Welcome Chris.  Make yourself at home.  Do please note that we stick by a mutual committment to have respectful discussion here.  It works better this way.  

I also believe in the continuance of the gifts.  As to the apostles, they were not perfect then either.  But having an apostolic, prophetic, evangelistic, etc. gifting, should account for some anointing, as you suggest.

I appreciate your coming and responding to my post, Chris (and I apologize for getting your gender wrong!  I was thrown off by the name "Carroll"! ) 

But as far as this is concerned:


The Book of Mormon, of course, was written in English, and in fairly modern times. The Bible, of course, was written in several languages, none of which are still spoken in the same form today.  The Qu'ran, I assume, is similar, though less ancient.

As a Christian pluralist, you would not give any credence to the idea that ancient texts might be subject to translator bias; that an English word like "head" might have meanings that the ancient Greek word for "head" did not; that the weight of tradition in translating a text might actually sometimes take precedence over a more correct translation-- in short, that applying our modern cultural understanding to ancient texts might result in misreadings, and that translators might still have something new to learn?

Modern as the Book of Mormon is, I would still give an LDS believer the benefit of the doubt if he/she said Joseph Smith's meaning given to a certain word was the meaning it had in the time he wrote it, and not the meaning as we understand it today.  I would also be inclined to believe a Muslim who said the same about a translation of the Qu'ran-- and I'm not a Christian pluralist (at least, not in the sense you mean it, though I believe God can and does reach people in every faith).

My objection to a "plain-sense" reading is that it is a misnomer.  The "plain-sense" meaning of the Scriptures must and should be what would have made "plain sense" to the original author, in the original language, and as his words were understood by the original audience.  In ascertaining what that meaning might be, I would take into account how the words were used in other ancient texts contemporaneous to the Bible.  I would also take into account other Scriptures that might throw light on what was meant by the original author (for instance, that Paul said a deacon was to be the "husband of one wife," but also called Phoebe a "deacon.")   The "plain-sense" meaning should not mean what it looks like it means to someone treating the Bible like a "memo from the boss" left on his/her desk yesterday.

In short, I would use the same principles to interpret an ancient text, that modern courts use to interpret the original legislature's intent when they review modern written law.  These principles are universal, scholarly, and approved by more than just religious believers. 

I respect your opinions about the Bible.  You are a Christian, and my brother in Christ.  But I cannot agree with the reasoning you use for coming to your conclusions, and I think that the method of interpretation you are using for the  Bible, the Qu'ran and even the Book of Mormon, is one that as a writer, I would not appreciate it if it were used on my own writing.

I hope it's clear from my blog that that's what I mean by "plain sense," as well: "plain sense" in the original language, to the original audience.  But in my opinion, the efforts to explain away the verses about women in the New Testament go well beyond that sort of "plain sense".  I have carefully weighed the original Greek and found the alternative interpretations wanting.

Best,

-Chris

That was not clear from your blog-- unless I missed something.  I apologize.

I wonder-- what is your position on "progressive revelation" -- that is, the idea that God worked and still works within cultures, not against them, to bring them gradually to more righteousness and justice?  I believe that those passages that cannot be explained by a better understanding of the ancient languages, can be explained in light of that idea.

So which picture is Chris?   

To a large degree, that is the default pluralist position.  A pluralist believes that God's sole desire is to instill in us greater love for each other and for Godself.  This work of God lovingly becomes incarnate in imperfect, finite human cultures for our sake.  But incarnation is not without cost: it exposes the work of God to the possibility of association with or even derailment by error and folly.  When I point to certain New Testament passages and identify them as chauvinistic, I am attempting to distinguish what is essential to the incarnate gospel from the errors that inevitably attach themselves to it.

If what you mean to suggest, however, is that God might actually deliberately say something chauvinistic because that is what people expect, I disagree.  To quote a friend, "one would hope that God would be on the cutting edge of culture rather than lagging twenty years behind."

Blessings,

-Chris

I find that, if one takes the cultures of the Bible into account, what God is saying is always on the cutting edge of the culture to which God is speaking-- though it may not be on the cutting edge of our culture, and should not be judged according to that standard.

Since we see from Romans 16 (probably a short letter to Ephesus that's been appended to Romans) that women held prominent, even apostolic leadership positions at Ephesus, 1 Timothy's "women can't wield influence over men because Eve sinned first" schtick is not the cutting edge of first-century Ephesian culture.

Well, first, the Bible does make clear that this was Paul saying that, not God.  "I do not permit a woman to teach," not "women are not to teach."  Secondly, the context is that of women learning-- "Let a woman learn in quietness" is the opening sentence; thus, women should not teach until they have completed their learning, because to do otherwise would usurp authority over those teaching them .   Since we know women were not permitted education in that culture (until they became Christians, when they were suddenly permitted to learn), that idea makes sense.  Fourthly, there is good reason to believe the passage should be better translated, "teach in such a way as to usurp authority."   Read in light of that idea, the Adam-and-Eve illustration (notice that it is you reading in "because Eve sinned first" -- the passage says the issue is that she "was deceived") can be easily read as having to do with learning-- Eve was created later than Adam and did not have his experience.

I do not know what your authority is for claiming the last chapter of Romans was actually a letter to Ephesus-- or in what relative time periods the letters were written.  I'd have to do some more research on that.  But clearly, from the last chapter of Romans 16, we do see that Paul was not adverse in general to women (presumably, once they were educated) having leadership/teaching roles in the church.

I maintain that God's revelation to Paul was a revelation of the full equality of all believers-- a progressive revelation that had certain applications in his day.  These applications were actually radical for his time and culture (that women should be allowed to learn along with the men, for instance).  Today, we should not consider ourselves held to the applications of his day-- only to the truths behind those applications. 

I personally do not see any reason to conclude that the Bible is full of human error.

I would say that translations often have a small amount of error in them compared to the whole.  The problem is that often that small error has far reaching effects.  But the original epistles themselves are worth more than their weight in gold.

Beautiful post!

Of course, while Paul is not permitting women to have authority over men, neither does he endorse or mandate men having authority over women.  If that was to be the case, this would have been the time and place to say so.


Of course scripture doesn't say that Eve lacked Adam's experience.... Since there is no previous record of satan or any of his activity prior to deceiving Eve, Adam could not have gained experience in this area or scripture would have recorded that fact.

And primogeniture has no bearing on the assumption that first is better because that contradicts many examples in the Bible where God chose the younger over the elder.

Just thought I'd add my 2 cents to the conversation....


Amen!  I love how Jesus told Martha that Mary had chosen the best part as she sat at His feet...(as was the custom of the Jews at the feet of their teachers.) indicating that He considered her a disciple.
 

Agreed!

Well, not of Satan per se. 

But the creation story makes it clear that Adam named the animals before Eve was formed from his side-- that, in fact, God's purpose in having Adam name the animals was to have him realize that he needed something more-- a human counterpart.  This would have taken some time, and given Adam some experience of his world that Eve lacked.  Adam knew what a snake was-- he had named the snake!-- and he surely could have guessed that this was an odd way for the snake to be behaving.  Eve had no such experience to draw on.

I think that as students of the Scriptures, Paul and Timothy would have put two and two together in a way sometimes we do not-- and would have brought this understanding to Paul's use of the story as an illustration of his point in 1 Tim 2.  (I am convinced that this is what the Adam-and-Eve reference was intended to be-- there are other examples in the Scripture of the word translated "for" in "For Adam was formed first," being used to lead into an example or illustration.) 

In any event, the context of the 1 Tim 2 passage is learning and teaching.  I think it logical to apply this context to the whole passage, not just the opening part.

True, and I actually pointed that out on my blog.  But of course, if we are to distinguish the words of man from the words of God in scripture and say that the former can be in error, then the doctrine of inerrancy is out the window and we have opened the door to the sort of theological liberalism to which I adhere.  (Of course, I don't see that as a bad thing, but you might.)


The passage says,

"11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to wield influence over a man; she must be in quietness. 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 she will be saved through childbearing–if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."

Forgive me, but I don't see how you can possibly read that as, "the women should get an education before they are allowed to teach."


I am not aware of any good reason to believe that.  Andrew Perriman's exhaustive analysis of contemporary literature found that authentein during this period had two related meanings. The first is to perpetrate a crime; the second is to actively wield influence over a person or to initiate an action. "To wield influence over" is contextually the most natural reading, especially in the context of a discussion of the Fall and Eve's culpability.


Two things. 

First, you're right that it doesn't explicitly say "Eve sinned first".  What it says is that "Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."  This could either mean that "Eve sinned first," as I suggested, or-- much worse-- that Eve was the only one who sinned (i.e. Adam was innocent of sin).  As you can see, my crude summary actually chose the more generous of the two readings.  The "But she will be saved through childbearing" clause in verse 15 confirms that it is her special culpability that is in view in verse 14, not her lack of experience.   

Secondly, the verses say nothing at all about "experience".  You are importing something into the passage that isn't there because you don't like what is there.  The assumption of first century readers was that women were the weaker, more gullible sex.  They absolutely would have read this passage with that assumption in mind.  It would not even have occurred to them to read this as an analogy for the education differential between the genders.


I don't recall all the details, but one major reason is that several people mentioned in the letter are known from elsewhere in the New Testament to have been associated with or stationed at Ephesus. 


Text-critics generally hold that 1 Timothy is not authentically Pauline.


I agree that Paul in some places seems to teach full equality, but not that he consistently carried this doctrine to its logical conclusion.  In 1 Corinthians 11:11-12 he wrestles with the implications of this teaching, but seems to cop out in vv. 13-16.  Perhaps, like so many of us, his heart was not quite ready to fully accept and live out the truth that had been revealed to it.

Women learning along with the men, by the way, is not so radical.  Women attended services at Second Temple Synagogues.  To quote Donald Binder, "In some locales, they may have been separated from the men by a wall, which seems to have been the case in the Delos synagogue. More commonly, however, it appears that they commingled freely with the opposite sex."  If Christian women were permitted to attend and learn with the men in Christian services, they were only doing what the Jews already did.

Best,

-Chris

I was just reading more in 1 Corinthians and I found a part which (in light of Chris' observations) struck me as genuinely chauvinistic of Paul in direct contrast with Jesus' actions.  I'lll make a new thread since its not in 1 Cor 14.

(I got in trouble in the past for posting a new thread in this "Scripture Study" forum, Chris, so I have posted the new thread in another forum where I am allowed to post new threads.  Here's a link: Is Apostle Paul being chauvinistic? )

Chris,

I think some of the egals here might have sore spots over the label "theologically liberal" because they are- for the most part- biblical inerrantists who are regularly accused of being "theologically liberal" (as a slur) as well as "feminists" (say it with a spit of contempt). 

Personally, I think Paul is speaking God's Word when he PROMISED there MUST BE differences of opinions (aka HERESIES  ) among us that those who are approved may be made manifest.  The problem is not the differences of opinion.  The problem is the way differences of opinion are handled.

    1Co 11:19 For there must be also heresies <139> among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

WOW! There must be heresies among you!
WHY?
“that they which are approved may be made manifest among you”
What does it mean to be “approved”?

I think Gal 5 and "the works of the flesh" vs "fruit of the spirit" is the answer to that.  A friend blogged on this recently.  Link:  P4E.101 What "the Flesh" Looks Like and What to Do About It