response # 3 by Christian Haslebacher
again shortly to 1 Tim 2.8: It is said there, Paul had intended that the men pray everywhere lifting up holy hands (present participle). I translated this with the present participle "while" you translated "by" translated, the translation unit "in prayer". The difference for me in this crucial question. The point is that Paul is here with his "I want" four lines before his "I permit no" does not fully general statement, but an at least partially culture-related.
When asked whether the subordination of women not to the (married) men in this day and age could be other than the silence to express you reply with two arguments: first
Teaching is not a culture-related posture. This is true, what concerns the content of teaching, but I have never doubted. My message is: the fact that subordination is expressed by silence is, in our culture but we could not. Therefore In order could now be expressed differently. The question of whether Paul did to the woman banned from teaching for a cultural statement, but another, which have yet to be clarified. The fact is simply that the verses in front of cultural and situational Application of spiritual principles abound.
second Paul makes reference to Adam and Eve. What Paul founded the order of creation can not be culturally determined. This is your real argument, which you absorb as a single in the summary again. To come again on Opening of your statement and my answer back, you establish the accuracy of the first argument (the direct connection of the section (1 Tim 2.8 to 11) with your second argument.
I suggest that we our debate on your first argument of the opening statements leave. I would, before we go into the second argument, however, like to discuss first on the third. I think the second argument for the crucial and would therefore like to first look at the third to be well prepared for the second.
Your third argument was, inter alia, that Paul in 1 Timothy 3, the conditions call for the elders of service, the term 'episkopos' (and the synonymous terms 'presbyteros' and 'Poimen') is an exclusively masculine noun . Then be made clear to the 'episkopos' man must be a woman. A woman can not be a man a woman.
I agree with you in such statements. Just as husbands and fathers are to exercise leadership in their families, according to 1 Tim 3.1 to 7 wise old men perceive as "bishops" or "elder" in the leadership of the community. The church needs leaders who have already shown their skills in the context of the family (1 Tim 3,2.4). An elder must, therefore, the husband of a woman is projecting his own house well and obedient (1 Tim 3,2.4) and devout (Titus 1:6) children. Obviously needs the passing of similar community wisdom and skills such as conducting a family (1 Timothy 3:5). The question is whether this transfer of current from the family to the community, which Paul takes in 1 Timothy, for all communities at all times is. If this is indeed the case and not only for communities that are, for example, as the church in Ephesus in a crisis that includes 3.1 to 7 1 Timothy (and Titus 1:6), not only women from the office of elder, but also men who have no teaching ability, not married, whose children are not religious or even have no children. Or how can one prove that he can project his house well if he has no house, he could preside over the? The question would then be but also how far Paul and Timothy even met these requirements? Were they married (1 Cor 7,1.7-8.25-27.32-34)? Did they have children? They were well before their houses? Did they even homes, where they were projecting? - It is definitely not permissible to single statements from the Requirements of elders in 1 Tim 3.2 to 7 weight more in purely arbitrary than others. If you want to use 1 Tim 3.2 to 7 in order to prove that only men are permitted to perform the office of elder and therefore the leadership in the community generally is reserved for men, then so too must all requirements demanded of these men validity.
Paul says in fact, an elder must be "husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:2), he concludes here do not explicitly that it could not be a wife of one man. It is interesting this context is that Paul in 1 Tim 3.8 to 11 at the requirements for deacons wrote that she would like the elders of the husband of one wife to be (1 Tim 3,2.12) and protruding her house well (1 Tim 3,4.12). Paul seems to like the elders, the deacons so only men to have in view. "Wife" in 1 Tim 3.11 could theoretically but instead on the Ehefraunen the deacons also refer to female deacons, the context of verse 12 seems to show that Paul is clearly emanates from men as deacons. The point, however, that Paul in Romans 16.1 Phoebe "deacon (männlich!) the community," calls and thus at least a female deacon was. Although Paul says in 1 Timothy 3 only of male deacons, not closed the women of this office from. For this reason, it is not permissible to argue that women are excluded from the office of elder, as Paul says in 1 Timothy 3 only of male elders.
.
0 comments:
Post a Comment