Cheryl Schatz

Okay, I’m back and just going to catch up on gengwall’s comments that I didn’t address.

Gengwall @210 you said:

Yes – I’m saying that maybe Paul wanted Timothy to understand vs. 11 and 12 to mean “any” couple who were in similar circumstances. That doesn’t mean that Timothy’s specific woman isn’t in view exactly. It just means that she isn’t the only one.

Then why should Paul just leave it with a generic couple(s)? With this view he is giving a specific prohibition to more than one couple who may or may not exist. Yet he appears in that view to not be concerned that about deceived men learning, but only the (representative) deceived woman. This seems so unlike Paul. If Paul was going to make this about a generic deceived person, he would not have put in the gender since clearly he wants all deceived people to learn the truth and he believes that if he could receive mercy from God when he was the worst of the worst, then surely all deceived people are in the place to receive mercy from God “if”…

So for Paul to create a specific “class” because of one deceived woman and then leave all the other deceived people out as he only believes one woman can be saved, just doesn’t fit the positive message of chapter one that even the worst of the worst of the unbelieving deceived persons (himself) can be brought to God through God’s own mercy. To change that positive message in chapter two to make only one person eligible for God’s mercy is a clear contradiction to Paul’s message in my opinion.

Ephesus was a very pagan city with, female dominated cults. It isn’t too far of a stretch to believe that there might have been others involved in similar “authentein” behavior. Although I wouldn’t go as far as saying it was unique to Ephesus, it may be that it was predominant in Ephesus.

If this was the case then there was no need at all to list one specific woman who was doing these things. No need at all because why pick out one woman from a whole “class” of women doing the same thing? That wouldn’t be Paul’s style. Paul lumps all the false deceived teachers together in chapter 1 and are we to believe that he now will separate one woman out of a myriad of false deceived women teachers, such woman alone is capable of being saved?

Timothy is to stop his example woman and any others he may run into per vs. 12. His specific woman certainly is not exempt from the prohibition. Nor may she be the only one needing prohibition.

If this is the case there is no need to pull one woman out of the group. Just stop them all.

Paul could have continued in the plural but Timothy provided a specific example, and one that was taking place in a marriage setting, which necessitates a shift to singular.

This confuses me. Aren’t you saying that there are possibly many women who are teaching their husbands? Then why would Paul have to switch to singular if it is one real person plus many more possible same-case problems? And how would we know who the “she” is from verse 15? Would it be the generic “woman” from verse 11 or only “the woman” from verse 14? How could we be sure?

The only “they” that has ever been in view is an individual wife and her husband, whether they are generic or Timothy’s example couple.

So we can never really know what Paul meant then she he has been going back and forth between a generic couple and a real couple?

Since the focus has shifted in vs. 14 away from the generic and to the specific couple, the most immediate “they” is that specific couple.

But then does it fit Paul’s positive belief that if he could be saved, God could have mercy on anyone, if only a specific woman can be saved and the other “generic” woman cannot be saved? What kind of message would that be telling to Timothy and then through the letter to the church? Is this really consistent with Paul and the rest of his letter?

I want to emphasize that I am not insisting it has to be this way.

Well, that is good. But it seems to me that you do not believe that there is only one woman involved in verses 11 & 12 so there must be another explanation for who “woman” is in these verses. Is it okay if I take a passionate defense of my position, questioning the possibility that there are other women in similar situations who will not be assured that they can be saved too? I believe that it is when we push and prod each other, that we can see through some of the uncertainties and have an iron sharpens iron moment now and again including me learnin things too.

But many people struggle with the lack of the definate article in vss. 11 and 12.

There should be less struggle if people realize that the lack of the definite article does not mean that the noun is not definite. The context will help us understand whether it is generic or whether it is a particular couple that Paul and Timothy both know about.

This is a possible explanation for that grammar which doesn’t detract at all from Paul’s central instruction nor leave Timothy’s specific couple out in the cold.

But does it not detract from the positive message that anyone who has been deceived can come out of this deception? The very fact that Paul lists a singular woman who will depend on at least one other to come out of her deception leaves other couples out in the cold. Surely one woman will be depend on other deceived couples in order for her to be saved. Verse 15 is so specific that any other explanation seems to become nonsense other than one deceived woman who is in Ephesus and the help of her husband to bring her to correct teaching with her willingness to submit to the truth, will bring her salvation through the only Savior we all have who came as a result of a promise because of the deception of the first woman. It is a brilliant plan of God’s, I believe, to take what the enemy meant for harm and release the captive by God’s mercy and grace.