Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
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.
|
It would be so much more clear if you could somehow make those contrary situations go away. The ones where a woman taught a man, or where a woman dared to act on her own and didn't even stop when the men started griping.
“the
normal use of the present tense . . . ."
"The present tense in Greek is
often used . . . . For example, Paul's 'I appeal' . . . yet we can understand this verse to be a general and timeless command
because of the way it was commonly used.
"
Even Wallace's quote admits that it is not clear. But he worries that not always using an otherwise common form as absolutely always of that form would gut certain general truths. Fundamentals of the nature of God and of the church. He worries that we might not always say that pursuing the office of elder is a good thing. Yet for some people it probably is not a good thing. Especially for those that Paul would not exclude from the household of faith, but would exclude from the ranks of potential elder.
I am too often amazed that man has such a propensity to create as many absolutes as he can find and justify by any means rather than sticking to the ones that are clearly stated as so and letting the rest be less certain. After all, we are not called to defend Calvinism or Arminianism. And if either is simply right and the other wrong, then there is a serious problem for some of the so-called Christians.
Or is there?
I am too often impressed with the need for the people that push the doctrines (even the ones that I tend to think are likely correct) as if they are the key to salvation, sanctification, and a better "mansion" in the afterlife. But Jesus really didn't talk about any of the nonsense that is being argued in threads like this one. It should tell you something about the importance of it being "just so." (And I am not saying that Jane should back off. On the contrary, no matter how many gripes I have about some parts of it, the base issues are very real and solid and I see no reason that we should not come to a place where men treat women (their wives, girlfriends, other women in the church, and even women of the world) with respect and honor rather than as humans to be chastised for daring to say something to a man that would hint that his "authority" was being impugned or that he was being taught by (gasp) a woman. Sometimes women have to rise up to do what a man won't do.
And men who are so enthralled with their God-given right to be in authority over women will never rise up to suggest that it might not actually be so. It will take a Deborah to rise up. It will take a Mary to show the business heads of the men that there is something greater than what they think is important. It will take a Priscilla to teach an Apollos beyond a "Jesus only" mindset.
And consistent with that kind of thinking, I can't get excited about a man who is looking to make everything an absolute rule rather than take the effort to parse through what really should be absolute, what should not, and what maybe really doesn't matter which because it just isn't that clear. It won't get you into "heaven."
But when deciding what should be absolute, in light of much of the rest of this discussion, I would say that a claim that it should be absolute is suspect unless there is clear evidence that it really should be. Just saying it is in a form that often is does not decide the matter. It is clear that there is a tendency of the male of the species to want that to be the answer, so there is a confirmation bias at work.
And you would be correct if you suggest that there is a tendency toward a confirmation bias on the other side. But neither makes any particular position wrong. It just provides a warning not to just see what you want to see.