From: Larry Swain (lswain@wln.com)
Date: Sat Dec 02 1995 - 18:24:09 EST
Well, I'm back for a mere 1 day and already I can not be silent. Perhaps
I should take some of the Proverbs to heart regarding being silent. Then
again maybe not.
On Sat, 2 Dec 1995 BibAnsMan@aol.com wrote:
> 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
(snip)
> 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.
>
You obviously take this seriously, though I cannot quite fathom how.
Those explanation are based on thoughtful, experienced, research and
intimate familiarity with the text and the period of history. I think
"conjecture" here is tendentious and insulting on your part. Feel free
to disagree with the interpretation, but don't denigrate it as
"conjecture", that is a nice rheotrical tool, but it won't fly here.
> 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.
No, it is not overlooked. It is well taken account for if you looked at
the discussions that have been carried on in print over the issue.
Second, if you knew Hebrew as Paul did you would know that the word
translated helper in Genesis 2 is (w 2ords actually) Ezer kenegdo, a
helper equal to, a partner in other OT usuage. ANd you have confused
some things regarding the natural order described in Genesis, so hang on
to your hat and look below.
> 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.
Some have understood so yes, but that doesn't mean that is what the text
says, which it doesn't. Different roles do not make for difference in
kind or even degree.
But consider some facts:
1)given the meaning of the Hebrew "equal to"
2)given that the context of Genesis 2 and 3 in discussing Adam and Eve.
The focus of the creation of Eve is to resolve Adam's solitariness, and
God did not make another male, but rather a female. To make the direct
point: He made a couple, a pair, a marriage partner. Hence the one flesh
aspect is stressed. And in the "cursing" for sin in chapter 3 it is
interesting to note that to Adam God talks of Adam's relationship with
God and the earth, from whom Adam is said to be made; to Eve he discusses
the relationship to Adam from who she is said to be made (the rib?) and
to that which she makes and giveslife to, children. In short, Genesis 2
and 3 sees Adam and Eve not as first humans, but as First Family, first
couple, first married people.
3) The Greek word ANHR is perfectly acceptable as a word for husband
4) The context of I Tim 2 has a discussion of familial life preceeding
the verses in question
5)Paul repeats in these verses the order of Genesis 3, adam's relation to
God, Eve's relation to Adam and then children; husband's relation to God,
wife's relation to husband and children (or Child if you prefer).
The best conclusion seems to me based on these and other important
factors that this speaks of familial relationships and should not be
confused with leadership roles in the church.
> 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.
True. So why do you object to the fact that the early Fathers understood
Junia as a female apostle? And what do you do with the fact that those
first sent (APOSTELLW) with the news of the risen Jesus were
----->FEMALE<-------, or that in I Cor 11 Paul speaks favorably of women
prophesying, or of course there is Phoebe that deaconess, or Priscilla
and Aquila always mentioned in the same breath. And lest we forget what
do we do with all those historical records and inscriptions which mention
women as leaders in the churches? HHHMMM, seems to me that the Biblical
and historical record certainly don't favor your postion.
In the interests of brevity I won't even touch your comment that if
historically this is the way it has been interpreted therefore it is
correct, that I'll leave for another day.
> 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.
Ah, the ol' "And if you attack this you're a bad guy" ploy, gets 'em
everytime. I say simply that you have jumped to conclusions. I invite
you to wrestle with the text a bit, with other information, and by all
means extend your knowledge of early church history.
Larry Swain
Parmly Billings Library
lswain@wln.com
"Logic! What do they teach them in these schools?" C. S. Lewis _The
Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe_
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:33 EDT