gengwall

Think of it the other way. Had Paul used the definite article from the beginning, then ONLY this specific real couple are being addressed and we have no basis to make a general application. If Timothy had run into a similar but not exactly the same situation with another couple, a very likely possibility in Ephesus, he would have to write Paul all over again because he could not be certain that the specific prohibition for a specific couple would be applicable.

In judicial terms, Paul’s opinon would have to be considered very narrow, and Timothy would have to bring other cases, even very, very similar cases, in front of Paul again for more clarification and remedy. That is why, in America, we see case after case that seem almost identical being tried. It is because the court’s judgements are often so narrow that they literally can only be applied to the one specific case. On the other hand, a more general opinion, even though based on a specific case, gives the courts more guidance on how to proceed in the future.

Isn’t it possible that Paul wanted to provide Timothy with more than a narrow remedy for a specific case? Isn’t it possible that Paul recognized that conditions in Ephesus could bring about similar situations and therefore he wanted to provide Timothy with some general guidance as well as some encouragement about the specific case? Wouldn’t the grammar we are presented with be exactly the way to do that?