Saturday, March 28, 2026

LIVING BY EVERY WORD OF GOD #1, #2

 

Living by Every Word of God...How?

Part One

     It is written that Jesus said: "man shall not live by bread
alone but BY EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD"
(Mat.4:4).
     Jesus was not uttering something brand new, for He was
quoting what the books of Moses had said, namely the book of
Deuteronomy, and specifically chapter 8 and verse 3.

     Those words by Jesus as pretty plain and easy to understand.
No theology degree from some school of learning needed to
interpret those words. They mean what they say and say what they
mean. Christ was saying that men/women who are called to serve
the Eternal God, are to conduct their lives in all its various
forms of thoughts, actions, and deeds, the way of life, by
letting the WHOLE of God's word teach and guide them as they
live. They are to walk the walk of the word of the Lord. Jesus
expects His followers to read and study ALL of God's word, and
let that whole word mould and shape their speech, conduct and
thoughts.

     What an undertaking!  Pretty serious stuff Jesus was talking
about.  He was saying that the children of the heavenly Father
were to read every book of the Bible to LEARN and be INSTRUCTED
in HOW TO LIVE in all aspects of life here and now. 
     The Old Testament is not just a collection of different
historical events, songs, and psalms, poetry, and old laws,
written down just to entertain us when we feel we need to be
entertained. What Jesus said led to the apostle Paul saying these
words: " For whatsoever things were written aforetime were
written FOR OUR LEARNING......Now these things were OUR
EXAMPLES.......Now all these things happened unto them for
types(marg. of KJV) and they are written for OUR ADMONITION, upon
whom the ends of the world are come......All scripture is given
by the inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for
reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness "
(Rom.15:4;  1 Cor.10:6,11;  2 Tim.3:16).
     So the Christian desires to do as Jesus taught, to live by
every word that comes from the mouth of God. The Christian starts
to read the Bible, beginning with the first book - Genesis. But
soon he is into the books of Moses such as Exodus, Numbers,
Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, that contain ALL THOSE MANY LAWS,
STATUES, PRECEPTS, and JUDGMENTS. Some are to the modern space
age mind, VERY STRANGE,  OUT OF DATE in many respects,  NOT
really applicable in our culture and society and context of
living.  And there are SOME MANY.  Then we have the New
Testament, with OTHER laws, some of which seem to alter the old
laws found in the books of Moses.
     A little confusing to the average Christian's mind.  How can
you apply the words of Jesus in Matthew 4:4 and clear away the
smoke, the haze, the WONDERING about WHICH laws, statutes,
precepts, judgments, ARE FOR US TODAY TO FOLLOW AND LIVE BY?

     I hope this article will serve you and many others in
answering and helping you find the correct way as to HOW indeed
to live by every word of God.

                     A FOUNDATIONAL KEY

     We need to keep in mind at all times that this study of
living by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God, is
JUST THAT. It entails EVERY WORD OF GOD! It may be that the
answers to some of our questions are found WAY OUT in another
part of the word of God.  In fact we shall see that is the case
for some of our answers.  So, this HOW TO LIVE, WHAT LAWS TO
FOLLOW, is a study of the WHOLE word of God, from Genesis to
Revelation.  We must read and meditate, study and search, ALL the
words that proceed from the Lord, as given to us and as found in
the Bible.
                                     
           TEN BASIC CATEGORIES TO HELP YOU KNOW 
              HOW TO LIVE BY EVERY WORD OF GOD

     Some laws, commandments and the like, may fall under one or
more of the following basic categories. One or more should be
used to answer your questions on any given law, commandment,
statute, or precept in the Bible, and how, if in any way it
should be applied today for the Christian. The list is NOT in the
order of importance.

1. MORAL LAWS (i.e."You shall not murder" - "Honor your father   
   and mother.")

2. SACRIFICE LAW (i.e.The   physical  rites  for  the            
   Priesthood,  Tabernacle,   and  Sacrifices). 

3. NATIONAL LAWS (i.e. The 50th year of Jubilee for the nation).

4. HISTORICAL/NATIONAL/CULTURE LAW (i.e. Man dies and his brother
   marries his wife to raise up children).

5. CULTURAL CARNALITY LAW (i.e.Laws regulating more than one     
   wife - Polygamy).

6. PHYSICAL LAWS (i.e.Clean and Unclean foods;  Plague in the    
   physical building).

7. NEW TESTAMENT DIRECT ALTERATION (i.e. Physical circumcision).

8. EXAMPLES AND/OR COMMANDS OF THE NT (i.e. Cannot lust after the
   opposite  sex in the mind).

9. THE SPIRIT OF THE NT (i.e. Spirit leading the Church to ordain
   7 as deacons in Acts 6).

10.NOT EFFECTED BY ANY OF THE ABOVE (i.e.The weekly 7 day        
   cycle).

                  ONE MORE IMPORTANT POINT

     With all the above, and I shall expound each quite
thoroughly presently, we need to remember the VERY IMPORTANT
section of scripture as found in Deut.17 and verses eight through
thirteen.
     Please read those verses carefully.  The point to see for
our study is that the word of the Lord is NOT all encompassing. 
The Bible is not a text book that covers EVERY situation in life,
every circumstance that may arise, every problematic disputation
that many need to be solved from time to time, through the course
of life within the community of God.
     Within that body of people, we today call the Church of God,
there will need to be JUDGMENTS made by the leaders of that
community, based upon the laws and principles, examples, and
whatever else can be gleaned from God's word in order to
arrive at the correct sentence of judgment. 
     You will notice this is not some high handed, authoritarian
mind set that is here being talked about, where leaders rule with
a pompous, self-righteous, vain ego of dictatorial cult
leadership. The sentence of the law is to be taught to the
enquirer, and to those who are coming for help because the matter
is too HARD for them. 
     You will notice in 1 Timothy 3 the qualifications for those
who will oversee the church of God is very demanding.  They are
to guide and teach, to take care of the church of God.  They are
to fulfil the role of what you are reading about in Deut.17 at
times. They are to judge HARD matters and bring the sentence of
the law, when there is possibly no SPECIFIC law stated in the
word of God concerning the matter.

                    EACH OF THE TEN POINT

     It's time to move down each of the above ten points I've
given you. We need to expound and amplify each one so you will be
able to use them as tools whereby you can read the Bible, all of
it, in order to do as Jesus said - live by EVERY WORD that
proceeds out of the mouth of God.

1. MORAL LAW

     This is perhaps the least difficult category for most people
to deal with, the one that gives, on the whole, the least amount
of trouble for Christians to understand in the light of having to
live by every word of God.
     Most can see that the Lord instituted MARRIAGE, for an
example, at the BEGINNING, with Adam and Eve, the Lord Himself
bringing them together as husband and wife.  Then reading on in
the book of Genesis, it is clear from examples given that
taking another man's wife in sexual union, adultery, was WRONG,
that is was displeasing to the Lord and even sin.
     Coming to Exodus and the other books of Moses, it is pretty
simple to see the command that "you shall not commit adultery"
and "you shall not covet your neighbors wife" law .
     Reading on through all the Bible to the end of the book of
Revelation, it is clear that the law of adultery continues, never
being "done away" or allowed to be practiced in the Christian's
life without it being a sin against God, and earning the death
penalty.
     Most Christians will see that laws and commandments such as
ones called "moral" laws, are in effect, and remain in effect to
the end, while there are flesh and blood people on this earth.
Even the unconverted world, the majority at least, can see that
it is not good for their society if people murder each other, 
steal from each other and the corner store,  and practice many
other morally wrong ways of life, that unchecked and wilfully
allowed would soon have our nations in utter degradation and
moral free for all, to the point that our society would totally
break down and collapse.

2. SACRIFICE LAWS

      Again in the main, most can understand the obvious
implications here with the laws governing sacrificing and the
system of ancient Israel that went along with it, namely the
Priesthood and the Temple.
     As the Temple and Levitical priesthood came to an official
and literal end in 70 A.D. with the destruction of the Jerusalem
Temple by the Roman armies, the Christian has generally no
problem realizing physical sacrificing in a central location
through a literal priesthood in a literal Temple, has no
importance or bearing on living today by every word of God.
     The book of Hebrews portrays to us in plain words that these
physical sacrifices and the priesthood/temple that went along
with them, was to COME TO AN END, TO PASS AWAY,  for this present
age.  That side of the sacrificial laws gives no trouble, and
Christians think little about them in any physical living way of
life. Even the Jews(except possibly for a minority sect) realize
those physical laws are not for today. Many Christians do no
know, for they have never heard, that the strict Orthodox Jews
believe another Temple in Jerusalem cannot, should not, will not,
be built unto the MESSIAH comes in glory. It is He they say who
will again build the Temple. And without a Temple, there can
be no sacrificing by a priesthood. Exodus 35 to 40 and Leviticus
1 to 10  were for the Old Covenant. They are not for us today in
this present age. There are of course many other such passages as
those in other parts of the OT.

     Yet what is not often understood are some of the laws that
were also part of the sacrificing system, needing that system to
complete the law. For us to live by every word of God we need to
see how this interlocking law worked, then we shall understand
how some laws in the OT are not for us to observe today. 
Examples are often the best way to teach and make the point
stated easy and clear to comprehend.  Hence I will use many
examples from here on out.

                     THE NAZARITE VOW

     Numbers chapter 6. Please read from verse one to verse
twenty one.  The first number of verses tell you what the man or
woman putting themselves under a Nazarite vow could NOT do. The
duration of this vow was voluntary. The individual set the length
of time.
     Now notice what is written starting with verse thirteen.
     When the days were FULFILLED, the length of time the
individual had allotted themselves to be under this vow was now
at an end. Did they just say, "O, well time is up, it's over,
back to normal again" and proceed to "get back to the norm"?  No,
it was not to be done that way. It was not at all to be that
simple.  It was quite an elaborate ceremony that the person had
to go through, and notice what and who it involved.
     It involved, set in stone, no buts or maybe or perhaps about
it. To sign off from this vow involved physical sacrifices, the
priesthood and the temple!

     This law of the Nazarite was absolutely TWO FOLD - a
beginning part with of course its duration to the end and the
rules for that part of the vow, and an ending part with the rules
for that section of the vow. BOTH parts were a MUST!  That was
the law of the Nazarite vow. It took both parts to make the law.
     Now AFTER 70 A.D. with the end of the Temple, the Levite
priesthood, and physical sacrificing, the Nazarite vow - that law
- ALSO CAME TO AN END!  It is today IMPOSSIBLE to observe that
law, as there is no Temple in Jerusalem with a priesthood
performing animal sacrifices.  Today, at this present time, you
cannot observe the nazarite vow even if you wanted to!
     Oh, you could take the principles I guess of the vow, and
dedicate yourself for a time to serving the Lord in some special
way, but the specific law of the Nazarite vow as laid out in the
book of Moses IS NOT FOR US TODAY!  
     So living by every word of God for the Christian during this
present age DOES NOT include the Nazarite vow.

               TEMPLE PURIFICATION SACRIFICE LAWS

     Lev.12.  As we read through the whole Bible it becomes very
plain that God is PERFECTLY PURE HOLINESS - RIGHTEOUS AND
SINLESS.  With ancient Israel the Eternal was dealing with a
people that were in the main, CARNAL, without the Spirit of
God leading, guiding and helping them. The Lord had not chosen to
give them all, His Spirit(see Numbers 11). He did decide to have
them build a Tabernacle, as the book of Hebrews tells us, like as
to the one in heaven. God would come and live among Israel
WITHIN that Temple or Tabernacle of congregation.
     There are certain functions of the human body that although
created by the Eternal, and so in that sense perfect and holy on
a physical level, are regarded even by humans as physically
unclean to be openly displaying them in a public manner to all
and everyone around us. The process of human elimination is such
that we keep those functions private in the main. A woman flowing
during her monthly period is another bodily function that is kept
private as much as possible from others. It is natural, it was
created by God, it is pure in that sense but it is unclean and
impure from a certain physical point of view.
     When our pet dog is in heat, it is natural, it is the way
the Lord made dogs, it is pure from that point, but nevertheless
when our dog is in heat we do not want it jumping up on to our
lovely new chesterfield, for it is unclean from a certain
physical viewpoint.
     
     The Lord in dealing with a majority of carnal people in
Israel,  within the context of a Tabernacle that He would dwell
within, and that they as a physical sinfilled people would come
before to worship Him, took some physical functions of the body
to teach them PURITY AND HOLINESS from IMPURITY.  Leviticus 12 is
one example - the purification of the woman after childbirth. 
Such a function by the body was created by God, so perfectly pure
from that view, but from a human perspective, such cleansing is
impure and must be looked after with care and privacy. I think we
all understand there are certain things of the human body we do
not want deposited just anywhere.
     Such a law as Lev.12 was to teach a carnal people lessons of
holiness by using physical carnal functions of the body. Certain
laws like this kept people(and there were ones for men also) from
entering the Tabernacle of Holiness, where the Holy perfect God
was dwelling at times.
     Such laws were very much tied up with the physical
Tabernacle, and with physical sacrifices, for after the
fulfilment of the required stipulations of the law, there was the
required animal sacrifice.
     These kind of laws were great teaching tools for holiness,
no uncleanness(from a human perspective)  was allowed in the
presence of a Holy God.  For a carnal minded people these laws
would constantly remind them that they could not approach the
Eternal while unclean, even while physically unclean.  It would
serve a purpose in also teaching a deeper lesson, namely, that
they should be mentally and of heart, humble and clean of
attitude when approaching the throne of God.
     As the Temple, Levite priesthood and animal sacrifices are
no longer, together with the New Covenant fact that God today
lives within each member of the body of Christ via the Holy
Spirit, the Christian is not under obligation to live by these
particular laws in this age.
 
3. NATIONAL LAWS

                     CITIES OF REFUGE

     Numbers 35:9-28. Six cities were chosen for the
administration of the law of MANSLAUGHTER in Israel of old.  This
law shows us the importance that the Eternal places upon human
life. We may think it rather severe, but it certainly taught
Israel the value of human life and the value of being VERY
CAREFUL at all times, so we are responsible persons in how we
live in relation to the lives of others. 
     This law was a NATIONAL law. It was part of the written
constitution of the government of the nation of Israel. One of
the laws of the land. A part of the court system of the land.    

     Now stop and think!  Putting this kind of a law into the
context of an individual Christian living today, what are you
going to come up with, for obeying it?  Why, for an individual
Christian, even for a local church congregation, IT IS NOT
POSSIBLE TO OBSERVE THIS LAW!!
     Try, next time you see someone in a car kill another person
on the road, going over to them, or meeting them in court, and
telling them to go live in a certain town until the President
dies. Try telling the relatives of the one who died that if the
person responsible for the death of their loved one steps out of
the city limits, they can kill them, and see what the courts and
police of our land have to say to you.
     I think you get the point.  A single Christian or church
organization CANNOT put this law into effect. 
     It is a NATIONAL LAW!  Only the NATION can establish and
enforce such a law today, or any day. This kind of law in the
word of God cannot be established or obeyed by the individual
child of God. Not even the church of God can establish and obey
such a law as this one. It was given by God to a NATION, to be
part of its constitution and laws of the supreme court of the
land.

                     LAND SABBATH LAWS

     Lev.25. This was also given to Israel as to be part of their
NATIONAL constitutional laws. They were laws that ALL had to
obey. Everyone in the agriculture business was obligated to
observe these laws. Such laws were tied up with other laws of the
nation, note verse 10. God would bless the nation in a miraculous
way, see verses 20,21. 
     The individual Christian today could not possibly enforce
these laws upon the nation they live under.
     Certain principles can be taken from these laws and applied
by the farming Christian in our lands. Resting the land is good
farming practice. Many farmers out west still rest a section of
their land each year, one section one year, another section
another year, and so on till all land has had a rest.
     But the specific land rest laws as written in the books of
Moses, were for the NATION of Israel. They were national laws,
and not intended to be applied today by individual NT Christians.

4. HISTORICAL/NATIONAL/CULTURAL LAWS

          MARRIAGE TO BROTHER'S WIFE UPON HIS DEATH 

     This is somewhat like the above law but with some
differences. Please turn to Deut.25 and read verses five to ten.
     A man dies without leaving any children. His wife is now a
widow. The dead man has a brother who under this law was to marry
his brother's wife and raise up children, the firstborn taking
the name of the dead brother, so this brother's name would
continue in Israel(verses 5,6). 
     There was a provision by which the brother could refuse to
take this widow to be his wife(verses 7-10). Probably the most
famous example of this taking place is in the book of RUTH, and
how Boaz married Ruth.
     This was a NATIONAL law of the land, a part of the
constitution. It was on the books of the land for all people who
found themselves in that particular situation.  If you today as
an individual Christian would try to enforce that law, even in
your own family, well I think you know how far you would get.
Most of the time not very far at all, unless the other parties
were all in agreement. It is not a law that individual Christians
need concern themselves with.  It was for a nation who had that
law as part of their national court statutes.
     It was probably a law that back in that HISTORICAL period,
and that CULTURE of time, was not unusual, certainly not thought
about as unusual as we in our culture of North America think it
is today. The whole culture of marriage back in that period of
history was in many way quite different than our culture of
marriage. Parents were much more involved  in arranging marriages
for their children. You had the "dowry" practice in marriage and
many other customs that we today in Britain and the USA think
rather strange and even odd. But for them at that time and in
their culture, such practices were thought of as quite normal.
     So this law instituted by the Lord in Israel was probably
accepted without a second thought.  Israel was a young nation. 
People were much more conscious about family trees and continuing
family names back then, than we are today. It would seem that at
this time in history even God was more concerned with this fact
than He is today for the nations of Israel.
     It was a way of preserving the people of Israel, and
inheritances in families. A way of keeping certain things moulded
together in a close knit nation with many laws that jig- sawed
together to produce the whole under God.
     Today such laws are not needed in our nations as they were
under the economy of ancient Israel. 
     Then again, it is a law for the nation, NOT FOR INDIVIDUAL
CHRISTIANS to enforce or try to obey.

              CORNERS OF THE HARVEST FOR THE POOR

     You can read about another law that would fall under this
category in Leviticus 19:9,10;  Deut.24:19-22.  God instituted in
Israel under the OC a law for the POOR of the land. It was then
an HISTORICAL NATIONAL law. It was part of their constitutional
laws of the whole land.  When they harvested they were to leave
SOME for the poor to gather and eat thereof. They were not to
pick every single grape on the vine, or every fig on the
tree. 
     It was a CULTURAL law also, because they were a farming
community in the main. So it was to be a part of their
work-a-world culture. It was to be national culture practice, as
a way of life in Israel. Everyone would be raised with this law,
it was known by all in the nation, it was a national way of life.
     Now you put yourself as an individual Christian today, doing
the same thing.  The grain farmer leaves the corners of his field
unharvested for the poor to glean. Well first of all, the poor
would not know about what they could come and glean unless a sign
was posted. And some have indeed done that very thing. But today
when it comes to GRAIN, say wheat, most poor would not bother to
go to all the trouble of gleaning and grinding and baking, as
they can obtain welfare and buy their baked products from the
supermarket.  Some poor may come to pick fruit left on the trees,
but by and large, it just is not the cultural thing to do anymore
for most people in our modern city life.
     This particular law as outlined in the above verses, would
at best be a judgment call on the part of the individual
Christian produce farmer, to obey in the letter or not. Certainly
it could be obeyed, and would not be wrong to obey by such a
Christian, if he thought he could make it work as it was intended
to work for the culture of ancient Israel. In some areas of some
countries it could well work just fine.  The other way is to take
the PRINCIPLE of this national culture law and apply the spirit
of it, which says, the POOR of the land should be helped if you
are in the position of being able to help them. This was
certainly upheld by the church of God in the days of the apostles
- see Gal.2:9,10.

                     TITHE FOR THE POOR

     Deuteronomy 14:28,29.  Whatever you want to say about this
tithe, one thing is clear, we are talking about a tithe and it
was for certain people WHO NEEDED some extra help, and it was
EATING. So it would correspond today to our FOOD STAMPS or
FOOD BANKS for the needy and the poor.
     It was ancient Israel's WELFARE PROGRAM in the main.  It was
a NATIONAL CULTURAL law of the land.
     Yes, certainly individual Christians could follow this law
if they so chose. There is nothing preventing them to so learn
how the Jews understood and practiced this law and observe it
themselves, giving help in a physical way to the needy.
     But the main point I want you to see is that this was a
national historic law that was given to Israel in the time of
Moses to be the basic welfare law of the land. It was part of the
constitutional laws of the country.  Today our nations of the
West have taken the spirit of that law and are fulfilling it
through the welfare programs we have established as our national
laws. We all through our taxes help fund this poor tithe law.
Some have estimated that the tax payers contribute more than a
tenth or tithe to maintain this help to the needy and poor.
     Certainly the Church of God should not be trying to impose
this law upon its members for the law is already in place as
instituted by our governments.  On the other hand the NT does
tell Christians to serve and help their brothers and sisters in
Christ in literal and practical ways as needed.

5. CULTURAL CARNALITY

             LAW OF THE FIRSTBORN FOR TWO WIVES

     Deut.21:15-17.  Here we see a law regarding a man with more
than one wife, commonly called Polygamy.  It is not the place or
the time to discuss the subject of Polygamy. I do have an article
covering that subject for those interested in the topic as
to what the word of the Lord teaches on the matter.  But I will
say that from the BEGINNING(as Jesus often said) it is clear that
God intended a ONE man ONE wife at ONE time marriage bond. That
was God's IDEAL for men and women. The Lord could have created a
few women out of a few ribs from Adam if He thought the ideal for
marriage was a man with more than one wife. But that was NOT the
case. The ideal for the King over Israel was that he should not
multiply wives to himself (Deut.17:17).
     The fact is that the Eternal was dealing mainly with a
CARNAL group of people. A nation of persons that for the
MAJORITY, DID NOT HAVE the Spirit of God with them. Only a
selected few were given the Spirit, see Numbers 11, and
especially verse 29.  
     You will remember what Jesus said to the Pharisees in
Matthew 19 concerning DIVORCE, and as to why Moses allowed it for
many reasons. Jesus said that from the BEGINNING it was not so,
but because of the carnality of the heart, divorce for just about
any reason was allowed. It was not God's IDEAL, it was ALLOWED
because of the hardness of their hearts.
     So with having more than one wife. It was not so from the
beginning, it was not God's ideal, it was because of their carnal
heart, ALLOWED!
     By this time in history, way before for that matter, many
people of the earth, without the Spirit of the Lord, wanted more
than one wife. There is something in the carnal heart of the male
that for many, desires the beauty of more than one woman. Under
these circumstances God would allow the Israelite men to have
more than one wife. He would allow them to be like many other
cultural carnal people around them, at least in this respect. BUT
in allowing this cultural carnality of more than one wife, He
would set down certain laws to regulate certain aspect of this
practice. 
     God knew that under this marriage there would be other
aspects of carnality also shown, one being the fact that
favoritism to one wife above another wife would manifest
itself in various ways. The carnal mind in such a situation
probably would love one wife more than another wife, and the
children of the one loved the most would get special favors, and
treatments. 
     The firstborn son was to be acknowledged as the firstborn
for inheritance purposes, even if he was born of the wife that
was not loved as much as another wife.

     Under the Old Covenant DIVORCE for all kinds of reasons was
ALLOWED. Under the Old, more than one wife at one time was
ALLOWED.  It was never God's IDEAL, it was not so from the
beginning.  The New Covenant, the Spirit poured out into all true
Christians,  such allowances and liberties are brought back to a
more original ideal.  Jesus did give some circumstances for
divorce, but having more than one wife at one time, it not
allowed under the NT church age.

                      PLEDGE TAKING

     Deut.24:10-13.  Reading this in the KJV may seem hard to
understand.  You take a pledge from someone, out of his house.
Something that is your pledge that what you have lent to him will
be returned. But you are not to keep his pledge overnight. You
are to deliver this pledge back to him for the night, so he can
sleep in his own raiment.
     The Bible Commentaries will explain all this.  It was the
CULTURAL practice back in those days, that if you were to borrow
something from your neighbor, for two or more days, you would
give them something important to your comfort, as a pledge that
what you were borrowing would be returned to them. Something like
what we call a SECURITY DEPOSIT today in our culture. I am a
landlord, and when a tenant moves in to one of our apartments we
take a security deposit of a certain amount of money that they
get back when they move out and have left the apartment in as
good a shape as when they moved in.
     Back in the days of ancient Israel, it was a cultural
practice that if you borrowed something from a neighbor, and you
were poor, the most important thing you could give him for a
pledge was your BED ROLE, what you slept in.  The carnal mind was
such that the lender would probably say: "you'll get this back
when you return to me what you have borrowed."  God knowing the
workings of the carnal mind, said it would not be so, but the
lender would each night return the bed clothes to the borrower.
This would be the righteous way to transact such
lending/borrowing arrangements.
     This cultural practice is pretty well none existent in North
America today. So this specific law in the book of Moses,
Christians would not be under as expected to obey. Now our
culture may employ other types of practices for lending and
borrowing, but this one here in Deuteronomy may never be applied
at any time in the Christians life. If our culture never uses
this specific pledge law then God does not expect the Christian
to observe it.

                     MARRIAGE - DIVORCE

     Deut.24:1-5.  I have already alluded to the subject of
divorce under the Old Covenant.  Because of the hardness of the
hearts of the carnal people of Israel, God ALLOWED under the laws
of Moses, for divorce on a wide and broad spectrum. In so doing
though, not to make marriage a travesty and a laugh, as it would
ultimately become through cultural carnality taking its course,
God did set a few laws within that law, as can be seen from this
passage before us.
     When a man took a wife he was not to go out to war nor enter
any business, but to have a whole year with his wife at home.
     Wow! A year long honey-moon !  Well the culture of the day
could allow for such things back then.  And as carnal people who
did not have the Spirit of God, it was probably needed if the
marriage was to last, for God had already allowed for divorce on
a wider scale than before because of their hard heartedness. So
having a year long honey-moon may have strengthened the marriage
so cultural carnality of divorce would be less prominent.
     Not only do we live in a culture and society today that
makes it just about impossible for the average man to take a year
off work to be with his new wife, but under the New Covenant
Spirit this section of scripture is NOT to be applied by the
Christian. Jesus made it clear in Matthew 19 and other passages
that what was ALLOWED under Moses, is not allowed under the New
Covenant, but only in certain exceptions. 
          Many of the old cultural carnality laws in the books of
Moses the Christian today will not live by. They were for THAT
culture which was basically carnal, unconverted, and devoid of
the Spirit of the Lord in their minds and hearts.

     SLAVERY LAWS - THE BUYING AND SELLING OF PERSONS

     There is not one scripture in the word of God that tells us
the Eternal called such practices as RIGHTEOUS,  HOLINESS,  or 
JUST.  The practice of slavery probably goes back not far from
the beginning of the human race.  Certainly when some of the
large empires came on the scene after the scattering of the
people from the tower of Babel, slavery and the buying and
selling of persons was not far behind.  
     In the books of Moses we find God simply addresses this
issue with certain laws to regulate, and give some kind of human
benevolence to what is really a cultural carnal practice.  He
never states He approves of it.  Obviously He ALLOWED it in
Israel just as He allowed many other things because of the
hardness of their hearts.  If I may be allowed to indulge in some
paraphrasing of what God was saying to Israel, I think it was
something like: "I realize you are a  people that are carnally
minded, that I have not given My Spirit to except for a few. I
realize you will WANT to, and WILL practice in your life some of
the ways of the nations around you.  One of those ways will be
the practice of slavery and the buying and selling of persons.  I
shall ALLOW you to be so carnally minded and to practice this
cultural way of life, but in ALLOWING it, I will impose certain
rules and regulations that will give this practice at least some
compassion and benignity."
     The laws God gave to Israel regulating the buying and
selling of persons, were instituted for a people that wanted to
practice this cultural carnality way of life.  Certainly the
individual Christian or the Christian community today is under no
obligation to practice and live by these laws. In fact the NT
Christian community will not live by such laws, for they were
only ALLOWED to be practiced by God, by a carnal people, because
of the hardness of their hearts.  The Christian has a new heart,
moulded and shaped by the Holy Spirit, and wherein such cultural
carnal laws cannot be rooted or formed. 
     
                             To be continued

 

Living by Every Word of God...How?

 

Part Two
6. PHYSICAL LAWS

     There are many physical laws stipulated in the books of
Moses.  Some as we have already seen were directly connected to
the Tabernacle/Temple worship together with animal sacrifices to
be offered upon being completed. I have talked about such laws as
the physical cleansing of a woman after childbirth.  
     Yet there are other physical laws different from those
physical laws, some of which have no connection with the Temple
or animal sacrifices. Such laws would be the CLEAN and UNCLEAN
food laws of Lev.11 and Deut.14.  Please read these sections of
Scripture. Note how God is emphasizing HOLINESS,  Israel was to
be HOLY as God was HOLY, even in matters of DIET!

     You will notice there is NOTHING in these passages of
scripture to say these laws were tied to the priesthood,
tabernacle, or sacrificing of animals.
     Then as you read all of the word of the Lord you will find
the CLEAN and UNCLEAN creatures existed in the days of NOAH, way
BEFORE Moses and the giving of the Old Covenant to Israel.

     Also the New Testament must be considered, and this is where
CARE must be taken and HONESTY, for some passages in the NT have
been taken to say these food laws were merely ceremonial and not
creationally designed to be GOOD or NOT GOOD for the human body
to eat. It is a very true saying: "You are what you eat."  We are
made of atoms and molecules that must be replenished by the atoms
and molecules of the food we eat. The human body was created in
such a way that to feed it and try to live on a diet of wood and
grass.....well we would soon be six feet under the wood and
grass, turning back to dust.

     There are certain PLANTS that if eaten would do two things,
either make us sick in a literal way, or KILL us!  
     So knowing those facts of this physical life, should it be
thought a STRANGE thing that the Eternal would have laws
concerning DIET that if obeyed would produce HEALTH and if
disobeyed would produce a body not as healthy as it should and
could be.
     Once more, it is not the purpose nor the place to expound
all the truth of this subject and the truth of some verses in the
NT that are often given to teach that the food laws of the books
of Moses are "done away."  Needless to say, that is NOT the case.
The laws regarding DIET in the Old Testament are VERY MUCH for
the Christian today, and they are laws that the child of God
would do well to HEED and OBEY!
     As we are to live by every word of God, that would include
the PROPHETIC word also.  There is a prophecy in the book of
Isaiah chapter 66 that is an END TIME prophecy, concerning the
coming of the Lord with FIRE and POWER to plead with all nations.

It is more than interesting to note that God is at this time
still upholding His food laws, and those rebelling against them
He will deal with in no uncertain way.

     There are physical laws as in Lev.13,14, that although they
had some connection with  the priest and sacrifice, upon
examining them, and many Christian man and woman in the medical
skill have done so, can hardly be said to be JUST ceremonial in
nature and so worthless for the Christian today under the New
Covenant.  Surely the world HAS and is STILL experiencing the
terrible penalties in sickness and death, for not giving more
heed to some of the aspects of these laws.  Certain aspects as
COMMON SENSE, but often common sense is not learned until after
the pain and penalty has been experienced.
We have the law of QUARANTINE expressed in such laws, which is as
the world knows VERY WELL, a MUST in the air borne disease of TB.

There is the health law of SANITATION also unfolded in such laws.


     The men in the ARMIES of Israel were to carry a little spade
with them on their exploits, you know to dig a hole in the ground
to deposit the result of a bodily function.
Sanitation is EXTREMELY important to health and the well-being of
any people.  Such laws are not dependant upon a priesthood, a
Temple, or animal sacrifices.  They work  and are in force and
effect even when the ones just mentioned are not.  Any people
finding themselves in a situation(say after an earthquake) where
sanitation becomes a large problem, soon know the dire results
with the outbreak of diseases that are in the main the result of
poor or no sanitation.  There is another old saying that goes:
"Cleanliness is next to godliness."  And when it comes to the
physical, it is true, for the Eternal God knows what is good for
the human body to maintain it free from disease, sickness, and in
keep it in tip-top healthy shape.

     Many aspects and certainly the PRINCIPLES of these physical
laws are for Christians, individually and collectively, as well
as the nations of the earth, to LOOK INTO and OBEY today!  In so
doing much sickness in the world could be avoided.

7. NEW TESTAMENT DIRECT ALTERATION

                     VOWS, OATHS, SWEARING

     Numbers 3;  Deut.23:21-23.   Oaths and Vows were laws under
the Old Covenant, they were ALLOWED and permitted. There were
rules and regulations regarding those laws.
     One of the important points to remember and to apply in
governing your life by trying to live by every word of God is:
Does the NT have a DIRECT ALTERATION to any of the Old Covenant
laws of Moses or even before Moses for that matter?
     We must read all the word of God to learn how to live by all
the word of God. So it is important we read the NT to see if
there are any passages that clearly ALTER a law found in the Old
Testament.
     When it comes to the law of OATHS and VOWS for the Christian
TODAY under the New Covenant, we do INDEED find verses in the NT
that DIRECTLY ALTER those laws.  Such laws are NOT to be followed
or obeyed or lived by today for the Christian!
     Matthew 5:33-37,  " Again, you have heard that it has been
said by them of OLD TIME, You shall not foreswear yourself, but
shall perform unto the Lord your OATHS. BUT I SAY UNTO YOU, SWEAR
NOT AT ALL; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the
earth, for it is His footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is
the city of the great King. Neither shall you SWEAR by your head,
because you cannot make one hair white or black. BUT LET YOUR
COMMUNICATION BE, YES, or NO: for whatsoever is more than these
comes of evil."
     Now that is pretty straightforward, little to interpret
here.  Jesus DIRECTLY ALTERED the laws concerning Oaths and Vows
and Swearing as under the Old Covenant, for the Christian under
the New Covenant.  The Christian today is NOT to enter into any
OATHS, VOWS, or SWEARING !
     James 5:12, " but above all things, brethren, SWEAR NOT,
neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by ANY OATH: but
let your yes be yes, and your no be no, lest you fall into
condemnation."

     The laws of our land(at least in Britain, Canada, and the
USA) allow for you as a Christian to AFFIRM and not to have to
swear on the Bible.  I hope most of you know that fact.  If you
find yourself in court for any reason, and you are asked to put
one hand on the Bible and raise the other while you swear to tell
the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,  YOU DO NOT
HAVE TO COMPLY!  You can tell them that as a Christian you will
AFFIRM. And you do not have to put a hand on the Bible to do that
either.
     A number of years ago, I was in court. The lady came forward
with a Bible to do what she had probably done thousands of times
before. This was in a small town, where obviously she had never
encountered someone who would not swear on the Bible to tell
the truth. I said to her that I did not do such a thing, but
would be quite willing to AFFIRM as a Christian that I would tell
the truth. She blinked, her mind no doubt going blank, and
repeated what she wanted me to do, that is swear on the Bible. I
once again, told her I would affirm to tell the truth. This time
she not only blinked again, but stuttered, paused and stuttered,
only to repeat she wanted me to swear on the Bible. 
     It was obvious by now to me that this poor lady that was
turning red with embarrassment in front of the Judge, did not
know there was a provision in the laws of the land that
Christians did not have to swear on the Bible in courts of law
but could affirm to tell the truth.  As she is telling me for the
third time to swear on the Bible and looking over at the Judge at
the same time, the Judge knowing what I'm going to say, finally
stepped in to tell her that I did not have to swear on the Bible
but could affirm to tell the truth. He took over for her and
asked me to affirm, which I readily did.
     I once had a Judge ask me where in the Bible did it say we
are not to swear. He knew the law of the land that I as a
Christian did not have to swear on the Bible but could affirm to
tell the truth, yet maybe he had never encountered it before, so
he politely asked me where he could find the no swearing verse. I
politely gave him the answer, and he seemed quite pleased to have
it.

     The same holds true for legal documents. If at the end of
them you see SWORN on this day.....etc.  all you need do is cross
out the word "sworn" and replace it with the word "affirmed." My
wife and I have had to do this a number of times in our life when
dealing with legal documents.

     It can be quite a WITNESS to the world at times when as a
Christian we live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of
God.
                  PHYSICAL CIRCUMCISION

     Romans 2:28,29.  "For he is not a Jew, which is one
outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the
flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one INWARDLY; and circumcision
is that OF THE HEART, in the SPIRIT, and not in the letter, whose
praise is not of men, but of God."
     1 Corinthians 7:19,  "Circumcision is NOTHING, and
Uncircumcision is NOTHING, but(what is important) the keeping of
the commandments of God."
     Galatians 5:6, "For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision
avails any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which works by
love."

     The Jerusalem conference of Acts 15 led to the official
presentation of the truth that was already being taught by Paul
and others, that physical circumcision was NOT required to be
saved.

     What we see in the above NT scriptures is BOTH an ALTERATION
and even a "done away with" law concerning physical circumcision.
     True NT circumcision for the Christian was not in the flesh
but in the HEART. It was a SPIRITUAL matter, not something
physical.  There was in that sense an ALTERATION from the flesh
to the spirit.  Made very CLEAR by the words of the NT. 
Then going even beyond that, the above words in 1 Cor.7:19 make
it plain that physical circumcision EITHER WAY, doing it or not
doing it, IS NOTHING today!!
     Now, I will probably get some flack from some who want to
uphold physical circumcision as a "good" thing health wise.  Such
can argue all they like, but Paul made it very clear that
physical circumcision is NOTHING!  Look, when was circumcision
introduced by God?  Was it from the beginning?  Was it with Adam?

No!  It was with ABRAHAM!  A number of thousands of years had
gone by from the beginning and MEN DID NOT PRACTICE CIRCUMCISION.

We have no record as coming from God that any were to so
practice. 
     If the nations before Abraham were obeying all of God's
health laws, then there would have been health WITHOUT
circumcision.  God did not make the male, He did not create the
male CIRCUMCISED!  For thousands of years before Abraham males
got along just fine without circumcision thank you, so did
Abraham himself before God introduced it to him, and ordered it,
for him and his seed.
     My mother did not believe in circumcision, so guess what. 
Yes you've got it.  Oh, it takes a little more work on the part
of parents to teach certain cleanliness habits to uncircumcised
males as they grow from small children to adults, and a few other
things we shall not go into here, but you can read about them in
the clinical sex books on the market.  Health wise I stand as one
to prove that the words of Paul are very true. Circumcision is
nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing.
     The old law of physical circumcision is ALTERED and even
"done away with" as for Christians under the New Covenant to have
to observe.  So it is written in the New Testament. 

8. EXAMPLES AND/OR COMMANDS OF THE NT
      
               ATTENDANCE AT SABBATH SERVICES

     Luke 4:16; Acts 17:2.  What we would call today "going to
church on the Sabbath" is given to follow by the Christian today
from EXAMPLES in the NT. We can certainly see that Jesus made it
a custom to attend "church" services, as we read through the
Gospel accounts. 
     So also the apostle Paul as we follow his journeys in the
book of Acts.  And we have a more direct command from Paul as
found in Hebrews 10:24-25, which with the above would include
assembling on the Sabbath if possible.

     Jesus observed the Festivals of God, the ones He gave to
Israel in Leviticus 23. This can be seen again from reading the
Gospels. Paul and the apostles likewise in the book of Acts (Acts
2:1; 18:21; 20:6,16). There may not be any direct command in the
NT that says, "You shall observe the feasts of Leviticus the
twenty-third chapter."  But there is NO verse(although some try
to use a few) in the NT that says, "The feasts of Leviticus
23 are now under the New Covenant, not to be observed."  When
EXAMPLES by Christ and Paul are given to show they continued to
observe these feasts under the NC, then those examples, WHEN
other things are "all weighed together" to prove the point fully,
do portray a picture that should be followed by the Christian of
the NT age.

        REMEMBER THE LORD'S DEATH WITH BREAD AND WINE

     Matthew 26:17-29;  1 Corinthians 11:20-28.  Here we see both
example and command.  Jesus ALTERED the NT Passover service from
a festive meal of roast lamb to the relative simple symbols of
bread and the cup(the fruit of the vine).  Paul also was inspired
to say that people were to "examine themselves" and then to eat
those symbols.

        ANGRY WITH YOUR BROTHER AND LUST IN THE MIND

     Matthew 5:21-30. Under the Old Covenant certain laws were in
effect that were quite letter of the law specific.  One was
MURDER, another was ADULTERY.  Jesus comes along under the NC and
with direct command goes one step further with those laws. He
goes to the heart and spirit of those laws. He teaches that now
to have a wrong attitude and mind and heart within such laws
against your neighbor or the spouse of your neighbor, was just as
guilty as if they had committed the literal act itself.

     John was also inspired to give instruction on the "spirit"
of the NT law command. He that did not love his neighbor, or
hated his neighbor was a murderer, and no eternal life was in him
(1 John 3:14,15).

                 RETURNING GOOD FOR EVIL

Matthew 5:38-41.  In some situations we are under the NT commands
NOT to seek rightful justice.  There will come times when others
may do things to us that could warrant justice on our part to be
persuasively sort for. Sometimes such temptation for revenge
and justice must not only be passed over, but doing good from us
to our enemy must come forth. This is not to say a Christian is a
"door-mat" for everyone to wipe their dirty boots on. Paul did
appeal to the Roman Authorities at times when the religious Jews
wanted to wipe their muddy shoes on him, as we see from the book
of Acts.  Yet there were times when Paul and Peter and other
servants of the Lord, endured evil from men and returned good. 
The situation, circumstance and the Holy Spirit, will lead and
guide you to know when justice on your part needs to be put to
one side and simple goodness returned to those who may have done
you wrong.

          COMMANDED TO SERVE WHEN IT IS POSSIBLE

     1 John 3:16-19.  The very context of these verses show that
John did not have in mind the literal giving of your life for a
brother/sister, although some have indeed done that very thing.
     The NT command is not that we just love in WORD, and in some
inner mental mind set, but if we see our brother with a physical
need and we HAVE the physical goods, whatever they be, to help
them in their need, WE MUST DO SO!  If we do not John can hardly
envision that person having the love of God in them.  It would
just not be the way the love of God flowing into and out of a
person would practice his Christian life.
     Of course the "good Samaritan" parable given by Jesus is the
capstone to serving others when it is possible for you to do so. 
That parable was both an example and a command for the child of
God to follow in this age.

9. THE SPIRIT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
      
     Acts 6.  This is really the NT category of Deut.17 I talked
about in the first part of this study.  It allows for the leading
and directing and inspiring  by the Holy Spirit within the
community of God, to make judgments for the betterment of the
whole body, or the body of a local congregation or groupings of
congregations, depending on the circumstances of the time and the
needs of the people.  It may also apply on a more individual
basis where hard matters are an issue and certain judgments must
be handed out.
     The example of Acts 6 and the choosing of seven by the
church and apostles to wait on tables, or to be more specific in
this situation, serve the widows with daily needs, to administer
physical necessities to them as the need arose. This judgment to
so organize had no SPECIFIC law as such from the books of Moses.
You will find in Acts 6 the apostles did not quote a book,
chapter, and verse of the OT to specifically authorize them
to make this judgment. Maybe it could be argued there are
PRINCIPLES in the OT to cover the establishment of "servers" or
"deacons."  But none are given or alluded to by the apostles. 
Then on the other hand, and this is an important hand, there are
no scriptures in the OT to oppose this judgment decision either.

     What is one of the most important factors here, probably THE
most important factor of all?  It is this:  The working decision
of the judgment MUST NOT contradict the teachings of God that are
still in effect for the individual and collective Christian
community to observe.  Let me give you an example as to what I
mean.
     The church, be it a local or a grouping of churches, its
ministers or its whole membership, cannot, because of a situation
say concerning travel, decide to hold the feast of Tabernacles in
the 6th month instead of the 7th month. They cannot sit down and
say, "Well for our members the way most are with their jobs, it
would be better to have the fall Festivals in the 6th month." 
Such a judgment would directly break an iron clad law of God that
the fall Festivals are to be in the 7th month.
     Any so called "leading by the Spirit" over such matters
should send bells ringing off in a Christian's mind, if any group
of persons made a judgment as I've outlined above. The obvious
question would be WHOSE spirit is such a judgment coming from? If
it is not from God, then we are left with only one other possible
answer.  
     Acts 6 was breaking NO command, law, statute, precept, of
God. Certain situations in any given age will arise for any given
congregation of God's people, that were not there before, and a
judgment must then be rendered if it is of sufficient importance.
     Today, we could possibly use an example of a church
congregation having a media outreach of the printed word. A
church that has the funds to produce a magazine, booklets and the
like, to send near and far, maybe around the world. We have
nothing in the OT or the NT on the matter in any specific way. To
do such an undertaking requires manpower and skilled leadership
over different departments of that manpower. The church with the
final blessing of the ministers(Acts 6 principle) may be involved
in the choosing of the skilled leaders over this publication
outreach.  There is no establishment and example and law of this
publication work found in the Bible, but on the other hand it is
not AGAINST any law or commandment in the Bible either.
     The Spirit leading in the church and body of Christ will
guide into the right judgments on such new specifics for a new
situation and age in the life of the people of God.

     This must also be applied at times on a personal individual
basis for a minister or group of ministers. Another example will
explain.

     Back in the 80's when I was in Ontario, near the city of
Toronto, a young man in the congregation came to me for help and
for counsel. He told me he was homosexual. I talked to him for a
number of hours that day. He wanted to know what God's stand was
on homosexuality. At the end of it all he said he understood. I
told him the thing that God hates the most is someone who
PRACTICES homosexuality.  For we all have our different sins of
the mind we must root out and clean out, and fight against.  Some
weeks went by and then he came to me again to talk more about the
same subject.  This time he told me other things he did not tell
me the first time.  He had and was still visiting with and
spending time with other homosexuals who were practicing this
sin.  Then he told me he was thinking about moving into the city
of Toronto.  Well for you that do not know, and think Canada is
lily white when it comes to sin as compared to the USA, this will
shock you.  The city of Toronto has the SECOND largest homosexual
community in North America, next to San Francisco.
     He still seemed like he wanted help from me to overcome
homosexuality and wanted me to tell him what he should do.
     I told him I would tell him what he should NOT DO.  I told
him that if he was to stand any chance of overcoming this sin, of
never practicing it, he had to GIVE UP his homosexual friends,
get away from them, put them out of his life.  Then I told him
that if he moved into the city of Toronto to live, it would be
the end of his life in the church and walk with God.
     Now to give that judgment, about not moving into Toronto to
live, I could not quote any Bible verse that said: "No Christian
having problems with homosexuality shall live in Toronto."  On
the other hand there was no scripture that said I could not
render such a judgment if everything pointed to that being the
best judgment under his circumstance. I had to act as given in
Deut.17 and this category we are looking at here of the leading
of the Holy Spirit under the NT age.  
     I had to see the overall teaching of the word of God on this
matter, understand the present situation of the area we lived in,
the facts of the city of Toronto, the facts that this young man
was too close to this sin for comfort at the present, and render
my judgment. I am sorry to tell you, he did not listen to me. He
did move into Toronto to live, would not give up his homosexual
friends, and our church congregation never saw him again.

     The Spirit of the Lord must be allowed to LEAD, to TEACH, to
render JUDGMENTS where such judgments may never have been
rendered before in quite that manner for that situation of the
time.  But remember the Spirit of God will NEVER contradict the
words of the Eternal that we are still to apply and live by as
Christians today.

10. NOT EFFECTED BY ANY OF THE ABOVE

     As we use the above 9 categories to help us determine HOW we
are to live by every word of God, we also need to remember that
there are some things that are NOT effected by ANY of those
overall categories.
     Let's take the example of FASTING, say on the Day of
Atonement. It is not governed by SACRIFICIAL laws, or by NATIONAL
laws, for you as a individual can fast without it being a law of
the nation.  It has nothing directly to do with HISTORICAL
National laws as far as you personally being able to fast on the
festival of Atonement.  It has nothing to do with CULTURAL
CARNALITY laws. You do not have to live in a certain culture to
decide to fast on this or any other day of the year. There is no
NT DIRECT ALTERATION to do with fasting per se.  In fact we find
NT statements like as when Jesus said, "WHEN you fast"  not IF
you fast.  So EXAMPLES and COMMANDS under the NT would be used
for fasting.
     
     The DAYS of the week or month, are not effected by any of
the above nine categories.  SACRIFICING, having a Temple with a
priesthood, does not effect the days of the month as to whether
those days are there or not. When the Temple was not in existence
during the 70 year captivity of Judah in Babylon,  the days of
the week did not end, they continued as ever before. Not
performing animal sacrifices on certain days or no days at all,
does not "do away" with the days themselves.

     The months of a year are un-effected by any of the nine
categories above. There is no ALTERATION in the NT that would
tell us something like: "You shall from this point on begin the
first day of the year in the middle of summer."  Living under a
nation that has its own National culture calendar does not effect
the calendar Moses and the leaders of Israel had. The one does
not have to effect the other in any foundational way. Two
calendars can co-exist alongside each other just fine, the Jews
have been doing it for centuries with the Hebrew and Roman
calendars.

     The above TEN categories must be used with each other and
with WISDOM in logical ways. To jump the gun and say, "everything
I can find that has any connection with physical sacrifice, I
will take as not having to be observed today because animal
sacrificing does not have to be observed(and cannot be observed
as there is no Temple in Jerusalem)" will lead you to "doing
away" with not only every day of the week, but every day of the
month and year also, as animal sacrificing in ancient Israel was
to be performed on  every day of the year.  When the Jews were in
captivity for 70 years in Babylon and were not able to practice
daily animal sacrificing, they did not believe the days of the
year had ceased to exist and that time was no more.

     The festivals of Leviticus 23 have the tabernacle,
priesthood and sacrifices attached to them. This does not by
itself and automatically mean that just because there is no
Temple, priesthood and sacrifices today, the festivals are thrown
out the window also. The Jews sure do not think this is the case,
not at all.  The baby does not have to get thrown out with the
bath water.  Care must be taken.
     There may be PORTIONS of a law in the Old that has been
changed in the New, while leaving the rest. It could be one
aspect or portion of a law or two or more aspect of the law that
has been changed, while the foundation of the law remains.
     Again I use the Festivals as an example.

     Under the OC the Feasts of God were to be observed in a
central location in Israel, at the place where God placed His
name. At first it was in Shiloh, and later that place was in
Jerusalem. Jesus comes along under the NC and in John 4 tells the
woman at the well that the time was COMING and even NOW was, that
Jerusalem would no longer be the only place to worship God. There
was an ALTERATION to this ASPECT of the law.  He did not say the
Festivals of God were "done away" only the specific aspect of a
central location in Israel to observe them and worship God
through them at this location WAS ALTERED under the NC. The basic
foundation of the festivals THEMSELVES would remain solid and
firm as before, but the portion of that law concerning a central
location in Palestine would become VOID and not applicable to NT
Christians.
     We see from 1 Corinthians 5 that the Gentile/Jewish church
at Corinth were observing the feast of Unleavened Bread and
literally putting the literal leaven out of their homes during
this feast as was commanded under the OC.  From this EXAMPLE in
the NT we are taught that THIS ASPECT of the festival law is
STILL to be followed by Christians today.
     Now another aspect of the festival law must have JUDGMENT
applied to it. I refer to the aspect of observing the Feast of
Tabernacles in make-shift booths, made from the branches of trees
(see Lev.23:41-43;  Nehemiah 8:14-18).  As this was to be done in
a central location (after Shiloh it was Jerusalem) in Palestine,
during the 7th month (our Sept./Oct) and as it was very pleasant
in the main at this time of the year in Jerusalem, it was no big
hardship for anyone, young or old.  Now under the NC age we have
first of all the aspect of a central location in Palestine NOT IN
EFFECT, and secondly a WORLDWIDE membership of God's people
called and chosen from EVERY NATION, far and near, east and west,
north and south. WITHOUT ANY LIMITATION as to land surface.  Do
you see what this means under our judgment here called for? 

     We have no SPECIFIC mention in the NT as to a judgment on
THIS aspect of the Festival law.  Yet for TODAY one surely must
be made.  God's people living in parts of the world where in
Sept./Oct. it would be very hard and severe weather to be out in
booths made from branches of trees, especially for the very young
and elderly, the Spirit of the law of the NT would I believe lead
to see that THIS aspect of the law of the feast of Tabernacles is
NOT in force today.  Certainly if some in climates that favor
such booth dwelling for seven days WANT to experience tent living
during this feast, they have the liberty to so do.  But I believe
the church of God has judged correctly for centuries now
that the aspect of Lev.23:41-42, and as followed in Nehemiah 8, 
was for an OC people who dwelt in Palestine and were coming to a
central location in that land, and that Christians today are
under no obligation to observe that portion or aspect of that law
of the feast of Tabernacles.

     The NT Spirit would have all persons, of every age, in every
land on earth, ENJOY and be BLESSED at the observance of the
feast of Tabernacles.  Many young and old, and some inbetween,
living in some areas on this earth, would come to dread and very
much dislike the feast of Tabernacles, if they were absolutely
and only to observe it living in make-shift booths made from the
branches of trees.  And God's festivals are to be a WONDERFUL
BLESSING for everyone everywhere, not an endurance trial.

     I have given you the basic keys and points to use TOGETHER,
and the word "together" is of prime importance, for often it is a
combination of these categories that must come together to answer
the question of HOW do I live by every word that proceeds out of
the mouth of God.

     Now you have them, keep them close at hand for reference.
Use them wisely as you prove all things and hold fast to that
which is good.

                             ..............

     Permission is given to copy, e-mail, web-site, print, and
distribute any article by Keith Hunt to others who are interested
in the word of the Lord.    

 

Tuesday, March 24, 2026

HISTORIANS AND GOD'S FESTIVALS

 

Feasts of God - Comments

What some historians say about the Feasts of God

                  COMPILED BY KEITH HUNT



CONYBEARE AND HOWSON:

     "......From the Hebrew point of view, the disciples of
Christ would be regarded as a Jewish sect or synagogue.......But
they were by no means separated from the nation.
They attended the festivals; they worshipped in the temple. They
were a new and singular party in the nation, holding parculiar
opinions, and interpreting the Scriptures in a parculiar way.
This is the aspect under which the Church would first present
itself to the Jews.......The FESTIVALS observed by the Apostolic
Church were at first the same with those of the Jews; and the
observance of these was continued, especially by the Christians
of Jewish birth, for a considerable time. A higher and more
spiritual meaning, however, was attached to their celebration;
and particularly the Paschal feast commemoration of blessings
actually bestowed in the death and resurrection of Christ"
(THE LIFE AND EPISTLES OF ST.PAUL. Pages 55, 346).

PROFESSOR STANLEY  in his sermon on St.Peter, page 92, says: 

" The worship of the Temple and the Synagogue still went side by
side with the prayers, and the breaking of bread from house to
house.........The fulfilment of the ancient law was the aspect of
Christianity to which the attention of the Church was most
directed."

PHILIP SCHAFF  says in his large work HISTORY OF THE APOSTOLIC
CHURCH. page 546, that it is with tolerable certainty that the
Jewish Christians (particularly those at Jerusalem) observed the
law with its weekly and yearly festivals. In the following
paragraphs of the same chapter, he is quite at a loss to explain
why the apostle Paul criticized the Galatians for observing
Jewish festivals (Schaff's understanding of Gal.4:10), while at
the same time observing them himself!  Schaff acknowledges that
James kept the holy days, because of the respect shown to him by
the Jewish community.
     But concerning Paul, Schaff could not understand why the
apostle allowed Romans to observe the holy days (Schaff's
interpretation of Rom. 14:5,6), but forbade the Galatians. 
     Schaff goes on to say on page 559, that Paul kept the feasts
and he kept them as a Christian!

PAUL COTTON in his book FROM SABBATH TO SUNDAY, says that the
influence of conservative Christianity was discernable upon the
Eastern or Asian churches for several centuries; that even after
Sunday worship was largely accepted, the Sabbath continued
to be observed - especially in the East.  even as late as A.D.
425, the people of Constantinople and several other cities
assembled on the sabbath (pages 63-65).  His conclusion is that
the church was by no means united with respect to Sunday worship,
nor did it make a radical departure from Sabbath observance.  The
process, Cotten says, was a gradual one.  It was Gentile
influence he says that brought about Sunday observance; and while
Christianity began in Judaism, it absorbed many points of
paganism and became a worldly religion (page 159).

NEANDER says that it was opposition to Judaism that led to the
establishment of Sunday, rather than the Sabbath, as the day of
worship - and while Christians in the East tolerated Sunday
worship in the churches, they continued to retain the Sabbath for
some time.  In the West, however, the opposition to Judaism was
so strong that Saturday was selected as a fast day, in order to
make it less appealing to those who should care to observe the
Sabbath.  According to Neander, the contrast between the two
groups of Christians - those who observed Saturday and those who
observed Sunday - was quite noticeable, and that some antagonism
was apparent in the matter of YEARLY festivals (Neander, Vol. 1
pages 295-297).

SCHAFF  (HISTORY OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH, page 558) says the
Jewish Christians kept the Passover and all the annual FESTIVALS
appointed by God through Moses and put them into Christian meaning.   
     In the footnote, Schaff says, "It is very remarkable that St.John makes Jewish
festivals, especially the Passover, so prominent in the public
life and ministry of Christ.  He evidently considered them
significant types of the leading facts of the Gospel history."
     On page 559, he further states that the second century
Paschal controversies prove that the early church kept the Jewish
festivals and that they derived their authority from the
apostles!

GAMBLE AND GREEN  in their work SEVENTH DAY BAPTISTS IN EUROPE
AND AMERICA Vol. 1, pages 21-35, say that the earliest historical
writings relating to the Britons attest to the founding of
Christian church in the British Isles, as early as the first
century - either by Paul or by any of his converts to
Christianity (made while in prison in Rome).  There is no doubt
they say that Christianity was planted in England before the
appearance of the Catholic Augustine, A.D. 596.  In Augustine's
biography we are told that he found the people of Britain engaged
in the most grievous and intolerable heresies, being given to
Judaizing and ignorant of the sacraments and festivals of the
church (Roman Catholic). 
 
     There is much history available about the British or Celtic
church before the arrival of the Roman Catholic religion in 596
A.D.  The 7th day Sabbath was the weekly rest day, and they were
accused of being Quartodecimine observers - those who observed
the memorial of Christ's death on the 14th of Nisan, as they
stated they had been taught by the apostle John himself.

     Further British history shows that it was not until A.D. 664
that Oswald, king of Northumberland, became convinced of the idea
of apostolic succession from Peter to the then Pope, and was
persuaded to accept Easter Sunday.  So gradually over time,
Easter Sunday took foothold in Britain, and pushed out and away
the observance of the Lord's death on the 14th of Nisan or Abid.

     As far as Ireland was concerned, Irish historians state that
during the reign of DERMOND (A.D. 528), Christianity was
flourishing in Ireland - and that they had received it from the a
ASIATICS.  Scottish historians state that it was customary in
Ireland, as well as in Scotland, for their early churches to keep
Saturday.

     Queen MARGARET, in attempting to harmonize the Scottish
church with the rest of Europe, stated that the majority of the
Scottish church did not reverence the "Lord's day" but held
Saturday to be the Sabbath.  The Sabbath was observed in Scotland
as late as A.D. 1093.  And in Wales, the Sabbath prevailed until
A.D. 1115.

     In spite of persecution and unpopularity, Sabbath keeping
continued in England.  Sometimes, prominent Sabbath preachers
were imprisoned. Among those who advocated the seventh-day
Sabbath was WILLIAM WHISTON, who translated the works and
writings of the Jewish historian JOSEPHUS into English  (Gamble
and Green, pages 108, 112). 

     This is only a FEW of the historical writings of men who
search the ancient records of history. There is indeed MUCH proof
from history and the New Testament itself that God's true elect
and chosen people continued to observe not only the SEVENTH day
Sabbath, but also the FESTIVALS of the Eternal as outlined in
Leviticus chapter 23.
 
     Sometimes this light was hardly noticeable as God's people
took refuge from persecution in the hills and valleys and dales
of Europe and Britain. But the light NEVER WENT OUT. As Jesus
said, He would build His church and the gates of death would
never prevail against it.

     Eventually scattered remnants of the true Church of Christ,
came across the ocean to settle in the New World of North
America. There they established the faith, sometimes looking as
though it would die, but those who were strong were courageous,
stood tall, searched the scriptures daily, were willing to be led
and taught by the Spirit into all truth. They would not deny the
name of God or His holy word.  The truth of the correct weekly
Sabbath and yearly Festivals grew and grew. The Lord raised up
various ministers in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries who
proclaimed loud and strong the feasts of the Eternal.
     
     If you know and practice the observance of God's festivals
then you my friend are partakers of this heritage.

                 ........................

Written April 1985

DOES COLOSSIANS 2:16 ABOLISH THE FEASTS OF GOD???

 DOES COLOSSIANS 2:16 abolish the FEASTS of GOD?

by Keith Hunt


     Many a man down through the ages - some famous, some not
famous and some infamous - have tried reading the Bible, but
ended up rejecting it as coming from an all powerful God. These
individuals were stunned by the Bibles seemingly contradictions.
"This book" they said, "can not possibly be inspired for it
contains dozens of contradictions." And at first glance they
would seem to be right. Some Biblical scholars on seeing this
predicament have written whole books to answer the sceptics
concerning these contradictions. These Biblical scholars knew
that Jesus had said, "The Scripture cannot he broken'."  God did
not contradict Himself in His word.  They knew that for every
seeming contradiction there had to be a logical and harmonious
answer.

     For those outside the "church" to be sceptical of how the
Bible is written is one thing, and we should expect to find this.
But it has never ceased to be of amazement to me when some
Biblical scholars, ministers and lay people also believe, by what
they say and write, that the Bible contradicts itself !  And what
is even worse - they seem to be quite happy with that belief and
make no attempt to untangle their mind.

     One of these seeming contradictions of the Bible concerns
verse 16 of Colossians chapter 2.

     It is said by the apostle Peter that one reason Jesus came
to this earth was to leave "us an example, that you should
follower His steps: Who did not sin" ( 1 Pet. 2: 21, 22 ). The
apostle John wrote, "He that says he abides in Him ought himself
also so to walk, even as He walked" (1 John 2:6).
     Now those verses are quite plain I think - it doesn't take a
degree in a theological school to understand them. All we have to
do is look in the four Gospels and see HOW Jesus lived - what HE
taught, commanded and observed - and follow after Him - walk as
He walked. But here's where the problems start for some. You see
most have thought that Paul was telling the Jews and Gentiles at
Colossae (in chap.2:16) through his letter that those old laws in
the Old Covenant about eating and drinking, the 7th day Sabbath,
the New Month days and the Feasts, were now ABOLISHED (no longer
had to keep them) when one became a Christian.
      Ahhhhhhhh, but didn't Peter say Christ came to set us an
example for us to follow? Jesus kept the "eating and drinking"
laws - He kept the weekly Sabbath - He kept the Feasts of
Leviticus 23. Jesus did not teach these things would no longer
need to be observed after His death. He said nothing
about.........abolishment of the things listed by Paul in verse
16.
     In fact the opposite is the case. Look at what He said in
Mat.5:17-20. He first tells His disciples NOT to think He has
come to abolish the law (first five books) then notice
one of His plain teachings in verse 19, "Whosoever therefore
shall break one of these least commandments, AND shall teach men
so (to break what they think is the least commandments) he shall
be called the least in the Kingdom of heaven (doesn't say he'll
be in the Kingdom), BUT whosoever shall do and teach them, the
same shall be called great in the Kingdom of heaven. FOR..."
notice this, verse 20, "For I say unto you, that except your
righteousness(see Ps.119:172) shall exceed the righteousness of
the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no case enter into the
Kingdom of heaven." The scribes and Pharisees kept the laws of
Col.2:16 externally at least.

     So to many Paul contradicted Jesus - he taught differently
than Jesus - he changed the teachings of Jesus.  But is that
REALLY SO?

                   PAUL CONTRADICTS HIMSELF?

     Not only do some think that Paul contradicted Jesus but that
Paul contradicted Paul. He tells the Jewish/Gentile church at
Rome (according to many) that they can choose their own days to
keep holy to God, and the Lord will accept them - Rom.14.
Now surely some - even some Gentiles - would have chosen the 7th
day Sabbath and the feast of Pentecost or day of Trumpets, as
would have some Jewish Christians. Paul teaches it would seem to
many here - FREEDOM! Yet, to the Jews and Gentiles at Colossae he
calls them out and instructs them to not let people teach them to
observe the ways of eating and drinking, the weekly Sabbath, new
month days and Feasts. At least many claim Paul is teaching this
to the Colossians.

     With all this seeming to be, contradictory teachings of
Paul, what do we find in the book of Acts on how Paul LIVED and
the FEASTS he observed? Why we fined he kept the 7th day Sabbath
- he kept the Passover (but the NT way as instituted by Christ) -
he kept the feast of Pentecost.
     In fact Paul did nothing that his Jewish Pharisaical enemies
could accuse him in breaking the laws of God,  see Acts chapters
22 through 26.

     Some claim Paul was a Christian Jew and as such it was okay
for him to still keep his Jewish heritage by observing the
Sabbath and Feasts, but the Gentiles did not have to do this, or
they could observe the 1st day of the week and different
festivals other than those found in Leviticus 23.

     With this reasoning, let's ask some questions. A Jew that
accepts Jesus as the Messiah - does he stop keeping the 7th day
and start keeping the 1st day? Does he continue to keep the 7th
day because it is national heritage and also start observing the
1st day as the Christian Sabbath? Or does he not observe either
the 7th or 1st day but can choose another as Romans 14 would
suggest he can do, according to how some interpret this section
of scripture.
     
      Does the Gentile have to keep Sunday as the NT "Lord's day"
? If so - what then is Romans 14 teaching? Does God have the 7th
day for Jews and the 1st day for Gentiles?

     Does God have one set of Feasts for the Jewish Christians
and another set of Feasts for the Gentile Christians? What does a
person do if they are half Jew and half Gentile blood? And how
does Romans 14 apply to all this? Does God have different ways
of salvation for different people?

     It is not the purpose of this article to explain what Paul
is teaching in Romans 14 - I have another article which does that
- all I will say here is that the "days" of Romans 14 have
nothing to do with Sabbaths or Feasts of God as found in the Old
Testament.

     No Paul never contradicted himself either in what he taught
or practiced.

     Now let's get to what Paul was teaching the church in
Colossians chapter 2.

                     THE CONTEXT OF COL.2:16

     Even the mightily inspired apostle Peter had to admit that
some things Paul wrote were "...hard to be understood" and he
went on to say that those who were unlearned AND unstable did
wrest unto their own destruction (2 Pet.3:16). The reason why so
many have trouble with Paul's writings is because they will not
look at the context of verses like Col.2:16 and the context of
Paul's life as recorded in the book of Acts. Too many want
to isolate a statement by Paul from the verses around that
statement and from other words of his in other letters. They read
Paul with what we call "tunnel vision" or with blinders (like
some horses wear over their eyes when racing) over their eyes so
they do not see all Paul wrote.

     First, let's notice the basic spiritual condition that the
people to whom Paul was writing were in. They had faith in Christ
and love for all saints (chap.1 v.4). They had been alienated
from Christ by the way they had lived but were now reconciled
(v.21). Paul took pleasure in their order and steadfastness of
faith in Christ (chap.2:5). They had been baptized (v.11-12). And
their sins had been blotted out (v.13-14).

     Secondly, we need to see the apprehension and fear that Paul
held for them and WHY. Paul wanted them to have full assurance of
understanding(v.2). He was concerned about them being led astray
by men with enticing words (v.4). He wanted them to WALK
in the way of Jesus (we have seen Peter said to do the same -
Jesus kept the Sabbath and Feasts of Lev.23) - see v.6. Paul
warns them about men preaching deceit, wrong philosophies,
teachings of the world, and ideas of men - that were opposed to
Christ's teachings (v.8). He warns them against people who were
entrapped in worshipping the spirit world, teaching observance to
the physical, from man's commandments, and asceticism (v.18-23).
     He warns them about all this, the ways of the unconverted
and deceived religious world of various false dogmas.

     With that background we can now start to understand what
Paul is warning the Colossian church about. Here was a people who
had been taught the gospel, had been shown the way and teachings
of Jesus - they had come to recognize they were sinners in need
of forgiveness - they had accepted Christ as Messiah and Savior -
they had been baptized, had their sins and debt of death removed.
They were now walking after Christ - living as He lived -
practicing things as He practiced them. Then Paul gets word that
sinister evil men were trying to shake and destroy their faith
and walk with Jesus, by enticing them with many traditions,
philosophies, doctrines, commandments of men and asceticism.

     These men are falsely telling them about how they have had
contact with the spirit world. They are preaching to the
Colossians that they have the spiritual truths not Epaphras their
minister. These beguiling men are saying to those who will
listen, that to follow this Christ and walk as He walked is
foolishness, and that they have the correct traditions, customs,
worship and commandments.

     Try to put yourself in the picture. You were a part of a
false pagan or religious society - doing things contrary to the
ways of Christ. Along comes a minister of Jesus and expounds the
saving truth to you - and you see your sins - you see that what
you have been believing and practicing have been the
philosophies, traditions and commandments of MEN. You see you are
a sinner in need of forgiveness - you see Jesus is the savior
- you repent and are baptized - you start to live as He lived,
walk as He walked. Your former friends and philosophical leaders
see they no longer have any influence over you pertaining to your
spiritual life. They do not understand your new faith - they
think what you are now doing is crazy!! Then they make every
effort to entice you back into their world and their man made
concepts and traditions.

      SO IT WAS FOR THE CONVERTS TO CHRIST AT COLOSSAE!

     These converts to Jesus at Colossae had been in sin - but
now are forgiver by the death of Christ on the stake. They now
have repented or their old former way of life, and are now
walking as Jesus walked - they are obeying God's laws concerning
eating and drinking - they are keeping as Jesus kept, the
festivals that God says are "my feasts" (Lev.23:1). Many are now
observing the 7th day Sabbath as God commanded in the fourth of
His 10 commandments (Ex.20). These followers of Jesus now observe
the Jewish calendar and honor the new month days set by that
calendar, together with the yearly Festivals as outlined in the
books of Moses. Then after they start to live this way - the way
Christ lived - along came men trying to criticize, sit in
judgment, and govern them back into their man made, philosophies,
commandments and traditions.

     Paul admonishes the Colossian church, "Let no man therefore
judge you..."

     What does Paul mean by "no man"? Is he saying that their
minister should not guide and govern them into God's way and
truth? Does he mean that he Paul should not lead and guide them
into the truth of Christ? Does the body of Christ - the church -
have no leadership, guidance, or government among itself? Of
course it does! See 1 Cor. 5 and 6:1-8.
      Paul is telling the Colossian Christians that they should
let no man of these ENTICING, BEGUILING, vain, fleshly minded men
of the world govern or sit in judgment over them concerning the
way they now eat and drink, and the festivals they now observe.
No PART of this way of life is to be governed by the outside
people of this world who reject Christ, or who make up their own
rules of religion for their spirit worship of the unseen.

     The Colossians are not to be governed by the fleshly
unconverted minds of men in regards as to "...eating and
drinking(as the Greek is), in regards festivals, new months
or sabbaths." The day to day eating and drinking habits, the
yearly, monthly, and weekly festivals, that God's people follow
should not be influenced, determined or governed by the
philosophies, traditions, doctrines and commandments of men who
would entice them from walking in Christ Jesus.

     Now notice verse 17. Did Paul teach and believe the physical
laws of eating and drinking were "done away"? Did he believe the
Festivals, new month days, the weekly Sabbaths of God were "done
away"? 
     Look at what he says regarding these, "Which ARE" present
tense in the Greek - "Which ARE (not were) a shadow of things to
come..." 
     A shadow leads to the reality! A shadow of a man appearing
around a corner will lead you to the man. 
     So it is with all of God's yearly, monthly and weekly
festivals - they have GREAT MEANING about "things to come."

     The Passover lamb was slain on the 14th of Nisan - Jesus as
the reality of the shadow was slain on the Passover day as the
true Lamb of God. The Passover festival was a shadow of things to
come.
     The feast of Firstfruits(Pentecost) was a shadow of things
to come - the outpouring of God's Holy Spirit came on that
precise day (Acts 2). 
     The feast of Trumpets is a shadow of the coming last trump
when Jesus will return to earth. All the weekly, monthly, and
yearly festivals are a "shadow of things to come." They ARE,
presently, today, continually a constant reminder of the
wonderful plan of God for this earth and the people on it.

     If the Christian world had continued to observe God's
festivals they would not be in confusion today as to what is the
plan of Salvation that the Lord has for mankind.

                 ....BUT THE BODY OF CHRIST?

     This phrase of Paul's has also been misused, abused, and not
understood but by a few. It is claimed that Paul was telling the
Colossians that laws to do with eating and drinking, festivals
and sabbaths were not important - were "done away" - only
accepting Jesus as the Messiah and Savior was now important. Just
"give your heart to the Lord brother," just "come as you are,"
the law is "done away and it's only grace today" is what
many teach that Paul is basically saying here in verse 17. 
     Nothing could be further from the truth!

     In the inspired original Greek that the New Testament was
written in, the little word "is" can not be found - it is not
there. This phrase should read, "but the body of Christ"
and that puts a whole different light on this passage. The word
"but" is a connecting word, and what most miss is WHERE it is
connecting. It is connecting with the thought of verse 16 - the
phrase, "Let no man therefore judge you." Put these two phrases
together and you have Paul's complete thought and statement with
a parenthetical thought inbetween.

     So Paul's complete statement should be, "Let no man
therefore judge you(parenthetical thought)but the body of
Christ." The Greek contained no punctuation whatsoever. Today we
would write verses 16 and 17 like this, "Let no man therefore
judge you(in eating and drinking, or observance of a festival, or
new month, or sabbaths, which  are a shadow of things to come)but
the body of Christ."

     The "body of Christ" are the collective remembers of the
church. This can be seen from the following verses of scripture:
1 Cor.6 15; Rom.12:5; 1 Cor.12:12-27. It is the church of Jesus
Christ through the Holy Spirit and the Ministry that God has
established (Eph.4:11 12) that is to govern and guide the church
as a whole in matters of Christian living and observance of
Festivals, not those outside the church with their various ways
of a so-called spirituality, based upon "the way that seems right
unto man but which ends in death." 

     Certain individuals were endeavoring to get the followers of
Christ at Colossae into observing man made food and drink
commandments (i.e. touch not, taste not, handle not - give up
something during the Lent season. Or, do not eat fish on Friday)
as well as their festive traditions (i.e. pagan Easter, Xmas,
January lst and the Roman-Greek calendar), philosophical
teachings, humanism, bodily flagellation (they still walk on
their blood covered knees while reciting prayers to the altar, in
some parts of the world) and spirit (angel-demon) worship. They
wanted the Christians to give up following the physical and
festival laws of the Hebrew God and reject Jesus as the Savior
from sin. Paul tells the Colossian church to pay no attention to
these fleshly minded men, but to let the body of Christ - the
church - be their light and guardian over the things they were
NOW ALREADY practicing (in the way of eating, drinking, 
festivals and sabbaths) as they walked in Christ.

     Contrary to the popular teaching or Colossians 2:16 this
section of scripture is one of the greatest proofs in the New
Testament that the Jewish and Gentile converts to Christianity
continued to observe not only the physical laws of God, but also
the weekly Sabbath, the new month days(Hebrew calendar as
governed by the Jewish authorities) and the Festivals of the Lord
as outlined in Leviticus 23.

                       .............

Foot note

I've purposely stayed away from getting too technically
scholastic with the Greek in this presentation, while at the same
time bringing out what the Greek means. I do not believe
God's children need a degree in NT Greek to understand what Paul
is teaching in this part of his letter to the Colossae church. It
is really quite plain to see from the whole context. For those
who could desire a somewhat more technical presentation of this
passage I refer you to the scholastic book FROM SABBATH TO SUNDAY
by Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi (4569 Lisa Lane, Berries Springs,
Michigan 49103 USA). Dr. Bacchiocchi has another way to explain
this section of Paul's letter. While I personally do not agree
with his explanation, it does still agree with the truth I have
presented here - namely that the Christians (Jews-Gentile) of the
first century A.D. continued to observe the Sabbath and Feasts of
God as established in the Old Testament.

One of the most technical study articles I've seen to date on
this section of Paul's writings is by Larry Waker. He basically
gives the same explanation as Dr. Bacchiocchi. His articles are
available on computer disk (ASCII text format) for a donation of
$2.50 from: Sharing Disks, c/o John Guffey, 9700 South Anderson
Road, Oklahoma City, OK 73165, USA.

                            ...................

                        Written May 1987

                                   by

                           Keith Hunt

All articles and studies by Keith Hunt may be copied, published,
e-mailed, and distributed as led by the Spirit.



Tuesday, March 17, 2026

CHURCH GOVERNMENT-- WOMEN??? #3, #4

 

Women in the Church? #3

Answers to various arguments

 WOMEN'S ROLE IN THE CHURCH SERVICE......CONTINUED, PART THREE

The Way:

     Have you ever been in an audience somewhere before a program
begins, and on all sides of you is the sound of talking from the
people around you, but you can't really tell what anyone is
saying? All you hear is the hum of people talking. That's a good
way of describing laleo. It's not necessarily intelligible speech
- it's just the sound of the human voice.
     That's what Paul is talking about in 1 Corinthians 14. If
you have received the gift of speaking in another language, but
it's a language no one else in the room understands, trying to
address the group in that language is pointless -- no one will
understand what you are saying!  All they will hear is the sound
of your voice! That's the "speaking" (laleo) in tongues (glossa,
languages) Paul is referring to in this chapter.

     What many people have missed is that Paul is not speaking
about tongues, and then about women. The Greek shows us the
unifying factor: Paul is discussing the subject of laleo, of
useless or non-edifying application of the human voice during
services!  What Paul said was that women are not allowed to
laleo, and it is disgraceful for a woman to laleo in the church.
In this passage, Paul is not addressing women preachers at all!

COMMENT:
Wooww!  Just wait a minute! Yes, Paul is speaking about tongues
that do not profit anyone if there is no interpreter. BUT he is
also speaking about a whole lot MORE than that.  He is speaking
about "prophets" and "prophesying" - about speaking to edify and
instruct.  His whole theme in this chapter was that of clear
instructional edification for everyone.  In verse 26, he
acknowledges that everyone there had something they could
contribute, so was the magnitude of the gifts of the Spirit in
their congregation. He then sets about giving them instructions
on how order should be within their assembly during the service.
He even lays out for them that only SO MANY (with the gift of
tongues and those who could prophesy - speak the words of the
Lord) could speak and that IN TURN.  He tells them there is no
such thing as "well I just could not help but speak, for the
Spirit made me do it" as the spirit of the prophet is subject to
the prophet. The Spirit does not force anyone to speak, it does
not just "take over" a person like a demon sometimes does that
enters an individual, and where that person then has no control
of what and when and how they do things.  Paul instructs them God
and His Spirit do not function that way, where confusion is the
end result. 
You will notice the LAST thing, before introducing his
instructions concerning women, that he talks about is NOT tongues
but it is the PROPHETS and prophesy.  Those who can speak the
words of the Lord either by direct revelation on the spot, or
instruct and teach the revelation of God from the Scriptures.  So
if we want to argue any "nearest" context in the Greek, for our
"women keep silence" issue, then it is not tongues but prophesy
that they are to be silent on.
The full truth of the matter is the WHOLE chapter context, that I
have already given above in earlier comments.  But a repeat is
worthwhile.  
Paul knew most of the congregation at Corinth had some gift of
the Spirit, including the women.  They did not control those
gifts, they did not have order in the service, they were
all just letting it hang out as they say, anytime they felt like
it. Paul corrected them on their misuse of the gift of tongues
and how such a gift in the assembly should be used. He instructs
them on some order they should have in their service and even
limits certain gifts to two or three.  He understands even the
women had some of these gifts, and knows the question will arise
(especially among the Jews there) about whether they are allowed
to use that vocal gifts in edifying and instructing the
congregation during the time when the church comers together into
one place.  It is at the END of all his correcting and
instructions he gave to them that he answers that question, as it
would then cover ALL that he has given instructions on.  Paul
answers the question of all women with any gift of being able to
teach, instruct, preach, the words of the Lord, by saying, THEY
are to be SILENT in that regard, even to the point of asking
questions. If they have any questions they are to ask their
husbands at home (a general statement, without going into the
exceptions of those who are not married, divorced or widows).  

The Way:

     In fact, Paul's instructions in 1 Corinthians 11:4-5,
regarding men and women praying and prophesying with their heads
covered or uncovered, strongly implies that the women were able
to take part in worship, in praying, and perhaps even in teaching
(one of the definitions of prophesying) in the assembly.

COMMENT:
We have already show and proved that this section of Scripture in
1 Cor. 11 has nothing to do with "when the church comes together
into one place" but it does concern every man and woman in the
body of Christ on an every day basis outside of the church coming
together.

The Way:

     Notice this footnote to 1 Corinthians 14:33-40 in the Key
Study Bible: "... it was not an instruction to all the men in
general not to permit any woman to speak in church, but to
husbands to guide and teach their own wives lest they produce
confusion and disturbance in a meeting. ..."


COMMENT:
Now let's use some logic and some common sense as to how Paul
wrote and the before context he wrote in.  He had just gone
through expounding and explaining and correcting the errors of
speech the members of the congregation were practicing in the
church coming together at Corinth.  He had made it clear there
was not only confusion in their services, but people speaking who
could not be understood by anyone. He then instructs them what
church services should be for - edification for all, and he
further lays down certain rules of how many can speak who have
certain gifts of the Spirit. This he tells them is in order
NOT to have confusion, for, under inspiration of the Spirit he
says, God is not the author of confusion. Plainly, he is telling
them that their confusion in services is from somewhere
else other than God, I think they would have understood where he
was telling them it was from, without naming any names of those
in opposition to the Lord, and who are part of the unseen world
of the created spirits.
If Paul, after saying all this, was now wanting the husbands to
make sure their wives were not part of this confusion, he could
have easily said after verse 33, something like this:
"Husbands, make sure you teach and train your wives at home, so
they will not bring any confusion in speech as they participate
in the teaching and preaching when the church comes together."
That's all he would have needed to say, for IF, and for the sake
of argument we shall say it was so, women were already fully
participating in the teaching, preaching, expounding of the word,
in the Church of God services everywhere, then a simple short
paragraph such as I have given above would have been all that
Paul would have needed to say after verse 33 of chapter 14, to
the husbands and the wives.
There would have been no need to have said anything about "the
law" or about "learning" or about "asking their husbands at home"
for everyone would have known women were on par with men in the
teaching and preaching during services.  If there was any problem
with wives bringing in confusion during the teaching service then
a short sentence like above would have been all that Paul needed
to say.
Then such an idea that it was the women who were mainly
responsible for the confusion is a real slap in the face for
them.  To think that bringing in talk confusion in the teaching
part of the church service is only a problem that women have, and
need some extra instruction at home under their husbands, to
control and overcome it, is not only a slap in the face towards
women but is a close-minded and blinded view to the fact that MEN
can have just as much a problem with confusion in talk when they
start going at each other and disagreeing over what the word says
or means.  Men are just as likely to interrupt each other in
speaking, disagree over the meaning of a verse or verses,  get
all emotional, and cause confusion in an open forum (as the
Corinthians obviously were practicing before Paul instructed them
about "order") as women are!
So who were going to teach the men lest they produce confusion
and disturbance in a meeting?  
Then why would anyone want to teach another in the homes not to
cause confusion and a disturbance in the church meetings when
Paul had JUST NOW instructed them in the ORDER of things, so
there would be no confusion?  He had just given them what he said
were the COMMANDS of the Lord. He had just instructed them in no
uncertain way about those who would give edification talks to the
congregation. He had instructed them HOW NOT TO BE IN CONFUSION! 
To think that the women still needed further instruction
on the matter, makes out the women and wives to be either not
listening, not able to read, or just plain slow and dumb. Again,
it would be another insult and slap in the face for women.
Paul had a number of women that were workers with him in the
gospel. He wrote and spoke highly of them in not a few of his
epistles.  To understand Paul as teaching and saying what
Zodhiates, the Key Study Bible, and the authors of this article
want you to accept and believe, is not only not understanding
Paul and his theology, but is also filled with much il-logic.

The Way:

 "The word 'speak' should be taken to mean 'uttering sounds that
are incoherent and not understood by others.' Paul says that
instead it is better to have silence. Paul uses the same word
'keep silent' to admonish a man [any person, actually] who speaks
in an unknown tongue without an interpreter (vv. 28, 30). "

COMMENT:
So "keep silent" then does mean to "keep silent."  Those who
could speak in a tongue were not to speak - keep silent - not
utter sounds of speech, IF they had no interpreter, or could
not interpret for themselves.  So Paul said what he meant and
meant what he said.  If the tongues speaker was to be silent, not
to speak (which is admitted to mean just that - not say
any words in edification, teaching, preaching, expounding, and
prophesy from the Lord) unless there was an interpreter, then
Paul also meant what he said and said what he meant, when he said
women were to keep silent and that it was not permitted unto them
to speak. 
The context as we have seen is edification, teaching, expounding,
revelations, instruction from the Lord, not the mere fact of
saying "hello" to someone, or telling the children to stop making
a noise. Paul then clearly tells us that women are to "keep
silent" in teaching during services where instruction and
edification for the whole congregation is the purpose of coming
together into one place.

The Way:

     "What Paul is saying is that only one man [person] must
speak at a time, for if two speak at once, there will be
confusion. ... The issue is not men versus women, but it is
confusion versus order. In God's sight, it makes no difference
who causes the confusion. It is a shame for any woman to bring
confusion into the local church (v.35), even as it is for any man
to do so."

COMMENT:
The issue up to verse 33 is first to correct and instruct about
the prevailing confusion that was present in the church service,
and to lay down rules for order. Then he addresses after all
that, the issue of whether women can use the gifts of the Spirit
they may have, in teaching, preaching, edifying the congregation
from the word or revelations of the Lord, during that part of the
service devoted to that purpose - teaching and edifying from the
Lord to the congregation, which he had just finished addressing
and laying down instruction.


The Way:

     And again, as mentioned previously, the word gunaikes
(Strong's #1135, a derivative of gune) in verse 34 should not be
translated "women," but as "wives." 

COMMENT:
Not so, it should be as nearly all Greek and English translation
give - women. Paul was meaning all women as shown in 1 Tim. 2,
where the instruction on dress and outward appearance for women
applies to all women, not just the married, and where the
instruction in verses 11,12 applies to all women not only to the
married.

The Way:

     Once again, the point of the verse is that wives should
submit to their husbands.  Paul isn't teaching the subjection of
women to men in general, but rather that husbands and wives fit
into the family unit ordained by God.  Zodhiates writes that "the
duty of the husbands is to restrain their own wives from
out-bursts during the worship service. Whenever Paul speaks of
submissiveness by a woman, it is always on the part of a wife to
her own husband."

COMMENT:
Wow! Read that again where they quote from Zodhiates.  Yes, I
guess he wrote it, they quote it.  Now, in a world where many
nations had kept their women as practical slaves, and where they
were not permitted to go on to higher education, where they were
often looked upon as part of the "possessions" of a man.  Where
the Jews could cast them aside with the stroke of a pen, and go
on to another one, or two, or three (polygamy was still allowed
in Jewish life), it would seem if we adopt the suppositions of
Zodhiates in what Paul was teaching under the sections we are
concerned with in this study, that there were some pretty wild
and powerful and emancipated  wives in the Churches of God, who
would really "go to town" as they say, during the church come
togethers.  It would seem they would rant and scream and put on
quite the out-bursts during worship service, so they needed to be
restrained in some fashion (maybe holding, maybe standing between
their wife and the person their wife was going to cat-claw, maybe
putting a rope around them and tying them down, maybe some other
type of restraining like a straight jacket) during services. 
This was so bad that Paul even had to tell the husbands to teach
them restraint and to teach them to be under the husband's
authority, at home, somehow, in some manner.
Now, how would you do this at home, away from the situation of
many others coming together and where arguments could take place
if there was no order or an open forum was practiced? Would you
get the kids to confront their mother so she was close to an
out-burst, and then teach her to restrain?  Would you call in the
neighbors and have them niggle your wife unto she was ready to
explode in vocal vociferousness, and then teach her to restrain?
Would you deliberately pick a fight with her to then teach her to
restrain from throwing the cooking pot at you?
I speak of course with tongue in cheek.

For the sake of the argument, we shall go along with the
supposition and theory of Zodhiates.  By the time Paul wrote his
epistles it was just common practice within all the Churches of
God, that women were teaching, preaching, expounding the word of
the Lord in church services just as much as the men were.  But
they were getting out of hand, just causing far too much
confusion, bringing too many out-bursts into the worship service,
and so Paul found it needful to tell the husbands to do some
teaching at home, so their wives would be more restrained and
come under their authority and be subject to them, not
usurping their husband's authority.  How would he tell her she
had gone too far and was now usurping it over him?  Would it be
if she spoke too often, or spoke too fast, or too slow, or too
continuously without a break for three minutes?  Would it be if
he thought she was smiling too much at the other men in the
congregation?  Or maybe, if she did not smile at him enough times
in any five minute period?  Perhaps he would deem she had gone
beyond his authority if she did not allow him to speak, once
every ten minutes at least. 
Maybe he would have to restrain her somehow if she laughed too
many times, or got a little emotional over a verse or point of
doctrine or someone else commenting on something.
I can see the people and couples and ministers of the church
spending large amounts of time trying to figure out how to
establish and practice this type of family instruction we are
to believe Paul was teaching to the husbands. Perhaps, when Paul
was alive he wrote it out for them in fine detail, but it got
lost along the way, and we today are left in the dark and left to
fend for ourselves, and figure it all out for ourselves.  Oh, the
many hours of wrangling, disputing, arguing, fretting, and
confusion it would take and produce, to probably get nowhere in a
slow hurry. It would probably end up making as much sense as
the words "slow hurry."  

The Way:
                     A DIFFERENT SET-UP
                        IN THOSE DAYS

     But why should there be any extraneous talking such as this?
In our modern congregations, families sit together, and we all
sit respectfully and listen to what is taking place.
In ancient times, however, the seating arrangement with which we
are familiar was probably not what people were using.  Note this
passage from the Jewish New Testament commentary in reference to
1 Corinthians 14:
     "Sha'ul [Paul] is answering a question (7:1) the Corinthians
asked about wives discussing with their husbands what is being
said while it is being said. This would disturb decorum even
if the wife were sitting next to her husband; but if the
universal Jewish practice of the time (and of Orthodox
congregations today) was followed, wherein women and men are
seated separately in the synagogue, it would obviously be
intolerable to have wives and husbands yelling at each other
across the m 'chitzah (dividing wall)."

COMMENT:
Yes, of course it would be distracting and end in confusion if
many wives were asking their husbands questions about what was
being said, while it was still being said, while the speaker was
still teaching and expounding the word of the Lord. So Paul,
knowing that, also made sure his readers understood that his
directive for women to keep silent while the teaching part of the
service was under way, included even keeping silent concerning
questions their wives may have as the teaching service was under
way. They were to note their questions and ask their husbands for
answers when they were at home. And as I have already pointed
out, Paul was thus upholding the family structure by honoring the
husbands to answer their wive's questions and not the Eldership. 
I would suppose if the husband did not know the answer he would
go to the Eldership for it, and then instruct his wife.

The Way:
                        EDUCATIONAL DIFFERENCES
                                    
     Another possible explanation for Paul's instructions to
husbands about their wives "speaking out" in the assembly is
this: During Paul's time most women were not very well educated. 
Men were the ones that delved deeply into the issues of the day,
especially the issues relating to theology.  Imagine a doctrinal
message being given in Corinth that requires a foundational
understanding of the topic. In order for individuals to
contribute to the edification of the assembly, they would need a
deeper understanding of the topic.
     There may well have been great differences in the
educational levels among the men and women of the Corinthian
congregation, which led to confusion at times. As it was written
on another occasion, "We have much to say, and it is difficult to
explain, for you have become sluggish in hearing.  Although you
should be teachers by this time, you need to have someone teach
you again the basic elements of the utterances of God. You need
milk, (and) not solid food" (Hebrews 5:11-12, The New American
Bible).

COMMENT:
The fault with this reasoning is that it forgets again the
context of the chapter and the context of the church in Corinth. 
Here was a congregation blessed with more GIFTS OF THE SPIRIT
than probably any other congregation in the Churches of God at
that time. The gifts of the Spirit are given to all (including
women) as the Spirit distributes.  What lack of formal education
some of the women in the church had, having a gift of the Spirit
would nullify, and when it would come to teaching and preaching
and expounding the word of the Lord, many a man and woman would
excel if filled with not only the Spirit of the Lord but also a
gift from that Spirit.

The Way:

     Imagine that we are the Corinthian congregation. Someone's
wife abruptly interrupts the meeting, on a fairly regular basis,
by asking a question in the middle of the discussion. It may
be a very good question. Yet, it would require such a digression
back into the fundamental levels of the topic that it takes away
from the edification intended for the whole group. To answer and
explain her question would not allow the topic to move forward.
Of course, there's nothing wrong with that, and occasional review
is good for everyone. The problem arises when this happens
week alter week.  Some of the members have expressed feelings of
frustration over this situation.
     Because we, in Corinth, wish to resolve this problem, and a
number of other problems we are currently experiencing in our
local fellowship, one of the leaders of the congregation sends a
letter to Paul in order to see how he would want us to handle
these situations.

     Paul sends us the letter that would later be known as the
book of 1 Corinthians. In the section of his letter giving
instructions about how our assemblies should be conducted, he
addresses the problem of handling interruptions by wives asking
questions of their husbands during the meeting, a process that
slows down the learning in the assembly.
     He tells us, "Let your wives be at peace and in control of
themselves in the assembly, for it is not permitted for them to
be continuously speaking out and causing a disturbance. They are
to be subordinate to their husbands as we are instructed in the
scriptures. If they want to learn more about what is being
discussed, they should ask their husbands later, for it is
totally inappropriate for wives to speak out and disturb the
edification process in the assembly" (authors' paraphrase).
     This way,  husbands and wives can prepare together, ahead of
time, and discuss the background of a discussion topic, so they
can both be prepared to contribute and learn.
     This discussion, and the instructions about husbands and
wives given in 1 Timothy, should help us better to understand the
group dynamics that were taking place at Corinth in the middle of
the first century and how Paul instructed them to properly
conduct their meetings.

COMMENT:
Interesting scenario, but Paul's language is not what the authors
paraphrase.  He could have used words like "peace" and
"self-control" and "continually speaking out." He could
have used words like "I hear your women are causing a disturbance
when the church comes together" and words such as, "I hear the
wives in your assembly are prone to out-bursts" or "as for the
wives asking questions while the prophet speaks."  He could have
used words to say, "I hear the wives are speaking out and
edification is hindered."  The Greek language had words for all
the above. Paul could have used them and written very similar
to what the authors give us in their paraphrase.  BUT HE DID NOT!
And for one simple reason. That was not the problem as such, and
it was not the thought Paul was answering.
He was answering the logical question from all the talk on the
gifts of the Spirit that preceded (and all the instruction of
when, and how, and who could speak to edify, and some order given
in the number and control to be exhibited) up to verse 33, and
that question would be: Can the women use their gifts of the
Spirit in the teaching/preaching/expounding of the word to
edification, part of the church service? And Paul's answer was
"no" - they are to remain silent in this, even to the point of
asking no questions to their husbands about what is expounded,
but to save their questions and ask their husbands at home.

The Way:


                       WHAT LAW IS REFERRED TO?
                                    
     Next we need to consider the enigmatic phrase, "as the Law
says" (verse 34).  What law does Paul mean?
     The King James Version really gives womanhood a connotation
of slavery in its translation of verse 34:  "Let your women
(gune, wife] keep silence in the churches: for it is not
permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under
obedience, as also saith the law." Notice how the KJV translators
have added the italicized phrase, "they are commanded." In the
KJV there is definitely a strong, domineering bias showing
through in this verse by the translators. Then, adding the phrase
about "the law" to back up what Paul was saying could make it
sound like the law, Paul, and churchmen in general were down on
women.


COMMENT:
The KJV is under attack once more, made out to be the murderer of
women.  The words "they are commanded" are in italicized words in
the KJV, which the KJV tells you at the beginning are not in the
original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.  I would find it much
more of a plot and clandestine plan if the scholars of the KJV
had not italicized these words but put them in matching letters
to the rest of the words that are in the Greek.  I see no
deliberate bias here on the part of the KJV translators.  Paul
was after all backing up his stand on this matter with "the law."

His authority to be so dogmatic on what he had just stated was
not from himself per se, not his idea at all. He had authority to
state what he did concerning women being silent and not using
their spiritual gifts in the teaching/expounding the word of the
Lord, part of the church service, from "the law."
It is interesting that the Greek word Paul chose to use for the
word "permitted" in the KJV carries the overtone of "command"
within it. See the Greek lexicons.

The Way:

     But what we are reading is the result of men translating
these verses while harboring the mental concept toward women that
we saw earlier! Yet, what this verse appears to say (in the
KJV) is not fully consistent with what we know of the love of God
that created these relation- ships.  

COMMENT:
Was there some terrible mental hate being exhibited by the KJV
translators towards women when they translated verse 34 of 1 Cor.
14 ?  Oh, they added some words but told you by putting them in
italics that they are not technically in the Greek.  Yet, we have
seen the word "permitted" in the Greek carries the overtone of
"command."  The KJV translators were Greek scholars.
How do the modern Greek/English translators Green and Berry,
translate this verse?  "Let the women of you in the churches be
silent, not for it is allowed to them to speak, but let them be
subject, as also the law says......a shame for it is for women in
church to speak" verses 34,35, as rendered into English by Jay P.
Green, Sr.
"Women yours in the assembly let them be silent, for it is not
allowed to them to speak; but to be in subjection, according as
also the law says.......for a shame it is for women in assembly
to speak" verses 34, 35, as rendered by George Berry.
As you see not that much different from the KJV.  Are Berry and
Green biased towards women?
If you are a Greek scholar and you give a literal translation
from the Greek into English as close as possible going from one
language to another, then you translate as Green and Berry did,
and as the KJV translators did. All three very close to
translating with the same English words.  
Of course you may want to say all three had bias towards women. 
And I could say look up these verses in dozens of other
translations and you will find many more scholars of Greek with
bias towards women. 
God is love, and He personally took a rib from Adam and made from
it a women. He looked at all He had created and made and said it
was "good."  He has no bias towards women, He is perfect
righteousness, and it was He who inspired these words in verses
34 and 35 of 1 Cor. 14. 
In His love for men and women He also created basic roles for
them, outside the church service and inside the church, when it
comes together into one place. 


The Way:
 
     Let's understand what "the law" means.

     "Law" is translated from the Greek word nomos (Strong's
#3551), which is always translated "law" in the KJV. However,
nomos can refer to any number of things:  the Ten Commandments,
the Torah, Jewish customs and traditions, or even an agreed-upon
procedure. There is, in reality, no clear-cut law in scripture
authorizing men to subjugate women and treat them like children!

COMMENT:
Now we see a psychological mind move here.  If you are not
agreeing with the authors' reasoning and teachings on this
matter, and are still agreeing say with me, then you are not
understanding the Scriptures and still following the clandestine
plot supposedly planted in the KJV by the scholars who translated
for King James - and that plot was to subjugate and treat women
like children.  I have read the KJV from the age of six years,
that is nearly 50 years ago now, and I have never once found any
passage in it that was teaching anyone to treat women like
children. So if the KJV scholars were trying to put forth that
instruction in some of their translations of the Hebrew and Greek
into English, they surely did a lousy job of it.

The Way:

     Paul may have been thinking of Genesis 3:16: "To the woman
he said, I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with
pain you will give birth to children.  Your desire will
be for your husband, and he will rule over you."
     There is another translation of this verse, which also needs
to be given consideration. It is found in a footnote of Genesis
3:16 in The New Living Translation: "Then he said to the
woman, "You will bear children with intense pain and suffering.
And though you may desire to control your husband, he will be
your master" [Or, "he will have dominion over you."].
     According to this footnote, the thrust of the verse implies
that the wife may have a desire to be in control of her husband,
and thus the family. But, the instruction from our Father is that
the husband would have the dominant role in the God-ordained
family. This is more in line with the instructions from a loving
Father of how the marital relationship should be -- the husband
and father of the family having dominion and lovingly guiding and
leading the family. This lends a much better understanding of
this verse than the master/slave connotation the KJV gives. Why
would a wife "desire to control [her] husband"? The reason is
that she has rejected God's revealed knowledge of proper marital
relations. Was Paul referring to Genesis 3:16 when he said,
"as the law says" in I Corinthians 14:34?  Perhaps. However, it's
also quite likely that Paul was actually making a non-specific
reference to the God-ordained set of family dynamics, as if to
say,
"You are well aware of how the family should be run, so please
apply that knowledge in this situation."

COMMENT:
The KJV in Gen.3:16 is not a good translation in some ways, but
the NLT given above is also not good in other ways.  First of all
many women in the world do NOT have any "pain" in childbirth,
that this verse has taught many to believe. For generations many
have assumed it was natural and God's intent here to make sure
all women have physical pain when giving birth. Such is not the
case at all, and there are thousands upon thousands of women who
have delivered their babies naturally without any physical pain.
The Hebrew words here do not mean physical pain, but that is a
whole new subject. Granty Dick Reid in his ground-breaking book
"Childbirth Without Fear" goes into all this in great detail.
The last part of this verse the NLT has done a much better job in
translating than the KJV, or should I say understanding the
meaning and intent of the Hebrew.  Jay Green gives the
literal translation of this verse this way: "to the woman He
said, greatly I will increase your sorrow and your conception, in
sorrow you shall bear sons, and your husband your desire
shall be, and he shall rule over you."  So once more we see that
the KJV scholars did a pretty accurate translation of the Hebrew
into English, if we go with the literal translation and not a
paraphrase or interpretive translation.
Looking at all the Bible, and then understanding or interpreting
this verse, I agree with what the authors say above.  For an
in-depth study of this I recommend the book before mentioned
called "Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective" by James Hurley.

As some Bible commentators state, when Paul said "the law" here,
he may not have been thinking about any one particular passage of
OT Scripture at all. He may simply have been stating that the
whole general teaching of the OT was that women were never given
the role by God to teach, preach, instruct, expound the word of
the Lord in official congregational gatherings when the church
came together into one place.  The general reading of the OT
will clearly show forth that truth and give the reader that
instruction.  No woman was ever a part of the official priesthood
of Israel that did all the praying and teaching on the holy
convocations - when the church (Israel was the church in the
wilderness - Acts 7:38) came together into one place.


The Way:
                      "IN THE CHURCH"?

     As we saw above, Paul wrote: "Let your women keep silence in
the churches." What did he mean by this?
     Turning to Paul's letter to Titus, we read this: "Likewise,
teach the older women to he reverent in the way they live, not to
be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is
good. Then they can train the younger women to love their
husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy
at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that
no one will malign the word of God" (Titus 2:3-5, NIV).
     Paul is instructing Titus to teach the older women to teach
the younger women!  Women are to teach! "Yes," some will say,
"but this means at home, not during services." Remember,
though, that the scripture quoted earlier doesn't say that a
woman isn't to "speak during church services," but rather that it
is disgraceful for a woman to laleo in the church. Yet, here we
see that Titus is to instruct older women in the church to
instruct younger women in the church! While the first instance
may be construed to mean that people should not laleo "during
church services," or "during the assembly," this passage in Titus
is clearly talking about women "in the church" -- members of the
Body of Christ -- teaching other women who are also "in the
church"!

COMMENT:
Of course they are going to say Paul was just saying in 1 Cor. 14
women should not "chit-chat" or be "asking questions" to their
husbands or others while some teaching is being presented, as it
causes distraction and hence confusion.  But we have more than
just 1 Cor. 14 we also have 1 Tim. 2 on this matter.  And as I
have tried to show, the problem was not "chit-chat" from women or
speaking in tongues no one could understand, for Paul had
already talked about that problem and instructed as what to do
about it.  If it was confusing chit-chat from the women he then
wanted to correct, he could have easily used language like: "I
hear the women are talking to each other and asking questions to
their husbands while someone is expounding the word of the Lord.
Tell them to stop this talk as it brings confusion to the
assembly."

Now to Titus. Please read carefully chapter two, read chapter one
also if you like. Can you find the word "church" in those
chapters?  Can you find the words "when you come together into
one place"?  Can you find the words "when the church comes
together"?  No! Such words and phrases are just not there.  Paul
is instructing Titus about certain things that he should instruct
others to do or not to do. He was to instruct the older men. He
was to instruct the younger men. He was to instruct servants. And
he was to instruct the older women.  Yes, he was to tell the
older women they should instruct the younger women in certain
areas of their living. How would Titus do this instruction? Well
it certainly could be in sermons, but it certainly could also be
in private conversations he would have with the older and younger
women, anywhere - after services as they fellowshipped on the
Sabbath, in their homes as he visited them during the week, and
at other convenient times.

There is nothing in Titus to tell us when the older women should
teach the younger women these things mentioned.  1 Cor. 14 and 1
Tim. 2  would rule out that it would be during official church
services of teaching and expounding the word of the Lord, where
the whole church has come together with men present.  And that is
what we need to understand, it is when men are present and it is
an official whole church coming together into one place to be
instructed and edified in the expounding of the word of the Lord,

that women are to remain silent in the teaching and expounding of
the word section of the service.  And if they have any questions
about what is taught they are to ask their husbands at home.
The older women would not then be teaching the younger women
during this part of the service.  Now if it was a woman's
"retreat" week-end and only women were there (as many churches do
hold such week-ends - they also have men only retreat week-ends)
then women would teach women.  And older women could teach
younger women at such retreats.  The Lord gives no instructions
in His word that prohibits women only retreats for one or more
days.  Women would then teach women at these times.
The most natural times for older women to teach the younger women
what Paul wanted them to teach, is of course during more natural
times - everyday times - everyday living as the older and younger
women of the church would meet and fellowship during the week,
outside of the 2 hours or so a week that the church comes
together into one place.
Remember the phrase "church coming together" is not found in
Titus chapter two.

The Way:

     Here is a classic example of a phrase that may have more
than one meaning. The only way to really understand what is meant
by "in the church" (Greek:  en ekklesia) is to look at the
context and the sentence structure, and note other occurrences of
the phrase. 


COMMENT:
I agree, but remember, the phrase "in the church" is not found in
Titus chapter two.

The Way:

     Notice these other examples of  "en ekklesia":


     Acts 7:38: "He (Moses) was in the assembly in the desert,
with the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our
fathers; and he received living words to pass on to us."
     I Corinthians 6:4: "There-fore, if you have disputes about
such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the
church!"
     1 Corinthians 11:18: "In the first place, I hear that when
you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and
to some extent I believe it."
     1 Corinthians 12:28: "And in the church God has appointed
first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then
workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those
able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and
those speaking  in  different  kinds  of tongues."
     I Corinthians 14:19: "But in the church I would rather speak
five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand
words in a tongue."
     I Corinthians 14:28: "If there is no interpreter, the
speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and
God."
     1 Corinthians 14:35: "If they want to enquire about
something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is
disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."
     Ephesians 3:21: "to him (God) be glory in the church and in
Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever!
Amen."
     Colossians 4:16: "After this letter has been read to you,
see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that
you in turn read the letter from Leodicea."
     As you can see, it's sometimes clear what is meant by this
phrase, but at other times you can't really be sure if it's
referring to the church people or the church gathering -- or
both!

COMMENT:
I agree. It is often the CONTEXT that must tell us how a word is
being used and not the mere "lexicon" meaning.  But with that
said, I submit the context of 1 Cor. 14 tells us plainly how Paul
was using the phrase "in the church" or "when you come together
into one place."  In fact the last phrase is the interpretation
of how Paul was viewing "in the church" in his discord correction
and instruction he was given them from verse 17 of chapter 11 to
the end of chapter 14. Certainly in chapter 12 and 13 there is a
broader aspect to include the whole body of believers in Christ
everywhere, but there can be no mistaking the much narrower
aspect of the local Corinthian assembly when they came together
into one place, when we read Paul's instructions and corrections
in chapter 11:17-34 and chapter 14.  Chapter 11:17-34 is dealing
with that local congregation in the city of Corinth meeting to
observe the memorial of the death of Christ, on one particular
evening of the year at one particular location, as they came
together into one place (verse 20). Chapter 14 likewise.  Various
wordings like that of verse 23, 24, 26-31,  make it obvious
that Paul  was talking about the things that were going on in
their individual church assembly at Corinth, when they met as a
whole church, when they came into one place.

TO BE CONTINUED    

 

Women in the Church? #4

 

Answers to various arguments
WOMEN'S ROLE IN THE CHURCH SERVICE......CONTINUED, PART FOUR


                  PAUL'S FEMALE ASSISTANTS

The Way:

     One thing we can know for certain, though: Paul did not look
on women as inferior creatures, as did so many men of that day,
and even some today.  Notice his instructions to a fellow
servant: "Yes, and I ask you, loyal yoke-fellow, help these women
who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel along
with Clement and the rest of my fellow-workers, whose names are
in the book of life" (Philippians 4:3).  Paul is asking a male, a
loyal yoke-fellow, to aid and assist the women who fought at his
side. He didn't tell the man to take the women's jobs from them
and make them go sit down. Paul asked the man to help them!

COMMENT:
Certainly! No problem. I have already commented that Paul had
women who worked with him in the gospel. Priscilla was one of
them. But we cannot find anywhere that Priscilla ever taught,
preached, expounded the word of the Lord in official church
services, when the church came together as a whole congregation
into one place. I have commented in depth in part one of this
study, that outside those official church gatherings (which may
only total a few hours a week) women have the God giving right to
spread the gospel in whatever way they are led by the Spirit of
God to so spread and teach the gospel,  as much as it is the
duty of the men to do.


                        DOES "SILENT"
                        MEAN SILENT?

The Way:

     Let's return to I Corinthians 14 for a moment, and consider
another aspect of this passage: 
      
     "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not
allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says"
(verse 34).  What about remaining silent?  What exactly does
that mean?
     "Remain silent" (NIV), or "keep silence" (KJV) is translated
from the Greek word sigao(Strong's #4601), which means to keep
silent by holding one's peace. It suggests silence as a
result of a sense of fearing God (out of respect, not out of
terror), or of awe.  There is another word, siopao (Strong's
#4623), which has the more traditional meaning of physically
abstaining from speech. That's what we usually tend to think this
passage means -- women should just shut their mouths and be
silent (siopao). But that's not the word Paul used here. It isn't
a matter of saying to the women, "Shuddup!", as much as it means
"Peace, and be still."

COMMENT:
Of course, Paul was using a polite word because he was a polite
man (unless he got angry with false preachers and really
stiff-necked individuals, then he could be not so polite, just
as Jesus was not so polite at times with certain people), and the
topic was one of politeness, instructional, answering problems
and questions. The question being: can women use their spiritual
gifts to teach and preach in congregational services? He was not
answering the problem of women just chit-chat-ing, having
out-bursts of various kinds, or just generally causing confusion.

He was answering a legitimate concern and question and putting a
STOP to something that had been taking place in that Corinth
congregation, and he did it with politeness, as he thought highly
of the women in the body of Christ.
The fact remains that, in the context of this whole chapter, and
from 1 Tim. 2 we can see that Paul was instructing not only that
particular congregation but every congregation in the whole body
of Christ, for all time, including us today, that during the
teaching, edifying, preaching, expounding of the word of the
Lord, part of the official service of the church, the women were
to be still, not participate in a vocal manner in that teaching,
and to be under peace in attitude of mind and disposition. They
were to listen and learn, and if they had any questions about
what was taught they were still to hold their peace and ask their
questions to their husbands at home. He backed all this up with
examples and with the general teaching from the whole law of the
Lord, and then finally told them that what he said was the
commandments of God.


                       TWO MORE THINGS

The Way:

     Wives must also "be in sub-mission" to their husbands.  This
phrase is translated from the Greek hupotasso (Strong's #5293),
which means to arrange under, to submit to someone's control, or
to yield to someone's admonition or advice. Militarily, the word
was used in reference to arranging troop divisions. The
non-military application of this word referred to giving in,
cooperating, and assuming a responsibility.
     Finally, remember that we learned, in our study of I Timothy
2:12, about the infinitive mood of the verb.  When Paul used the
terms "teach" and "have authority," these were written in the
infinitive mood, showing a continuous or repeated action.  We
find the same infinitive mood being used here in the verb "speak"
in verses 34 and 35.

COMMENT:
It is the present tense infinitive, continuous or repeated action
in the present.  Hence it is still a commandment of the Lord (as
Paul said he spoke the commandments of the Lord), and still in
effect to this day.  The women of the body of Christ are to
willingly co-operate, to be willing to give in,  assuming and
taking the responsibility that they will come under and be in
sub-mission to the men in this regard, during the teaching and
preaching service, when the church comes together into one place.

That they will sub-mit to the law of the Lord and be peacefully
silent, as they listen and learn from the men during this
relatively short span of time (when compared to the rest of the
hours in the week when they had the right to do as much or more
than the men in teaching and spreading the word of truth),
taking note of their questions and asking their husbands at home.

The Way:

                    A BETTER TRANSLATION

     Shall we put it all together? Let's see how these verses
might be better translated, knowing what we now know about the
Greek. The following is a suggested translation of 
1 Corinthians 14:34,35:  "Your wives must be at peace in the
assembly. It isn't permitted for them to be continuously talking
or chatting, but rather be responsible and yield themselves to
whatever is taking place, as it shows throughout the scriptures.
And if there is something they want to question their husbands
about, let them ask their husbands later: For it is disgraceful
for wives to be continuously making a disturbance which distracts
the assembly" (1 Corinthians 14:34-35, authors' paraphrase).
     We can see that Paul is not referring to women addressing
the congregation in this passage, but rather to wives asking
their husbands a question -- not at all the same thing!

COMMENT:
A paraphrase it is indeed.  And a paraphrase that is not what we
know from the Greek.  The Greek and its literal rendering is what
we find in the Greek/English Interlinears by Green and Berry. 
And they translate very closely to what the scholars of the KJV
translated.  The context of 1 Cor. 14 gives the answer to this
"women be silent" issue.  And the simple clear instructions to
Timothy in 1 Timothy 2, also gives the truth of the matter.
Putting those two sections of Scripture together (line upon line,
here a little there a little), it is I submit quite simple for
anyone who can read English, without any degree in Hebrew
or Greek, to understand that Paul's instructions (which he called
commandments of the Lord)  were that when a church came together
into one place for edification, teaching, expounding of the word
of the Lord, that section of the service was the duty of the men,
and women were to peacefully and submittingly, not to teach but
to remain silent, even to the point of asking no questions during
that time, but keeping them to ask their husbands at home.


The Way:

                                EDIFICATION
                                    
     Remember that I Corinthians 14 is speaking about doing those
things that edify the assembly. "Let all things be done unto
edifying" (verse 26). Paul's purpose in writing was to see
that the congregation was edified. (See, for example, verses 5,
12, and 26.) The word "edify" comes from the Greek oikodome
(Strong's #3619), and means to build up or improve others, to
aid in their growth as Christians.
     Let's consider verse 26 for a moment.  We might consider
this verse to be a description of how services might be run. Paul
wrote: "How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every
one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a
revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto
edifying" (verse 26, KJV).
     Notice how Paul spoke of "you" and "every one of you." This
verse doesn't separate the congregation into male and female!
Even in the KJV, women or wives are not excluded in this verse!
All of the members had a contribution to make!

COMMENT:
But wait a minute, hold your horses, Paul has not yet finished! 
He is telling them that was the way it was WITH THEM!  They were
full of the gifts of the Spirit, yes, and that included women as
well as men.  They all wanted to "do something" in their service
meeting. They were all participating - both men and women -
participating in a very un-organized manner,  interrupting each
other, speaking in a language none could understand, and just
having a good old time confusing everyone, so that some person
off the street who would walk in to their congregational meeting
would think they were all a bunch of "nuts" from mental
institutions. It was AFTER  verse 26 that Paul THEN started to
lay down the rules of ORDER and HOW MANY of the prophets and
those with the gift of tongues, could  speak.  It was AFTER verse
26  that Paul then instructed whether women (who obviously
had up to the point of him writing and correcting and
instructing) could participate in the teaching, preaching, and
expounding of the word of the Lord,  during that part of the
edifying portion of the service. What was being done in their
services PRIOR to his corrections and instructions is besides the
point. Many things were being done in their services that were
INCORRECT prior to Paul being told about them and then writing to
them to give corrections and instructions as to HOW IT SHOULD BE,
which he then told them were the commandments of the Lord. 

The Way:

     Throughout time, and in many places today, many wives, with
their husbands' permission, have had many edifying things to say
in the assembly based on their own personal Bible studies,
and others have appreciated their contributions. Actual
edification took place, the very thing that Paul was the most
concerned about in this chapter. This is why Paul said at the end
of his discourse on decorum in the assembly, "Let all things be
done decently and in order."

COMMENT:
What has been done to edify under whatever situation is not the
point. That is not the issue, as to whether a woman can edify at
any time.  The issue is purely to ascertain what the WILL of the
Lord is, what the INSTRUCTION of the Lord is, concerning the
teaching, preaching, expounding of the word of God, during that
part of the service, when all the church comes together into one
place.  The issue involves HOW that part of the service
should be conducted (basis outline) and whether women should or
can, as far as GOD is concerned and as far as HE has decreed,
participate in that teaching and expounding of the word of the
Lord to the rest of the congregation gathered into one place.

The Way:

     God intended wives, from the days of creation, to be
partners with their husbands, and to contribute to the
edification process that leads to salvation in the Kingdom of
God.
     If Paul had been "trashing" women in this chapter, as many
have thought he was doing, then the "order" of a male-dominated
society was indeed being reinforced. However, the "decently"
seems to have fallen by the wayside in that scenario.

COMMENT:
Come on now, give me a break, we are only talking about a few
hours A WEEK FOR PITY SAKE.  I have spent much time in part one
to try and show we need to keep all this in proper perspective. 
Men and women, Jew and Gentile, are on equal ground when it comes
to Salvation and Rewards. Outside of official church service all
are equal in having freedom to teach and spread the word of the
Lord. I have spent many pages in my book on "church government"
to prove that from the Scriptures.  But, all that said, God has
never taken away or cast off the ROLES and FUNCTIONS in certain
aspects of this physical life on earth and in the Church, that He
has always intended and even created from the beginning
(women are still the only ones to bear children, even in the
church). A part of this issue is "ROLES" - what role does a woman
or a man have from God, under this or that situation and
circumstance?  The issue is not "trashing" women, or putting them
down. It is: What is their role during the official church
gathering together into one place, and that part of the service
set aside for teaching and preaching to the congregation the word
of the Lord?

The Way:

     But we have come to understand that Paul was concerned with
true edification of all the members of the ekklesia, male and
female. When we stop to realize that even women who have
not had the educational opportunities others have had can still
make valuable contributions to the benefit and edification of the
ekklesia, within the context of the Christian family, then we can
begin to proceed decently, and in order, with each member of the
assembly taking his or her rightful place, in Sabbath services
and at home, as a member of the Family of God.

COMMENT:
I agree, no problem, as long as we remember to seek the WILL of
God, as to what He has instructed and directed in each phase of
Sabbath services, Festival observance, Home life, and every part
of a Christian's life from day to day.  We are not to seek our
will, nor to think our thoughts, but we are seek and desire and
prove what is the WILL of God in all things (Romans 12:2;
Eph.5:17; 6:6; Phil.2:12; Col.4:12; Heb.13:21; 1 Pet.4:2; 2 Pet.
1:21; 1 Jn. 2:17) and then to OBEY it.  Those that so do shall
have Eternal life through Christ Jesus.  So it is written, so
shall it be.



The Way:

Part Four:
Putting It Together

     "Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed on Him, If you
continue in My word, you are My disciples indeed; and you shall
know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John
8:31-32).
     We have learned some "new truth" in this study. Of course,
it isn't the truth that's new, but our under-standing of it that
has been made new. Perhaps we can now realize that we had
been reading something into these scriptures, rather than truly
getting all we could out of them.

COMMENT:
It may not be new truth at all but false deception that was
prophesied to rise at the end time to such heights, that IF it
was possible even the elect would be deceived. So said Jesus,
and so it will be.

The Way:

     It had always seemed a shame that women were prevented from
bringing us the benefits of their Bible study, merely because
they were women. It was also a shame, on many occasions, for some
men to hold forth from the pulpit, not because they had anything
of value to say, but because they were men!  There have been some
men who should never have been in a position to teach others,
while many women, who are natural teachers and self-made
scholars, have had to sit idly by and have their time wasted
because a man had to do the speaking.

COMMENT:
You must have been in the wrong organization that possibly did
put women down and did not give them the chance to use the Spirit
of God in them. But those churches and Elders who know the truth
of what I have written in both parts of this study, will say with
me that women have every right to use the gifts of the Spirit,
including teaching, and expounding the word of the Lord to ANYONE
- Male or Female, young or old, OUTSIDE OF THE OFFICIAL
GATHERINGS OF THE CHURCH COMING TOGETHER INTO ONE PLACE - which
only amounts to about one and a half hours a week at the most,
for the average Church of God Sabbath meeting.  Again, it may
well be true in some organizations, that there was "politics"
before Christianity being displayed and some men given positions
of teaching others that should never have had those positions.
Yet, that fact does not change the word and truth of God on this
issue. Men and organizations may falter and fall and go astray in
certain areas, but God and His word and what He has decreed in
His word on this subject and others, will still remain true. And
He will still want His true children to be obedient to His true
word.
Again, we need to remember to keep this in proper perspective. We
are only talking about a very very small portion of the whole
time of the week, in this study.  Where we really need to put the
emphasis is on all the HUGE AMOUNT OF TIME in the week that women
can, and are allowed by God, to "do their own thing for the Lord"
as the Spirit moves them.  

The Way:

                      A TIME TO CHANGE

     This article may have brought some of our readers to a
crossroads in their lives.  We should all evaluate how we have
fit women in general, and our wives in particular, into the
model we have had for Sabbath services and worshipping our
Creator. Perhaps some of us have needed to view our wives in a
different light. Perhaps now we can.

COMMENT:
I have endeavored in this two part study to help you broaden your
understanding of the woman's role in the Church and Family of
God.  I have tried to show you from the Scriptures that there is
a role for both men and women to fulfil WHEN the church comes
TOGETHER INTO ONE PLACE. I have tried to show you what the simple
plain truth really is on that matter. And at the same time help
you understand that OUTSIDE that relatively short span of time on
the Sabbath, God's word shows that women have as much freedom
within the law and word of God to "send forth the Gospel" in a
personal way, as do the men in the church.  And believe me, when
it comes to personal evangelism,  many women can run circles
around many a man.

The Way:

     If any wives who have been unduly subjugated by overbearing
husbands can come to a fuller under-standing of what God expects
in a marriage relationship, then the truth can indeed set them
free. if there are husbands who have held to a wrong belief, who
can now see a need to treat their wives with greater respect and
admiration for what they can bring to the worship of God, in and
out of services, then the truth can set these men free, as well.

     This was not intended to be an article about marriage.
However, it would be difficult for some couples to change how
they both participate in worship without finding it necessary to
first reevaluate their relationship with each other in light of
new scriptural understanding.
     As it is with any "new wine skins" situation, where
something new doesn't fit easily within something old (Matthew
9:17), there will need to be some adjustments made, some re-
thinking, and perhaps some changes in direction. We need to
examine our old ways, and husbands and wives will need to have
earnest discussions to sort it all out and fit the pieces into
place.

COMMENT:
There will be many who will need to apply what has just been said
above, to what I have written in part one and in this part two,
for I know that many men have been taught and have felt that ALL
the work of teaching and spreading the Gospel, at ALL times, was
just the responsibility of men. Nothing could be further from the
truth! And I hope all men, and all women(who may also have
thought the same) can now see that except for a few hours
or less a week on the Sabbath, women have a very LARGE role in
spreading the word of the Lord.

The Way:

                       HOW TO APPROACH
                      NEW UNDERSTANDING

     For those who have been taught that the Bible forbade women
from making any contributions to worship services or Bible
studies, this new understanding may represent a radical
departure from orthodoxy. Because it is such a great shift away
from what many of us have believed in the past, some of our
readers may feel uncomfortable about changing the way they
do things.  We certainly can't fault someone for not wishing to
make rapid changes in their understanding until they "prove it
for themselves."
     If some readers personally feel that women should not
participate in worship, yet see that the scriptures really don't
support that belief, they may wish to ask themselves why they
believe what they believe. If the subjugating of women was
biblical, then it could be justified. But if we now see that the
concept is not biblical after all, why would there be any
reluctance to make a correction in our lives?


COMMENT:
Once more the authors psychologically instill in the reader that
to believe women should remain silent in the official teaching
part of the divine worship service as the church gathers
together, is "subjugating."  Such language is designed to leave a
"dirty" taste in the mouth, a type of "racist" attitude is then
portrayed on the part of those who so believe.  The subjugating
of women (as the authors use the term) has never been a part of
the will of the Eternal.  But the design and will of the Lord has
been from the beginning, that men and women, should fulfil the
roles they were to practice in the home, in the church, and in
society,  under various times and situations.  One of those times
and situations we have been particularly looking at in this study
- namely those few hours a week when the church gathers together
into one place, and even more specifically - that part of the
service that is devoted to teaching, preaching, and expounding
the word of the Lord, to all the congregation for their
edification.

The Way:

     Many times, we believe what we believe out of habit, because
that's what we learned many years ago. If this is the case, then
breaking the habit will take time, and concerted effort,
to erase the old habit and install a new one.
     If the reader now sees from the Bible that it is permissible
for a woman to participate in worship, but still believes women
are to be subjugated, perhaps the reader should examine his
or her deepest thoughts and motivations to see where those
feelings originate.
     And, of course, if anyone continues to feel that the Bible
does teach that women are to sit silently through services, then
others must respect this sincere belief.

COMMENT:
Again, it is not a case of women being "subjugated" but being
under "subjection" as Paul put it, during this specific time in
worship service, to the men, but more importantly, to the
Almighty God, as He directs.  The church as it comes together is
like one large family, and the Eternal has called for the head of
that family (so to speak) to lead in the teaching and
instructing of that family. And in such a situation, the head of
that family at such times, is the man, under Christ Jesus, who is
also portrayed in the Scriptures as male.
Respecting others beliefs has its place, where freedom is given
within the law of God, such as being a meat eater or not being a
meat eater, but in this case, such is not the case, and must give
way to ascertaining the truth of the matter. For what Paul
instructed the church at Corinth was not his ideas,  or "do as
you please" but it was the commandments of the Lord.

The Way:  

     It seems evident that we have not fully understood these and
other verses regarding a woman's role in the ekklesia. In the
past, if we had any questions about how something ought to be
done, we would simply wait for our pastor to tell us what to do
and what to think. Decision-making was much simpler then.

COMMENT:
It would seem today that just about EVERYTHING that was
understood as "truth" in the past, is now coming under attack and
being questioned, even the weekly Sabbath, the Feasts
of God, and even God Himself.  Yes, errors have always been
within the Church of God, and we must always move on to grow in
grace and knowledge of Christ Jesus. Yet I have found over the
years that the errors were usually only relatively small (I am
not talking about when ministers were led astray and became
corrupted, then many large errors were evident). The Church of
God (the true elect who remained faithful from corruption) has
been pretty solid and accurate on the large important doctrines
and teachings of our Father in heaven. Jesus, as head of His
Church has guided well His people down through the centuries. 
And I believe the core of this issue - the teaching part of
congregational services - the Church of God has observed
correctly from the beginning, from the time of Moses. 

The Way:

     Today, many readers of "The WAY" are people who have broken
away from the old "corporate church" way of doing things, because
they have seen that often the old way simply did not work. There
may have been order and discipline, but it often was not in
accordance with what the Bible teaches.

COMMENT:
Maybe it did not work in the organization "they" were in. Maybe
it did not work because "that" organization was or became
"cultic" in its mind set, and not only put down women, but put
down men also, until they had to be robotic machines in a "big
brother is watching" you system.
Yet, there have been and still are, organizations like the Church
of God 7th Day, the Seventh Day Adventist church, and others,
that have survived very nicely thank you, by following what Paul
instructed as the commandments of the Lord, in their divine
worship service as they gather together into one place.

The Way:

     We have also seen that, as we grow and progress, some people
are not as far along in their understanding as we might be, while
others are ahead of where we are at this time! What should we do?
We shouldn't be impatient for others to catch up to us
immediately, and we hope that those who are ahead of us in
knowledge will wait patiently for us to catch up to them! Each
one of us is at his or her own place along the path that leads to
eternal life.

     Paul taught a great many principles of human relations.  One
time he wrote that, even if doing something was perfectly all
right, not against any law of God, and totally innocent, he
would refrain from doing it if it offended a brother or sister in
the elkiesia. (See I Corinthians chapters 8 and 10.) We should
consider practicing this kind of love toward one another, so as
not to cause offense.

COMMENT:
On an individual basis over certain matters, such as what Paul
gave examples on, where we can apply his teaching on a one to one
situation, that is all true, BUT that is not possible when we are
dealing with the WHOLE congregation coming together.  Under the
issue we are studying, for each to apply what they considered the
truth of the matter on this subject of men and women
participating in the divine teaching section of the church
service, we would again just end up with utter confusion.  The
matter must be studied, the truth ascertained, and the leaders of
the church together with the whole congregation must then
declare and practice the truth.  The freedom the individual has
regarding this issue is that they can disagree and move to
another group of people where they believe the truth on the
matter before us is being practiced.

The Way:

     How can we apply this principle in our own groups?

     If there is a group of people meeting together for Sabbaths,
and no one objects to women taking a leadership role in the
meeting, or giving a message, or leading a Bible study, as long
as she is not exerting dominance or authority over her husband,
there is no scripture which condemns this action, as we have
seen. The woman should be able to make her presentation.

COMMENT:
No we have not seen is my submission!  We have seen (in part one
and in this study) I submit that women are to remain silent in
the teaching, preaching, expounding of the word of the Lord, part
of the divine service, and if any questions arise while they
listen they are to also remain silent and ask their husbands at
home.  We have seen that to interpret and figure out what it
means to "not exert dominance or authority over her husband" if
she should not remain silent but be allowed to teach and preach,
is just about impossible to ascertain, and would lead to constant
disagreements, endless re-adjustments, and many ministerial
conferences, and probably more congregational splits because some
would not agree with others about where to draw the line (some
would be more liberal or conservative than others on the issue). 

The Way:

     If another group meets for the Sabbath, but the people in
that group object to women speaking or leading a discussion, the
women should not try to force themselves on the group.

COMMENT:
Of course that should be true.  And I suppose those husbands and
wives who would strongly object  would move along to another
group where women are allowed to preach and expound the word
during congregational services.

The Way:

     Suppose several people, from several independent groups,
come together at the Feast of Tabernacles. Should a woman be
scheduled to speak? That may very well depend on whether the
people who are there have already studied the issue and come to
an understanding of the subject, as we have in this article,
before they came to the Feast. It would probably be best not to
schedule any women speakers, at least until it has been
determined if anyone there would be offended if a woman spoke. Or
perhaps fair warning could be given so that anyone who would
be offended could simply skip that session.

COMMENT:
Maybe fair warning would be given way before the Feast began
(that women would be preaching during divine services.  I'm not
talking about  "workshops" that have nothing to do with the whole
congregation coming together into one place)  so those who
disagree with such practice could choose to not attend period.
There are now dozens upon dozens of Feast of Tabernacle sites in
North America and around the world.

The Way:

     Once again, we should all remember not to think negatively
about a member of the ekklesia who may have a different outlook
on this issue than we might have. We should not be afraid to
discuss our beliefs with others, but we must not come from the
position that "I'm right and you're wrong, no matter what!"
Rather, our approach should he gentle and loving: "I used
to feel that way, too. But here's what I've found, and here's
what I believe."

COMMENT:
And of course now we have written material such as these two
studies for people to use as they search the Scriptures for the
truth on this matter.  There IS A TRUTH, one way is wrong and the
other way is correct. There can be no middle ground! Either women
ARE allowed to teach, preach, and expound the word of the Lord
during divine church worship services, or they are NOT.  It is
one or the other, as simple as that.  The child of God has
the responsibility to prove from the word of the Lord what God
has decreed and commanded on this issue and on this part of the
church service.

The Way:

     Local culture may play a large part in the decision whether
or not to have women speak at services or share their thoughts in
open forum. In the larger cities of the United States, where
most men find themselves working alongside or under college
educated women in the workplace, the idea of a woman presenting a
message at services might be more acceptable.  In other parts
of the world, having a woman address the assembly might go
against the strong male dominant social mold in that area. Each
area is unique, as is each assembly. Wise guidance is required in
order to steer the assembly toward all truth and away from
potential problems.

COMMENT:
This issue transcends all nationalities, races, color, social
class, education, work situations, and whatever else the mind of
man can conjure up.  The instructions of Paul which were
the commands of the Lord, on this matter, is for ALL the Church
of God, EVERYWHERE, and for ALL generations, in ALL ages.  Paul
gave no instructions that each area of the world or each
individual church congregation could decide for themselves how it
would govern this issue.

The Way:

     This is a very emotional issue for a great many people. If
you read this article and don't agree with everything we have
said on first reading, that's fine. You might try a second
reading later on. As we pointed out, neither of the extreme
viewpoints is totally correct, but rather there is a high road
down the middle.

COMMENT:
This topic does not have to be emotional at all. If the Spirit of
God dwells in the heart and mind, if the individual loves the
truth, hungers and thirsts after it, wants the truth above
anything else, searches the Scriptures daily to find the will of
the Eternal on this matter and others, is willing to put all the
verses on this topic and any topic together from one end of
the Bible to the other, then as Jesus has promised the Spirit
will lead you into all truth. 
The middle road the authors talk about, is simply the road of the
truth, and as Christ said the truth shall indeed set you free
(set you free from error and deception, which in the last
days will be so great only the elect will not be deceived).

The Way:

     If we continue on the high road, with the difficult path
that leads to the narrow gate, and if we manage to stay out of
the ditch, and avoid those who would lead us into either ditch,
our voyage along this Way of life will end where we want it to
end - at the doorstep of eternity!

     It takes all of us -- male and female, young and old -- to
make up the Body of Christ. We each have our part to play in the
function of the Body. What we have explained here may
help the entire Body to function better!
tw

COMMENT:
It is indeed the straight and narrow road that leads to Eternal
life, and only a few (relatively speaking) will find it in this
age, so said Jesus. 
We all do have our part to play in the Church which is the body
of Christ.  We all have a ROLE, designed and given as the Spirit
distributes, and that role must be acted upon and practiced
within the laws and commandments and bounds which our Father has
set.  By finding His WILL on this and other roles of men and
women which God designed from the beginning, we shall find not
only fulfilment in our physical lives, but we shall also find
peace and joy and love, as we endeavor to understand and put into
practice His will for our personal lives within those roles.  And
from it all will come respect and unity for all members of the
Church of God, which is the Family of God.

           ......................................

Written May 1998