Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
The point to be made in either case is that it is an opinion that is not drawn from the text, but read back onto it.
You are correct that 1 Timothy says that the man was not deceived. Rather he knowingly took of it without much concern. His wife had eaten and was still standing, so it must be OK.
Be he was with her. It is very doubtful that he was removed enough that he did not know the source of the fruit. Whether he heard the serpent, or just saw her take the fruit, he knew what he was eating. According to you, he didn't even have "the Devil made me do it" as an excuse. He just ate it without the appearance of a care or worry.
As for this particular text. It is not the only one in which Paul commented on women in the church. And the others do not universally support this particular "be silent" edict. That would tend to indicate that there was a particular reason for this comment that was not present in others.
|
Probably the strongest proof that this edict was not due to cultural reasons or anything of a localized nature is Paul's appeal to the Creation story in Genesis to support his edict. He could have appealed to good manners, avoiding disturbing others, brotherly love, as reasons for silence. But he didn't. He went back to the creation as reasons why women should keep silent. That means it is a general and universal principle.
If it was because of local reasons then Paul would have appealed to common sense and good manners or brotherly love. Suppose there were some unruly women (or men) in a local church today, we would not say to them "please keep keep quiet because you (through Eve) were created after Adam and you were deceived, not Adam". We would say "please keep quiet because you are disturbing other people".