Beyond The Four Spiritual Laws

[Adziilii]

.
1Cor 10:32-33 . . Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

If only more Christians the world over would just make an effort to be civil-- if only that and nothing else --it would improve the gospel's chances of at least being heard, if not accepted.
_

 

[Adziilii]

.
1Cor 11:1 . . Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.

In the Catholic religion, a "saint" is a role model for others. Well, 1Cor 11:1 lists an exceptional model for everyone regardless of their age, race, gender, and/or religious affiliation.

Christ is very famous 'round the world for exemplifying the virtues of kindness, friendship, and generosity.
_

 

[Adziilii]

.
1Cor 11:3 . . But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

It never seems to fail that somebody will actually attempt to refute Paul's statement by quoting another of his own statements.

"You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal 3:26-28)

(chuckle) Paul pitted against Paul; the clash of the titans, only in this event, both titans are one and the same titan. Yes, both genders are one in Christ; but then Jesus and God are one also, yet there is a hierarchy in the Divinity because "the head of Christ is God"
_

 

[Adziilii]

.
1Cor 11:4-5a . . Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered disrespects his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disrespects her head

That's a little tricky seeing as how the word "head" can refer to a skull and/or a superior; so to clarify this a bit, I'm going to revise some of the above a little.

"Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered disrespects Christ. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disrespects men."

Some of the world's women have made disrespecting men their life's work; and nothing makes them happier than finding ways to chafe one. When they become a Christian, it's imperative they give up that particular ambition.

This issue isn't really a gender issue, it's a progenitor issue.

The woman wasn't made directly from the dust of the ground like the man was. She was made from material amputated from the man's body; which makes him every woman's father. So that when women disrespect men, they are actually disrespecting their paternal ancestor; which is a shameful thing to do in any culture; not just the Christian religion.

Christian women aren't required to cover their hair all the time; only whenever they pray and/or prophesy; especially in the presence of men.

No doubt this is very disagreeable with a certain number of Christian women whose heart's ambition is to assert their independence and demand equality. Well, if they don't want to cover their hair when praying and/or prophesying out of respect for men, then they should at least woman-up and do it out of respect for Christ's feelings about it; after all, he's supposed to be every Christian woman's lord and master. In other words; this is more a test of one's loyalty than a test of their politics.

"If you love me, you will comply with what I command." (John 14:15)

"Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me." (John 14:21)

"If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching . . He who does not love me will not obey my teaching." (John 14:23-24)

"You are my friends if you do what I command you." (John 15:14)

NOTE: According to 1Cor 14:37 and 1Thess 4:1-2, the apostles' doctrine is Christ's doctrine; it's a domino effect all the way to the top.

"Whoever listens to you; listens to me. Whoever rejects you; rejects me. And whoever rejects me; rejects the one who sent me." (Luke 10:16)
_

 

[Adziilii]

.
1Cor 11:5b-6a . . it is just as though her head were shorn. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off;

In other words: if Christian women want to be treated equal to Christian men, then they should go all out to imitate Christian men by first of all getting themselves a man's haircut, and leave their hair short all the time like a masculine lesbian, viz; a dyke.

1Cor 11:6b . . If it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.

Okay: if Christian women would be somewhat embarrassed to show up in church looking like a man and/or LGBT, then they have only one other option; and that's to show up in church looking like women. But in order to retain their femininity whenever they pray and/or prophesy; they are simply going to have to cover their hair with something or heaven will have no choice but to assume the worst about them.

NOTE: A number of rules regulating Christian women are often viewed as subjugation. But those rules are actually for the purpose of subordination rather than subjugation; i.e. Christianity's gender hierarchy is based upon primogeniture, i.e. the man was created before the woman; plus she was created from the man and for the man; and thus owes the very reason for her existence to a man; and her role is a supporting role rather than a starring role.

That's true Christian doctrine; it's ironic the number of Christian women calling themselves Christ's followers that don't like it and resolutely refuse to abide by it.
_

 

[Adziilii]

.
1Cor 11:7-10 . . A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a token of authority on her head.

There's probably as much disagreement about the identity of the angels in that passage as there is about the sons of God in the 6th chapter of Genesis. Well; whoever these angels are, or whatever they are, they're apparently indignant when they see women in church acting as though they're equals with men.

Christians have simply got to come to grips with the fact that women will never be equal to men in the divine order of things. No, they will always be daddy's little girl. Ergo: women aren't from Venus after all; no, they're actually the daughters of Mars (so to speak).

POSIT: Paul meant that hair coverings are optional when he said: "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God" (1Cor 11:16)

RESPONSE: That is yet another example of people refuting Paul by quoting Paul.

The "custom" he's talking about is women praying and or prophesying bare-headed. Apparently the Jews' synagogues, and all the rest of the Christian churches in the Roman world required their women to attend with something on their heads. Since that was so, then why ever would the Corinthian Christians think that their women were somehow exempt?

"Judge in yourselves: is it proper that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" (1Cor 11:13)

The answer of course is NO; it isn't proper-- it's insolent, inappropriate, and disrespectful; plus it is conduct unbecoming for women professing to revere Christ's right to tell his followers how to be Christians.
_

 

[Adziilii]

.
1Cor 11:27-30 . .Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

The koiné Greek word for "unworthy" is anaxios (an-ax-ee'-oce) which means: irreverently; which Webster's defines as: lacking proper respect or seriousness. In other words "sacrilege" which is gross irreverence toward a hallowed person, place, or thing.

"sinning against the body and blood of the Lord" is very similar language to 1Cor 6:18, which states: The immoral man sins against his own body. There, as here, we're not talking about suicide and/or homicide; were talking about desecration; which Webster's defines as: to violate the sanctity of, to profane-- viz: to treat with disrespect, i.e. irreverently and/or outrageously.

People sin during the Lord's supper when they fail to take it seriously that the elements represent his body-- not his so-called glorified body; but the one that was crucified; viz; his disfigured, bloodied body.

What do you suppose went on during those three hours of thick darkness around the cross? (Matt 27:45) Well; the abuse that the Romans inflicted on Christ was merely a warm up for the main event. When the darkness came; that's when God stepped into the ring; and the gloves came off. When the darkness lifted, people saw a Jesus so beaten and bloodied beyond recognition that they could scarcely tell he was the same man.

"There were many who were appalled at him-- his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man, and his form marred beyond human likeness." (Isa 52:14)

"Jehovah was pleased to crush him, putting him to grief" (Isa 53:10)

I have to wonder how ever a father could do something like that to his own son; especially for a world that wouldn't even appreciate that the injuries God inflicted upon His own son were for their benefit.

"A man ought to examine himself" is an imperative to make double sure that one's heart is in the right place when consuming the elements (a.k.a. species). Some people gulp them down as if they were nothing more than a snack of hot wings and cold beer during a Super Bowl game instead of a sacred reminder of what God's son endured to ransom their souls from a second death in the lake of brimstone depicted at Rev 20:11-15. Those people have to expect that a very indignant father is going to come down on them for that-- maybe not with sickness, maybe not with death, and maybe not right away; but eventually with something; and really, who can blame Him?

NOTE: Observance of the Lord's supper isn't a mandatory requirement; so if you are a bit nervous about going about it in the wrong way, then don't take chances; play it safe and refrain.
_

 

[Adziilii]

.
1Cor 11:33-34 . . My brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.

The command doesn't frown upon things like church banquets, men's' breakfasts, ladies' luncheons, and/or potlucks per se. What it's criticizing is a lack of congregational unity. Here's comments leading up to that verse.

"Now in giving these instructions I do not praise you, since you come together not for the better but for the worse. For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you.

. . .Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat The Lord's Supper. For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you." (1Cor 11:17-22)

Their lack of love and unity during church functions was nothing short of hypocrisy seeing as how the Lord's supper speaks of sacrifice rather than selfishness, elitism, and hoarding. In other words; seeing as how Christians all share in Christ's blood equally, then everyone should be given equal treatment at church regardless of age, gender, skin color, intelligence, income level, nationality, what side of the tracks they live on, or social status. None of Christ's body parts are untouchable; nor are any of them expendable. God forbid that there should be some sort of caste system in a gathering of people for whom Christ suffered and died equally for each one. That just wouldn't be right: it would be an insult to the principles underlying the Lord's supper.

"Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying: Drink from it, all of you." (Matt 26:27)

If Christians are all drinking from the same cup, then they should all be, at the very least, eating the same food and not be overly concerned about where they sit and/or who they sit next to and/or who they're seen with. And they should also make double sure that everyone gets enough to eat and that no one gets left out and nobody gets more than his fair share. And they should all sit down together at the same time. I just hate it when people don't wait for each other. Some get back to the table and start in gulping, slurping, clattering, and clanking while others from their table are still in line.

And they should also take into consideration the possibility that a number of their congregation are in assistance programs like TANF and SNAP. In other words; don't just bring enough food from home for yourself; but, if you're able, bring enough for those among you who can't bring anything at all. And for God's sake, don't bring a side dish of gourmet food along just for yourself. Leave your special gourmet stuff at home. There's just no excuse for flaunting your "sophistication" around church thus giving everyone the impression that everyone else's tastes are below yours.

You know; why am I even saying these things? In point of fact, why even did Paul? I mean: shouldn't Christians be eo ipso sources of the milk of human kindness without somebody shaming them and lecturing them into being humane with their fellow believers and taking thought for their feelings? Why must so many Christians be practically strong-armed into being civil with one another?
_

 

[Adziilii]

.
1Cor 12:24-27 . . God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no schism in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it. Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.

It's sad that congregations have been reduced to the level of an invasive species in some churches by over-achieving, ambitious types passing themselves off as pastors, deacons, and elders. Churches like that might just as well start selling tickets to their sermons and Sunday schools; and set up red carpets outside so the rank and file might crowd up like the Oscars; where they can ooh and ahh over the Cadillac Escalades and Lexus LX10's driven by their church's managers; admire their fashions, cheer, kiss derrieres, lick shoes, pose for selfies, and ask for autographs.

John Q and Jane Doe pew warmers aren't expendable commodities; nor do they constitute a fan base. You have to figure that, maybe not all but, at least a number of them have been placed in Christ's body by the very same Holy Spirit that places people in a church's hierarchy. God forbid that church managers should begin to think of their congregations as just numbers.

I once attended a mega Baptist church in San Diego that hired a hot shot-business man that we all had to address as "reverend" to help them increase their membership. Why would they do that when there was 4,000+ members on the books already? Well; I'll tell you why. They had an ambitious building program in mind that couldn't proceed without more money in the church's coffers. Well; Reverend HotShot got the church's numbers up, and the managers got their building program. My wife and I bailed. We wanted no part of it.

BTW: After the church's managers got the congregation deeply in debt to finance the building program, they all took new positions elsewhere, including the pastor, leaving his flock holding the bag. That was the most disappointing church I ever attended. It treated the congregation like so many head of livestock: just dollars per pound on the hoof and cheap labor easily exploited.
_

 

[Adziilii]

.
1Cor 14:1a . . Pursue charity

The koiné Greek word for "charity" in that command is agape (ag-ah'-pay) which basically means love, e.g. affection, benevolence, kindness, compassion, empathy, tenderness, understanding, devotion, caring, thoughtfulness, generosity, and a host of other things like that. Love will cause you to look out for someone's best interests without them even having to ask you to.

The word for "pursue" is dioko (dee-o'-ko) which in many places in the New Testament means persecute. Well; it hardly seems a good idea to persecute love. I think what the command is wanting to get across to Christians is that they're supposed to go after and obtain love with a determined attitude like a hunter, or a stalker, or someone who just won't take "no" for an answer; like the woman who hounded the Lord at Mark 7:25-28.

Love is the heart and soul of all of Christ's commandments. Christians without love haven't even got to first base yet. I think it's very safe to say that without love; one won't be loyal because love and loyalty go together like a horse and a carriage.

You know, when you love somebody, you will do all in your power to do what's best for them. Nobody has to crack the whip on people who truly love because their affections compel them.

People with a tin woodman's soul don't understand what I'm talking about because there's a cold piece of steel inside them where a heart is supposed to be. Well; thank God there's a remedy for that.

"If the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit, who lives in you." (Rom 8:11)

At first glance that passage appears to be speaking of the body's future resurrection, and it probably is; but it's also talking about the here and now regarding the power of a supernatural benefit package called the fruit of the Spirit. (Gal 5:19-25)

The fruit of the Spirit wasn't a new revelation in the days of the apostles. It was predicted many years before them in the Old Testament.

"I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put My spirit in you and move you to follow My decrees and be careful to keep My laws." (Ezek 36:26-28)

An "heart of flesh" would normally be regarded in modern Sunday school classes as a bad thing. There in Ezekiel, flesh is juxtaposed with stone to indicate that God is talking about tenderness; which can be defined as gentleness, kindness, sensitivity, and deep affection; i.e. the warm, softer emotions.

A heart of stone is cold and dead, like those massive granite monoliths in Yosemite Valley. They feel not the slightest bit of pity for climbers who lose their grip and fall. Nope, those big rocks just go on like nothing ever happened; silent, indifferent, unconcerned, non grieving, uncompassionate, and unsympathetic; i.e. they feel nothing: nothing at all.
_

 

[Adziilii]

.
1Cor 14:1b . . eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy.

An actual spiritual gift is an ability that comes from God, and there are quite few of them, e.g.

• The word of wisdom (1Cor 12:8)
• The word of knowledge (1Cor 12:8)
• Faith (1Cor 12:9)
• Healing (1Cor 12:9)
• Miracles (1Cor 12:10)
• Prophecy (1Cor 12:10)
• Distinguishing spirits (1Cor 12:10)
• Languages (1Cor 12:10)
• Interpreting languages (1Cor 12:10)
• Helps (1Cor 12:28)
• Administration (1Cor 12:28)
• Ministering (Rom 12:7)
• Teaching (Rom 12:7)
• Encouragement (Rom 12:8)
• Charity (Rom 12:8)
• Leadership (Rom 12:8)
• Compassion (Rom 12:8)
• Evangelism (Eph 4:11)
• Pastoring (Eph 4:11)

The New Testament Greek word for "prophesy" is propheteuo (prof-ate-yoo'-o) which essentially means to speak under inspiration. That definition is very similar to the Old Testament Hebrew word for "prophet" which is nabiy' (naw-bee'). That word describes an inspired person of either gender; e.g. Abel was a prophet (Luke 11:50-51) Abraham was a prophet (Gen 20:7) Moses was a prophet (Deut 18:18) Miriam was a prophet (Ex 15:20) Deborah was a prophet (Judg 4:4) and Huldah was a prophet (2Kgs 22:14).

Inspired people need not be highly educated; for example Amos was just a simple farm boy whom God drafted into service right out of the blue. (Amos 7:14-15)
_

 

[Adziilii]

.
1Cor 14:13 . . anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says.

If Acts 2:1-12 is the model; then a genuine Spirit-endowed tongue should be an honest to gosh real-life language instead of incoherent blabber that's intelligible to no one, not even the speaker.

"Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language.

. . . Utterly amazed, they asked: "Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans? Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language? Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs— we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!"

Mozart composed some amazing music; but had he not arranged the components sensibly, it would likely grate on people's nerves instead of entertaining them; sort of like when an orchestra verifies the pitch of its instruments just prior to a performance. The discordant din that the orchestra makes is a cacophony instead of a rhapsody.

"Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the flute or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the notes?" (1Cor 14:7)

Modern tonguers typically don't compose anything pleasant to the ear. At least if they would chirp like birds their speech would be a discernable song instead of an unintelligible warble.

I was informed by a Charismatic friend that he prayed in a tongue because he couldn't express his deepest feelings any other way. Mind you this was an American adult of almost fifty years old; educated in America and spoke, wrote, and read English his native language his entire life. So I asked him how it is that his command of the English was so poor that he could only express his thoughts in a language that not even he himself could either identify or understand?

"If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind." (1Cor 14:13-15)

In other words: there are Christians out and about blabbering incoherently because they choose to, rather than because they have to. With just a simple act of their own will they could easily switch to something composed with real words.

Why on earth would a grown-up prefer incoherent blabbering? Isn't that the way small children communicate? Well, I can excuse small children because they're uneducated. But shouldn't supposed educated adults be just a bit more mature with their language and grammar than small children?

The true gift of tongues is very handy for communicating with foreigners. But in our day and age, Charismatics typically don't communicate with anybody, either foreign or domestic . As a result, Charismatics are looked upon with the same disdain as the kooks that hurl themselves on the floor, faint, scream, writhe, shout, and dance with rattlesnakes.

Well; not too many sensible people care to accommodate kooks, so if you're serious about influencing people for Christ, I highly recommend sticking to an intelligible language. Here in my country, English is a good choice because most people can understand it without requiring the services of a translator.

And for God's sake, please do not allow yourself to be drawn to participating in a tongues meeting.

"So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand, or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind?" (1Cor 14:23)
_

 

[Adziilii]

.
1Cor 14:22a . .Tongues are for a sign

The sign isn't intended for the benefit of believers, but rather, for non-believers.

"Not to them that believe, but to them that believe not." (1Cor 14:22b)

The purpose of any tongue is communication.

"Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air." (1Cor 14:9)

So if a tonguer is speaking a language nobody understands, they've actually created a language barrier; viz: a regression to the tower of Babel; and you can see for yourself how destructive that was to unity (Gen 11:1-9).

Webster's defines "regression" as: movement backward to a previous, and especially worse or more primitive state or condition; viz: backwards thinking.

Since tongues are for the benefit of unbelievers, then it's de facto that a tongue should be a valid language that the unbeliever himself speaks and understands; e.g. Acts 2:4-11. Somebody who exercises a tongue for any other reason has missed the point; and they're behaving like a little kid with a toy.

"Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults." (1Cor 14:20)
_

 

[Adziilii]

.
1Cor 14:27-28 . . If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

Tonguers are not permitted to speak all at the same time like a mob of howling political protesters. One of the reasons why I get so annoyed by talk shows like Today's Talk with Kathy Lee Gifford and Hoda Kodb, and ABC's The View is because everyone talks all at once like a bunch of undisciplined dogs barking and yapping in a kennel. And the way they interrupt each other back and forth before the other can even finish a sentence is one of the very things we teach children not to do. You'd think those supposedly mature adults grew up without supervision the way they conduct themselves in a conversation.

NO! tonguers are to take turns; speaking one at a time, rather than an entire congregation of tonguers barking and yapping like dogs in a kennel whenever they "feel the Spirit" moving them. And if there's no one to interpret, tonguers are not permitted to speak at all. If Christians the world over followed those rules, it would put the charismatics out of business in less than two weeks.

FYI: These directives regulating the exercise of tongues in a church meeting were written by the apostle Paul-- a duly authorized agent speaking on behalf of Christianity's Christ.

"If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord." (1Cor 14:37)

Therefore, when Christians proceed to defy the rules regulating the exercise of tongues, they are in shameful rebellion against the very lord and master of Christianity; and yet, ironically, many tongue violators still have the chutzpah to pass themselves off as the Lord's Spirit-filled followers. However; a follower can be defined as someone who gets in step and/or falls in line rather than going off-reservation to do their own thing.

"Rebellion is as the sin of divination; and insubordination is as iniquity and idolatry." (1Sam 15:23)

"If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth." (1John 1:6)
_

 

[Adziilii]

.
1Cor 14:29-31 . .Two, or three, prophets should speak, and everyone else should weigh carefully what is said. If a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged.

Though God endows certain Spirit-selected people in church with the gift of prophecy (1Cor 12:4-11) it is not He who endows them with the impulse to talk out of turn. Self control is their responsibility; not His.

"The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets." (1Cor 14:32)

Actual prophets channel God's thoughts; viz: they speak as the voice of God. People with opinions don't speak as the voice of God at all; they speak as themselves. True prophets are revelators; people with opinions are little more than a nuisance; and if not kept in check they will quickly derail a Sunday school class and drag it off onto a perpetual bull session that never gets to the bottom of anything.
_

 

[Adziilii]

.
1Cor 14:34 . . Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak; but must be in submission (i.e. subordinate to the men)

It could be argued, with some merit, that this rule applies only to tongues and prophecy; but Paul goes further with this rule in a letter to his friend Timothy.

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve." (1Tim 2:11-13)

It's important to note that this is neither a gender issue nor an issue related to competence; it's an issue related to primogeniture. For that reason it's an insubordinate act of contempt for authority when Christian women lead Christian men in a Christian congregation.

Q: Doesn't 1Cor 11:3-10 permit women to pray and/or prophecy just so long as they cover their hair?

A: There is a gender limit to that privilege. In other words: Christian woman are not allowed to pray and/or prophecy in the hearing of a mixed congregation; i.e. where Christian men are present.

Q: What about women like Anne Graham Lotz. Is she out of order?

A: Though women aren't permitted to speak to a mixed-gender Christian congregation, that doesn't mean they can't speak to a mixed-gender public forum, or in the street; or in a coliseum, or in a stadium, or in a convention center, or on radio and television.

The best place in church for women blessed with the Spirit's gift to teach for Christ is in a women's group; and if a man should invade a women's group led by a Spirit-gifted woman; I think he should be asked to leave.

Q: What about Deborah in the Old Testament book of judges? Exactly how was she an exception to this rule, if indeed she was?

A: Things are quite a bit different now with Christ at the helm, i.e. Christ's association with his church trumps Deborah's association with the Jews. I do not recommend using her, or any other woman in the Bible, as an excuse to defy Christ's edicts in matters pertaining to the governance of Christian congregations.

Paul appealed to "the law" as the basis for 1Cor 14:34. Normally when Paul speaks of the law he's referring to the covenant that Moses' people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

Exactly where in the covenant that women are forbidden to preach, or teach, or usurp authority over men in matters of religion, I don't know. However, it's quite obvious that the covenant is very sexist, i.e. women are not permitted in either the priesthood or the Sanhedrin.

NOTE: The law doesn't always speak explicitly about certain things. Sometimes the law's rules and procedures imply principles that we call "the spirit of the law". Not everyone is able to discern the spirit of the law. I think most of us would prefer having everything spelled out in clear, succinct, and unequivocal language.
_

 

[Adziilii]

.
1Cor 14:35 . . If women have questions, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

What's an inquiring wife to do if her husband is spiritually inept? I'd suggest that women married to spiritually inept Christian men, and/or women married to non-Christian men, and/or unmarried women; seek assistance from one of the ladies in church known to be somewhat of a Bible expert.

But for safety's sake, don't seek assistance from another woman's husband; even if he's the pastor, or a deacon, or an elder; it's not only disobedient, but that's also how rumors (and other things) get started.
_

 

[Adziilii]

.
1Cor 14:37-38 . . If anybody thinks he's a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command.

If your Sunday school, or your catechism class, is being chaired by somebody who disagrees with the Lord's commands regulating women's subordination, or the use and abuse of tongues, and/or the speaking of prophecy; then believe me you have a serious problem because it indicates that your leader is humanistic rather than inspired.
_

 

[Adziilii]

.
1Cor 14:38 . . But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

In other words: if a Bible teacher refuses to accept the apostle Paul as a duly authorized agent speaking for Christ; then his believing followers are under orders to ignore that person's opinion of themselves that they're a prophet and/or spiritually gifted.
_

 

[Adziilii]

.
1Cor 14:39 . .Therefore, brethren, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.

That rule applies only to people who actually have the gifts of tongues and/or prophesy because according to Rom 12:4-6, 1Cor 12:10, 1Cor 12:29-30, and 1Cor 14:5 not everyone does.

So then;; it's okay to speak in a tongue, and it's okay to prophesy, but both must be done not only according to the rules, but also with intelligence and grown-up behavior.

"Let all things be done decorously and in proper order." (1Cor 14:40)
_