tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4681544228356138697.post5659601187281805258..comments2023-10-19T07:41:59.615-07:00Comments on This, That, and the Other Thing: Show Stoppers – 1 Timothy 2: Universal Restrictions or a Specific Remedy (Conclusion)gengwallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14777011310672675137noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4681544228356138697.post-45701944415254362012010-02-15T09:25:43.977-08:002010-02-15T09:25:43.977-08:00"your interpretation of verse 14 seems to sug..."your interpretation of verse 14 seems to suggest to me that 'the woman' was not in trangression until she began to be deceived. Is this what you really hold to. Can you believe that this woman was not a sinner until after her deception since this is what the verse was saying. The problem is, this truth cannot be applied to any other woman apart from Eve therefore she must be the one in view here."<br /><br />The passage is talking about a specific transgression - false teaching - not a general sinless or sinful state. There is no question that this Ephesian woman was a sinner same as all of us. Paul even speaks in chapter one verse 13 about his trangressions which were brought about because of his being deceived (or ignorant). Do we assume Paul was not a sinner before he was deceived against Christ? Of course not. But his blasphemes against Christ and persecutions of Christians were brought about by his ignorance, just as Eve's initial sin was and just as this Ephesian woman's was. So, I do not contend that the woman was not a sinner before her deception, just that she was not a false teacher. <br /><br />Contrast that with Adam who was not deceived. Adam shoulders the complete blame for sin entering the world. Hymenaeus and Alexander are like Adam - they sinned with full knowledge of their crime. That is why Paul turns them over to the enemy. But Eve and Paul received mercy because they were deceived, and Paul is telling Timothy that this woman is entitled to the same.<br /><br />All of this is a Red Herring, of course, because the grammer specifically exempts Eve from consideration as the specific woman in view, whose transgression is ongoing and whose salvation is in the future. Our job is not to ignore the grammer to try and place Eve as protaganist in the narrative, but to explore why Paul begins with Adam and Eve to highlight this contemporary woman's situation and the remedy for it.gengwallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14777011310672675137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4681544228356138697.post-77242176759688578122010-02-15T09:07:55.536-08:002010-02-15T09:07:55.536-08:00Mark - "In your translation i see you insert ...Mark - "In your translation i see you insert (false doctrine) as the type of 'teaching' spoken of. So my question is: why is this passage so seemingly obscure about such an important issue such as false teaching? Has not Paul been very clear beforehand on false teachers and in fact named them, yet you wish to make us believe that an un-named female false teacher in an obscure passage is the meaning?"<br /><br />I would respond that there is nothing obscure here. The theme all along has been false teaching. I would ask back - what in the text makes you think Paul has changed topics to now be speaking of the teaching of sound doctrine? More specifically, why would Paul be referencing the deception and salvation of a woman who was engaged in nothing but the public teaching of proper biblical tenets? Considering the Ephesian cultural setting, the prior discussion by Paul leading up to this passage, and the highlighted issues and remedy within this passage, it seems quite obvious to me that the teaching in question is somehow quite "bad".<br /><br />Mark - "Also you have said that the context of both chapters 1 and 2 are about false teaching. Can you point me to 1 or more verses within chapter 2 which is dealing with this issue? And therefore why have you ignored the immediate context of the passage which is not dealing with false teachers. Is it not better therefore to begin the exegesis at the appropriate break in the text, namely verse 8 so as to not distort the context, which i believe you have done."<br /><br />This deserves a post of its own, but I will try to provide a brief explanation and maybe we can flesh it out further as we go. Chapter 2 begins with "I exhort therefore, that..." (KJV). Paul's coming exhortations are the proper actions for the congregation to deal with the false teaching in their midst, which he has been discussing throughout chapter 1. False teaching has not left our view. This introductory phrase could be paraphrased "I exhort, in light of the false teaching I have been discussing, that...". Paul outlines what he wants Timothy to enact or make sure continues: Supplications, prayers, intersessions, and thanksgiving. In verse 8, (another "therefore" verse indicating continuation of thought), Paul then gives instructions to Timothy on issues within his particular congregation that are inhibiting those supplications, etc. which are necessary to deal with the false teaching. Verse 8-10 is not a break from Paul's topic of false teaching nor from his congregational level of instruction, it is a particular instruction for the Ephesians to help them get over their internal obstacles to remedying false teaching. The only break, as it were, occurs in verse 11 where the grammatical number changes abruptly. <br /><br />Many interpreters (and translators) see verse 11 as a continuation of verses 8-10, which they in turn see as some kind of general congregational rule setting. I don't believe the text supports that at all. Verse 11 is a distinct break, but not away from the topic of false teaching. It simply breaks from a broad discussion with general congregational instruction to a specific case requiring special handling.gengwallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14777011310672675137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4681544228356138697.post-41428722407413199882010-02-14T03:02:52.907-08:002010-02-14T03:02:52.907-08:00Also gengwell,
your interpretation of verse 14 se...Also gengwell,<br /><br />your interpretation of verse 14 seems to suggest to me that 'the woman' was not in trangression until she began to be deceived. Is this what you really hold to. Can you believe that this woman was not a sinner until after her deception since this is what the verse was saying. The problem is, this truth cannot be applied to any other woman apart from Eve therefore she must be the one in view here.<br /><br />Of course the fact that Eve was sinless until after her deception is true. Yet to believe that this un-named woman was sinless until after her deception is contrary to scripture.<br /><br />Can you reconcile this issue for me?<br />Thanks.Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4681544228356138697.post-53268384212922993112010-02-14T02:50:09.166-08:002010-02-14T02:50:09.166-08:00Gengwell,
I liked your attempt to resolve the see...Gengwell,<br /><br />I liked your attempt to resolve the seemingly never ending debate on gender roles. But honestly i am intrigued. Let me ask a few questions from you.<br /><br />In your translation i see you insert (false doctrine) as the type of 'teaching' spoken of. So my question is: why is this passage so seemingly obscure about such an important issue such as false teaching? Has not Paul been very clear beforehand on false teachers and in fact named them, yet you wish to make us believe that an un-named female false teacher in an obscure passage is the meaning?<br /><br />Also you have said that the context of both chapters 1 and 2 are about false teaching. Can you point me to 1 or more verses within chapter 2 which is dealing with this issue? And therefore why have you ignored the immediate context of the passage which is not dealing with false teachers. Is it not better therefore to begin the exegesis at the appropriate break in the text, namely verse 8 so as to not distort the context, which i believe you have done.Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4681544228356138697.post-35712572910618698132010-02-03T22:36:45.071-08:002010-02-03T22:36:45.071-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.頭髮https://www.blogger.com/profile/00825936839231317629noreply@blogger.com