Frank

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.