1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

1 Timothy 2:9-15

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by blackbird, Aug 6, 2004.

  1. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    The sexual primary meaning makes more sense if you are arguing that 'authentein' had more than one simultaneous/ contemporaneous meanings (which I'm not saying; I'm saying its meaning and usage changed over time), simply because that makes sense in the circumstances of the Ephesian church. Even if we go with 'usurp' or 'dominate' as the primary meaning though, Roger, we still end up with a very different product from the POV of doctrine and practice than if Paul had used 'exousia'...

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  2. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Okay Matt, I'm intrigued.

    If you concede my point (not that I am asking you to do so, but for argument's sake) that authentein should be translated as "usurping authority" or "having dominion over" how does that differ from if Paul had used exousia?
     
  3. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    'Exousia' has connotations of legitimacy and could not be used to describe anything approaching usurpation; 'authentein' is illegitimate. 'Exousia' describes authority which has been given or conferred eg: Matt 28:18; 'authentein' is seized forcibly. If they have the same meaning, you have to ask yourself why 'authentein' does not occur more frequently in place of 'exousia' in the NT

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  4. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    I don't know why Paul used near synonyms in his writing, or should I say, why the Holy Spirit inspired him to use those near synonyms.

    In this case, and using your definition, I think the traditional interpretation still fits. I suffer not a woman to "seize undue authority" over a man would seem to fit even better than exousia[/i) does.

    By the way, as usual, I appreciate the tenor of your debate. It is always a blessing.
     
  5. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Cheers, Roger!

    I still go with the sexual interpretation (although I am not necessarily agin the usurpation meaning), partly because of the extra-Biblical literary evidence for its use contemporaneously and, secondly, because I think it fits with the context that best explains the entire thrust of the passage - namely, that there was infiltration of the Ephesian church by a gnostic Eve cult which claimed superior knowledge for women and that such knowledge could be gained through illicit sex with them; each verse of this passage is a refutation of the claims of that cult

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  6. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Matt,

    You are a gentleman. Whenever we have disagreed I feel like we depart the discussion as friends.

    Thank you,
    Roger
     
  7. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,534
    Likes Received:
    21
    Thank you for posting that hilarious link. For a moment there I thought that you were serious about the sexual connotations. But when I read what Chrysostom really wrote about 1 Tim 5:6, I realized that you were just playing with us.

    Chrysostom's comments on 1 Tim. 5:6
    MORAL. "She that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth." Hear this, ye women, that pass your time in revels and intemperance, and who neglect the poor, pining and perishing with hunger, whilst you are destroying yourself with continual luxury. Thus you are the causes of two deaths, of those who are dying of want, and of your own, both through ill measure. But if out of your fullness you tempered their want, you would save two lives. Why do you thus gorge your own body with excess, and waste that of the poor with want; why pamper this above measure, and stint that too beyond measure? Consider what comes of food, into what it is changed. Are you not disgusted at its being named? Why then be eager for such accumulations? The increase of luxury is but the multiplication of dung! For nature has her limits, and what is beyond these is not nourishment, but injury, and the increase of ordure. Nourish the body, but do not destroy it. Food is called nourishment, to show that its design is not to injure the body, but to nourish it. For this reason perhaps food passes into excrement, that we may not be lovers of luxury. For if it were not so, if it were not useless and injurious to the body, we should not cease from devouring one another. If the belly received as much as it pleased, digested it, and conveyed it to the body, we should see wars and battles innumerable. Even now when part of our food passes into ordure, part into blood, part into spurious and useless phlegm, we are nevertheless so addicted to luxury, that we spend perhaps whole estates on a meal. What should we not do, if this were not the end of luxury? The more luxuriously we live, the more noisome are the odors with which we are filled. The body is like a swollen bottle, running out every way. The eructations are such as to pain the head of a bystander. From the heat of fermentation within, vapors are sent forth, as from a furnace, if bystanders are pained, what, think you, is the brain within continually suffering, assailed by these fumes? to say nothing of the channels of the heated and obstructed blood, of those reservoirs, the liver and the spleen, and of the canals by which the faeces are discharged. The drains in our streets we take care to keep unobstructed. We cleanse our sewers with poles and drags, that they may not be stopped, or overflow, but the canals of our bodies we do not keep clear, but obstruct and choke them up, and when the filth rises to the very throne of the king, I mean the brain, we do not regard it, treating it not like a worthy king, but like an unclean brute. God hath purposely removed to a distance those unclean members, that we might not receive offense from them. But we suffer it not to be so, and spoil all by our excess. And other evils might be mentioned. To obstruct the sewers is to breed a pestilence; but if a stench from without is pestilential, that which is pent up within the body, and cannot find a vent, what disorders must it not produce both to body and soul? Some have strangely complained, wondering why God has ordained that we should bear a load of ordure with us. But they themselves increase the load. God designed thus to detach us from luxury, and to persuade us not to attach ourselves to worldly things. But thou art not thus to be persuaded to cease from gluttony, but though it is but as far as the throat, and as long as the hour of eating, nay not even so long, that the pleasure abides, thou continuest in thine indulgence. Is it not true that as soon as it has passed the palate and the throat, the pleasure ceases? For the sense of it is in the taste, and after that is gratified, a nausea succeeds, the stomach not digesting the food, or not without much difficulty. Justly then is it said, that "she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth." For the luxurious soul is unable to hear or to see anything. It becomes weak, ignoble, unmanly, illiberal, cowardly, full of impudence, servility, ignorance, rage, violence, and all kinds of evil, and destitute of the opposite virtues.
     
  8. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    1. Why is the link hilarious?
    2. I was being serious. Why can't you?
    3. Let's have the Greek Chrysostom, not the English.
    4. Let's also talk about Euripides and Moeris as the latter is even closer in time to Paul than Chrysostom.
    5. Shall we try and keep it civil?

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  9. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I appreciate the good discussion. The women preachers (who's site is referenced) are out to show why WOMEN should be ordained - they all are - and minister, etc etc

    Every bit of information is slanted that way, with obscure meanings and interpretation of passages to try to push their "Christian Feminist" agenda.

    They follow the teaching of "Mother of Israel Pickett" -- an extreme charismastic teacher. While we may glean some ideas from her/their teaching, it is fraught with error and defense of charismania.
     
  10. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Thanks - I only said the link was 'interesting' and only cited it because Kroeger cites the same Classical sources as I do. I don't know her 'pedigree' nor that of the website.

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
Loading...