Well guys, I was going to kind of hit up a little bit today real quick if we can. I know we started some things in 1 Corinthians 14 where we were looking at, I think, some application for us as a church. The actual instruction part of 1 Corinthians 14 I've already preached on some weeks back, but even last week, if you can get the recording, I kind of went over it again in sort of a bullet fashion so that I didn't preach the sermon again. But at the same time, I gave you some things to think about. We went over a couple of articles that I think I had sent on GBF chat for you to download if you wanted to look at it. to see where I got a lot of the underpinnings for why this little section in 1 Corinthians 14, dealing with women being silent in the churches, we just can't sweep under the rug and not address. On the other hand, where we're at now in the discussion isn't so much, hey, what is the text saying, as much as, hey, how do we extrapolate from the text an application for GBF? And so that's still fluid, still looking at a few things, talking to some people behind the scenes. But I'm bringing this up on a Saturday Zoom. Saturday Zooms are meant to deal with controversial subjects, questions you might have in Bible reading, We have always, you want to be courteous and you want to listen before you speak as in any kind of conversation, but it's meant to be kind of an outpost in theology more than settled academia where everybody's been living off of this for 200 years. It's more in the realm of, hey, what does this mean? Hey, can you explain this? Or how come some people believe this? And so, No questions off the table. And I got to tell you, the longer I do this, a lot of the answers is, I don't know. We'll have to do some studying on that. That's a great question. Or, well, we're given some information, but we're not given a lot. So we're just going to have to learn to live with this general idea about this is the answer or something to that effect. Other than that, I'm kind of introducing you to that Saturday morning and it's open just to be on the safe side here for everybody to know. This is not an assembled meeting as well. I would say, let me second pull this up for you so you can kind of look at a little bit of what I'm saying here. If you kind of notice that I have on the screen here, just I have the first Corinthians 14 passage here, and really the section of scripture, the paragraph that brings it all together for us. And we'll put you guys up here so we can see everybody. Yeah, can y'all see this on the screen? I'm making sure. Yes. Thank you, Jay. Verse 26. Now, once again, real quick, the whole point of 1 Corinthians 14, 30,000 foot view, right? You get the broad context, you'll get the narrow context. easier. Broad context here, he's describing prophecy in tongues and the big point he's making from verse 1 all the way down to verse 25 here is that if you're going to speak, you have got to speak in such a way that people can understand you. Understanding is the basis for edification. If you start fellowshipping with me and start speaking in Spanish, I might have the greatest sermon in the world I need to hear, but it isn't going to profit me one bit. I can't understand what you're saying. And so if we abound for the edification of the church, then we need to abound in trying to understand one another. And especially if I'm the one doing the speaking, then I need to be the one who does the interpreting. And so that's why when he gets down into verse 26 in this little section, especially when he starts in verse 26 about being understood, he now turns the tables a little bit. Now he's not really emphasizing. You need to interpret what you're saying, especially if you're in tongues, you see, how shall they say amen as you're giving your thanks, he doesn't know what you're saying. See, that's the big section in verses 1 through 25. But now when he gets to 26, another aspect that can interrupt the edification process, it's not so much how you need to interpret what you're saying, but it's the chaos if you don't do things one at a time. So if you do things one at a time, then by default, like everybody's doing right now on Zoom, Somebody is going to have to be quiet while somebody else is speaking. So you do things in an orderly kind of way. Right now I'm speaking. And, you know, Dustin and Jay aren't speaking. So Dustin and Jay are picking on them or practicing silence. And so now he's going to harp on the silence angle. I mean, look how many times in green he talks about silence. Keep silent. Keep silent. Women keep silent. Not permitted to speak. Forbid to speak. I mean, why does he say that? Because The big principle in verse 26 on down is that order, being orderly, is necessary for edification. That's the 30,000-foot principle for this section of Scripture. Not women being silent and things of this sort. It's orderliness. You have to have order. And in order to have order, you're going to have to do things one at a time. And when things are done one at a time, that means that one person is speaking at a given Kodak moment, and then he stops, and then another person speaks. That's why he says in verse 26, he says, what is the outcome then, brethren, when you assemble? Notice the word assemble in orange. It's different. In other words, there's gathering together of Christians, and then there's gathering together of Christians. Not every gathering together is an assembly. No. This is a big point because we're two or more gathered, Christ is in the midst, but it doesn't mean they have an assembly. They have a gathering. They don't have an assembly. I make a distinction between a gathering and an assembly. Notice, you can ask your own husbands at home in verse 35. Is that an assembly? I don't think so. They're at home. I say, but I got two Christians at home. and they meet the qualifications in Matthew 18 for Christ to be there among them, correct. And so in that gathering, it's called a home gathering, okay? So that aspect will carry a different dynamic than an assembly in verse 26. But that kind of sink in here because if you don't accept that, then you're going to have a contradiction in 1 Corinthians 11 with women speaking with their head covered and 1 Corinthians 14 where Paul says, I don't want to speak at all. Wait, Paul, this is you, bro. You just wrote in 1 Corinthians 11 for them to speak, and a certain demeanor, head covered, long hair, pray, prophesy. That's women doing that, right, Paul? Yeah, the same women over here in 1 Corinthians 14, you say to remain silent, right? Can you explain that? And he would say, I can't. 1 Corinthians 11 is in a gathering setting. 1 Corinthians 14 is in an assembly setting. Oh, different settings. Exactly. If you don't hold to the different settings view, then you're going to have to explain how they can speak and can't speak at the same time in the same setting. How is that possible? And what they usually do, and look, you've got commentators who hold to that view, and they'll say, well, they dumbed down this one and exalt this one, or they dumbed down this one and exalt the other one. I mean, they have to do something to make it happen so that you don't have a contradiction here. So you either have to dumb down the speaking, Well, speaking doesn't mean speaking. It kind of means, you know, whispering or something to this effect so that they can allow women to prophesy, but then yet be quiet on, you know, they try to parlay it off. But the problem is you have to add that to the text and assume that kind of context behind the text. And it's like, OK, I'm assuming an awful lot on this text I have here that I don't I have to assume it. I can't prove it. I can't say, well, you know, they share this and this. For example, in 1 Timothy 2 here, where he talks about women quietly receiving instruction with entire submissiveness, and Paul doesn't allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. Okay, and then he kind of gives his reasons and how Adam was first created in the eve, and it wasn't Adam who was deceived, it was the woman. And he talks about women will be saved through the bearing of children and things of this sort, how he wants them, the women to look a certain way and to sound a certain way, basically. And people will look at this and they don't like that idea of women quietly receiving instruction and not being able to teach and to remain quiet. Don't like that. So the way you dull this down is you put a historical overlay over this and say, well, you know why Paul wrote this, right? No, tell us Mr. Einstein, why Paul wrote it? Well, back then in Corinth, I mean, back then in Ephesus, right? I mean, first Timothy chapter one, right? He says, upon my departure, remain on at Ephesus. So he's writing to Timothy who's at Ephesus, right? And so the reason why he's telling Timothy this, because he's in Ephesus. In Ephesus, they had that goddess that most of the culture worshiped called Athena. And there were a bunch of feminazis running around in the culture. So Paul is going to the opposite extreme and saying, hey, I want my women here in this church here to do the opposite of the culture and don't be worldly. And so I want to shut them down and make sure that they don't, you know, they're very, very quiet. But take away that Athena culture. It's okay for them to speak and to exercise authority and to teach and to do all these other things. So technically what happens is the cultural overlay over the text is the reason for the text. You take the cultural overlay away, like in the 21st century in America, then guess what? We don't have to obey the text. And so that's a nice dulling of the teeth of the text. And basically what I've done is I've preached a section of the Bible and said, hey, you see this right here? This was only good for the first century. But the 21st century, we don't have Athena temples and things of this sort. We don't have, you know, these kind of situations like they had in the first century. So we don't have to obey it like they did in the first century. Catch where I'm driving home with this. So you've got to be very careful. There's a lot of cultural things you can bring up that many times a text will hold to, or if you know some things. But boy, when you've got the text and you're seeing what he's saying in the text, remember, the most simple hermeneutic is, Whatever the letter of the text is or the letter of the law says, that letter has a principle behind it, a 30,000 foot principle that doesn't go away. Now, the letter might be tweaked. The greeting one another with the holy kiss, as I always use it as an example. That's the letter of the text. You greet people with a holy kiss and people would say, Well, in the 21st century, we don't really greet people with kisses. In fact, if I try to greet somebody with a kiss, they might actually not feel like they're being greeted. They might feel like they're being assaulted. And so I might find myself doing the opposite of what the text would say. Well, now that's got some merit. So how can I greet them and make them feel received without offending them? I don't want to go against The letter, but I don't want to go against the principle. So the principle and the letter have got to come together. 30,000 foot view has got to come together with the 30 foot view, the application. You got to have both. So if I don't greet somebody with a holy kiss, I have to be able to defend by principle that I am greeting them in principle in a different way, but I'm fulfilling the spirit of the law. Spirit of the law is the big principle. And so I'm greeting them with a handshake. I'm not doing down here with the holy kiss or a knuckle bump or a hug or a bowing in Japan or something. But I'm fulfilling the big principle of greeting them, which is what's driving this whole thing. When you get a section like this in First Timothy, chapter 2 or 1st Corinthians 14, you still have to ask that question. That's why when I went to 1st Corinthians 14 and said, what's the big principle here of silence for the women and silence for tongue speakers and silence for prophecy speakers and things of this sort? And starting in verse 26, the big principle was, remember the whole thing he's driving home in 1st Corinthians 14, which you can't miss. is I want you, when you gather together, to edify one another. Bingo. Got it. Get together. I'm assembled. Whether, you know, gathering simply, you name the gather, you name the social context. We need to be able to edify people. Exactly. Now, how do you do that? Well, 1 through 25 in Chapter 14, you do that by making sure you're clear in your speech. Tongue speakers need interpreters. The prophecy speakers don't necessarily need interpreters because it's already interpreted. But the big push is that you do things in such a way that you're understood. Now the second point of edification, 30,000 foot view, is not just being clear, but it's being orderly, one at a time. So in order to do that, you can't be speaking all at the same time. I can't have the whole church speaking and then we're trying to listen to everybody. We're doing this and it's like, I can't understand. I'm not going to be edified. Paul would say, you're right. So we have to do it like a turnstile in a subway, that little thing that flips when you go through it one at a time. And so the whole idea of 26 through 33 is one at a time. Tongue speakers, you don't have an interpreter, have a seat. Prophecy speakers, revelations made, have a seat. I mean, in other words, One at a time one at a time one at a time that's orderliness now part of orderliness is not only just one at a time to speak. The flip side of this, like the glass half empty, is if somebody's speaking, guess what you're not doing? You're not speaking, which means you have to remain silent. It's one of the rules I give my witnesses when I put them under oath as a court reporter. I'll tell them I've got three basic rules. If I'm to take this down and make a record of this, you're going to violate the basic rules of communication. I try to basically tell them what I need. I said, I'm a notary. Guess what? As a notary, I'm a witness. I'm a paid witness here at this table. And they're paying me to witness what's going to be said at this table. Now, in order for me to do my job as a paid witness, to say, hey, I heard this, and this is what this guy said, and I'm going to put it down on paper and put my seal on it, which means I'll go to court and defend what I heard and say, this is what this guy said. It's got my seal on it. You can't take it away from me. Nobody else has that authority to say, that's what that guy said. You can dispute it. You can say, well, I think he said this. I think he said, what did the court reporter put? Now, that is going to stand up in court, what I put. And so I said, look, I need three things from you. If we're going to have speech here, OK, in communication, sender and receiver, OK. Q&A. Somebody's going to ask you a question and you're going to give an answer. The first thing I need is volume. If you don't speak up and you whisper, guess what? I don't put it down and I put it in audible because guess what? I didn't hear it. You might have understood what you said. You might have understood what you questioned, but I didn't. So you have to have volume. Second thing is you got to be clear. Here's the first thing in the chapter 14 is that if you say, uh-huh, I know what you mean. And I go to type it out and guess what it looks like. Nuh-uh. And so you got to be clear that they might, they know what the sound of what that says, but in the putting it on paper, Wait, that looks like an uh-uh. Is that an uh-uh or an uh-uh? Well, the way to be clear, say yes and no. Third rule, here it is. Patience. One at a time. If you talk while the other guy's talking and two people are talking at once, I'm going to miss somebody and I'm going to put inaudible because that's what I heard. I heard an inaudible. I couldn't make out when two people were talking at the same time. You want that? $64,000 answer, and I missed it because you couldn't be patient enough to let the guy get the tennis ball over the net with his question before you return volley. So it's a little unofficial. We do it all the time. We talk while the people are talking, but don't do it in a deposition. Now, this is what I tell them all the time. So right here, this little section here has to do with orderliness one at a time, which y'all are doing. I'm the guy. I'm talking. Nobody else is talking. That's how you do it. And so when he gets into this and he talks about this one at a time, what's the other side of this is the silence part. And so he hammers that in 26 through 32, or 33, and says, I want them to keep silent. They don't have an interpreter. I want them to keep silent for prophecies made. And then the big area of silence is the women in 34, 35, and 36. So when you understand the big 30,000 foot view, what he's trying to drive home, orderliness, then whatever application Grace Bible Fellowship is going to have on that paragraph 34, 35, and 36, It's got to follow the big principle of orderliness. If what we do is in an orderly way, I'm fulfilling the point Paul's trying to make in 1 Corinthians chapter 14. Now, having said that, okay, I'm also looking at what he says at the 30,000 foot view. Okay, got to have order, because order's the basis for edification. Got it. And if I have order and I have one person speaking at a time, and we've got the order, now in 34, 35, and 36, he puts a gender who he doesn't allow to speak. Now, he's not allowing them to speak. Once again, 34, 35, and 36 isn't in isolation. He's not allowing them to speak because it's proper order. That's the context, right? So whatever our application is, if we make mistakes at the 30-foot level, and we have some women doing this and some women not, or in this church over here at Philip Gage Church, they do this a little different than they do at Larry Hubbard's church or our church or whatever. If they're fulfilling the 30,000-foot view of orderliness, I'm not saying it's okay for them to have different things at the 30-foot level. But at least they're seeking to do the 30,000 foot view, which is the spirit of the section. It's not like they're just out there winging it, doing their own thing. And you ask them, you're saying, hey, why do you do this? They should be able to say, well, we do things a little differently, but we think it serves. better order and better edification, I can't argue with that 30,000-foot view application. You get what I'm saying? So that's why the 30,000-foot view and the 30-foot view are brothers and sisters. You've got to have them both when you talk about the scripture so that if someone says, hey, how come you didn't kiss me when I came in the door like the Bible says? You go broad and you say, well, I didn't think that would be a proper way to greet from the 30,000-foot view, and I thought you might be offended, and I didn't want to offend. See, that's a legitimate answer on why a guy didn't actually follow the letter of the law, because he's putting on the table the principle behind the letter of the law. I can't fault a guy like that. I couldn't fault somebody who came and said, well, I really believe we need to keep women silent in our churches, but at the same time, I could see how it is it somehow would go against, let's say orderliness. I would say, I hadn't thought about that, but you're right. That's the big 30,000 foot view principle. And you've got to honor the big principle, 30,000 foot, just like you have to try to honor the 30 foot. principle. So you've got two principles, kind of like concentric circles. You've got this big Venn diagram, big circle here, the big principle. And you've got this smaller thing here in the middle, which is the 30-foot view. Does that make sense? This is how you interpret scripture. And when you look at scripture, that's why you read it in context. And you're trying to find the big point that the writer's trying to make. And you say, okay, And many times it's a simple point, but it's the big picture. And then you look at the smaller paragraph or the smaller sentence and you say, how does this thing fit into the big picture? Oh, I see. He's trying to show this point to make this point. OK. And then you kind of see the subsections and how they fit. And so you know how to take the smaller and fit it inside the larger. Does that make sense? Any questions on that? This is Zoom Saturday. So this ain't preaching time Sunday. So feel free to jump in. Now I'm quiet, your turn with the tennis ball across the net. We're good? I understand. Good to see Gary on. I always want to welcome folks, because I don't know who's on cell phones and can't see who's on and who is on computer. I can see everybody on the computer. Of course, I got to screen up someone like Dustin behind the wheel of a truck, might not be able to know who's on. So I just kind of mentioned people's names. Anyway, so now looking at this section here in 1 Corinthians 14 and trying to understand the extent of the silence of the women in the church. And you look at, because that's the applicational force here. I have to, if I'm going to say, hmm, verse 34, women are to keep silent in the churches. They're not permitted to speak and they're to subject themselves just as the law also says. And then he says in verse 35, now verse 35 is an interesting verse. It says, if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home. And then he backs up the principle for that again, for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. So on one hand, he gives them the big principle in verse 34 there to keep silent women. He doesn't say, tongue-speaking women. He doesn't specify women who are slaves are to keep silent in the churches. Oh, well, then if you're free, you can speak. No, he says women. So that's half the gender. It's half the population are to keep silent in the churches. And then he doubles it from the other side for they're not permitted to speak, permitted to speak. Now, I think their permission for them not to speak it kind of underscores this, you see him saying this different context, he's writing this to Timothy, this is to Corinth, but you see him kind of flesh this out a little bit when he talks about women in general again in Ephesus, because remember, this is Ephesus, he's talking to Timothy to set up the churches rightly in Ephesus, remember because he also said in verse 33, as in all the churches of the saints, I mean his whole idea here, Paul has the same kind of rule of thumb, he wants women looking a certain way. with how they dress, and he gives examples of overdressing for attention, basically. Because he could have come in and said, likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with bikinis, not with less clothing, not with no makeup. He could have gone down, underdeveloped, and said, look, I don't want that. Proper clothing so this is an emphasis of overdressing, dressing to the nines as we would say and of course he brings that in with the proper clothing and he kind of parlays the proper clothing against their appearance of being dressed to the nines because when you see this it's not like oh braided hair is evil, golden pearls are costly, that's just evil you should never wear that. They're not evil in themselves it's just what they present for a woman is that it's just not proper for the occasion. It's clothing, but the properness, the proprietoriness, see that word proper there? Here's that word proper right here in verse 35 in 1 Corinthians 14. It is improper for a woman to speak in church. So Paul is dealing with proprietoriness among women, and they're to look a certain way. They can overdress so that everybody is, they're drawing attention to themselves. Don't want that. If you're going to draw attention to yourself at all, let me tell you what is proper. Dress yourself with good works. Dress yourself with your deeds. Dress yourself with your kindness and your gentleness. Dress yourself in the ways that you accept people and have a demeanor of service. You do that, that's clothing 24-7, that'll be accepted in any content. That's his claim here. So they're to look a certain way, Timothy, in emphasis, all right? I want you to kind of emphasize that proper clothing thing, and if they really want to hang their hat on clothing, then kind of emphasize it. You need to put on a blouse of good works. And put on some dresses that really show kindness and things like that. Maybe you really want to doll yourself up. Here's the makeup you want to put on right here. Good works. And so you can see that how he's trying to emphasize what he wants women making a claim to godliness. But now he moves from how they look to how they sound. I don't want them sounded. That's basically what he says. A woman must quietly receive instructions. He noticed he didn't say He's going to say, I'll read it. It says, quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. So the idea of submissiveness works off the idea of receiving instruction. You can't receive instruction and be unsubmissive. The two don't go together. So if they're going to be receiving instruction, they have to do it in a posture, a certain type of mentality, submissiveness. And then he comes in, now he gives his rationale for it. I don't allow a woman to teach or exercise authority. The two go together. over a man. I want them to remain quiet, quietly receive instruction, quietly in general. Here's the general principle, remain quiet. Here's the specific quietness with submissiveness in their receiving instruction. And the whole thing is on the backdrop of them and their relationship to man and men is that they're not the teacher exercise authority over a man. And he gives his reason for it in verse 13. And notice what he says. He says, he didn't say for the cultists of Athena, he doesn't get into the culture here. His reasoning is the created order. Adam was first created and then Eve. What does that mean? Why is that such a power point when it comes to them receiving instruction and not exercising authority over man and remaining quiet? Well, because Adam being created first, it just isn't a matter of, well, he first come first serve, you know, it's a matter of, well, if you notice when Adam was first created and Adam was made from the dust to the ground and then God puts him in the garden and he starts his work and he's naming animals, right? Guess what? Guess who's not there? Eve. She's not there. He's already doing this. Then It's noted that it's good for man not to be alone. And then God brings to Adam, Eve, and notice what God does. Adam names Eve, Eve doesn't name Adam. They both don't name themselves, Adam and names Eve. And so this idea of who's created first has a certain emphasis of importance and authority. That's why he brings it in verse 13. Adam, who was first created and then Eve. The person who was created first carries the weight of the responsibility in the relationship. That's why they quietly receive instruction, not the other way around. They don't teach or exercise authority. The second reason, he says in verse 14, it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived fell into transgression. Now, what does this have to do with anything? That men can't be deceived? Of course men can be deceived. I mean, Adam sinned with his eyes wide open. He's even worse than it comes to Eve. But this idea of being deceived is different than the idea of just sinning with your eyes wide open. She was the one who was the weak link in the chain, so to say, that the devil used to sabotage the entire human race. He brings that out here, which is another reason why he wants them to do what? To remain quiet. If they want to exercise authority and they want to show their prowess in the created order, Paul says, I'll tell you where they do that. Verse 15, they do it in the home. That's the whole point of verse 15. women will be preserved or saved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity and self-restraint. This is their domain. Now he's going to say that in, I think it's chapter four. In another kind of way, he's going to talk about, let's see, maybe it's five. Yeah. And when he talks about widows, honoring widows and he wants younger widows to not be put on this list. He says, let's see, right here, verse 11. But refused to put younger widows on the list for when they feel sensual desires and disregard of Christ, they want to get married. See, but they're supposed to want to get married. That's what he was saying in 1 Timothy 2, 15. God's built this into them to want to feel very, very comfortable inside of a home, inside of a family. But yet they go out and make all these pledges and everything when they're on as a widow. And they find themselves fighting against basic, I don't think he means sensual desires in some sort of sexual sense, as much as it's desires in a home domestic sense. And they find themselves going against their previous pledge, as he says here in verse 12. But notice what he says to the admonition. So this is his admonition to them. He says they learn to be idolizes all these things that go from house to house that become gossips and busybodies talking about things not proper to mention. I don't want that. So what's the what's the application for the younger widows? Get married. He doesn't say get a theological education at the seminary. He doesn't do that. He says he wants them to get married. There's that domestic emphasis. Bear children, keep house. Bear children. Isn't that what he said in chapter 2? Exactly. This is their domain. Give the enemy no occasion for reproach. There's that enemy. Some have turned aside to follow Satan. So here's a woman, she's got dependent widows, don't put them on the church, let her take them in, and she can assist those widows who really are widows. Now, he says this, going back to our 1 Timothy chapter 2 section, Why? Because this is their bailiwick, this is where they actually will flourish. So when it comes to the assembly, 1st Timothy 2 Timothy, he's telling Timothy, I want them to remain quiet. This is out of their domain, let the men handle it up here. raising up holy hands and things of this sort, without wrath and dissension. They're the ones who are gonna take the lead here. Now in the home, right, this is where they're gonna flourish and loving their husbands and bearing children and keeping house, as he's gonna say, I think even in Titus and things of that sort. So going back to verse Corinthians 14, okay, this idea where he says, just as the law also says, the law, he doesn't spell out Genesis chapter two here, but that's probably what he's referencing here, because he referenced it in verse 13 and 14, even though he doesn't say it in specificity here in verse 34. Now, in light of all of this backdrop stuff here, and we're trying to make some application here, okay? Mark, I got a question. Go ahead, Tim. In 1 Timothy 2, 9, that section, where do you How do you get to the point that this is talking about the assembly and not just women in general? In 1st Timothy? Uh-huh. Well, you don't. There is no assembly instruction here. Okay, I thought you were saying this was strictly for assembly. You're not saying that. Well, he remember he's talking to Timothy, right, he's trying to tell Timothy, I'll go back here to chapter one, you kind of get a big picture where he says, I urge you upon my departure of Macedon, remember, so that you may instruct certain men, he could have said elders. not to teach strange doctrines, not to pay attention. So they've got some things going on here that they shouldn't be doing, these men in positions of authority. But Timothy is Paul's man in Ephesus to go to those elders and say, here guys, you know who I am. I'm representing Paul. You know Paul. And he's the apostle here to set these things up. I'm here to give you his directives. He can't be here, he's in Macedonia. But this is how he wants things set up here, okay? He wants these things to be, to stop, certain men, turn aside, futile discussion, all these things. And when he gets to chapter two, and he starts to get into the weeds of this is how the church is going to be run, he can tell, like he's telling Timothy, I want it set up this way. Because remember, he's going to say in chapter three, when he kind of finishes this whole section and finishes overseers and deacons and things of this sort, he's going to say, verse 14, I am writing these things to you, Timothy, hoping to come to you before long. But in case I'm delayed, I write so that you may know how one ought to conduct himself, whether he's a female, a male or whatever, or an elder in the household of God, which is the church of the living God. So he's emphasizing the point back again to what he's been saying. I want you to put these things in order, put them in place, making sure women understand their roles, making sure they understand what they can and can't do, make sure men know what they can and can't do. I want elders who meet these qualifications to be in these positions of power. I don't want them teaching these things. I don't want craziness over here with this genealogies and myths and resurrections taking place and Nuxoid on that kind of thing. So this is, he's kind of given him some tidbits, bullet points, of what he's going to need to set up in Ephesus. So when he tells these women here, or he talks to Timothy about a woman quietly receiving instruction, tiresomeness of this, I have got to assume, obviously, this has got to be in some sort of context where, whether it's an assembly slash gathering slash whatever, The emphasis here in this paragraph, 9 through 15, is women are going to find they can let their hair down inside their home with their kids and their husbands. This is where they can kind of call the shots, so to say, as we would say. But outside of that, they need to really pay attention to what it says to quietly receive instruction, remain quiet, and kind of play second fiddle, as we would say, when it comes to the exercising of authority. That's going to be in the realm of a man. So, does that fit the assembly? Well, it most definitely would fit the assembly for sure, but it also might fit other contexts where men and women are gathered. It might just be in a home Bible study. It doesn't mean they can't speak at all. It's just in that setting, because the rules are laxed a little bit more than the assembly in 1 Corinthians 14, But even then, when it lacks, they should think twice before they speak, only because it's improper for a woman to take that kind of role and lead in a gathering with men. That's how Paul would address this. Now, in our culture, you don't have that problem at all. You got women running for Congress, you got everything from A to Z kind of thing. But in Paul's way of thinking, This is how women and men were created, and they were created this way to showcase this. So to the extent women don't do this, is they obfuscate what the role of men and women were meant to display in any kind of public setting, but especially in the church setting. So that's the text. That's what, you know, people are going to, you know, cry against and say, no, no, no, no, no. But I'm like, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Because this is what he's telling Timothy, which means this is what he's telling us. That's my take on this. Now, if you say, well, can they ask a question if they're in a gathering? Sure. You can do that now. That's no problem. I mean, we can have women on Zoom. We can have people asking questions. If we set it up and define it that way, but notice to set up and define the way by men. Men have set it up, me, man, I've set it up that way and said, okay, we're going to allow this, we're not going to allow that. And so, because this would be proper, this would be improper if you did it in a different kind of way. And so Priscilla and Aquila took Apollos aside in Acts 18 and instructed him in a greater depth concerning Christ, but they didn't do it in the synagogue. So there's always a place, and in that place even, they have to always remember that, you know, My number one goal is, if I'm a woman, I'm thinking, hey, it doesn't mean I can't say anything or I can't even ask a question, but I can't do that in the assembly. That's going to be really strict. But outside of that, sure, I can do that all day long if It's proper if it's done in such a way that I'm not exercising authority. I'm not just trying to beat down men in a general sense. For a woman to do that in the eyes of God is a dishonor. Now, I know in this culture, they don't see that at all. They just think, well, we're equal. I have every right. You can claim rights all day long, but if God says it's a dishonor, It's a dishonor, no matter how many rights you claim, because it's a dishonor. He's the one who's the final lawgiver, the final dictionary definer, and if you're going to call it something else than what he calls it, I don't know what to tell you except you don't like God. I mean, here's your maker telling you what is proper and improper. He didn't say, hey, you can never ask a question. I mean, they want to always go to the extreme to make it look like some weird position we're holding. It's not. They can do these things in a proper setting all day long. It's just that it has to be done in the proper setting, number one, and it has to be done within a certain demeanor. It's the same thing with verse 9. Well you're saying they can't, I can never braid my hair. Is he saying that you can never braid your hair? He's just giving that as an example. of basically improper clothing in the assembly. Now, you would think, well, who would have a problem with braided hair? I mean, braided hair, really? It's not the braiding of the hair specifically detached from the 30,000-foot view principle. See, they want to segment off the little thing over here, braided hair, braided hair, and argue that, I can't believe you're so legalistic with braided hair, as if there's no 30,000-foot principle behind it. Well, there is a principle behind the braided hair. What's the principle? Everybody's going to be talking and looking at your braided hair. We don't want that. Just like if I came to church and decided to preach this Sunday in a tuxedo with a top hat and cane. That's improper clothing. Yeah, but it's not like skimpy or... I didn't say it was. It's still improper. I'm dressed to the 99s that they're not dressed to the nines, but it's like I'm drawing attention to my tuxedo. Why would I want to do that? See, it's a distraction, and that's the point. When something's improper, it's a distraction. So coming back to 1 Corinthians 14, them asking questions, good questions, great questions. Man, whoa, that's a great question. It's just, it's a distraction. It's improper because it takes away from something. Like right now I'm talking, if three people started trying to talk while I'm talking, okay, we can't keep going like this, guys. One of us has got to talk, one of us has got to be quiet. That's just a distraction. We've got to default down to the basic rules of communication if we're going to communicate and be able to be edified. So I don't know if that helps him. But yeah, 1 Timothy 2 is not addressed to the same kind of extent that 1 Corinthians 14, because 1 Corinthians 14 and verse 26 says, when you assemble. But this is the backdrop for 34 and 35. In Timothy, That can also be the backdrop for what is instructed Timothy in 1 Timothy 2, because obviously notice he wants men in every place to pray. That's not just the assembly, but that's in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands without wrath and dissension. That's the only instruction he gives for men. He didn't go into the weeds with that with men, but he wants them to notice, and I think lifting up the holy hands probably means take the lead here. And you do it in such a way that inwardly, you do it as brothers. You don't do it to, you know, one up on somebody else or try to put somebody down through your prayers or indirect preach to somebody through your prayers. No, you lift up holy hands, you pray, and you pray without wrath and ascension. Now, this is addressed to men here. But now women he spends a good bit of time on. I'm not saying because they had more of a problem, but maybe they were defaulting into this question asking in an improper place. So he gives it a little bit more. He's going to deal with them in chapter five more as being widows, young and old, and try to make sure they have a proper understanding of that as well. So why does he spend more time on it? Maybe that was not so much a sore spot, but maybe just was a spot that needed to be addressed. Yeah. Any feedback? That clears it up. Thank you very much. Got it. Good. Okay. Kind of jump now to GBF for how do we apply first 34 and 35. One angle could say they don't speak at all. They don't breathe at all. They don't sing at all. They don't pray at all. They sit there with duct tape over their mouth and they sit there and they watch everything that's going on. I don't think that's what he's saying here. Because he's also going to remember when he talks about this idea, generally speaking, people come with all kinds of gifts, psalms, teaching, revelation. These are all gifts of speech. Remember in 1 Peter chapter 4, the gifts of the Spirit are not just gifts of speech. Remember? Buddhists, you have gifts of service down here. Remember what he says in verse 10? As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good managers, stewards of the manifold grace of God. He breaks them down into two sections. Whoever speaks, this is how you're supposed to speak, is to do so as one who's speaking the utterances of God. Now notice the next category. Whoever serves, and that's another category of gifts, is to do so as one who is serving by the strength which God supplies. This is where women are going to find their gifts, in this section here. And so this whole idea of coming together and having these kind of gifts, you know, When we gather together and we have, we're practicing this edification and he wants women in general to be quiet. I don't know, he emphasizes that in first Timothy too. And that's the Timothy to set them up that way in Ephesus. So I know that's what he's saying here in first Corinthians 14. He wants them to remain quiet. Now, how quiet? Duct tape over the mouth quiet? or they can do anything a man can do just as long as a man gives them their blessing. And look, there's churches like that, I know a few, that says a woman can get up there and preach, a woman can get up there and do all these other things as long as there's a man that says, you got my blessing, go ahead and do it. So on one hand, you've got the duct tape where they can't say anything. On the other hand, you've got churches that allow women to do these things because, well, they're not, see, did not usurp an authority. The men are allowing them to do these things. So it's okay for them to do it as long as it's underneath the auspices of a man. Now, you'll have defenders on both of those. I'll call them extremes here. Now, of course, the other extreme, you've got women pastors and women doing all these other things, and they don't even read this. They would look at verse 34, 35, and 36 and say, that's not even Paul writing that. Some scribe in 600 AD wrote that in there, so we ain't got to listen to it. Somebody just kind of messed up the text, and so that's not even Bible. They would basically say, 34, 35, and 36 ain't Bible. So why are you preaching on this, Mark? I mean, just scratch that out of your Bible. Just get the scissors and cut it out and just go from verse 33 to 37. You're good. Dustin. So if somebody were to hold to that position, would that fit the category in Revelation chapter 22, where he says if someone is taking away from the scripture? Possibly. Now, of course, that introduces another subject of the view of scripture. Now, the problem isn't the role of women in the church as much as the role of scripture, and what is scriptural and what isn't. I think the passage Dustin is referring to is where at the very end of the book of Revelation, right here, verse 18, I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book, if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book. Verse 19, and if anyone takes away gets the scissors and cuts out, okay, takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city which are written in this book. In other words, you don't tamper with the prophecy. You don't add to it, you don't take away from it. It's a thus saith the Lord. Now, Dustin's saying, will that apply to the whole Bible or does that apply to this book? Tech says this book doesn't say the whole Bible. They didn't have a whole Bible when this was written. I mean, they didn't have all the 27 books of the New Testament collated together and recognized by the church. And so when someone say, well, it's just, you know, you can't do that with the book of Revelation kind of thing. But with other books in the Bible, I guess you can. No, he's not saying that either. because we do know that the Bible is one homogeneous book of God. This is God's Word, all of it, 66 books from Genesis to Revelation. Got it. So application-wise, yeah, that would probably make applicational sense. Text-wise, he's just referring to the book of Revelation. I mean, that's what the text actually says. 30,000 foot view, whole Bible. 30 foot view, yeah, the book of Revelation is what he's really addressing here. This is the holy kiss part, but yet here's the greeting part, which the aspect of all of what he says in Second Timothy chapter three, that all scripture is God-breathed and it's profitable. So it's inspired inspiration in that sense, but it's also profitable. So the whole idea that it's all one homogeneous God-breathed book, Second Timothy 3.16 would cover the waterfront for the applicational 30,000 foot view of that. What do you think? You understand what I'm trying to drive home here? Does that make sense? So getting back to maybe what Dustin says. I mean, it's kind of the same thing, right? I mean, you don't take it away. I mean. Right. If somebody came and said, verse 34, 35, and 36, it's not Paul speaking. It's a scribe put it in the scriptures. Well, then I would ask the 30,000-foot view question, saying, OK, you're saying this paragraph Paul didn't write, number one. Number two, a scribe put it in. Now, notice what they might say. They might say, that's right, a scribe put it in, it's not Paul. Then they might turn and say, but it's still inspired, but it's still God breathed, but it's still profitable, which means, see, they're not denying the application of part that it's the word of God. They're denying the historical writing of who wrote it and saying Paul was the one who didn't write it. And I would then follow up with a question, say, okay, and that's important for what reason? And then I will get the applicational reasoning from that person and they would say because since the scribe wrote it and Paul didn't write it I don't have to apply it like you're saying I need to apply it. This was the scribe writing his own words in here and wanting women to be quiet, because I don't know, maybe he didn't like women or something. But if that's the case, and if the scribe's writing this, and he doesn't want this to take place, why are you saying the Holy Spirit wrote this? If the Holy Spirit wrote this, then it's applicable for all Christians at all times in all cultures, right or wrong. It's the Word of God. The Word of the Spirit is the Word of God. He's trying to do a little shell game here by saying the authors are different so that I don't have to make the application you're saying that the text is making. And if I just double down and say, okay, let's play that game. We don't have to make the application you're saying that the writer is trying to say here. Well, then what is the application? Because you're wanting your cake and eat it too. You wanted to say the Holy Spirit wrote this, but then you want to take it away and say, I don't have to apply it. Why would the Holy Spirit write something that's inspired, but then take away the second half of 2 Corinthians 3, 16 and say it's not profitable? If he wrote it, it's profitable. The text tells me it's both. Whatever's written is profitable. You're trying to take away the profitability of the text. So help me here. Yeah, go ahead. How does that relate to the Apocrypha? the Apocrypha is those extra books, right, during the intertestinal period of time between Malachi and Matthew that the Catholics recognize as part of Scripture. We don't. It's not Scripture. It's not inspired. That's why it's not in your Bible. It's in theirs. But then so are the papal edicts and papal bulls that they put in there, too. They're traditions. They put all that next to the Book of Romans and says that's just as inspired and just as authoritative as the Book of Romans, which, yeah, we're going to deny that and say, no, the Holy Spirit didn't breathe that out and make that scripture. Yeah, he did. No, he didn't. Yeah, he did. No, he didn't. Tell you what, you take your book and you go over there, we're not going to listen to it. Or the Jehovah's Witness New World Translation, you take your Translation, you go over there to Denas, the deity of Jesus, and this is what is inspired, these 66 books. At that point, I mean, it's fish cut bait on the Word of God. And of course, I expect the devil to do this because he did it ever since the garden. Has God really said? And so he's going to attack the Word of God, whether through the interpretation process or through the amalgamation process of putting the books together and trying to get people to recognize books that shouldn't be in there or take out books that should be in there. That's that Revelation 22 thing that Dustin brought up. So he wants to take things out or he wants to put things in. Why? Because he doesn't like the Word of God. That's the bottom line, so. I mean, they could use that argument on any passage they don't agree with. Cool. Yeah, exactly. So you either believe the whole word or none of it. Yeah. Let me give you another example. I remember I had a guy I really liked, and he held this view. First Corinthians 11. Now, that's a good controversial section. Women wearing headpieces, right? So you start reading up here in verse two, he says, now I praise you because you remember me and everything and hold firmly to the traditions I delivered them to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is ahead of every man and the man is ahead of the woman and God is ahead of Christ. Yeah, makes sense, right? Now, starting in verse four, going all the way down here, I've got it in blue. This guy says, All of that is a quote that Paul is putting in his letter right here that the Corinthians wrote to him. In other words, Paul's not writing this, Paul's quoting them. So in other words, start in verse four, quote, every man who has something on his head while praying and prophesying his grace, yada, yada, yada, yada. For man does not originate from woman, woman from, then verse 10, therefore woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head because of the angels, unquote. Now Paul takes up the discussion of what Paul wants to say and says in verse 11. However, now here's my counsel, Paul would say, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. So in other words, starting in verse 11, Paul's now contradicting what he just quoted in verse four through 10. Now how would you fight that? Because see, people don't like this in four through 10. Okay, I know a good way to get rid of it. Just pretend it's the Corinthians and their stupidity. And Paul's quoting their stupidity, saying, hey, I got the letter you wrote me, goofy heads, and I'm going to put some of it in my letter back to you. And all these things that you said here, let me tell you what I'm going to think about that. Verse 11. Let me tell you something, Corinthians in the Lord, however, neither woman nor man, yada, yada, yada, yada. And you see what he starts talking about here. I'm not inclined to be contentious. You're inclined to be contentious. We got no other kind of practice like this that you just said in verse four through 10. Now that's how some commentators will interpret this section of scripture. Now talk about, think about that. If this was inspired by God, right? They just took it all away and said, nope, it was given by the Corinthians. And Paul's quoting them to show how he's going to contradict it and what he's going to say in verse 11, 12, 13, and 14 and 15. See, that's one way to do it. Pretend you're quoting them, and that way I don't consider this Paul's counsel and hence the Holy Spirit's words to the Corinthians to make application. But that would be one way to do that, if that makes sense. I mean, that was Ralph Woodrow's view. I like Ralph Woodrow. He had some good stuff on Matthew 24, but there? completely dropped the ball. Now, getting back to Dustin's point, Dustin's point's right here, saying that some scribe did this or some people believe that this was something that was just added by a scribe. I got a commentator, Gordon Fee, he's unbelievable in 1 Corinthians. I mean, he's really good, but he makes that statement here on this paragraph. Every commentator after Fee comments on Fee now, making that statement saying, What kind of a bonehead makes a statement like that? You just, you've got bigger issues. If you think this isn't Bible, yet it's in the Bible. I mean, that makes you now the discerner of what's actually Bible and not Bible. The same people who want to write off Mark chapter 16, the last chapter, or John chapter eight, the woman caught in adultery, that little pericope as it's called. Some manuscripts didn't have weight going back. So, it's not in the Bible, they say. Well, no, it is in the Bible. is recognized as being scriptural. Now, to answer Dustin's question, I don't think the intention of these people in saying this is to say, I hate the word of God. I want to take it out of the word of God because I don't like the word of God. I don't think their angle is that. Now, they might, I'm sure, have some issues with this section here because being a fish that swims in this kind of cultural water, they believe women should be doing everything men should do. So I think they're driven by the cultural mandate to let women do things that the Bible says they shouldn't do. But nevertheless, that's not the answer to say this little paragraph shouldn't be in the Bible. In fact, part of the articles I gave you, I gave you last week when I sent it, one of them was by, I forgot, it might have been by a woman. Jennifer Shank or something, she shows all the manuscripts, the earliest manuscripts have this paragraph in it. So you wouldn't have expected that if it was added by a scribe later on. You'd find the earliest manuscripts didn't have that. And then after 600 AD, you start seeing it in the manuscripts because it got added. You don't have that. You have this in the earliest manuscripts of 1 Corinthians. So it's like, Sorry, even the manuscripts don't support your view that this was added by a scribe. So it's bogus. And people will want to put this in there, I think, have an agenda. And the agenda is we don't like what it says. And so one good way to take that off of our plate is just take it out of the text altogether. You can't do that. Makes sense? I don't know if I answered your question, Dustin. So then when someone does that, are they Would we consider that to be on that same level? Or is that maybe someone's opinion versus another one's opinion? Oh, I would take I would take your first point. OK, yeah, so they're taking away the description. Is that sin? What do you think? I think so. I mean, we got pretty good text for it right there in Revelation. If we make that application, I mean, if you add to the text, He adds those same curses. And if you take away, then he will take away your part from the tree of life. Yeah, I'm going to run down this rabbit trail a little bit because I think it's necessary, but there's a sin that sin and needs to be corrected and rebuked, and then there's a sin that needs to be proven. Not every sin is of the same level as every other sin. Sin, but it's like when you go to a brother in Matthew 18, and you go to him and you talk to him about something you see as sin, and you've got good cause to see it as sin. When you talk to your brother, it might not rise to the level of it being sin that is expressly condemned in the scriptures. It might be one of those situations where you're dealing with a weaker brother or stronger brother. All of a sudden, I start getting his definitions on the table. He's not defining things like me. He's defining something like, no, brother, that's idolatry. You eating that meat, I don't care how you slice it up. I mean, look what that thing did. You're going to actually take this and you're going to consume it. I mean, I get his point and what he's trying to say. And his point, the 30,000 point, is Christians can't practice idolatry. We're on the same page on that. It's when you get down into the weeds and how you know, the actions that you do down here in the minutia, he's drawn a tie to idolatry where you're saying, no, it doesn't connect to that. And so many times sin, when you go to define sin, you've got to put in a few moving parts that make it so that a person is really committing sin and is unteachable where all the boxes are checked so that it's like, okay, this isn't a tomato-tomato. This isn't a weaker brother, stronger brother. This is somebody who's actually doing something and is out of fellowship with God. He's practicing sin. He knows it's sin. and he wants to continue practicing underneath a different heading. Yet, at that point, and you express your, you lay your case out on why you see it that way, even you bring in others and say, if they see the same things you're saying, they might not see the same things you're saying. They might agree with the other guy and say, no, I don't see, I can see how this could be maybe immaturity. It's kind of like the weaker brother. I mean, if you think about it, Paul tells the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 8, that the weaker brother is misinformed. He says, we know there's no such thing as an idol in the world. Now think about that. He just torpedoed the weaker brother's entire premise for why he can't eat meat offered to an idol. Paul just said, there's no such thing as an idol in the world. Yeah, there is, Paul. That meat was just offered to you know, a Zeus over there. See, Paul, he's going to hold to the truth of it. He doesn't say, you weaker brother, you need to change. If you don't change, you're in sin. I mean, he doesn't do that, see. But the weaker brother, because of his conscience, is tied to that action and that activity. Paul doesn't try to convince the weaker brother to, you need to change your definition of an idolatry, Mr. Weaker Brother, because, I mean, You think idolatry is tied to me? I mean, really? Is that physical like that? No, it's not physical. It's spiritual. He didn't do that. He didn't try to talk the guy out and rationalize that out with him to get him to change his theology. Now, at the same time, I think he makes a statement that's pretty telling in Chapter 8, where he says Snows' thing is an idol in the world. But you got a guy over here, a brother over here, Who thinks there is one? Now, isn't that an error? Isn't that wrong thinking? I mean, why wouldn't, why would Paul let this guy, I'll bring the text here so you know where I'm coming from, continue in that wrong thinking? He lets him do it. Look in chapter 8, chapter 9 still, sorry. Now concerning things sacrifice idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Everybody's got an opinion. Everybody thinks they're going to know something. Everybody's got knowledge of what they think is right and wrong. We all have knowledge. That kind of knowledge can make arrogant, but you got to have love because you got to be able to live with people. If anyone supposes that he knows anything, remember, it's this whole thing that arrogance can come out of. He is not yet known as he ought to know, so let him remember that if he thinks he knows something, he don't know half of what he thinks he knows, okay? But if anyone loves God, turn from the knowledge, the unintellectual to the affections, he's known by him. You want to really get into the right frame of mind, love God, okay? Then you're in the right frame of mind. Now it gets back to where he's saying it. Now, because he prefaces this, because this is gonna be useful here in verse four. Therefore concerning the eating of things, sacrifice, title, here it is in yellow. We know that there is no such thing as a night on the world and that there is no God but one, bingo. For even if there are so-called gods, if you want to take the argument that there's, you know, somehow idols in the world and so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, he says, as indeed there are many gods, if you want to talk about that, potentates and things like this, and many lords, yet we know at the end of the day, there's one God, the father of whom all things exist for him, one Lord, Jesus Christ, We know, on correct theology, even if you want to call some of these potentates quote-unquote demigods or quote gods with a little g, okay, we know at the end of the day there's only one God and he rules and reigns. However, not all men have this knowledge. Now you didn't say, but some, being accustomed to the idol until now and they don't have the knowledge, are in sin. Here's the difference. Their conscience, because they don't have that knowledge, and they're believing these things are really idols in the world, which is, no such thing as an idol in the world. They work their conscience off of that basis. that they're still practicing idolatry. So he tells the stronger brother what to do with that kind of person. He didn't say go out and try to convince them and get them in a headlock and make them believe that what they're doing is not idolatry. It's not what he tells them to do. Now, that might not be a bad idea. I mean, they probably need to change those kind of things. He says, take them where they're at. They don't have that knowledge. And you try to serve them. Remember, love God. You try to serve them where they're at. And hopefully in time, their views will change. Dustin's question is, well, the guy here, 1 Corinthians chapter 14, believes this is an interpolation. Does that fall in any of this kind of category where it's like tomato, tomato, where I think I'm right, it's called tomato, it's not called tomato. And I think in due time, you'll see it if you mature, which you're probably right, they would. But yet my love and application towards you is to let the Lord teach you and to give you time, or is it to write you off, buddy, and you're in sin and you better repent before noon tomorrow, you're done. See, that's what I'm saying, but not all sin, not all error is sin. Sin is built on error, but not all error can come to this kind of rising where all of a sudden, I'm Matthew 18 on every time I think of a brother is in sin. Doesn't mean I can't talk to him. We have a great conversation on it with those things. But if he starts giving me his basis for why he thinks something is, x and that basis for the 30,000 foot view isn't unscriptural. It doesn't mean it's okay to do something in the 30 foot view. It just means that, okay, well, I know he's not trying to say this because I asked the bigger questions of what he's trying to do and he's telling me what he's trying to do and it is not sin in and of itself. Now, once again, it can become sin, even if he doesn't see it, if the ramifications of it, it's kind of like along these lines, it starts going against other sections of scripture. It starts really taking out the teeth of the word. Yeah, if a person came in and said this, because if you think about it, If I have an interpretation on this passage, and let's say Gary, I'll pick on Gary. Gary has a different interpretation of this passage. I mean, technically, one of us is right and one of us is wrong. Both of us could be wrong, but both of us can't be right. And so even if both of us are wrong, didn't we, by way of interpretation, take out that section of Scripture from the Bible? Because we got the wrong interpretation. I've pretty much X'd out that section of script. I didn't X it out in cutting it with scissors, kind of exiting it out. But didn't I kind of take the teeth out of it by saying, yeah, it doesn't mean what it's saying here. It means something totally different. And I'm wrong in that. Well, yeah. Yeah, go ahead. Since I mentioned you, go ahead and defend yourself. Not at all. No. But in Dustin's question here, OK, So it really does depend. Like we're all have degrees of ignorance, right? Things we don't know. Things that like, even this topic we're addressing today, because 30 years ago we treated differently. Right. So some growing and some things have changed and that that's, that applies to everyone across the board. Now where a man's really going to get in trouble. And unfortunately for us, we can't always tell when this is the case. Sometimes you can, they'll tip their hand. But in most cases, you can't really tell. There is one sin that really is the worst sin because it is sin of itself, but it is, it is the heart of every other sin. And that sin is unbelief. Even a man who's filled with pride, well, he's filled with pride because he don't believe what God said. If he believed what God said, he wouldn't be proud. Every sin, the heart of it is unbelief. So if a man knows what the scripture says, he sees it, he's not ignorant, he sees it, he gets it, but he chooses not to believe it. And that falls in that category of even where you get that stern warning in Hebrews where he says, let us take heed, let's anyone fall short of the grace of God, but even says also that, let's anyone should depart from the living God with an evil heart of unbelief. There's the chief description The easiest description of an evil heart. What really makes a man evil? Unbelief. He just don't believe God, calling God a liar, chooses not to believe. But of course, that's not ignorance. It's one thing for us to be ignorant, immature, maybe learn things, grow. Even sometimes we have all resisted God in some things, but it wasn't, it doesn't rise to that degree where we say, I know what God says, I know what he means, and I'm just going to spit it out. And of course, that's what you find in Romans 1. Every man knows the truth and testimony of God in his creation, but those who just, you know, won't even acknowledge that at all. And you see that description also in the Psalms where he says, you know, he that says there is no God, you know, is a fool. So that really right there, for sure, that is the point at which it rises, no doubt, to sin. Not always easy to tell that. Sometimes you can tell. Like I said, a fellow might tip his hand, but, you know, we do have to be careful kind of trying to judge that. And I think that's why Paul in 1 Corinthians 14, verse 38 at the tail end of all this, he just, you know, when he gives the warning to anybody who thinks he's spiritual, thinks himself a prophet, let him agree with this. In verse 38, he goes a little further and he says, if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. Yeah. And in that case, not necessarily unbelief, but, you know, he's he's calling that ignorance. But even ignorance, when you're being taught things by somebody, you know, like Paul and you're going to resist it, you're taking a heck of a chance. Right. There's there's a lot of risk in that. So when Paul is no small thing, he's not calling it unbelief, really. But even for a man to be ignorant, you know, when Paul just kind of says almost like, OK, I'm done with this fellow, he wants to be ignorant, let him be ignorant. That ain't good. You know, that's, there's nowhere good to go from there. So yeah, that's a good point. Gary's making. Yeah. So there's some different levels of it. Um, and sometimes we don't know when we're talking with somebody, somebody we know, we don't necessarily know where they fall into that, but sometimes you just have to kind of like Paul did. Okay. They want to be ignorant in this, let them be ignorant and just, you're just going to have to leave them with the Lord. That's all you can do. Yeah, let me pick on Matthew 18 I'm gonna tweak a little bit what Gary said what Gary calls unbelief I'm gonna maybe tweak and say the other side of the coin is called pride or arrogance because remember when. in verse 15 of Matthew 18. Remember this little section on discipline, church discipline, always people call it. If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private. If he listens to you, you've won your brother. If he does not listen to you, take one or two or more with you so that the bound in the mouth of two or three witnesses, every fact may be confirmed. And if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax cutter. And then he says, whatever you bind on another shall be bound in heaven. Now this is the social structure and dynamic of trying to press a case that is sin with somebody else. But there's an awful lot of assumptions that are already built into here that Jesus didn't bring it out, because that's not the point. He's just bringing out this whole idea here of them agreeing on earth and were two or more gathered and things of this sort. But this little part here, and if you'll notice in blue, he talks about if he listens to you, if he does not listen to you, then you do this, he refuses to listen to them. And then he refuses to listen to even to the church kind of thing. Here's another, I mean, how many times listening needs to be stated in this thing? When a person can't listen, it's because he's arrogant. There's a bigger sin. That's what I've always said. When people get put out of the church, it isn't because of this in orange, it's because of this in blue. It's not because of the initial sin that they might have committed, it's because they're not willing to listen. Now, on the other hand, when you go to your brother and you go to show him his fault, and you find out that his fault isn't really a fault, then you need to be the one who listens. Because it's very easy to get into lock and load mode, and I got my facts all together, and I'm already convinced. And then I'm trying to get him to listen to me, but I'm not listening to him. I mean, this kind of fact-finding thing, when you actually go to your brother, see, if your brother sins, if this is an established fact, yeah, then this is gonna be the established method. But sometimes he says, if your brother sins, go and show him his fault. Many times, this has to be found out first. It looks like sin. quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, flaps like a duck, I'm pretty sure it's going to be a duck. But at the same time, it might be a goose. Not quite sure. You know, it could be something different. And all of a sudden I get, you know, not so much my head handed back to me on a platter, but if I go in there with my arrogance, assuming I've got all my ducks in a row and I'm convinced this guy is sinning and I haven't at least like a good judge weighed both sides of the scale and said, hey, I'm seeing this. I'm seeing that, you know, let's have a weaker brother. I just got to tell you, brother, I just, you know, it's kind of bothering me. I've been seeing you eating some of this meat that's been offered to this, you know, this God over here. And I just, it's kind of concerning me that you're falling into idolatry and I wanted to talk to you about it. Okay. And so they, you know, this guy brings it up that, you know, I see you maybe falling into sin or something because of this or whatever, you know, when that happens, he gets corrected, right? It's like, well, I don't see it as sin. Well, the weaker brother says, I think it's sin. You can't eat that meat offered to an idol and do that. And cause you're practicing idolatry by extension. I mean, you mean to tell me if I eat that meat, you know, over there, 30 yards away and then eat it 30 yards someplace different, it's going to be a different definition of my eating than when I ate it over there inside the temple versus outside the temple. That's what I'm saying. Oh, I disagree with that brother. And so you bring more people as the weaker brother brings more people. To bear on this, if I'm the weaker brother and I go to two other people say, look, we got to go confront Wilbur over here because he's he's eating this meat offered to an idol and practicing idolatry. If I'm one of the people he wants me to bring with him, I'm probably going to stop him right there and say, wait. You're gonna go rebuke this guy for practicing idolatry and you want me to go along and rebuke him with you because he's eating meat in the marketplace? I ain't doing that. I don't agree with you. So you might not get the posse up that you want to go, you know, get this guy and convince him of sin because he hadn't convinced me that he's sinning yet. And so sometimes in just the gathering up of the church to do these things, you're gonna have people having different opinions of that whole idea of having them listen to you. So definition is key. And that's why I think what Gary was bringing out in this whole idea that arrogance is what's fueling what's in blue here, if he doesn't listen. So if I got a guy here, let's go back to our texts and make it a little bit pointier. I got a guy here who believes this was a section added by a scribe. Okay, and I disagree. And I think that when you do that, you tamper the Word of God and the Revelation 22 and things of this sort. And he sees that, he understands what I'm saying. He goes, ooh, yeah, I don't want to do that. And look, Brother Mark, everything I've read, I really think this was added by a scribe. But look, I'm teachable. I'm willing to learn that it wasn't added by a scribe, then I can't charge him with sin. I think his conclusions right now are erroneous, and that if he holds to them and builds a structure on top of this paragraph, which is, I'm going to let women speak, then yeah, we're going to probably part ways, and I'm probably going to call it wrong thinking, error, and that Once again, it's like what Gary says, I've made my case, I've proven my case, and he has not proven his case. then he knows it's wrong and he's holding to that error, then it's known sin. But if he's in that, I'm willing to listen, I'm willing to, you know, hear what you have to say and do the reading, I'm just not convinced yet, I wouldn't charge him with sin. That'd be like the weaker brother. He's just not convinced that what he's doing is idolatry yet. So once again, you have to get down more into the heart of the person and how and why they hold into what they're holding to. Honestly, I'll be honest, I don't know of anybody, I can tell you this, who I've discussed this with that has taken that view that this isn't what Paul has said. Now, if they have, it doesn't mean that they're in sin. It just means that, okay, it could be an error. They need to be That's like so much confronted with it but disgust with it need to be shown that it's not that and look in ten minutes i might come around and say oh okay i didn't i'm glad you showed me that article because this guy really made the case that it wasn't added to it maybe everything they've read has said, I don't know, that they've studied the manuscripts, and this guy, you know, to try to show that it was that, it was added, you know, by a scribe. But then, yes, here's some other articles that show that it's not, and he changes his mind. What that tells me is that this guy was willing to listen, which means he's not in a sin that's unrepentant. See, this guy's going down his road here because he's refusing to listen. But if you're willing to listen, then this This stops prescription. This stops the due process because the guy's willing to listen. That's going to take some time to maybe to convince him and show him, show him his fault in private. You don't know how long that's going to take. People are assuming this takes five minutes. It could take five months. You don't know how long this is going to take for him to understand this is sin. But if he's willing to listen, then I've got to be patient. How do I know that? 2 Timothy 2. The Lord's bond servant must be patient. Well, how patient? I mean, I only got five minutes. You might have to have five months there and work with somebody to understand something so that they can see the error of their way. But if they were taught this, I mean, remember, you got people that come down of all kind of, especially people who are more of a charismatic bent, will come out of that type of environment And they have to be convinced some of these things is what Scripture says. And it's not just a, well, they're in sin. And it's just, they need to be rebuked. If they don't agree with me, kick them out of the church. You'll find yourself like diatrophies after a while. They're not agreeing with my interpretation. Then they're adding to the text, take away from the text, or they're doing something along those lines. Now, they might really be doing that, but you've got to have to let that process work out by clear and convincing evidence and clear and convincing discussion that they see that. Because, I mean, look, I will swear on a stack of Bibles. This is not entered into by a scribe. This is written by Paul. And so if it's written by Paul, it's Bible. And it's already in our text. In other words, I don't have a Bible that doesn't have it in there. Show me a Bible that doesn't have it in there. You don't even have a Bible translation that has this out of there. which you do have some of that with some of, for example, John 8 or Mark 16. What happens if somebody goes to Mark 16 and says, you know, in the earliest manuscripts, Mark 16 wasn't really in the text, or the earliest text, and I don't really feel comfortable preaching it as if it's the word of God. Now, what do I do with a guy who says that on Mark 16? Where you've got some discrepancies between the earlier manuscripts concerning Mark 16. Well, I can't go back and just say, well, brother, it's in my Bible and it's in your Bible and you're not taking it, yada yada. I mean, I can do that, but that might not be what he's really, I mean, he really wants to talk about it and say, look, I'd kind of like to get some closure on this so I can kind of move on too and either preach it or not preach it. Okay, well, it's going to take some time. It's going to take some study and it's not adversarial like, well, you better come to my conclusion or else. I don't threaten the guy. It's a matter of we're trying to learn together these things. But this passage here, there is no manuscriptual evidence to say something's different concerning 34, 35, and 36. Just kind of let you know on the manuscript side. And I gave y'all some articles to read about that. And those articles will have footnotes that you can chase down other articles that they look at, where they look at, you know, the manuscripts. I think P45 and some of these other ones, Pygmy and Papyrus. And you can go back and actually see what they have by way of, you know, manuscripts. But the answer does this basically, which is a good one, which basically means when you see a brother in sins, you know, that's where the real operative debate's going to be. Is he in sin or is he just immature and in error and just needs to be instructed? Kind of like Apollos in Acts 18. You know, he had to be pulled aside and taught to be in a more correct way, you know, the way of Christ so that he would, you know, be able to articulate these things. So, I mean, I don't know if that helps anything, Dustin. Maybe you want to add to that. Yeah, I'm thinking in terms of application, you know, with. Oh, now that yeah, right. Yeah, right. I mean, because we're looking at a specific text here that's going one of the directions. We're going one of two directions here. If you believe that those thirty three to thirty five were added by scribe, therefore I don't have to do that. And they kind of play as I mean, you know, Like you're describing a guy that's in ignorance, not really kind of well-meaning guy. Maybe I'm describing a guy that he has a position. He's he's antagonistic towards 33 to 35 because he has a motive. Yeah, he's antagonistic. That means he's not teachable. And he's going to be ensconced in his position, which means his application is going to be directly against maybe the majority. Or if he's an elder, he will be teaching that and he'll go against the majority of whatever. I agree. If you're not in a listening frame of mind, then the application is going to be settled in your mind. And to me, then we're going to have to separate ways. but would that rise to the level of sin? Because that doesn't seem to be a level of ignorance, that seems to be a level of a motive. Yeah, my way of thinking, yeah, being antagonistic and not teachable is the real defining bigger sin, the greater sin, as Jesus would say, versus the smaller error in the text here. My problem with that person then would be, Okay, you're not, you're not teachable here. And if you're not teachable, I can't walk with you. It doesn't mean you have to agree with me, but you have to agree we're both going to be looking at this together. And if I make my case, you're going to change your mind. If you tell me upfront already, I'm not changing my mind. Well, then I'm not going down this road and wasting five hours trying to teach you something when you've already got your mind made up. And if that's the case, Barnabas, and your mind's made up that John Mark needs to go on the mission field, and my mind's made up that says he shouldn't, we need to part ways. And that's when you part ways. Now, are you parting ways over tomato-tomato? Or are you parting ways saying, this is sin, you're unrepentant, every brother needs to be warned about what you're doing. I'm not sure it rises to that, but I can tell you this, if what I am saying is the truth and what he's saying is not, it's going to come full circle. If he's really trying to be honest with walking with God, God's not going to let him stay in that kind of arrogant, kind of calcified position of him bowing up and saying, my interpretation is right, nope, and everybody else is wrong. And God's going to, he's going to put the hammer down sooner or later and make a correction call on that. I mean, honestly, this might sound strange when Paul and Barnabas separated over John Mark. Who was right in that? See, when you go ask right and wrong questions. Yeah, because John Mark was useful to Paul in 2 Timothy 4. So technically, John Mark made the grade as being somebody who's useful to Paul, where at the moment in Was it Acts 12, 13? He wasn't. So at that Kodak moment, Paul couldn't take him on the missionary journeys as Paul thought he, you know, saw him as a liability. And I'm not saying Paul was wrong at that moment, but maybe Barnabas was looking at the The long view, the bigger picture of trying to train John Mark as a servant on the field, and that Paul, man, look, if you're going to train him, we've got to bring him with us. And I think we need to bring him. Paul says, I can't do it. Barnabas thinks he's a, you know, a project in motion and brings him with him. And at the end of the day, Barnabas was right. He turned out to be okay because, if anything, Demas is the one who left Paul and John Martin took Demas' place. And so it's like, if I was to ask Paul and say, Paul, who was right? Who was wrong? I would say, well, we both were right. We both were wrong. in the sense that I believe I was right at the moment. I couldn't take this man and continue going down this road. Maybe John Mark would have probably said that too. Yeah, I don't know if I, you know, I want to go, but I might desert again. I'll go with Barnabas because maybe we'll go to some lesser hostile places and I can cut my teeth on that and grow up. I don't know. But whatever it was, Barnabas was right. in the long haul in taking him and not throwing him under the bus and saying, you're lost, you denied the faith, you didn't bear up under persecution, you didn't do that. But then on the other hand, Paul got corrected because he comes around at the end. So I think there was learning that went around for both sides. And I can understand Paul not taking him. I can understand Barnabas taking him. Barnabas obviously couldn't take him in the same exact way Paul couldn't take him. There'd be a contradiction there. And Barnabas wasn't doing that anyway. He was going to take John Mark with him and work with him, probably have a different emphasis in where they would go in ministry with John Mark. and go from there. I think Barnabas was related to John Mark, if I'm not mistaken. So there's a vested interest in John Mark from Barnabas's perspective because he's, I don't want to say blood thicker than water, but there's some sort of relation there that maybe Paul didn't have with John Mark and just saw it with third party eyes and just said, I would say this to anybody, Barnabas, I can't take this guy. He said, look, he's, he's, He's not holding up his own. I'll take Silas and we'll go over here, you know, and we'll just have to, you know, agree to disagree. Agreeing to disagree isn't the same thing as calling another person into sin. Because when I charge a person with sin, I am also charging that person with arrogance. and saying that you're not willing to listen, you're not willing to work through this. I have to because the Matthew 18 requires it if I want to charge him with sin. Now, I mean, some people I don't see, they live in Africa and they're practicing idolatry. I'm charging with sin without ever having to talk to them. But if a person is trafficking with me and I see something that I think is sin, It might be, and it might not be. I need to go talk to him and find out motive. I need to find out what he's doing. I need to find out why he's doing it. And I need to find out if he's teachable. And if he is teachable, then I'll work with him. If he's not teachable, that's going to be the concerning factor at that. I can hear where it says in verse 37 and 38. Why does he write 37 and 38 in 1 Corinthians 14? Because that sounds like arrogance. See? If anyone thinks he's this, why is someone going to think he's a prophet or spiritual? Because he thinks he's right. And I'm not willing to listen to what you're saying, Paul. Let him recognize the things I write you, the Lord's commandment. You don't recognize this, you're not going to say, why does he have to put this kind of hammer down in 37, 38? Because the problem with them listening to Paul is the arrogance. So 37, 38 is the bigger sin, if there is one, that Paul's addressing with these women keeping silent. You need to listen to what I'm saying and where I'm coming from, okay? I don't throw my weight around simply because I'm an apostle, but when I do know I have the Lord's commandment, you had better get in line. It ain't based upon me as a person, it's based upon what I'm telling you God is saying. At that point, Yeah, all debate and discussion's over because now God's come in and weighed in on the fact. It's like, well, you don't discuss whether it's tomato, tomato, when God comes in and says, it's tomato. Okay, that's what you say when God says it's tomato. You don't say, well, none of this well stuff. It's tomato because God has said it. And so all of our process is to try to get to that spot where we really believe God's saying tomato and not tomato, if that makes sense. Good stuff, Dustin. Dustin's got some good questions. And of course, we're not really addressing this, but let me kind of cut to the chase a little bit here so I can kind of get some, maybe not so much finality on 1 Corinthians 14, because we're still trying to get to this application when it comes to GBF. This is where I'm trying to hang on. What Dustin brought up, I think, is deserving of another Zoom meeting just in that sense alone, because you've got a lot of Christians who need to understand the difference between sin and error, need to understand the difference between sin and immaturity, You need to understand the difference between sin and conscience and weaker brother of strong. And just to call everything and slap it with a sin label is disingenuous. But then to slap everything with everything underneath the son label and not call it sin is disingenuous. But we're going to need more time on the Zoom meeting. But let me kind of circle back around. not like the old Jay and Pesky one, and tell you what the application that I'm leaning toward in this section is for GBF, okay? Verse 35 says, if they desire to learn anything, learn anything, means it's educationally driven. And they, Paul says, if they want to learn anything, remember this, he's given this example here, of them being improper in their speech in the church, right? I mean, this is the context. Why does he bring up this in verse 35? Because in Paul's mind, this is what brought up verse 34. He's thinking in the back of his mind, I'm gonna have to address these women asking these questions in church. And okay, let me just kind of cut to the chase. Okay, women are to keep silent in the churches. They're not permitted to speak. They're to subject themselves as the law also says. You see, what's driving the big, principle in 34 is the specific malpractice of women in verse 35. And what he says in verse 35 is women were speaking, not just that they were speaking in general, which is what the principle is. The example he gives of the impropriety of their speech is in the educational department in verse 35. They desire to learn anything. Let them ask their own husbands at home. So, undoubtedly, what surfaces here by way of verse 35 is these women were seeking to, as it says in 1 Timothy 2, receive instruction in an inappropriate way. because they had questions. See, learn anything. They were, because when you go to church, you learn things, right? You get the word preached to you, prophecy, revelations, tongue speaking with interpretation. And so they're on the receiving end like anybody else is on the receiving end. And in their quest to learn like everybody else, they're making the faux pas, the mistake of seeking clarity verbally. Now it doesn't say how, it doesn't say they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands. It doesn't say even they're asking questions. I'm assuming since you used the word ask, it is questions. It doesn't even say that they're asking their husbands at church. It doesn't say they're asking the speaker publicly and disrupting the service. It doesn't say that. It doesn't even say what they're doing. It just seems to imply that in this educational setting, there's some sort of speech going on by them, could be privately whispering for all I know. It could, in that kind of educational setting that, as he says in the end part of verse 35, they were doing something improper in their speech. Now, let's take verse 35 and apply it to GBF. That would definitely have traction in GBF that no, women can't speak in the church across the board with duct tape on the mouth or in the educational department? In the context of disruption and they're trying to understand, they're trying to learn, and I'm speaking and all of a sudden a woman says, what you just said, Mark, that's good. Can you define a little bit more what you mean by worldliness there? That would be an example of it. Educational department. They didn't quite understand what worldliness meant. Great question. Got it. I need to emphasize, I need to go back over the definition of that again. And for me personally, in my culture growing up, that wouldn't offend me. But here, Paul says, that's not acceptable here. Women in the educational department, along these lines of learning, I don't want them doing that. I don't want them doing that one-on-one with somebody in the back. I don't want them doing that one-on-many, one-on-speaker. I don't want them doing that at all in the educational department. Ergo, hence, if it's not in the educational department, can the women at GBF say something in public at the assembly? I'm inclined to say they can. In other words, we have any announcements? Lord's Supper next week, just want to make that announcement. I don't think that's inappropriate. I don't think that's the not permitted to speak, duct tape over the mouth application that he's talking about here. If they start questioning the speaker on clarity, that would be educational. In that sense, you gotta start looking at it because it can look like it's challenging. You can't have that look in 1 Timothy 2. Exercising authority, even if it looks like it. And clarity can sometimes look like that. So refrain from that in an educational sense. But to make an announcement, or my grandmother's having surgery tomorrow, I'd like first to pray. Yeah, we're getting educated in the sense of what your need is, but we're not getting educated by way of clarity questions. So maybe we can bridge the applicational gap here by, yeah, not to have duct tape over the mouth. That's wrong. But on the other hand, speaking in the sense of giving information, that the church needs to know that women can provide, I think it's legit. That's my take on the application. I wanted to get that in there before we call it a day on Zoom. What about hymns? Like requesting the hymns, would that fall under educational? Right. See, technically it wouldn't. If we sang a hymn and all of a sudden they had questions about the hymn, yeah, that would be educational. So in my opinion, requesting a hymn doesn't go against this. Why? Because in verse 26, Each one has a hymn, has a song, see, has a teaching. Now, not that they're gonna speak and address the church and educate. See, if it's in an educational setting is where the problem's gonna have, I'm gonna have a problem with. From just this little phrase here, learn anything. Because he gives an example. But from a, notice the difference. The informational setting or when we open it up or if someone wants to, you know, like we say, request to him. I don't look upon that as kind of controlling the church or whatever. I could be wrong, and I don't mind tweaking that, but prayer request. I mean, they're speaking, and the whole church is listening to them and speak at a given moment, but it's not like this, where in verse 35, there's an impropriety because there seems to, not so much they're challenging the speaker, but it's, diverting for educational purposes to the woman and trying to answer her question. I think this is what Paul's trying to address in 35 is the educational part. But to say, if I open it up, does anyone have a hymn? And a woman says, could we sing greatest of faithfulness? That's not, that didn't fall within the verse 35 restriction, I would think. What do y'all think? That's my two cents. Well, what about the orderly position? I mean, we're told to be orderly, and we have three or four people, maybe not that many at a time, but holler out verses instead of raising hands. Would that make it more orderly again? That's right. That would be disorderly. You'd have to have more. And look, you got some churches that they already come with their hymns already chosen. So you don't even get a chance to, you know, as Josh calls it, jukebox worship, where you put in your money, you choose your song and we sing it, you know. But then other people like that idea of coming and you're worshiping, you have a song on your heart, kind of like, But it says in Ephesians 5, right, being filled to spirit, you come and you sing to one another the songs that you make melody with your heart to the Lord. I mean, I don't want to deny that and say, well, you can only be filled to spirit outside the assembly, but those kind of things. This kind of gives a little freedom to that. in Ephesians chapter 5. Ephesians chapter 5 doesn't say you do that in the assembly, but I don't want to restrict it and you can't do it inside the assembly. So if you're going to give a little freedom to being filled with the Spirit inside the assembly, then part of that requesting song kind of thing, and like Tim brings out, in an orderly kind of way, needs to be done maybe with the raising of the hands or, you know, whatever. A lot of the hymns that the musicians hopefully will get on the same page and do a better job of, can come, I'm not saying pre-programmed, but I don't like the discussion up at the front between me, Chris, and Jesse on hymns and keys and things of this sort. Why? Not because, you know, we got to get on the same page, but it's like, It still can be a distraction. I don't want to distract him from the worship of Christ. I get it. We're not perfect and we have to make sure we get on the same page and there's the human element and we all are understanding of that. But to the extent that we can prevent it or we can control it, we kind of want to do that. So I'm like Tim, instead of maybe just, you know, blurting out a song. Now, if I'm up there and I say, does anybody have a hymn? Anybody want to sing something? And there's no hands, and then the person just blurts out, number one in the red. I'm good with that. I mean, there was no hand raised. Now, there's a hand raised and a person blurts that out. Now, to be sensitive, a guy on the first or second row doesn't know what's going on behind him when it comes to hands being raised. In his mind, the only person He can see is the head in front of him on the first row and hit that hand isn't raised. So he's going to blurt out a song and he doesn't know five rows behind him. Somebody's got a hand raised. I get it. He made us. And many times what I'll do is go with both of them. I'll say. OK, number one in the red and yours. OK, number four in the blue. OK. And get them both in. So you kind of know we've got a little track going on here because I know the guy in the front row didn't really know the guy in the back row. I get that. I mean, to me, I don't think that's the kind of disorder Paul is really trying to address as much as he's really trying to address the educational disorder. Remember, they're designed to learn something. So the educational thing isn't bad. And, you know, in itself, it's just inappropriate because this isn't the setting. The assembly isn't the setting for women to learn in a one-on-one or whatever kind of way where they have, for lack of a better word, and they don't intend to, but they've kind of hijacked the meeting at that given five-minute section. He doesn't want that. I would almost say that that would borderline being inappropriate for a man to do that, even in the assembly. I mean, there's education and there's education. Asking questions for clarity is one thing, but it can also offset the speaker. I mean, for me, I cut my teeth on back and forth, so I don't have a problem. But some speakers, you start asking for clarity on what they're saying, and they can't get through their message, or it becomes a distraction. They might just say, once you hold all that to the end so I can kind of get through my message, which you should know to do that anyway, hold it off to the end and not interrupt a speaker or whatever. I get it. There's an itch, and you probably ask a question that 50 other people are asking, but write it down. And even afterwards, maybe one-on-one after the assembly has been dispersed, you can ask your question and you probably have 10 people up there with you asking the same question. So it doesn't have to stop the assembly and what we're doing in order for the education to take place. That's what I think Paul's driving in verse 35. So for me, GBF at this point, what I see is that I don't have a problem with them making announcements if we need it. If I open it up for announcements, in other words, I'm in control. I have the authority. I've opened it up for announcements. Does anybody have any announcements? Then you make an announcement. If it's not open for that and you just start making announcements and it's not open for something else and you start talking, it's like, okay, wait, stop. I get it it's important you need to know these things but you're gonna have to wait your place and let me put it in this proper framework and then make your statements of announcement or the information department information is accepted education and learning and things of this sort is gonna have to take a backseat. We need you to be educated. We're not trying to say don't be educated, but you see what Paul says here. I mean, look, they got to ask their own husbands at home if they really need to be educated on some of these things, but I don't want them doing this thing, you know, in public here. It's not proper. In fact, notice what he says in 36, where God came forth from you first, come to you only. I mean, it's not like you got to get this education right then, right there, and you got to get this It scratched immediately. Now you can hold your peace. That's what you need to do is hold your peace. And the whole idea is to hold their peace. Well, some information has to be shared with the assembly and they can't hold their peace or the assembly is going to disband and they're going to be devoid of the information. So in an information setting, pass it on to the leader so they can make the announcements or get the leaders call for announcements so that we can understand them. Okay, that makes sense. Like Becky might say in the back, we have a sign-up list for the Lord's Supper that will be going out this week, just to let you know. Information. Boom. There's no question there. Oh, okay, good. Yeah, that's right. We've got the Lord's Supper coming up this week. I'm going to have a brunch. you know, we're on, you know, whatever it might be, you know, it's information so people can, you know, put that in their daytime or whatever else it might be. I don't have a problem with that. They're not making, they're not exercising authority over men. They're just, you know, they're giving information out that has already been planned and just needs to be put on place. What do y'all think guys? Fred, Jay, Gabe? Dustin, Tim? Sounds good to me. I mean, go ahead. I don't think we had a problem, actually. I think it's anticipating a possible problem coming. I think that was the main reason this all got started. That's a good point, Joe. You're right. I think it's, well, in some places, but see, think about this now. If this is what we have as our application, You realize you have a big piece of information here that the Spirit has taught you about application in the 21st century that can help other churches. You can tell them what we came up with, and not that we're the gold standard, but how we wrestled with this. See, we were taught, we listened to one another. We were willing to you know, hammer out on the anvil. Well, he does say this. I mean, he wants them to keep quiet and they have to be quiet. And First Timothy 2 says they can't exercise authority. And, you know, their real domain is, you know, the family and things of this sort. And, you know, OK, that's fine. That's good. You know, but at the same time, we can we have to make application. And so I don't think the duct tape over the mouth is the thing, because I had women ask me, can we sing in church? Well, it's like, gosh, we're getting to the spot where women can't sing? Or, you know, if we, Some churches would read a creed, you know, we believe in God the Father, you know, they would read together in congregational reading. They couldn't do that. They're speaking, but they're speaking with the congregation. You know, we're not, I don't believe Paul is saying that. And so, yeah, and they're speaking and they're reading and they're singing, but they're doing this in a way that is in violation of this text. I don't think it is. Because why? If Paul didn't put verse 35 in there, I could say, I got a feeling it's the duct tape approach, because I got no reason to think it isn't. And I have to be honest with the text. But since he puts 35 in there, if they decide to learn anything, oh, it's educational. And they were being disrupted in an educational setting, which is a good setting, education. But wrong form. I mean, they really need to take a back seat, even if they're going to learn something, to learn it in such a way that it's going to be profitable for the edification of the entire assembly. Well, guys, 12 o'clock. I appreciate it. Good discussion. And Dustin gave us some good things to think about. Now, look, I'm going to tell you up front, next Saturday is no Zoom meeting. Why? I'm going to be at a conference. So is Dustin up in Alexandria. That means I've got to ask you all my questions there. There you go. Dustin's going to get the answers before everybody. But yeah, we're going to be up there. In fact, I'll be speaking next Saturday. I think I'm on the list for Saturday. So now keep us in prayer with that. But other than that, we'll kind of play it by ear. Wednesday night, I'm going to play by ear simply because the next day I go to the conference. And Wednesday nights is usually a rough time for me to get everything together and packed. notes and sermons and stuff of that sort. So I might be punting on Wednesday night for me at Jack's house, but we'll play it by ear. We'll see how that works out. But other than that guys tomorrow, um, hopefully I want to finish up on Matthew 25 on the sensible, faithful slave and look at the last section of Matthew 25 and y'all want to study on that. So other than that, I appreciate the time and um, All right, guys, I'm done. Catch y'all tomorrow. Thanks.