Prayer For Ordaining A Deaconess (circa 400 AD)

 The Apostolic Confessions  (AD 350-400) , deaconesses were working with the female converts (teaching, leading, helping them) and the Bishop is instructed to ordain  a faithful and holy woman for the ministering to these female members.

The prayer at the laying on of hands for this ordination was included...

"O Eternal God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the creator of man and of woman, who didst replenish with Spirit Miriam, and Deborah, and Anna and Huldah.; who didst not distain that Thy only begotton Son should be born of a woman; who also in the tabernacle of the testimony, and in the temple, didst ordain women to be the keepers of the holy gates, - do thou now look down upon this thy servant , who is to be ordained to the office of  deaconess , and grant her thy holy spirit, and ‘cleanse her from all filthiness of flesh and spirit,’ that she may worthily discharge the work which is committed to her deaconess, and grant her thy holy spirit, and ‘cleanse her from all filthiness of flesh and spirit,’ that she may worthily discharge the work which is committed to her Thy Glory, and the praise of Thy Christ, with whom glory and adoration to be thee and the Holy Spirit for ever. Amen.” – Anti-Nicene Fathers (7) 1075, pg. 492, found in Women in the Earliest Churches. Ben Withingerton (1988) 200.

When we break this prayer down it becomes clear that women were doing many ministries and pastoral tasks.

First note the nod to the women who were singled out as Prophets of God: Miriam, Deborah, Anna and Huldah. A clear recognition of the longtime presence of women in religious and community life as recognized ministry leaders.

Note that nod to cultural limitations concerning women "who didst not distain that Thy only begotten Son should be born of a woman."  Culture and its patriarchy in Rome and nearby lands devalued women. Aristotelian philosophy - highly influential to Clement, Tertullian and Origin, - called them accidents of nature. Not here, in the Church of Jesus Christ. The Savior was born of a woman. His female followers become his co-heirs with her male brothers in the new life in Christ. A place where their gender, race, and status no longer matter.

Note her clear label as a deacon "do thou now look down upon this thy servant , who is to be ordained to the office of deaconess."  Why? Women had been previously used by God in just such ways: "who also in the tabernacle of the testimony, and in the temple, didst ordain women to be the keepers of the holy gates."

She is anointed to service.  "...grant her thy holy spirit, and ‘cleanse her from all filthiness of flesh and spirit,’ that she may worthily discharge the work which is committed to her."  

Her work in this ordination? "that she may worthily discharge the work which is committed to her [namely] Thy Glory, and the praise of Thy Christ, with whom glory and adoration to be thee and the Holy Spirit for ever."  The 'praise of Christ ' -given the role of deacon this probably refers to preaching and teaching.

In the early 500's, however, the now male dominated clergy and administration of the church forced women out of their New Testament deacon roles.  The influence of the Roman secular culture, always beating at the door of the emergent New Testament church, The Way, finally achieved the dominance it required to reshape the church into a Roman vision of appropriate behaviors. Influenced by the Greek philosophies that denigrated women, elevated men, and required strict social status and hierarchy, the Church of Jesus Christ going into the middle ages is very different from the church that saw "there is neither male or female..." in the Body of Christ. 

*See Councils of Nica (325) and compare to Councils of Orange (441), Epaon (517) and Orleans (533). Nicea noted many deaconesses but a century later the process of removing them was at work. Note also, the "Roman" form of Church is a topic of The Synod of Whitby. At that Christian administrative gathering (Northumbria/Yorkshire in 664), minor issues of tonsure and Celtic Church practices resulted in a vote to assume the Roman customs. This led to a removal of women Bishops and pastors in the Irish Church and the Romanization of many other customs and theology. 

HAVE PODCAST WILL LEAD YOU ASTRAY

One of the downfalls of the social media world in which we live is that the "crazy fringe" can be confused with people who actually know something. The idiot proclaiming some view or another with absolute certainty has had no filter, no criteria, and no challenges to those pronouncements. Their own understanding becomes their absolute call to authority.

People "outside" merely see one large landscape of "Christian" or "Evangelicals" etc.  Denominational doctrines, practices or heritage mean nothing.  Some groups further confuse the issue by blending and merging beliefs from several different rivers of theology to create a mishmash.  This modern syncretism flourishes in independent, non-denominational, and autonomous churches around the globe. 

Doug Wilson has become one well-known name as a supporter of Patriarchy and Christian Nationalist views with extreme political, social, and religious ideas.  His "disciples" have flourished. His ideas echo through social media with striking similarities as if a talking points document was shared by all. Some phrases repeat with odd regularity suggesting cliches more than key points.

Below is a list of some online personalities (Facebook, Reels, Podcasts) and rough identifications as to their theological "camps."  Most are pastors, but some are self-identified influencers, some counselors, some journalists, and some unclear.

Information was located via public online bios, descriptions, ads, and write ups in news sources.

As can be seen most of the voices being heard are not scholars, experts in reading the Greek and Hebrew, and similar fields. Most are pastors of non-denominational churches, or autonomous churches with a generally agreed upon set of doctrinal tenets.

The notes indicate when they were associated with radical or fringe groups, works they published along a specific range of studies, or similar notes.

Name	Locale	Affiliation	Notes (Assoc., Labels, etc.)
Brian Sauve	UT	Reformed Trad.	New Christendom Press (NPC)
Steve Anderson	AZ	N.I.F.B	Christian Nationalist
Doug Wilson	ID	Reformed Trad.	Christian Nationalist
Zachary Garris	NM	PCA Ref	Hyper-Masculinity
Larry Furtick	NC
Michael Spangler	NC	PCA	Elevation Worship
Andrew Iskar	TN	Reformed Trad.	New Christendom Press
Eric Conn	UT	Reformed Trad.	Hard Man Podcast
Andrew Torbar
Adam Maddison	WY/UT/ID	Baptist
Joel Durbin	AZ	Apologia Chr
Joel Webbon	TX	Baptist
David Eddington Dr.	AZ		Abused Men/ NCP
Matt Walsh	KY	Catholic	Theo Christian Fascist
Mark Driscoll	AZ	Reformed	Hyper-Masculinity
Dale Partridge	AZ	Reformed?	Hyper-Masculinity
John Eldridge	AZ	Reformed?	Anti-Feminist Writings
Joshua Hayes	GA	Influencer Online
Michael Foster	OH	Reformed?	Good to Be a Man of God
Josh Howerton	TX		Lakepoint, Dallas
Al Mohler	KY		SBTS, Pres.
Matt Chandler	TX	Baptist/Independent
Kevin DeYoung (Dr)	NC	Reformed Theo PCA
Noah Revoy
Jonathan Shelby		Steadfast Baptist Church
Jonny Ardavanis		Brentwood, TN	Studied under McArthur

They largely come from church groups self-labeling as part of the greater reformed tradition (Baptist, Conservative Presbyterians, non-denominational, etc.).  The major houses for publishing reformed works are Baker, Zondervan, and Eerdmans with a smattering of other companies.  The "New Christendom Press" was highlighted in Spring 2026 for an Arizona conference featuring a vendor of white supremist works.

The Hyper-Masculines are a group who regularly promote a more male-centric worship style, celebrate masculinity, and host frequent conferences to teach about Biblical Manhood and related topics. They usually have books and studies they are promoting as well.  They generally promote a highly patriarchal agenda as well. There are some exceptions, but they are not seen promoted among the people on this list based on surveys of websites, podcasts, reviews, etc.

Although they are "fringe" in the true sense of the word, their dominating presence on social media add them to the mix.  Just as one bad apple spoils the whole basket, a wide range of bad theologies promoted and shared indiscriminately, are a bad influence - and mostly lead to more bad theology and un-Biblical teachings.

For your next deep dive, explore the topics and see what you discover.

A RISING THREAT

A trend is in motion to bring back "patriarchy" and that is not good news. 

The term is often used to equate to benign things such as traditional values or previous generation culture norms. It is often seen as the only appropriate response to "feminism" which is seen solely as the tentacle of matriarchy. There is no "either/or" choice for the patriarchal people. There has to be someone in control - and it is either male and female, patriarchy or matriarchy. 

Oddly, for proponents of the Gospel of liberation and freedom the term egalitarian or even democracy is treated as a four-letter word. 

Patriarchy is a political-social construct. It was the driving force in the ancient world shaping the cultures of many lands. The Roman controlled culture of the New Testament will strongly influence how the emerging church processes behaviors. 

What causes this tension in the first place? One underlying problem is in how people view redemption and how they view the concept of the trinity. Richard Longenecker, noted scholar, has noted that this tension in views concerning creation and redemption is at the heart of the problem in church thinking. When creation order is stressed, subordination and submission are emphasized alongside later commands to silence. Where redemption is emphasized, the focus tends more toward freedom, mutuality and equality. 

"Paul also lays emphasis on redemption in such a way as to indicate that what God has done in Christ transcends what is true simply because of creation." (New Testament Social Ethics for Today (Eerdmans, 1974)92). This hints at a vision of the Church redeemed, "in Christ," as being "post patriarchal. 

The argument for greater participation of women in Christian faith is based either on the concept of humans created in God's image, given dominion, sinning and then being punished. That punishment will be interpreted as a) a woman will try to have power over a man (not really supported by the text) or b) her desire will be to her husband, but his ongoing response will be to rule over her instead of being in close relationship. 

Patriarchy births the decision to see an eternal hierarchy within the creation account, which in turn influences how people conceptualize the theology of the Trinity (eternal subordination of the Son to the Father theory) and how they interpret relational dynamics between men and women (woman eternally subordinate to the male rather than an equal creation in God's image and a co-heir with Christ). This beginning mind-set of eternal subordination versus a freedom via Christ to be true "co-heirs" with Christ illustrates the entire complementarian vs egalitarian tension.

Patriarchy is about power. It is the struggle with hubris and male mankind's greatest Achilles heel.  The emphasis among those preaching a Gospel of Patriarchy is about authority, dominance, control, leadership, and inflation of male worth over female worth as a natural order.

Christians are defined as "Christ like" and those characteristics promoted by Patriarchalism ignore the servant mentality of leadership (who would be greatest must be like a servant), as well as the expectations of demonstrations of daily love, mercy, grace, kindness, and sacrifice.  The focus is not on the Great Command to spread the Gospel but on maintaining a power structure and control. The focus is not on growing as disciples but safeguarding dominance in the marriage or home. The focus is not on loving and helping others but securing a position as the alpha male, dominant, and controlling head of a church or home.

Added to this level are pure ambassadors of social patriarchy. Not preachers, they are counselors, politicians, businessmen, and institutions that promote patriarchy as the best social structure.  They want to make voting a male only, head of the household activity, reduce women's access to education, and control "gatekeep" her interactions with other women or online.

They often define themselves as "high value" men who must be catered to by subservient wives or companions. Current events show that these two groups the Christian Patriarchs and the Social Patriarchs are joining forces.  Around them are also clustering white supremacists, antisemites, and other negative forces wooed by control an power.

Man and Ezer Kenegdo

I love good Regency novels.... when I ran across this quote in one of my favorite authors I took note. 

I loved its clear reference to woman made as "ezer kenegdo."  English writers translated this to mean a subordinate, less than the other, a mere helper. That fit with the preconceived social constructs of women as "less than" or secondary to the male in society and the legal systems.  

In the original language, however, that references one able to stand alongside, face to face even, and support, render aid, and contribute to the survival of all that was faced. Of note, this is a word most often used in other scripture references to refer to and describe GOD. 

Not subordinate, not secondary, not less than ... rather, a worthy companion on the journey able to provide support and assistance and so much more.  

#quotablewords

THE GREAT DIVORCE

 Methodism, like many organizations, has had many splits, fights, and mergers. 

It was a movement that was birthed to offset the lacks found in the contemporary British Church of John Wesley's day in the late 1700's.  He refused to form a new denomination and resisted until near his death when he organized the "Methodist Church."  The term had been an insult for the methodical, logical approach Wesley and his followers used as they lived lives of faith, of discipline, and of purpose. They turned it into a banner of pride...

In the 1800's the new Methodist Church used that methodical approach to plant churches in nearly every county in the growing nation. There were bumps and they usually were places where social values and Christian values came into conflict.

The conflict over the payment of dues to have a pew reserved.

The conflict over the participation of lay people in the decision making of the church.

The conflict over the "conference' rights of self-government and the move toward oversight by a national council of Bishops.  This reflected the struggle between state's rights and the rights of the Federal government in the issue of laws, slave ownership and the continuation of the colonial model of integration of churches (primarily in the North).

The conflict over the issue of slavery and the issue of abolition.

These all led to schisms and branches off the main Methodist tree to create the Methodist Protestant, The Methodist Episcopal, south and several other groups. 

In 1939, several groups merged to form one new Methodist Church. In 1969, Methodism and sister groups of the United Brethren Church and others formed The United Methodist Church. 

In less than thirty years, there were hairline cracks appearing over several issues. Many were theological in nature dealing with the role and authority of scripture in the light of what was known as "Higher Critical" theories of theology and Biblical interpretation. The "Modernist" theology of the 1920's that led to the Scopes Trial had found fertile breeding grounds in the higher institutions of learning and training feeding miniters into the Methodist church world. 

As the 1960's came, the focus shifted from spiritual foundations that provided impetus to social-justice actions, outreaches, and ministries to social-justice foundations replacing the spiritual foundations. There was token recognition of the historic and orthodox creeds and common beliefs of the historic Chirstian faith. Myth replaced belief in the truth of the Bible, metaphors and similes were the lens through which the Holy writ was read.  More and more the emphasis, guidance, and goals were drawn, not from the Bible, but from the denominations "social principles."

The 1960's were the last high point for attendance and church growth for the denomination. Once on that summit, the road forked dramatically, with one path leading toward a continued evolution to a liberal and progressive "post-modern" church and the other path continuing on in the rosy hued belief that the "Church" was moving on into a future filled with spiritual renewal, reinvigorated growth, and increasing meaningful rediscovery of the church Methodist. One was a polished slide that carried the church into the radicalism of socialist principles, deconstructionism, and the strong influences of current culture to define values, ethics, and purpose. 

As society changed, the balance of power, as it were, shifted.  Values long held as important were eroded and destroyed. Some of these were good changes: changes in the legal and social status of ethnic groups, of women, of working people, and a new appreciation of the value of taking care of our world. Others however, were holes in the dam holding back the untamed beasts of human nature and the new idol of the late 20th century was set upright. It was a stature of reflection; it was the great God of "Me" and its minions of greed, situational ethics, and all the darker angels of the human soul. 

If portrayed as fighters in a ring, in one corner would be a nearly powerless Methodist Church clinging to the "form of godliness but lacking the power" and in the other corner the Liberal/Modern/Progressive Organization that elevates social issues over spiritual development and replaces based Christ redemption with acts of social responsibility.  

It is crowded in the corner because behind them stand almost all of societies agencies, the schools, the media, the social influencers, and so many who are content to transform the world without bothering about God transforming the soul. There also stand those who "workers in darkness" and know that the lack of ethics, of love, or compassion and "costly grace" merely makes life easier for them and their pleasure driven, destructive and vampirish agendas.

It was all foretold in the Bible so marginalized, reinterpretated and mythologized   (" 1This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. 9But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was."2 Timothy 3).

Today the issue in the United Methodist Church is painted in slick propaganda speak as a conflict of the "HATERS" and the "LOVERS."  As those who want to stone and kill homosexuals and those who want to welcome them with open arms and no changes are required by God or anyone else. 

It is not that simple, however, because the issue of gender and orientation are the top layer of the deeper issue which is a minimization of the view of scripture as authoritative to modern life. The issue of rebel Bishops, pastors, churches and members who agreed to uphold the teachings of the Bible, the faith and the Methodist Church but who now have decided that the rules no longer apply. They lacked the ethical dignity to remove themselves from a system they could not support but instead played the role of dutiful servant by day and at night were like the "little foxes" that eat away the healthy grape vines and destroy the crop. The took vows they had no intention of keeping. They exercised their hubris by digging in their heels and staying to change (i.e. deconstruct) the historic faith structure instead of launching out, decades ago, to develop a denomination that suited their particular views and lifestyles. 

To some hearing such comments the screams of "hater" and of "bigot" would be hurled but, as if so often the case, the tolerance is short lived. Soon the harassed doubles down in revenge in return using the very tools they complained were used against them.

The cycle of abuse, and all the actions outlines in the scripture above, then come into full play.

Conflict In The Church

For over forty years the United Methodist Church has waged conflict over the primary topic of what role scripture will play in determining the values and praxis of Christian life expressed through the Church.  The subject matter had wavered but have all been drawn from areas of social justice -the battle fields have flexed but the common cause is the tension between those who view scripture and its teachings and expectations as vital and applicable regardless of era and those who view scripture as one dated tool in a chest devoted to improving the plight of humanity via social programs, political activism and philosophical/psychological theories that supplant ancient books.

The most recent topic for this conflict has become the issue of the acceptance of practicing homosexuals to become clergy and the marriage of same-sex couples. It should be noted that at no records have been located that verify homosexuals ever been cast out of the United Methodist Church in the United States. Evidence of those homosexuals who have left churches due to unkindness of members or less than welcoming acceptance in a congregation appear to be no greater than those people generally run off by unkind or unwelcome churches.

There is no provision in the UMC to kick out members, no requirements for membership other than those outlined in the church's Book of Discipline that speak of a willingness to Follow Christ. Church membership vows include only an affirmation that a member will support the local church with their presence, prayers, gifts and witness. There is no affirmation to uphold any particular theology or adhere to specific behaviors as a member. Over the past several decades this essential vagueness when it came to lay participation was lacking enough to cause some wit to affirm that a person could be a UM and believe anything!

The requirements for those who became clergy was - and remains - the most detailed as to requirements, training, and vows.  Among those vows is a clear willingness and dedication to uphold the Book of Discipline and the teachings of the UMC: They vow to uphold the "order, liturgy, doctrine, and discipline, defending it against all doctrines contrary to God's Holy Word, and committing yourself to be accountable with those serving with you, and to the bishop and those who are appointed to supervise your ministry?"

In the birth of Methodism, they were often forced out of congregations of the Church of England and by the birth of the United States they had formed into a Methodist Church due to the conflict over theology and praxis. Although founder John Wesley never left the Church of England, he aided those involved and committed to a life of spiritual commitment and renewal in forming the Methodist Church.

In the 1840's the Methodist Church split over those churches holding that slavery was wrong and those that upheld the concept and practice of slavery. Each offered their own takes on the theological argument about slavery and differed widely as to the praxis of slavery in the Christian life. They split to form the Methodist Episcopal Church and the Methodist Episcopal, South -  united in form of worship but separated by differing theological and praxis views related to a political, social and spiritual issue of slavery.

In the late 1890's and early 1900's the Pentecostal movement emerged, often springing out of Wesleyan Holiness and Methodist groups and churches, they were forced out of the Methodist Churches of that time because the theology and praxis of the those involved in that renewal movement did not agree. These individual left and many united with emerging groups to form now worldwide denominations and movements.

Now, the modern example of this has taken the tension of the 1920's clash over "modernism" with its higher critical views on scripture, its support of social gospel and social improvement over issues such as sin, repentance, or importance of scripture as a guide for modern Christian life and joined this with the social revolution of the 1960's that questioned all traditional models, challenged accepted cultural values, and emphasized a self-absorbed search for self-acutualization and ultimate contentment over values of self-restraint, sacrifice, commitment, and traditional values.

So, it is little wonder that today, in the cusp of the second decade of the 21st century that the UMC is once more facing a watershed moment over theology and praxis. In this time, the focus is not on finding common ground but refusal to yield anything, including compromise or acceptance of the decisions of the representative governing bodies as to what constitutes church law, church regulations, and church theology and praxis.

The decision was made by the 2019 Special Called Conference that the Church would abide by the statements in the BOD regarding the non-ordaination of practicing, self-avowed homosexuals into the clergy and the rules that forbid any clergy or church to perform same-sex marriages.

Here the non-supporters had the clear choice (as they always had) of disaffiliating themselves with a church they did not agree with, could no longer support, and no longer reflected in their theology and praxis.  Just as earlier groups had left and formed churches that better reflected a specific view.

Instead, there has been open rejection of those laws, rules, decisions, and the theology/praxis they include. Open resistance, rebellion, protest and acting out have come to mark every conference and general gathering. 

Labels have emerged and been applied or claimed: Progressives and Liberals who claimed for themselves the label of Mainstream Methodists representing the Centrist or Moderate camps and Conservatives who are labeled sometimes with the label Fundamentalist but who weakly accept the label Traditionalist  and often see themselves as more really more theologically Orthodox.

Progressives/Liberals make demands that while the church awaits yet another General Conference and an assumed conclusion to decades of debate, that no charges be leveled against resisting clergy, protesting  churches or revolutionary bishops. This, while at the same time, churches are openly aligning themselves as resistance churches, protesting conferences, disobedient clergy and compliant bishops. This uneven application of tolerance and judicial waiting goes unacknowledged.

An old saying from the nursery comes to mind: what is s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Also unanswered is the question of why people have chosen to dig in their heels and hostilely take over a denomination they had ceased to agree with , had opened disobeyed, and had no desire to see continue?  Is it merely an application of the social destruction embedded in the economic concept of Creative destruction (German: schöpferische Zerstörung), to social-religious settings?  The Post-Modern need to eradicate all that has gone before in search of creating a new, improved, vision of human life and experience?

Or, simply sinful humanity seeking to have its own way, distinct and apart from the message of the scriptures about the need of repentance and spiritual transformation that leads to scriptural holiness and godly behaviors?

In the end - most conflict in the church and in human settings- can be reduced to the lack of spiritual transformation, the failure to let Christ reshape us into the beings we should be in relationship with Christ, and the inability to follow where that path leads.

REFLECTIONS ON BIBLICAL WOMANHOOD: PART 4

The function of prophecy in the New Testament is similar to that used in the Old Testament. There is a recognized aspect of proclamation, of the spirit of God moving on a person to speak or act in the name of God...as a full member of the Body of Christ...gifted as the Spirit decides...how can a woman be told to be silent or for her responding to the Spirit of God, be called 'shameful'?

A.      Prophecy in the Body of Christ

Much of the letter of 1 Corinthians addresses the gifts of the spirit and among those is the prophetic gift.  The gifts of the spirit are divine special abilities that given to enrich, edify, instruct and guide the people of God as they follow the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The gifts go – as the Holy Spirit decides - to all believers. They are diverse with various functions and administrations, but they are all from the same God (1 Cor. 12: 4-14). The gifts Paul mentions are the “word of wisdom” (v.8); “faith” (v.9); “working of miracles” (v.10); “prophesy” (v.10); “discerning of spirits” (v. 10); “diverse tongues” (v.10); “the interpretation of tongues” (v.10).  Several of those gifts for the body of Christ, and by extension in worship/church, are verbal skills. It is not beyond the realm of expected use that a “word of wisdom” and “prophecy” may be both written and spoken, but diverse tongues and interpretation are definitely speech based. All together in the New Testament context the word of wisdom, prophecy, tongues, and interpretation of those tongues are based on the understanding that people in the assembly will be speaking. Nowhere is there any indication that the Gifts of the Spirit are specific to males and women are exempt. Indeed Paul’s discussion seems to clearly deny that.

The primary word used in most of the following scriptures is once more the term denoting inspired speech, to exercise the prophetic office, to prophesy, and to foretell events (propheteuo #4395).

1.       1 Cor. 12:7-31, especially v. 12 speaks of the “gift of prophecy.”

2.       1 Cor. 13:9 “we prophesy in part…”

3.       1 Cor. 14:1, notes Paul preferring the gift of prophecy over the others that might be sought and may link to 12:31 where he urged seeking after the best gifts.

4.       1 Cor. 14:3-5 continues his argument by citing the prophetic gift was superior because it edified the entire church. Prophecy, as inspired speech that edifies the body, is seem here as the preferred gift. The one who prophesies speaks to “edification, and exhortation, and comfort” (v.3).

5.       1 Cor. 14:19 “I had rather speak five words…that by my voice I might teach (or instruct) others…” He clearly elevates the role of the spoken word ministries, which by definition, include prophecy and teaching. The word used for teach/instruct means to “to inform, to teach, to instruct” (katecheo #2727). It may be inferred that if prophesy is a preferred gift due to it being clearly understood ( v.4) and, that both men and women share in the Spiritual Gifts as divided out by the Holy Spirit, that woman is expected to be verbally part of the worship service in the same manner men are participating by sharing their Gifts to the Body.

6.       After this detailed discussion of the diverse nature of spiritual gifts and value and superiority of the spoken gift of prophecy, comes an abrupt and hard to explain shift. After outlining the manner in which the prophets in the congregation (i.e., the Body of Christ) should function for orderly behavior and after using the same terms for ALL mentions of prophecy or prophetic function or actions, the writer drops a metaphorical hammer. In v. 34 the writer suddenly states: “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded [inserted word] to be under obedience, as saith the Law.” 

7.       The question here in 1 Corinthians 14:34, that consistently goes underexplored is to what ‘Law’ is the writer referring? Most notes in common reference works tend to include Genesis 3:16 “unto the woman he, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow though shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband (or be subject to him) and he shall rule over thee.”  Also, Colossians 3:18 [3:16-25] “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.” Yet, these two verses raise additional questions of lasting theological implications concerning the limits of punishment and redemption. The Genesis text is part of the punishment phase of the Garden Fall of Adam and Eve. Due to the fall from Grace, the man and the woman are each punished (the woman in just a single verse and the man in three verses!).  The Serpent, as Perpetrator and Deceiver, is cursed or at least this is the explanation for the reason serpents are feared and travel on their bellies.  The question then becomes how much of this curse-pronouncement is symbolic and which is actual?  The punishment of Adam involved the ground being cursed, it would be hard to dominate and difficult to work and hard to grow anything, all of which bringing him sorrow and sustenance all of his life. There is no mention of him working animals, learning a craft, sailing ships, building cities, conquering others, enslaving people, or leading a business – yet these are all work areas men have flourished in over time. Yet when woman is defined, she is perpetually kept within a narrow framework of being ‘ruled’ by her husband, being under his ‘subjection’. Her punishment was doubly keen in that she would have a longing or “desire” to be with the man who will, for good or bad, have the power, will rule, and will have dominion over her. Woman was caught securely in a difficult situation because she listened to the deceptions of the serpent she ate of the forbidden Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and then offered the same to Adam. It is interesting to note that when God was doing the cursing and punishments the first one addressed was the Serpent cursed above “all cattle and beasts of the field”, and he would crawl on his belly and eat dust (v.14). Of note, God would “put enmity between the serpent and the woman for all time (v.15) and a promise that her seed would “bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” (v.15), considered a prophetic reference to the future Messiah. Then the writer outlines the broad image of a different life for the man and the woman outside the Edenic conditions of the Garden. The punishments are the explanations for why women suffer in childbirth, parenting and why, although their men treat them poorly, they still stay with them. They are teaching moments to explain what happens when people willfully do what is wrong. They explain why men labor in making a living by toiling long hours with little reward and why life is a struggle and followed by death. In the New Testament framework of 1 Corinthians this appeal to a ‘Law’ must be explained as it appears inconsistent with other Pauline writings. Note in the version of the King James Bible that the word “commanded” has been inserted and is not found in other translations indicating a translational word choice not indicated by the text. Why would Paul write in Romans 10:4 that “Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to everyone that believeth” or in Galatians 5:18 “..if you be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the Law” or Romans 6:14 “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.” How to reconcile all of these to a  position based on “saith the Law” in 1 Corinthians 14:34, as well as in Ephesians 5:15-33 and others that make a dramatic statement about the issue of ‘submission’ by women. The only answer is that there is more to these sections than mere permissive statements for husbands to have power over their wives and for wives to be silent in church.