Truth Magazine

By Weldon E. Warnock

Quoting 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, we read: “Let your women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted unto them to speak: but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home; for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

This passage has been greatly misunderstood. Some have interpreted it to mean that women may not teach women or children in our Bible classes, nor even ask a question or make a comment in a mixed class where a man is the teacher. A few have gone so far as to advocate that women may not even sing in the public assembly where men are present. Such views are radical and extreme and exhibit a warped and an erroneous concept of the verses being discussed.

A Special Meeting

The assembly in 1 Corinthians 14 is special in function and temporary in nature. The context shows explicitly that it was in assembly for the exercise of spiritual gifts. We read, “If any man speaks in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret” (v. 27). We have nothing like this today.

In verse 29 Paul further states, “Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.” We cannot duplicate this. Hence, in this setting he instructs the women not to speak but to be in silence, and not to disturb those speaking by divine revelation.

Except for the principle, “but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law” (a principle stated in the Old Testament and reaffirmed in the New Testament), these circumstances have no bearing on our assemblies today. We have no tongue-speakers or prophets. If we apply it to the church presently, how do we determine what two or three men take the place of tongue-speakers and what two or three take the place of prophets. These women were commanded not to interrupt when men spoke in tongues or prophets prophesied.

An “If” Meeting

That this was a special meeting of the church is indicated in verses 23 and 26. In verse 23 Paul uses a conditional particle “if ” that shows uncertainty as to when the assembly will take place. Thayer states the word “if ” (Gr., ean) means, “A conditional particle which makes reference to time and experience, introducing something future, but not determining, before the event whether it is certainly to take place” (Greek-English Lexicon 162).

In verse 26 Paul says, “… when you come together, everyone of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation.” Thayer says of “when” (Gr., hotan), “A particle of time, at the time that, whenever, used of things which one assumes will re-ally occur, but the time of whose occurrence, he does not definitely fix, often also of things which one assumes can occur, but whether they really will or not he does not know; hence like our in case that” (458).

Contrast the “if ” meeting with the assemblies in Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2. There is no indefinite article (ean) or adverb (hotan) in these assemblies. They were not “if “meetings, but definite regular meetings. Let us not be guilty of applying the rules for special and exceptional assemblies as the norm for all assemblies.

What women may do in the regularly scheduled assemblies, such as Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 11:17-34; 16:2 is not restricted, regulated, or regimented by the prohibitions in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, except the principle that she is to be “under obedience” or as stated in 1 Timothy 2: 12, “not to usurp (exercise) authority over the man.” Women are to sing in our regular assemblies. Paul wrote, “Speaking to yourselves in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart unto the Lord” (Eph. 5:19) and “… teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, and hymns and spiritual songs” (Col. 3:16). Notice that Paul says when we sing we speak and that we teach. However, in 1 Corinthians 14:34 the women may not speak, but are to be silent. Therefore, it is apparent that the prohibitions in 1 Corinthians 14:34 are not applicable to the other regular assemblies. Paul declares that the women are to keep silence.

To Keep Silence

The word “silence” in this text means to be quiet; not to speak. The Greek word is sigao, which, according to Thayer means, “to keep silence, hold one’s peace” (574). Silence is used in contrast to speaking or addressing the assembly. Furthermore, this also precludes her from interrupting the inspired revelations by asking questions.

The word “speaking” in verse 34 is from the Greek word laleo that is found several times in this chapter (cf. vv. 2,3,6,9,11,13,18,19,21,23,27,29,39). In the immediate context Paul writes in verse 27, “If any man speak in an unknown tongue” and in verse 29, “Let the prophets speak two or three.” Here, the men are speaking, that is, addressing the special assembly. They were told also to be silent under the circumstances as prescribed in verses 28 and 30. In this kind of meeting the women were not to speak, but to remain silent. Paul goes even further and states that if she would learn any additional thing than what she learned by listening to the inspired revelations, let her ask her husband at home.

Identifying the Women

The question is: Who were these women? There are various schools of thought. 1. They were the prophetesses who endeavored to exercise their spiritual gifts in the special public assemblies. 2. They were the women in general in the churches. 3. They were the wives of the prophets.

In regard to number one it seems to me that if Paul had meant prophetesses he would have so stated, rather than using the word women. When he spoke of men prophesying, he designated them as such (v. 29). It would logically follow, therefore, that the women should be so identified. James MacKnight comments, “The prohibition standing in this connection implies that the Corinthian women were not to pray and prophesy in the church as teachers, on pretense of being inspired and unable to restrain the emotions of the Spirit” (Apostolical Epistles 196). Though this position is possible, as advocated by MacKnight, it lacks compelling evidence in my estimation.

In reference to number two, taken at face value, this position has a great amount of merit. This is what the text says: “Let your women keep silence in the churches.” The difficulty with this view is why would their husbands know more than they do? What about the women who had no husbands or whose husbands were not Christians? The solution may be that Paul is focusing on those who had husbands who were Christians. The women could discuss with them things of personal religious interests outside of the special assemblies.

As stated in number three, perhaps he was referring to the views of the prophets who were interrupting the services. The same Greek word for women is also used for wives. We know that these women had husbands, but apparently the husbands could answer the questions of their wives. Hence, the husbands could well have been the prophets  spiritually endowed men to reveal the will of God. We cannot know for certain which of these views is correct, because the situation at Corinth is not totally reconstructed. I am inclined to agree with the latter view. Regardless, one thing is sure, none of the women was to speak or to ask questions in this type of meeting, but rather to be silence because of the principle  “to be under obedience as also saith the law.” To have done otherwise would have been shameful and disgraceful.

Let us not be more restrictive and limiting than what the Bible enjoins. Women are free in the church to teach ladies and children, and she may ask questions, make comments and seek information in a mixed class with a male teacher. She may be a servant of the church like Phoebe (Rom. 16: I ), or a helper like those who assisted Paul in the gospel (Phil. 4:3), or those who are enrolled in the church, perhaps, for special functions (1 Tim. 5:9-10). Women may do anything in the church that does not violate the prohibition of 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:12. However, this divine principle does not allow women to be pastors, preachers, song leaders, teachers of a mixed class of men and women or lead public prayer.

Those who have a problem with these regulations will have to take it up with the Lord!

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 3 p. 6-7
February 2, 1995

By H. E. Phillips

Forty years ago there was no serious thought of women being appointed to be elders and deacons in the Lord’s church. With the birth of the Feminist Movement, conceived in the “civil rights” legislation under the influence of radical humanism among political activists, came the demand for women’s “equal rights” and power in every area of life. It was inevitable that this movement would invade the home, school and church, with painful social, economic and political punishment for any opposition. The militant voice of the National Organization of Women is demanding that women be elevated to equal rank with men in every area of life, including the church. Out of this influence comes the demand for leadership roles for women in churches of Christ.

This feminist movement is riding the high wave of liberal political influence and crying for the abolition of “the yoke of male domination” in religion and allow women to claim their rightful role of authority in churches. This organization promotes and supports abortion; it also supports lesbian and homosexual activity and has ridiculed traditional family relationships and the role of mother-hood.

The innovations in denominationalism will eventually be embraced in some form by some churches of church, and some of these have included women preachers and church leaders for several years. Now some churches of Christ are trying to imitate the practice. They reject those passages that speak of the woman being in subjection to man as the prejudice of Jewish religious leaders against women, such as the apostle Paul.

The news media and religious journals report the growing conflict in various religious denominations over women taking positions of authority in their churches. When the Scriptures are abandoned as the complete and only standard of authority, it is expected, among other things, that the women “rights” in the oversight of the church will be zealously promoted.

Promotion of Women Into The Oversight of the Church

Some women have demanded and received permission to attend the “business meetings” of the men in the absence of elders. They first wanted to attend to listen and be informed. Then they began to participate by asking and answering questions and to present their points of view. They soon occupied roles of leadership in these “business meetings” of making decisions. The women who participate in business meetings violate the woman’s role given in 1 Timothy 2:12 just as if she participated in an elders meeting. It is a short step from this to demand “election” to the eldership and deaconship. These women do not understand their place in the church or they have no regard for the word of Christ, and the men who permit this commit sin.

However, some women are as’ tie for a voice in the decision making of the church. In scene churches women already are attending the business meetings. The New Testament does not authorize any woman to occupy any post of authority in the local church, nor is she permitted to do anything “over” the man, whether there are elders of not. This prohibits any role of oversight.

Several years ago some elders reported their intention to revise the traditional roles of women in the church. This change had to be gradual to avoid division in these churches, because most people know that the Bible does not authorize a leading role for women in the church. The gradual introduction of women into the public activity in the church was to use them for making announcements before beginning worship; this opened the door for further public leading roles. That is what I have read from reports from some elders. Then if women can make announcements, they can also be used as ushers, to lead public prayers, to read Scriptures, to lead singing and to serve the Lord’s supper.

These women will not be content with this public service, they will want to preach publicly, and to be appointed elders and deacons with equal authority of oversight with men.

What the Bible Teaches About the Role of Women in the Church

The word of God is explicit regarding the role of women in society, the home and the church. “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 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” (1 Cor. 14:34-35). “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” (1 Tim. 2:11-12).

There is not a woman on earth who can attain the qualifications listed in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 for one to be a bishop. “This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife” (I Tim. 3:1-2). She could never be the “husband of one wife.” She could never “rule well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity.” She is to be in subjection to her husband in every thing (Eph. 5:24).

If we abandon the Scriptures regarding woman’s place in the church, it really does not matter what we do after that. To go beyond the word of God is to sin and leave God (2 John 9).

A woman is required to do everything that a man does in becoming a Christian (hear, believe, repent, confess Christ, be baptized). She must do everything a man does in worship to God (pray, sing, study the word, take Lord’s supper, give of her prosperity on first day). She can scripturally do anything a man can do as a Christian, except she may not do so “over the man”; to take the authority of a man. She is to be in subjection (I Tim. 2:11). The head of woman is man (1 Cor. 11:3); the head of the wife is the husband, and she is to be in subjection to him in all things (Eph. 5:22-24; 1 Pet. 3:1-7). Men and women are equal in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28), but they are not equal in their role assignments. Man did not create this arrangement. God did! Man and woman cannot change it without incurring the wrath of God.

The Bible reason is: (1) God commanded that the women keep silence in the churches (1 Cor. 14:23-35); and (2) women are to learn in silence with all subjection (1 Tim. 2:11). The reason she is to be in subjection is: “For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression” (1 Tim. 2:13,14). As long as the world stands those words will be there with the same force as when delivered by the Holy Spirit (1 Pet. 1:23, 25; Matt. 24:35).

Christ did not select a woman to be among the apostles, elders or evangelists in the New Testament church. Women are not permitted to do the work of an evangelist.

Godly women in New Testament days had an important role in the work of the Lord, but it was never “over the man” or in the role of oversight. Dorcas assisted the needy (Acts 9:36). Priscilla and her husband taught a young preacher more perfectly the right way (Acts 18:18). Phebe and Mary were commended for their assistance to Paul in the gospel (Rom. 16:1,6). Paul said, “Help those women who labored with me in the gospel” (Phil. 4:3).

I have been greatly blessed by godly women through my life as a preacher, from my grandmother, mother, wife, daughters, granddaughters and many other faithful women of great influence. They have taught me and encouraged me in many ways. These valuable saints are indispensable to the strength and growth of the local church. But the truth remains, the Lord did not put them in places of leadership. Women were not to occupy roles of leadership and over-sight in the church.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 3 p. 14-15
February 2, 1995

By  Connie W. Adams

Can a woman preach? Obviously she can for there are many now who do. To preach means to proclaim, to herald a message. Can a woman do that? Yes she can. Really what concerns us at the present hour is may a woman preach? That gets to the heart of the issue of divine authority. Is such activity on her part approved by God in his word? To that question, we answer emphatically, no.

While other writers will deal with 1 Timothy 2:11-15, I must press it into service here for it settles the question for all who respect the word of God. “And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.” Paul gave two reasons for that: (1) Adam was first formed, and (2) the woman was deceived in the transgression (vv. 13-14). In the wake of the transgression, God said to Eve: “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Gen. 3:16). In the light of these simple statements, how say some that it is permissible for a woman to preach? Paul said, “I do not permit” it.

I have been asked to address some of the arguments made in defense of women preaching.

“Men and Women Have Equal Ability to Preach”

Some women are more expressive than some men. That cannot be denied. But the issue is not equal ability. It involves the roles which God assigned to men and women in the church. Can you name one woman in the church in the New Testament who preached? This boils down to an argument about the use made of talent. I have heard the same argument used to justify instrumental music in worship. “God gave me this talent and I ought to use it to glorify him.” But people are capable of doing many things which God did not authorize in his word.

“Paul Was Prejudiced Against Women”

This argument has been made not only to escape the force of what Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 but also to nullify what he taught in Ephesians 5:22-25 about the husband being the head of the wife and what he wrote in Titus 2:4-5 about women being “obedient” to their husbands. It is held that Paul was an old bachelor, obviously biased against women and that what he wrote was motivated by the chauvinism of the times in which he lived. Such an argument strikes at the heart of the doctrine of verbal inspiration. The Holy Spirit was to guide the apostles “into all truth” (Jn. 16:13-14). By revelation, Paul received from God the knowledge of the mystery of divine truth which he then wrote in words  “whereby when you read you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ” (Eph. 3:1-4). “But God revealed them unto us by his Spirit” (1 Cor. 2:10). The message was given in words “which the Holy Spirit teacheth” (v. 13), so that Paul and the other apostles had “the mind of Christ” (v. 16). Then to clinch it, Paul wrote, “If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things I write to you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37). Paul was either inspired by the Holy Spirit and taught the commandments of the Lord, or else he lied about it. If the latter, then there is no reason to discuss the New Testament further. Yet those who seek to justify women preaching would have us to believe the practice is taught in the New Testament. It cannot be both ways.

“We Must Make Our Practice Relevant to the Times”

Ah, now we are getting to it. This strikes at the all-sufficiency of the word of God to meet every need in the church for as long as the world stands. This all springs from the notion that the word of God is out of date and out of touch with the demands of modem life. What an insult to God! The faith was “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). Perverting it is wrong (Gal. 1:8-9). “Going onward” is wrong (2 In. 9-11). Adding to it or subtracting from it is wrong (Rev. 22:18-19). It furnishes us to every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17). We are equipped with “all things that pertain unto life and godliness” (2 Pet. 1:3). The New Testament is all-sufficient to guide the church and in that delivered faith the Holy Spirit guided Paul to write, “I permit not a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be silence.”

“There Were Women Who Could Prophesy”

Joel had written “your sons and your daughters shall prophesy” and Peter quoted that on Pentecost in Acts 2:17). Early in the New Testament we are introduced to Anna, a prophetess. Phillip the evangelist had four virgin daughters “which did prophesy” (Acts 21:8-9). From 1 Corinthians 11:5 we learn of women who “prayed and prophesied.” Men were to do this with their heads uncovered and women who exercised such gifts were to cover their heads when they did so as a sign of subjection. But I know from 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and from 1 Timothy 2:11-12 that they could not do this in a situation where they exercised authority over men. That means then that they must do such things as they instructed other women and in a context removed from a mixed public assembly. Paul took great care to protect the chain of authority which he detailed in 1 Corinthians 11:3. Headship was not to be despised. Also, it needs to be remembered that prophesying was not simply teaching. It was inspired teaching. We have none, men or women, who can prophesy today for these gifts have ceased and the argument for women preachers based on this collapses.

“What If the Men Authorize Women to Preach?”

This contends that if men give their permission, then it would be all right. I doubt that argument will please those who are tainted with feminism. They would see that as too demeaning, to think that men had to grant it. But be that as it may, God does not give man the right, ever, to permit what the Holy Spirit said he did not permit. That is equal to saying 1 Timothy 2:12 forbids it but I do permit it. What group of elders, deacons, preachers or other men have grown so large that they can say they permit the very thing the Holy Spirit guided an apostle to write and say he did not permit?

Pentecostal churches have had women preachers a long time. This has gradually spread to the mainline denominations and now it is not uncommon to find women filling pulpits while others are studying in seminaries preparing for this work. The Catholic Church is faced with a possible rebellion from American Catholics over women in the priesthood. Not to be outdone, some in the more liberal Churches of Christ have begun to beat the drums for a changing role for women in the church. One preacher spoke on the Texas college lectureship and reported hearing a sister address a mixed crowd of about 1,000 and said, “she was dynamite.” Evidently, he approved. Such magazines as Image and Wineskins have called for a reassessment of this matter while other journals have opposed any trend in that direction. Who could deny that the increasing clamor for leadership roles from women in the church parallels the agenda of the Feminist Movement?

The God-ordained roles of both men and women in the church, the home and society are in the best interest of all concerned. The upsetting of those roles has led to disaster in the home, in society and bids to do the same in the church. The whole matter must be settled by a “thus saith the Lord.” And what he said through Paul is “I do not permit” it. We can quibble about it from here on out. We can rationalize it, minimize it, philosophize about it, ridicule it, or attempt to simply ignore it. When we get through with all of that, the New Testament will still say the same thing about it. It is that by which we shall all be judged in the last day.

May a woman preach? No, she may not and still please God.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 3 p. 12-13
February 2, 1995

By Daniel H. King Sr.

The prophet Jeremiah’s life and the unique experiences which he had with Israel, offered him a “laboratory” to study the workings of the human heart. God had entrusted him with a message of dismay, desolation, and destruction for the land of Israel and the people of God. And there was no turning the judgment back. Its realization was inevitable. But the people to whom he spoke did not wish to hear such bad news. They felt secure in their actions and believed that God would bless them and protect them from their enemies. The Lord predicted otherwise, however. In one particularly brutal revelation to Jeremiah, God forbade him from marrying or fathering children, with these chilling words:

The word of Jehovah came also unto me, saying, Thou shalt not take thee a wife, neither shalt thou have sons or daughters, in this place. For thus saith Jehovah concerning the sons and concerning the daughters that are born in this place, and concerning their mothers that bare them, and concerning their fathers that begat them in this ]and: They shall die grievous deaths: they shall not be lamented, neither shall they be buried; they shall be as dung upon the face of the ground; and they shall be consumed by the sword, and by famine; and their dead bodies shall be food for the birds of the heavens, and for the beasts of the earth. For thus saith Jehovah, Enter not into the house of mourning, neither go to lament, neither bemoan them; for I have taken away my peace from this people, saith Jehovah, even loving kindness and tender mercies (Jer. 16:1-5).

The Lord warned the prophet that when it was all over they would turn to him and ask why all this evil had come upon them, whereupon he was to tell them that “ye have done evil more than your fathers; for, behold, ye walk every one after the stubbornness of his evil heart, so that ye hearken not unto me” (Jer. 16:12). Their hearts had become evil and depraved, so their actions were also evil and depraved, and God could do nothing except to judge them for their rebellion.

At the end of the day, the Lord through his Spirit gave the great insight into the human psyche which explains Israel’s stubborn resistance to the oft-repeated divine appeals for her repentance:

The heart is deceitful above all things, and it is exceedingly corrupt: who can know it? (Jer. 17:9)

This verse explains how, even though the Almighty was fed up with Israel’s flagrant disregard for her covenant with him, she was able to convince herself that no harm would come her way. But this profound text does more than that. It shows us how our own minds can work to rob us of God grace and send us careening blindly down the road that leads to spiritual death. Here is what it says:

1. The Heart Is Deceitful Above All Things. Jeremiah had seen plenty of evidence to confirm the Lord’s pronouncement about this. The hardness and deceitfulness of the people’s heart in his time kept them from yielding to the Lord’s will. It kept them from turning from their sin. And, it convinced them that all was well when certain death lay just over the horizon.

Today many folks try to look inward for their insights into life and even for their knowledge of God. Several of the religious traditions of our time tell us this is where genuine knowledge of God is to be found. The Bible is foursquare against this notion. Dependable knowledge about God or even of ourselves cannot be discovered by looking within. The Bible says the heart is deceitful above all things. It is not a dependable guide in such matters. The heart is influenced by things like the deceitfulness of riches (Matt. 113:22), the deceitfulness of sin (Heb. 3:13), the deceitfulness of lust (Eph. 4:22). Scripture says that a deceitful witness speaks lies and not the truth (Prov. 14:25). The human heart it such a witness. It cannot be trusted for spiritual guidance. Our guidance must come from outside of ourselves. That is where biblical revelation enters the picture. God’s revelation of himself and of his will for man in the Bible is essential precisely because of the deceitfulness of the heart. The word of God acts as a constant check against the cunning and devious ways of the heart.

2. The Heart Is Exceedingly Corrupt. This word means “morally degenerate, perverted, depraved.” The prophet had beheld the depravity of his own generation to the extent that he did not plead for mercy upon them, but only asked that he with his own eyes might see God’s judgment performed upon them: “Let me see thy vengeance on them…” (20:12). In our day we have seen the likes of the Boston Strangler, the Son of Sam, Charles Manson and his “Family,” Richard Speck, John Wayne Gacy, Richard Ramirez, Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, etc. These people, and a host of others like them that we could also mention, illustrate how “exceedingly corrupt” the heart of man can become. That which is capable of such degeneracy, perversion and depravity, could never be viewed as a dependable source for human guidance. As the prophet elsewhere said: “0 Jehovah, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps” (Jer. 10:23).

3. Who Can Know It? The world we live in is filled with mysteries. There are so very many things which we do not understand and cannot comprehend. God’s word concludes this set of observations about the duplicity of the human heart with this question: “Who can know it?” Of course, it is immediately understood that God knows the heart (see verse 10), else he could not speak so authoritatively about the evils which lurk within it. As David advised his son, “And thou, Solomon my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind; for Jehovah searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts: if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off for ever” (1 Chronicles 28:9). The point is, that one cannot know the goings-on within the mind of another man, nor if he permits himself to be deceived by his own ambitions, lusts and desires, can he even claim to comprehend his own mind. Thus, the Bible instructs us to “keep the heart with all diligence” (Prov. 4:23).

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 2 p. 22-23
January 19, 1995