response # 3 by Kurt Vetterli
Sorry, but I have come back yet again to the matter of the culture and the silence. I can hardly believe that you can see not the point. You say that submission is expressed by silence is, in our culture is not given. Of course, unfortunately this is largely not true anymore. Precisely because feminism is so advanced that the issue of subordination can hardly be addressed, let alone practiced. And this problem just to the Christian community has penetrated. Therefore, here is the 'culture' so. Paul Demands that women be subordinate to their husbands. And therefore may not doctrinally give them instructions to tell them how they should behave. This is the point. And this thing just happens to be not bound by time or cultural context. Should it be in some distant corner of Africa to give a family of application of the matriarchy, so where the women give the men directions, then this is the culture of this strain. But the culture is therefore measured by the Holy Scriptures false. Paul has forbidden women to men and to teach them to exercise of authority. Obedience to this prohibition can not be practiced by women, but teach and to define 'culture' somehow behave differently. This is absurd!
On the issue of male extensions and prerequisites for management positions I would like to make it short.
you give actually the reason for the conditions of these offices quite so again as I see it also. If someone wanted to choose for such a service, you had to see that he brought his family in a spiritual leadership practice, the appropriate fruit.
If he had not been married, one would see the other things can. The celibacy or childlessness is certainly no obstacle for such an office, as you rightly say, Timothy otherwise would not have been qualified (Paul may have been widowed or divorced - His former seat in the council he would not hold may be a single).
I also believe that Paul would also house the office of deacon for men only - as is clear from the context. With 'women' in 1 Timothy 3:11 their wives are meant.
Of course, by the requirements that Paul is excluded certain men from the ministry of governance. Not only those who have more than one wife, or divorced and remarried were unlawful, or their family do not quite, but also drinking, quarrelsome, etc. But besides just and women. These were before, chapter 2, you remember certain excluded from such office. They should so do not teach and have authority over men. Therefore. And the heads are supposed to be teaching skills. Guide you through the lesson. This includes the women implicitly after they have been explicitly excluded in section 2 thereof. The fact that Phoebe had
the office of a deacon, I think unlikely. The term 'diakonos' exists only as a male. It is not primarily a term in the NT for the office, but comes more often as a general term for someone who does a service before. In this sense, Phoebe was a servant of the church in Cenchreae. You probably had not held the office of a deacon.
But at one point I want to give you was right: a male extension does not yet There is absolutely a man so in Greek also exclusively female terms with a male suffix, eg 'Parthenos' (Virgin).
I'm concerned, we can now move on to question the order of creation. This is also my opinion the more important point than the thing with the service conditions. Namely, how you interpreted me correctly, because I think that one can no more reason to come to this with cultural arguments. Just as God has designed man at his creation, he must live. The man is the first, the head of creation and therefore has the responsibility. He can not leave this to another creature and has no freedom, God's order to reverse or reinterpreted in order to shirk their responsibility. Since the fall, although it is his inclination to do so for convenience and to leave the woman. But God tells him clearly that he will not do that. The woman in return, take the sinful tendency to lead themselves. The man should not allow this (see, eg, Gen 3:16).
.
0 comments:
Post a Comment