Cheryl Schatz

TL,
I should have said that the woman is not one of the deceivers. It was a mistyping.

Yet, ‘the church’ is also the whole body whether gathered in a teaching setting, or in an assembly setting. And it seems to me that A woman could become a continual problem if she had a habit of interrupting the teacher or leader or preacher with her concepts as if only she were correct. ???

I suppose this could happen, but then how would one relate this kind of problem? Would one say that the woman is forbidden to teach a man? I don’t think that her interrupting would qualify as teaching only him. I think that Paul would cut to the chase and say that the woman (whom everyone would know since it was done publicly) should not be interrupting. The issue of not teaching “a man” seems out of place since it would be interruption that would be the issue and her teaching would be heard by all not just by a man.

Maybe if a particular woman was harassing a particular leader, teacher. It doesn’t say a woman not teach men, but a woman not teach a man. So to me both seem pointed to a specific.

This certainly could be the case, but then the problem is not teaching a man but harassing a leader. Is the issue really public between a specific woman and a specific leader? Does she not interrupt any other men? And why are her interruptions called teaching? And if she was teaching this one leader, then would not her public speaking qualify as teaching others too? If not, why not?

Perhaps, she was charismatically charming and forceful and tended to pick on a certain man or leader or teacher. Shrug!! Perhaps, it was Timothy she was picking on and thus why she needed to be addressed in a letter to be read publicly, but not named so those not privy would not take her name down in history. Thus, giving her a chance to reform and learn.

I can see that you are really thinking this through and trying to see all angles and that is good. I also agree that Paul is not giving her name so that when she gets saved, she is not forever known as the woman who could not teach. But it seems improbable that picking on a man would be called teaching him and the prohibition would be teaching only “a man” rather than harassing one person and teaching lots of people false doctrine. Why do you think that Paul worded it the way he did if it was actually harassment? Why was Paul not concerned about what the whole congregation would hear from her but only concerned about her teaching “a man”? Is the man that she was harassing publicly necessary for her to be saved? If not, who are the “they” in “she” will be saved….if “they”…. What is the harassed leaders part that is absolutely necessary in getting her saved? Was he part of the problem? If so then why would Paul not have given instructions for the problem elder who allowed a woman to harass him and thus publicly teach error to only him?

While I can really appreciate your thought process, I find the scenario unconvincing as it has holes and more questions than answers. It seems to me that teaching only one person gives a far more plausible weight to private teaching rather than public. I think your main problem will be to explain how one person can be teaching error publicly but in essence be only teaching one person rather than all. If a leader is influenced, why is there no concern about what she is doing to the entire congregation?

Think this one through and see if you can plug up the holes. If not, think the issue through again about private teaching between one person and the other. Does this line up with what Paul is prohibiting? Does a private situation line up with the assurance of her salvation in verse 15 that goes along with what they are to do together to assure her salvation?