Do we "rightly divide" or rightly interpret?

[timlamb]

How litteral do you want to be with Pauls letters to Timothy, Is all Pauls teaching for us today?

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." 1 Tim. 2:11-12

Paul sure made that clear.

Jesus, on the other hand, was quite respectful of women, and honored them and listened to them. Was that just an example for the Jewish women of that time, or should we learn from Him? Or does Paul show us how to handle Gentile women?:o

 

[eph3Nine]

How litteral do you want to be with Pauls letters to Timothy, Is all Pauls teaching for us today?

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." 1 Tim. 2:11-12

Paul sure made that clear.

Jesus, on the other hand, was quite respectful of women, and honored them and listened to them. Was that just an example for the Jewish women of that time, or should we learn from Him? Or does Paul show us how to handle Gentile women?:o

Oh I wondered how long it would be before someone dragged THIS ONE out....LOL

Paul is speaking of women in a church setting...she is not to exercise authority over a pastors role IN THE CHURCH. If you ever read anything IN CONTEXT or studied, you would be aware of that.

The ONLY person that a woman is to be in submission to in this age of GRACE is her husband. This admonition NOT to usurp the authority of a PASTORS role in the church still stands.

I work hand in hand with many grace pastors in heading up and administering in online bible studies. I happily work with them to get this message out.

A forum isnt a "church setting". Here we are all the same...and can share Gods Word freely without anyone trying to do the male chauvanist act for applause...geeesh.

Low blow, even for you. TSK TSK TSK

When all else fails...try a guilt trip with scripture that makes you feel more manly for the demeaning of women who happen to KNOW more about the Lord than YOU do.

 

[timlamb]

Oh I wondered how long it would be before someone dragged THIS ONE out....LOL

Paul is speaking of women in a church setting...she is not to exercise authority over a pastors role IN THE CHURCH. If you ever read anything IN CONTEXT or studied, you would be aware of that.

The ONLY person that a woman is to be in submission to in this age of GRACE is her husband. This admonition NOT to usurp the authority of a PASTORS role in the church still stands.

I work hand in hand with many grace pastors in heading up and administering in online bible studies. I happily work with them to get this message out.

A forum isnt a "church setting". Here we are all the same...and can share Gods Word freely without anyone trying to do the male chauvanist act for applause...geeesh.

Low blow, even for you. TSK TSK TSK

When all else fails...try a guilt trip with scripture that makes you feel more manly for the demeaning of women who happen to KNOW more about the Lord than YOU do.

What? you have trouble with the teaching of Paul?

I read 1 timothy chapter 2 and surrounding verse, in the KJ, NKJ, and NIV, and found no menbtion of church. One can only assume that Paul meant it for a specific learning situation. Though Paul also said Man is head of the wife, this context seems to be a general statement.

You suddenly seem quite willing to interpret meaning.

My point here, is, though Paul is a great teacher, he had his agenda. This point, and others, about the submissiveness of women was important to Paul and he explained it in detail.

Paul had no way of knowing the letters he was writing would be assembled in the Holy Book we have today unless you think "cutting apart" the word of truth was prophetic?

Paul told timothy to properly use and understand the word of truth. He never said he had authority over Peter or John, or for anyone not to read use and apply their teaching. Paul would have been more specific if he meant what you think he meant.

With Paul, as with anyone, you must look at who and why they were writing. He said things specific to the time and era he lived, just as Jesus did. If we are not supposed to apply this to todays woman, then I think we need to take other writings by other appostles in the same light, they said things pertenant to the day, and things for the teaching of all.

And, sorry, but Paul was just a man, with thoughts and ideas of his own. If you don't ballance him with the writings of others, you might misinterpret him.

 

[foundinHim]

dear timlamb:

(Gal.3:26-28)
v.26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
v.27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
v.28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither MALE nor FEMALE: for ye are ALL one in Christ Jesus.

When God looks at me, (a female) NOW, He only sees His Beloved Son. He does NOT look at my fleshly, mortal, vile body. He ONLY sees my 'new heart'/'new spirit' which He has given me.

In 1Tim.2:15, it says..."Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing," ...
Is God saying that a woman can be saved ONLY if she has children? God forbid. Let it not be so.

Also, Paul wrote in his letters ONLY God-breathed, God-inspired words, just as all of the Books in the Holy Bible were written.
(2Tim.3:16-17)
ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof,
for correction,
for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

You, timlamb, really break my heart...

 

[timlamb]

dear timlamb:

(Gal.3:26-28)
v.26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
v.27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
v.28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither MALE nor FEMALE: for ye are ALL one in Christ Jesus.

When God looks at me, (a female) NOW, He only sees His Beloved Son. He does NOT look at my fleshly, mortal, vile body. He ONLY sees my 'new heart'/'new spirit' which He has given me.

In 1Tim.2:15, it says..."Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing," ...
Is God saying that a woman can be saved ONLY if she has children? God forbid. Let it not be so.

Also, Paul wrote in his letters ONLY God-breathed, God-inspired words, just as all of the Books in the Holy Bible were written.
(2Tim.3:16-17)
ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof,
for correction,
for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

You, timlamb, really break my heart

...

Oh don't be so dramatic!

Paul isn't talking here about how God sees you but how he sees you, it's part of his instruction, he even says it is a personal thought.

I agree, though many believe Paul to be quite sexest, that this is simply to avoid conflicts in the church, and men were the only ones with educations and knowledge of the scripture in his day. But that still dates the message, not everything Paul said is for us today, or can go without interpretation.

Rightly divide, means correctly interpret EVERYBODY!

 

[heymikey80]

How litteral do you want to be with Pauls letters to Timothy, Is all Pauls teaching for us today?

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." 1 Tim. 2:11-12

Paul sure made that clear.

Jesus, on the other hand, was quite respectful of women, and honored them and listened to them. Was that just an example for the Jewish women of that time, or should we learn from Him? Or does Paul show us how to handle Gentile women?

1 Tim 2:11-12 has the connotation in Greek that the woman is usurping some authority the man has. It's been interpreted by misogynists to be something about maleness; but there's not something in the verse that demands it. That authority may be some weight of years or office or gift the man holds, but the woman doesn't. Here the word for "silent" is more akin to "calm" or "still".

In contrast 1 cor 14:33ff the word is "not making a sound". But the context is radically different. Paul's probably answering a question about the disordered "feel" of Christian assemblies in this church.

Two distinct cases. Two distinct conclusions.

I get amused when people bring this up as an argument about women in teaching roles. I dunno about y'all, but I've looked through plenty of Sunday School classes and find female teachers there. If this is such a problem, well, Sunday School is not commanded in Scripture. This is. If this is someone's Scriptural argument, then I'd recommend they cancel Sunday School before they appoint a female to teach it.

In addition, if they see 1 Cor 14:33ff to be pure silence -- pull your women from the choir, from announcements. It's really "not a sound". But I think you'll find it proves too much. Paul's trying to get order in assembly here, and some women were probably a problem. He's not trying to make women into church mutes.

(I don't see the verses this way at all, so please take this in the facetious extreme in which it's intended.)

 

[holdon]

Oh don't be so dramatic!

Paul isn't talking here about how God sees you but how he sees you, it's part of his instruction, he even says it is a personal thought.

I agree, though many believe Paul to be quite sexest, that this is simply to avoid conflicts in the church, and men were the only ones with educations and knowledge of the scripture in his day. But that still dates the message, not everything Paul said is for us today, or can go without interpretation.

Rightly divide, means correctly interpret EVERYBODY!

Rightly divide means giving equal share to all facets. It like rightly dividing the cake: dividing it into equal shares of importance. That's exactly what the self-acclaimed "right-dividers" don't do.....

 

[eph3Nine]

Rightly divide means giving equal share to all facets. It like rightly dividing the cake: dividing it into equal shares of importance. That's exactly what the self-acclaimed "right-dividers" don't do.....

Giving the term "orthotomeo" its proper definition, according to Strongs as well as to the original greek in which it was written must include the idea of "cutting straight"....to cut straight is a biblical term. God cuts things straight. He does not need to interpret His Word...He WROTE IT. What He wants is for us to NOT assign things given to Israel to the Body of Christ....KEEP them SEPARATE. Realize the DISTINCTIONS and that both are good and true and honest, but that both of them are NOT ASSIGNED TO YOU today, according to His Written Word.

All scripture is important for our LEARNING. NO one is arguing that. But NOT all scripture is written for our obedience....We have our own instructions given us by God...and they arent found in the red letters of your bibles. Christs EARTHLY ministry was to the people of ISRAEL ALONE...HE SAID SO! Was He mistaken?

Paul has the Words of Christ RISEN for we the Body of Christ. This was Gods idea...Not mine.

 

[heymikey80]

Giving the term "orthotomeo" its proper definition, according to Strongs as well as to the original greek in which it was written must include the idea of "cutting straight"....to cut straight is a biblical term. God cuts things straight. He does not need to interpret His Word...He WROTE IT. What He wants is for us to NOT assign things given to Israel to the Body of Christ....KEEP them SEPARATE. Realize the DISTINCTIONS and that both are good and true and honest, but that both of them are NOT ASSIGNED TO YOU today, according to His Written Word.

I've mentioned this before elsewhere. "orthotomeo" is etymologically "straight-cut". But asserting it's a biblical term, or that it means keeping the Body of Christ separate from Israel, is a wild overinterpretation of the word.

The word is like "straightforward" in English. It doesn't mean the person always walks in a straight line! No, it means the person is who he appears to be. He's clear about where he's going, and means to get there. He's not subversive.

Well, "orthotomeo" means to cut to the clear meaning of the verse. Cut through the tangle of subtlety or misinterpretation that's so often ensnares people.

In fact in concrete terms "orthotomeo" was used for blazing a trail through a forest. But it didn't divide the forest equally, half & half. Nor did it [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]-foot around between one nation's claim and another (e.g., Israel and Gentiles). No. It cut a path straight to the city it was headed to.

That's "orthotomeo". For more information Bauer/Arndt/Gingrich's huge lexicon is great.

 

[timlamb]

1 Tim 2:11-12 has the connotation in Greek that the woman is usurping some authority the man has. It's been interpreted by misogynists to be something about maleness; but there's not something in the verse that demands it. That authority may be some weight of years or office or gift the man holds, but the woman doesn't. Here the word for "silent" is more akin to "calm" or "still".

In contrast 1 cor 14:33ff the word is "not making a sound". But the context is radically different. Paul's probably answering a question about the disordered "feel" of Christian assemblies in this church.

Two distinct cases. Two distinct conclusions.

I get amused when people bring this up as an argument about women in teaching roles. I dunno about y'all, but I've looked through plenty of Sunday School classes and find female teachers there. If this is such a problem, well, Sunday School is not commanded in Scripture. This is. If this is someone's Scriptural argument, then I'd recommend they cancel Sunday School before they appoint a female to teach it.

In addition, if they see 1 Cor 14:33ff to be pure silence -- pull your women from the choir, from announcements. It's really "not a sound". But I think you'll find it proves too much. Paul's trying to get order in assembly here, and some women were probably a problem. He's not trying to make women into church mutes.

(I don't see the verses this way at all, so please take this in the facetious extreme in which it's intended.)

Hey mikey, I didn't bring this up to be sexest. It was to point out the value of proper interpretation, (rightly dividing).

Jesus made no such determination about women's qualifications to share the Gospel. It is so important to ballance the scripture with all personalities of the writers. There is a reason all these men were chosen to bring the Gospel to all nations.

 

[timlamb]

Giving the term "orthotomeo" its proper definition

PROPER???

, according to Strongs as well as to the original greek in which it was written must include the idea of "cutting straight"....

If you are going to quote strongs, make it a complete quote:
"What is intended here is not "dividing" scripture from scripture, but teaching scripture accurately, carefully discerning..."

What He wants is for us to NOT assign things given to Israel to the Body of Christ....KEEP them SEPARATE. Realize the DISTINCTIONS and that both are good and true and honest, but that both of them are NOT ASSIGNED TO YOU today, according to His Written Word.

THIS IS NOT IN SCRIPTURE!!!

 

[timlamb]

Rightly divide means giving equal share to all facets. It like rightly dividing the cake: dividing it into equal shares of importance. That's exactly what the self-acclaimed "right-dividers" don't do.....

Good analogy Holden, Amen.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

How litteral do you want to be with Pauls letters to Timothy, Is all Pauls teaching for us today?

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." 1 Tim. 2:11-12

Paul sure made that clear.

Jesus, on the other hand, was quite respectful of women, and honored them and listened to them. Was that just an example for the Jewish women of that time, or should we learn from Him? Or does Paul show us how to handle Gentile women?:o

If the MAD doctrine promoters would be honest, they would admit that Paul wrote a lot of things they flat out do not follow or accept as Scripture for them.
Do the Mid Acts Dispensationalists female members -whether married or single- wear a covering on their head to pray to God?
Paul writes that it is not seemly for a woman to pray uncovered and reasons that a woman's hair was given as a covering in the natural realm and a veil is the covering for the religious realm. Paul said there was no custom in the Churches [which were set up after the same order as the Jewish Synagogues] of a woman praying without the veil -and that is the literal translation with no interpretation needed for Paul's answer to those Cortinthians who asked him about the matter. So; do the female persons who follow MAD doctrine follow Paul -or do they not follow Paul -Do they choose to be contentious, then, and not wear the veil to pray?

Then, MAD doctrine forbids to speak in tongues, but Paul said "do not forbid to speak in tongues": so MAD doctrine picks and chooses what they think Paul meant for them, but discard what Paul actually said.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

If the MAD doctrine promoters would be honest, they would admit that Paul wrote a lot of things they flat out do not follow or accept as Scripture for them.
Do the Mid Acts Dispensationalists female members -whether married or single- wear a covering on their head to pray to God?
Paul writes that it is not seemly for a woman to pray uncovered and reasons that a woman's hair was given as a covering in the natural realm and a veil is the covering for the religious realm. Paul said there was no custom in the Churches [which were set up after the same order as the Jewish Synagogues] of a woman praying without the veil -and that is the literal translation with no interpretation needed for Paul's answer to those Cortinthians who asked him about the matter. So; do the female persons who follow MAD doctrine follow Paul -or do they not follow Paul -Do they choose to be contentious, then, and not wear the veil to pray?

Then, MAD doctrine forbids to speak in tongues, but Paul said "do not forbid to speak in tongues": so MAD doctrine picks and chooses what they think Paul meant for them, but discard what Paul actually said.

That in Paul's day the married women in the Church wore veils is truth not disputed, as they did in the synagogues -for both the Church and the synagogue in that sense were assemblies gathered to worship God; the Church as "Synagogues" was being added to by many believing Gentiles, and those Gentile women were not accustomed to wear the veil, so the disputation arose in the Church in Corinth about the veils, and they asked Paul what to do; so Paul addressed them in the matter and said women praying or prophesying without the vail was not a custom in the Churches of God.

And Paul also said the women also ought to cover their heads "because of the angels"
1Cr 11:5
But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with [her] head uncovered dishonoureth her head [husband as her authority]: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
1Cr 11:10
For this cause ought the woman to have power [submission to authority] on [her] head because of the angels.
now where did Paul get that from "because of the angels" -and what is he addressing? -take a guess