The Maryville times. (Maryville, Tenn.) 1884-1944, 1891-01-07


books of the Old Testament, and
with the exception Of our texts, not
one word would be found in oppos-
to woman taking an equal part in
all kinds Of religious services.
We will now consider our text
directly. What does Paul mean to
teach by these passages" The on
ly explanation advanced by schol-
ars among those who oppose wo-
men preaching, is that Paul intends
to teach an absolute prohibition Of
women preaching or speaking in a
mixed assembly.
Can such position be maintain
ed by Bible proofs? We contend
that it cannot. We can only right
ly interpret the Bible by ta'ing it
rs II whole-comparing scripture
with scripture. If Paul intends
these verses to be taken literally
and for all times, he thereby places
himself in opposition to other parts
o the Bible and even to other parts
of his own teachings. Are these
four verses right and the remaining
30 900 wrong? Are / Corinthians
and | Timothy right and the other
G7 books Of the Bible wrong? If
such is Paul's teachings he stands
alone, not only alone but often in
direct opposition to other Bible
writer's. More than this, he con-
tradicts his teaching in Romans
an elsewhere. Again, if Paul here
intends to lay down ii rule that
should be applicable to all people
at all times, why does he not men
tion it in his other writings? Why
does he not tell the Galatian wo-
men to keep quiet in the churches ?
Why is he silent on this subject
when he writes the ColOssians I?
The Epistle to tn, Ephesians $50
called was an encyclical letter, in
tended not alone for the Ephesians
but for all churches in Asia Minor.
This is perhaps the only one of
Paul's letters 50 intended. Now in
this general Epistlr, If anywhere,
we would expect to flnf something
adverse to women speaking If Paul
intended such a prohibition to be
applicable to all the churches. And
yet in this general letter not one
word is found in opposition to wo.
men speaking or preaching.
Again, if Paul intended laying
down rule of universal applica-
tion in his Epistle to Timothy
why is il that in his Epistle to Titus
which was written at the same
time, to man engaged in similar
work, there, Is no mention of any
such rule? Is not the fact that
Paul wrote separate letters at or
near the same time, to men engag.
cd in a similar work, in which sep.
arate and dissiulilar rules are laid
down, conclusive that these rules
were intended for local application
only? If Paul was giving rules for
all times and all people why did h )
not send Titus a duplicate Of his
letter to Timothy? Is not the fac,
that In the twelve or fourteen let.
ters which Paul wrote, the instruc.
tions, rules, admonitions, warnings
and censures which he gave vary
just as the circumstances and con.
ditions vary, positive and conclu'
sive proof that they were intended
only for local application? OI
course In all these Epistles there
are certain principles that are ap
plicable and beneficial to all people
and for al! times. The Bible does
not lay down rules as gener j,
thing. 1t does lay down principles
The rules by which these principles
are to be carried out must vary anG
change as time and circumstances
vary and change.
But let us now notice the intern
al evidences as to whether or mo-
these rules were intended for uni
versal application. The rule of in
depreciation applied to one part o
the Epistle must be applied to 9th
er parts; that applied to the frs
chapter must be applied to the las
chapter; that applied to the lOtl
verse must be applied to the 2Oti
verse. In / Tim. 5:23 Paul tell
Timothy to "drink no longer water
but take a little wine for his stom
ach's sake" Does any one holC
that this is applicable to-day? l
so, then l must not only drink win,
but what is still worse l canno
have any water with which t
wash the liquor down. Ii th'
drinking wine" is obligatory tn,
"not drinking water is also obliga
Nh 4: 90, fool;sh nc - 10