Here We Go…Again

Well, I wanted a conversation and I certainly got it, eh? An intense post on the Jesus Creed blog covering the same topic as my post yesterday, focusing on the very book Ashley referred me to. I guess I don’t need to read it now.

Seriously though, McKnight in the Jesus Creed blog paraphrases a lot of stuff from Sumner’s book about the passage in 1 Timothy 2:8-15, and I will in turn quote McKnight a bit, who is paraphrasing Sumner.  I would also encourage you to read the post from the blog I am quoting from, as I have just quoted his summary of Sumner’s points here and not the main part of what he said.  The NIV is used here.

8 I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing.9 I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. 11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

“Here are the basics:1. Both viewpoints see vv. 8-10 referring to local situation: how men and women behave when they gather as a church.
2. Both viewpoints generally agree that v. 15 is a local issue: that women will be saved through childbearing.
3. It is likely then that vv. 11-14 emerge from the same context: shutting down women from teaching and exercising authority, etc.
4. It is likely then that Paul is addressing a situation something like mistaken/heretical women who are not yet taught in the faith exercising authority and teaching in the local context, and that such ideas most likely involved the contention that Eve was created first and goddess worship. Men were reacting in violence and threats to women — like dying if they had another child.”

These are all great points, but I agree with the first person who commented on McKnight’s post in that we can’t write off the entire thing as “a local situation based on heretical women, since Paul doesn’t deal with the heresy but rather with the women, and doesn’t appeal to local issues but to creation.” The same comment also stated, as Glenn and I were discussing today at lunch, “I think we also need to take seriously the fact that Paul did not write “Do not permit,” but rather, “I do not permit.” Just as he writes of his own preference for singleness in 1 Cor 7, he essentially gives pastoral advice here. But just as in the book of Proverbs, we are dealing with godly advice, not Canon Law.”

Another person points out in verse 15 that she will be saved through childbearing provided they continue in faith/love/holiness/modesty. Said person also notes in her blog that in the original Greek, it says “she will be saved through the childbearing”, which she takes to mean the birth of the Messiah, and that “Paul was not making a universal prohibition that stopped godly women from teaching sound doctrine to men. He was stopping one of the false teachers in the assembly from taking her Christian husband down the proverbial garden path towards the forbidden fruit.”

There are a bunch of other comments on this, but my post is merely a regurgitation of ideas of other people. What a challenging topic.