gengwall

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.