Kay

Mark,

You know hermeneutical principles involve looking at the larger context of the verses in question. That is why the point about Paul’s instruction on slavery is important in the context of the discussion of women. Just as Paul is “clear” about the submission of slaves, he is “clear” about women being quiet in church in one particular verse.

1 Tim. 2:11-12 are difficult verses – it simply can’t be demontrated that Paul intended them as an *eternal directive* for all “churches” for all times. In fact, the purpose of 1 Timothy as a whole, and these verses in particular, indicate otherwise.

Paul was equally “clear” about his view on the braided style of women’s hair and expensive clothing in Timothy. Is that directive to be viewed as an eternal directive for all women or should that particular verse be viewed as addressing a local issue in the first century? I think we’d both agree it’s particular to the situation of the assembly Paul was addressing.

I realize that some people (perhaps you) see this as hermeneutical arbitrariness or capitulation to present culture, causing us to go against Scripture.

But it’s equally undeniable that our response to 6:1-2 (slaves & masters) and ch.5 (widows) is as well. (we could argue the fine points of those 2 again, but the conclusion is still the same) We don’t live them out to the “letter” of Paul’s directive.

Would you consider that perhaps the answer to the hermeneutical question lies in the area of our obedience to the ultimate concern of the entire text, even if the particulars are not carried out like “rules”?

Yes, we can’t deny that this verse is prohibiting at least one woman of “teach and authentein”-ing at least one man in Ephesus, but it is, without a doubt, a unique text. Which suggests it addresses a unique situation. And I’ve noticed that you are not dogmatically asserting that it is without question an eternal directive for all. Mutualists/egals hold that same view. So, perhaps it’s pointless to continue arguing the “grammars”???