I think I remember reading awhile back, Grudem’s explaination for the contradiction is that women can prophesy but not interpret or judge (so that the judging of prophecy is a job of the flesh – the male gender).

Grudem is going to have problems explaining how women can prophesy so that all may learn and at the same time keep silent (as the “law” says). One cannot say that the silence is only for judging prophecy. The term for silent means complete silence and a “law” dictating this silence is appealed to. Where is there a law that forbids women from judging prophecy? There is no reference in scripture to such a law.

Grudem conveniently ignores all that proceeds vs. 34 and all that follows vs. 37 as if it has nothing to do with Paul’s instructions. “Cherry pickers – unite!” The overall message of 1 Cor 14 is clear – “Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly [men and women alike] to prophesy, and do not forbid [anyone – man or woman] to speak in tongues.”

As often happens, 1 Cor 14 – in particular vs. 34-37 – is a bit baffling if you take the complimentarian interpretation. If the rhetoricals in vs. 36 affirm all that has come before, they affirm a contradiction. Of course, if you are a complimentarian, you live in a world of Pauline contradictions. I suspect the apostle would take quite a bit of offense at such an implication about his teaching.

On the contrary, if you assume Paul means to be clear, then 1 Cor in its entirety is crystal clear once you understand what is really being said, or more correctly, who is saying it, in vss. 34-35. As he often does, Paul takes a brief sidebar to dispose of a particular practice which is a stumbling block to the accomplishment of his overall instructions.

Incidentally, Grudem’s challenge is easily won, and you don’t have to go outside of 1 Corinthians.

1 Cor 1:13 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.”

[A behavior, practice, attitude, or tradition]

1 Cor 1:14 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or [?]were you baptized in the name of Paul?

[A series of rhetoricals where the answer is “no” showing that the preceeding is incorrect behavior, practice, attitude, or tradition]

gengwall,
EXCELLENT comments and I missed the exact same words in 1 Cor. 1:12, 13. That was a slam dunk answer right from Paul’s letter. Thanks!

Grudem is pretty sly. He constantly makes statements like “Our problem is that when we look at other examples [of a word or phrase]…” but he never actually lists any of those examples. In reality, there are no identical constructions to 1 Cor 14:34-36 where a “matter of fact” statement is made followed by such negative rhetoricals – whether or not the rhetoricals affirm or defeat the prior statement. Grudem, therefore tells a half truth when he says…

“Our problem is that when we look at other examples of e used in constructions like 1 Corinthians 14:36, where the following material is clearly false (that is, Paul and the Corinthians know that the word of God did not come from them), then “or’’ functions to show that the preceding material has to be true.”

…because although there are plenty of examples of negative rhetoricals in the NT, especially by Paul but also by Jesus, they almost always follow a statement that has already been exposed as bad behavior. So, it is true that they “affirm” the prior statement, but only in the sense they affirm its negativity. But that isn’t the construct of 1 Cor 14:34-36! This passage has negative rhetoricals following a matter of fact statement presumed to be relating positive behavior. That construct is almost non-existent in scripture (although I don’t have the resources to check the LXX).

So Grudem again employs red herring arguments and challenges while himself speaking half truths about his research into the Greek. Doubly disingenuous if you ask me.

I would also like to announce that Mike Seaver has been in communication with me and he has graciously agreed to publicly answer questions that I pose to him just as I have agreed to answer his questions. These posts will likely be made public around the end of July this year or early August. I am hoping that it will be a good dialog and a show of respect for a brother/sister in Christ even though we passionately disagree on these issues, we do not question each other’s salvation.

“Grudem is pretty sly.”

BAM! You can bet he is…

Another gem of ancient Greek also mirrors the construct of 1 Cor 14:34-36 and shows that sarcastic rhetoricals can deny or denounce the preceeding assertion. I give you Job 38 in the LXX. Here God puts together a mighty string of or’s denouncing Job’s “words without knowledge”. In fact, the construct is very similar to 1 Cor 14 in that the word of God is contrasted to the word of man.

The problem with Grudem’s construct is that it assumes that vss. 34-35 are direct instructions from Paul (and therefore, from God). Of course Paul isn’t going to contradict himself through the rhetoricals of vs. 36. But, if, as egalitarians contend, vss. 34-35 are not the instructions of Paul but the practices of man, then the dripping sarcasm of vs. 36 makes perfect sense, just as does God’s sarcasm toward Job.

So, again, Grudem’s question is disingenuous (as is his research) because he has not reviewed any other passages that have the same construct that egalitarians propose exists in 1 Cor 14. In other words, other than 1 Cor 1 which I noted before, there are no other constructs (at least reviewed by Grudem et al) where Paul’s rhetoricals are responding to the words and deeds of others instead of his own words.

Hello, Cheryl and company. I finally found some time to read the latest post and make a comment. I have been busy, among other things, doing studies in the Trinity, and have been relishing Thomas F. Torrance’s THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF GOD: ONE BEING, THREE PERSONS. It is modern exposition and confirmation of the Unity, Coequality and Coeternality of the Three Persons of the One True God as argued long ago by Athanasius and Gregory the Theologian and which became enshrined in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 318 A.D. A creed, which I may add, is still recited as part of the liturgy common to the Catholic, Eastern Greek Orthodox, and Protestant churches. Torrance is an evangelical, Scottish Presbyterian theologian who also was involved in the formulation of “The Agreed Statement on the Trinity” by the World Alliance of Reformed Churches and the Eastern Greek Orthodox Church which, among other things, forever closed the loopholes on subordinationism among the three Divine Persons of the Godhead. So if you want to read a good, solid theological exposition that puts the Semi-Arianism of Grudem and Ware to flight, I highly recommend you read Torrance’s THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF GOD. Now, as to the latest nonsense being propagated by Wayne Grudem.

Cheryl, I suppose you felt like I felt when I read about Wayne Grudem’s “Open Letter to Egalitarians”–you didn’t know whether to laugh or weep. Like you, I have done a lot of study and writing on prophecy in the early church, both as a gift and as ministry exercised by both men and women. And it was long ago clear to me, as others such as Gilbert Bilizekian and yourself have also demonstrated, that 1 Cor. 14:34-35 was not Paul’s own teaching, but that of a Judaizing faction which he repudiates in 14:36-40. And as far as the lexical evidence showing “e” in v.36 is an adversative particle, used by Paul to repudiate what is stated in vv. 34-35, anyone who has investigated this knows that Grudem is, to put it nicely, ignoring the evidence that counters his own view. But then, it has been his practice to redefine terms, suppress evidence that goes against his own view, and then loudly proclaim his own view as alone the truth. So I guess his current practice is to be expected.

gengwall,
You are also a wealth of information. Thanks!

Frank,
I have missed your comments of late. It is always nice to have as many men around as possible who are precious souls who do not see themselves as an authority over (or better than) their sisters in Christ.

When I read Grudem’s work, I see blinders on his eyes because the evidence to the contrary is there. In fact to have verses 34 & 35 as Paul’s own words instead of a quote from the Judaizers in Corinth, would mean that Paul has contradicted himself both before and after the two “silencing of women” verses. Also no one has yet pointed to a judicial law in the Old Testament that orders the silencing of women in the assembly. The problems in this passage are overwhelming if one thinks that Paul was appealing to a law to silence women just after telling the whole congregation to desire to prophesy and allowing them all to do so. The contradictions are many and Grudem pits egalitarians against scripture as if our believing that Paul was quoting the Judaizers makes us against scripture. I for one am very glad that Paul quoted the false teaching and then promptly refuted it in verse 36 so that we can know for sure what is God’s commandments and what is not. Those who side with the Judaizers on this issue are standing in opposition to God whether they believe it or not.

I have to confess, I’ve always been quite baffled by complementarian use of 1 Cor. 14:34-36. If taken as a restriction Paul is universally placing on women, then it is far too restrictive to be useful even to complementarians. “Silent in the churches” would not mean women cannot preach and teach in the assembly; it would also mean no praying, no prophesy, no tongues, no singing hymns, and no token pretty girl singing back-up for the otherwise all-male worship band.

While the “Paul was citing an opponent who was forbidding women to speak” interpretation is one possibility, I’ve also always appreciated the argument set forth by Carroll D. Osburn in Essays on Women in the Earliest Christianity Vol. 1. He argues that there are grammatical clues in the text to indicate that Paul is directing his comments at women who are speaking out of order and interrupting the service with questions. He says:

“This verb ????? always takes its precise meaning from the context. In v. 28, it refers to ’silent meditation.’ In vv. 23 and 27, it refers to ’speaking in tongues.’ In v. 19 it refers to ‘cognitive prayer.’ Here in vv. 34-35, however, there is no clear contextual indication of what is meant, but there is a significant grammatical indication. … Here the two present infinitives make it clear that the ‘ongoingness’ of the ’speaking’ is in focus. … ?????? should be taken here to mean [the women] were ‘piping up,’ giving free rein to ‘irresistible impulses’ to ask question after question either of the speaker or of their husbands, creating chaos in the assembly by interfering with communication.” (Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity: Vol. 1, p. 232-233)

As I see it, the one interpretation of this passage that really doesn’t work is the complementarian one, which tries to wrest “be silent in the churches” into “women can’t preach or teach in the assembly, but they can do all the other kinds of talking.” Talk about eisegesis.

Whoops, looks like the comment function here doesn’t approve of Greek characters. The quote from Osburn should read:

“This verb [LALEW] always takes its precise meaning from the context. In v. 28, it refers to ’silent meditation.’ In vv. 23 and 27, it refers to ’speaking in tongues.’ In v. 19 it refers to ‘cognitive prayer.’ Here in vv. 34-35, however, there is no clear contextual indication of what is meant, but there is a significant grammatical indication. … Here the two present infinitives make it clear that the ‘ongoingness’ of the ’speaking’ is in focus. … [LALEIV] should be taken here to mean [the women] were ‘piping up,’ giving free rein to ‘irresistible impulses’ to ask question after question either of the speaker or of their husbands, creating chaos in the assembly by interfering with communication.” (Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity: Vol. 1, p. 232-233)

Hi Bridget,
Welcome to my blog!

There are different interpretations of verses 34 & 35 but there is one problem in the verses that has been a real challenge to complementarians. It is the reference to the “law” that silences women in the congregation. No one has ever found such a law in the Old Testament and there is no consensus on a verse that even “hints” at a prohibition. It is my belief that until we can understand where the law is located and who it is written to, we will not be able to understand the prohibition in verses 34 & 35.

Cheryl, both you and I agree that in 1 Cor. 14:34, the phrase “women must be in submission, as the Law says” is a reference to Jewish oral legal traditions and not to the Old Testament itself. But there are some egalitarians who, understanding this passage to be a rebuke to noisy, boisterous women interrupting public worship, explain this “law” in terms of Paul’s rule of mutual submission. Such is the view stated by Sue and Larry Richards in their book, EVERY WOMAN IN THE BIBLE:

“To be submissive, as the law also says” (1 Cor. 14:34). The middle form of the verb indicates that Paul is addressing the women, calling on them to “submit yourselves.” The phrase “as the law says” indicates a principle understood to govern all Christian behavior. Some have thought that Paul was calling on these wives to submit to their husbands, while others have assumed he was calling on them to submit to the authority of the church leaders, whose responsibility it was to evaluate the words of the prophets. However, it is most likely that the universal principle Paul has in mind is the principle of mutual submission. This principle is expressed in Ephesians 5:21…and is also expressed in Philippians 2:2-3 and 1 Corinthians 16:16. Paul appealed to the Corinthian wives whose interruptions were so disruptive to consider others, and voluntarily stop their continual speaking up, that the church meetings might be edifying rather than chaotic (“Paul On Women,” p. 226)

While there are elements of truth in this intepretation, I do not think it is really adequate. First, except for Rom. 8:12, where nomos (“law”) might be understood as “principle,” depending on the context, Paul uses nomos to refer either to the OT Scriptures, Rom. 3:21; the entire Mosaic Law, Gal. 5:5-6; or Jewish oral legal tradition, such as he doe in 1 Cor. 14:34. Second, such is the strength of the adversative particle “e” and the negative rhetoricals coupled with it in 1 Cor 14:36-37, one wonders how Paul could so strongly repudiate any form of the law of mutual submission, if in fact that was the law referred to back in v. 34. But as you yourself said, there are many interpretations of this passage. I just I would bring this one to your attention, should anyone ask you about it.

Oops! In my last paragraph in comment 15, I made a reference to Rom. 8:12, when I actually meant to say Rom. 8:1-2. Sorry.

Frank,
There are several problems with the view that Paul is stopping the noisy women from talking. First of all the Greek word used is not the one for noisy speech. There is a perfectly good Greek word that does mean this. It is krazo which means “as speaking or demanding with a loud voice cry (out), call (out), exclaim, shriek, to cry out with loud and raucous voice.” Secondly the learning that these women are have is to be done at home. This contradicts Paul’s instruction that everyone can prophesy so that everyone can learn. The next problem is that we would have to assume that only the married women were causing a problem because the instruction is to ask their “husbands at home”. The last thing is that it is sad to be a shame (meaning vile, filthy thing) for a woman to speak (normal word for speak again, not one for raucous speech) in the assembly. How could Paul tell women that they were allowed to prophesy and then say a few verses later that their mere speaking is a shameful act? It just doesn’t fit. And if it doesn’t fit, you must aquit. 😉

I do like the idea that there are other explanations for the problem passages, but these explanations have way too many problems to be considered the proper solution to this difficult passage.

I would like to suggest that it is not very ‘Christlike’ to always be slagging a brother in Christ even though Grudem has a different opinion to people. I was glad to hear Cheryl that you had an open debate with mutual respect-how did it go?

Cheryl,

You seem to hold strong to your positon on the fact that Comps can’t identify this ‘law’. I have a few questions about your interpretation.

1. If this is a Jewish oral law quoted from the Corinthian letter, how can you be certain? Your view holds onto a lot of ‘probables’ aswell. For example, if this is a quote, it is very unlike any of the other quotes used throughout the rest of 1 Corinthians. What is your evidence that Judaizers had infiltrated Corinth? Perhaps you are refering to the ‘super apostles’ of 2 Cor but again, this was written later and is only probable that they were there when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. And what is ‘super apostles’ actually refering too?

2. The evidence of the letter itself in the issues it deals with i.e prodimantly Hellinistic issues in wisdom and resurrection, aswell as the confirmation of Acts 18 which shows the rejection of Paul by the Jews, suggests that prodominantly the congregation was non-jewish. This is a view that alot of scholars hold to and which i agree with. Therefore why would Jewish ‘oral’ law have been an issue at Corinth?

I see just as many probables in your view as any other. We can NEVER be certain that this is a quote from the corinthian letter unless it is discovered, which as far as i’m aware of hasn’t happened yet. None the less i appreciate that both you and Carson and others are trying to understand it.