Truth Magazine

By Johnny Stringer

One of the most controversial issues of our time is the role of women in our society. Christians are especially concerned with determining the woman’s role in the spiritual realm. In view of the prominent place That teaching occupies in the religion of Christ, we must ascertain the woman’s responsibility in the teaching of God’s word; and in order to do this, we must consult the final authority in all religious matters, the word of God.

General Principle: Women Are to Teach

The general principle is clear: Women are to teach. When persecution in Jerusalem forced the Christians to flee to other places, “they that were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the word” (Acts 8:4). This included women. Moreover, the writer of Hebrews was writing to both men and women when he said that they ought to be teachers (Heb. 5:12). The instruction to teach through singing is directed to all Christians, including women (Col. 3:16). Older women are to teach younger women (Tit. 2:3-4). Priscilla participated in teaching Apollos (Acts 18:26). Some women were given the gift of prophecy, which involved teaching (Acts 2:17; 21:9). Seemingly, women taught Timothy (2 Tim. 1:5).

There are two passages, however, which place a restriction on a woman’s teaching. In obedience to the general principle that she is to teach, a woman may teach in any capacity or circumstance which does not violate the restriction these passages place on her. The passages are 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. In this article we will discuss 1 Timothy 2:11-12, and in a following article, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.

1 Timothy 2:1-12

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Paul is emphasizing the woman’s responsibility to maintain her place of subjection. This teaching was based not, as some suppose, on the culture of the day, but on the facts that Adam was formed first (v. 13) and that the woman, not the man, was deceived (v. 14).

1. The Prohibition. “But I suffer a woman not to teach” does not mean that she is not allowed to teach at all in any situation. If it did, it would contradict the passages cited above, which require her to teach. It would mean that she could not obey the command of Colossians 3:16 to teach in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. It would mean the older women could not obey the command to teach younger women (Tit. 2:3-4). In fact, it would mean that a mother could not tell her small child that Jesus is the Son of God or that God made the flowers; this would be teaching, and she could not do it if Paul meant that she is not to teach at all.

It is obvious, therefore, that Paul was not forbidding all teaching. Paul wrote these words in connection with the woman’s responsibility to be in subjection. The kind of teaching that would be forbidden in that context is teaching which would violate the principle of being in subjection.

What we have determined from the context and related passages, some Greek scholars say can be ascertained from the grammar of the Greek text. They affirm that the expression “nor usurp authority over the man” is explanatory; that is, it explains that the teaching of which Paul speaks is that which usurps authority over the man.

Lenski, for example, affirms, “. . . `neither to exercise authority over a man’ states the point involved in the forbidding to teach.” After expressing agreement with Lenski, Homer A. Kent, professor of New Testament and Greek at Grace Theological Seminary, remarked, “I regard `neither to exercise authority over a man’ to be somewhat exegetical of the previous clause and giving one of the reasons why the prohibition to teach is made.” Finally, Stephen W. Paine, professor of Greek at Houghton College affirmed, “… the interpretive step which identifies `to teach’ with ‘to take (the) authority’ is justified and Lenski is grammatically correct.”

Greek scholarship, however, is not necessary. Remember, we learned it from the context and related passages before hearing from the scholars.

2. Learn in Silence. When men are present, rather than directing the study, she is to “learn in silence,” maintaining her place of subjection. The command to learn in silence does not mean that she is not to utter a word in a Bible class. The word translated “silence” (hesuchi) is the same word that is translated “quietness” in 2 Thessalonians 3:12, where Paul exhorted men “that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.” If it means in 1 Timothy 2:12 that women may not utter a sound in a Bible class, then it means in 2 Thessalonians 3:12 that men may not utter a sound on the job.

Obviously, this is not the meaning. The woman is not to be loud and boisterous. She is to manifest a meek and quiet spirit (1 Pet. 3:4). She is not violating this principle if she quietly and meekly asks a question or submits a point for the class’s consideration. Inasmuch as the principle under discussion is subjection, Paul means that she is not to be loud, dominating, or boisterous so as to be out of subjection. Being under subjection involves a quiet, calm disposition.

Conclusion

This passage clearly restricts the woman’s teaching. She may not be in charge of a Bible class in which men are present, nor may she proclaim God’s word from the pulpit to an audience including men. To do so would be out of subjection, for she would be in control of the study rather than learning in quietness.

The woman may teach in any circumstance in which she does not violate the principle of remaining in subjection to men. Another passage emphasizing this principle is 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, which will be considered in the next article.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 8 p. 20-21
April 20, 1995

By Dick Blackford

To “profane” something is to take that which is holy and treat it as common. This is the reason I don’t applaud in worship unto God.

Worship to the Almighty, Eternal, Sovereign God is unique, in a class by itself. (1) Only in the Lord’s supper do we eat a meal that is not designed to satisfy physical hunger. It was eaten purely as a memorial, after the disciples had already eaten the passover feast. Meals eaten at holidays in our time are feasts designed to satisfy physical hunger. (2) In worship we pray to God. It is a solemn and serious occasion. But we do not pray to Elvis to celebrate his birthday. (3) In giving, we are to do so cheerfully, not grudgingly, as God has prospered us. The I.R.S. does not require this attitude when we pay our taxes. Also, the Lord does not specify in dollars and cents, but the I.R.S. does. (4) In singing to God we are to “make melody in the heart” (Col.3:16). This is not required when singing at a secular event. (5) In preaching, we must preach only the truth. But in social and political speeches there is no such requirement. One can even make inflammatory speeches against the government.

If clapping is a scriptural form of worship, couldn’t the Lord have thought of it?

Arguments For Clapping In Worship

1. “If we would clap to celebrate a ball game, how much more does Jesus deserve our applause?” Re-ply: This is not the way scriptural authority is established. That can only be established from Scripture. If we can eat popcorn to celebrate a ball game, how much more should we eat popcorn in worship to God? (Don’t blame me for the absurdity of any of these arguments. I am only showing what else it “proves” if the arguments are valid.) If we can eat black-eyed peas and hog jowl to celebrate New Year’s Day, how much more should we eat these in worship to God? (I hesitate to make these arguments since some already have coffee and donuts in Bible classes. So far, they haven’t gone “whole hog” and said we can have these in the worship assembly.) If we would pull pranks to celebrate April Fool’s Day, how much more should we pull pranks in worship unto God? If we shoot fireworks to celebrate Independence Day, how much more should we shoot fireworks to celebrate our independence from sin and the Law of Moses? If we play “Pin The Tale On The Donkey” to celebrate our children’s birthdays, how much more should we do so to celebrate our Lord’s birth? If we take the day off from work to celebrate Labor Day, how much more should we take the Lord’s Day off to celebrate that we are laborers in the vineyard of the Lord?

Had enough? How about one more. If we wear false faces to celebrate Halloween, how much more should we wear false faces in worship? All of these are the consequence of not basing an argument on Scripture but on human reasoning from secular events.

2. “Applause means the same as saying `Amen.”‘ Reply: According to what standard of authority? It never meant that in the Bible. When a curse was pronounced by the priest upon an adulteress she was to respond by saying “Amen, Amen” (Num.5: 11-31). If clapping is another way of saying “Amen” it is difficult to imagine the woman applauding when a curse was pronounced upon her.

Moses pronounced twelve curses on the tribes of Reuben, Gad, Asher, Zebulun, Dan, and Naphtali. After each curse Israel was to respond “Amen” (Deut.27:15-26). Could they have substituted a round of applause and been acceptable to God? Would it be acceptable for us to close our prayers with a round of applause instead of an audible “Amen” (I Cor.14:16)? Most of the epistles end with an “Amen.” How do you communicate hand clapping in writing? This shows that something is being communicated in writing that there is no equivalent for. There is no record where “Amen” was used in a secular way. It is a word which belongs to the spiritual realm. Clapping belongs in the secular realm and is associated with sports and entertainment. There is a good reason for this since clapping is never mentioned in the New Testament.

Webster’s definition of applause includes cheering and stomping the feet. Those who defend clapping must of necessity defend these also.

3. “If we can change the holy kiss to a handshake (Rom.16:16), then we can change `Amen’ to applause.” Reply: The Bible does not command the kiss as a form of greeting. Paul was not instituting kissing as the proper way to greet. The custom of kissing as a form of greeting or endorsement had been practiced for thousands of years (Exod. l 8:7; 1 Sam.10:1; etc.), so Paul was not beginning a new practice. He was regulating the attitude with which this custom was practiced. It was not a command to kiss. The emphasis was on the kind of kiss. When greeting with a kiss it was to be a holy kiss. It was not to be a hypocritical kiss, like that of Judas (Mk. 14:44) or of Joab (2 Sam.20:9). Nor was it to be a lascivious kiss (Ga1.5:19-21), but a holy one. Whatever form of greeting is the custom at a particular time and place, it should be pure.

Booing And Hissing?

If one may applaud a sermon to show approval (as one may show approval in this manner at a ball game), then why could not one equally boo or hiss to show disapproval if he disagrees? In a matter of time our services would be filled with applause (including stomping the feet), wolf whistles, cat calls, boos, and hisses. The right for one is the right for the others. If the silence of the New Testament authorizes applause then it also authorizes boos, hisses, jeers, etc. Is this really what we want? Has worship become so casual to us that there is no difference in our behavior and degree of solemnity at worship or at an entertainment event?

Perhaps unwittingly, brethren have bought into the idea advanced in debate by some defenders of instrumental music in worship, that “worship is a right thing to do and there is no wrong way to do it” (Given O. Blakely, Blakely-Highers Debate). Since the Scriptures are silent about applause and nothing is said to indicate that clapping is an acceptable substitute for saying “Amen,” and since it is also silent about booing, hissing, etc., we believe we have concluded rightly that God does not approve either practice in worship or in a religious context.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 9 p. 2
May 4, 1995

By Mike Willis

For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous (1 John 3:11-12).

The record of Cain killing his brother Abel startles us in the record of Genesis. Soon after God created man, Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden. Consequently, they were driven out of the Garden to separate them from the Tree of Life. After leaving the Garden, Adam and Eve had two children  Cain and Abel. Cain was a farmer and Abel was a shepherd.

In the course of time, both brought their sacrifices for worship. “And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell” (Gen. 4:4-5).

The difference in the two sacrifices is given in Hebrews 11:4  “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.” Abel offered his sacrifice by faith, but Cain did not. Faith can only exist when it is grounded in the word of God. One cannot act by faith unless God has spoken and told a person what he must do. A person acts by faith when he obeys the word God has spoken. From this we conclude that God had commanded how he was to be worshipped and Abel obeyed, but Cain disobeyed.

As a result, Cain became angry because God accepted Abel’s worship but rejected his own. In the process of time, Cain’s anger and jealousy overcame him to the point that he murdered his brother.

Why Did Cain Murder His Brother?

1. Because he was of the evil one. John plainly states that Cain was “of the devil.” This means that he had come under his influence. Instead of having his life guided and directed by the revealed will of God, Cain was allured by the Devil into following the course of life he wished for him.

2. Because he resented that God accepted Abel’s worship and did not accept his. When God spoke to Cain about his disposition and attitude, he said, “Why art thou wroth? And why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, sin Lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him” (Gen. 4:6-7). The Lord warned Cain that sin was lying at his door like a despot wishing to subdue him and bring him into subjection. Cain did not conquer his feelings toward his brother. His brother’s acceptance by God was something he hated. He harbored his ill will in his heart until it grew into such a monster that he was able to kill his own brother.

The Danger of Harboring Hatred

I doubt that Cain always felt ill toward his brother. There must have been days when they were young that they played together and enjoyed each other’s company. But something happened. Something began to fester underneath the skin. Not being removed and corrected, the insignificant irritation became infected and grew into a malignant sore. Finally, it destroyed his soul.

Sometimes brethren get crossed with one another. The Bible tells us how to deal with such problems:

Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican (Matt. 18:15-17).

When these instructions are ignored and rejected, the insignificant problems between brethren grow into cancerous sores. They fester and fester until they erupt, pouring out their poison and puss. With Cain, the eruption was to murder his brother Abel his companion of his youth, his own flesh and blood. With others, sometimes the eruption is to say unkind and hateful things about another, to gossip and slander the brother behind his back, to undermine the good that he is doing, etc. Sometimes the poison becomes so strong that it will divide brethren one from another and church splits occur.

A person may think that the proper way to handle his anger, bitterness and resentment is to keep it bottled up inside. The immediate situation may appear better because the confusion of working through one’s differences does not occur. However, the long range problem is magnified. Every future conflict is magnified by the pent up anger and bitter resentment. Little problems become major issues because of the underlying animosity. The Lord knew what was best for good relationships between brethren when he commanded that brethren work trough their differences immediately instead of allowing them to fester.

Conclusion

There is a difference between how righteous and wicked people handle their problems. “:The wicked envy the good the blessedness of their goodness, and try to destroy what they cannot share. The war between good and evil is one of extermination; but the wicked would destroy righteous, while the righteous would destroy wickedness by converting the wicked” (The Pulpit Commentary 73). Which describes your feelings toward your brethren? Are you beginning to feel more like Cain? If so, this should be a warning sign to take a careful self-examination.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 8 p. 2
April 20, 1995

By Vestal Chaffin

“Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3). “Behold, how good and pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity” (Psa. 133:1). God inspired the apostles by the Holy Spirit to teach us the kind of unity he desires us to have.

Outside of truth, and the privilege to teach and practice it, there is nothing more pleasant and desirable than unity among brethren. I have said many times, about as close to heaven as we will ever be in this world, is when brethren are working together for the Lord in unity and in harmony with the revealed will of God. Surely this is the way it should be, because this is the way God wants it to be.

As Jesus stood almost in the shadow of the cross, he uttered the prayer recorded in John 17. Among other things, he earnestly prayed that those who would believe on him might be united. He prayed, “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one: as thou Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou halt sent me” On. 17:20-21). In these verses we have revealed who is to be united. Those that “believe on me through their word” are the ones that Christ desires to dwell in unity. The word “believe” here carries with it the idea of putting one’s confidence in, to trust, hence to obey. He is not praying for the unity of all religious people, or all denominations, but for his faithful and true disciples.

Also, we have revealed in these verses the kind, or degree, of unity our Lord desires among his disciples. “That they all may be one; as thou Father, art in me, and I in thee.” Just as the Father and the Son were united in their efforts to save the world, even so the followers of Christ are to be united in Christ. Just as there is unity between God and Christ, in their nature, in their glory, in their mutual endearments, even so must there be unity among the disciples of Christ. The degree of unity that is to exist between Christians is emphasized in John 17:22, when Jesus said, “That they may be one, even as we are one.”

Another thing that we find in these verses is, where unity can exist. Our Lord did not just pray that some how or some way we might have unity. He told where we can unite. Listen to him: “That they also may be one in us.” In God and in Christ is the only place where people of this earth can have the unity Christ prayed for. To be in God and in Christ is to be in the truth that they have revealed. In this prayer our Lord petitioned the Father that he might “Sanctify them through thy truth” (v. 17). The word “sanctify” literally means “separation to God.” But notice that this is accomplished by the “truth” of God’s word. If we follow the “truth” it will lead us into Christ, for he said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me” (in. 14:6).

It is impossible for all people to unite upon some human creed, or some man made doctrine, church manual or some other document written by man. This has been tried from time immemorial. The Corinthian Church is an example; they were badly divided. Paul wrote condemning them for the division among them; he desired “… that ye all speak the same thing, that there be no division among you: but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment…. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ” (1 Cor. 1:10-12). They could not have the unity that God desires divided among themselves as they were. There is only one place where unity can be had and that is upon God’s revealed word. For “all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Here is where unity can be had by those who want to please God.

How can we have the “unity of the Spirit”? The answer is rather simple. Since the Holy Spirit gave us the Bible and there are no contradictions in his revelation, then let us believe exactly what the Holy Spirit has said on every subject, and there will be unity of faith (“one faith,” Eph. 4:5). Let each one teach exactly what the Holy Spirit teaches, “let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11), and there will be “unity” of teaching. Let each one practice only that which is authorized by the Holy Spirit, “That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God” (Col. 1:10). Then there will be “unity” in practice. The Holy Spirit teaches “unity” in teaching, faith and practice! When men leave this rule, it is then that there that they depart from “the unity of the Spirit.” Many members of the church have forgotten the mission of the church and the nature of the kingdom of God. It is not the mission of the church to be a social center, nor to entertain, nor to sponsor any kind of recreation, nor to support any organization. The nature of God’s kingdom is spiritual, not material.

We are not now nor have we ever made a plea for “union” among the professed followers of Christ. There is a vast difference between “union” and “unity.” “Union” is nothing more than an agreement to disagree and say nothing about our differences. That will accomplish nothing but eternal destruction for those who follow such a philosophy. We are pleading for the same unity that Paul was pleading for when he said, “Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3). The “unity of the Spirit” is that unity which the Holy Spirit reveals through the word. This is the unity for which we plead.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 7 p. 14-15
April 6, 1995