Cheryl Schatz

Hey Mark,
I am trying to get through all the questions brought up on my blog the last couple of days as well as the questions on the Australian blog. I hope that I don’t miss any questions. If I don’t get to them within another day and I miss something, please remind me.

I like your questions! They are very good and well-thought out.

1. If this is a Jewish oral law quoted from the Corinthian letter, how can you be certain?

There are quite a few clues that point to the origin of the Jewish oral law. First of all we know that the Corinthians wrote a letter to Paul concerning their questions and some of their statements were matters of debate. One of the great commentators of the Bible from many years ago (can’t remember his name right now but it is in my DVD) said that whenever we come to a view that is opposed to Paul’s known views, we can suspect that this is a view that was being proposed to Paul from the letter. The whole quote is in the DVD so if you get it, you will see much more evidence than I can put here.

Secondly there is the issue of the term “filthy” (shameful) in 1 Cor. 14:35. This is a term that is common in the oral law regarding women. In the BDAG lexicon it means:

in var. senses from ‘ugly’ in an external sense to ‘base’ as in moral deformity

Paul never used a term for moral deformity for women’s voices but the Jewish oral law did.

Thirdly verse 35 shows that women’s learning is to be done at home not in the congregation. This is opposite of Paul’s confirmed views of everyone learning in the assembly in the very same chapter! But the Jewish oral law didn’t allow for women learning in the assembly. In fact fathers were not encouraged to teach their daughters the law because that was shameful or vile. Recognize the terms again? Yup, same source. Then the pesky “law” that cannot be found in God’s Word is a major red flag. One cannot appeal to a “law” and base a restriction on women until one knows where the law is found. Because we know it is the view of the oral law, we can be sure that the quote is a quote from the Corinthians. Also there is the specific grammar of verse 36. These are all evidences that must not be passed by.

Your view holds onto a lot of ‘probables’ aswell.

Not probable at all. The “law” and the attitude about women’s learning and women’s voices is found in the Jewish law. None of this is found in God’s law. Therefore there is not even a small piece of evidence that this was Paul’s appeal to a Biblical “law”.

For example, if this is a quote, it is very unlike any of the other quotes used throughout the rest of 1 Corinthians.

This isn’t “evidence” against a quote. After all Paul used lots of unique words and if we made a judgment just because Paul didn’t need to make such a full quote of anything else, then that is very poor reasoning. The fact is what is the evidence within the context?

What is your evidence that Judaizers had infiltrated Corinth?

The evidence is that the restrictions on women known to be from the Jewish oral law are given in contradiction of Paul’s known views of women. The Judaizers had pretty much gone everywhere else. And if the Jewish oral law was being quoted here, then certainly they had come here too. Their language is pretty easy to pick up. It is very degrading to women.

And what is ‘super apostles’ actually refering too?

This is off the topic and I just don’t have time right now to go down the rabbit trail. Not that this isn’t a good question. It is great. Perhaps a trail we can do sometime in the future.

the rejection of Paul by the Jews, suggests that prodominantly the congregation was non-jewish.

Sure, it is likely that a good portion was non-Jewish. This isn’t a problem.

Therefore why would Jewish ‘oral’ law have been an issue at Corinth?

Because the Judaizers went everywhere where the Jewish Christians were gathered. There were Jews in Corinth and it doesn’t take more than a few Judaizers to disturb the congregation.

I see just as many probables in your view as any other.

I don’t see any problems with my views. The big problem for comps is to be able to point to the “law” that is appealed to. It is a huge rejection of their view not to be able to find a God-ordained law. Once comps are open to seeing where the “law” originated, the puzzle pieces all fall into place.

We can NEVER be certain that this is a quote from the corinthian letter unless it is discovered,

I have given more than enough evidence to convict. Two or three witnesses is a strong case. Where are your witnesses that this is a God-ordained law found where???

Also it is also very revealing that some will say that we can never be sure of where this law is found, yet they still want to restrict women as having to be silent in the assembly when this is the only verse that says this. Perhaps the prejudice of some shows by their willingness to accept restrictions on women without any a second witness or a “law”.

None the less i appreciate that both you and Carson and others are trying to understand it.

Thanks! There are also some very sincere comps in that movement as well who are willing to admit things that weaken their own position. I quite enjoyed my discussions with Dr. Andreas Köstenberger on the issue of 1 Timothy 2:15. He couldn’t answer my questions but he at least was honest about it and I found him to be a very respectful and likable fellow.

Thanks again for your great questions!