Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Brian Stoffregen

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 2991
1
Your Turn / Re: New CPH Large Catechism
« on: Today at 04:26:29 PM »
The supposed “equality of the baptized” (which is a dubious concept, but in any event in no way threatened by some submitting to others, as in the 4th Commandment) does not shed any light whatsoever on whether the teaching in question was done privately or publicly. The fact that St. Paul elsewhere speaks against such public teaching argues that this instance was more likely to be private.

Yours is not the only way the verses can be translated or understood - as the CEB's translation indicates.

It is also possible that these verses, like the head covering verses, are meant for a particular, place, time, and situation and should not be universally applied.

2
Your Turn / Re: New CPH Large Catechism
« on: Today at 04:23:48 PM »
Here's how it is rendered by many translations.  They agree with the sense of the NKJV that I cited. 

https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Acts%2018:26

The verb proslambano literally means "take to [oneself]." So the lexicons give renderings such as "welcome, receive" also "take aside." The context in the first part of the verse is public, "synagogue." The context in the latter part of the verse is private, when the couple took him to themselves.

I think this supports the idea of private conversation pretty clearly. CEB's "circle of friends" seems expansive since there is no literal mention of such friends in the Greek nor does the grammar or context imply them.

Although BDAG gives to extend a welcome, receive in(to) one’s home or circle of acquaintances as its fourth meaning. The only meaning it gives for the noun, prosl?psis is: acceptance into a relationship. Thus the "circle of friends" could be implied by the verb.

An argument could be made for either translation: "take aside" or "welcome into a circle of acquaintances." It's the translators' choice.

3
Your Turn / Re: New CPH Large Catechism
« on: Today at 04:01:35 PM »

One's bias about a woman teaching a man, is likely to influence how one will understand and interpret proslambanomai in this context.
But if we're letting Scripture interpret Scripture, one cannot in good faith avoid having that bias. Not to have that bias is to ignore the text. So yes, people who take the Scriptures seriously choose from possible interpretations of specific verses according to the analogy of faith, which is the right thing to do. Failure to do that is faithlessness and results in Scriptures being reduced to largely unrelated snippets.

Ah, but letting Scripture interpret Scripture also means looking at how a word is used throughout Scriptures. When it is primarily used to mean "to welcome," and in all the other uses in Acts do not mean "privately," we might think that the meaning in Acts 18:26 might mean "to welcome."

For many of us, our bias is centered on the equality of the baptized: no Hebrew or Greek, no slave or free, no male or female; rather than the silence (or quietness) of women.

4
Your Turn / Re: New CPH Large Catechism
« on: Today at 01:17:54 PM »
I have answered your questions.  There is a difference between public and private.  We read in Acts 18:26, "So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately."  Apollos was preaching publicly.  Acquilla and Pricilla took him aside.  Pricilla did not argue against Apollos publicly in the synagogue.  She and her husband spoke to him privately.  A seminary classroom is not private.  It is official (public) teaching by teachers appointed by the church to teach publicly.  You yourself acknowledge this difference between public and private.  Are you saying that the teaching in a seminary classroom is private, whereas the teaching of the sermon is public?

proslambanomai is an interesting word with a variety of meanings. It's the word used when Peter takes Jesus aside and rebukes him (Mt 16:22; Mk 8:32). The word can also mean “to take hold of”. Thus we might picture Peter grabbing a hold of Jesus’ shoulders (or lapels if he had them) and saying, “Listen to me!” The CEB translates the phrase: “Peter took hold of Jesus ….” The prefix pros- can take on the sense of “before” or “against”. Peter has gotten ahead of Jesus. Peter is taking a position against Jesus. He would prevent Jesus from going on his way. Peter thinks he knows a better way. It doesn't necessarily mean "privately."

Luke's use of this word (all in Acts: 17:5; 18:26; 27:33, 36; 28:2) does not normally infer "privately." The CEB translates Acts 18:26: "He began speaking with confidence in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they received him into their circle of friends and explained to him God’s way more accurately."

"To welcome" one is how Paul always uses this word (Rom 14:1, 3; 15:7; Phm 1:17). I note that Acts 18:27 is clearly about other disciples welcoming (a different Greek word) Apollos.

One's bias about a woman teaching a man, is likely to influence how one will understand and interpret proslambanomai in this context.

5
Your Turn / Re: New CPH Large Catechism
« on: Yesterday at 07:20:59 PM »
Regarding: "silence" in 1 Timothy 2:11-12. This Greek word, h?suchia, carries a meaning of "saying nothing at all" or "being in a state of quietness" (perhaps like whispering quietly). The NRSV translates it "quiet" and "quietly" in its other two verses, Acts 22:2; 2 Thess. 3:12.

An interesting verse using the verbal form, Acts 11:18 and 21:14 where people are "were silenced" but then speak. (One can also look at other verses with the verb, Luke 14:4; 23:56; and 1 Thess 4:11. The NRSV has four different translations of this verb in these five verses.)

In regards to 1 Timothy, since authente? implies domination, forcing oneself onto another, the quietness implied by this word runs counter to it.


The NT uses 8 different words for not speaking, i.e., "silence." Others are much clearer about not speaking than this word.

6
Your Turn / Re: New CPH Large Catechism
« on: Yesterday at 06:44:24 PM »
Here is what the Scriptures say:

"Let a woman learn in silence with all submission.  And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.  For Adam was formed first, then Eve.  And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control." 1 Timothy 2:11-15

To be precise, that's what a translator says. Here's the paragraph from the Common English Bible. Their translators understand it quite differently.

11 A wife  should learn quietly with complete submission. 12 I don’t allow a wife  to teach or to control her husband.  Instead, she should be a quiet listener. 13 Adam was formed first, and then Eve. 14 Adam wasn’t deceived, but rather his wife  became the one who stepped over the line because she was completely deceived. 15 But a wife  will be brought safely through giving birth to their children,  if they both continue in faith, love, and holiness, together with self-control.

I've posted elsewhere some of their reasons for translating it as they do.

7
Your Turn / Re: New CPH Large Catechism
« on: Yesterday at 06:37:24 PM »
Does 1 Timothy 2:12 forbid a woman to teach theology at a seminary to men who are training to be pastors?


Acts 18:26 indicates that a woman can teach a man "the Way of God."

She did not do so publicly.  The text reads, "So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately."  A Christian, male or female, has the privilege and the duty to tell anyone willing to listen what God says in his Word.  No office is necessary, but the office of Christian.  The preaching office, on the other hand, is limited to men.  Pricilla did not explain God's Word to Apollos publicly, in the temple.


The broad issue that was raised is whether or not women have authority over men; more specifically, can a woman teach a man theology. (I note that Roman Catholics, who do not ordain women, have women teaching in their seminaries.) I maintain that Priscilla was exercising authority over Apollos. (Granted, as I noted, this type of authority, exousia, is not the same kind of self-defined, domineering authority indicated by authente?.)

8
Your Turn / Re: New CPH Large Catechism
« on: Yesterday at 11:22:21 AM »
Does 1 Timothy 2:12 forbid a woman to teach theology at a seminary to men who are training to be pastors?


Acts 18:26 indicates that a woman can teach a man "the Way of God."

9
Your Turn / Re: New CPH Large Catechism
« on: Yesterday at 11:12:52 AM »
The context of 1 Timothy 2:8--15 seems to be church life (prayer,  holy hands, godliness with good works) rather than broader society.

Are you sure? Men are told to pray "in every place." The women's modest dress would seem to be everywhere, not just during worship. The following is the commentary the CEB Study Bible has on these verses, where it takes a different approach.

Although Paul's instructions could refer to women's roles in a church service, the language of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 fits specific practices in the home much better. The Greek term gyn? (used throughout this section) could simply refer to “a woman,” but it's often used more specifically to refer to “a woman who is married” – that is, “a wife.” The best translation is indicated by the context, usually by the mention of a man, her husband (in Paul, see 1 Cor 5:1; 7:2, 4, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 33; 9:5; Eph 5:23, 28 31, 33). The context in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 indicates that Paul is referring to “a wife” (and husband). First, Paul's language refers to an individual woman (singular) and an individual man. In the Greco-Roman world, such language wouldn't be appropriate in references to persons outside of close family members. Second, this text involves specific directions regarding the instruction of a woman in the faith, which is the responsibility of her husband in the home (see 1 Cor 14:35). Third, Paul's instruction is supported by a reference to the classic passage concerning marriage, Genesis 2:18-24. Fourth, this text ends with a focus on childbirth, which is clearly a domestic issue. Finally, the letter as a whole indicates that false teaching among women was being discussed in the day-to-day activities of the home. Through private storytelling, myths, genealogies, gossip, and slander, false teaching was spreading from house to house (1 Tim 3:11; 4:7, 5:13; cfr. 1 Tim 1:4). In part, this false teaching attacked marriage and marital relations (1 Tim 4:3; 5:14). Moreover, 2 Timothy 3:6-7 indicates that men who were false teachers in Ephesus were targeting women in their homes. In contrast, women aren't singled out for violations in public teaching in either 1 Timothy or 2 Timothy.

"Every place" means gatherings for prayer at their various locations. It would not woodenly mean in Caesar's house, pagan temples, the bottom of the ocean, etc. That would be silly.

Jesus explicitly excluded street corners, as I recall.

If Jesus excluded street corners, then he also excluded synagogues when you look at the whole verse: "“When you pray, don’t be like hypocrites. They love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners so that people will see them. I assure you, that’s the only reward they’ll get." (CEB) It's not the place so much as the motivation behind praying in public. It seems to me that a family prays in a restaurant to be seen by others, Jesus' admonition could apply to them.

1. What's your evidence that: (a) "every place" meant places of worship; and (b) that each community had various places of worship?

2. What about the other arguments? (a) Was a woman's appearance just for worship or an admonition for all places and all times? (b) The inclusion of child-birth, which I believe was much more likely to take place at home or with a midwife, than at worship? (c) The singular woman/wife and man/husband?

3. We know that Paul allowed women to pray and prophecy in worship from 1 Corinthians. I suspect that when the prophecy was deemed as coming from God, it had authority (different than authente?) over the whole community, including men.

10
Your Turn / Re: New CPH Large Catechism
« on: Yesterday at 12:11:57 AM »
The context of 1 Timothy 2:8--15 seems to be church life (prayer,  holy hands, godliness with good works) rather than broader society.

Are you sure? Men are told to pray "in every place." The women's modest dress would seem to be everywhere, not just during worship. The following is the commentary the CEB Study Bible has on these verses, where it takes a different approach.

Although Paul's instructions could refer to women's roles in a church service, the language of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 fits specific practices in the home much better. The Greek term gyn? (used throughout this section) could simply refer to “a woman,” but it's often used more specifically to refer to “a woman who is married” – that is, “a wife.” The best translation is indicated by the context, usually by the mention of a man, her husband (in Paul, see 1 Cor 5:1; 7:2, 4, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 33; 9:5; Eph 5:23, 28 31, 33). The context in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 indicates that Paul is referring to “a wife” (and husband). First, Paul's language refers to an individual woman (singular) and an individual man. In the Greco-Roman world, such language wouldn't be appropriate in references to persons outside of close family members. Second, this text involves specific directions regarding the instruction of a woman in the faith, which is the responsibility of her husband in the home (see 1 Cor 14:35). Third, Paul's instruction is supported by a reference to the classic passage concerning marriage, Genesis 2:18-24. Fourth, this text ends with a focus on childbirth, which is clearly a domestic issue. Finally, the letter as a whole indicates that false teaching among women was being discussed in the day-to-day activities of the home. Through private storytelling, myths, genealogies, gossip, and slander, false teaching was spreading from house to house (1 Tim 3:11; 4:7, 5:13; cfr. 1 Tim 1:4). In part, this false teaching attacked marriage and marital relations (1 Tim 4:3; 5:14). Moreover, 2 Timothy 3:6-7 indicates that men who were false teachers in Ephesus were targeting women in their homes. In contrast, women aren't singled out for violations in public teaching in either 1 Timothy or 2 Timothy.

11
Your Turn / Re: New CPH Large Catechism
« on: January 28, 2023, 06:21:50 PM »
Yes, they are different words, and authentein has had a lot of ink spilled over what it means since it only appears once.  1 Tim. 2 and 1 Cor. 14 are used in the LCMS now to prohibit women from the pastoral office, but they used to be used to show why women weren't allowed to vote in congregational assemblies.  Walther and others took it for granted that they prohibited women from exercising authority over men in general, and the prohibition of women from the pastoral office was downstream from that.  Interestingly Prof. Biermann has a lecture on the internet, which I watched most of, where he criticizes attempts to limit those two passages to the pastoral office.  I liked this because for years it has seemed to me that the old Missouri arguments against women being in the ministry, resting on the order of creation, made more sense than taking two verses and appearing to say: "Arbitrarily God has forbidden women to exercise pastoral authority, though they may exercise just about any other kind of authority over men."

Yes, we have had discussions in this forum about authentein. While this verb only occurs once in scriptures, some cognates appear in the LXX: authent?s occurs in Wisdom 12:6; authentia occurs in 3 Macc. 3:29. Josephus uses authent?s in De bello Judaico libri vii to refer to the "murder" of Antipater.

12
Your Turn / Re: Creation and the Webb space telescope
« on: January 28, 2023, 11:30:18 AM »
“That apple does look delicious…”
Our first parents…

Peter (Algebra still a mystery to me and not at all curious as to it usefulness) Garrison


And, as far as we know, it was delicious. She may have not been wrong. It wasn't the looks, or thoughts about how it might taste, that was the problem.

13
Your Turn / Re: New CPH Large Catechism
« on: January 28, 2023, 11:19:53 AM »
… They are willing to say women should not be pastors, but not say, "I do not allow a woman to have authority over a man" means what Walther thought it meant, which is that a woman should not have authority over a man at all, ever.

The use of "authority" to translate ??? ??? ?? makes it sound like it's the same "authority" as in the word, ??? ??? ?/? ??? ??? ?? that Jesus has and which he gave to the apostles. They have quite different nuances. ??? ??? ?? carries a sense of "to dominate" or "to assume independent authority over."


Oops, the Greek doesn't appear: authente? and exousia/exousiaz? are the words. The first only occurs in 1 Tim 2:12 in the Bible.

14
Your Turn / Re: Theology of transgenderism
« on: January 27, 2023, 12:52:35 PM »
Science has discovered that there are many genetic and hormonal factors related to ones sexuality beyond just the X & Y chromosomes. Sexual orientation and identity take place more in the brain than in the genitals and chromosome.

I remember the concept of "sexual orientation" emerging in the early 1980's.

That became the springboard for, initially, differentiating between yearning and practice before becoming an explanation (ie, HSGT) and ultimately an excuse for any and all practices with the possible exception (for now) of pedophilia.


It was common before that. I first heard about it in the early 70s from a minister of the Metropolitan Community Church. According to him, and I think most folks today, homosexual orientation takes place in the brain. It's about the sex of the person one usually has sexual desires, dreams, and fantasies about, regardless if one acts on those desires. Thus, there are self-defined homosexuals who never engage in sexual relationships. I knew of an ELCA pastor who had that positions. As a self-defined homosexual he believed he had to be celibate and abstain from sexual relationships.


There are also heterosexuals (in orientation) who engage in homosexual behaviors, e.g., in prison.

15
Your Turn / Re: New CPH Large Catechism
« on: January 27, 2023, 12:44:59 PM »
As a Christian, I am bound to follow Jesus and I find His instructions in the Bible. I may not always like or understand what and why He directs me as He does, but I am obliged to obey Him. By faith, I also trust that what He commands is good. As an ordained clergyman, I am doubly obliged. I am a sworn servant of Christ, and steward of His gifts to the Church. Stewards are to be faithful in their stewardship.

Everything that is written in the Bible requires translation into the language of the people in the pew and interpretation. It is clear that Jesus said that we should cut off a hand that causes us to sin and pluck out an eye that causes us to sin. I doubt that you pull out an ax and encourage your people to use it on their sinful parts. My guess is that you use your best judgment on Jesus' meaning and use commentaries from scholars you trust to help you interpret these words for your people.

If the words of Scripture didn't need such human interpretations, we wouldn't bother with sermons or classes. Give them a Bible and tell them to read it. (Something that we also do along with sermons and classes.)

Related to this topic, similarly, why is there a need to have an annotated Large Catechism? Shouldn't the people just read the words from Luther (as translated)?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 2991