I agree that the significance of “deceived” in v. 14 is tough. It is not entirely clear why that is raised by Paul. By I wonder if we are making too much of that? (Not you personally.) Are we supposed to embrace and believe only that which we can understand and explain? Or are there some things too high for us which we must trust God?
I think you and I would both say the latter. So why isn’t that enough of an answer here? We can suggest some reasons, but we need to be cautious in my view.
Perhaps had God wanted us to know he would have told us and pursuing this question fits into the speculation category, perhaps even foolish speculation. it seems enough to say that God said it.
Your quote of Webb is, I think, helpful for understand my point.
The best solution, then, is not to discount the historical teaching of the church but to say that the social data has changed from Paul’s day to ours.
This assumes that social data was the issue. And yet the text does not say that. So if we are driven by the text, we must not say this, at least too dogmatically. Furthermore, this says nothing about the first reason—the creation order.
In my view, the whole egalitarian position is based on assumptions that are not supported clearly by the text. It requires the most beneficial reading of every text and in some cases requires special pleading. It requires things the text does not say and ignores what the text does say. So I find that a difficult mountain to climb.
Applying 1 Timothy 2: 14 today, however, requires that we move up the ladder of abstraction and work with the underlying transcultural principle: seek teachers and leaders who are not easily deceived.
Again, there is no evidence that the transcultural principle was about deceived leaders. It might be something entirely different … like how the church is to be led.
Imho, 1 Timothy 2:15 is far more difficult than v.12-14. I don’t think I’ve read anyone with a convincing argument for their position on that one.
And Mark, for the record, I think that point is in Paul’s mind when he wrote 1 Tim 2, as he began the discussion in v.8 by instructing men to fulfill their responsibility to exercise active leadership through public prayer in the congregation. Eve was deceived, but Adam was in rebellion and refused to fulfill his role.
Wow… I guess I need to read Scripture a little deeper. I admit I am not sure how “I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; ” has everything you are saying it does. It seems to me he is talking about self-control and controlling anger, not leadership and resisting Satan.
I actually do believe that 1 Timothy 2:8 is requiring men to lead prayer in the assembly. It’s not the general word for men but men only. Also it fits with the contrast with the role of women in the church that follows. Wrote a paper on it in school and it changed my position about who can lead prayer at church.
I actually do believe that 1 Timothy 2:8 is requiring men to lead prayer in the assembly. It’s not the general word for men but men only. Also it fits with the contrast with the role of women in the church that follows. Wrote a paper on it in school and it changed my position about who can lead prayer at church.
Lead in prayer. Yes. Leadership in general… not so much. Spiritual warfare? Not seeing it mentioned.
Verse 8 is not an isolated thought. The connecting words make that clear. It follows logically from Paul’s discussion of prayer in v.1-7 and leads to the discussion of gender roles in v.9-15. (Note the term “likewise” in v.9)
Discussion
NewI agree that the significance
I agree that the significance of “deceived” in v. 14 is tough. It is not entirely clear why that is raised by Paul. By I wonder if we are making too much of that? (Not you personally.) Are we supposed to embrace and believe only that which we can understand and explain? Or are there some things too high for us which we must trust God?
I think you and I would both say the latter. So why isn’t that enough of an answer here? We can suggest some reasons, but we need to be cautious in my view.
Perhaps had God wanted us to know he would have told us and pursuing this question fits into the speculation category, perhaps even foolish speculation. it seems enough to say that God said it.
Your quote of Webb is, I think, helpful for understand my point.
This assumes that social data was the issue. And yet the text does not say that. So if we are driven by the text, we must not say this, at least too dogmatically. Furthermore, this says nothing about the first reason—the creation order.
In my view, the whole egalitarian position is based on assumptions that are not supported clearly by the text. It requires the most beneficial reading of every text and in some cases requires special pleading. It requires things the text does not say and ignores what the text does say. So I find that a difficult mountain to climb.
Again, there is no evidence that the transcultural principle was about deceived leaders. It might be something entirely different … like how the church is to be led.
Newpvawter wrote:
Wow… I guess I need to read Scripture a little deeper. I admit I am not sure how “I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; ” has everything you are saying it does. It seems to me he is talking about self-control and controlling anger, not leadership and resisting Satan.
NewI actually do believe that 1
Newjosh p wrote:
Lead in prayer. Yes. Leadership in general… not so much. Spiritual warfare? Not seeing it mentioned.
NewMark,
Mark,
Verse 8 is not an isolated thought. The connecting words make that clear. It follows logically from Paul’s discussion of prayer in v.1-7 and leads to the discussion of gender roles in v.9-15. (Note the term “likewise” in v.9)