1 Timothy 2:11

wolfsbane

Charco wrote: »

Marcion actually didn't blatantly reject any book that didn't support his theology, for example he used the Gospel of Luke and that provides a birth narrative for Jesus even though Marcion was a docetist and didn't believe Jesus was actually born. However he did not reject Luke, instead he ommitted the first two chapters as he believed these to be later additions to the Gospel and he was just returning Luke to its pristine original.

Similarly Marcion did not reject Pauline epistles in which Paul quoted the Old Testament as scripture or where he claimed the Law to be good, instead he just ommitted the offending passages to remove, what he claimed, was later forged additions to Paul's true message.

That Marcion did not include the pastoral epistles cannot be easily written off as just that they were contrary to his theology, this problem did not stop him with any of the other books of his canon.

The fact is that of the 13 letters supposedly written by Paul that made it into the NT there are three which stand out for numerous reasons as being very different from the other ten and it just so happens that it is these very three which did not make it into the very earliest Christian canon which was composed by a man whose very theology hinged on Paul and his writings.

Marcion's canon was not a Christian canon. Marcion was the enemy of early Christianity. OK, he could have deleted offending passages of the pastorals, or he could omit them entirely. What would best serve his purpose? I don't know - but the fact that he openly distorted the Christian writings should give us no reason to respect his judgment on anything. He was not in love with Paul and his writings - just with bits of Paul's writings he could twist to give his own heresy a respectable face.

The conservative scholars solidly defend the Pauline authorship of the pastorals, refuting the objections point by point. I expect liberals to be favourable to any interpretation that conflicts with authentic Christianity.

wolfsbane

hivizman said:

I think that Wright is embarrassed by the traditional interpretations of these verses, and his reinterpretation seems somewhat forced, but at least it's an attempt to reconcile the statements in I Timothy with those more clearly favourable to women in some of the undisputed Pauline epistles.

How's this from an undisputed Pauline epistle:
1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.

The restrictions on women's roles in the church are based in their creation relationship to man. Submission is the key word, one that rules them out from spiritual leadership and teaching authority over men.

And it is not just Pauline. Peter says the same:
1 Peter 3:1 Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear. 3 Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel— 4 rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. 5 For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.

hivizman

wolfsbane wrote: »

The restrictions on women's roles in the church are based in their creation relationship to man. Submission is the key word, one that rules them out from spiritual leadership and teaching authority over men.

The "passages more clearly favourable to women" that Bishop Tom Wright mentions include Romans 16 (where Paul refers to several women as "deacons" or "apostles" - implying spiritual leadership and teaching authority), I Corinthians 11:5 (often quoted as an "anti-woman" verse because Paul calls for women who pray or prophesy to cover their heads, but the implication is there that women would indeed pray or prophesy in church, and hence would not be silent at all times), and Galatians 3:28: "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male or female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus".

On the other hand, he didn't refer to Colossians 3:18: "Wives, be subject to your husband, as is fitting in the Lord."

wolfsbane

hivizman wrote: »

The "passages more clearly favourable to women" that Bishop Tom Wright mentions include Romans 16 (where Paul refers to several women as "deacons" or "apostles" - implying spiritual leadership and teaching authority), I Corinthians 11:5 (often quoted as an "anti-woman" verse because Paul calls for women who pray or prophesy to cover their heads, but the implication is there that women would indeed pray or prophesy in church, and hence would not be silent at all times), and Galatians 3:28: "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male or female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus".

On the other hand, he didn't refer to Colossians 3:18: "Wives, be subject to your husband, as is fitting in the Lord."

Yes, if it meant apostle it would be spiritual leadership. But there is no indication it is. Female deacons is another matter - the deacon has no spiritual leadership role.

The head-covering passage says nothing about praying or prophesying in church, though it is possible. My assembly permits women to pray in the meeting. Other churches don't. But all agree that the silence imposed at least refers to teaching. Prophesying is not teaching, but the conveying of God's words directly.

Splendour

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, if it meant apostle it would be spiritual leadership. But there is no indication it is. Female deacons is another matter - the deacon has no spiritual leadership role.

The head-covering passage says nothing about praying or prophesying in church, though it is possible. My assembly permits women to pray in the meeting. Other churches don't. But all agree that the silence imposed at least refers to teaching. Prophesying is not teaching, but the conveying of God's words directly.

Hi wolfsbane,

can I ask if the women in your church cover their their heads whilst they are praying?

Gingganggooley

wolfsbane wrote: »

hivizman said:

How's this from an undisputed Pauline epistle:
1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.

The restrictions on women's roles in the church are based in their creation relationship to man. Submission is the key word, one that rules them out from spiritual leadership and teaching authority over men.

And it is not just Pauline. Peter says the same:
1 Peter 3:1 Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear. 3 Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel— 4 rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. 5 For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.

The passages are addressed to wifes. They are to be submissive to their own husbands, not, other men. And, as the onus is on them to be submissive, it is not our responsibility to make them be so.

wolfsbane

Splendour wrote: »

Hi wolfsbane,

can I ask if the women in your church cover their their heads whilst they are praying?

Yes.

wolfsbane

Gingganggooley wrote: »

The passages are addressed to wifes. They are to be submissive to their own husbands, not, other men. And, as the onus is on them to be submissive, it is not our responsibility to make them be so.

Women, including wives. Of course, wives are to be in submission to their own husbands - but the principle is extended that women are to behave in the church accordingly. So they are not permitted to lead/teach.

The commandment is given, and it is up to the church to see it is observed, not just left to one's discretion. Do we leave the commandment for sexual purity up to one's own discretion? Or against stealing?