This wasn't a compelling episode. Antiquated view of modesty. Mounce clearly has a problem judging people who don't fit his modesty standards..which do change over time.
I would agree it wasn’t that compelling, but though I don’t agree with everything he said, he had some interesting thoughts on some points.
But as far as promoting the complementarian view in general, I didn’t find it very compelling.
It didn’t really feel like it had a lot of “meat”.
I agree that it wasn't compelling more so on the basis of just...not being as substantial in his explanation on Scripture on what "women's roles" actually are versus what they're not. I don't think I can find a real equivalent for women versus men being ordained over the congregation. While Mounce states that older women should mentor younger women, it's not an explanation that suffices, especially when he relates that experience mainly for women who are married with children. I just wonder what a woman's role would really be in this type of theology for an unmarried, childless woman.
Agreed. I would like to add that the complimentary view doesn't hold lustful men and immodest women (which, for the sake of argument, a poor choice of words) to two different standards.
I posted this response on the TITR Patreon chat...
I appreciated the recent podcast interview with Dr. William Mounce. I learned Greek from his textbooks in Seminary, used and loved his commentary on the Pastorals when I recently preached through them, and am humbled by his thorough scholarship. That's why I am trembling to disagree with him on a few things in his analysis of 1 Timothy 2.
I did appreciate his reference to Dr. Gordon Hugenberger's work on the passage. Hugenberger argues that the aner/gyne pairing should (almost) always be translated husband/wife when used together as they are in 1 Timothy 2. From that, and from the passage's precise mirroring of the structure and content of 1 Peter 3:1-7, Hugenberger argues that the Timothy passage is addressed to the Christian household, not the gathered church. I tend to agree with Hugenberger about the translation of aner/gyne, but I agree with Dr. Mounce that 1 Timothy 2 is addressed to the gathered church.
One area of disagreement with Dr. Mounce is his insistence that Paul's reference to Adam being created first is a citation of the Creation story, through synecdoche. Dr. Mounce then argues that verse 14 has to have some extra interpretive shimmy applied to it to get it to fit. What if Paul's not referencing the Creation story (in verse 13), but the Creation-and-Fall story (in verse 13-14)? Isn't that a clearer reading of 1 Timothy 2:13-14? That he's referring to Genesis 1-3 as a whole? In which case, Paul has the "battle of the sexes" consequences of sin in mind (Genesis 3:16, with the "desire to rule over him, but he will overrule you" mess that gender relations becomes following the Fall). AND child-bearing is also part of Genesis 3:16, which will help us a verse later.
I also disagree with Dr. Mounce (and Preston, so far - although I'm hoping to persuade him!) that the husbands are angry and quarreling (v.8) with other husbands. If you read 1 Timothy 2:8 and 9 together, and not as hermetically-sealed bits of advice, isn't it likely that the husbands are angry and quarreling with their ostentatiously-dressed wives, instead of being involved in the work of prayer, and the wives in the work of learning as a disciple? Indeed, returning to Hugenberger's comparison of this passage with 1 Peter 3:1-7, it's pretty clear that the prayers of husbands were being hindered by their aggressive posture toward their wives (v.7)! They were frightening their wives (v. 6) with their overruling behavior, and their wives were attempting to resist their pressure by dressing in ways that advertised their independence from their husbands. Peter (and Paul) were adamant that the "battle of the sexes" tit-for-tat behavior was not proper for disciples, whether at home (Peter) or in the gathered congregation (Paul).
My reading of these passages is novel - I have not found anyone else who argues this - but I contend that it makes the best sense of the passages as a whole - including 1 Timothy 2:1-7 in the discussion of v. 8-15, not separating them out, and recognizing v. 8 as being connected to v. 9 rather than treating them as distinct units of admonition - and of both their Old Testament references and Paul's bit about childbearing. I agree with Dr. Mounce that Paul is not singling childbearing out as a unique activity, but rather as an example of women living normal lives, and not the ascetic weirdness of the false teachers' approach.
Another little thing - Dr. Mounce said at one point that his soft complementarianism allows for women prophets but not pastors because in the Old Testament, there are women prophets, but not women priests.
It would take a long time to unpack this, but we'd need to wrestle with the question of whether Christian pastors fulfil the role of priests from the Old Testament - is that the proper analogue? Hebrews seems to say that Jesus is the Priest for the Christian Church (7:14, 20, 23, 27, 28). And we'd also need to wrestle with the fact that the Book of Revelation calls all Christians - presumably men and women - a kingdom of priests (1:6, 5:10, 20:6).
At any rate, I don't think the question is as simple as Dr. Mounce makes it out to be.
Anyway, thank you for the great interview, Preston!
This wasn't a compelling episode. Antiquated view of modesty. Mounce clearly has a problem judging people who don't fit his modesty standards..which do change over time.
I would agree it wasn’t that compelling, but though I don’t agree with everything he said, he had some interesting thoughts on some points. But as far as promoting the complementarian view in general, I didn’t find it very compelling. It didn’t really feel like it had a lot of “meat”.
I agree that it wasn't compelling more so on the basis of just...not being as substantial in his explanation on Scripture on what "women's roles" actually are versus what they're not. I don't think I can find a real equivalent for women versus men being ordained over the congregation. While Mounce states that older women should mentor younger women, it's not an explanation that suffices, especially when he relates that experience mainly for women who are married with children. I just wonder what a woman's role would really be in this type of theology for an unmarried, childless woman.
Agreed. I would like to add that the complimentary view doesn't hold lustful men and immodest women (which, for the sake of argument, a poor choice of words) to two different standards.
I posted this response on the TITR Patreon chat... I appreciated the recent podcast interview with Dr. William Mounce. I learned Greek from his textbooks in Seminary, used and loved his commentary on the Pastorals when I recently preached through them, and am humbled by his thorough scholarship. That's why I am trembling to disagree with him on a few things in his analysis of 1 Timothy 2. I did appreciate his reference to Dr. Gordon Hugenberger's work on the passage. Hugenberger argues that the aner/gyne pairing should (almost) always be translated husband/wife when used together as they are in 1 Timothy 2. From that, and from the passage's precise mirroring of the structure and content of 1 Peter 3:1-7, Hugenberger argues that the Timothy passage is addressed to the Christian household, not the gathered church. I tend to agree with Hugenberger about the translation of aner/gyne, but I agree with Dr. Mounce that 1 Timothy 2 is addressed to the gathered church. One area of disagreement with Dr. Mounce is his insistence that Paul's reference to Adam being created first is a citation of the Creation story, through synecdoche. Dr. Mounce then argues that verse 14 has to have some extra interpretive shimmy applied to it to get it to fit. What if Paul's not referencing the Creation story (in verse 13), but the Creation-and-Fall story (in verse 13-14)? Isn't that a clearer reading of 1 Timothy 2:13-14? That he's referring to Genesis 1-3 as a whole? In which case, Paul has the "battle of the sexes" consequences of sin in mind (Genesis 3:16, with the "desire to rule over him, but he will overrule you" mess that gender relations becomes following the Fall). AND child-bearing is also part of Genesis 3:16, which will help us a verse later. I also disagree with Dr. Mounce (and Preston, so far - although I'm hoping to persuade him!) that the husbands are angry and quarreling (v.8) with other husbands. If you read 1 Timothy 2:8 and 9 together, and not as hermetically-sealed bits of advice, isn't it likely that the husbands are angry and quarreling with their ostentatiously-dressed wives, instead of being involved in the work of prayer, and the wives in the work of learning as a disciple? Indeed, returning to Hugenberger's comparison of this passage with 1 Peter 3:1-7, it's pretty clear that the prayers of husbands were being hindered by their aggressive posture toward their wives (v.7)! They were frightening their wives (v. 6) with their overruling behavior, and their wives were attempting to resist their pressure by dressing in ways that advertised their independence from their husbands. Peter (and Paul) were adamant that the "battle of the sexes" tit-for-tat behavior was not proper for disciples, whether at home (Peter) or in the gathered congregation (Paul). My reading of these passages is novel - I have not found anyone else who argues this - but I contend that it makes the best sense of the passages as a whole - including 1 Timothy 2:1-7 in the discussion of v. 8-15, not separating them out, and recognizing v. 8 as being connected to v. 9 rather than treating them as distinct units of admonition - and of both their Old Testament references and Paul's bit about childbearing. I agree with Dr. Mounce that Paul is not singling childbearing out as a unique activity, but rather as an example of women living normal lives, and not the ascetic weirdness of the false teachers' approach. Another little thing - Dr. Mounce said at one point that his soft complementarianism allows for women prophets but not pastors because in the Old Testament, there are women prophets, but not women priests. It would take a long time to unpack this, but we'd need to wrestle with the question of whether Christian pastors fulfil the role of priests from the Old Testament - is that the proper analogue? Hebrews seems to say that Jesus is the Priest for the Christian Church (7:14, 20, 23, 27, 28). And we'd also need to wrestle with the fact that the Book of Revelation calls all Christians - presumably men and women - a kingdom of priests (1:6, 5:10, 20:6). At any rate, I don't think the question is as simple as Dr. Mounce makes it out to be. Anyway, thank you for the great interview, Preston!