33 Patrick wrote:

“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.

Your example was flawed if you are trying to compare it to the grammar of 1 Timothy 2. First of all you present one topic about men and women remaining in their place. Paul doesn’t present such a unified topic as the topic changes from the outside dress that presents a godly claim and the other is about teaching and authentein of “a woman” respecting “a man”. There is no upstairs/downstairs similarity here.

Secondly in your example, you are actually permitting two women from being in the presence of one man. Thus all women are to remain downstairs but two women can accompany each other and go upstairs.

Thirdly, it is not altogether clear who she can be accompanied by in your story. While you want all women to remain downstairs, she can go upstairs if she is in the presence of two men rather than just one. As long as she is accompanied, apparently.

In Paul’s words, changing from the plural to the singular, there is a relationship that is added that is not in the plural. “A woman” now is doing something to “a man”. It is not “a woman” is not allowed to teach…”men”, so if this statement of Paul’s to Timothy is generic then at the very least a single woman is not allowed to teach a single man and that is a problem with what Priscilla did. She not only instructed a man, but she corrected him to boot.

I am very happy that you tried to bring up a scenario using “women” and “woman”, your try does not even touch Paul’s unity of thought in 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Paul ends his thought with a positive statement about the salvation of “she” by bringing “they” into the mix. There is no grammar that would ever rightfully equate the singular “she” as being the same as “they” in the same sentence. And because Paul includes the entire package of verses 11-15 within the instruction to Timothy and to the conclusion of the problem, the failure to bring about a modern day equivalent is quite telling. But I really do appreciate, Patrick, that you tried. That shows that you are trying to think this one through.