I think it is noteworthy that almost all of the sound practical arguments or objections to an "All Spheres" view of authority deal with the relationship to modern employers and modern employees. Let me preface my statements by saying that I am not well read in the egalitarian-complimentarian dispute, so take my post FWIW:
I have implicitly questioned the application of the "Master -> Slave" statements by Paul to the "Employer-Employee" situations of today. I would imagine that the comparison arose because expositors normally and rightfully mine the Scriptures for all they are worth and squeeze every drop of application from them. However, I think the Employer-Employee connection is more of an edifying sub-application than an actual example of a "Master-Slave" relationship; and I think that recognition is crucial.
Once one grasps that, I think most of the emotional resistance towards All Spheres Authority and many of the strong practical arguments evaporate, because it takes Proverbs 31 economics and women hiring men for lawn care completely out of the equation. I don't know how one could call those "Master -> Slave" relationships. They are voluntary associations. If the purchaser decided not to buy land from the wife in Proverbs 31, he was under no legal obligation to do so. If the man decided not to cut the woman's lawn anymore, he has no legal or moral obligation to do so.
Employees can leave the relationship legally, morally, socially, and contractually. Wives and children don't have that option.
So I would simply argue that the three spheres of authority or government are the State, the Church, and the Family. I wouldn't include capitalistic enterprises in the endeavor.
As to the specific passage in 1 Timothy 2, I think it is noteworthy that in the beginning of the chapter Paul is giving directions for public gatherings of men, which I think we can safely assume to be gatherings of the Ecclesia. And directly following his statements about learning in silence, Paul goes into the necessary qualifications of elders and deacons. Furthermore, there is a parallel here, IMO, to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35:
Quote:
|
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
|
Is this not a rather obvious parallel? In both chapters, in the context of what takes place in the public assemblies and various issues, Paul tells the women to keep silence. Were you to apply the 1 Tim. 2 passage to the husband-wife relationship, then you have the odd injunction of Paul, that the women are to learn in silence even in the home, whereas Paul tells them to ask their husbands at home, and be silent in the church.
I believe (and I'm open to correction; as I said, this isn't a much-studied topic of mine) that in 1 Tim. 2, Paul seems to be making a specific ecclesiastic application based on a general axiom. I think he could have just as easily said, theologically and methodologically, "let the wife submit to the husband", "let the men be elders in the church", or "men should rule in civil society" because "Adam was formed first, and then Eve." Because that creational, obvious, basic fact is the foundation for authority in every other area of life. Of course, I might be wrong. But the context, before and after, does seem to be speaking about the church, and not specifically the family.