Cheryl Schatz

Craig,
You said:

Is it too “outside the box” to wonder whether Paul could be referring to his prior communication with Timothy and what Tim and Paul both knew about the situation rather than what he has just written?

Yes. “Outside” the box thinking is very important to dig into the facts, but “outside” of what is revealed takes one only into speculation and then God’s inspiration becomes subject to our speculation.

When I look at a problem that needs to be solved from the Scripture, I look at it from a forensic point of view. What details can I mine from the text? What specific grammar can I find? What was previously said that is being referred to in the text? What is referenced later on in the text?

If we are looking at a man’s writings we may go down a lot of rabbit trails speculating on what he may mean. But when it comes to inspiration, we look at every inspired piece of the text as primary evidence first. We also consider the culture of the day, but we do not force fit it into the text. And lastly grammar plays a key role in figuring out what the text means. If we must read into the text improper grammar, then we are in error and must keep looking.

So could Paul be referring to “they” from a previous letter. No. That would be improper grammar. “They” is a pronoun that needs to attach to something. While Paul can say “a woman” (a noun) without identifying the specific woman, he cannot say “they” without a reference back to who he is referring to or the text would be impossible to understand.

For example in 1 Timothy 2 what if Paul had said:
“I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension. I am also not allowing her to teach but she must remain silent.”

…this would be nonsensical because we would not know who “she” is that Paul is not allowing to teach since there is no singular “she” in the text and it would be improper to attach a singular pronoun to “women”. In the same way, Paul has to reference who the “they” are or he cannot say “they”. The pronoun has to go back to something in the text or it is uninspired nonsense meant to mislead and confuse.

Now if “a woman” and “a man” is generic, they could refer to all people, but “a man” that is generic cannot be referenced to as a plural pronoun. A generic man is always called “he” not “they”. So the rule is that you can use a noun and a pronoun to reference back to the noun, but you cannot use a pronoun unless there is something in the text to refer back to. God’s inspired Word would never break basic grammar rules.

We often say how it could be like listening to one side of a phone call, or a reply to a letter we don’t have.

I agree that a private letter would be like listening to one side of the story, but a letter must also follow grammar rules if it is inspiration from God Himself. We may not have all the details, but we certainly are not left with improper grammar. Thoughts?