The extent of Paul's commands

[Vanellus]

In another thread regarding 1 Tim 3:2 someone has written in response to me that

Paul was writing to a specific situation - not giving a command from God to be obeyed by churches for ever.
Paul didn't give this teaching to the church at Rome - he commended various women for their ministries, and gave his letter to a woman to deliver to the church. He didn't teach this in the church at Philippi, which had deaconesses, and may even have been founded by women, Acts 16:13-15

I must say this feels like post-truth Christianity to me or am I behind the times of modern Christian teaching?

 

[HTacianas]

In another thread regarding 1 Tim 3:2 someone has written in response to me that


I must say this feels like post-truth Christianity to me or am I behind the times of modern Christian teaching?

Given that it is the norm, and has been the norm, for all of the Churches founded by the apostles -even those who had never heard of Paul- we can safely assume that it was in fact meant to be permanent.

 

[Soyeong]

In another thread regarding 1 Tim 3:2 someone has written in response to me that


I must say this feels like post-truth Christianity to me or am I behind the times of modern Christian teaching?

It is good to keep in mind that Paul's letters were addressed to specific churches in order to answer question that they had or in order to resolve issues that they were dealing with, so not everything that he said was intended to be understood as universal instructions for everyone. It is also good to keep in mind the context of what he was saying.

For example, it was common in the 1st century for men and women to worship separately, so if I woman wanted to ask her husband a question, she would not have been speaking quietly to the person standing next to her, but rather she would have been projecting her voice across the room, which would have been very disruptive, which is why it would be better if she were to ask her husband the question after they got home, so he was not speaking against women talking in church in general.

Likewise, in the 1st century, it was men who received advanced educations in the Torah while women were trained in domestic duties, so Paul could look at a community, see that the women in that community were not qualified to teach, and make a ruling for that community against women teaching, especially if there had already been problems with women teaching, which is not to say that he would make the same ruling in communities where women have received advanced educations.

In 2 Corinthians 13:1, Paul said for everything to be established by two or three witnesses and the Bible tends to be fairly repetitive, so a good rule of thumb that something was intended to be understood as being a universal instruction for everyone is if it also said by someone other than Paul. Still, we should not be quick to write off things that Paul instructed as being only for a specific community because there is a danger of mistakenly not doing something that he intended to be a universal instruction.

 

[Vanellus]

A large proportion of the NT epistles are ascribed to Paul so looking for further witnesses may be problematical. In Dt the two or three witnesses is in the context of a case against an individual not the need for a biblical instruction to be repeated two or three times. Repetition in the Bible of a command does no harm to the extent of its application but is it really necessary? In 1 Tim 2 the background to the instruction on women teaching is not their lack of education or disorder in a church service (that's in 1 Cor) but the creation story of Adam and Eve.

 

[Soyeong]

A large proportion of the NT epistles are ascribed to Paul so looking for further witnesses may be problematical. In Dt the two or three witnesses is in the context of a case against an individual not the need for a biblical instruction to be repeated two or three times. Repetition in the Bible of a command does no harm to the extent of its application but is it really necessary? In 1 Tim 2 the background to the instruction on women teaching is not their lack of education or disorder in a church service (that's in 1 Cor) but the creation story of Adam and Eve.

In Acts 17:11, the Bereans were praised because they diligently tested everything that Paul said against OT Scripture to see if what he said was true, so everything that Paul taught was based on OT Scripture, such as recognizing that the standard or needing two or three witnesses is based on Deuteronomy. Yes, I recognize that it was speaking in regard to establishing that there is guilt for a crime, though it can also be helpful to establishing whether is guilt for not following what Paul instructed. It is not a hard and fast standard, but if it is something that only Paul said, then it does help to show where we should investigate the possibility that he was making a ruling for that particular community. Indeed, the examples that I gave were in regard to what Paul said in 1 Corinthians, though it is showing the same sort of reasoning that the person used to interpret 1 Timothy 3:2, where it was not necessarily intended to be understood as being universal instructions for everyone.

 

[Blade]

In another thread regarding 1 Tim 3:2 someone has written in response to me that


I must say this feels like post-truth Christianity to me or am I behind the times of modern Christian teaching?

Christ said to Peter.. feed my sheep. Now we can choose to say follow or show up at his house or someone elses or come to our day and freely choose to go to Church where two or three are gathered in His name and HE IS THERE!. Never one always more then one. We all need someone over us or we can be deceived.

 

[Vanellus]

In Acts 17:11, the Bereans were praised because they diligently tested everything that Paul said against OT Scripture to see if what he said was true, so everything that Paul taught was based on OT Scripture, such as recognizing that the standard or needing two or three witnesses is based on Deuteronomy. Yes, I recognize that it was speaking in regard to establishing that there is guilt for a crime, though it can also be helpful to establishing whether is guilt for not following what Paul instructed. It is not a hard and fast standard, but if it is something that only Paul said, then it does help to show where we should investigate the possibility that he was making a ruling for that particular community. Indeed, the examples that I gave were in regard to what Paul said in 1 Corinthians, though it is showing the same sort of reasoning that the person used to interpret 1 Timothy 3:2, where it was not necessarily intended to be understood as being universal instructions for everyone.

Wouldn't the Berean Jews be checking Paul's gospel message against the Hebrew Bible. The early church (and later) claimed that Jesus' first coming was prophesied in the HB. So I would think that was what the Berean Jews would be checking. I don't think one could check Paul's teaching on offices of the church in the HB in the same way, because there isn't a good equivalent (new wine).

 

[Clare73]

In another thread regarding 1 Tim 3:2 someone has written in response to me that


I must say this feels like post-truth Christianity to me or am I behind the times of modern Christian teaching?

At this moment, I can think of only two things written in the NT that apply temporarily.

You're correct, that is post-truth Christianity.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Bump