Saturday, July 12, 2008

How women will work out their salvation

    Lastly, (and my preference) Moo thinks that childbirth for Paul “designates the circumstances” in which Christian women will work out their salvation. It is the sphere in which God-given evidences of their salvation are seen in a way that is distinctly feminine.
Would that exclude a woman working out her faith in doing anything at all that a man can also do? Would that exclude working to earn a living, teaching Sunday school and translating the Bible into other languages. Do single women missionaries not have evidence of their salvation unless they do something that a man cannot do? What is it that a man cannot do that a single woman can do?

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

There is one way for anyone to have salvation, this is to follow Jesus.

This extra stuff smacks of some kind of strange heresy to me.

Don Johnson

believer333 said...

Me too.

Lin said...

No matter how they spin it, soft peddle it or explain it away...they are preaching a work of salvation.

They are officially a works based religion. We need to let people know that this teaching is NOT of Christ.

BTW: What is the comparable work for a man? And what if she cannot have children? Then adoption becomes a 'work'?

Molly Aley said...

Gar...

I don't get it. I really really just don't get it.

Kate said...

Again, it is a patriarchal view to keep women in subjugation to men...

Celestial Fundie said...

I really do find that interpretation troubling. I dont know why my pastor takes it..

Janice said...

Suzanne,

I'm sorry to interrupt here but for the last month or so I've been reading around (and around, and around) on 1 Timothy 2:8-15. During the course of that I came across some remarks of yours that make me think you know what you're talking about. Also during the course of that I came across Kostenberger's(sp?) work on ouk and oude and as a result I have a question.

It seems that except for Belleville(sp? again, sorry I'm going from memory) everybody agrees that in neither/nor constructions the words that are neither/nor-ed are either both positive or both negative. Therefore, because "teaching" is positive (otherwise Paul could/would have written "heterodidaskein") "authentein" must also be positive. Therefore it doesn't mean "to domineer" but must mean "to exercise authority" (though why Paul should have chosen such an odd word is beyond me).

I have some Bible software that includes the IGNT so I had a look at the verse in question and discovered that it's not didaskein that's between the ouk and the oude. It's epitrepo (I am permitting).

The online Greek interlinear Bible here has this translation:

TO-BE-TEACHING YET woman NOT I-AM-permittING NOT-YET TO-BE-domineerING OF-MAN but TO-BE IN QUIETness.

Seeing it this way makes me think there are other ways of turning it into good English than what we're all used to. Maybe as follows:

As yet I am neither permitting a woman to teach nor to domineer a man but (she is) to (learn) quietly.

Would that be reasonable?

Sue said...

There is a basic misunderstanding here. Everyone, including Linda Belleville agree that both terms must be the same, either both negative or both positive.

Teaching can be either positive or negative. Here is a negative use,

They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach. Titus 1:11.

Authenteo has no known positive use at this time. So, IMO both must be negative. This is pretty clear to everyone, I think.

I don't know why the negative use of didaskein is not acknowledged by Kostenberger et al. I have concluded that they know they are not right but there is too much at stake.

Corrie said...

Here is a new article that speaks about Ware's statements on abuse being one of the ways a man responds to his wife when he feels his authority is being threatened in any way:

http://www.ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=10766

Anonymous said...

My best guess is that authentein is referring to some pagan teaching from Ephesus. In any case, Timothy knew what it meant, but we are not Timothy.

There are simply too many unknowns to be sure about this verse. We are not sure if it is one thing or 2 things being prohibited. We are not sure if authentein has a negative or positive connotation (I think negative, but I can be wrong). We are not sure if "permitting" is to be understood as temporary (a present injunction) or not. We are not sure what "woman" refers to, a specific woman or women at Ephesus or generic woman or women.

So if you make some choices in the above list, you can make it seem to say as the non-egals claim and if you make other choices, it seems to say as the egals claim. But in each case it is a choice. I am egal, so I make my choice, but new info might change that.

Don Johnson