From: Paul S. Dixon (email@example.com)
Date: Sat May 16 1998 - 02:19:42 EDT
On Fri, 15 May 1998 23:18:39 -0400 Jim West <jwest@Highland.Net> writes:
>At 10:04 PM 5/15/98 -0400, you wrote:
>>Since this is a hapax leg. in the NT, and since M-M seems to think
>>the use here "comes quite naturally out of the word 'master,
>>and since this seems to comport well with the context of I Tim 2, then
>>my guess is the word in I Tim 2 must be interpreted in line with:
>>1) her learning in silence with all subjection (v. 11), 2) her being
>>forbidden by Paul to teach men (v. 12), and 3) the reasons given by
>>Paul which pertain to the order of creation (which implies the same
>>kind of authority as found in the God-head, the authority of God the
>>Father in relation to the God the Son in whose image man (male and
>>female) was created) and to the order of the fall.
>It has nothing to do with "authority" in a positive sense, but with
>"domineering authority". That is, the women folk are here forbidden
>to "dominate" their hubbies. That Paul did, in fact, allow women to
>teach, preach, and pray in the assemblies is clear from 1 Cor 11.
>either changed his mind, or this letter is not from Paul, or the word
>have a negative connotation here).
Jim, where do you get the connotation of "domineering authority" versus
just "authority"? I would truly like to see this defended. My
are this meaning comes from an assumed domineering going on by
certain women. I would like to see it lexically defended, or more
particularly textually defended.
Your reference to 1 Cor 11 is problematic. There is no way you can use
that passage as a guiding light for interpreting 1 Tim 2. The 1 Cor 11
passage says only that a woman who prays or prophesies with her
head uncovered shames her head. It does not say a woman who prays
or prophesies with her head covered does not shame her head, and it
is logically invalid to deduce it (negative inference fallacy).
>Further, I must say that this patriarchal mentality is no longer
>culturally acceptable; and that it, like all cultural "husks" from the
>century,are disposable as the have nothing to do with the "kernal" of
>gospel. (A good Bultmannian I ever remain).
Whether "this patriachral mentality is no longer culturally acceptable"
no bearing upon the interpretation of the passage. We should not read
our cultural bias back into the scriptures in order to interpret them.
Have a great weekend.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:43 EDT