From: BibAnsMan@aol.com
Date: Sat Dec 02 1995 - 13:09:41 EST
Regarding the discussion of whether women can be elders, I think it
important to consider 1 Timothy 2:11ff. Many have proposed that the reason
why Paul didn't want women teaching men is because of the Jewish culture of
those days. Some state that women weren't educated at that time and thus
were not to teach. Still others will make ANHR out to be husband, thus
making Paul say that women (wives) ought not to teach their husbands, but to
remain quiet. I would prefer not to accept any of the above explanations
because they do not rely on the text but rather upon conjecture. Paul's
reason for giving the instruction for women not to teach men is not cultural.
There is one very important Greek word that people often overlook here.
It is the simple conjunction GAR in verse 13. This causal GAR gives us the
reason why Paul gave the command. Paul said that a woman should not teach a
man because Adam was created first, then Eve. In other words, it stems to
the very foundation of creation itself. This transcends culture and history
and lands on the foundation of how God created man and woman. In Genesis,
man was created first and then woman as a helper.
Further, some have understood in verse 14 that the woman being deceived
indicates a difference in constitution. Men are designed by God different
from women. The Bible supports different roles for men and women. They are
equal in value and essence, but the difference could very well be implied
here in this verse.
If we let the text of Scripture speak here, we will have to admit that
Paul's reasons given there for women not teaching or exercising authority
over men is not cultural. Paul didn't say women shouldn't teach men because
they weren't educated, or that was the practice of those churches (as head
coverings cf. 1 Cor. 11:16). But Paul's reason transcends all this and lands
on creation, the foundation.
In any interpretation of Scripture, one should always bear in mind the
historical record. One must ask the question why church history for 1900
years has interpreted this different from some of the more modern
interpretations. Have we all of a sudden discovered something that has been
missing for centuries from any records except a few stray cultish brands? I
do not believe this subject is that hard to understand biblically.
I fully expect that this will be viciously attacked here. Some will
claim that such exegesis as this does not belong on this list. Others will
say that it is eisegesis. Still others will attack my character or say that
I have made up my mind before coming to the text. And even some might say
they are ashamed at such a presentation because it lacks the "scholarship"
they require for their approval. Attacks such as these are not Christ-like
nor helpful for our goal. It is doing the very thing one is accusing others
of doing.
Jim McGuire
Professor of Greek at
Logos Bible Institute
13248 Roscoe Blvd.
Sun Valley, CA 91352
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:33 EDT