gengwall

Hi Holly,

I would like to take a stab at your question pending Cheryl’s response.

You must have been brought up on the good old King James. That is one of the few translations which renders vs. 11 as “the woman”. Actually, the definite article is not present in either verse and so both should technically be translated “a woman”. I believe the intent of the King James with “the woman” in vs. 11 is still to imply a generic woman. In that light, “a woman” in vs. 12 flows just fine. In other words, I do not believe for a minute that the King James translators thought that a specific woman was in view.

Now, Cheryl and many others including myself, do believe a specific woman is in view. In my opinion, the true Greek of the rest of the passage makes it perfectly clear that Paul is speaking of a particular woman and a particular man or set of men that she is engaged with in false teaching. So why was Paul not specific at the onset of the passage in vs. 11? One possibility is that this was a personal response to Timothy regarding issues Timothy had already written Paul about and therefore Timothy would have known exactly who Paul was speaking of, even though it is more obscure to us. Another possibility is that although Paul does get specific in the end, it may be that the problem was pervasive and so Paul was speaking about the type of situation in general to begin with, and then concluding with a specific remedy for the specific couple Timothy wrote about as a template for dealing with any couple that had similar issues.

Whatever the reason, it does not negate two facts. One – the type of teaching that Paul is addressing is undeniably false teaching, so any application of this passage to stop women from teaching sound doctrine in the church is a great overreach. Two – a specific woman is clear by verse 14 and unmistakeable by verse 15 and therefore any application to women in general is completely unsupported.