If anyone wants us to be perfectly literal about 1 Tim 2:12, we should note, at least as a beginning, that Paul is primarily speaking against one-on-one mentoring, female to male. "I do not allow a woman to teach or to direct a man." Everything in this statement is entirely singular. In other words, according to the strictest possible interpretation of 1 Tim 2:12, Paul could have approved of Priscilla teaching Apollos, because the prudent woman had her husband assist as she explained the way of God to a transient single male. (There's a sister with wisdom, eh?)
Ah, but the context! Verses 13 & 14 are clearly negative toward women, aren't they? Again, strictly speaking, they're negative toward one woman. Eve. So - at the very least - before we debate how broadly Paul expected Timothy to apply these statements, it's worth noting that vv. 13 & 14 keeps everything singular in number. In explaining his strict directive against one-on-one female-to-male discipleship, Paul reviews the case of the very first such case.
Whatever else Paul is saying, Eve & Adam were a particular one-on-one partnership, in which he followed her right into sin. In other words, Paul's illustration retains the singular intimacy of his prohibition. This may not be a coincidence. The male/female intimacy of a one-on-one discipling relationship may be all Paul is really afraid of.
Could it really be just that simple? Let's try to dig a bit harder.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Recently Popular
-
The Roman registration of Herod's Kingdom is historically bizarre, and could not have been part of any "worldwide" registration. For Caesar ...
-
It's hard to face facts, but this stuff always takes longer than I wish it would. Then again, a wise woman once told me you can grow a squas...
-
(so called): Did it really exist before Acts 10:45? If it did, it was fully inclusive of all believers in Christ, at that time. Or, to put t...
-
My answer, in 2 paragraphs, an exercise suggested by Brian LePort: After nearly a decade of apostle-ing churches, having founded at leas...
-
My main interest in Lysanias, tetrarch of Abilene, began in hopes of finding a comparative case study (however minuscule) to make with Hero...
-
They're like BMW commercials, which are primarily on the air so that people who've already bought one can feel good about their expensive p...
-
If we did not have Luke's Gospel, christian tradition would probably hold that both Mary & Joseph were from Bethlehem. In such a parallel u...
-
Chronology on the Roman Empire is much easier to sort through than chronology on the New Testament for one simple reason – because ancient h...
-
Please enjoy this abridged excerpt from four wonderful pages I only wish I had written. May their tribe increase mightily. ----------------...
-
Please review my updated resume, and then give me a call. William J. Heroman, Teacher in Transition billheroman@gmail.com Transit...
1 comments:
Never really looked at it that way-- "one on one".
But,if Paul would have said, "I do not allow women to teach men...", and if we were to use the same strict understanding that you are using here, wouldn't we have to read it as "I do not allow a plurality of women to teach a plurality of men..."?
Too me, it just sounds weird either way.
Not throwing out what you are suggesting, just wondering if I'm tracking with you.
I don't know enough about language in general to criticize much here anyway... but I am very interested in seeing where you go from here on the issue.
Post a Comment