no other test. By this, we shall stand or fall in the day of judgment.” William Wallace , “The Two Great Commandments,” Gospel Guardian, Vol. 26, No. 26 (Oct. 31, 1974), pp. 409-410. Contrast this emphasis on full obedience, obedience both an effort and cause of Salvation, obedience keeping us in grace, rules of action both positive and negative (i.e., the statues of God require do-its and don’t-do-its), and The test of love is obedience to laws or commandments-There is no other test-By this we stand or fall!, contrast, I say, this emphasis with the hedging in his “Not Under Law. “

Truth Magazine XIX: 23, pp. 362-363
April 17, 1975