Subjection was RE: Usurping/a study of ITim.2 (ladies, please read)

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Bro. Brad wrote:

----------
From: Bradley E. Young <byoung@spry.com>
To: 'higher-fire@prairienet.org'
Subject: Subjection was RE: Usurping/a study of ITim.2 (ladies, please
read)
Date: Monday, November 24, 1997 12:42 PM

I'll go ahead and give a disclaimer:

To quote one of the speakers at PSR (I think it was Bro McMullen) I'm not
real good at beating around the bush.  Some things were said about my
"interpretation" of the scriptures, and I answer them.  It might seem a
little, um, to the point. =)

-----Original Message-----
From:	caryle clear [SMTP:cpcj@sprynet.com]

PLEASE, PAGE DOWN SOME BEFORE DELETING!!!
<snip>

 To the rest of us:
OK, this whole line of argument is getting more and more unreliable to me,
and here's why.  And quite frankly, the whole topic is based upon a
misinterpretation of I Tim. 2:11 and 12 by Bros. Steve and Brad.  Ladies,
please pay special attention to my talk on verse 12 below, it may just
prove enlightening.

[Brad Young]  
I resent you saying that I misinterpreted the scripture and didn't even
quote what I had to say.  I wasn't talking about *silence*, I was talking
about ***SUBJECTION***.

Nobody seems to want to address that word.  Sub-mission, sure, silence,
sure.  What does *SUBJECTION* mean anyhow?  Am I really misinterpreting it?

>Anneliese<
Pardon me if it appears that way, but both you and Bro. Steve (who I qouted
and you snipped) both made reference to "usurping", which was the *topic*
of my post.  If I wanted to talk about "subjection", I would have.

>me before<
PLEASE forgive the length of this post, but it was necessary to establish
the total context of the verses in question on this "usurping" issue.

[Brad Young]  
Obviously not.  You attack my postings without even quoting them (and then
proceed to put words in my mouth).

<snip>  

11) Let the woman learn silence with all subjection.

*"silence" (same as found in verse 12)--#2271--hesuchia--stillness, i.e.
distance from bustle or language:--quietness, silence.  This form is the
feminine of the word "hesuchios"--keeping one's seat, i.e. (by impl.) still
(undisturbed, undisturbing):--peacable, quiet.  I don't know about you, but
I sure don't get "absolutely without speaking" out of that one.  It simply
means not to be a participant in, or the cause of a "ruckus" (as we in the
midwest say).

[Brad Young]  
Now that word learn seems to be pretty important.  It might just imply that
there is teaching/preaching going on.

>Anneliese<
I disagree.  Nowhere is preaching or church mentioned or implied.  This
whole chapter is concerned with worship (which can be done anywhere) and
how to profess godliness (which can be done anywhere).

>me before<
12) But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man,
but to be in silence.

*"usurp"--#831--authenteo--(from #846--"autos"--self, of the self + obsol.
"hentes"--a worker)--to act of oneself, i.e. (fig) to dominate:--usurp
authority over.
Hmmmmmmmmm.   It appears that the actual word means to take over something
of *your own* volition, not with *permission*.  It does not by any stretch
imply that the authority will NEVER be given, only that it should not be
presumed.  Therefore, if the authority HAS been given to a woman (i.e. she
was called of God), then she is NOT USURPING, she has every RIGHT to that
authority which she has been given.  Again, "silence" was discussed in
verse 11.  NOWHERE is the word "church" present in this chapter, let alone
this verse.  This chapter is about godly behavior IN GENERAL.  

[Brad Young]  
Now I would agree that a man should not usurp authority either.  I fall
into the "everything in the bible was written on purpose" and "words mean
things" theological camp.  =)  I wonder why these verses are specifically
directed at women?  I think that it was on purpose.  I think that there is
a specific reason.  I don't think that women's liberation should have any
bearing on our theological discussion.

>Anneliese<
Where did "women's liberation" come from?  All I'm saying is that the
scripture in no way forbids women from having legitimate authority.  It
forbids "usurped" authority, which is different.

>me before<
So, this means (if you take Bros. Steve and Brad's view of the verse) no
godly woman will be an Office manager (unless the office is all women); she
will never be a manager of any kind really, you always run the risk of
having authority over men; she will never be a College professor (unless it
is at a girl's school, no chance for adult males to be in the
classroom)--high school cuts it close; no godly woman will own her own
business (unless of course, all of her employees are women--which then runs
into issues with the 14th amendment, not to mention several other equal
rights statutes); no godly woman will ever be president of the PTA (or hold
any other office for that matter--might be some guys as members of the
group); and she certainly would never ever be a pastor, after all, she may
just turn out to be another Eve (see below), and just like a woman, lead
the men to distruction!  Give me a small break, guys, surely you see how
out of context your whole argument is.

[Brad Young]  
Speaking of out of context!  I specifically narrowed my argument to
preaching and treaching.  I was referring to *spiritual authority* (which
is what those verses are about).  I might suggest that you read my
postings.

>Anneliese<
Yes, exactly.  Narrowing this to preaching/teaching *is* taking this out of
context!  Nowhere is preaching/teaching/church even mentioned in this
chapter!

<cut some stuff about Adam and Eve> 
15) Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in
faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

*"saved"--#4982--sozo--to save, i.e. deliver or protect (lit. or
fig.):--heal, preserve, save (self), do well, be (make) whole.  And "yes"
folks, it is exactly the same word used in the sermon in Acts 2 (verses
21,40, and 47).  Great news girls, we get saved when we have kids!  This is
our plan of salvation!  

[Brad Young]  
Don't just chop off the part about faith charity and holiness in sobriety. 
You can't have holiness (today) without obeying Acts 2:38-40.  

Let's take a reality check.  

[Brad Young]  
Just did.

We don't take verse 15 (saved by procreation) or verse 8 (only men lift
hands)or 9 (downcast eyes bit) or 11 (silence = absence of speaking--not
the Greek meaning) in such a literal manner, why take verse 12 without the
proper examination either?

[Brad Young]
I don't feel that I was overly literal in interpreting 11,12.  I didn't say
that a woman should be in absolute silence.  (I didn't say quite a few of
the things that you accuse me of...)  11,12 is referring to *spiritual
authority*, and women being in subjection and women, "not making a ruckus"
to quote you.

Just because someone in 1611 decided to choose a particular word does not
mean that is the end of the story.  More often than not, the original
language's intent speaks volumes.

[Brad Young]  
That it may.  I also fall into the "God can convey His intent in an English
translation" theological camp, and don't feel that the Greek/Hebrew will
disagree with the text (well, at least the KJV, but that is another thread
entirely) of the English translation.

Brad (still waiting for someone to address subjection =)) Young 

----------
Anneliese