gengwall

Cheryl – “I certainly could be wrong, but it seems to me that if we took verse 11 as a special group of women then we would have to take verse 12 as a special group of women too.”

I am not taking vs. 11 to be a plural special group of women but as a singular generic example of “the woman”. Certainly, there is potential that there were other marriages in Ephesus being conducted like that of “the woman”. But it also seems probable, if there were, that other such marriages may not have as positive of a prognosis as Paul has for “they” (the specific woman and her husband). So it would make sense for Paul to give a general prohibition but be specific about a potentially positive outcome.

“That would complicate the “a man” to another special group of men and the “she” and “they” in verse 15 would now be, she = a special group of women (thus generic plural) and they = ? (Perhaps a special group of women plus a special group of men or only just a special group of men or ???)”

Not at all. Vs. 12 would read “a wife…a husband” and we would presume that the generic husband is the husband of the generic wife. There are no groups. Yet we would read “they” in vs. 15 to be “the woman (from vs. 14 and earlier in vs. 15) and her husband”, the specific couple on whom the generic is based.

Let me say I am not relating an opinion that I have a strong conviction about. What I am trying to do is think through why Paul would not have used the definite article right off the bat. So, I’m responding just to pursue the intellectual exercise.

My reaction to vs. 12 in this light is that it also does not yet have to be about the specific man and woman. There is no reason why verse 12 couldn’t still be generic: “I do not permit a woman to teach [false doctrine] or exercise violent dominion over a husband”.

There are two things we know for sure. One is that there is a distinct and intentional change from plural to singular between vss. 10 and 11. But two, there is also a distinct (and also intentional???) change from indefinite singular to definite singular between vss. 12 and 14. As we know, the indefinite singular can refer to a generic. It is not a “set” of deceived women per se, but a single generic woman.

So why these shifts in grammar? It is clear that the first shift between 10 and 11 signifies a change in subjects (although not the overall topic of false teaching per se). The women in vs. 10 needed a correction for behavior in the worship service that was inhibiting the spread of the gospel. Vs. 11 has nothing to do with that at all. Verse 10 is a wrap up; vs. 11 is a beginning.

So vs. 11 starts a new section. But now Paul has a specific example (a “she” from Timothy) instead of a group (the women in the Ephesian church). But Paul still needs to address not only the “she” and her husband but any other couple who Timothy also might encounter who has a similar situation. So Paul begins by describing generally how to handle the situation in question by dealing with a generic woman and her husband who are based on the specific couple Timothy wrote about. Then he concludes by offering encouragement about that specific couple because unlike some couples similarly situated, they in particular have hope.

We can’t ignore the shift between 12 and 14 as if it doesn’t exist (well, we can, but I am choosing not to for this discussion). Vss. 11 and 12 simply do not say “the woman”, “this woman”, “that woman”, “a certain woman”, or any other such thing. So what if vss. 11 and 12 are indefinite not only grammatically but intentionally? Does that make the egal case fall apart…or support the comp case?

Not if “a woman” is a generic representation (of which there may have been many in Ephesus) of “the woman”. Not if “a woman” like “the woman” needs to have the same prohibition applied. And not if “a[nother] woman” like “the woman” may not have the same potentially positive outcome as “they” (“the woman” and her husband) do.

And why would Paul do this? Why wouldn’t he just deal with the specific case? Possibly because he wanted to empower Timothy to act on his own. Possibly becasue he didn’t want Timothy to keep writing him over and over about basically the same problems. Who knows? Or maybe it is much ado about nothing. All I’m saying is that the egal case stands strong even if we accept an interpretation of “a woman” that follows the indefinite grammar.