SOMETHING OF MY STORY

Someone asked me elsewhere if I would share something of my story. So for them, here goes.
Do not suppose however, that knowing something of my experiences will enable anyone to then claim that my understanding of Scripture is experience driven. It is not. Though my experiences do give me an insight into some aspects of life, my life experiences did not reveal to me truth or healing. God’s Word and God’s actions in my life did and do.

I grew up Catholic, went to Catholic school for my early grades. My family taught that the man was the leader and a woman had to follow, obey/yield to her man if she expected to find happiness. And a husband was the way to happiness for a woman. I was abused and sexually molested from a young age, and raped several times from my teen years to a young adult. I witnessed how the men in my extended family treated their women. My mother divorced my father when I was very young, married another when I was in “middle school” age, and though he was the love of her life, he was very promiscuous. There were a couple women in my extended family who ruled the roost and I was not impressed with them. My uncle was such a good man, yet his wife and his daughter were abusive. It never occurred to me that there was another way to do life and marriage. Because of these teachings when my first husband said he was not ready to raise a child and required that I give up our child to adoption at birth, I thought I had to do as he requested. Until that time I did love him. After that I had to leave him as I could not bear to be around him for the inner pain it caused me to have to give up what has now turned out to be my only child. And in my early 20’s I seriously contemplated suicide.

That is when the Lord found me, drew me to him, lifted the burden of sin off my shoulders, convinced me that He loved me, revealed to me who Christ was and His great sacrifice, and touched my life in an inexplicable healing manner. Slowly, God began to show me in Scripture that He loved women as much as He did men, that He was able to use a woman as well as He could use a man.

God revealed to me what true equality in spite of differences was about, and is still revealing this to me. At first I did not want to accept that this could be true, because the traditional view of a woman needing to be a certain kind of womanly before men would accept her was ingrained so deeply in my psyche. I fought with God that that could not be what Scripture was saying, that men would simply not accept a woman who was not what I learned from Catholicism and traditionalism. But slowly I began to believe as the Lord took me through the Scriptures.

I had bought some Greek and Hebrew books and researched words on my own. I read voraciously every study resource I could find. I thought I had discovered a secret that God hadn’t revealed to anyone else at first. And then I began to run across other Christians who had “discovered” the same about traditionalism and the Scriptures. Paul Jewett was a big help. Joy Dawson, an incredibly anointed woman who preached and taught in YWAM also helped. Even Kathryn Kuhlman was a help and a woman who had her own Christian university, Marianne Sitton. After them, I began to find Christians who believed in Biblical equality and mutuality all over the place. And I continued researching as I do yet today. Very early as a Christian I went to a Lutheran Bible Institute, took a couple years of courses, including how to correctly inductively study the Scriptures. I’ve been studying, researching, and teaching ever since for about 36-37 years.

WOMEN PRIESTS AND BISHOPS

In certain eras of our Christian history women did the work of overseers but were not called such. However, it seems that earlier in our history, closer to the time of Paul and the apostles, some women were actually doing the work with the titles.

In the church of St. Praxedis in Rome there are some interesting mosaic portraits portraying pictures of women bishops/episcopa. One is of Bishop Theodora. Another of St. Praxidis, a woman bishop with her son pope Pascal I.

There is a floor moxaic covering the tomb of Guilia Runa (pronounced Julia). Giulia Runa presbiterissa was a presbyter, that is, a priest.
Some other women named as priests (found on their tombs in Rome) were “Veronica presbitera daughter of Jesetis”, and Faustina presbitera”.

In the catacombs of Priscilla, there is a fourth century fresco. The fresco shows a male bishop ordaining two women. This is seen by the garments worn by the bishop and the women. The same liturgical vestments the women were wearing are worn by Catholic priests today.

This information with pictures and more like it can be found in some of the calendars that CBE sells. The above is from the 2003 Calendar. I’ve also got the 2007 Calendar.

ROLES AND COMPLEMENTARITY

Complementarity is not ONLY about women being primarily nurturers and men being primarily providers, although most Christians agree those are accurate facts. To be complementary means forming a complement, completing each other. The concept and word was born in 1590-1600. Although I believe that when Paul said for husband to view wife as “body of” and for wife to view husband as “head of”, he was mirroring the two being complementary to each other and together forming a complete whole. The meaning of complementary is not directed at any specific particulars.

So, ”complementarity without hierarchy” is in fact staying within the correct realm of the actual meaning of complementary. As such there is no requirement for hierarchy in being complementary. If pressed I believe that egals are perhaps being more complementatry than those Christian who coined the term complementarian some 10 or so years ago. While Complementarian evolved in meaning to limit the women to roles in which they complemented men in certain ways and freed men to be everything else (thus complentarity is achieved by restricting one group to promote the freedoms of the other group), I don’t really see that as real complementarity.

Some non-egals argue that egals say there are no differences in how men and women are to relate to each other. They claim the goal is to be symmetric. They then conclude that If there aren’t any differences in gender roles or in how men and women are to relate to each other, then egals are assuming no differences between genders.

Egals don’t say that there are no differences in how men and women relate to each other. There are no required differences in addition to natural differences. Because individuals are so different it is not displaying God’s unconditional love toward others to require them to fit your picture of acceptable roles for men and women in life. All men are not lovers of blue ‘things’. All women are not lovers of ‘pink’ things. This should give you some small clue that we do not in any way preach symmetry. To tell all women to be the same and all men to be the same as is preached by some hierarchalists is far more symmetric.

There are many activities associated with gender. But there are few inherent activities associated with gender. Childbirth is an activity that is inherently a woman’s activity, in the same way that inseminating a woman is inherently a man’s activity. An inherent activity is one that the opposite gender is not capable of performing at all.
Roles of many sorts are not an issue of inherent abilities but are man made organization of activities that groups of people decide that certain groups of people should do. The concept of ‘roles’ came in about 1600 in France and referred to an actors part in a play. It is not a Biblical concept that I have found.

RECIPES FOR THIS, RECIPES FOR THAT, AND MORE RECIPES.....


Recipes are good to get a gist of how to balance things. Recipes are nice because one does not have to think. But if what you are using the recipe for is important, then it’s best to just allow the recipe to give you a general direction and to put brain in gear to hammer out the details for yourself. Any really good recipe is made to be adjustable. Any really good recipe is open to improvement.

Notice how God does not give us detailed recipes but more like some fixed details yet mostly general directions in which details can be filled in by us. The OT which was a schoolmaster while Israel was growing, was a bit more detailed. And that is because we were less mature as a species. They didn’t graduate until Christ came and offered an invitation into the next school, maturity, by His death and resurrection. Many have chosen to skip “maturity” and just hoof it in life where they were without Christ, without God, without the instruction and equipping of the Holy Spirit. We who are Christians are in the real school of life, to gain maturity (we are to all grow into the fullness of the man Christ Jesus) by drawing close to God and yielding to both His written Word and the living instruction of the Holy Spirit.

Regarding recipes (rigid roles) for marriage, In my view, a Christian couple should peruse the recipe’s that are floating around these days too numerous to mention. Then they can take what seems good and toss the rest as they adjust the recipe to fit their needs. Then with the help of God they can yield to the Holy Spirit to help them mature into one new entity, a mature union of two living harmoniously as if they were really one.

That’s my 2 cents

To all those who claim that egals spout sameness,

I don’t know where you heard this from but it appears to be a strawman (empty caricature) that gets presented for demolition every now and then. So go ahead demolish it. I’m right there with you. It’s not our strawman. I don’t know who he belongs to.

Christians who believe in Biblical equality do not believe men and women are without innate differences. We do not wish for men and women to look or act alike. We do not wish for Christians to all look or act alike. Thank God He made men and women different. But let’s not paint all men blue and all women pink trying to emphasize the differences or make new differences. God did a fine job that doesn’t need improving upon.

OK. End of rant! ((SMILES))

Thinking Again About 1 Tim. 3:1-7

I always find it interesting how we arrive at our conclusions. Do we take into account the differences of languages. When there is a question do we do some research on the original language. By research I do not mean checking Strong’s (the least accurate ‘dictionary’), but looking in as many Greek-English dictionaries we can and checking to see what various scholars think. Do we consider history and culture of the time? Do we check what the early churches were doing 300-600 years later? Are we on the alert for idioms? Do we consider the differences in Greek thinking and Hebrew thinking of the Biblical era? Or do we just believe our local leaders because they are leaders and should know. Are we open to the possibility that no one may know the answer to our questions for certain because it was 2000 years ago and some things have changed beyond comparison?

1 Tim. 3 starts off with pistos ho logos – faithful is the saying. And continues with ei tis – if anyone (anyone means ANYone, not just men) – episkopE oregO kalos ergon epithumeO - supervision is craving, of ideal work he is desiring.

OK, so the faithful saying (is that referring to a local well known saying, a slogan or colloquialism?) is that anyone who desires to minister in supervision is desiring a good thing. Its ideal work; it may even imply that it speaks well of the person who desires to serve thus. So, if someone wants to serve thus, we should be proud of him/her. They deserve a pat on the back for such servantmindedness. Yet, many today would say that if a woman desired to serve in her church in either supervision or ministry (diakonos = transliterated today as deacon), people assume and infer that she is seeking to grasp power. But Paul specifically said “anyone who desires”. So what do we make of that.

Then we have a list of qualifications for those who are desiring the good work of supervision.

Bruce C.E. Fleming in “Familiar Leadership Heresies Uncovered”, lists the furst 12 qualifications as such:

1. Above reproach – the overarching requirement
2. Faithful spouse – as applicable, some were single
3. Temperate – self-controlled (cf. Titus 2:2,5)
4. Sensible or sober – found here and in 2:9a, 15b.
5. Orderly – also used in 2:9a, 15b
6. Hospitable – a wordless ministry (1 Peter 4:9-11)
7. Apt at teaching – ministry of the word (2 Tim. 2:24)
8. Not excessive drinker – or not quarrelsome over wine
9. Not a striker or not pugnacious or a bully
10. Forbearing or gentle – (Phil. 4:5)
11. Uncontentious or not a brawler – (Titus 3:2)
12. Not-avaricious or no lover of money (Heb. 134:5)

Verses 4-7 are qualities showing spiritual maturity:

1. one who leads, manages, guides own household (proistemi – before standing, leading, presiding)
2. having own children in subjection with gravity
3. not a novice (lest he become puffed up with pride and fall into condemnation)
4. having a good testimony (reputation) among unbelievers (outsiders) so as not to fall into disgrace and a snare of the devil.

If we look at the qualities as a list we see they are a list of inner, spiritual characteristics that every believer should aim for. Even being an apt teacher is something every believer can achieve as they mature in their relationship with the Lord. Let the older brethren minister to the younger, let us look out for one another, etc. is a common theme in Scripture. It is not terribly difficult to look up the meanings of words, do the cross references and see this is a reasonable list we can likely all agree upon with the exception of one phrase in vs. 2.

Interpretively translated as ‘husband of one wife’ in most bibles, the Greek is simply “of one woman, man” – heis gunE anEr. Different church denominations and different nations have interpreted this differently. Some have said it meant one had to be a husband, but it seems to me to be a really circuitous route to say that, plus there is nothing anywhere in the Scriptures that requires one to be married in order to serve the Lord. Another meaning has been that a man must have only one wife versus two or more wives, yet while this is a reasonable requirement for ANY married man, it is not one addressed as such in Scripture elsewhere. Another interpretation is that a husband must have married only once, not divorced and then remarried. This I find very far fetched as there were specific requirements for divorce both before and after Christ and divorce was not considered a stigma against the divorcee. And then we have the interpretation that because it is mentioning a husband, then it must mean that one who wishes to be an overseer must be a man. However, taking that interpretation would also mean tagging all the other ideas of being married, and not twice, and having only one wife versus two or more, along with it. But the direct problem with that interpretation is that it would make Paul first words of “anyone who desires” of non effect. It is my opinion that we should read the Scriptures in such a way as to not “strike out” things in other parts of Scripture. If we understand Scripture correctly, it should not be a matter of striking out or nullifying other parts but of all fitting together in a reasonable manner.


”According to Lucien Deiss (notes to the French
Bible, the TOB, Edition Intégrale, p. 646, note a), this
Greek phrase was used in Asia Minor, on both Jewish
and pagan gravestone inscriptions, to designate a woman
or a man, who was faithful to his or her spouse in a way
characterized by “a particularly fervent conjugal love.”

When I read Deiss’ comment about how this phrase
was used on ancient grave inscriptions in Turkey, where
Paul and Timothy ministered, I confirmed it with him
myself, reaching him by telephone in Vaucresson, France.
Some might find this insight into 1 Timothy 3:2
surprising because modern versions of the Bible
translate this Greek phrase as – “husband of one wife” –
making this qualification appear to be restricted to men
only! Instead, rightly understood, this qualification is
about faithfulness in marriage by a Christian spouse. It is
not saying that oversight is “for men only.”

Pages 87-88
Think Again about Church Leaders by Bruce C. E. Fleming (Think Again Series)
or pg 128 in ‘Leadership Heresies” http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A3FYPTYWIELEZD”

So, I’m only addressing one question of why some think women cannot be elders or deacons. I’ve shared a few of my reasons why I say that Biblically women can serve in any ministry. My question to you is how do you arrive at your conclusions for this section. How do you take into consideration chapter One and Two. How about chapter Four where Paul is admonishing Timothy not to neglect his gift (11-14). How about chapter Five where Paul speaks of elders (neither male or female) presiding well (proistEmi).

Perhaps, someone can look up proistEmi, episkopE, and presbuteros and tell us what they find.

Please share what you think.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35

THE SILENCE OF WOMEN IN ASSEMBLY

It is a popular patriarchal and complementarian view that because of the words in 1 Corinthians 14 "let your women be silent", that therefore all women should not utter a word in the assembly. I find this to be a huge stretching of the words in question, the phraseology, and context of the full sentence, the aim of the chapter in question, and a selective omission of the places in Scripture where women did speak in general assembly. This is also an attempt to support the idea that women are not to teach or preach. After all if they cannot utter a word, that effectively prohibits them from teaching or preaching. Taken to the full end it also would prohibit women from singing and taking part in worship.

Objection 1
The Upper Room Prayer Meeting

Acts 1:12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey. 13And when they had entered, they went up into the upper room where they were staying: Peter, James, John, and Andrew; Philip and Thomas; Bartholomew and Matthew; James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot; and Judas the son of James. 14These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.
Peter's Sermon; the Coming of the Holy Spirit
Acts 2:1 When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. 4And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

It is important to note that both men and women were in assembly together AND that they prayed together with one accord AND that they were all filled with the Holy Spirit speaking with other tongues as the Spirit anointed them in the upper room prayer meeting (Acts 1:12-14/2:1-4). To speak as the Holy Spirit anoints one is not every day speaking. Anointed speaking would be described as exhortation, edification and encouragement as moved by the Holy Spirit. This is also teaching and preaching. If men and women can teach and preach to one another under a heavy anointing, then they can also do so under a "light" anointing. I would call general assemblies with preaching by the elders, leaders, teachers, pastors, etc. "light anointing". I would also call bringing a psalm, a teaching, an exhortation, a prophesy, etc. by the general congregation, a "light" anointing. After all the idea is that one does not preach or teach their own thoughts but the concepts they sense they are directed to do so by God. If God used both men and women in one place, then He will use them in other places.

This noted incident is enough in my mind, to cross off the popular interpretation of 1 Cor. 14:35 to be meaning women are never to utter a word in church assembly.

Objection 2
1 Cor. 11: 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.

Chapter eleven is discussing the propriety of wives praying and prophesying in public following the social customs of head coverings. The admonition is for wives to pray and prophesy in attire that will not bring shame, but honor, to their husbands. This is not a discussion of wives doing street corner preaching, but regular praying and preaching (anointed exhortation, comfort and speaking forth the Word) in the assembly which is why there is concern over attire.


Objection 3
The context of 1 Corinthians 14 is one of orderliness. There is no underlying message of who may or may not exercise Spiritual gifts. Rather all are encouraged to participate and edify.

26 How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.

Note the points that have preceded: an admonition on respect in relationships and attire while ministering (11:1-16), respect in communion celebrations (11:17-34), honoring one another’s gifts and ministries (chap. 12), exercising gifts with love of brethren (chap. 13), acknowledging that prophesy is to be desired more than anything (14:1-25), and that there is to be an orderliness in how we exercise our speaking gifts (14:1-25).

Paul has been working at establishing an over all respect and honor as well as a devotion to desiring spiritual gifts. Paul does not wish to dissuade participation but rather encourage respectful participation. Before verse 35, there is not even a remote hint that Paul would not want women to participate in the ministering of the Holy Spirit.

Thus again this is more than enough in my mind to cross off the popular interpretation of 1 Cor. 14:35 to be meaning women are never to utter a word in church assembly.


Objection 4
The Greek word used for "silent" is sigao. My favorite Greek Concordance defines this as "hush", also to keep secret, hold ones peace, and keep close. Vines Complete Expository Dictionary holds a similar definition. Sigao was also used in Luke 9:36, 20:2; Acts 12:17, 15:12; Romans 16:25; 1 Cor. 14:28,30,34.

Luke 9:36When the voice had ceased, Jesus was found alone. But they kept quiet, and told no one in those days any of the things they had seen.
Luke 20: 26But they could not catch Him in His words in the presence of the people. And they marveled at His answer and kept silent.
Acts 12: 17But motioning to them with his hand to keep silent, he declared to them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. And he said, "Go, tell these things to James and to the brethren." And he departed and went to another place.
Acts 15: 12Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles. 13And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, "Men and brethren, listen to me:
Romans 16: 25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began
1 Corinthians 14: 28But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God. ……30But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. …34Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.

In none of these places is sigao used to forever muzzle one from speaking, but rather for them to hush or for them to hold their peace for a specific purpose, usually in order to better hear someone else speak. It is a matter of respectful orderliness. It does not even mean they cannot speak again the whole evening, but simply a specific time for a specific purpose. Verse 35 could make sense in addressing disorderly wives to speak their questions at home rather than disturbing the assembly with them and this would seem a possible sensible point to the preceding sentence.

Objection 5
"for they are not permitted to speak". This is a problem. It is really not possible for Paul to have said that himself. He just got through discussing how a woman should dress WHILE speaking in the assemblies (chp. 11:1-16). Then Paul discusses how EVERYONE has gifts for the benefit of the whole (chp. 12). Then goes on to say that EVERYONE should desire to prophesy and seek after the best gifts. Then he goes on to say that EVERYONE should come to the assemblies with something to share giving examples of types of contributions that are SPEAKING!

These are all in the same epistle. The preponderance of evidence that Paul intends for women to speak in the assembly is too great to believe that those words were Paul's. They had to be someone else's that he was quoting in order to counter in the next sentence. According to the original Greek, the next verse should start with a disjunctive particle such as Rubbish!, Not! or similar negative. Instead, many translation have gone with "or", which takes out the intent and force.

In effect Paul is responding to those words meant to silence women from speaking and saying that the idea is rubbish. This goes along perfectly with everything else Paul says about women in his epistles. How could Paul praise a woman minister of Cenchrea, a woman teaching Appolos a renown speaker, female fellow workers in the gospel, and a woman apostle (Romans 16) if it were his intent to stop women from speaking.

This is an important point in understanding this section of Scripture as well as in understanding that we must weave Scripture together properly in order to understand it properly. One section cannot stand out in contradiction to the rest. When that happens, we are interpreting it incorrectly.

Objection 6
However, the rest of verse 34 is confusing, because clearly women are permitted by Paul to speak, there is no obvious relationship to speaking and being submissive, and there is no Scriptural Law that addresses this issue. It is possible that there is a local cultural law, but would seem unlikely for Paul to cite it. It is possible that he is referencing some local laws relative to the respect of women toward their husbands, of which there were numerous, both by the Greeks and Jews. Honor and Shame in the World of the Bible by V. H. Matthews et al, is supposed to discuss many of these. It is also possible that it is addressing the additional “laws” of the Mishnah created by the Pharisees since they concluded that to hear a woman’s voice read the Law tainted the Law. Heavy misogynism.


There are other possible interpretations being considered by present day theologians. A. C. Thiselton (in his new NIGTC) [1] suggests that the questions could be regarding sifting and weighing the words of the prophets, i.e. judging the prophets. While this is a good possibility, I think one needs to remember that the general congregations are not the ones to judge the words of the prophets either, but the prophets as a group, possibly including other anointed leadership.

Another possible interpretation, and the one I prefer, is that verses 34 and 35 are another’s words likely in a letter from the Corinthians that Paul is quoting and actually repudiating in verse 36. “Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached?” Paul has quoted others and then responded to them in other places such as he does in 1 Cor. 6:12-13, and proceeds to answer in verse 14.

Fee argues for an interpolation in First Epistle . [2]


The first makes sense since women were coming out of a place of ignorance and most needed to learn more before they could offer informed constructive discussion. The second makes sense if Paul is addressing those who would think only men would ever be capable of discernment since it is the Holy Spirit who inspires and brings truth.

[1] The First Epistle to the Corinthians by Anthony C. Thiselton, pgs. 1156-1160
[2] First Epistle by G. Fee, page 710
-----------------------------------------

CONCLUSION

It is not speech but abuse of speech that is being addressed here. This includes the speaking of tongues, the prophesying, and the probable disorderly questions. Neither tongues, nor prophesy, nor questions are being forbidden, but simply controlled. Paul is simply calling to order ordinary members of the congregation. Even Paul is willing to control and restrain himself even where he has rights if it means he is able to serve others better.

Serving All Men
1 Cor. 9:19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; ..............

Regardless of all the possibilities; if it is addressing the discussion of discerning the words of the prophets or if Paul is admonishing those who wish to retain a privilege to themselves, it IS addressing disorderly speech in general. This is seen clearly in Pauls concluding statement: 39Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues. 40 Let all things be done decently and in order. IMO if we go beyond that we err.
~~~~~~~~~~~

=================================
=================================

Further notes:


Those who argue for absolute silence of women in church meetings mostly argue around these points:

1. It specifically addresses “women” so this is something only for women.
2. The word silent means absolute speechlessness therefore all women should not utter a word in the assembly which rules out teaching, preaching, etc.
3. It makes mention of “the Law”, so this is not only for any particular incident or for a limited time frame.
4. As is reasonable for women who are in submission to their husbands, wives need to ask questions of their own husbands instead of disturbing the church service.
5. Because it says that it is shameful for a woman to speak in church this further cements the restriction.


Those who argue against absolute silence of women in church services mostly argue around these points:

1. context rules out absolute silence ; the context is orderliness not gender preferences
2. Greek meaning of sigao is closer to “hush” rather than absolute forever silence.
3. Other Scriptures in the same time frame have Paul promoting women speaking and in ministry, so he cannot do both at the same time since they contradict one another
4. The upper room experience has both men and women speaking in tongues together and prophesying before each other.
5. In context Paul just got finished admonishing EVERYone to bring something to give/share at the meeting and admonished everyone about how to operate in tongues and prophesy before the congregation.
6. Since the verse says to ask husbands at home, the prohibition for orderliness likely was about wives loudly asking husbands questions, thus they should ask them at home, rather then disturb the flow of the moving of the Spirit
7. There is no Scriptural Law in the Torah that prohibits women from speaking. If Paul were to be referencing a local law, that does not make it a universal restriction. And it is unlikely that Paul would do so. In fact the only known “law” against women speaking in spiritual matters is from the Jewish Talmud, the oral traditions of the Prarisees, which has no universal binding on Scriptural admonitions.
8. Some argue that the restriction is not against every kind of speaking but only the sifting, weighing, and judging of the prophetic words given.
9. There are a few scholars who are arguing for it to be an interpolation and have good scientific reasons for concluding this. One being that verses 34-35 are in different places in different manuscripts (not connected with verse 33). Another reason being that this section does not flow with the rest of the chapter upsetting the context by interrupting the theme of prophecy, spoiling the flow of thought. (Gordon Fee supports this) Another reason being that a professor of paleography examined certain manuscripts with a high powered magnifying glass and demonstrated that the words had been inserted and not part of the original writing of the manuscripts.
10. There are also a growing number of scholars supporting verses 34-35 being a quote from the Corinthians in a letter to Paul which he is refuting. The disjunctive particle in verse 36 seems a good indication that this is correct.

Not sure if I covered everything, but that is the gist of it.

===================
===================

I also found this quote:


Out of respect to the congregation, a woman should not herself read in the law. It is a shame for a woman to let her voice be heard among men. The voice of a woman is filthy nakedness.

this if from Mishna sotah 3.4;B sotah 20a.

J. Lee Grady said this about it:
"It should be noted that the Jewish Talmud is a collection of comments by rabbis who disagree, and the statement here about the "obscenity" of teaching women the law of God is challenged. However, many scholars of early Jewish thought believe the quote here represents the prevalent opinion of rabbis in the first century. Women were not allowed to study the Torah or to become disciples of rabbis."

In my opinion this is likely where the comment in verses 34-35 came from, from the Talmudic law. But Paul could not have agreed with it since he promoted women in ministry, honored and acknowledged their service in the Lord. It is likely though that there were Jewish Christians who still still held such a restrictive view.