Lesson 378: "Paul's Opinion"
There is much discussion and arguments as to what Paul meant when he stated that women should remain silent in the churches (1 Cor. 14:34). Above all, the customs of the times must be considered as it was the norm for the women to be silent in the gathering together of an assembly. Actually it was the norm for the women to stay at home but since most of the followers of Paul (and Jesus) went wherever the teachers went then it was usual for the men to take along their families. Remember too, that Paul rarely taught in a building but as with Jesus, the services were usually held in the open with hundreds of people. Paul taught “order” (1 Cor. 14:40) in the congregations and when a woman (standing in the back of the crowd) yelled out a question Paul told her to wait until she got home and ask her husband. This kept order and allowed Paul to “get the message out” without interruptions, which he had an urgency to do.
Another defense for Paul is that he indeed was honoring the first “law” of God when He made woman a helpmate to man (Gen. 2:18). The argument that women in the New Testament were deaconesses simply means that they were helpmates/servants/providers and not necessarily teachers (I am thinking as Paul would think in saying this). Another scenario could be the disruptive arguments that might have started when Paul taught that the man was the head of the household BUT was to love his wife as he loved himself. Can’t you just hear it? The wife yanking on the arm of the husband saying; “see! I told you that you did not love me enough”! Now, imagine Paul, in his exasperation, rebuking her with; “that is not what I said so you wait until you get home and study on this with your husband” (Acts 17:11)!
In another defense of Paul, the society of yesteryear and this year has changed its way of thinking. Paul’s “law” seemed to work for many years until perhaps the economy went down the drain and we became a two-bread-winner-family. Then because of advanced education the women were allowed to go to college and attain degrees equal to man’s and thus sought jobs equal to man’s (with success I might add). Then came woman’s lib demanding that woman have every opportunity that man has but still expecting the respect that should come from just being female. Women wanting to be the “head” should also expect to love her husband as much as she loves herself, right? If you change one rule should you not change all of them?
Was Paul too male-chauvinist or was he right? Are men and women any better off now than they were then? We have not been able to change the “law of God” when He said that man would make the living and women would have the kids have we (Genesis 3:16-19)? In changing one rule did this led to the disregard of other God given rules such as same-sex-marriage (Leviticus 18:22) which is detestable to God? Have we gone too far in our self-sufficient-look to our own-needs-rules? Do we need to go back to the Old Testament and work our way forward to the saving grace of Christ Jesus and His greatest commandment; “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt. 22:37-39)?
Do we need this reminder? “If my people called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land” (2 Chro. 7:14).