TL

Craig, you wrote:
“In the example I gave @77, say the woman (let’s call her Betty) had actually led no one astray yet but was trying to with 20 different men, don’t you think Paul could still have expressed “I do not permit Betty to authentein a man”? I can agree that he could also have said “I do not permit Betty to authentein men”, but both sound possible to me.”

The interesting thing about this is that in order for it to be about a husband and a wife, it had to be in the singular. Because gunaiki and andra can be either woman or wife and man or husband, there has to be a relational context in order to see them as husband and wife. This can be achieved by either both being in plural or both being singular. But when both are singular it is more likely, unless there is nothing else in the sentence that shows a marital relationship. That is our problem here.; there is nothing else in that sentence relating to marriage, rather it’s about A woman learning. But if it were a singular woman toward all men then it could not be about a marital relationship. So we have the singular which very well could be about a marital situation, yet nothing else in the sentence or section about a marital relationship. That is, until we get to verse 15. Then the “they” can be a married couple than women in general because the subject touches upon bearing children, even though it likely is referring to “the childbearing”.

So, no matter where I get glimpses of clarity, I still see some problems. Frankly, I don’t think Paul meant for this to be clear to everyone. He was certainly capable of being clear in other places. It seems to me, he wanted to keep the details hidden because he wanted to give the persons involved privacy to do things rightly. This points to a particular situation, and not any kind of loose universal command. God doesn’t give second hand commands nor does God give them in a confusing manner. God is always quite clear and willing to repeat to make it clear, when He issues a command for righteousness.