There is no evidence given here that Priscilla did the actual expounding, only that she was with her husband when it was done. If we interpret the passage in light of the other relavent scripture, it is implying sin on the part of our sister to state that she was teaching a man. It is not a matter of how we feel or what we think, the scripture is clear that a woman is not to teach a man.
I should clarify. My statement regarding "Church function" I should have expressed as events within the confines of called Church functions such as Sunday School, bible studies, and worship. The reality is that all spiritual matters ARE Church functions, in that they are carried out by Church members in relation to spiritual subjects, and yes, all those matters are the subject of 1 Timothy. So I would agree that it is appropriate to presuppose Paul is limiting his focus to Church functions, but I would disagree that those functions do not include a discussion of spiritual matters held between myself and a male acquiantance in my living room where I was attempting to more clearly explain the Gospel rather than teach him to play the tuba. And before the assumption is made that I came to that conclusion out of some inate chauvinism, I will say that it was my wife's conviction on this matter that eventually brought me to agree with it - not through didaction but instead by her quiet practice of it.
Ruben, the prohibition against women teaching men does not relate to the spiritual/Church matter of family worship except if the wife were to be leading and teaching the husband in that worship. Are you supporting that concept? I took for granted that we understood that to be inappropriate, and meant that the prohibition is not relavent to mothers teaching children. The prohibition does not address the spiritual/Church matter of mothers catechizing children as in the case of Lois and Eunice.
If, in another portion of scripture, Silas had been commanded to not 'speak the word of the Lord', we would not assume by the use of the pronoun 'they' that he had done so, just as when my family name is used in the scenario I described above does not infer that Mindy did the teaching. The pronoun 'their' being possessive, does indicate that both possessed stripes, but that is not relavent to our discussion since the pronoun in question, 'they', is not possessive.
I do make a distinction between conversation and teaching, Ruben, both public and private. I was not present at the interaction between Apollos, Aquila, and Priscilla, and the scripture does not give us any more detail than that the way of God was explained more accurately (or 'expounded' as in the KJV). If that explanation was carried out in the course of discussion between the three, with Aquila and Priscilla answering questions or stating their own take on matters theological, I would view that as conversation and not teaching (but then that would call into question the need for seminaries, if such knowledge can be so easily and casually imparted), and would have no qualms about both particpating. If the discussion transitioned into instruction (which I would normally view 'explaning' and 'expounding' as such, but I digress), then it is my view that at least that part would have been carried out by Aquila.
Would you contend that every person refered to in the first pronoun 'they' held the whip and administered the stripes? And each one had a hand on them while tossing them into the cell in the second occurance?
I contend that when didactic teaching of spiritual matters is taking place in mixed company, women are not to teach. A Christian family is a part of the body of Christ - the Church - and in that vein family worship is a Church matter. Paul makes no distinction in the 1 Tim 2 passage to these instructions as being relavent only to events within the Church walls.
"Their stripes" means stripes they had incurred, Ruben. This is not as convoluted as you seem to think. 'They', as I pointed out above, does not necessitate that ALL members of the group refered to carried out the physical action, it can mean they were all in agreement to it.
Again, it is my view that the teaching prohibited is not to be conflated with the authority prohibited. The Spirit did not say "authoritative teaching", He said for women not "to teach, nor usurp authority over a man." (emphasis mine) These are two different things. In the same way we are instructed not to covet, AND not to steal, even if the two often go hand in hand, they are two different things. So the teaching you and I might do in our homes may not be authoritative, but it is still teaching, and a woman is prohibited from doing that with a man as a student.
That may be so, brother, but it is only conjecture, and we have no way of knowing. To use that as a defense of the concept that Priscilla 'taught' Apollos is specious. It is just as possible that there was didactic teaching taking place, that Aquinas carried that out, and Priscilla prepared refreshments, and no pronominal referents be turned on their heads, as with the handling of the whip in Acts 16.
There is no indication that the Samaritan woman sat the men down, broke out her flip chart, and began to teach them the Gospel or any other such thing. It says she went to her town and asked the men to come look at this fellow and tell her if they thought He was the Christ. To portray that, or Mary Magdelene's informing of the disciples that Christ had arisen, as the type of teaching I am refering to is a caricaturization of my position, and seems rather much a straw man.
I really cannot conceive of how the conflict that arose between David and Nabal, nor Abigail's intercession, has any relavence to this discussion.
In the final analysis, have we concluded that the referenced verse in Acts 18 tells us that it is not a sin for a woman to teach a man?
