Cheryl Schatz

TL,
I didn’t think you meant that, but for some reason your comment confused me. Maybe it is just a confusing Monday for me. 😉

I hesitate to say that Paul is forbidding a particular woman from taking over a meeting since both “a woman” and “a man” are either generic or they are both particular with an anaphoric reference. It seems to me that if Paul was talking about the meeting of the church there would be women there too and a woman forbidden from taking over meetings would be teaching both men and women, not just males.

This is the way I reason it. If a particular woman was not allowed to teach in the church meetings, I think Paul would have said that he isn’t allowing “a woman” to teach or authentein the church, i.e. she isn’t allowed to authentein men and women. The problem always seems to crop up because it is only “a man” that “a woman” is forbidden to teach. What I see from this is that she isn’t doing something public but on the side, secretly and in private.

I have studied this issue extensively since about 2004 and even though I am open to learn new things, I haven’t been convinced that Paul is forbidding public teaching for “a woman”. If it was public teaching it would fit into chapter 1 where Paul tells Timothy to stop the teachers who are teaching error. It seems very reasonable to me that the only reason that “a woman” is brought up in chapter 2 and her teaching is specifically to be silenced is because in her case she is not doing the same thing publicly. She is unique and her case is sticky (especially if I am correct that the man she is teaching is her husband).

For me, I just see so many holes that have no answers if I take the prohibition to be the stopping of public teaching. I haven’t heard a good explanation for why only men would be in the meetings (except for her of course) or why one half (a woman) could possibly be specific while the other half (a man) could be general.

I am fully convinced of my view because of verse 15 where the conclusion to the prohibition brings a promise about her future salvation. This only makes sense to me if it is indeed about a singular woman (she). I also am fully convinced that too many people try to understand the passage by ignoring the conclusion of the prohibition in verse 15. I believe that verse 12 cannot be understood without first making full sense of verse 15 and understanding why verse 15 is there in the passage.

I do encourage anyone to work hard to convince me that public meetings can be brought into verse 12. I may be very skeptical and a stickler for the grammar, but I do love truth so that if I see a clear presentation and a good argument, I will appreciate it and allow myself to be convinced.