Thanks gengwell and Tl and Cheryl,

But let me just say this last point since hopefully it will clarify. My example did not include v13-15 because that was not what Cheryl asked those who disagree with her to show. She simply asked to give a reason for the shift from v10-11. Therefore my example simply did that.

Now considering that we are all in agreement that it is grammatically possible for the singular to be generic, it is obviously therefore not ‘unusual’ for this to happen. It can be a normal part of grammar.

So my example showed how contextually shifting to the singular makes sense and by extension still apllies to the whole. I then pointed out that this fits fine with the traditional contextual understanding.

Now, clearly this hasn’t satisfied you and that is ok, but i only wanted to point out that it is possible and that Cheryl’s challenge relies on the faulty premise that one accept her contextual approach. Many other points/questions have appeared which are really irrelevant to this point so i have not engaged with them, like i said, for simplicity and clarity.

So i will leave it at that. I see no real benefit continuing to discuss side topics when it has been difficult enough to get a good, healthy discussion on this one. I’m not really interested in straw men and ad hominem attacks (and no Cheryl, i’m not Mark??). I sure hope you don’t label me as someone who refuses to answer the tough questions.

Blessings

Finally, alot of your other points are really quite off topic from my initial discussion, so i’ll avoid engaging with them for the sake of simplicity and clarity. I would ask you again, however, to be careful of the many straw men you are attacking. Here are some examples to show you what i mean.

47- “Perhaps it would be an appropriate time to ask why one should assume that Paul was stopping the truth of the gospel in verse 12 rather than applying his stated purpose to have Timothy stop the teaching of error?”

I never said Paul was stopping the truth of the gospel in verse 12, that is your assumption. I did say Paul was putting some sort of prohibition on women teaching. I never said he was stopping the truth of the gospel. The two are not necessarily compatible.

49- “Actually that is not true regarding any permanent limiting of the gift. While only two or three are to speak in one meeting so that the edification of the church can happen unhindered, the one with the gift is free to speak at another time as there is no permanent injunction.”

I never said Paul was imparting a ‘permanent’ injunction on the gift of tongues.

49- “This is completely unlike the tradition that stops the teaching of the truth of the gospel for the common good.”

Here you parallel the false argument that i did not give (permanent injunction) with some sort of tradition that you are describing. Given the context, it’s obviously meant to be negative which is all the more troubling when you apply an argument to me that i myself did not give.

49- “Encouragement to release the gifts by asking God for the corresponding gift in no way corresponds to a universal prohibition of a gift for the benefit of males.”

Again you attack an argument i did not make. I never said there was a universal prohibition on the gift of tongues.

I highlight this because it can become frustrating and difficult to try and engage over a blog when straw men are constantly employed.

Blessings

Thanks Cheryl,

49- “I am not saying that the use of the singular necessitates the meaning of a specific woman. I am saying that the change of the plural to the singular needs to be noted especially when the change is unnecessary. The context will define whether it is a specific woman or not. The context will also remove the generic application with specific language.”

I agree with most of this, the singular does not necessitate a specific singular woman. I agree the singular needs to be noted, yet your argument that it is unnecessary i’m not convinced of. It is only unnecessary if you adopt your contextual understanding. However, if we adopt the traditional approach regarding corporate worship then it is a non-issue. As you yourself note, a singular can simply have a generic meaning. I agree that the context decides whether it is a specific woman, so it appears therefore that it is here where the real disagreement lies.

Now since you explained yourself well, i therefore find it intriguing why you even offered this challenge,

“Those who are disagreeing with me, need to provide reason for the irregular and unusual grammar change if they believe that Paul continues to write about women in general. Also those who believe that Paul was stopping godly teaching need to provide proof that Paul ever stopped the teaching of the truth of the gospel.”

You answered yourself, did you not, by affirming that a singular can be generic. What it appears that you are asking is to show the reason for the “irregular and unusual grammar change” based on the acceptance of your contextual understanding. But surely you must realise that this type of language is based on your preconceived conclusion and understanding of the context. It is not irregular and unusual if we adopt the traditional hypothesis. On the contrary, it is only unusual if you believe a priori that it is referencing a new topic with a new specific woman.

I appreciate your understanding, but given what you have discussed, i find it much harder to accept your contextual understanding which has Paul shoot off in a rather different direction between v10-11 which can only be understood by reference back to earlier parts of chapter 1. This for me, seems like the irregular and unusual approach.

Take care

Cheryl,

I’m rather confused here. With the prior discussion you had alot of things seemed to be thrown around which either meant misunderstanding and/or claims of deviance from orthodoxy.

Therefore i gave you a simple passage and asked one simple question. Who is the He/he/him? Let me re-phrase that if you like. What name do you give to He/he/him? That is simply all i want to know.

I believe it would solve the rather circular arguments of earlier which seemed to be dancing more around semantics from what i could see. I am not claiming any sort of pre-incarnate position on names etc, all i want you to do is fill in the blanks…what name do we give to the He in the Colossians passage?

Can you please simply answer that?

Cheryl,

Don’t get to caught up in the story, it’s not meant to be analogous in every way to 1 Tim 2, so many of your points made above aren’t really applicable. All i was trying to show was (a) within a overall context of generic men and women, one can use a singular and it still be understood generically and not necessitate the claim that it is a specific woman/man.

If you think otherwise, can you show me how in my example the singular would be understood by all as not applicable to them.

Also, please avoid straw men that you then proceed to knock down, e.g “To say that a God-given gift is bad just because of the gender of the person who has the gift or just because of the gender of the person who receives the gift, is something that is never found in the Scriptures.”

I never said such a thing. Again my point was simple (or so i thought). 1 Cor 12-14 shows the limiting of speaking in toungues. Presumably, such a gift was good and encouraged and taught the congregation, although only if used appropriately. I see a similiar parallel to 1 Tim 2. Therefore, it is not only false teaching that Paul prohibits, but as seen in 1 Cor 12-14, a good God given gift that was being abused.

Blessings

TL,

Let me try a slightly different tact. You are now asking me to exegete v15 because for you it is the key to understanding v11 (and 12?), ie the singular.

As with your previous comments this is irrelevant for me because i have not come to the text with the preconcieved notion that the context is a singular woman/man dealing with false teaching (as per chap 1). Therefore, v15 is not the interpretive key unless you start with the assumption a priori that it is.

Therefore you are asking me to justify the singular but only on the basis of accepting your contextual construction and historical scenario. Since i accept neither, v15 is irrelant to my point.

So to get back to my first post, hopefully i have shown that the singular can, i think, be understood generically- my example shows this. You may disagree, and that’s fine, but you cannot disagree simply because i don’t start with your same base assumption regarding context. To do this, you need to first prove your contextual and historical arrangement.

So i think my point remains. If we adopt the historical understanding of the context (public woship issues), then it remains entirely valid for the singular to be generic.

TL,

I should have also pointed out that the change in topic is something Cheryl’s view endorses. Given the traditional understanding that the whole pericope is dealing with ‘Public Worship Issues’, the small change of topic is neither here nor there, it’s still within the overall contextual framework.

So you can assert that there is a relative shift in topic by adopting Cheryl’s view, but the context does not require that as the only possible meaning

Thanks TL,

But you have not engagd in my comments apart from restating Cheyl’s position and claiming it was ‘clear’. I doubt this is true considering the understanding of this passage over the last two millenium.

My example was simply to show that within the context of a generic discussion, one can use a singular with the clear undertanding that it applies to the whole, as per Cheryl’s request.

When i said a woman must not be upstairs, given the context i’m not sure anyone assumed i was talking about a specific woman- it seems too unnatural to the flow of the context plus is equally a poor grammatical construct (at least in English).

Nonetheless, Cheryl asked for a good reason- i think i provided that. Furthermore, you didn’t discuss the second point i made regarding 1 Cor 12-14. Understadable though, since it’s not your blog.

Blessings

Can i go back to the Trinitarian discussion between NN and Cheryl. Cheryl, here is a passage from Col 1.15ff

“?He is the image of ?the invisible God, ?the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by? him all things were created, ?in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether ?thrones or ?dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created ?through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things ?hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is ?the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For in him all the ?fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and ?through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, ?making peace ?by the blood of his cross.”

My question is this, who is the He/he/him?

Because to me, it seems like the He who is the firstborn is the same He who made all things (pre-incarnate). He is before all things (pre-incarnate) and also the head of the Church (incarnate). He is the firstborn from the dead (incarnate) has the fullness of God dwelling in him and made peace by the cross (incarnate).

So who is the He/he/him?

If we say Jesus Christ, this seems to contradict what Cheryl has said regarding the pre-incarnate Word (who cannot be called ‘the Christ’ and therefore cannot be the one who sustains the world and made it according to this text). If we say Word, it contradicts Cheryl because the head of the Church is the incarnate God/man who is obviously called ‘Jesus Christ’.

So this whole debate seems like semantics over titles. Can both sides not affirm the orthodox belief in a two natured Christology, without confounding the two, nor seperating them?

Hi Cheryl,

Thanks for the clear post layout. It was especially helpful to highlight where you want the people who disagree with you to focus on.
Can i look at Note 1 regarding the change of grammar/topic issue.

Let me tell you a story to help illustrate,

Last weekend was my daughter’s 16th birthday party. She had several friends staying over. Simultaneously her 17 year old brother had several friends over. Our house was very crowded. Being the good father i am i gave the following directives,

“I desire all the men to remain upstairs in the rumpus room. Likewise, i want all the women to remain downstairs in the back loungeroom. I do not permit a women to be upstairs at any time alone with a man. She must either stay downstairs or be accompanied with another…

Now my point is really simple. Given the example above, is the shift from plural to singular grammatically or topically different? Within the context it is clear that the singular still applies to the generic. I don’t see why 1 Tim cannot be any different. This answers your first request to explain the shift.

As for the second issue regarding Paul stopping true teaching i would direct you to 1 Corinthians 12-14. Granted it is not ‘teaching’ per se, but nonetheless, clearly spiritual gifts, although being a good God given gift, were being abused and needed to be reined in. Clearly then, Christians can abuse something that otherwise, in different contexts and circumstances, would be a good ministry.

So the parallel i would draw would be like this. Can a woman teach? Yes absolutely, but within a limited context. Can a person speak in toungues? Yes absolutely, but within a limited context.

Hope you can roughly see my point. I’ll leave it at that.

Blessings