1 Timothy 2 Question

  • Thread starter Thread starter fish90
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe it’s the accepted culture that should be questioned. 🙂

One thing I noted is that Paul says “It is my wish…” (vs. 8) and “I do not permit…”. He doesn’t present it as God revealed truth, or a Magisterial (other apostles) decision. So it can be seen as a regulation he established at the time for the Churches he was associated with.

Here is an example of where Paul distinguishes between what he establishes and what the Lord establishes – that is, that there are some areas where Jesus did not establish regulations thus leaving it to His appointed bishops/priests to establish procedure:
1 Cor 7:10 To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband 7:11 (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) – and that the husband should not divorce his wife. 7:12 To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.

Doctrine cannot change, but regulations can.
 
I have to agree with the above post. St. Paul seems to be quite specific in what he permits versus God’s commands.
 
fish90 said:
How does 1 Timothy 2 reconcile with accepted culture today or in the Mass? How is this piece to be read?
I am reading from usccb.org/nab/bible/1timothy/1timothy2.htm#foot4.

This is why I don’t read scripture by myself.😃

Best,
fish90
Click to expand...
Woman’s silence is the silence of not being “the teacher” and a woman’s subjection is the “subjection of not being the authority.” Remember this is a pastoral Epistel as Paul is instructing timothy and there are obvious problems within the curch that must be corrected. Woman are not to have authority; especially over men and particularly in the corporate worship. Women are not to be teachers. Women are not to be a rulers in the church. This is the meaning of what the Apostle is stating. Woman are also to dress according to a manner as not to drawl attention to herself intentionally, by wealth or beauty; just as dressing like a slob would do the same; moderation is the key and this would apply to men as well concerning apparel and the like; do not display your wealth in such a way as to grab attention, which is an distraction to those who have come to worship.

Is there a place for woman to teach? Yes, but not in a ruling position like during a main service.

“Well does this wipe out all of a woman’s place to instruct?” No, as Acts 18 demonstrates, where Aquila and Priscilla instructed Apollos. There is a time and place where women are, maybe even should be instructing others. But it isn’t to be be in the public or corporate worship and service of the church.

I hope this helps, remember that Ephesus and the church in Corinth had some similar issues that Paul also addressed. As you can see from the very beginning the church had many issues to overcome and it still does, maybe even more so today.

It is important in looking at this section to look at some of the important Greek terms and usages in other passages to help discern the meaning; the English does not do this section much justice IMO.

Added note concerning Post#2; without seeking understanding by looking at the Greek; you will get comments that say that it is Pauls opinion as opposed to God exercising His authority through the writer, which is a terrible mistake and can cause grave error in understanding Scripture; this section has been used by feminist to make God seem like some type of tyrant and have twisted it to say this is Paul, not God speaking, which is equivalent to saying part of the Bible is from God and parts are not; that is a form of blasphemy. Paul is under divine inspiration, but up until this point; Jesus had already addressed this and now questions have come up that must be addressed and Paul is simply saying that he is adding to what the Lord did not explicitly addressed, but it is under divine inspiration and therefore it is God speaking through Paul.

I do not know poster #2 and I do not think this was her intention, but good intentions is not necessarily going to lead to the truth, which is what we need to understand the passages.
 
Masters_Servant said:
…
Added note concerning Post#2; without seeking understanding by looking at the Greek; you will get comments that say that it is Pauls opinion as opposed to God exercising His authority through the writer, which is a terrible mistake and can cause grave error in understanding Scripture; this section has been used by feminist to make God seem like some type of tyrant and have twisted it to say this is Paul, not God speaking, which is equivalent to saying part of the Bible is from God and parts are not; that is a form of blasphemy. Paul is under divine inspiration, but up until this point; Jesus had already addressed this and now questions have come up that must be addressed and Paul is simply saying that he is adding to what the Lord did not explicitly addressed, but it is under divine inspiration and therefore it is God speaking through Paul.

I do not know poster #2 and I do not think this was her intention, but good intentions is not necessarily going to lead to the truth, which is what we need to understand the passages.
Click to expand...
You are correct, that was not my intention.
What I meant was that the regulations Paul was giving to the Corinthians were an instance of his exercising the authority that had been given to the bishops by Jesus (eg Mt. 18:
 
Masters_Servant said:
Added note concerning Post#2; without seeking understanding by looking at the Greek; you will get comments that say that it is Pauls opinion as opposed to God exercising His authority through the writer, which is a terrible mistake and can cause grave error in understanding Scripture; this section has been used by feminist to make God seem like some type of tyrant and have twisted it to say this is Paul, not God speaking, which is equivalent to saying part of the Bible is from God and parts are not; that is a form of blasphemy. Paul is under divine inspiration, but up until this point; Jesus had already addressed this and now questions have come up that must be addressed and Paul is simply saying that he is adding to what the Lord did not explicitly addressed, but it is under divine inspiration and therefore it is God speaking through Paul.

I do not know poster #2 and I do not think this was her intention, but good intentions is not necessarily going to lead to the truth, which is what we need to understand the passages.
Click to expand...
You are correct, that was not my intention.
What I meant was that the regulations Paul was giving to the Corinthians were an instance of his exercising the authority, given to the bishops by Jesus, to govern their flocks (eg Mt. 18:18). Paul does not give any indication that he is giving these directions because of a divine revelation (eg. The Lord says…") or as a result of a decision made jointly by the apostles (eg. "We say…).

I’m so far from being a “feminist” (a misnomer if ever there was one since they seem to despise anything truly feminine) that I have to battle becoming a male chauvinist, even tho I’m female!! 😃
 
Nita said:
You are correct, that was not my intention.
What I meant was that the regulations Paul was giving to the Corinthians were an instance of his exercising the authority, given to the bishops by Jesus, to govern their flocks (eg Mt. 18:18). Paul does not give any indication that he is giving these directions because of a divine revelation (eg. The Lord says…") or as a result of a decision made jointly by the apostles (eg. "We say…).

I’m so far from being a “feminist” (a misnomer if ever there was one since they seem to despise anything truly feminine) that I have to battle becoming a male chauvinist, even tho I’m female!! 😃
Click to expand...
I was not implying you personally were a feminist; there is no way i could know that based on a single post unless you flat-out said that. I was implying that this misunderstanding of these passages have feminist roots. You macho-woman 👍
 
The cultural situation of the era when this was written is also significant to the discussion - a situation in which the only roles for women in religious settings was ritual prostitution and cultic oracle. In Judaism, in contrast, women were the primary teachers of the faith to their children - male and female - and the household Sabbath prayers were the mother’s responsibility - but in the synagogue of the day women did not proclaim Scripture or teach. So Paul (who was primarily the apostle to Gentiles, remember) was establishing a discipline for his congregations that was distinctively different from the practices of those around them and from which they had come, and in line with the practices of the Jewish synagogues which were the orgins of our Liturgy of the Word.

Today at least in most parts of the world there is no risk that someone who sees a woman proclaiming Scripture or distributing Eucharist is going to mistakenly think she is a Temple prostitute.

And it is absolutely significant that Paul stated his position as “I do not permit” - he was of course a lawyer and he does not hesitate to distinguish when he is transmitting a teaching that is apostolic and binding.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top