Cheryl Schatz

John,

I am afraid that you are protesting too much without a shred of evidence offered.  You said:

Again you are making a declarative statement that is false.

Again “The Law” only refers to the Oral Law when that statement is used in Classical Rabbinical literature and Rabbinical Talmudic law which is based on the Mishna. And the Mishna is based on the Oral Law of the Pharisee’s

You say that Don’s statement is false and yet you ignore the context that proves Don right.  The fact is that the “law” in 1 Cor. 14:34, 35 IS classic Rabbinical literature and Talmudic law.  The key points that line up with the Talmudic law are 1) women were forbidden to speak in public  2) women were forbidden to publicly learn Torah and 3) a woman’s voice in public was called filthy.

Now let’s examine these points from scripture.  Were women anywhere in scripture forbidden to speak in public?  Did the scriptures forbid women from learning in public?  Were women’s voices ever called “filthy” in the scriptures?  The answer to all is “no!”  This creates quite a problem.  How do we handle these contradictions?

You said that these were unruly women that were speaking.  Where does it say this?  First of all there is nothing at all in the passage talking about unruly women.  Secondly there is nothing in the passage that speaks about a loud boisterous voice.  The inspired word is plain talk, speech.  No woman’s speech is to be heard in the assembly.  So for one to get an “unruly” woman in these verse, one must add this concept into the passage.  We choose to not add in what is not there.

When I was in Israel in 1986, the instructor told us that women were calling over to their husbands across the room to ask them questions about what the speaker said.  I did accept this for a lot of years until I did research on my own and there were discrepancies that I could not get rid of with this view.

The first discrepancy is that most churches met in homes not in synagogues.  Secondly Paul had already made it clear in verse 31 that “all may learn”.  There is nothing that said that one may not ask questions in order to learn.  Thirdly, how could Paul tell women to ask questions of their own husbands at home when this wouldn’t work for many of the women?  Many of them had unbelieving husbands a fact that is addressed in scripture regarding how to deal with an unbelieving mate.  Would Paul suggest that unbelieving husbands will answer their wives questions?  And what about those who are not married?  They have no husband to ask.  How would this command work for them?  Then there is the word “filthy” which would never be used of spiritual questions.  How would a question asked about the faith by a woman said to be filfthy?  Scripture never once speaks about questions this way but it is consistent with the Rabbinic laws found in the Talmudic law.

Lastly, and the question that I have repeatedly asked you, is where is this “law” found in scripture?  There is no such “law” that silences a woman in Genesis 3:16.

There are many more inconsistencies too.  Is a man allowed to ask questions, but a woman is not?  Why is only a woman’s voice considered “filthy”?  It makes complete sense if Paul is quoting a “law” that is being forced onto the Christian congregation.  But it makes no sense at all if this is Paul’s command.

Then there is verse 36 which has a disjunctive conjunction which in the Greek grammar means “it is used frequently to introduce rehetorical questions to which a negative answer is expected”  per the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament Vol. 2 pg 111 by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider.  1 Cor. 14:36 is given as such an example and of a double question that we are to understand a negative answer to.  This clearly lists verse 36 as standing in opposition to the verses just preceding.  If Paul is contradicting the previous statements which 36 stands in opposition to, then how can verses 34 & 35 be God’s word?  Would Paul contradict God’s word?

There are so many contradictions in the passage if we take these are God’s “law” quoted by Paul.  But the contradictions are removed if we consider that Paul is quoting from a demand made by some of the Corinthians concerning what they wanted Paul to do with the women.

Now, you will notice that by presenting the argument using the inspired words and the inspired grammar, I did not use prejorative terms like “fall into the ditch” nor did I accuse you of having pride or lacking in wisdom.  These things are unnecessary when one argues from the text itself instead of making the issue about a person’s motives or their soundness of mind.

So, I am still waiting to find out where God’s law is in scripture that silences women in the assembly.  Genesis 3:16 just will not do.  It is not a command, but rather a statement of what will follow from sin.  God doesn’t tell Adam to silence Eve and there is no mention of the assembly in the verse.  God doesn’t say that Eve’s voice is filthy or that she cannot learn in the assembly but must learn from Adam in the home.

This kind of interaction, I think is very good for all of us to see.  This is where the lurkers can see that the argument that we have is based on what the text says and the argument refuses to add in what the text doesn’t say.  There is nothing about “unruly” women nor about yelling and no “law” that the Corinthians or the Bereans could check out in the Old Testament to see what was required of women in the assembly.  God is not the one who silences women in the assembly.