Paul James

Out of the 25,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, some have the reference at 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and others have it after verse 40, which makes better sense, because it is linked to decency and order in the church rather than a blanket prohibition on women speaking in church. When the reference is after verse 40, it then appears that when prophecies are given, married women should not be loudly questioning them, but keeping silence and then asking their husbands to explain the prophecies at home. Textual criticism, along with Redaction and Historical criticism are merely tools for better understanding of the Scriptures, along with exegesis and hermeneutics. The word "criticism" in this context is not the "put down" kind that holier than thou pelicans in the church do to those who don't come up to their unrealistic standards. It is more of examination and confirmation that the text that we are depending on is authentic and free from meddling by those with their own theological or cultural bias. It is like using the internet. The internet itself is amoral. It can be used for good, or evil. One person can use it to inform and bless others as led by the Holy Spirit, and another can use it to view porn. In the same way, a person can drive a motor vehicle to do the weekly shopping, or be a getaway driver in an armed robbery. I'm not afraid of textual criticism. The only ones who should be afraid of it are those whose sacred cow doctrinal positions might be threatened by the truth in the same way that a person with cancer symptoms afraid to go to the doctor in case the doctor tells him that he actually has cancer.

Because I am a graduate of a Bible college with a M.Div, I sometimes get pdf files of different theological theses emailed to me. The one about 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 was one of them. It is a very well researched M.A. thesis in the order of the Corinthian church. The author has gone very deeply into the issue and presented a convincing argument and conclusion that the prohibition of women ministering in churches is the result of Second Century meddling with the Greek manuscripts available to the Western Latin church. I am totally convinced that those churches that prohibit women speaking and ministering in church are totally wrong, and have taken a non-Biblical stance through verses re-inserted out of context and edited verses to make it appear that Paul taught it when he did nothing of the sort. I am a member of a Methodist/Presbyterian Union church and three of our visiting ministers are women, and they are well qualified and respected among the cluster of Union churches in our region. In my previous Presbyterian church we had a female minister for a number of years, and she did a great job and was a blessing to our church. The reason why she left us was that she went and did a doctorate in theology.

I don't go along with the anti-academic that some religious groups practice. It all depends on the motive and objective of those who do academic study of the Scriptures. It is quite true that liberal and Cessationist scholars are adapting the Scriptures to suit their particular theology. If their motive is biased, then they cannot present an honest exegesis and hermenetical analysis of Scripture. But a Christian academic who seeks to give an unbiased analysis of Scripture to support or refute a particular premise, then I include that within the umbrella of rightly dividing the Word of God. For example, Frank Morrison decided to write a negative analysis of the resurrection of Christ in order to present evidence to prove it never happened. Halfway through his research he realised that the evidence supporting the resurrection was irrefutable. His book, "Who Moved The Stone" finished up being the best work on the clear evidence that Jesus really did rise from the dead on the third day. He doesn't merely say that Jesus rose from the dead because "the Holy Sprit told me so". He went through the available evidence in a very exacting and comprehensive manner to show that Jesus not only rose from the dead, but that the Jewish and Roman authorities had no doubt about it either. But the Jewish and Roman authorities covered it up by bribing the tomb guards and spreading the story that the disciples had stolen the body, while the Apostles proclaimed and witnessed to the resurrection as a true historical fact. But the anti-academic attitude of the early Pentecostals opened the door for all sorts of heretical teaching and practice to invade the movement, the worst being the "oneness" doctrine which denies the trinity, which caused a major division in the Pentecostal movement. It is the lack of academic analysis that allows kundalini, prosperity doctrine and other false prophecy and teaching to go unchallenged. To my knowledge, Gordon Fee is the only Pentecostal academic who has used his training and skill to write very sound doctrinal commentaries on several books of the Bible.

The problem is that it is a historical fact that some of Greek Manuscripts were edited and redacted to suit the preference of the commentators in the Second Century. So, we have to approach the Scripture prayerfully, seeking the leading of the Holy Spirit in how it should be interpreted. This is important when we read a passage of Scripture and something about it doesn't seem to fit right. Seeing that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 doesn't seem to fit the context has made some Bible scholars look more deeply into the text, and compared different Greek manuscripts. What they found was that the two verses would have fitted better in a different place which made them clearer. A serious Bible scholar would have instantly been alerted to the contradiction between 1 Corinthians 11 where Paul supported prophecy from females, and 1 Corinthians 14 where he appears to prohibit females from speaking in church. The scholar would know that the Holy Spirit never contradicts Himself, so, one reference is from the Holy Spirit and the other doesn't, and so further investigation is required to sort out the contradiction. There are 25,000 Greek manuscripts. Some have been edited and others haven't. That's where scholarship comes in. This is why there are scholars trained in Koine Greek, so they can study the manuscripts and spot the redactions. The method is called Redaction Criticism, which seeks to establish what is the most authentic text of the New Testament Scriptures. Some ultra-fundamentalists dislike academic scholarship because they have the mistaken notion that it is used to water down God's Word. Although some liberal academics do this, the best Bible scholars are honest and professional in the way they approach the Scriptures and they do their best not to be influenced by any theological bias. I think that those who take a simplistic literal approach to the KJV, which many fundamentalist Evangelical and Pentecostals do, they put themselves in danger of being deceived by accepting the redactions in the Greek manuscripts that contributed to that version. As they have compared the different manuscripts, the Greek scholars have found that there are manuscripts where the wording makes better sense and shows a greater support for female ministry. It is interesting that the manuscripts that don't have punctuation in them are the later ones and those who support the Latin Scriptures that form the basis of RCC theology. This lack of punctuation, and the division of the Scriptures into chapter and verse, which also is a later addition, causing the breaking up of passages, thereby giving a different reading of the passage than what it is with correct punctuation and the chapter and verse division taken out. One glaring example of insertion is Romans 8:1: "There is therefore no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus." This is the reading shown in many manuscripts. But other manuscripts that support the KJV read: "There is therefore no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit." It is commonly thought that the words "who walk not after the flesh, etc". were inserted by an editor to suit works-based RCC theology. The former reading without the insertion is more consistent with Pauline theology.

Of course, false teachers and not limited to men.

You'll have to sit down and read through the thesis like I did.

As I said, read the M.A. thesis in the link below, and then come back to me with your response to it. http://www.personal-communication.org.nz/Bringing_Order_to_1_Cor_14_34_35 (1).pdf

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 refers to married women, but not to single women. 1 Corinthians 11 where Paul mentions women prophesying refers to women in general, both single and married. Paul was not a chauvinist. Therefore the chauvinist attitude of Tertullian, who was the first church father to teach silence of women in churches was continued in the established church from then on, and persists in many churches to this day. Paul fully supported the apostleship of Junian as an equal to all the other church apostles. It is interesting that the foundation Scriptures of the RCC have altered the female name to a male name for the apostle to make it appear that it was not a female apostle that Paul was referring to. So, although the established church was chauvinistic, the Holy Spirit is not. There is an opinion that the reference in 1 Timothy prohibiting women from teaching, could have been an insertion by a misogynistic Latin church editor to make it appear that the insertion was actually written by Paul.

Just a question: Seeing that there are 25,000 Greek New Testament manuscripts, some edited to exclude female pastoring, preaching and prophecy, and others remaining true to the originals (given the odd minor typo by a scribe), which ones are the true Word of God? And... If the particular collection of Greek manuscripts that were edited formed the basis of the Latin Vulgate and consequently the KJV, are the translations that result for them the word of God? Or... The translations that use the Greek manuscripts that weren't edited and used by the Eastern Greek Orthodox churches, that did not prohibit women from acting an active verbal role? Also... Out of all the different English translations, which one can be relied on to be the absolutely true and literal Word of God? Another thought from church history: Up until the end of the First Century, the church was a Spirit-led church. Into the Second Century, as the so called "canon" of Scripture was compiled, the church became literature-dependent. At the same time, there was a marked decline in the manifestation of the spiritual gifts in most of the Latin churches which replaced the common members sharing revelation from the Holy Spirit, to "authorised" men reading and expounding the written Scriptures. Therefore the authority of what was shared and taught in the churches passed from common members led of the Spirit, to an "ordained clergy" to took over the authority of "correct doctrine" which was to be taught in the Latin churches from then on. These Latin churches evolved into the Roman Catholic church and remained so for the next 1000 years until the Reformation. It is interesting to note that the Eastern Greek Orthodox churches, that did not use the "doctored" manuscripts, had female ministry and the spiritual gifts manifesting right through to the 12th Century.

Read the M.A. thesis that I have linked in the thread, and then come back to me.

Given Paul's attitude to the Law, it is highly improbable that he would say in Romans that we are not subject to the Mosaic Code, and then in 1 Corinthians 14 he saying that we should be subject to the Law in terms of women's involvement in the churches. It is true that married women be in submission to their husbands, but there is no requirement for single women to be in submission to any man, except to the leaders of their church. But submission never included being locked out of verbal ministry. Paul in his instructions to Timothy says that women should not usurp authority of men in the church, but that does not prohibit a woman having verbal ministry under the leadership of the elders. It is obvious that Priscilla would have been submissive to Aquila, but it is clear that she had a teaching ministry of her own in conjunction with her husband. And Junia was acknowledged as an apostle by Paul, which is totally contradictory to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. So we are led to see that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is not all that it appears to be and requires closer exegesis and study to find out if Paul actually wrote it, or, if he did, why and in what context did he write it.

When we look at church history and see the number of women who had very effective ministries, such as Maria Woodworth-Etter, who won thousands to Christ and had many verified miraculous healings; Aimee Semple MacPherson who had a very powerful gospel ministry; Kathryn Khulman, whose ministry involved spontaneous healing of every disease and disability one can think of; we have to ask how come God honoured those ministries, contradicting what seemed like Paul teaching that women should not have a verbal ministry in churches. It seemed that every time a woman gets up and preaches, and people get saved and healed through her ministry, the Holy Spirit is going against Paul's instruction. We know that the miracle working power of the Holy Spirit cannot be denied, so we have to ask questions about the validity of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. Did Paul really give the instruction in the way it seemed, or was it either inserted by an misogynist editor, or was quoted out of context? We are encouraged to question everything when something seems contradictory. John says, "Don't believe every spirit, but test the spirits to determine whether they are of God or not." Paul teaches elsewhere, "Prove all things and hold fast to that which is good". We know that in modern times, some editing in Bible translations have made it appear that Jesus wasn't born of a virgin, by the replacement of the word "virgin" with "young woman". Then there are new versions of the Bible that depict God as a woman. The New World version of the Bible has been edited to fit JW doctrine. I wouldn't be surprised if a new Cessationist version of the Bible came out that made it appear in Scripture that the supernatural gifts were always meant to be limited to the Apostolic Age. But all these editions would just be following the same attitude that the Second Century editors of manuscripts had that had them edit the wording of the New Testament to make it appear that it was totally man-dominated.

The reality is that the Greek manuscripts that formed the basis of the Latin Scriptures WERE tampered with and reworded in some places in order to match the Christian church with Roman social norms of the Second Century. There were two reasons for this: (1) to make the Christian church more acceptable in Roman society; and (2) to counter Montanism, which was dominated by women prophets. Tertullian was totally opposed to Montanism and so he was strict in his teaching that women should not be allowed to have a verbal role in Christian churches. Therefore he represented the Latin Scriptures as the undisputed word of God and taught that it was God's will that women be silent in church. but because the Latin Scriptures were altered by editors and commentators, then it can be argued that the doctrine was man's and not God's. There has to be a question arising when we read in 1 Corinthians 11 where Paul encouraged women to prophesy, and yet in 1 Corinthians 14 he says that women should be silent. I can't imagine that the Holy Spirit should contradict Himself. When we look more closely into the 1 Corinthians 14 reference we see that the Holy Spirit was dealing with a specific problem concerning order in the church, that married women should be silent for a particular reason to prevent the problem reoccurring, rather than a blanket ban on women prophesying and preaching in church.

It is interesting that it appears in the quoted reference that Paul is quoting the Law as his authority for teaching the silence of women in the church. This is strange, because Paul's attitude to the Law, especially in Romans, contradicts the 1 Corinthians quote. Because there was editing of the Greek manuscripts used by the Latin churches in the Second Century, it was quite probable that the reference to the Law was inserted to strengthen women's silence in churches and make it appear that Paul made the reference to the Law. The M.A. thesis that I linked in the thread, shows all the redactions in the New Testament, even the changing of names from feminine to masculine, especially giving a male name to a female apostle. These redactions were done to make it appear that it was God's will for women not to have any verbal ministry in the churches, and so the Western Latin church adopted the redacted Latin manuscripts, supported by Tertullian and those who came after him. In my view, the translations that arise out of the Eastern Greek manuscripts would be more reliable, because those manuscripts would not have been edited and therefore would have been more true to the original authors. This is a strong case to approach the Scriptures prayerfully, and be open to the Holy Spirit to give us a true exegesis, rather than just take versions like the KJV, which is based on the Latin manuscripts and therefore down on women ministry, literally without allowing the Holy Spirit to pick the meat from the bones. It is interesting to me that those who are adamant that the KJV is the only "breathed on" version, are the ones who are the most opposed to woman ministry and very inflexible on other theological issues, and seem to be very quick on dictating "God's will in the Scriptures" to others.

I have provided a link to an excellent M.A. thesis on the topic, and it is worth a read. The author goes into the topic very thoroughly and clarifies some significant points of debate. One good point that he makes is that Paul's instruction was specifically targeted towards the particular problem in the Corinthians church, and not for all women in every church. He says that the instruction was there to bring order in the church, and it was directed at married women who were loudly questioning and challenging prophecies that were given in the church. So, in that context, instead of disrupting services by loud questions and objections to what was being preached and prophesied, the married women should keep silent and ask their husbands at home. Unmarried women did not disrupt the services in the same way, so Paul had different instructions for them as we see in 1 Corinthians 11, where he approved of them prophesying in the services. In fact, the manuscripts contributing to the Latin translations were edited in the Second Century AD to comply with Roman social standards which put women in second place. So, the teaching about women being silent in churches is a Roman Catholic doctrine resulting from the manuscripts being altered by Western Latin church commentators to make it appear that it was God's will for women not to share the preaching and prophesying ministry of the church. It is also interesting to note that during the Second Century, the church went from being Spirit-led to literature-led, and the interpretation of the literature, ie: the written Scriptures was put into the hands of "authorised" leaders, and out of the hands of the common members. These leaders were educated in Latin, while most of the members weren't, so the control of worship and ministry was under the control of those "authorised" ones who evolved into Roman Catholic priests What I find interesting about this is that it appears that those who base their doctrine on the written Scriptures and are adamant about the literal wording of it, may very well be literature based believers instead of Spirit-led. I know that this will generate some debate, and it will be interesting to see the responses.

It is interesting that none of the church fathers before the Second Century AD taught that women should be silent in churches. The first church father to teach it was Tertullian late in the Second Century. The teaching existed only in the Western Latin churches where the leadership was coming from Rome. The Eastern churches did not prohibit women having verbal ministry. This is because the Greek manuscripts copied by the Eastern churches were not tampered with in the same way that the Latin editors and commentators tampered with those used by the Latin churches. It is also interesting to note that the Latin Vulgate, of which the KJV is largely based on, contains the redacted text and therefore should not be relied upon to determine the true Scriptural basis for women having to be silent in churches or for the church to prohibit women being elders and pastors. Translations of the Bible based on Eastern manuscripts without the redactions would be more reliable.

I removed this post because I put the correct link to the M.A. thesis in my previous post.

Here is the link to the M.A. thesis entitled "Order in the Corinthian Church" dealing with 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. It is quite a read, but the author makes some very important historical points that are worth considering. http://www.personal-communication.org.nz/Bringing_Order_to_1_Cor_14_34_35 (1).pdf

It was a bit of an eye opener to discover how anti-woman ministry-wise the KJV is. It is because the manuscripts contributing to it were meddled with in the Second Century to make it appear that Paul taught that women should be silent and have no part in the teaching, preaching, prophetic ministry of the church, when such was not the case.

This was not a Pauline doctrine. Paul fully supported women preaching, prophesying and having other verbal roles. He even mentions a female apostle. The reference about women keeping silence in church was specifically directed to the Corinthian church where married women were loudly commenting on prophecies that were given in the services. His instruction was intended for the proceedings to be done decently and in order and not to generally silence all women in the churches. In the Second Century, because of Montanism, dominated by women prophets, Tertullian, to counter what he viewed was a heretical movement, started teaching that women not have a verbal role in the churches. At the same time there was a spate of textual manipulation to bring the Christian churches into line with Roman social norms, and because women had a subservient place in Roman society, this was brought into the Christian church to make it more acceptable in Roman society. This is why 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 was taken out of its original context and re-inserted in the 14th chapter to make it appear that Paul was teaching silence for all women in churches. This manipulation was not mere error by individual scribes. It was done by commentators and editors to manipulate the original manuscripts to make it appear that Paul was teaching principles that he never taught in the first place. This was not the only redaction of the text. There are many other redactions to make it appear that the Christian church was dominated by men right from the start, even changing the names and genders of people to reflect the chauvinistic and patristic attitude of the Second Century church bishops. In actual fact, women keeping silence in church is a doctrine approved by the Bishop of Rome, and therefore became a foundation doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. Most Reformed, Calvinistic oriented churches prohibit women ministry and pastors, saying that it is non-Scripture and against the Holy Spirit. In reality, it is a doctrine that comes out of the RCC, caused by deceptive manipulation of some of the Greek manuscripts which form the basis of the Latin Scriptures favoured by the RCC.

The idea of a "sin nature" is a misnomer. Before conversion to Christ our nature was totally sinful and followed the works of the flesh as listed in Galatians 5. When conversion took place we received a new heart and spirit and had the righteousness of Christ bestowed as a free gift from God. Along with that we have the indwelling Holy Spirit. Therefore we started to live in the Spirit as described in Galatians 5. But we still have our physical bodies still blighted by sin and condemned to die. Paul called it "the flesh". He says that those who walk in the flesh, that is, according to the demands of our physical bodies, we cannot please God. He says that seeing that we live in the Spirit, we should walk in the Spirit. Paul says that there is nothing good in him, that is in his flesh. This is what people mistakenly call the sin nature. But there is no two natures fighting for supremacy in us. Paul never taught that. He says that the conflict is between the Spirit and our flesh.

Of course Calvin and Luther were men of their times, and they weren't Cessatonists by doctrine. They recognised that the gifts did cease and suspected that it was the apostacy of the church that made it happen. Calvin states in his commentary on 1 Corinthians that tongues and prophecy declined probably because of misuse by individuals doing them in the flesh because of the lowering of the standards of holiness in the churches. Actually, I am reading through Calvin's commentary on the gospel of John and there are a lot of things he says that really speak to me, increasing my faith in Christ. I have also read Luther's commentary on Galatians, and find it second to none in showing where we stand with Christ without the condemnation of the Law. We all have the treasure in earthen vessels, and no man of God is perfect, and so the miracle of God's grace and the voice of the Holy Spirit is that He can speak through imperfect men and greatly increase our faith as they do their best to point us to Christ. it is not Calvin or Luther themselves who have the problem, it was those who came after them who put their own interpretation on what these men taught and corrupted the doctrine through self ambition and grandisement. I believe that both Calvin and Luther were continuists at heart, and would have loved to see the Holy Spirit's supernatural gifts manifested under their ministries, and I firmly believe that they would have sought Him earnestly that the power of the Holy Spirit would work through their work for the Lord. I believe that it wasn't the time for it to happen, and the Holy Spirit's time started with John Wesley's 250 verified healing during his ministry, Guy Bevington's Methodist Evangelistic healing ministry in the early 20th Century, and the Pentecostal revival that introduced tongues through Parnam's ministry at Topeka and carried on through Seymour's ministry at Azuza Street. If we study each revival from the Reformation onwards, we see that in each one, a crucial doctrine was restored to the church that was hidden by the fraudulent apostate church. First there was justification by faith, In the Puritan revival, true conversion to Christ and piety were the principal doctrines. The Methodist revival introduced divine healing, the Scottish Covenanters introduced the gift of prophecy, the Pentecostal revival introduced tongues and the other gifts of the Spirit, the Charismatic revival introduced continuance into the traditional churches and the Awakenings through Charles Finney and George Whitefield in America introduced the principle of making a personal decision for Christ leading to salvation. So we see in the centuries since the Reformation, important doctrines to restore the church back to what it was in the First Century were progressively being restored to the church. As we can see, there is a way to go and we look forward to the Holy Spirit working more and more to perfect the body of Christ and make it ready for the second coming of Christ.

The nature and form of the fossils are evidence of Noah's world-wide Flood.

Quite right! "Pursue love and desire spiritual gifts, rather that you may prophesy" is one of those words that the Holy Spirit has spoken to us. Also, "Despise not prophecies, and forbid not speaking in tongues." The Holy Spirit, through 1 Corinthians is conveying Jesus' words. He does not speak of Himself, but speaks only what Christ tells Him. In turn, Christ speaks only what the Father has told Him to speak. Therefore 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 come right from the heart of the Father, whose will it was for Christ to send the Holy Spirit and His gifts to the church for its use to bring the gospel to sinners and to strengthen the body of Christ. So, yes, we are all going to be judged according to what the Father has conveyed to Christ, who conveyed the Word to the church by the Holy Spirit in the letters of Paul.

What you have described is not actually walking in the Spirit. You have described conversion to Christ, which is the entrance point. If this is where you are at right now, then you have only just got through the gate, and the rest of your pilgrimage is still in front of you. Here is what the Scripture says: "Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God" (Hebrews 6:1). While you are still loitering at the entrance gate, you are still just a babe in Christ still requiring milk instead of the real meat of the Word. Hebrews goes on to say: "For everyone who lives on milk is still an infant, inexperienced in the message of righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil" (Hebrews 5:13-14). There is the process of turning an infant convert into a disciple. It takes training, subject to trusted mentors in the body of Christ, study of God's Word, development in prayer and fellowship with the Father and His Son Jesus Christ, building up your most holy faith, praying in the Spirit, making your calling and election sure. These will be the evidence that the seed of the Word that is planted in you has fallen on good ground and not on shallow soil which causes a person to spring up all religious for a while and then when persecution and problems arise, whither away and backslide back into the world.