.
I Corinthians 14:31-35
T
his Scripture at a glance seems so severe and final. It seems the Apostle leaves no variance. It seems to contradict the rest of the scriptures but as any Bible scholar knows scripture will interpret itself. No doctrine can be based on one scripture alone -such as baptizing for the dead (
I Corinthians 15:29). The Bible speaks that for the truth to be established, it must have two or three witnesses. The bottom line is that God is looking for willing vessels independent of gender or color of skin. It is recorded in the Bible that God in times past used not only women, but also children and even animals to fulfill His divine purpose.
Let me say, I’m not promoting a masculine woman. A woman should look like a woman, dress like a woman, and act like a woman. There is nothing as repulsive as a woman who has manly mannerisms. On the other hand, even more detestable is a man who is feminine.
There is nothing more graceful to the eyes as a woman who is feminine or a man who is a real gentleman. Some struggle with the concept of women preachers, as Trinitarians struggle with the oneness of God. Their fundamental problem is in understanding the dual nature of Jesus. Likewise, we need to understand the dual responsibilities of a woman preacher.
Most women have domestic responsibilities as well as spiritual responsibilities.
Genesis 1:28, “And God said unto them be fruitful. And multiply and fill the earth and subdue it. And have dominion.” God said they (both) shall have dominion. In other words, God’s original thinking or plan (before the fall) for man and woman, masculine and feminine, was to have authority and dominion together. God did not tell Adam he was to have exclusive dominion, neither did He tell him he was to govern alone. God said that they were to have dominion. That helps us understand I Timothy 2:12 that says suffer not a woman to teach, or take for oneself, grab, take illegally, usurp (define) authority over the man (The man is her husband).
The apostle did not say she shouldn’t have dominion because he knew that in the original plan of God, when man and woman had just come from the Hands of the creator, they both were given dominion. The apostle was not objecting that a woman have dominion but that she could not have dominion over her husband-plain and simple. In God’s original plan, it was wrong for a man to have dominion over a woman. Neither did a woman have dominion over a man. Togetherness and sameness was God’s original concept. This is the perfect plan between the sexes -- more perfect than the Law of Moses that came later.
Note that the Pharisees asked Jesus, if under the Law of Moses it was right to divorce the wife for any reason. Note the response that was given them. “Have you not read from the beginning when God created man and women?” Also note in
I Corinthians 14:5-6 “For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife and they twain shall be one flesh. Wherefore there are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.” Jesus took them back to the garden of Eden but the Pharisees did not like it and they took him back to the law of Moses. The Law of Moses was what they lived by, but Jesus was trying to get them to go back before the law of Moses the better and more perfect plan. The reason that Moses made a letter of divorce to put away the wife was “because of the hardness of your hearts he suffered you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so.”
The original plan of God example, “in the garden of Eden” was a better and more perfect plan-the plan before sin. The law of Moses placed certain restrictions upon women.
We all know and admit this. We know a law that’s higher and a concept that is better. We know a plan that is more idealistic than the Law of Moses that it the original condition of things in the Garden of Eden. God gave the man and the woman dominion in conjunction together (
Genesis 1:28). This is a better concept and more sublime than the Law of Moses. Someone said that Adam’s wife came from the rib out of his side. If she was made from his head someone could say that she is the head.
She did not come from his feet, so that she could be, stomped on, but came from his side which represents that they have been equally valued. That was God’s original plan. We know that a horrible thing happened in Gen:3 that destroyed God’s ideal, or necessitated a change from the original plan.
Sin thwarted God’s concept of the man and woman’s continuity in the garden. Unto the woman he said: I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception. In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. After the fall not before the fall God told the woman, “Your husband shall have rule over thee.” He did not rule before the fall. It was a punishment from God because the woman yielded to temptation and ate the fruit.
But remember this was not God’s original plan. This was a part of the penalty of sin. If it was sin, (and it was) that caused the women to be ruled by man, since then the redemption of our Lord Jesus Christ not only redeemed, but also all the consequences that resulted by sin.
The redemption that is in Christ Jesus took all the disadvantages pronounced upon the woman in the Garden of Eden. The redemption of Christ not only paid sin’s consequences at Calvary but transcends to future women. We who participate in redemption today can enjoy and inherit what was lost in Mother Eve.