I included the Adam Clarke commentary to show that external factors can influence how one views the behavior of the early church, especially since they didn’t have the complete scripture we have today to reference, and the scripture we do have doesn’t capture all the influences that shaped their decision-making.
If you believe that culture, did not affect the decision making of early church you'd be mistaken. Just take a look at Acts 15, and how because of the introduction of the Gentiles affected circumcision and kosher dietary laws which were changed. Even Paul's behavior adapted to circumstances depending on who he was with. (1 Corinthians 9:19–23) Paul had Timothy circumcised even though he had made a mandate against it!
I understand the reasoning for it, but it was something Paul choose to do, and not a dictate from God for him to do. If you believe it was so, you'll have to show where in scripture that reflects this, and why it doesn't show a duplicity on the part of Paul. I state this, not to trash Paul, but like the rest of us, he was not perfect, and like the rest of us, he was influenced by the culture we live in. It is also why I look at v12 where it clearly shows that it is Paul who is saying this ("I"), and he is not implying though you might think so, that it is on behest of God. I understand his reasoning in v13 and v14, both of which are true statements, even though God never directly condemns or accuses Eve of being deceived in the Bible. This supports my view that v12 is a mandate from Paul rather than from God, and my reference to the Adam Clarke commentary shows he may have been influenced by cultural factors, even though he does rely on supported scriptural facts to reach his decision. Remember, simply quoting scripture doesn’t guarantee that the conclusion drawn aligns with its original intent. I'm sure you know instances in the Bible where that is the case.
With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC/Moderator
Nick
\o/
<><
I would disagree with you on the culture thing, even with the examples you gave.
We know that circumcision was done away with through nailing the ceremonial law to the cross, not based on culture, but based on the word saying so, but there are times Paul did things not because he was into their culture, but to show that he was not against God's law perse, God gave the law of circumcision, not culture.
And even concerning the things he said in Acts, about not eating the blood, and so on and so forth, which is also mentioned in the law, was a law of God.
And then there are factors of weak faith, and eating things sacrifice to idols, this had nothing to do with conforming with culture, but rather it was an issue, of if a brother saw a strong brother in the faith, eat things sacrifice to idols, his faith might be weakened, via his conscience in many different ways, which we must walk in love towards a weak brother.
1Ti 2:12-14
(12) But
I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but
to be in silence.
(13) For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
(14) And Adam was not deceived,
but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Paul associates this with creation, not with culture, about Adam first being formed, then Eve, he also associates it with the woman's transgression, but concerning your view it is as if we can choose in the bible what is inspired and what is not.
The bible is the word of God, and is not to be added to.
Eph 5:22-23
(22) Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
(23)
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Who knows maybe this statement of man being the head of his home, is also cultural, be we know it is not, for Paul says an emphatic statement here of "
for the husbands are the heads of the home" and also in Timothy, he also says an emphatic statement, which says "
I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence", these are statements giving no alternative options.
And the Holy Spirit allowed this to be in the bible.
And then there is this verse:
1Co 14:34
(34)
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is
not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience,
as also saith the law.
If you want to look at commentaries, I just looked at many, and here are examples:
(Jamiesson Faussett Brown)
(...1 Corinthians 14:34...
...the law — a term applied to the whole Old Testament; here, Gen_3:16....)
(Albert Barnes)
(...As also saith the law - Gen_3:16, “And thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”)
(John Gill)
(...But they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. In Gen_3:16, "thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee". By this the apostle would signify, that the reason why women are not to speak in the church, or to preach and teach publicly, or be concerned in the ministerial function, is, because this is an act of power, and authority; of rule and government, and so contrary to that subjection which God in his law requires of women unto men....)
These all point to an Old Testament verse, and not a Roman law, and it harmonizes with what it says in Timothy, and the bible says to go according to sound doctrine.
The church is one entity, and the government is another entity, they are not the same, and Paul was not focusing on Roman law here, but rather on order in the church, for that is the context of that chapter in Corinthians.
And I know that via the Old testament, all kinds of examples can be shown, how God chose things even via this issue.
