Cheryl Schatz

@226 gengwall,

Thanks for sparring with me! When I questioned you about why there was only one who was said to be still in the transgression if Paul was talking about many who were teaching their husbands false doctrine, you said:

I see no reason to make that leap. Timothy gave only one example. Paul shifts to speaking directly about that one example. Any other women who are still in transgression are still in need of the prohibition, and those that were deceived into that state are due mercy.

I find this unconvincing. If Paul was wanting to make 1 Timothy 2:11-12 generic for all those who were teaching false doctrine to their husbands and he was not talking about one special false teacher and that special circumstance between one couple, then why not carry it through with the generic? After all if this one couple is not special and they are just like all the others, then there is no real reason to pick them out of the crowd is there? By listing only one woman as being in the transgression, what would be the point of that? How then would we know if the others are okay now and not still in their deception, yet they are still not allowed to teach? Only one is still in the transgression, still in the deception, but all cannot teach? It makes the water more muddy as if all women generically can’t teach whether they are still deceived or not. It also doesn’t make the passage flow because “woman” is not of necessity generic to begin with and how would we be sure that the “woman” in verses 11 & 12 cannot be a specific woman? What makes it truly clear that the anarthrous noun in verse 11 & 12 is absolutely not connected to “the woman” of verse 14?

I had said to you:

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.

You answered:

Really? If Timothy is so smart, why ask Paul at all. It seems to me that a great deal has been said about Timothy’s youth, lack of experience, need for guidance, and need for encouragement. I don’t picture him at all as being able to “take the ball and run with it”.

I think the point that I have been making a lot about Timothy was his youth in his lack of experience not his lack of intelligence. So for Timothy to step into a marriage situation to bypass the woman’s husband would have been a hard thing for him to do. I don’t think that as a mature person spiritually who was given the privilege of being Paul’s representative in Ephesus, that Timothy would miss taking one solution and therefore miss the opportunity to use the courage he received from Paul to help any other similar situations. The fact is that although Timothy was young, he was a mature Christian in knowledge. But his inexperience in how to overstep a wimpy, silent husband and a culture that made what he was instructed to do a no-no made Paul’s instruction that the prohibition was coming from him, a very understandable answer to Timothy’s dilemma. So inexperienced in overcoming cultural barriers, sure. Was he stupid or unable to apply the solution to other problems? Hardly seems possible that such a senseless person would have been in charge of the problems.

More in a bit.