Reply # 5 Chris Haslebacher
You write: ". Of course, Adam was not deceived, when Paul says" Is that really so? According to Romans 5.12 to 14 and 1 Corinthians 15.21-22 came sin and death by Adam (and his transgression) in the world. The statement in 1 Timothy 2,14, that Eve was tempted and fell into transgression, Adam was not deceived but is therefore problematic (cf. Gen 3:11). Paul makes it clear that are all believers as Eve in danger of sin Launch (1 Cor 11.3; 2 Thessalonians 2:3; Eph 5.6) to be , as well as Paul had personally experienced (Rom. 7.11; cf. Heb 3:13). Paul explains in Romans 5.14, Adam sinned by the offense and is in accordance with Romans 7.11 sin that seduces, seduction of sin (Hebrews 3:13), it means that Adam when he fell into transgression , was also seduced, if not directly by the snake. Paul appeals apparently selective nature of Adam and Eve and takes the content to only those aspects that are crucial for his argument. He does so often elsewhere, which can sometimes go so far that Paul changed the message of the Old Testament text substantially in order to apply the text to its situation.
In 1 Corinthians, Paul explains, for example 3.13, Moses had hung a blanket over his face, so the Israelites could not see the end or the goal of glory. This changes the meaning of the text Paul in 2 Genesis 34.29-35. The thought of Moses, I put a blanket over his face, so the Israelites could not see the end of glory comes in the original report, neither in a final sense that Moses covered his face on purpose, to the vanishing glory of his face obscure, even in a consecutive sense that Moses covered his face, without being perceived himself that the glory subsided on his face. By a decrease in gloss is not at the speech.
In 2 Corinthians 8 Paul promotes a collection for the church in Jerusalem and refers to the experience described in Exodus 16.18 the people of Israel in the wilderness that no one could live in abundance and had to suffer any shortage (2 Corinthians 8:15). The analogy between the then occurred and the desired state is now undoubtedly the fact that God wants the balance between those who have plenty and those who suffer from deficiency. Paul uses second Mose 16,18, to confirm the principle of Ausgelichs. The logical conflict in this document reference , however, is that the compensation was carried out in the Exodus story in any way by human activity, as is now done through a collection, but went back alone to God's miraculous intervention. You could use the Exodus story, even to the contrary position to that of Paul argue that we as people do not even have to reach a balance, because God is this herführen miraculously even, as he did in the desert has done.
interpreted In Galatians 4 Paul meet every Jewish self-understanding and accommodating the apparent meaning of historical events to which Paul Refers, Hagar as ancestress of the present Jerusalem and Judaism. Paul separated the Jews, the descendants (at least for the vast majority) of Sarah, of Sarah and Hagar and takes the side of slavery (cf. Jn 8.33!). In return, he takes Sarah as matriarch of the community of Jews and Gentiles to complete.
This relatively "free" approach to Scripture is also found elsewhere in Paul. In 1 Corinthians 14.21, for example, he draws an analogy between the people of Israel (Isaiah 28.11 to 12) and those people who do not understand the tongues. In 1 And 1 Timothy 5.18 Corinthians 9.9 to 10 he draws an analogy between steers (Deut 25:4) and full-time employees the community, and he concludes from the lesser to higher things. In Romans 10.6-8 Paul quotes Deuteronomy 30.12-14, originally from the law where the question is, where Paul refers to this body of Christ. To do this you must quote Paul but rather freely and leave some parts of the text (5Mo b.13b.14b 30.12). A similar "free" handling of Scripture can be seen also in Matthew. Matthew sees itself not only in prophetic statements of the Old Testament pre-images on the life of Jesus, but also in words that have no direct relationship and no predictive character on the end-time events. Who would for example, without having Gospel of Matthew believed that one could draw lessons statements of messianic meaning that God called Israel out of Egypt (Matthew 2:15), that Jeremiah wrote of Rachel, who wept over their dead children (Matthew 2:17-18), that Isaiah a statement of Zebulun and Naphtali made (Matthew 4.14-15) or that Zecharia received thirty pieces of silver, and it later was a potter (Mt 27:9)? Matthew goes even further when, in 2.23 due to a word game with the place name "Nazareth" in Isaiah 11.1 or judge 13,5.7; 16.17 refers. The analogy here alone in similar sounding words.
that Paul the writing of the present understands her and changed so as to him is neither arbitrary nor understood as a reinterpretation, rather than what God wants to say with this passage in the present. This hermeneutic some comments on the handling of Paul to the AT.
When Paul says, therefore, Adam was not deceived, but Eve was deceived and fell into transgression, then he obviously refers back here in a selective way to Adam and Eve and takes the content to only those aspects of his argument are crucial. Paul presents here no exegesis of Genesis 2-3! He turns to Genesis 2-3 on the situation at that time. That is a difference!
In Genesis 2 there is no evidence of a hierarchy between men and women:
- man and woman in 1Mo 1.27 to 28 designated as equivalent to the image of God (cf. Gen 5:1; 9, 6) and as a concretization of it jointly commissioned to be fruitful on the creation of prevail. Any inferiority of women is rejected.
- In Genesis 1:27 shows that God created man (Adam Hebrew a ') as husband and wife (literally, male and female ) has created. Men and women are both human, they are both "Adam". God gave both the name "Adam" (1Mo 5:1-2). That the word for man "Adam" is called, has therefore not indicative of male leadership. The fact that God called the man and the woman both "Adam" and they both asked to rule know much more indicative of direct review.
- That the woman was the man as "help" created (1Mo 2.18), it does not present among the men, the noun "Help" in the Old Testament mainly used for God (God help (13) : 1Mo 49.25; 2Mo 18.4; 5Mo 33,7.26.29, 1 Sam 7:12; Ps 33.20, 70.6; 115,9.10.11, 146.5, 13.9 yard as God donor. Help (4): Ps 20.3; 89.20; 121.1-2, 124.8. People to help (7): 1Mo 2,18.20; 1 Kings 20.16, 2 Kings 14:26; Job 29.12, Ezekiel 12:14; 11.34 Dan called) and still no domesticity subordination, but rather competence (?) and power. In Genesis 49.25, the "help" for example, with the blessing of the Almighty placed in parallel and also the other scriptures, in which by God's help, the question is put, is always God's power and sovereignty to the expression (not his temporary submission to the people ). What God and the woman as "aid" is different is that the woman in contrast to God in their Hilfesein has its existence. In other words, the Woman was created out of a shortage. The man, however, was from the beginning as a sexual being applied to the woman, so that this "shortage" was predictable, was willed by God and almost had to occur and in no way as "accident" must be considered. New Werner returns as representative of the historical position itself an argument against the view that the woman was the man as "help" created (1Mo 2.18), add them to man: "Although not explicitly formulated here is, our verse speaks not only of the addition of the man by the woman, but requires indirectly that the woman by the man using and complementary experiences. [...] Both sexes are complementary and in need of help by the other. " The man is thus also" help "to the woman. The essential diversity of men and women used to offset the shortage and the need for assistance of one sex by the properties of the other.
- The fact that Adam gave the animals their names and the woman "Männin" called (1Mo 2.23) does not bring supremacy or leadership Adams about the animals and the woman. Hagar called God in a prayer addressed as "El-roi" (God of vision; 1Mo 16:13), without it was because of this naming of God. Jesus himself called God "Father," was not about him (John 5.18 cf. 1 Cor 11:3).
- The Criminal word to the woman in 1Mo 3.16 contains two aspects. The first relates to pregnancy and birth, the second is the relationship with the man the first aspect of pregnancy and birth are not punishment, but its circumstances: the troubles associated with pregnancy and birth. The second aspect is not the desire of the man's punishment, but the accompanying circumstance of being ruled. It is dangerous to make this punishment an order from negativities good will of God. 1Mo 3.16 b describes not the original condition and will of God, but the modified as a result of sin (original) state in the fallen creation. In 1 Corinthians 11.3 men and women will be assigned to each other in a relationship that resembles the relationship between God the Father to Christ. Following this assignment, Paul can not therefore be as a result of the fall of man regarded, but it is not the same as that which brings 1Mo 3.16 b expression. Although one can say the following 1 Cor 11.3, God the Father is the head of Christ, as the man, the head of the wife, you do not say, however, God the Father reign of Christ as the man according to the woman 1Mo 3.16 b prevails. 1Mo 3.16 b therefore goes beyond the allocation of men and women out as others come in 1 Corinthians 11.2-16 expression. The nuances are crucial here and the line between what is clearly understood negative ruling in 1Mo 3.16 b (note the context, see above) and the narrow Hauptsein in 1 Corinthians 11.3.
- you explain the fall was the hierarchical order of gender confusion, and therefore the sin came into the world. The sin of the woman has therefore been that they tore the leadership itself. The sin of man has been that he has denied his spiritual leadership role and belonged to his wife (1Mo 3:17). The Fall of history is therefore a warning of the dangers when women religious leadership itself torn by God have commanded the men. This line of argument, it is contrary to hold that the fall of the temptation of the woman was not to that would be the woman as the man ripped the head and therefore to his cause. The temptation was not: "You'll be like your man" , but: "(!). You will be like God" (1Mo 3.5) The point at the sin of man is not who he the woman heard, but that he is not on God heard (1Mo 3:17). Adam's sin was not so bad have been if Eve had also been a man.
seen hermeneutical it is important to the creation and fall, first reports to let them speak for themselves, without having to say things to the boom without the knowledge of the instructions Paul '(1 Cor 11.3-16, 1 Tim would be 2.13) never came. Because of the order of creation according 1Mo 1-3, makes the historical position, 1 Tim 2.12 is still mandatory and women should not serve as pastors or church leaders, that is not justified.
When Paul says, therefore, Adam was was not deceived, but Eve was deceived and fell into transgression, then he obviously refers back here in a selective way to Adam and Eve and takes the content to only those aspects that are crucial for his argument. Paul presents here no exegesis of Genesis 2-3! He turns to Genesis 2-3 on the situation at that time. That is a difference! For this reason we can not say, 1 Tim 2.12 is universal, because Paul explains this statement with Gen 2-3.
0 comments:
Post a Comment