Mark

To all,

I’ll have to leave it there for a bit as i have a lot of other stuff to do. At least we can agree on one thing, that 1 Tim 2:12 is either both positive or negetive. It’s good to end on a high. A few final points to wrap up.

Kay,
Yes that quote is an assertion of Kostenberger, but if you read it in context of his essay, you will see that it is based on facts. He researchers ALL similar constructions in the NT. He then also researchers all extra biblical constructions, which leads him to the above comment. The syntax of 1 Tim 2:12 as his extensive research shows has to be one or the other. Phil Payne did a similar research years back which Kostenberger uses as a beginning ground and expands upon. It is a helpful piece of research in understanding this text.

Also, i’m not going to go over the same discussion i already had with Dave. The comp position on 1 Tim 2:12 is that this passage restricts women from a certain teaching and exercise of authority, NOT that women cannot teach in other circumstances e.g to other women. To adopt (2) is possible wihtout contradicting other NT texts.

“After all, if it was a universal rule of such great importance as comps assert, it certainly would be expected that Timothy would have been aware of this rule already. ”

Let me counter respond… After all, if this was about a false female teacher, it certainly would be expected that Timothy would have been aware of this rule already…

Marg,
The quote i gave was out of the printed book. I couldn’t see his essay anywhere on line, although it may be. The book is ‘Women in the Church, A fresh analysis of 1 Tim 2:9-15’ and the quote is on page 89. After doing research on extra biblical documents he gives the same conclusion on page 99. Please note: I quoted the first edition and there is a second edition out now which may change page numbers.

Final issue about hermeneutics. We need to distinguish between principles and practice. For example, praying with lifted hands… the principle is that we should pray, the practice with lifted hands. Now the practice may change (sitting, standing, bowing etc), but the principle remains. Likewise, the prohibition is rooted in creation therefore the principle remains binding on all churches of all generations. To say this text is simply practice (like Fee) is based on his own presupposition and not the text.

Anyway, i’m gone for a bit with other things i need to do. Thanks for the discussion