"I went to Jerusalem to become acquainted (Gk. istoria) with Cephas" - Paul's words from Galatians 1:18.

All The Ekklesia Have Voices

In I Corinthians 14:34-35 the Apostle Paul writes:

"As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but they should be subordinate, as even the Law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church" (I Cor. 14:34-35).

I believe Paul is "quoting" the views of the Judaizers in these two verses, not expressing his own views, in order to correct their false teaching. Judaizers in the Corinthian church sought to bring the synagogue traditions into the Christian assembly. These Judaizers were "zealous for the Law," or the teachings of the Talmud (Acts 21:21), and caused all kinds of problems in the early church. Paul is blunt about their them in II Corinthians 11, calling them "false apostles" and "deceitful workers" (II Cor. 11:13), and telling the Christians at Corinth to resist the false practices of the Judaizers and stand firm to the New Covenant "traditions" that Paul had taught them (see  I Corinthians 11:2).

Paul taught that all the members of the assembly, both male and female, could participate in congregational worship (see I Cor. 14:31 and 14:39), and it is expected that women in the church will publicly pray and teach just as men publicly pray and teach (see I Corinthians 11:5). The entire discourse of the New Covenant Scriptures is that God's priesthood is composed of males and females, slave and free, Jews and Gentiles. There is no separation of race, nationality, gender or color in the God's New Covenant priesthood. Each of us has been made a priest (Revelation 1:5) and we all form a royal priesthood (I Peter 2:9).

So, the startling prohibition of I Corinthians 14:34-35 seems discordant and unconnected to the rest of the New Covenant Scriptures. There's a reason for this -- it is discordant and unconnected.

Paul is quoting the views of the Judaizers regarding women in I Corinthians 14:34-35. He quotes it in order to correct the Judaizers' false views which were being imposed upon the Christian churches, including the church at Corinth. The Judaizers had been taught four things about the role of women in the synagogues when they were Jews, and they wished to make "the church" conform to these restrictions.

(1). The Jews believed women were not qualified to be learners in the synagogue because the talmudic literature forbad them from learning. Their presence in the synagogue was tolerated, but they were to be unobtrusive and silent, never interferring with the work of the men. The Judaizers wished this tradition to be carried over into all the churches. But Paul argues throughout I Corinthians for full participation of women within the assembly (see I Corinthians 14:31 and 39).

(2). The Jews recognized that a woman in the synagogue might at some point wish to move from passive attendance to actually learning something in the synagogue, but this was viewed as an exceptional occurance and not the norm. Therefore, on the rare occasion a woman desired to ask a question in order to learn, she was instructed to maintain her silence in the assembly and wait to ask her husband after leaving the synagogue and returning home. The Judaizers wished to keep the same passivity of women in the earkt Christian churches. But Paul expects women to pray and prophesy, the two acts of worship in the assembly, in the same manner that men pray and prophesy. Women compose half the priesthood (see I Corinthians 11:5).

(3). There is the assumption in the synagogue that all Jewish women would be married; it was even expected by leaders in the synagogue that Jewish women would marry. The Judaizers believed the same thing should be true about all women in the early church. But Paul argues his preference that Christian women remain single for the purpose of ministry (see I Corinthians 7:34).

(4). The Jews believed, and it was reinforced by the Talmud, that only the males should receive religious instruction. Jewish husbands were the source of their wives learning. Women should remain silent within the context of the synagogue. The Judaizers carried this tradition into the early churches and taught just as firmly that all Christian women should be silent in the churches. But Paul has taught that the priesthood of God is composed of both males and females, and there is an equality within the priesthood in both role and function (see I Corinthians 11:11 and Galations 3:28-29)

Paul states the Judaizers beliefs about women in I Corinthians 14:34-35 to only refute it. In other words, the "women keep silent" passage is not God's commandment, but corrupt teaching about to be exposed! Gilbert Bilezikian writes:
"It is worth noting that in 1 Corinthians more than in any of his other Epistles, Paul uses the é particle to introduce rebuttals to statements preceding it. As a conjunction, é appears in Paul's Epistles in a variety of uses. But the list below points to a predilection for a particular use of é which is characteristic mainly of 1 Corinthians."The verses he listed I also list below, in the order they appear, with a notation indicating the appearance of the é particle, in each case translating it as "Nonsense!" as Bilezikian did to indicate its flavor:1 Cor. 6:1-2--"If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? (é Nonsense!) Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?"
Likewise in I Corinthians 14:34-35 Paul states a belief that he then refutes using the Greek eta. I Corinthians 14:35 states: "If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."

Now look at I Corinthians 14:36: "What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?"

The "What" is the Greek eta, the conjunction Bilezikian points out that Paul uses throughout Corinthians to refute false teaching. There are actually two of these eta particles in this text, so Paul is expressing his disbelief (a compounded disbelief) that anyone would think that men only are the mouth pieces of God and that women should be silent in their presence. Paul states his objection to that kind of thinking very clearly.

"Did the word of God come only to you? What! (Note: this "What!" is the second eta in the text) Are you the only one's it has reached?" Paul is utterly refuting the belief that men only can speak in the church.

A few years ago I taught from this I Corinthians 14:35-36 passage,  and as always we had a question and answer time after the study. A woman about seventy years of age who had been a life long member of a traditional SBC church in Nevada, desired to comment about what I had taught. She was seated next to her husband, and she raised her hand to be recognized and was called upon, she spoke and disagreed quite strongly with my interpretation. She believed I Corinthians 14:33-35 was a COMMANDMENT FROM GOD and after explaining her reasoning, she conluded emphatically that God wanted women to be silent "in church."

When she was finished I gently suggested that if she believed my interpretation of I Corinthians 11:34-35 was wrong and her's was right, then she should have never raised her hand to be recognized, she should have never voiced her beliefs in the assembly, and she should have waited until she and her husband arrived  home before she asked a question of HIM or made a comment to HIM about what I had taught. That is what the text says! So either she must believe that what I'm teaching is right and then she is FREE to ask questions of her pastor, at any time, any place, for any reason the assembly is gathered, or she must be true to and consistent with her beliefs and remain absolutely silent in church.

Her response?

She said she was not "in church," so she could speak. Mind you, we were in our Fellowship Hall on Wednesday night with a couple of hundred believers present. There were numerous other small groups from our church meeting throughout our facility and around the city that night. But, in our new member's mind, we were not "in church" that night because we weren't in the "auditorium" and having a typical Sunday morning "church" service.

Her comment led me to to think many Southern Baptists don't have a working, biblical understanding of what the church is. Traditional Southern Baptists often seem more Jewish or Roman Catholic in their views of the assembly (church) and authority (clerics) than the writers of the New Testament. I believe that the Bible teaches that where two or three are gathered in the name of the Jesus Christ, the assembly is gathered and Christ is at the center of His people. So Wednesday night is as much church as Sunday morning. Tuesday night small group is as much church as Wednesday night Bible study. Tuesday morning's gathering for fellowship, service and worship is as much church as Sunday night's discipleship classes.

We, the people, are His church, and when or where we assemble, as few as two or three, His church is convened.

So move over Judaizers; all the people of God, men and women, are free to function.

41 comments:

Victorious said...

Excellent! Just excellent!

So move over Judaizers; all the people of God, men and women, are free to function.

Now if we could just get past the 81 or so areas "permission" is granted, we'll be really free to function in areas of gifting rather than gender.

P.S. that little Greek eta expletive is actually used by Paul 14 times in the Corinthian letters according to Loren Cunningham and David Hamilton in their book, "Why Not Women?" It seems to be largely ignored by modern translators, but it's impact clarifies some difficult passages for certain.

Thanks for this post, Wade!


Tom Kelley said...

Thanks Wade. I was puzzling over this passage just the other day. I had read this interpretation before, but I forgot it. After reading your post, I found this interesting article with additional details on various ways of interpreting this passage and why the one you have presented makes the most sense:

Let the Women Keep Silent

Wade Burleson said...

Thanks Victorious and Tom!

To all others: I am out of pocket for the next several days and will be unable to dialogue. Hope you enjoy the article and realize most of my commenters know far more than I do!

Wade

Christiane said...

" the Lord is in His holy temple:
let ALL the earth
keep silence before Him."

(Habakkuk 2:20)


I doubt St. Paul was picking out ONLY women here for special restriction, when the early traditions required silence from EVERYONE at key moments during services.

some thoughts



RRR said...

GREAT! This explanation makes a lot of sense and brings this passage into the context of other statements that portray Paul as actually being a champion for women's rights.

RRR said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
RRR said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rex Ray said...

Wade,

I’ve been told to help understand a verse a person should read the verse before and the verse after; and sometimes the whole chapter and ALL verses in the Bible that relate to the same subject.

With that in mind here goes:
1 Corinthians 14:26-38 (NLT) SUBJECT: “Call to Orderly Worship”

(26) “Well, my brothers and sisters, let’s summarize when you meet together, one will sing, another will teach, another will tell some special revelation God has given, one will speak in tongues, and another will interpret what is said. But everything that is done must strengthen all of you.” (32) “Remember that people who prophesy are in control of their spirit and can take turns.” (33) “For God is not a God of disorder but of peace, as in all the meetings of God’s holy people.” (34) “Women should be silent during the church meetings. It is not proper for them to speak. They should be submissive, just as the law says.” (35) “If they have any questions, they should ask their husbands at home, for it is improper for women to speak in church meetings.” (36) “OR do you think God’s word originate with you Corinthians? Are you the only ones to whom it was given?” (37) “If you claim to be a prophet or think you are spiritual, you should recognize that WHAT I AM SAYING IS A COMMAND FROM THE LORD HIMSELF.” (38) “BUT IF YOU DO NOT RECOGNIZE THIS, you yourself will not be recognized.”

“…what I am saying is a command from the Lord Himself” sounds the same as Ignatius, first bishop of Antioch: “…we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself.”

“But if you do not recognize this…” is almost like the hissy fit preacher saying, “If you submitted to me…”


WHAT WAS THE BIG FUSS ABOUT?

I don’t believe the Corinthians had a problem with verses 26-33. So they must have disagreed with 34-35.

IF Paul was ONLY quoting views of Judaizers, he would have said so!

Headless Unicorn Guy said...

She believed I Corinthians 14:33-35 was a COMMANDMENT FROM GOD and after explaining her reasoning, she conluded emphatically that God wanted women to be silent "in church."

As a comment on another blog put it:
"This is what happens when you see someone's letter only as a how-to manual."

Her response?

She said she was not "in church," so she could speak.


LOOPHOLE! LOOPHOLE! LOOPHOLE!
Like the story about the one preacher who claimed "Turn the other cheek" meant ONLY when physically struck on the side of the face; otherwise, he could react as vicious and violent as he wanted and still polish his halo.

Headless Unicorn Guy said...

Traditional Southern Baptists often seem more Jewish or Roman Catholic in their views of the assembly (church) and authority (clerics) than the writers of the New Testament.

As a Catholic, I can attest that some of these Southern Baptists go well beyond anything I've ever seen in Catholicism. Maybe the reason they hate the Pope is because THEY can't be Pope.

"New Presbyter is but old Priest writ large."
-- John Milton

Kristen Dugas said...

Excellent post! I too believe that Paul is quoting a faction of men in verses 34-35. I also believe that Paul is quoting another faction of men in 1 Corinthians 11: 4-6. There are two reasons why I believe this. The first reason is that Jesus Christ, not man, is the image and glory of God. (See 2 Cor. 4:3-4, Colossians 1:15, Hebrews 1:3, Revelation 21:23) And the second reason is that the rebuttal portion (vss. 7-16) completely contradicts the quoted portion (vss. 4-6). Just something to think about.

Rex Ray said...

Kristen Dugas,

I believe the ‘bandwagon’ of Wade’s post in a nutshell is:

Anything Paul writes that sounds stupid is NOT from him, but is a quote from someone else. DUH

Kristen, you give another reference (1 Corinthians 11:4-6) as NOT Paul’s thoughts because of your second reason (7-16) is contradictory. HUH ALL THESE STUPID VERSES AGREE.

Your first reason was “Jesus Christ, not man is the image and glory of God.”

How do you interpret? “Then God said, “Let us make human beings in our image, to be like us.” “So God created human beings in his own image. In the image of God he created them, male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:26-27 NLT)

Who was Paul quoting in (1 Timothy 2:11-15 NLT)?

“Women should learn quietly and submissively. I do not let women teach men or have authority over them. Let them listen quietly. For God made Adam first, and afterward he made Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived by Satan. The woman was deceived, and sin was the result. But women will be saved through childbearing, assuming they continue to live in faith, love, holiness, and modesty.”

We should conclude Paul was not God and the struggle to make God hold his hand while writing won’t work.

RRR said...

Rex Ray,

"We should conclude Paul was not God and the struggle to make God hold his hand while writing won’t work."

Logic agrees with your analysis given the apparent contradictions. But if we begin to disqualify Paul’s writings from being the inspired Word of God and reject it as being equal to all other Scripture we’re going to enter into a sticky web. I'm not sure if the comment above is intended toward this end and that's why I'm asking.

I'm curious to know what portions of the Bible you accept as being written by men whose hand WAS controlled by the hand of God as to accept them as being the authentic words of God. Do you accept ANY of Paul’s letter-writing as being worthy to be considered as the Word of God and worthy to be accepted as sacred Scripture originating from Him? Again, Rex, don't take my asking as some sort of indictment for your position because I don't know what your position is.

My questions are asked only with the sincere desire to have a better understanding of your comment. Thanks.

Bob Cleveland said...

When I read the Old Testament, I see God appointing women as Deacons, Judges and Queens. Am I to believe He was in error?

What is it about the advent of Jesus (and the Holy Spirit) that would now make women unable to speak, teach, or lead?

Eisegesis lives!

Hillbilly Views said...

Not unlike in the time of our lord, the Pharisees went to Jesus and ask him to rebuke his disciples.

Luke 19 39&40 give us a glimpse of how Jesus thought;

“I tell you” he replied “if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out”

The Pharisees did not want there power and authority challenged.

It is never good to pick and choose what parts of the bible we will call the true words of God.

God made human kind, Man & Women, every voice that proclaims the word of god is heard. I therefore cannot believe that my God would want me to close my ears to the gifts he gave my wife.

Kathy Stegall said...

"For women, this “good news, but…” leads to false feelings of inferiority and guilt because these reasons force us to look at who we are, in and of ourselves, and at what we have done, rather than at who Jesus is and what he has done. This point of view can only lead to deep humiliation and depression.
For men these two arguments lead to false feelings of superiority and self righteousness because they are based on who the men are and what they have done, rather than on who Jesus is and what he has done. This leads to pride and arrogance.
(The Full Rights of Sons, Chapter 14 - Must She Be Silent? 1 Timothy 2:8-15) https://www.facebook.com/FullRights

Rex Ray said...

RRR,

I appreciate you asking what I believe and don’t believe about the Bible. In some ways the Bible is a U-tube showing what was said and done but not telling who or what was correct, incorrect, wrong, right, true, or untrue.

I believe Hebrews 6:18: “…it is impossible for God to lie…”

On the other hand Jesus did not lie but told an untruth. He told his disciples what he believed was true but what he said turned out to be untrue:

“…An hour is coming…when each of you will…leave me alone. Yet I am not alone, because the Father is with Me. (John 16: 32 Holman) vs. “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” (Matthew 27:46 Holman)

Let’s examine Wade’s post where Paul in Corinthians 14:34-35 is supposedly repeating Judaizers false teaching. Wade said, “These Judaizers were “zealous for the Law” and referenced Acts 21:21 which tells why the Jerusalem Church was angry with Paul.

Wade should have referenced Acts 21:20 which says, “…You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law.”

Can we conclude from Wade’s reference that ALL thousands of Jewish Christians were Judaizers?

If so, I believe he’s right.

RRR, Yes, reading the Bible can be a “sticky web”…that’s why Jesus said we needed the Holy Spirit to teach us. Without Him, the Bible can be a pile of contradictions.

To handle these contradictions Fundamentalists of the SBC have accepted the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” written by 300 ‘Bible scholars’ in 1978.

The 10 pages conclude with, “We affirm that what Scripture says, God says.”

That sounds heroic, but five paragraphs previous state:

“Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions.”

So RRR, we’re back to square one wondering which is an “illusion” and which is not. :)

I believe the nearest God came to holding a writers hand was Moses. He wrote Numbers and Deuteronomy. Numbers and God told Moses three times: “Because you did not believe me…you shall not bring them into the land I have promised.” (Numbers 20:12, 23, and 27:14)

But Deuteronomy and Moses states three times the ‘blame’ was on the people: “And the Lord was even angry with me because of you, and would not let me cross over.” (Deuteronomy 1:37, 3:26, 4:22)

If God wasn’t ‘holding his hand’, if I’d been Moses, I believe I’d omitted my lies in Deuteronomy. :)

Paul is my biggest ‘hero’ of Bible writers despite his view of women.

Kristen Dugas said...

Rex Ray,

Apparently you think that being created IN the image of God and BEING the image of God are the same thing. However, they are not the same thing. Jesus Christ is not created IN the image of God; He IS the image of God. (Again, see 2 Cor. 4:3-4, Col. 1:15, Heb. 1:3, Rev. 21:23.) Likewise, male and female are not THE image of God; they are created IN the image of God. (Genesis 1: 27) Paul does not say that a man ought not to veil his head because he was created IN the image of God in verse 7. He states that a man ought not to veil his head "the image and glory of God BEING". So Paul is referring to a man's "figurative" head in verse 7 NOT his "literal" head. Furthermore, if Paul was saying in verse 7 that a man ought not to veil his literal head since he is created in the image of God, then wouldnt Paul also make the same argument for women since they are also created in the image of God? Or at least expalin himself to say why a man should not be veiled because he was created in the image of God and a woman should be veiled because she was created in the image of God? But Paul does not do this because he is referring to a man's figurative head. Paul is using Jesus Christ as a correlation as to why women should NOT be veiled because a faction of man wanted women to be veiled while praying and prophesying.

Furthermore, verses 7-16 completely contradict verses 4-6. Unfortunately the translators have added words in the rebuttal portion in an attempt to harmonize it with the quoted portion. However, no words need to be added because Paul is refuting their words. For example, in verse 14 the translators have added the word "does". By doing so they have made Paul to say that nature teaches us that if a man has long hair it is a dishonor to him but if a woman has long hair it is a glory to her. However, Paul is NOT saying this. Paul is saying "NOT the nature itself teaches you..."

Therefore, verses 13-15 should read as follows:

13"Judge for yourselves that it is proper for a woman to pray to God unveiled. 14For not even nature itself teaches you that if a man has long hair it is a dishonor to him, 15but if a woman has long hair it is a glory to her, because the long hair has been given instead of a covering."

Furthermore, one can tell by the context of verses 4-6 that the men who wrote Paul made a literal head argument, NOT a figurative argument. This is why Paul gives his model with the figurative meaning of head. So it is abundantly clear that 1 Corinthians 11: 3-16 consists of three parts.

Verse 3 is Paul's model.
Verses 4-6 Paul quotes a faction of men who wrote him.
Verses 7-16 is Paul's rebuttal where he refers back to his model.

So Rex Ray, if you want to continue to say that you are the image and glory of God, despite having no Scripture to affirm this, that is up to you. However, I know that it is Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ alone who is the image and glory of God because God's Word clearly tells me so.

Aussie John said...

Wade,

I would respectfully change your words slightly,"... many (Australian) Baptists don't have a working, biblical understanding of what the church is. Traditional (Australian) Baptists often seem more Jewish or Roman Catholic in their views of the assembly (church) and authority (clerics) than the writers of the New Testament."

Having made a similar statement in this country caused a large number of ministry "friends" to somehow disappear.

Kristen! Excellent!

RRR said...

Rex Ray,

I'm reading all of your thoughts but would like to address one comment initially: you said "On the other hand Jesus did not lie but told an untruth. He told his disciples what he believed was true but what he said turned out to be untrue: “…An hour is coming…when each of you will…leave me alone. Yet I am not alone, because the Father is with Me. (John 16: 32 Holman) vs. “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” (Matthew 27:46 Holman)

I had made mention of an alternative explanation to this quote by Jesus while on the Cross in a response to an earlier post but perhaps you didn't see it or perhaps dropped off to sleep while reading it because it was too long.

Let me copy it here and then let me know what you think. It could explain why Jesus neither told a lie or an untruth. I wrote:

“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Matthew 27:46 Psalms 22:1

I had heard all my life this passage interpreted as saying that God turned His head in disgust from Jesus when Jesus was being crucified because all the sins of the world were poured upon Him.

This never made sense to me as to why The Father would turn His face from the Son as The Son was completing the mission for which He had been sent and was sacrificing His own life in obedience to the Father although I did understand that Jesus was receiving payment for all of my disgusting sins.

In recent days I’ve heard a more believable explanation (for me, at least) that most of you have probably already heard. A friend said, “When you hear someone say ‘You’ve got to know when to hold them’ you think of Kenny Rogers’ ‘The Gambler’ song. When you hear someone sing the first words of the hymn ‘Amazing Grace’ you know it so well you continue to sing it and finish it. When Jesus said these first words to Psalms 22:1 He knew that all of the Jews watching and listening to Him, and all of us today, would think of this Psalms which is one of the most vivid portrayals of the crucifixion of the Messiah and know that He was fulfilling that prophecy. They would understand why He was hanging on that Cross.

I feel this explanation fits much better (than Jesus actually believing that The Father had turned His face from The Son which makes no sense at all to me and as you say, Rex, would mean that Jesus didn't know what was going to happen.)

Rex Ray said...

Aussie John,

Once, a professor said “A very thoughtful statement” to my father who had written: “When life hung in the balance and a friend tossed on a rose.”

Rex Ray said...

Kristen,

Let’s see, a gentile response is recommended in replying to wrath. I’m thinking…I’m thinking.

All I did is quote Genesis and I will repeat:

“Then God said, “Let us make human beings in our image, to be like us.” “So God created human beings in his own image. In the image of God he created them, male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:26-27 NLT)

You wrote: “So Rex Ray, if you want to continue to say that you are the image and glory of God, despite having no Scripture to affirm this, that is up to you.”

Would you please quote where I said I was the glory of God?

You wrote: “Unfortunately the translators have added words in the rebuttal portion in an attempt to harmonize it with the quoted portion.”

That almost made me laugh because paraphrasing your words would be: ‘It’s unfortunate the Scriptures don’t say what I believe.’

BTW, hero of the Jews and Christian Jews was their Nazirite who prayed daily for their sins in the Holy Place of the Temple. James the brother of Jesus, pastor of the Jerusalem Church, and know as The Just had long hair. ‘Foxe’s Book of Martyrs’ states: “The razor never came upon his head.”

Anonymous said...

Nice to see Gilbert Bilezikian quoted. His book, "Beyond Sex Roles" is a key read. If after studying that book one is still stuck believing that the new covenant supports hierarchy and gender discrimination, then all I can say is they are holding on to a way of thinking that is unregenerate.

Thanks for posting this needed explanation on an oft misinterpreted passage of Scripture, used to subjugate women, contrary to the will of God.

Rex Ray said...

RRR,

I like your friendly style.

I’m having a hard time nailing down what you wrote.

Was “Why have you forsaken Me” a fake question? I knew the question many many years before I knew the Psalm. I’d venture to say very few thought of the Psalm as they watched Jesus die, and the Romans never heard of it.

If the question was fake and Jesus knew his Father would not be there to comfort him, then Jesus lied when he told his disciples God would be with him on the cross.

I don’t think God turned his head in disgust, but in grief as he fulfilled his love for us in punishing sin which his Son had taken. “I will slay the Sheppard.”

Out of respect for my father-in-law, I agreed to kill a dog that killed one of his chickens. The dog had been ‘dumped’ on his farm a few weeks earlier. The dog liked to hunt squirrels with me, and I’d grown fond of him. I couldn’t shoot while he looked at me. So I put the gun against his head and shut my eyes. I never saw what I’d done, but ran away crying like a little kid.

I believe the pain of God ‘shutting his eyes’ killed his Son long before the nails did.

Kristen Dugas said...

Rex Ray,

Yes, a gentle response is recommended. You should read back your posts to see if you gave one. (DUH....HUH, ALL THESE STUPID VERSES AGREE....That almost made me laugh...)

Furthermore, you are not understanding what I am saying. You quoted Genesis 1: 27 which states that male and female are created IN the image of God. Notice I capitalized the word "IN". Paul does not say in verse 7 anything about being created IN the image of God. He is speaking about the very image of God, Jesus Christ. If you state that verse 7 is referring to man then you are saying that you are the image of God because that is what verse 7 states. I did not see you give the glory to Jesus Christ and acknowledge that Paul was speaking of Christ. I did not see you acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the image of God as the Bible clearly states. Therefore, I can only assume that you still believe that Paul is saying that a man is the image and glory of God in verse 7. Who is the image of God, Christ or man? And notice my question was not "Who is CREATED IN the image of God?" Please give me one Bible verse which states that a man is the image of God (not CREATED IN the image of God). Also please give me one Bible verse which states that a man is the glory of God.

In addition, your paraphrase of my words is incorrect. I believe that translations of Scripture do not reflect the original words of the inspired writers on the woman passages, which is why they are nonsensical and contradictory to Scripture. If you look at the original Greek, you can see that the translators are adding words that are not in the original. These small additions are changing the meaning.

Victorious said...

Off topic...but I can't resist :)

James the brother of Jesus, pastor of the Jerusalem Church, and know as The Just had long hair. ‘Foxe’s Book of Martyrs’ states: “The razor never came upon his head.”

Scripture says that Absalom only cut his hair once a year and apparently only then because it became too heavy. When he did it weighed between 5-6 lbs. and even 12 lbs. according to one commentary. Amazing, huh?

RRR said...

Wow, Rex Ray, you are busy! I think you hit some nerve endings.

Back to my reference to Jesus saying "My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

I'm not aware of any Scripture passage that gives suggestions as to why Jesus made that comment while suffering on the Cross so I can't be sure of His motive. However, I bet all of those Jewish Sanhedrin bubbas knew ALL the Psalms and certainly Psalms 22 which is such a vivid portrayal of the crucifixion. Given the lack of other plausible explanations, it seems to me to make the most sense that Jesus was making a direct quote from that Psalms' prophecy to identify Himself as being the one described as fulfilling the prophecy. Certainly the Roman soldiers would not have a clue or make that connection but I bet all the Jews did and especially His followers.

One other thing that just came to mind to support that His words were not meant to say He was out of fellowship with the Father is that Jesus continued to occupy His divine status as He promised the thief that he would be with Christ in Paradise. Also, he prayed to the Father asking that his executors be forgiven. It all should be considered.

I wonder if you can help me by providing any Biblical references to the Father turning His face from the Son when He was on the Cross? There are references in the Old Testament saying that He would be so disfigured so as to be repulsive, but none of which I'm aware saying that He would be abandoned by God the Father. But maybe you're not saying that either.

I like your analogy of shooting the dog in respect to it being a simple picture of the possible description of feelings the Father may have had toward the Son who was dying on the Cross to fulfill God’s plan. I can see The Father as turning His eyes from the sight of His suffering Son in respect of it being so painful due to the Father's love for The Son but not from the Father being repulsed by The Son or abandoning Him due to His bearing the sins of the world as I’ve heard suggested.

Mr. Fields threatened to kill my dog Skipper if he got into the chickens one more time. He made me pay him $5 for one scroungy old chicken that Skipper killed. My Mom made me pay him. Skipper turned up missing some days later so I figured he had stole his last chicken at Mr. Fields reckoning. I was about 10 and went around yelling for Skipper for about 3 days! I never did like “Old Man Fields” before then but certainly not after he shot my dog even if he deserved to get shot!

Victorious said...

Is it possible that Jesus was simply expressing his feelings? We do that ourselves during our darkest hours. We cry out, "where are you God?" Or "why has this happened?"

We know he expressed natural feelings during His life; i.e. sorrow, anger, indignation, etc. Why not despair?

Just a thought.

Rex Ray said...

I usually try to reply to the first person that replies to me, but this time I’m breaking my rule. And even though they didn’t address my name, I think they were thinking of me. I must give them special attention as I’ve asked for their hand in marriage. :)

My picture reveals why tree branches will never yank me off a horse as in the story she didn’t finish.

I believe Jesus did not die in despair, as his last words, “IT IS FINISHED” were words of triumph that will be shouted until He returns.

RRR said...

I think Victorious and Rex Ray are right. At least I think they're as likely to be right as anybody else. It's another one of those things that we won't know until we can ask Him face to face but then it probably won't be of as much interest as it is now; kind of like finding out who really killed Kennedy and who Oswald was working for and where Jimmy Hoffa is buried!

RRR said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rex Ray said...

RRR,

Your dog story touched my heart. When we were 15, my twin, Hez, asked Mother if our dog, Snowball, would be in heaven. She replied if it took Snowball to be in heaven for him to be happy, then Snowball would be in Heaven.

We had him from the third grade till the ninth grade, but he disappeared. For a week, Hez kept calling for him in the woods. My uncle heard what he was doing and told our dad that he had found Snowball dying from two dogs jumping on him. Said he’d always gotten animals out of their misery but couldn’t do it and was dead when he returned.

Our uncle had buried him, but had a soft heart and didn’t want to tell us. Hez said he would never love his wife anymore than Snowball, but he lived to regret his wife learning that. :)

There’s something about mothers that fathers never get. RRR, maybe we’ll meet our dogs someday. :)

Rex Ray said...

Speaking of mothers, a few weeks ago, I found my 52 year old daughter crying. She had found a box for her and two more for her brothers that no one had ever seen before. Their mother had kept baby shoes, baby cloths, pictures etc. and every newspaper article that had stories of their sporting events. I joined her.

Rex Ray said...

Kristen,

Thanks for the fast reply that I haven’t done. I didn’t promise to give a gentle response. I said I was thinking.

I’m having a hard time following your train of thought. You said, “So Rex Ray, if you want to continue to say that you are the image and glory of God…”;
and I had asked you to quote where I said it.

But instead of quoting what you said I said, you now say: “Please give me one Bible verse which states that a man is the glory of God.”

I could say DUH but you don’t like that word. Maybe you’ll get my point if I reply to Wade saying;

“I believe Paul is "quoting" the views of the Judaizers in these two verses, not expressing his own views, in order to correct their false teaching. Judaizers in the Corinthian church sought to bring the synagogue traditions into the Christian assembly. These Judaizers were "zealous for the Law," or the teachings of the Talmud (Acts 21:21)

Wade proclaims Paul was talking to Christian Judaizers whose thinking was revealed by Christian Judaizers in Acts 21:20.

BUT HOLD THE PHONE—THIS IS IMPORTANT! If Paul was correcting Judaizers in I Corinthians 14:36, why didn’t he correct them in Acts 21:20 which happened long AFTER Corinthians 14. In fact, after Acts 21:20, it wasn’t long before Paul was in prison the rest of his life.

Wade said, “Now look at I Corinthians 14:36: "What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?"

I believe Paul was continuing to talk to the church people that objected to his views about women. I especially believe women complained. :)

RRR said...

I'm not sure if it is proper blog etiquette to send personal comments that are not relative to the blog post but I have to tell you "one more" dog story and then I’m finished.

I was driving down a dusty road alone to visit some Christian brothers in Zambia. There in the middle of the road ahead stood a "wiry-haired", middle-size, mutt dog not moving an inch as I approached him at a pretty good rate of speed. I was able to swerve my pick-up to the side to avoid hitting him and then stopped and backed up to see what was going on. He stood there kind of like a statue and when I backed up close enough to him I could see that someone had tied a wire around his head, ran it behind his rump and to his legs so that he could not bend his head down or sit down. He was a cute dog and I wanted to help him but was afraid that he would be really scared and aggressive given the abuse he had obviously received. I couldn’t afford being bitten and knew there was no rabies vaccine anywhere around me in Zambia but I decided to try to help him anyway. I got my wire cutters out and slowly approached him talking softly (in Bemba; figured he wasn't bi-lingual) and was able to clip the wire to free him. He stood there shaking hardly able to stand due to starving and not even being able to bend his head to get a drink for who knows how long. I left him standing there and went back to get in the truck figuring he could take care of himself now that he could bend his head to eat and drink. I already had 4 dogs and my wife might kill me if I brought home another. He could find some discarded garbage to eat and a mud puddle to get a drink some place. I got back into my driver's seat and was about to close the door and there stood the dog between the door and the seat looking up at me as though to say; "Take me with you, please."

RRR said...

Rex Ray,

I grew up the youngest of six boys so never had the opportunity to observe a mother-daughter relationship until I married my wife. She’s now 65 and her mother died about 20 years ago but I think that my wife still carries that relationship in her heart as though she’s still a little girl and her mother is teaching her to bake cookies in the kitchen. Some things are ageless.

Rex Ray said...

RRR,

Thanks for the story.
More than once, people told my dad that his best preaching was when he got off the subject. :)

Kristen Dugas said...

Rex Ray,

Did you say outright that you are the image and glory of God? No! But by the very fact that you are saying that Paul is speaking of men in verse 7 you are saying that you and men are the image and glory of God because that is what Paul is saying in verse 7. That is why I asked you directly, to clarify, who is the image and glory of God, Christ or man? Is Christ the image and glory of God spoken of in verse 7, or is man the image and glory of God spoken of in verse 7? I also asked you to give me one verse which states that man is the image (not created in God's image) of God and one verse which states that man is the glory of God. I asked you to give me Scripture which states this because if you are saying that Paul is referring to man in verse 7, then I want to see Scripture which states this. I have given you Scripture which states that Jesus Christ is the image and glory of God.

Furthermore, I know that verses 4-6 are quoted because the person or persons who coined those verses wanted women with long hair to be veiled, and if she did not veil her long hair then she also was to have her hair cut off. If those were Paul words then why would he say just a few verses later that the long hair has been given instead of a covering if he originally stated that women were to veil their long hair or cut it off if they did not veil? Clearly verses 34-35 and verses 4-6 are quotes of two factions of men who wrote Paul because they contradict Paul's words.

Anyway, I am not going to go back and forth with you any longer because it is futile to do so. I wish you well. And I thank you again Wade for such an excellent post!

Rex Ray said...

Kristen, Kristen,

I don’t blame you for not wanting to “go back and forth”. I believe you are stuck in a rut because either you don’t comprehend what I wrote, or you don’t read what I wrote.

You said, “By the very fact that you are saying that Paul is speaking of men in verse 7 you are saying that you and men are the image and glory of God because that is what Paul is saying in verse 7.”

We both agree verse 7 is stupid. We disagree on who said it, but because I said it was Paul, you accuse me of believing it. Did you read my comment on Friday Sept 20, 1:05 AM? I stated:

“I believe the ‘bandwagon’ of Wade’s post in a nutshell is: Anything Paul writes that sounds stupid is NOT from him, but is a quote from someone else. DUH

The NLT says 1 Corinthians 11 is “Instructions for Public Worship.”
(1) “You should imitate me, just as I imitate Christ.” [I think we should cut out the ‘middle’ man.]
(2) “I am so glad that you always keep me in your thoughts, and that you are following the teachings I passed on to you.” [Who is this guy if he was not Paul?]
(3) “But there is one thing I want you to know. The head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” [Does this mean women should submit to men?]
(4) “A man dishonors his head if he covers his head while praying or prophesying.” [Ut Oh; that does away with the Cowboy Church]
(5) “But a woman dishonors her head if she prays or prophesies without a covering on her head, for this is the same as shaving her head.” [I can’t take anymore of this.]
(6) “Yes, if she refuses to wear a head covering, she should cut off all her hair!...” [There’s a deacon barber in the powder room.]
(10) “…a woman should wear a covering on her head to show she is under authority.” [under man’s authority?]
(13) “Judge for yourselves. Is it right for a woman to pray to God in public without covering her head?” [I judge that Paul starting writing in verse 1 and was still writing.]
(16) “But if anyone wants to argue about this…” [Yep, Paul was still writing.]

It is the same in 1 Corinthians 14 where Paul wrote verses 34-35 and challenged those in the next verse (36) who disagreed just as he did in (16)—“Or do you think God’s word originate with you…”

Hillbilly Views said...

Rex Ray,

I have been for the last four days struggling on two of the things you put into your posts.

1. Paul is my biggest ‘hero’ of Bible writers despite his view of women.
2. “I believe the ‘bandwagon’ of Wade’s post in a nutshell is: Anything Paul writes that sounds stupid is NOT from him, but is a quote from someone else. DUH

I guess we must wait for Wade to respond to the second as I will not speak for him.
But I would like to point out that your use of,”DUH” is what my kids do when they don’t like what the others are saying.

As to the first, you being from the south have given to Paul the ol “Bless his heart”. For those not from the south that our way of putting someone down with out having to say it out loud.

I do not claim to be a biblical scholar; I am just a simple man. I do however know what I believe.

1. The bible is whole and complete.
2. There is nothing in the bible that God did not want there.
3. There was nothing left out.
4. That there are many things I don’t understand, and even when I don’t agree with my brothers in Christ on what they believe. It is a call for me to get closer to Gods word so he can revel to me in his time, his true meaning.

As to the topic at hand, in my reading the bible My God, wants every knee to bow, every voice to share the word about the glory of his kingdom. He wants both men and women to praise, do good, and give generously.

So Rex, bless your heart, I don’t think you understand Paul.

Rex Ray said...

Hillbilly,

I believe you’re anything but a hillbilly. I admire your sincere interest to know the Bible.

Your observation of “DUH” is correct, but “Bless his heart” is reserved for James, the brother of Jesus who (and the elders) told Paul as Wade referenced (Acts 21:20) that ALL Jewish believers were “ZEALOUS FOR THE LAW.”

The question arises: Were they complaining or bragging?

I believe they were trying to impress upon Paul what he was up against in his crusade that Jesus was everything and the Jewish laws were not needed for salvation.

In fact, the threat of death was in the air as they told Paul, “What should we do? They will certainly hear that you have come.” (Acts 21:22 NLT)

Notice that “we” was a clever way of showing Paul they wanted to protect him, but they already had a plan in having four men ready to take vows. If they could get Paul to go with them, Paul would be rubbing elbows with guys that tried to kill him once before. (Acts 9:23-25)

The leaders of the Jerusalem Church had a big problem: If their congregation stoned Paul, the Gentile churches would revolt because Paul was their hero. But if the High Priest did it, they could say Paul believed in the Jewish Laws because he was taking Jewish vows at the time of his death. They told Paul:

“Go with them to the Temple…then everyone will know that you approve of this custom for the Hebrew Christians and that you yourself obey the Jewish laws and ARE IN LINE WITH OUR THINKING in these matters.” (Acts 21:24 Living)

Hillbilly, I’d put a double “DUH” after their statement because Paul was never in line with their thinking.

According to Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, James was the most influential man in Israel. When Paul was brought before the court, one word from him and all charges against Paul would have been dropped.

Paul didn’t see their real plan (just as most people today) until he connected all the dots and wrote one of the last things in his life: “At my first answer [trial] no man stood for me…I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge.” (2 Timothy 4:16)

His prayer was what he heard Stephen pray when he was murdered…had the same crime been done?