Patrick

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.