Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
Besides, no matter what you think about the NT as scripture that is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, that does not turn every statement of Paul's into an absolute, for all times and in all places permanent edict of God. Paul did not say "thus saith the Lord." Rather "I say." And he spoke it into a context that you refuse to even consider.
|
Re: "Paul did not say "thus saith the Lord." Rather "I say.""
You are interpreting it as a modern day English speaking person would understand it, from the English bible. But the Greek experts are trying to interpret it as Paul would have meant it based upon their knowledge of the Greek and the way Paul wrote.
If we go to the Greek experts, they tell us that the grammar of 1 Tim 2:12 indicates it is a general timeless fact. In other words, Paul is not speaking from his own opinion, but a general timeless truth, which comes from the divine arrangement and order God gave us in Genesis. When you or anyone interpret it based upon its immediate context as per the English translation, then you miss a crucial aspect - the grammar and style of Paul's writing.
The present tense in Greek is often used in what is known as a timeless or gnomic sense. For example, Paul's "I appeal" in Romans 12:1 does not say "The Lord says.." yet we can understand this verse to be a general and timeless command because of the way it was commonly used. Paul uses this same sort of present tense writing in 1 Tim 2:12, and on that basis we can know that 1 Tim 2:12 is meant to be a general, timeless command. 1 Cor 4:16, Titus 3:8, Eph 4:1 are other examples.
This generality is indicated when we read the next verse, where Paul uses the Creation account of Genesis as the basis for his instruction: 1 Tim 2:13
"For Adam was formed first, then Eve."
It's got nothing to do with the fall of man, or the cultural specifics at the time. It is because God established a divine order of things, that applies in a general and timeless way.
This is found from here (emphasis mine)
http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/n...thread&order=0
(a) Wallace points out that the generic γυνή, “woman,” indicates that ἐπιτρέπω, “I permit,” is gnomic and concludes that
“the normal use of the present tense in didactic literature, especially when introducing an exhortation, is not descriptive, but a general precept that has gnomic implications” (Greek Grammar, 525, citing forty-one passages). To argue that Paul would have had to use a different verbal form if he were to indicate a timeless truth is simply not correct;
this is the force of the gnomic use—to describe an action that always occurs (cf. Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 208–17). (b)
If use of the present tense automatically necessitated that the statement be relegated to the author’s present, then this would raise serious problems with much of Paul’s writing. In his thirteen epistles,
Paul uses 1,429 present-tense active indicative verbs (out of a total of 2,835 indicative verbs). If this objection is true, then almost nothing Paul says can have any significance beyond the narrow confines of its immediate context. To be sure, many of these present-tense verbs refer to a specific historical situation (e.g., 1 Cor 8:13); but the reference is indicated not by the tense of the verb but by the context of the verse (cf. Wallace’s comments on Eph 5:18; Greek Grammar, 525). (c) When one looks at the use of the present tense in the PE, the general, universal scope of the tense is continually illustrated. In the PE there are 111 present-tense indicative verbs. If all of these were relegated also to the author’s present situation, then the PE would no longer teach that the law is not for the just (1 Tim 1:9), that God wishes that all could be saved (1 Tim 2:4; 4:10), that it is a good thing to pursue the office of elder (1 Tim 3:1), that the mystery of the Christian religion is great (1 Tim 3:16), that physical exercise is of some value but godliness is infinitely more valuable (1 Ti[/I]m 4:8), that children should take care of their parents and grandparents (1 Tim 5:4), that there is great gain in godliness (1 Tim 6:6), that those desiring to be rich fall into temptation (1 Tim 6:9), that the love of money is a root of all evils (1 Tim 6:10); and the list goes on (cf., e.g., 1 Tim 3:2–13; 4:5; 5:4–18; 24–25; 6:7). While the use of the present tense does not require that a statement be true in the future, neither is there anything in the tense that [Page 123] requires it to be true only in the present but not later. Spencer’s translation, “I am not presently allowing a woman to teach” (Beyond the Curse, 85), implies to many ears that the statement would not be true later, something the present tense cannot by itself connote. (d) The previous counterargument also holds for first-person (see above) present-tense verbs. Moo finds twelve uses of the first-person-singular indicative in Paul that make a universal statement (Rom 12:1, 3; 1 Cor 4:16; 2 Cor 5:20; Gal 5:2, 3; Eph 4:1; 1 Thess 4:1; 5:14; 2 Thess 3:6), two of which (1 Tim 2:1, 8) specifically indicate that the statement is universal, which would imply by default that Paul uses the construction to make a universal statement (Trinity Journal 2 [1981] 200).
Wallace argues that there is no instance in Paul that the combination “first person singular present tense with an infinitive ever means ‘right now, but not later’” (Greek Grammar, 526 n. 30; see Comment on 1 Tim 2:1 regarding the same construction). The present tense views an action from inside the action “without beginning or end in view” (Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 103). It says nothing about the completion of the event but only that from the speaker’s point of view it is an ongoing process.
οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, “I do not permit,” therefore, represents the apostle’s binding command for all churches.