![\"grudem4](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/07\/grudem4.jpg?resize=412%2C331\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
This is the part 3 of answering Wayne Grudem\u2019s \u201cOpen letter to Egalitarians<\/strong><\/a>\u201d and his \u201cSix\u00a0Questions That Have Never Been Satisfactorily Answered\u201d. \u00a0Today I am posting his third question and my own answer.<\/p>\n Wayne Grudem\u2019s question #3:<\/p>\n 3. \u201cor\u2019\u2019 (Greek e): In 1 Corinthians 14:36, some of you argue that the Greek word e (\u201cor\u2019\u2019) shows that the preceding verses are a quotation from the Corinthian church which Paul denies. Therefore you say that Paul is not really telling the Corinthian church,<\/p>\n \u201cthe women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church\u201d (1 Cor. 14:34\u201335),<\/p>\n but the Corinthians are saying those things, and Paul is just quoting them. You tell us that Paul\u2019s response might be paraphrased as \u201cAre you crazy?\u2019\u2019 This, you tell us, is the force of the tiny Greek word e, which is usually translated \u201cor.\u2019\u2019 You tell us that e, \u201cor,\u2019\u2019 is used in Greek to deny what went before it.<\/p>\n 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 \u201cor\u2019\u2019 functions to show that the preceding material has to be true. This would mean that verses 34\u201335 are affirmed by Paul.<\/p>\n To put it another way, Paul is arguing: This is just the opposite of what you claim. You claim that Paul uses \u201cor\u2019\u2019 to deny A (verses 34\u201335). In fact, we can find no parallel examples where it is used to deny both what precedes and what follows. This is also what all the Greek lexicons tell us. So our question is this: If you can show us one example, we would be happy to consider your interpretation further. But if you cannot, then we suggest that you have no factual basis for your interpretation of this key verse, and we respectfully ask that you stop writing and speaking as if you did, and that you also reconsider your understanding of these verses.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n ============<\/p>\n My answer:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Wayne Grudem is asking us to \u201cprove\u201d that the Greek word \u201ce\u201d can be used to deny both the statements before and after. \u00a0However this is not what Paul has done. \u00a0Paul has used this little Greek word to both introduce a negation of something preceding and to support the negation he also asks two rehetorical questions. \u00a0Paul is not denying his own words. \u00a0Let\u2019s look at the evidence:<\/p>\n Zodhiates Complete Word Study Dictionary shows that the \u201cor\u201d can introduce a negation of something preceding:<\/p>\n \n(B)<\/strong> Generally, and in a direct question where the interrogation implies a negation of something preceding<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n a) either-or,<\/em>coordinate two or more mutually exclusive terms or statement<\/strong>s<\/strong>\u2026<\/p>\n c)\u00a0 (Greek \u201ce\u201d)<\/strong> is used frequently to introduce rhetorical questions to which a negative answer is expected<\/strong> (Matt 7:9: \u201cOr <\/em>is there one among you \u2026 ?\u201d; 12:5: \u201cOr<\/em> have you not read \u2026 ?\u201d; cf. 20:15; 26:53; Luke 13:4; Rom 3:29; 6:5; 7:1; 9:21; 11:2; 1 Cor 6:9, 16,19; 9:8; 10:22; 2 Cor 11:7; 13:5; Jas 4:5;\u00a0a double question in <\/strong>1 Cor 14:36<\/strong>)<\/p>\n Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament<\/em>.\u00a0Balz, H. R., & Schneider, G.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n <\/p>\n<\/body>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This is the part 3 of answering Wayne Grudem\u2019s \u201cOpen letter to Egalitarians\u201d and his \u201cSix\u00a0Questions That Have Never Been Satisfactorily Answered\u201d. \u00a0Today I am posting his third question and my own answer. Wayne Grudem\u2019s question #3:<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[3,11,24,31,52],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1166","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-1-corinthians-14","category-answering-complementarian-arguments","category-complementarian-errors","category-egalitarian-vs-complementarian","category-opposing-viewpoints"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"yoast_head":"\n\n
\nYou must do A.
\nOr: Is B true?
\n(No.)
\nThen you must do A.<\/p>\n
\nWill you please show us one example in all of ancient Greek where this word for \u201cor\u2019\u2019 (e) is used to introduce what the readers know to be false, so the author can deny both what goes before and what follows?<\/p>\n\n
Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary : New Testament<\/em> <\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nThe Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament shows that the \u201ce\u201d not only shows mutually exclusive statements but it also introduces rhetorical questions to which a negative answer is expected and it includes 1 Cor. 14:36<\/span><\/strong>as a double \u00a0set of\u00a0rhetorical\u00a0questions.<\/div>\n\n\n
The BDAG again shows that \u201ce\u201d separates opposites which are mutually exclusive<\/em><\/strong>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n1. marker of an alternative,<\/strong>or,<\/em><\/strong> disjunctive particle<\/div>\n(a). separating<\/div>\na. opposites, which are mutually exclusive<\/div>\nArndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature<\/em>.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nThe claim of the Corinthians that women were to be silent in the assembly is mutually exclusive<\/strong> from Paul\u2019s claim that all were to be allowed to prophesy. \u00a0They are opposite claims that cannot both<\/em><\/strong> be followed. \u00a0Paul claims that the things he has written about all being free to prophesy in the assembly are the commandments of the Lord and that those who refuse to recognize this are not to be recognized.<\/div>\n\n\n
1 Cor 14:37 \u00a0If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord\u2019s commandment.<\/div>\n1 Cor 14:38 \u00a0But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\nThen Paul repeats the commandment that he made in verse 1 that all are to desire earnestly to prophesy and he commands that there be no prohibition to speak.<\/div>\n\n\n
1 Cor 14:39 \u00a0Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nThe context has two complete opposites that are presented as mutually exclusive. \u00a0It is impossible for all to be allowed to prophesy in the assembly and for women to be silenced in the assembly.<\/div>\nThe challenge that Wayne Grudem gives regarding the Greek word \u201ce\u201d being used as a negation of the statements before and after is invalid. \u00a0The issue is not a negation of what comes before and after<\/strong>. \u00a0It is a dual use of \u201ce\u201d that brings both a negation and a set of rehetorical questions that prove the previous negation.<\/div>\nHow is the church going to follow the command for women to be silent and at the same time follow Paul\u2019s command for all to prophesy and that none is to be forbidden to speak in tongues? \u00a0The little Greek word \u201ce\u201d proves that Paul is refuting a faulty tradition. \u00a0The tradition that silences women is soundly refuted by the numerous commands in 1 Cor. 14 for all to seek earnestly to prophesy. \u00a0God\u2019s commands that free women to use their voices to speak forth His message are contrasted with man\u2019s tradition that silences women. \u00a0I would like to challenge Wayne Grudem to answer the question why he chooses to follow man-made traditions that silence women when God\u2019s command for women to be speak out are found throughout scripture. \u00a0I would also like to challenge Wayne Grudem to show the \u201claw\u201d that silences women that is referred to in 1 Corinthians 14:34 since no such law exists in the Old Testament. \u00a0Here is another command from the book of Psalms that frees women to use their voices to preach the good news:<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n
Psalms 68:11 \u00a0The Lord gives the command<\/strong>; The women who proclaim the good tidings are a great host<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nAmen! \u00a0God Himself has given the command. \u00a0Women who proclaim the good tidings are to do so by God\u2019s encouragement. \u00a0Let them set aside the commands of men to obey the commandments of the Lord God.<\/div>\n<\/div>\nLinks to more posts on Answering Wayne Grudem\u2019s \u201cOpen letter to Egalitarians\u201d\u00a0part 1<\/strong><\/a>,\u00a0part 2<\/strong><\/a>,\u00a0part 3<\/strong><\/a>,\u00a0part 4<\/strong><\/a>,\u00a0part 5<\/a><\/strong>,\u00a0part 6<\/a><\/strong>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n