1 Timothy 2:11-15 and 1 Corinthians 14:33-40 revisited

Jill
Posts: 582
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 6:16 pm

Post by Jill » Wed Jul 29, 2009 8:02 pm

.
Last edited by Jill on Wed Feb 16, 2011 8:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Danny
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:52 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and 1 Corinthians 14:33-40 revisited

Post by Danny » Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:06 pm

Hi Steve,

I very much appreciate your forthright response and the opportunity it gives me to re-examine the views I've stated. I find after doing so that there is nothing there in the way of arguments that I hadn't already considered on the way to arriving at my current view, and so my position remains unchanged. I have read Kroeger, as well as Piper/Grudem and some Kostenberger, among others. I am not familiar with Neuer but will try to find him. I probably won't have time to offer a point-by-point response for a few days, but I do look forward to addressing some of the objections you've raised.

Thanks!

-Danny
My blog: http://dannycoleman.blogspot.com

“Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read’st black where I read white.”
-- William Blake

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3362
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and 1 Corinthians 14:33-40 revisited

Post by steve » Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:37 pm

Neuer might be more difficult to find, as he is a younger German theologian (his work was translated into English by Gordon Wenham, and it was published in the United States by Crossway, in 1991. His book is written in a popular style, though, in its 182 pages, he includes 475 footnotes. I had never heard of him when I bought the book, and did not know whether to ascribe much credibility to him, but he is very responsible.

Apollos
Posts: 162
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:52 pm

Re: 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and 1 Corinthians 14:33-40 revisited

Post by Apollos » Wed Jul 29, 2009 11:25 pm

Danny wrote:
On the one hand, Paul worked closely with Priscilla and referred to her on equal terms. Priscilla was very clearly a teacher. One of her students was Apollos.
Do you mean she was ordained by the laying on of hands and taught in the church? Doesn't 'student' imply an ongoing and vertical relationship? Does this apply?
Last edited by Apollos on Thu Dec 08, 2011 7:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3362
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and 1 Corinthians 14:33-40 revisited

Post by steve » Thu Jul 30, 2009 1:30 am

“I do not permit a woman to teach nor claim to be the author of man…”


It should be pointed out that, even if authentein is taken, in this instance, to mean "be the author of..." (not the most common or most likely meaning), yet it would not yield the meaning suggested by this paraphrase, which requires the addition of another verb—"claim"—which is not present in the text, and which, if included, would be the main verb of the clause in which it appears. The more syntactical translation would be:

“I do not permit a woman to teach nor to be the author of man…”

...which clearly is nonsensical, and is one reason why "be the author of" must be eliminated from consideration, in favor of some more suitable alternative.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2682
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and 1 Corinthians 14:33-40 revisited

Post by Homer » Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:32 am

Steve and Apollos,

Very good work - worth saving in hard copy form!

Apollos wrote:
(Quote of Danny)
There have been many attempts to explain or reconcile this apparent contradiction. Why did the man who wrote to the Galatians that “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” later write to the Corinthians that “…women must remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak…” and instructed Timothy to forbid women from teaching or having authority over men?

(Apollos)
I don't think I should have to point out to you that taking this thought to its logical implied conclusion would mean that men can marry a man or a woman, for there is absolutely no distinction. You are interpreting the gender roles absolutely in order to push the meaning far beyond its intended meaning so that you can claim an apparent contradiction and therefore reinterpret the other passages.
I fully agree with Apollos. The passage in Galations is being very badly misunderstood and misused by egalitarians.

Galatians 3:7 (all quotes New King James Version)
7. Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.


Paul is discussing the inheritance we have in Christ.

Galatians 3:26-29

26. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.



In the Old Testament, only sons could ordinarily inherit assets. Only if there were no sons could daughters be heirs. And only if there were no natural heirs at all could a slave be designated as an heir. To be an heir of Abraham, you must be a son. Then Paul makes an unexpected point. There is only one true son and heir of Abraham:


Galatians 3:16
16. Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ.


But we are all heirs because we are in Christ, counted as part of Christ himself, and thus heirs:

Galatians 3:14
14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.


So Paul's point that "you are all one in Christ Jesus " should be understood as nothing more than assurance that we are all considered to be sons (although adopted) for the purpose of the promised inheritance. Women and slaves would have naturally wondered where they fit in.

User avatar
Danny
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:52 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and 1 Corinthians 14:33-40 revisited

Post by Danny » Thu Jul 30, 2009 1:07 pm

...which clearly is nonsensical, and is one reason why "be the author of" must be eliminated from consideration, in favor of some more suitable alternative.
Which is why I prefer the first option I presented, but think there are overtones of the second, particulary when the historical/cultural context is considered. This is one of several places where my view differs from Kroeger's. I should mention that I came to Kroeger rather late, after learning about the Cybele/Artemis and Gnostic backgrounds in Ephesus through my own research (though I may have encountered Kroeger "second-hand" through others or may have encountered some of the same sources that Kroeger used). Kroeger's work provided some validation but I don't consider it a major influence. I'd say Gordon Fee, Walter Wink, N.T. Wright and Stanley Grenz have been more of an influence, in general terms. I highly recommend the book Women in the Church: A Biblical Theology of Women in Ministry by Stanley Grenz & Denise Muir Kjesbo. It is the most balanced study on the topic I have found.
My blog: http://dannycoleman.blogspot.com

“Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read’st black where I read white.”
-- William Blake

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3362
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and 1 Corinthians 14:33-40 revisited

Post by steve » Thu Jul 30, 2009 2:25 pm

Danny,

Thanks for the book recommendation. I will get that one.

User avatar
Danny
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:52 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and 1 Corinthians 14:33-40 revisited

Post by Danny » Sat Aug 01, 2009 12:48 am

Hi Steve & Apollos,

I'm looking forward to responding to your posts, but as mentioned earlier, I won't get time to do so for a few days. Please be patient with me.
In the meantime, here's an interesting clip of N.T. Wright talking about Junia, Phoebe and the role of women in the church.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaVVXleo ... r_embedded

-Danny
My blog: http://dannycoleman.blogspot.com

“Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read’st black where I read white.”
-- William Blake

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3362
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and 1 Corinthians 14:33-40 revisited

Post by steve » Sat Aug 01, 2009 2:12 am

I mentioned earlier that no one knows whether Junias was a man or a woman. N.T. Wright claims that it was a common female name, but this is not documentable. Piper and Grudem did a computer search of the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, searching for all forms of this name in the Greek literature, from the ninth century BC to the fifth century AD, a database which searched 8,203 works by 2,889 ancient authors. This is what they report having found:
The result of our computer search is this: Besides the one instance in Romans 16:7 there were three others.

1. Plutarch (ca. A.D. 50-ca. 120), in his Life of Marcus Brutus, wrote about the tension between Brutus and Cassius, “…though they were connected in their families, Cassius having married Junia, the sister of Brutus…”

2. Epiphanius (A.D. 315-403), the bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, wrote an Index of Disciples, in which he includes this line: “Iounias, of whom Paul makes mention, became bishop of Apameia of Syria” {Index disciplulorum, 125.19-20). In Greek, the phrase “of whom” is a masculine relative pronoun (hou) and shows that Epiphanius thought lounias was a man.

3. John Chrysostom (A.D. 347-407), in preaching on Romans 16:7, said in reference to Junias, “Oh! How great is the devotion of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle’”

What we may learn from these three uses is that Junias was used as a woman’s name in the time around the New Testament (Plutarch). The Church Fathers were evidently divided as to whether Paul was using Junias that way, Epiphanius assuming it is masculine, Chrysostom assuming it is feminine. Perhaps somewhat more weight may be given to the statement by Epiphanius, since he appears to know more specific information about Junias (that he became bishop of Apameia), while Chrysostom gives no more information than what he could deduce from Romans 16:7).

Perhaps more significant than either of these, however, is a Latin quotation f m Origen (died 252 A.D.), in the earliest extant commentary on Romans: He says that Paul refers to “Andronicus and Junias and Herodian, all of whom he calls relatives and fellow captives…. The name Junias here is a Latin masculine singular nominative, implying—if this ancient translation is reliable— that Origen (who was one of the ancient world’s most proficient scholars) thought Junias was a man.

(Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, pp.79-80)

It remains uncertain whether Junia was a male name or a female name. In any case, t does not seem possible to claim that it was a common name (in all of literature, only one other is known, apart from the biblical reference), whether of men or of women.

Post Reply

Return to “Essays and Writings”