Cheryl Schatz

@207 gengwall

I think I failed to congratulate you on thinking outside the box. Even if your view does not agree with mine, the fact that you are thinking for yourself and considering all the options is a wonderful and commendable thing. Good going!

You said:

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.

You made a mistake here. There isn’t an “indefinite” singular. It is just singular. There is no indefinite in the Greek. And the singular can be definite without the definite article. So there isn’t such a change from singular to definite singular since both can (and I believe does) mean the same thing.

So let’s have a closer look at the changes within the text. Paul goes from plural to singular. Is the plural generic for all women in verse 10?

1 Timothy 2:10 (NAS)
10 but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.

This is a statement about all women “who are making a claim to godliness”. It appears that these are women who claim to have maturity and are godly examples of the faith.

The women in vs. 10 needed a correction for behavior in the worship service that was inhibiting the spread of the gospel.

I am not sure where you are getting this from other then this is typically what comp teachers say. Is the “correction” that Paul is giving a correction for behavior that is inhibiting the spread of the gospel, or is the correction the proper way to show their godliness through their inner character and not through expensive dresses and jewelry?

Vs. 11 has nothing to do with that at all. Verse 10 is a wrap up; vs. 11 is a beginning.

I agree. Verse 10 is about a general “kind” that are claiming godliness and verse 11 is about a woman who has a need to become a disciple and to learn from instruction.

Is verses 11 & 12 about a general “kind” of woman who is deceived and who needs to stop teaching her husband her errors and who needs to learn while verse 14 is about a specific woman who is called “the woman”? This would seem a bit odd if we consider that only one is said to be still in the transgression and results of it. Are we to think that there could be many women who are teaching their husbands false doctrine and none of the husbands are correcting them yet none of them are still in the transgression but one? If that would be the case, then there would be no reason for a generic example needed. I think that Timothy is smart enough to take Paul’s way of dealing with the specific case and using that as a template to deal with any further issues that may come up in the future.

It would also seem odd if there were potential on-going problems with many women teaching false doctrine to their husbands and Paul is only convinced that one can be saved (verse 15). After all he made a huge point in chapter one that one who has been deceived and acted ignorantly with unbelief could obtain mercy. Why would Paul then say that only one woman who was doing what lots of others were doing in Ephesus would obtain mercy? Would it not also be true that all of those who have been deceived would be eligible for mercy from God if they all submitted to learning the truth, and all were helped with a mentor who would walk alongside them in staying in the truth, staying true to a love for God and living a holy life for God by staying away from the error?

If Paul is indeed giving this example so that we can be sure that God has not rejected those who are lost in the cults and in aberrant movements, then wouldn’t it be contradictory of Paul to turn around and say that we can ignore some because we can judge some who have been deceived as unworthy to receive mercy? I just don’t think that fits.

So we are back to why did Paul use the singular in verses 11 & 12 without the definite article and then choose to use the definite article in verse 14? Here is what I think. I believe that his pattern has been to not use the definite article when the context is clear to the audience that a specific person is in mind. When Paul went from the plural to the singular, he made a switch to those who are going to be part of the solution (those who claim godliness) to the problem teacher who needs teaching herself. There is no doubt in my mind that Timothy knew exactly who this teacher was that he was to stop from teaching. However there is a complication in verse 14 that seems to require a definite article.

In verse 13 Paul has named Eve in connection to Adam. He does this because the problem in the garden directly correlates to the problem in Ephesus with this one woman. But Paul is now going to add the woman into the equation showing Timothy that the seriousness of her situation is just like what was going on with Eve. So where we would expect Paul to use Eve with Adam in verse 14, here Paul switches from the original problem that existed in now dead people, as an overlay to the current problem with an alive person. In order to make sure that Timothy understands the direct connection and that he isn’t talking about Eve but the specific woman, he contrasts the dead with the living by specifically identifying her as “the” woman and then uses grammar that shows that the effects of her transgression are on-going.

So I think that the unexpected use of the definite article is the area that we should concentrate on and why Paul used the definite article when he has in the past used no article when he was identifying a specific person.

Lastly I think that if “woman” of verse 12 was not a specific woman that was doing a specific thing with a specific man then Paul’s command to Timothy had no real teeth since it would be an “if” command instead of a definite command to do something. In other words if Paul was using generic terms like any woman who is deceived needs to learn and to stop teaching her husband, the question would be why Paul would give a command regarding potentially deceived women. It wasn’t his modus operandi to give out commands for “what if’s”. His commands seem to be about specifics.

Paul also didn’t give up on people seeing them as unable to be saved very easily. He did treat the deceivers differently than the deceived but the deceivers were not turned over to the church to be taught. They were turned over to satan and it was the deceived who were turned over to the church to be taught.

So if your alternate suggestion is true, one would have to explain

1. Why would Paul command regarding possible scenarios?

2. Was “the woman” from verse 14 & 15 also to be commanded not to teach her husband? How could we be sure if verse 12 was only about “if” situations?

3. Why would there not be a generic “woman” who was still in the transgression and the results of that transgression in verse 14? Why would Paul seem to teach that any woman could be deceived, but it is only “one” woman who is still in the transgression?

4. Why would Paul who was confident that those who were deceived in unbelief be eligible for mercy turn around and deny that all but one was eligible for mercy by making the “she” of verse 15 about only one woman?

I think that making the woman of verses 11 & 12 to be any woman who is deceived takes the punch out of Paul’s command and makes the passage less clear and with irreconcilable problems about who can be saved. This is why I hold to the thought that the singular is a consistent change to a specific example of one particular woman and one particular man. It just fits the verses without the problems that making a generic woman out of “she” and then changing the “she” in verse 15 to be specific.

And if the “she” in verse 15 is the specific woman of verse 14 PLUS the unspecified generic woman of verses 11 & 12, the “they” of verse 15 becomes very confusing. We can make “they” the specific woman of verse 14, but who would “they” be that must walk with her to help to assure her salvation? “The” woman of verse 15 isn’t connected to “the” man and we can’t assume that “any” woman who is a false, deceived teacher has a husband who is a believer. But if verses 11 & 12 are about one woman and one man, then the example that Paul gives of the very first husband and wife in the garden, and the fact that it is only “she” whose salvation is in question, shows that this one couple are exactly like Adam and Eve. She is deceived. He is silent. She is in need of true knowledge. He has the truth and has done nothing with it.