First Corinthians 14:34-39

Pray for me today. I've got a virus, and if I start coughing, those of you who were on Zoom on Wednesday night realize that it was a challenge to get through it. But I thank the Lord for throat lozenges and tea. We're working our way through 1 Corinthians 33b through the end of the chapter. And Roger smiled when he gave me these verses, because he didn't want to cover them. Look at one thing to start with. For God has not given us confusion, but a peace. That's 33a. And there's a period after the word peace in the Greek grammar. And then 33b and 34 go together. And all the churches of the saints, the women are to keep silent in the churches. They're not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves just as the law says.

So as we go through this, it's really interesting because one might think, well, Paul is being kind of aggressive here, but he really isn't. When you look at it in context, he acknowledges that women are gifted and they could share the word. There were women who were prophets. Every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying this praise of the Lord. Well, he talks about that, but he's talking about the fact that they are praying, they are prophesying publicly.

And as we talked about what prophecy is, it's not necessarily the future, it's the revelation to a person from the Lord about what he wants to be told today. It may be future, it may not. Prophets at this time, were primarily revealing what turned out to be the Word of God in our society.

If you go down from 11, I was reading out at 11.5, 11.8 says, for man does not originate from women, from a woman, but a woman from a man. If indeed a man is not created for the woman's sake, but the woman for the man. And that's the, I'm quoting those verses so that you can see from the Old Testament and where it says in this, the last part of this verse, subject themselves just as the law also says. Therefore, a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head because of angels. However, in the Lord, neither as woman independent of man or man independent of woman.

So for the woman, for as a woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman. All things, again, same word, originate from God. I think there are times we think we can improve upon God's word or what God has commanded. But we may be sure of this, that His ways are always the best. It's not only true in the church of God, but in the details of everyday life.

Women have a wide sphere of service and testimony outside the main service of the assembly. The home is predominantly the woman's atmosphere. Social gatherings too, she's abundant opportunity to witness for Christ. Nobody is more particularly adapted to work with children than a woman, a godly, well-instructed woman.

At visitation in the sick room elsewhere, her services are invaluable. they got all excited about the gift of tongues. And so they thought that the gift of tongues was superior to everything else because it was highly emotional and they mistook it for spiritual.

And primarily what Paul is doing here is trying to put some order into the public meeting. So one of the things he says in order to put order in there is that these people can talk, these people should not talk, these people should listen, there shouldn't be debates or arguments, and oh, by the way, leave your cores at home, you know, that kind of thing. So, if the Holy Spirit is truly the head of the church, then he's conducting the meeting. The atmosphere of the meeting is holy, where man is nothing, where God is everything. where God makes his present and power known spiritually. I think that it's really cool that what the Holy Spirit has in mind for what we do on a Sunday morning is something where he and the presence of God is here. And he makes his power known and his presence known. And he does it by all of us realize now, wait a minute, we're to listen and learn. We're nothing, we're just learn. And God is everything.

And I've noticed that, I've thought about that for the last week or so. I've noticed that with like Sunday school. Sunday school is kind of like what these meetings might've been like. There is a teacher or a moderator, but it goes around, at least our class does, it goes around and people say things. and they have scriptures that they remember and it comes together. And sometimes you don't really know if you're the one who is in charge of the meeting that where's it gonna go? But I've noticed in my years of teaching that I think we're gonna start here. And then the spirit somehow takes it and it goes way out over here, which I didn't plan. but then he brings it back.

And he does it in such a way so that everybody that's listening is edified. That's what we're here to be, to happen to us. We're to be edified by God's word. So for him to say that in all the churches, the saints, the women are to keep silent or not permitted to speak, it has nothing to do with belittling women. It has everything to do with order.

So the best explanation of apparent contradiction comes out of the context. Paul had just permitted others in the congregation to evaluate, like I said, in 1429, let two or three speak and let others pass judgment. Now, he qualified this by saying that women shouldn't do this. Ironside made an interesting comment here.

He said, the churches, he doesn't mean a building. He's not telling us that no women could give a testimony or offer prayer in a religious building. The word for church is properly just assembly. And what he is saying is that when you are gathered together in your regular church service, let the women keep silent in the assembly for they are commanded to be under obedience or to listen under, so also says the law. It's interesting that he says that here are references to the official meeting of the church when all are gathered together as a worshiping company.

That's what we're doing this morning. Neither men nor women are to interpret in the public assembly, but let them discuss things at home if there is something they don't understand. Don't you see that going on here? I notice after church that, yeah, we visit, but there's always discussion about, people will ask me, well, what did you mean by I said so-and-so? Or I get an email later that asks me a question about what did I mean about this verse or that verse? And there's always a discussion going on, and I think that's what Paul is referring to here.

If we desire to learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home for it's improper for a woman to speak in the church. So it just makes sense to me that you don't raise your hand and become the center of attention. even now, but I wouldn't, if someone like, I remember when I first came to this church decades ago now, Miles Stanford used to sit like right where you're sitting, and Ron Merriman would be going on about something, and Miles would say something to him out loud.

And I thought, boy, that's weird. But he wouldn't, he would, they were kind of a corrective sentence, or it was something that had to do with, or he would compliment him on, he'd say amen, brother, and he'd say it out loud. And I thought, well, that's really neat that he's doing that. It means he's paying attention, for one. So. Anyway, so rather than calling out the question in the middle, talk about it privately.

Presumably unmarried women would have fathers or elders or somebody else in the service to talk to. The most common view is that Paul prohibited some from the inappropriate speech, but not all speech. What's interesting too about 2021, It's often the men who don't understand, and the woman does understand.

That's because you guys are all working all the time. Your wife has time to read her word. It should be noted that in those days, only a few women comparatively could read or write, were educated for sure. We should take into consideration the time when the letter was written, when slavery and debasement of women were pretty common.

So the directive's important because it might be supposed that those who love to reason that they're in the church, if anywhere, they might be allowed to speak. In other words, people who love to debate, they think the bigger the audience, the more effective the debate's gonna be. The church service is not a place for debate. The basic issue is, Ironside made a point where he said that he, If at such a time a woman hears something they don't understand, don't interpret the meeting by inquiring aloud nor by seeking to teach.

Let them ask their husbands at home. A lady said to him, well, sir, that's not meant for me. I have no husband. The word for husband, as elsewhere rendered, means man also. So ask somebody in the congregation, a man or anybody, Because there were female prophets, you could ask them. Unmarried women could ask anybody that they wanted to, that they thought could answer the question for them. Men could raise questions, but women couldn't. Now, I ran into something that was, again, interesting to me only because we put such value today in theologians and scholarly men.

Well, I've got a list of seven or eight people here that are, some you've heard of, some you haven't, and almost every one of them has a different opinion about this verse. Richard Lenski assumed that all of what Paul said in these verses applies only to men and that he added verse 33 through 36 as an appendix to deal with women's participation. However, that doesn't harmonize with the context. William Barclay believed that at this point Paul was not able to rise above the spirit of his age. and that said women could not participate in intellectual activities on a par with men. This view fails to appreciate the implication of Paul's inspiration by the spirit.

G. Campbell Morgan seems to have regarded Paul's prohibition as necessary in view of the conditions unique in Corinth. Casey Barrett believed Paul did not write verse 33 and 34. Well, that's an easy out, isn't it? He presumed some other person added them to the text. Gordon Fee also argued that these verses were inauthentic. Harry Ironside said, believed that the occasion in which women could speak very different from the official meetings of the church in which they were to be silent. David Lowery wrote that Paul wanted that married women whose husbands were present in the meeting be silent, but other women could speak if properly covered. So if you got a head covering on, you can say whatever you want.

S. Lewis Johnson says, seems to have felt that women could never speak in the church meeting except when they prayed or prophesied.

H. Wayne Howe concluded that women could not speak if others considered what they said as authoritative. Blimpie said, Paul told women to keep silent because they were violating the principles of order in the church, not because they were women. So look at the difference of opinions about this. There's a lot of it. The most common view is that Paul prohibited some from inappropriate speech, but not all speech. And the second most popular interpretation is that Paul forbids some to be form of inspired speech other than prophecy, perhaps contradicting the prophets or speaking in tongues.

So Constable said Paul's long response to the Corinthians' enthusiasm at this point over tongues is now over. So the basic issue is over what is spiritual, and on this Paul and they are really divided. The Corinthians think that it has to do with speaking in tongues, that's what made you spiritual. If you speak in a language that you haven't learned, but it is a known language, that made you really spiritual. And they even called it the language of angels. There's sure evidence that they're equally living in the pneumatic spiritual exercise of the future.

So we've all run into people who Well, let me say it another way. One of the things that sells in Christianity and Christendom today is when someone shows up and asks the question, how would you like to be more spiritual than you are today? And you say, oh yeah, I would. Well, we have a method. And so they propagate the method, and it comes in as a heresy for a while, and out it goes.

It's like contemplative prayer. Spiritual formation, that was the selling point. How would you like to be more spiritual than you are today? Well, you take the elements of transcendental meditation, pour a little holy water on them, and go by yourself, and invite a spirit to come and inhabit you, then you would be more spiritual. Well, who can turn a deal like that down?

So the Corinthians thought that speaking in tongues was at the peak, at the peak of spirituality. They had tremendous zeal for this gift. And apparently in their letter that they wrote to Paul, they have not only defended the practice, but by some, the same criteria, they have questioned Paul's lack of spirituality. Okay, how did Paul respond to them? He said, first they were to broaden their perspective, to recognize that being spiritual people by its very nature means a great variety of gifts and ministries in the church for the benefit of the body.

The second response of Paul, the whole point of gathering people together is the edification of God's people. Speaking in tongues is self-edification. Everything that Paul taught was edification of everybody, which is the true expression of love for the saints. Whatever they do in the assembly must be intelligent, intelligible, and orderly, so that the whole community may be edified, and as a result, it may reflect the character of God. which is how it is to be in the churches of all the saints. So Paul concludes his answer to the Corinthian questioning concerning spiritual gifts and his teaching on tongues, which is, he concludes his teaching on tongues one with a strong call to cooperation.

He zeroed in on individualism. He confronted them on the issue of who indeed was spiritual. As a prophet of old, he warned everyone who disagreed with his instructions. And then he summarized his conclusions in verse 39 and 40. So he says to them, was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?

In other words, He's reminding them that they didn't set the standard for how the church meetings should proceed. Their arrogance drew this kind of warning. They were not the mother church, nor was it to be the only church in which the gospels had come.

Therefore, the Corinthian readers should submit to the apostles' direction. And that really is the problem here. Apostles had tremendous power. And they had tremendous authority within the body of Christ. And Corinth was the first place where Paul's authority as an apostle was challenged. And it's all challenged based on what?

The gift of tongues. The place of a church is to be subject to God's word. We're subject to God's word. remembering that God's word comes to us, not from us. The assembly as such is taught. We're taught. The word comes to us. The entire subject is wound up by the demand whether the word of God set out to them or reached just them.

Are they the only ones? The Corinthians were the first to depart from the apostolic order. established everywhere else. They were the first ones to become a church, to become a real theological problem. It was, I would say, the beginning of apostolic revolt.

The church is to be the subject. The word of God commands and commands all churches and all assemblies alike. We're to listen under what God's word has to say. So then he says, if anyone thinks he's a prophet or spiritual, here's the criteria. Let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment. The spirituality of any man will be seen by the acknowledgement that the things Paul has written are the commandments of the Lord. Paul's direction, are close with a definite claim that they were the commandments of the Lord. And as such, have all the authority of the word of God that comes not only to the church at Corinth, but all the churches of God's people. We, you and I, we're subject to God's word. To neglect the direction of the apostles is to refuse the universal application of the word of God to the churches.

Anyone could easily, and we can do that today, you can validate, like the Corinthians claim, to being a prophet or being spiritual, or is the church really a good place to go? By how? How could they do so? If he or she acknowledges that what Paul has written was authoritative because he was an apostle, do we place ourself under God's word? Submission to apostolic authority was the test. not speaking in tongues. Submissiveness to the apostles and their teaching was an expression of submission to the Lord himself.

And it still is. That hasn't changed in all these years. Verse 38, if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. The Corinthians should not recognize as a prophet or as a person under control of the Holy Spirit anyone who refused to acknowledge the apostle's authority. Failure to recognize the Lord as the source of Paul's teaching would lead to that person's failure to be recognized themselves or to be acknowledged with approval. What's it mean not to be recognized? Certainly, they will not be recognized by Paul, not by other churches, or possibly Paul means they will not be recognized by God either. If they disregarded these directions, how do you disregard them? You just ignore them. Ignore the commands of the Lord. As this is so, the Apostle Paul is very short and decisive. with anyone who refuses subjection. Don't you find it interesting that as you read God's word, it does put you in a place of subjection? You must be in that place. You must be a learner. You must be a receiver. The authority in which Paul the apostle and all the apostles had, although it was questioned, was absolute authority, because they were a direct line from God. And that was the test. And I think that's still the test today, if you read God's word.

So he says in verse 39, he says, therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and don't forbid the speaking of tongues. The word therefore signals a summation of his entire argument. on spiritual gifts. My brethren, the use of that language sounds a loving note at the end of a really stern discussion. Imagine a Corinthian sitting there listening to Paul talk to him this way. He says, desire earnestly to prophesy. It's the same imperative, desire earnestly, that he talked about in verse one.

Why would prophecy be the one thing that you should really desire as a member of the early church? Because prophecy was the method, and so was tongues. They were both methods of God communicating truth to the church through gifted people. And that's why it was so important. Paul sets up the criteria For tongues, you can't speak in tongues unless there's somebody there to interpret. Why? Because what good does it do if you don't understand what the person is saying?

And we're gonna bring all Spanish language Bibles in here next week, and that's what we're gonna use. How edified would you be by that? I have a friend who's a son-in-law of an old dear friend of mine, and he's a pastor of a Mexican church in Aurora, and he wanted me to come over one day and talk to his people.

I said, I can't do that. They don't understand what I'm saying. Most of them are from Mexico and don't speak English. I knew that I couldn't do that because even if they had an interpreter, and what I was going to say, I didn't think I could get the message across to them clearly. Well, tongues is really important if there's an interpreter there, because the tongues is a known language. I don't care what the contemporary charismatics tell you. It has to be a known language.

And two, Prophecy was the methodology that God used through gifted men and women, that God used to communicate his truth. And as we've studied, those of us who've studied dispensational truth, we realize that the message that was given to the church was a lot different than the message that God had given to the Jews. So he sums up instructions again by urging them to desire to prophesy.

But don't be afraid to speak in tongues. You're there to edify, so speak out. He concedes that the legitimacy of tongues is a gift, and it should be used, but it's gotta be used in the right context. They were to use tongues provided that they followed the rules. He set the rules. He has the authority. So if anyone has the New Testament gift of tongues, he or she should observe the rules today as well as then. Have an interpreter.

Christians involved in the charismatic movement believe the gift doesn't exist today. Some don't. The difference between the tongues as practiced today and what is practiced in the first century churches led most believers to conclude that it was a vastly different experience. Yeah, vastly different.

So Paul heartily encourages these believers to exercise the gift of prophecy. But he only permitted the gift of speaking in tongues with certain qualifications. Prophecy was a priority. Tongues are to be regulated, but not forbidden. The charismatic activity was not to disturb the order of the church. As time passed, though, God no longer gave prophets revelation concerning the future. How come? Because you have it in your pew right now. It's God's word. It's completed.

The Apostle John probably was the last one The last person to function as a prophet in this sense, Revelation 22, 18. They also no longer receive new revelation from the Lord. There's nothing new outside of what's already printed in your word. We can see this passing away even during the history of the church, as Luke records in Acts.

Much of the revelation contained in the books of the New Testament was of this type. That's how it came into existence. In a more general sense, the use of gifts as today, like in verse 14.3, but one who prophesies speaks to men for edification, for exhortation and consolation. If it does those things, it's relevant. And then lastly, he sums up by saying, all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner.

Whatever form spiritual manifestation may take in the assembly, that all who take part in it ask the question, will it be in love? Will it be for the edification of those that are there? And will it be according to divine order? The foundation principles that should underlie what takes place in the church, church meetings are pretty clear. Christians should do everything in a decent and orderly manner. Everything should be for the edifying of everybody else. And the spirit of peace should prevail.

So in these three chapters, which is chapter 12 through 14, Paul has been contending with the dangers of spiritual anarchy, which would be the result if every Christian who believed he had a charisma were allowed to exercise it without consideration for others. If you want to see how disruptive a church can be. Just read the book of Corinthians from that standpoint and just see how disruptive they were because they were all self-focused on spirituality. They weren't focused on edifying one another.

Our contentment as believers should consist in acting in accordance with God's revealed word because it honors God, it glorifies the head of the church, And it certainly is blessed by our Lord. So let's close. Father, how we thank you. How we thank you for the order that you provide for us in your word that we can gather together trusting you that you will edify us through each other. that it would be order and it would be in a proper manner. And we're thankful for that so that there isn't disorder and we can rest in that. We thank you, we pray in your son's precious name. Amen.