Mark

Dave,

“Now, in regards to the use of the word “teach” and “authentein”, how can it be positive in this context? Paul is saying he does not permit it. Nowhere has Paul suggested that it is ok for anyone to authentein anyone else. He has not had a problem with anyone else teaching anyone else, unless they are false teachers (if I am wrong please show me an example). You have admitted that ‘teach’ can be positive or negative. Show me from the text that Paul thinks what this singular woman (this is not assumed – show me in the grammar where there is more than one woman) is doing is positive. Pretty hard since he is asking her to stop. I am happy that both the authentein and teach are negative…so thanks Mr Kostenberger!”

Let me respond with Kostenberger

“Before deciding on one of the two patterns for 1 Tim 2:12, a preliminary clarification needs to be made. A distinction should be drawn, especially in the first scenario, between the fact that two activities or concepts are viewed positively in and of themselves, and their prohibition due to circumstances. In the case of 1 Tim 2:12, the writers “I do not permit” has apparently at times been taken to mean that he views the two activities, themselves negetively…However, one should keep in mind that it is possible for the writer to evaluate negetively the exercise of activities he generally views positively, due to certain circumstances, without tainting the two terms themselves.”

You said
“Mark, I checked out Titus. Probably would be helpful if you told me exactly where you were in the text. Titus 1:7 speaks of a singular overseer, I assume a generic singular. In 6:10-11 it talks in the plural, but not about overseers, rather those who are unruly, eveil-doers etc (pretty sure they are NOT overseers). So Paul has not switched from using a generis singular to a plural for the same person, if that is what you are suggesting.”

I did say i din’t have a Bible handy…please forgive me. But here you are. Titus 1:5 says…” and appoint ELDERS (plural) in every town as i directed you”. Then in verse 7, like you said, it switches to the singular… “for an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach…”

Chapter 6 is not even in view. Here we have the same switch from plural to generic singular as in 1 Tim 2:10-11. Therefore to rely heavily on the singular in the exegesis is a moot point. It is grammatically possible to have generic singulars.

“Please note though that Cheryl’s exegesis accepts that there can be a singular generic, but that the context shows this to not be the case in 1 Tim 2.”

Well that’s her assertion isn’t it. I would have thought a plural in verse 10 and then the singular in verse 11 is exactly the proof of a generic singular. Her assertion is simply that…an assertion.

“I assume the answer is no. In the same way I am simply stating that we have no reason FROM THE TEXT to believe that Paul is not dealing with a situation here that was specific to this church ”

This is simple false Dave. Paul’s appeal back to creation (13, 14) has always been understood as granting more than a specific situation that needs to be addressed. His prohibition is rooted in the creation order. You may disagree wtih that, but your above assertion is a little overstated. Can we therefore say that ‘a woman false teacher’ is now aloud to authentein a man in our generation? As Schreiner notes…

“It would be a grave mistake to argue as follows:
1. First Timothy was written to counteract a specific situation in the life of the Church.
2. Nothing written to a specific situation is normative for the church today.
3. Therefore, 1 Timothy contains no directives for the church today.”

Dave, final point. I am interested to know that if you think there is nothing IN THE TEXT to show it is more than cultural and contextual to the time, what do you find IN THE TEXT’S that prohibits homosexuality as wrong today? Remember, FROM THE TEXT. Please apply your own theory to this practice. I want to see how consistent you are.