Lesson 04 “Women in the Church” 1 Timothy 2:8-15
ID:
Inductive Questions (Asking the text questions like who, what, where, when,
why, & how?”)
CR: Cross
References (Comparing Scripture to Scripture, understanding the vague by the
clear.)
WS: Word
Study (Understanding definition, theological meaning, and usages in other
passages.)
The WORD: What does the Bible say?
Context: Read 1 Timothy
2:1-3:13 to understand the context of this passage. Then read 1 Timothy 2:8-15 in a more literal
or more dynamic
version than you usually use.
This section also makes four references to the
creation of Adam and Eve. It would be
helpful for you to reread chapters two and three of Genesis if you have
time. Pay special attention to Genesis
2:7, 18-23; 3:4-7, 11-13.
1.
ID: (2:9) What
are the key principles for women adorning themselves? Are any of the descriptions of inappropriate
clothing relevant today?
2.
ID: (2:10) What
should accompany a profession of godliness (theosebeia)?
3.
ID/WS: (2:11)
What are women told to do? In what
manner? (Look up the key
words.)
4.
ID/CR: (2:12)
What are women told not to do? (Acts
2:17-18; 18:24-26; Romans 16:1-16; 1 Corinthians 11:3-10; 14:33-37; Philippians
4:2-3: Colossians 4:15; Philemon 1:2)
5.
ID: (2:13-14)
What reasons are given for the statements in verses 11-12? Were they timeless or based on the specific
situation in Timothy’s church? Why?
6.
ID/WS: (2:15)
In what sense are women saved (sōzō) in childbearing? (After
you have asked the inductive questions and done word studies there are extra
helps.) What conditions are added?
The WALK: What should I do?
1. How do we effectively teach young women about principles
of modest and moderate dress?
2. Why do people react so strongly to passages regarding
gender distinctions and women’s roles within the church?
3. Do these restrictions imply inferiority or lesser ability
of women compared to men? (Genesis
1.26-28; 2:18, 20; Psalm 30:10; 54:4; Galatians 3:28; 1 Peter 3:7) How can we affirm women?
4. How important is this issue of women’s roles in the
church? Why?
5. What impact does rejecting a historical Adam and Eve
have on our approach to the Bible? (Matthew
19:4; Luke 3:38; Romans 5:14; 1 Corinthians 15:22,45; 1 Timothy 2:13-14; Jude
1:14)
Going Beyond: 1.
Read about “The
Hermeneutics of Evangelical Feminism.”
2. What areas of theology are touched on in this passage?
q The Bible (Bibliology) q God (Theology Proper) q The Father (Paterology) q The Son (Christology) q
The Holy Spirit (Pneumatology) q
Man (Anthropology) q
Salvation (Soteriology) q
The Church (Ecclesiology) q
Angels & Satan (Angelology)
q Future Things (eschatology)
by Kevin Deyoung
In
recent years, several self-proclaimed evangelicals, or those associated with
evangelical institutions, have called into question the historicity of Adam and
Eve. It is said that because of genomic research we can no longer believe in a
first man called Adam from whom the entire human race has descended.
…
Without detailing a complete answer to that question, let me suggest ten
reasons why we should believe that Adam was a true historical person and the
first human being.
1.
The Bible does not put an artificial wedge between history and theology. Of
course, Genesis is not a history textbook or a science textbook, but that is
far from saying we ought to separate the theological wheat from the historical
chaff. Such a division owes to the Enlightenment more than the Bible.
2.
The biblical story of creation is meant to supplant other ancient creation
stories more than imitate them. Moses wants to show God’s people “this is how
things really happened.” The Pentateuch is full of warnings against compromise
with the pagan culture. It would be surprising, then, for Genesis to start with
one more mythical account of creation like the rest of the Ancient Near East.
3.
The opening chapters of Genesis are stylized, but they show no signs of being
poetry. Compare Genesis 1 with Psalm 104, for example, and you’ll see how
different these texts are. It’s simply not accurate to call Genesis poetry. And
even if it were, who says poetry has to be less historically accurate?
4.
There is a seamless strand of history from Adam in Genesis 2 to Abraham in
Genesis 12. You can’t set Genesis 1-11 aside as prehistory, not in the sense of
being less than historically true as we normally understand those terms. Moses
deliberately connects Abram with all the history that comes before him, all the
way back to Adam and Eve in the garden.
5.
The genealogies in 1 Chronicles 1 and Luke 3 treat Adam as historical.
6.
Paul believed in a historical Adam (Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:21-22,
45-49). Even some revisionists are honest enough to admit this; they
simply maintain that Paul (and Luke) were wrong.
7.
The weight of the history of interpretation points to the historicity of Adam.
The literature of second temple Judaism affirmed an historical Adam. The
history of the church’s interpretation also assumes it.
8.
Without a common descent we lose any firm basis for believing that all people
regardless of race or ethnicity have the same nature, the same inherent
dignity, the same image of God, the same sin problem, and that despite our
divisions we are all part of the same family coming from the same parents.
9.
Without a historical Adam, Paul’s doctrine of original sin and guilt does not
hold together.
10.
Without a historical Adam, Paul’s doctrine of the second Adam does not hold
together.
Christians
may disagree on the age of the earth, but whether Adam ever existed is a gospel
issue. Tim Keller is right:
[Paul]
most definitely wanted to teach us that Adam and Eve were real historical
figures. When you refuse to take a biblical author literally when he clearly
wants you to do so, you have moved away from the traditional understanding of
the biblical authority. . . .If Adam doesn’t exist, Paul’s whole argument—that
both sin and grace work ‘covenantally’—falls apart. You can’t say that ‘Paul
was a man of his time’ but we can accept his basic teaching about Adam. If you
don’t believe what he believes about Adam, you are denying the core of Paul’s
teaching. (Christianity Today June 2011)
Copyright
©2014 The
Gospel Coalition, Inc. All rights reserved.
Leader Notes:
WORD:
1. This question is often eclipsed
by the more controversial and difficult portions of this text, but is probably
one of the more profitable verses (esp. for dads and granddads).
5. The point I am driving at here is that you
can’t just write this off as first century cultural and irrelevant to us today.
6. This is one of the most difficult passages in
the NT to interpret, so you may want to focus on identifying the unacceptable
interpretations.
WALK:
1. This topic is HUGE in today’s culture. How do we get beyond a dress code to the
heart in an effective way with our children and women in the church?
5. This is important. What are the ramifications of denying events
and people the New Testament treat as historical.
EXTRA:
“10 Reasons to
Believe in a Historical Adam”:
Note that Tim Keller, who is quoted at the end of the article, is NOT a
seven twenty-four hour days of creation man, so his comments here are
especially helpful.
No comments:
Post a Comment