From: Bill Mounce (billm@teknia.com)
Date: Sat Dec 02 1995 - 18:27:48 EST
A few comments on Conrad's post
>I find no fault whatsoever with Jim's reading of 1 Tim 2:13; it is quite
>clear that the author bases his view that women should not teach on grounds
>of the secondary status of woman in creation. My response is that this is a
>wholly inadequate justification for women not teaching. Why? Because I
>don't think Paul wrote 1 Timothy? Well, in fact, I DON'T think Paul wrote 1
>Timothy, but I do not reject 1 Timothy's canonical status just because I
>don't think Paul wrote it. Why then do I think it inadequate? For two
>reasons:
"Inadequate" is just a euphemism for wrong, wrong in an area of faith and
practice, wrong in a theological discussion meant to deal specifically with
this particular issue, and in contradiction -- you feel -- of another
passage whose purpose is not to deal specifically with this issue. It seems
to me best that you use terms that accurately describe your interpretation.
The author is wrong.
>(1a) I think that the Genesis creation narrative is being misapplied in 1
>Tim 2, is being applied to a matter on which it has no bearing. In my
>judgment the key element in the Genesis 2 account of the creation of the
>man and the woman is to be found in Genesis 2:23 where "the man" recognizes
>that "the woman" is a true and valid mate to himself. The point is not that
>woman is secondary to "man" but rather that man and woman are fundamentally
>and essentially one in nature.... So I can see no basis in the Creation
>stories for
>any assertion of the secondary nature or status of females to males
In other words, you feel that your interpretation of the Genesis passage
has more validity than the canonical interpretation of Genesis. At this
point I don't recognize how someone can hold to the validity of any concept
of canon. What does "canon" then mean?
>(2a) As an adherent of reformed theology, I hold that scripture interprets
>scripture, meaning that it is the whole of canonical scripture, and not the
>part, that is authoritative. What do we do when we find something as
>problematic in scripture as the doctrine set forth in 1 Timothy 2? We look
>elsewhere in scripture. We look for a "canon of the canon."
I was not aware that Reformed theology historically defined allowed for a
canon within a canon. Even Luther with his strong dislike of James would
not remove it from the canon. Even as a "right strawy epistle," Luther's
view of the canon forced him to accept it.
>(b) that it really is
>possible to approach this question of women in positions of authority in
>the New Testament without violating a fundamental respect for scripture
>itself.
I suspect Conrad that you did violate it, because you did not allow
Scripture to interpret Scripture. Your theology dictates that Galaians is
superior to 1 Timothy and hence disallowed the canonical interpretation in
chapter 2. But if Scripture interprets Scripture, then it must work the
other way around as well, and 1 Tim 2 can interpret Galatians, which it
easily can. As the context of Galatians shows (my opinion) Paul is there
discussing the essential nature of the person and in 1 Tim 2 is discussing
the issue of roles within the established church order. They are different
context, and hermeneutically the specific passage outweighs the general
passage. 1 Tim 2 specifically deals with one part of the question of women
in ministry. I don't see a conflict in theology unless a person insists
that role and worth are essentially tied together, a position I don't think
can be defened from the text.
Let's see. This is the Greek forum, so I better say something about Greek.
XARIS.
Bill Mounce
-------------------------------
Teknia Software, Inc.
1306 W. Bellwood Drive
Spokane, WA 99218-2911
Internet: billm@teknia.com (preferred)
AOL: Mounce
CIS: 71540,2140 (please, only if necessary)
"It may be Greek to you, but it is life to me."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:33 EDT