Answer # 2 Christian Haslebacher
The reproduction of the opinion of the interlocutor, and questions can help ensure that you understand the other person right, it is also true for debate. When I read your answer, I'm glad I gave my query.
you argue that one must distinguish between internal and external position. I agree with you in principle, but would not speak of internal and external position (which takes too short for me), but of universal validity, spiritual principle and the situation-and culture-oriented application. For example, the command of Paul that Christians should greet each other with a kiss (Rom 16:16; 1 Cor 16.20, 2 Cor 13:12; 1Thes 5.26), generally known as culture-related application of the spiritual principle of brotherly love understood. The command of Jesus to his disciples to wash one another's feet (John 13:14), is generally understood as a culture-related application of spiritual principle is to serve each other with humility and the other in a spiritual sense to keep clean deal to help ("Gal 6 0.1 to 2). One could cite many other examples in which distinguish between generally applicable, spiritual principle and its situation- and culture-related applications must distinguish. I would mention one from the field of women's Question: As a rule requiring that a woman would have the (public) prayer and prophetic speeches wearing a head covering (1 Cor 11.5-6), understood as culturally determined prompt. The general principle behind it is well that the woman should behave in a way that her husband, Christ, and she herself does not bring shame, but honor.
The point now is: Do certain biblical statements of fact, no character in time, but a cultural and situational, then the person who operates (consciously or unconsciously) criticism of the Bible, who will not admit it. (The converse is also true.) - These are some basic hermeneutical thought. Getting back to your first argument, the direct connection of the section in 1 Tim 2.8 to 11:
expressed in 1 Tim 2.8 Paul a few sentences before the controversial statement in 1 Timothy 2:00 , 12, he wants the men pray every where, lifting up his hands here. Hardly a boom, that Paul's call "A woman does not allow me to teach them" universally understood, and this request represents the same urgency. With good reason: First mentioned is the lifting of hands in the Bible merely as one of several prayer postures. Secondly, Paul is going here is less certain about the form of prayer than the prayer itself is likely the general principle behind this statement are in the correct posture of prayer, of reaching out to God, everything he expected and, with a clear conscience God does (Isa. 1:15-16). Nevertheless, it remains clear that Paul "did not I agree with his" I do "before his four verses (1 Tim 2:12) made any general statement. As for the statements on clothing, hair shaft and jewelry, you explain your answer in # 1 also himself, that it is culture-related These statements. Paul does so in 1 Tim 2.8 to 10 with his statements about the hands holding up, the clothes, the hair shaft and the jewelry louder cultural and situational applications of spiritual principles. The total direct context of 1 Timothy 2.12 screaming against us so: cultural and situational applications of spiritual principles.
The question now is whether one should not distinguish between 2.11 to 12 in 1 Tim generally valid, spiritual principle and situation-and culture-related applications. Could the subordination of the (married) women, compared with the (married) men (cf. 1 Cor 14.35 "their men") in this day and age not in other ways be expressed as the silence?
(Excuse me, I again conclude with a question. The fact that I would answer this question with "probably yes" is obvious. If you are answering the question another way, would be interested to know why.)
0 comments:
Post a Comment