HomeHome  PortalPortal  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlist  UsergroupsUsergroups  Link HereLink Here  RegisterRegister  Log in  SubscribeSubscribe  

Share | 
 

 Mounce on 1 Tim

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Nathan
Xenophile
avatar

Number of posts : 147
Registration date : 2008-05-09

PostSubject: Mounce on 1 Tim   Sun May 18, 2008 5:15 pm

Roger here is the quote you requested:
Quote :
14 καὶ Ἀδὰμ οὐκ ἠπατήθη, ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἐξαπατηθεῖσα ἐν παραβάσει γέγονεν, “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, has come into transgression.” While v 14 may be difficult to interpret, a few major points are clear. (1) The emphasis of the verse is on deception: Adam was not deceived; Eve was deceived (Gen 3:1–7, 12; cf. Str-B 3:646). Whatever specific interpretation is adopted, this point should come through clearly. (2) V 14 is parallel to v 13. In both, Adam is the subject of the verb and is emphatically listed at the beginning of the sentence. In both, Adam plays the dominant role: he was created first; he was not deceived (contra Oberlinner, 99, who says the only interest of v 14 is in Eve’s seduction). (3) In some way, Adam and Eve are parallel to the Ephesian men and women; otherwise vv 13–15 would be irrelevant and it would be difficult to explain the shift in v 15 from the sin of the singular Εὕα, “Eve,” in the Garden to the salvation of the plural women (ἐὰν μείνωσιν, “if they remain”) in Ephesus. Adam and Eve’s behavior demonstrates for Paul something about the respective roles for the Ephesian men and women. (4) Gen 3 provides the background for Paul’s instructions and imagery in v 14, just as Gen 2 provides the backdrop for v 13. In saying Eve was deceived, Paul is repeating Eve’s own confession in Gen 3:13. While many feel Paul is being unfair to Eve, it is helpful to remember that what he says is almost inconsequential compared to how she was treated in rabbinic circles (cf. Keener, Paul, Women, and Wives, 114–15).

Historically, v 14 has been viewed as the second reason that vv 11–12 are true. Not only was Eve created second (v 13), but she was deceived (v 14). This is the most natural reading of the verse, primarily because its syntax so closely parallels that of v 13: “Adam was created first, and then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was.” While καί, “and,” can have a variety of meanings, the parallel structure of the verses suggests that it is connecting a second idea that functions similarly to the first idea. The major argument of many against this interpretation is that v 14 does not seem to make sense as a reason. There are three basic interpretations with a variety of opinions within each.

(1) Historically, v 14 has been understood as teaching something about the nature of women in general (cf. Doriani, “History of the Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2, ” 215–69), as making an ontological distinction. V 14 is held to assert that men and women are equal before God, but God intended different roles for each. Just as Eve was deceived and Adam was not, so also the Ephesian women were more open to deception than the Ephesian men; therefore, the authority in the Ephesian church rested on the male leaders. To that extent there is a typological relationship between Eve and the Ephesian women (cf. Paul’s use of Abraham, Hagar, and Sarah [Gal 4:21–31], Israel [1 Cor 10:1–13], Adam [1 Cor 15:22; Rom 5:12–14], and Eve [2 Cor 11:3]). This gives full force to the perfect-tense ἐν παραβάσει γέγονεν, “has come into transgression,” which looks at the present consequences of a past action. It also explains the shift between the singular Eve sinning in the past (v 14) and the plural Ephesian women being saved in the present (v 15). Oberlinner (99) goes so far as to suggest that the theology of Sir 25:24 had become established by this time (i.e., that sin originated with Eve, not Adam), and that the author of the PE is in agreement.

Those who interpret the text in this way differ on what is meant by women being more open to deception. Doriani subdivides the historic position into the Scotist view (God decreed male headship even though men are not better suited for leadership), the Thomist view (women are weaker and less rational than men [Doriani’s wording]), and the Congruent Creation view, which teaches that God “sovereignly chose to order [creation] through male headship, a headship given to them without a view to any merit on their part. Yet God established a coherence or congruence between his decree and his creation. Congruence thinkers affirm that God shaped the minds, proclivities and perhaps even the bodies of humans to reflect his decree. . . . Women are as capable as men, but have other interests, and have developed their capacities in different directions” (“History of the Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2, ” 265, cf. 264–69). Doriani asserts, “Throughout the ages the church has preferred to affirm that God has engraved reflections of his sovereign decree into human nature. This has had an ugly side, in denigrations of woman’s mind and character. But we can also recognize variety in human nature, without labeling anything inferior or superior” (“History of the Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2, ” 267).

Unfortunately, many have held that this means women are intellectually inferior to men. This cannot be or Paul would never have encouraged women to teach children (2 Tim 3:15) and younger women (Titus 2:3–4). Doriani prefers to speak of men and women having different interests (“History of the Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2, ” 264–69). Schreiner also talks about “different inclinations” (“Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9–15, ” 145), allowing for the dangers of stereotyping and “misogynistic implications.” He says that what concerns Paul “are the consequences of allowing women in the authoritative teaching office, for their gentler and kinder nature inhibits them from excluding people from doctrinal error” (145). Later he says, “Women are less likely to perceive the need to take a stand on doctrinal non-negotiables since they prize harmonious relationships more than men do” (153), and then once again qualifies himself because of the abuse that tends to be associated with his understanding of Paul: “It must be said again that this does not mean that women are inferior to men. Men and women have different weaknesses, and that is why there are different roles. Men who value accuracy and objectivity can easily fall into the error of creating divisions where none should exist and become hypercritical. They should learn from the women in the church in this regard!” (153 n. 227).

Today there is, of course, strong opposition to seeing Paul making an ontological statement about the essential nature of women. (a) Many claim that the statement simply is not true: “The implications are disturbing and contradict the reality of the whole of biblical teaching, church history and human experience” (Scholer, “1 Timothy 2:9–15, ” 212). (b) They argue that if women are inherently more gullible, then they should not be allowed to teach anyone, especially children, who are the most gullible (cf. Titus 2:3; 2 Tim 1:5; 3:15). (c) Paul’s acceptance of Priscilla and her husband may suggest she was a capable teacher, thus providing an example that breaks the rule. (d) If v 14 is teaching something about the nature of Eve that corresponds to the nature of the Ephesian women, then by implication it is teaching something about the nature of Adam that corresponds to the nature of the Ephesian men. If Ephesian women may not teach because Eve was deceived, would it not follow that the Ephesian men may not teach because Adam sinned knowingly, without the excuse of deception (Gen 3:12, 17)? Since this is senseless, either v 14 is not making an ontological statement, or there is not an ontological connection between Adam and Eve and their Ephesian counterparts (cf. Schreiner’s discussion, “Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2, ” 142–43).

Mounce, W. D. (2002). Vol. 46: Word Biblical Commentary : Pastoral Epistles. Word Biblical Commentary (135). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.
There's quite a bit more, but that has the part we were talking about.

_________________
\_ My blog: Discipulus Scripturae
Back to top Go down
View user profile
rogermugs
theologer
avatar

Number of posts : 357
Location : east yo
Registration date : 2008-05-09

PostSubject: Re: Mounce on 1 Tim   Mon May 19, 2008 10:47 pm

alright... sorry it takes me a bit to get to this stuff... i hope this forum eventually grows out of the grasp of my being able to read every post... but until then... this is just so fun.

first i'm curious if ya'll have heard of "The silence of adam", I think thats the title of the book, but its been a while... I haven't read it but I understand the premise is that Adam is just as guilty for allowing eve to eat the apple as she was for eating it, he denied his role of leadership when he didn't stop her... (something like that..) just an interesting other view.

I go back and forth on this related to gender simply because my background was so much more liberal than the ministry i'm in now, women did everything basically and I was fine with it because i didn't know otherwise.

I definitely dont think women are at all less intellectually capable than men. That is obvious.

I do think women are inherently less emotionally stable than men (there are exceptions to this, but this is the standard), and that reason should perhaps be considered in some leadership positions but will in most situations not matter.

Also. if you pumped a man full of that much estrogen he would be just as unstable.
(i hope i dont get fire for saying that)...

as for these three views:

Scotist view (God decreed male headship even though men are not better suited for leadership)
Disagree. I think man might be inherently better for some leadership. That is, in stability emotionally as well as an inability to become pregnant (which unless you're thru menopause -- go hilary -- could definitely be a problem if you were a major leader). but i'm not sure why i hold this view


, Thomist view (women are weaker and less rational than men [Doriani’s wording])
as much as I disagree with this idea in theory, I see something of it in practice... But there are fair share of irrational men out there. However as for strength, in physical strength this is definitely true.

Congruent Creation view, which teaches that God “sovereignly chose to order [creation] through male headship, a headship given to them without a view to any merit on their part.

I also disagree here. I dont know where this means I fall.

Basically I have no idea why man is called to lead. He did seem to create us a bit to be this way. But I also VERY often think a woman should lead (at this time I dont think one should lead the country.. . again not because she wouldn't be capable but because of the way a muslim man would be unable to respect her).

When it comes down to it, I think there are some women who are fit and better off to lead than men in the same role. But if both are equally qualified (if that was possible) then I would lean towards the man leading. I wish I had a better reason for why.

to quote seinfeld loosely - "There is absolutely nothing beautiful about the male body, it is completely utilitarian." thats the thing... men were built 100% to be useful. Women while useful physically (certainly there is design in their body for child bearing), also have a VERY large sense where they were created to be beautiful to behold...

those are my thoughts.

_________________
"sometimes a little more than you think you want is still a little less than you actually need"
"brilliance seems too often masked by stupid people"
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.theologer.com
Nathan
Xenophile
avatar

Number of posts : 147
Registration date : 2008-05-09

PostSubject: Re: Mounce on 1 Tim   Mon May 19, 2008 11:45 pm

rogermugs wrote:
Women while useful physically (certainly there is design in their body for child bearing), also have a VERY large sense where they were created to be beautiful to behold...
Laughing

I have some ideas, but I'm still planning to read a few more commentaries on this before I come to any sort of conclusion. I was leaning more towards the Congruent Creation position, but as it's a new term to me I'm not even sure what the implications are. More later.

_________________
\_ My blog: Discipulus Scripturae
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Mounce on 1 Tim   

Back to top Go down
 
Mounce on 1 Tim
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
 :: General :: General :: Scripture-
Jump to: