Cheryl Schatz

John,

In your comment #97, you copy and paste from a scholar that you say gives an excellent exposition.  This scholar says:

Paul with this explanatory injection states the reason why these women were to keep silent in the church. The applicable teaching to which Paul alludes probably looks to Genesis 3: 16 as its inception. There was something that these women were doing that was in violation of this general law of submission.

Notice the author says “applicable teaching” “Paul alludes” and “probably”.  This is the the problem I see everywhere for those who claim there is a scriptural “law”.  They just cannot find the “law” in the Old Testament.  Without admitting that the only “law”exists in the Rabbinic tradition of the oral law, they must say “probably” because there is no such “law” in the Old Testament.  This author does not state that Genesis 3:16 is the “law”.  He also says this is a “general law of submission”.  Really?  There is no such “general law” of submission in Genesis 3:16.  The word submission or submit doesn’t even appear there.  There is no command by God for Eve to submit and most genuine scholars now admit that the “rule” that God predicts will happen after sin is not a good thing but a harsh and severe domination of the man over the woman, hardly a command by God.

The author says:

The original is literally, “…let them question at home their own husbands”

This is not quite right.  The literal wording is for the woman to ask, to seek to demand to beg of.  This is a demand or a seeking to learn.  It follows then that the seeking to learn is commanded to be done at home, not in the congregation.

The author says:

These “women” were not all the women at Corinth, but they were married women. It is also implied that their husbands of whom they were to inquire at home and not in the assembly were in a position to provide the answers to their questions. Moreover, it is highly likely that their husbands were the prophets concerning whom the immediately preceding verses pertain. Hence, these women were to remain silent or without sound (as opposed to speech) IN THE MATTER contextually being discussed, confusion and lack of submission to their husbands.

This explanation has a lot of problems.  Is he saying that there is a “law” that silences only married women in the church?  That single women can prophesy and learn and ask questions but married women had to learn at home and keep their mouths shut in the congregation?  Where is such a law that restricts married women from speaking in the assembly?  He hasn’t provided such a law.  He also gives the context of “confusion” for chapter 14, when it is edification of the church that is the subject.  Paul was concerned that all would be able to learn, so that all would be edified, not just the speaker.  The context throughout the chapter is not confusion but edification.  Avoiding confusion is listed in verse 33 as the reason that the spirits of the prophets are to be subject to prophets.  The fruit of the Spirit of self-control goes right along with the gifts of the Spirit.

There is nothing in the context that says women were not submitting to their husbands in the assembly.  This is a tradition that is not found in the text.

Lastly the author said:

While I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 is characterized by specificity, women today can also create confusion in the assembly and be guilty of not being in subjection to their husbands by speaking out in such a way to similarly cause confusion. This is the paramount lesson found in I Corinthians 14: 34, 35. However, to simplistically, arbitrarily left verses 34, 35 out of their context and contend that there is contained in these verses a blanket requirement of the silence of women in the assembly is to defeat and ignore Paul’s original application of I Corinthians 14: 34, 35 and make the passage collide with a number of other matters.

This is the problem.  1 Cor. 14:34, 35 as it is without some kind of explanation causes it to conflict with what Paul had already said about women.  So the author adds in a “law” that only forbids married women from speaking in the assembly, assuming that if they speak out they will be creating confusion and they will not be in submission to their husbands.

How does this fit?  For one thing there is no such “law” that one can find in the OT.  Secondly, it seems out of line for Paul to be forbidding married women from speaking while allowing unmarried women to freely prophesy and speak out as their gifts give them the freedom.  Are married women suddenly all disrespectful?  And single women are just fine?

It also doesn’t fit because many married women like myself have husbands who insist that I speak out and who encourages me to do so for the common good.  How would that fit within a blanket “law” that forbids married women from speaking in the assembly?  No matter which way you slice it, there is still the issue of the missing “law”.  Where is such a law that either outlaws all women or all married women from speaking in the assembly?  Folks, it just isn’t in the bible.  But it is in the Rabbinical oral law of the Jews.

The other thing that I notice is that the author says nothing about verse 36.  Why is that?  Verse 36 is clearly worded to contradict what was just preceding it.  What is Paul contradicting and why? If verses 34 & 35 are Paul’s own commands given to him from the Lord, then why would he contradict this command in verse 36?  Here we have the contradictions again that have not been addressed by complementarians.

There is a way to tie together all the commands of Paul’s in the preceding verses that command women to seek for spiritual gifts, and the command for them to use these gifts for the edification of the church.  When we understand the extreme misogynist culture of that day and the strong Jewish roots that some had that demanded women to be silent, we can understand why Paul highlighted the quote from the Corinthian letter and then promptly refuted the demands to silence women.  Paul would not stand for even one minute to allow anyone to silence the gifts of God.  Paul commanded that the gifts be earnestly desired and then used for the benefit of all.  For anyone to silence half the gifts of the congregation because they belonged to women would cause Paul to hit the roof.  The commands of the Lord listed throughout 1 Cor 14 override and refute the demand of men in verses 34 & 35.  Verse 36 proves this case and Paul allows women to also have the word of God “come to them” (allowing them to learn) and “go out through them” as they too minister for the benefit of all.