1 Tim. 2:12, meaning of AUQENTEIN
clayton stirling bartholomew
c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Mon Aug 14 01:46:40 EDT 2000
on 08/13/00 10:17 PM, Mark Wilson wrote:
> What I simply do not see here is why the fuss. It seems to me that our scale
> may reflect more of a worldly appraisal than a spiritual one.
> Here is why:
> I think implicit is the (human viewpoint) assumption that a submissive role
> of a woman or wife represents something less than "equality." But why does
> this follow? (Especially to the extent that Carl would see a major
> conflict with Gal 3 or Gen 13).
> Could I not equally (no pun intended) assert that God has indeed assigned
> women or wives submissive roles to men or husbands, BUT, that these
> submissive roles are a higher spiritual calling than that of the
> leadership roles assigned to men? And my objection would then be directed
> toward why God has assigned men the "lesser" role.
> Could I not reject 1 Tim 2 because it assigns to the woman a submissive role
> rather than a man? Perhaps it takes a stronger person spiritually to fulfill
> a submissive role, and God has given this privileged role to women only.
> Here, I could still object to this "apparent" un-equality, but with a
> spiritual twist: God has given the "higher" role to the woman. (That is: Why
> are men serving in an "inferior" role?)
> I have never understood why we arbitrarily equate a submissive role to an
> inferior, or less than equal, role.
> The rationale escapes me. I think if we looked at this from a purely "human"
> perspective, we might indeed conclude that an "un-equality" exists. But this
> certainly does not seem to reflect any biblical requirement.
> Could someone help me understand why the implicit assumption that if a woman
> occupied a submissive role as a Christian that this would imply a less than
> equal role? (That is, submissive necessitates un-equality.)
> Thank you,
> Mark Wilson
Carl Conrad is the Sheriff on this list and I am not even a deputy, however
it is my humble opinion that your post quoted above violates both the spirit
and the letter of the b-greek rules. I have not read FAQ lately, but unless
it has been radically revised . . .
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
More information about the B-Greek