For those who are interested in my answers.

50 “Patrick” writes:

I agree with most of this, the singular does not necessitate a specific singular woman. I agree the singular needs to be noted, yet your argument that it is unnecessary i’m not convinced of.

If Paul was continuing on with generic discussion about godly women “women who claim godliness” then it is unnecessary to resort to the singular unless he was changing the topic or changing the meaning of the generic (i.e. no single woman can teach a single man but a group of women can teach a man) as the change is not only unnecessary but confusing. The fact is that we cannot disregard the grammar change as if Paul has not changed from the plural “women” The wording is inspired and we need to pay close attention to the grammar change as it is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

It is only unnecessary if you adopt your contextual understanding. However, if we adopt the traditional approach regarding corporate worship then it is a non-issue.

That simply isn’t true. Paul’s previous words are about godly women. The change in plural to singular that goes along with an instruction to godly women that has never been found in the entire history of the Scripture is not a corporate worship issue. No godly woman was ever stopped by God in speaking God’s words to God’s people either corporately or individually. A universal restriction against godly women would be unprecedented. We must pay attention to what Paul is saying and not add in a command that doesn’t exist in the Scripture nor in Paul’s direct words.

As you yourself note, a singular can simply have a generic meaning. I agree that the context decides whether it is a specific woman, so it appears therefore that it is here where the real disagreement lies.

A singular can have a generic meaning just as a plural can have a generic meaning, but consistency is expected. A change in grammar is not haphazard. God has a reason for the change and we need to explore the reason from the context.

You answered yourself, did you not, by affirming that a singular can be generic. What it appears that you are asking is to show the reason for the “irregular and unusual grammar change” based on the acceptance of your contextual understanding.

Actually I asked for a reason based on the comp understanding that would fit with Paul’s grammar. I have not yet received a logical or thoughtful answer that fits the context of Paul’s writing in 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Paul’s change from plural to singular is inconsistent with his instructions to godly women as a whole and the negative rather than the positive is highlighted as attached to a singular “woman” rather than generic godly “women”.

But surely you must realise that this type of language is based on your preconceived conclusion and understanding of the context.

Not true. I originally had no preconceived conclusion when I came to the context. What I find so amazing is that comps would conclude that Paul was creating a new law that never existed and accept that godly women are all forbidden to teach men when no such application was ever supplied by the Bible, Jesus, or any of the apostles. How can we jump to a universal application when such an application is inconsistent with all of Paul’s practices?

It is not irregular and unusual if we adopt the traditional hypothesis. On the contrary, it is only unusual if you believe a priori that it is referencing a new topic with a new specific woman.

It is especially irregular when we try to square it with the traditional view. It is not unusual at all if we see that Paul is no longer dealing with godly women but a situation that would require the stopping of teaching that was not God honoring.

I appreciate your understanding, but given what you have discussed, i find it much harder to accept your contextual understanding which has Paul shoot off in a rather different direction between v10-11 which can only be understood by reference back to earlier parts of chapter 1. This for me, seems like the irregular and unusual approach.

It is not irregular at all if we consider the entire book of 1 Timothy from the stated reason why Timothy was left behind in Ephesus. The rampant false teaching that required Timothy to be there in the first place cannot be disregarded as if chapter breaks in a personal letter were inspired by God. What is irregular is the thought that Paul was not stopping false teaching but was stopping the teaching of the truth. The stopping of the teaching of truth was never initiated by God, nor practiced by Paul and to insert this foreign concept into Paul’s letter to Timothy is not only irregular but highly suspect of the “tradition of men” rather than the law of God.