Dave

You are very gracious Cheryl! I will continue to read with interest as I usually do…but work demands my attention so I might not comment much now you are back. I appreciate the truth and love with which you are talking to Mark. I hope he does too!

Great to have you back Cheryl! I had hoped that a takeover might bring you back (I had secretly hoped for graphics too)! I hope everything is getting sorted for you.

Yeah, the Aussies have taken over the blog! I declare this blog to be the property of the Commonwealth of Australia…

I thought it might be good to sum up the discussion thus far. If Mark is still listening he might like to comment on how accurate it is.

*Cheryl has given her exegesis of the passage in question.

*Mark has claimed that the grammar means Cheryl’s exegesis provides a theological dilemma.

*Others have suggested that Mark’s claim regarding the grammar (the conditional clause) is incorrect. Evidence was given proving the claim was incorrect. evidence was rejected by Mark for reasons he appeared to make up. He never provided evidence for rejecting the examples given, except for his own example where he did not even swap the main and conditional clause but actually change the conditional clause to the main clause and the main to the conditional.

*Mark has taken us on a merry trip up the garden path (all the way to the kephale (which he no longer wants to talk about) and back) but has only been able to bring one piece of evidence to back up his claim – Romans 10:9.

*But Romans 10:9 fails to back up his statement because as a conditional clause it DOES NOT state that the only way to be saved is through belief in Jesus. Thankfully though Paul did not leave the Roman church in doubt as to the only way to be saved!

*Mark has huffed and puffed about how none of us agree with each other but has failed to provide evidence for this. He has claimed people are saying the salvation of the woman is the “responsibility” of the husband, whis is not what has been said.

*Mark has claimed CHeryl is arrogant about her exegesis being correct and yet has forgotton that her words were in response to his claim he had found holes in it – which he had/has not.

*After giving not one reasonable piece of legitimate evidence to back up any one of his claims Mark has bowed out.

Mark,
To just use Pinklight as an example, yes, she has asked you why you have an issue with believing that the salvation of the woman might be conditional on her husband. I do not have a problem with this. It is, after all, a conditional clause that we have been talking about. The issue is whether or not the conditional clause limits this to be the only way that she can be saved. I believe we have been united in saying to you that, no, it does not dictate the only way she can be saved.

Now, despite all your claims to the contrary you have not provided any evidence whatsoever for saying that the conditional clause means this is the only way she will be saved. For the conditional clause to say this we have to insert more information. Please show evidence for why the conditional clause becomes exclusive. I have provided info to the contrary, especially in the light of the fact that you now do not seem to mind the order of the main clause and the conditional clause.

So, I believe there is agreement from Pinklight, TL, Craig and myself. I hope the others correct me if this is not so. The fact that you think we are not suggests to me that either you do not understand Cheryl’s exegesis, or you simply do not want to try to. Cheryl’s exegesis does explain the verse. You keep saying it ignores the grammar there, but I assume that is because you want the conditional clause to say something it is not.

With regards to your response to Colossians, all I can say is you have to be joking! How do you explain Jesus being the source of all authority in one verse and then only the authority over all authority in the following chapter? How do you explain Jesus being the authority over all authorities? That does not even make sense! You said, “Dave you need to show proof that your translation of ‘kephale’ is an acceptable one before you try to argue for it in the context.” Oh, well that is not fair(!) because Grudem has not shown proof of his translation being acceptable and all I have done is give proof that it is not acceptable. This is exactly what you claim to have done to Cheryl’s exegesis, my fine young gander!

With regards to Romans 10, I offered more than simply the grammatical construction. We have the context for both verses, and Romans was written to a church. It is therefore in a very different genre to the letter to Timothy. Paul was writing hoping that all the Roman Christians would understand where he was coming from. I believe he was writing about the Gospel of Jesus Christ and it’s power to save through faith. Are you denying this? If this is the case then don’t we take the verse in Romans 10 in the context of all that Paul has said in Romans 1-9?
In Timothy though we have a letter written to one man. We do know from the context that Paul is helping Timothy with a few things, false teachers etc. But do we know exactly what is happening with this situation between one woman and another party? Nope. So we put it together as best we can. Are you denying that the verses are regarding one woman and another party? If so then prove you case.

You said, “You offered un-similar examples and then totally reject a direct parallel discussing the same outcome of a condition being met.” You must be joking! You have NEVER EVER proved that my examples were un-similar and the one you have offered is un-similar in exactly the same way! Not only that, your direct parallel does not prove your point. To go back to your original question regarding Romans 10, “Is Paul suggesting that this is the only way you can be saved?” In that verse alone, no he is not. As I answered before, thankfully we have the rest of Romans to explain how it is that we are ONLY saved. Do you have a problem with this?

You have had enough eh? Enough of trying to bluff your way through? I guess it can be tiring!

Blessings!

I might just add Mark that I am assuming you are conceding the point about the order of the clauses in 1 Tim 2:15 not making any difference to the meaning. I assume this not because you have conceded the point after overwhelming evidence from me(!) but because your example in Romans 10 appears to be in the same order as the examples I gave that you wanted to discount (I have not checked the Greek though).

I think it helps us believe you are looking for the truth when you tell us you have recognised something as truth. Otherwise it just looks like you have a problem with people not agreeing with you!

Mark, your quotes do not show anyone saying that the deception was the responsibility of the husband. They show the need for help to get out of deception and show that people believe the husband was in a good position to and that thus far he would appear to have been quiet. We all have a brotherly/sisterly responsibility to help each other live lives free of deception, but no one has said that the husband is responsible for the outcome. I might add that neither has Paul.

Mark, you claim in your two options that in option one we are ignoring the grammar. If you have found a fault with Cheryl’s grammar then please outline it to us. After all, in option two you are adding info that the grammar does not so we do consider grammar important!

Mark, if you insist on talking about kephale when we are not then please respond to my reading of Colossians. No, it is not using kephals between people, though it is between Jesus and people. To steal some of your points, it is important because it was writeen by Paul too, it uses the same word and it provides a strong argument for kephale not meaning authority over, but the “beginning” or “origin of” authority. I might add that in Colossians 2 it does not make sence (even though it is Grudem’s interpretation) to say that Jesus is the authority over all authority. If you take all authority, then there is no authority left to put over it. However, if Paul is saying that Jesus is the origin of all authority, then that makes perfect sense. Perhaps this would be better left to another post? Cheryl have you ever done one on Colossians and the use of kephale?

Having a good holiday Mark? 🙂

Mark, with your example from Romans I really have to say it is not a legitimate example as the construct is not identical to 1 Tim 2:15. Just joking! (but I hope you get the not very hidden message in my joke)

If we go by the words Paul has written in both passages then we can only come to the conclusion we can through other knowledge we bring to the text. Thankfully Paul’s letter to the Romans is an explanation of the Gospel and you can look up for your self the many references and reasons Paul give for how Jesus is the only way to the Father. More to the point as Romans is about salvation through faith, not works of the law I think in chapter 10 the readers know what this belief in Jesus us about and how it works.

Of course in our Timothy passage things are more difficult, but your Romans example is great as it emphasises the point that in 1 Timothy we DO NOT KNOW as much about the context of what Paul is writing. Timothy does. That said, we still have to put things together from the surrounding verses and chapters.

Your example from Romans does NOTHING to support your interpretation of the conditional clause, if that was indeed why you brought it up. You gave two options, Craig gave a third. One option relies on your interpretation of the conditional clause…so can we scrub that option off the ist or are you still going to persist with something you cannot back up?

Mark, you said, “Also if you argue for a creational understanding for beginning with Adam and Eve, why do you feel you can simply change therefore what ‘beginning’ means in relation to God/Christ? I’m sure you don’t believe Jesus was created out of God stuff. THis is the problem…let’s just change the menaing all the time!”

I have thought more about this though I am still confused Mark. If your point is what I think it is, I don’t think kephale when used as a metaphor has to be used in exactly the same way each time. As has been said many times already, metaphors need to be viewed in their context to understand them. It so happens though in this particular instance I do believe that Jesus was created out of God stuff. Not sure if I would put it exactly like that, but I do believe that Jesus the Word was with God before time, but I also believe he was born as a baby 2000 years ago. I believe that he had no beginning yet was concieved by God. I believe he was “eternally begotton by the father”. I have no idea what that means and whether or not it even makes sense, but I think it suggests that as some point in human history Jesus had a beginning.

So in this situation I do not think I am changing the meaning at all. But if I was…so what? Metaphors have different meanings in different places.

And so we go once more around the bush…(a Canadian saying I think)…

One is a first conditional clause, the other is a third. Before you give me a helpful link, I am aware that first and third conditional clauses are different, but how is it different and how does that difference demonstrate that the conditional clause and the main clause being swapped suddenly makes the conditional clause mean something different. This is what you stated before. I guess it does not matter because to go back to the original argument, the conditional clause does not say what you are saying it says. You still not have provided evidence for it saying what you claim, as you have added words to the clause.

As to what in 1 Tim 2:15 is hypothetical, is not the conditional clause a hypothetical? They have not yet ocntinued in faith, etc. We do not know if they will. Paul is simply stating what will happen if that hypothetical situation that he describes clearly in verse 15 occurs.

I do not think anyone has suggested that Paul has said that the husband is needed to bring the wife out of deception. Just hypothetically Mark, IF you were decieved, you might be able to get your act together all by yourself, but sometimes God uses other people in our lives to help us realise our deception and change.

I do not recall anyone saying the deception was the responsibility of the husband. I am not sure where this is all coming from.

You said, “Regarding the husband being the origin of the wife, beginning may be acceptable for Adam and Eve, but in what way are you the beginning of your wife? Obviously not the smae as Adam and Eve since your wife was not created out of you. This is where your understanding fails.”

But I told you not to go silly and look at 1 Cor 11:11. Is there a comp version of the Bibble that misses this verse? Comps never refer to it, even when you tell them it is there.

You said, “Also if you argue for a creational understanding for beginning with Adam and Eve, why do you feel you can simply change therefore what ‘beginning’ means in relation to God/Christ? I’m sure you don’t believe Jesus was created out of God stuff. THis is the problem…let’s just change the menaing all the time!”

I admit it, I don’t know what you are talking about. Can you just simply respond about the conditional clause? Why all this other sidetrack stuff? What is up the garden path that is so attractive Mark?!?!

For someone who was going to give up on this discussion I certainly have a lot to ocntribute. I hope it is helpful! Mark you said, “Problem is, in what sense is God the beginning of Christ? Sounds like a sub-ordination Christology. In what sense is the husband the beginning of his wife?”

In answer to your first question, is The Father not the Father of the Son? Did the Father not send the Son? Was not Jesus concieved through the Holy Spirit? Are these things subordination Christology? Beginning, source, origin are all synonyms and they all accurately describe at some point the relationship between Jesus and the Godhead. Sure, you can go the Grudem line if you like and suggest a passage like Colossians 1:18 and say that it is to do about Jesus’ authority over the church, and yet look at the passage from verse 15…Jesus is the source, the origin, the beginning of all created things, including powers and authority(note that!), he is before all things…he is the head of the church (wonder what that means)…”he is the beginning and the first born from among the dead…”!!!

You can believe what Grudem says when he says that Colossians 2:10 is about Jesus being the authority over all authorities (because head means authority over)…but surely given what has just been said in chap 1 that belittles Jesus. He does not just have authority over all authority, but in 1:16 it has been clearly said that he is the source/origin/beginning of all authority. Why would 2:10 mean anything less?

In answer to your second question, was not Eve taken from Adam? 1 Cor 11:8-9. Was the man not the source, origin and beginning of the woman? Now, before you go silly with this, don’t forget 1 Cor 11:11-12. What do you know…every man after Adam finds their begining, source and origin in woman.

Hmmm.I have a feeling I am going to regret this…

Second thoughts Mark, in regard to your words,
“ ‘If you are the son of God, turn these stones into bread”
Now is the meanig the same if we make it the same as 1 Tim 2:15
“you will be the son of God, if you turn these stones into bread”
I suggest that the meaning changes greatly, wouldn’t you agree?”

As well as import a “will” you did not change the order of the clauses at all but only changed the position of the “if” changing the conditional clause to the main clause and the main clause to the conditional clause. This is NOT what we were talking about. To more accurately render the change of order you should have said, “Turn these stones into bread, if you are the Son of God.” Now, please tell me what difference this makes to the meaning of the sentence and please be specific about what the changes are so we can see how they impact the discussion.

I agree Cheryl and TL…well put Craig!

Mark, for what it is worth…you said, “Ok, i hope this helps our discussion. You are arguing i think, that the woman’s salvation is not conditional on the husband, despite the fact we have a conditional clause and are further arguing that this is not the ONLY way she could be saved.”

No, this is not what I am arguing. There is obviously some relationship between the two parties and the hypothetical situation that Paul refers to in the conditional clause is a hypothetical one where the woman would appear to be influenced by the other party. I think Cheryl has explained well what the relationship might be. All I am saying is that it is not ONLY conditional on the husband. The passage does not say it is. You have said it is. As Cheryl has said, you have over stated your case.

You also said,
“ ‘If you are the son of God, turn these stones into bread”
Now is the meanig the same if we make it the same as 1 Tim 2:15
“you will be the son of God, if you turn these stones into bread”
I suggest that the meaning changes greatly, wouldn’t you agree?”

Certainly the meaning has changed, but only because you imported more info into the verse (the word ‘will’ suggests that making bread from stones will be how Jesus can become the Son of God – a new concept). To accurately swap the verse around we end up with, “You are the Son of God, if you turn stones into bread.” I suggest the meaning does not change, wouldn’t you agree?

In regards to your helpful link it provided no new info for me. It gave no evidence that swapping the main and conditional clauses makes an ounce of difference in meaning in any way and definitely not so as to make the passage exclude any other means through which the woman might be saved, i.e. her own faith.

Mark, please either concede the point or bring some evidence to the discussion. Please do not give me any more “helpful” links that provide no evidence. For some reason you wanted me to go and find evidence for how changing the clauses discounts my previous two examples. This is your job Mark. You have failed to do it. The burden of proof is on you.

For the conditional clause to say what you want it would have to say, “She will ONLY be save if they continue…” Bottom line – it does not say this.

Hmmm, it appears I have trouble with people disagreeing with me. So far only when talking with you Mark! You gave wise advice to Lydia, that assumptions do not help our discussion. Let me say the following…

I have already done research above and beyond the ‘basic Greek grammars’. I have managed to find an extensive research paper on the word order of conditional clauses…but it does not suggest what you are suggesting. You discounted my two examples because of word order. As I said before, you need to do more than simply say “They don’t count, word order!” You are suggesting you have evidence that is specific as to why my examples do not count. Where is the evidence? Why am I still waiting for it?

I never said you were making up definitions. You want an example for Kephale? Where did this come from? Is this part of the discussion? As for the Grudem paper he actually gives evidence in that paper for kephale being used as “beginning” between persons in Greek of NT time. I assume you will fall for Grudem’s trap and believe that what egals mean by source is different to beginning or origin? Grudem is not seeking the truth.

Your definitions have only ever come from BDAG and the Oxford? We went through this before. I gave three/four definitions to your one. Your one you never gave a reference for so I could find the definition myself (though I asked for it). It was different to my Oxford definition. I am not saying you made it up or changed it, but it is very easy to quote only a part of a definition to prove a point. You showed this when you quoted some of my definitions IN PART to try and make them back up your point. Just because they said submission could be to an authority (which I completely agree with) you wanted to ignore that it ALSO clearly said submission could be to anyone.

Not sure why you want us to read the Kostenberg article but I will say there was nothing in it that I had not already considered. Second to that it is crystal clear in that article that he has brought his own agenda to the research he presents. You cite it as evidence to back up your case? He does not even talk about conditional clauses in it.

Luke 4:67 is another conditional clause…this time in your chosen order of preference! Was the only way Jesus could be ruler of all the kingdoms of the workd by worshipping Satan?

Mark, you want to make black white and white black. I have no problem with people not agreeing with me. What I have trouble with is people who are more bent on winning an argument than seeking truth. It has become very clear to me that you do not want to have a discussion where words are accepted by what they mean in the dictionary. You want to make a conditional clause say something it does not. You want kephale to not mean something that it can clearly mean.

I think I have clearly demonstrated why I do not see this discussion worth continuing. If you want to address these issues I have mentioned then perhaps we can get somewhere. I am trying to speak the truth in love. Perhaps you might not see much of either here, but I hope you can.

Thanks for the replies Mark. I will not bother replying beyond this. I have not got time, nor the desire. I am sorry to not agree with you, but I do not see you pursuing truth at all. You are the person who would not accept dictionary definitions that clearly show submission does not always dictate hierarchy. You created your own definition. Now you are adding your own interpretation and understanding of conditional clauses that go well beyond what the text books say. You say that my two examples are not valid because of the order of the main clause and the conditional clause. So? My texts do not say this makes any difference. Should I just accept that you say it does? Some of your replies make no effort to understand what I am saying. I am wasting my time.
All the best
Dave

I was wondering where you were Kay! Moving! Enough said!

Mark,

“Conditional sentences are sentences which contain a subordinate clause which states a supposition and a principal clause which states the result of the fulfilment of this supposition. Example: If you do this you will beocme rich.” NT Greek, By Nunn

I think we would agree that Nunn is not suggesting there is only one way to become rich,.

I cannot comment on Cheryl’s definition, I do not know where it has come from and I do not even know where you are quoting Cheryl from or the context.

There are many types of conditional clauses. This would appear to be a future hypothetical example, and I believe it to be accurate to the truth. She will certainly be saved if they are both faithful. I am in no way lessening the strength of the clause.

Craig @ 78 – well put!

Mark, Ryde Pressie’s is going through a period of growth and change that has partially occured through my spending less time blogging! Thanks for asking. Although I drive past Ryde COngregational occasionally, I do not know anyone who goes there. I have never met the Pastor/Minister at any local minister type things, but perhaps they go to the ones I don’t!

Mark, I have not got the time at the moment to rest Kostenberger’s 30 pages, though I had a quick skim. Was there a specific point you were hoping to draw to our attention, or simply the complications in the verse?

Mark,
I have given this discussion much thought and have come to the following conclusions. Perhaps you would like to comment on them.
*You claim to not have an interpretation of these verses, but rather problems with Cheryl’s understanding. But this is not true. You have provided an interpretation of the conditional clause which results in Paul saying that the woman’s salvation is dependant on the man. This is your interpretation of the grammar that is there. You seem to think that because you claim you are not providing an interpretation that you have nothing to answer yourself. But you have provided an interpretation. It is flawed. I am sure you agree – you have stated that this cannot be what Paul is saying.
*It is flawed because of how you are insisting a conditional clause operates. It does not operate the way you claim. Let me prove this to you with some first year Greek grammar! Satan said to Jesus (using a conditional clause), “If you are the Son of God turn these stones into bread.” Jesus did not turn the stones into bread, so does that mean he is not the Son of God? Your interpretation of the clause insists that the clause is ‘exclusive’, that the condition supplied is the ONLY way the outcome can occur. Jesus did not turn stones into bread, yet he is still the son of God.
We have another example from Matthew 9:21, “If I only touch his garment, I shall be made well”. Your interpretation insists (because it is ‘exclusive’) that the woman would ONLY be healed if she touches the garment. Of course she could have asked Jesus without touching him, and he could have healed her. She could have talked to a disciple who then told Jesus about her, and she could have been made well without Jesus even meeting her.
To further illustrate the flaw in your thinking if we look at the verse in question, you claim that because of the conditional clause her ONLY chance of salvation rests not only with her but also the other party. What you have failed to point out that your ‘exclusive’ use of conditional clauses also means that not only will she be saved through her actions and the actions of the other party but ALSO that he will not be saved. The conditional clause does not say he will be saved even if he does continue in faith, only that she will. This is simply following your logic of how a conditional clause works. It does not make sense! Pau l is not saying if he continues in faith he will not be saved, only she will be.
*Cheryl has suggested there is a relationship of influence that helps us understand how the conditional clause is being used. I agree. You do not. You do not give an argument other than to return to your flawed understanding of how a conditional clause works. But, if we look at the passage from verse 12 it would appear that it is all about influence, and about being deceived. Cheryl’s understanding of 15b does fit with the rest of the passage and makes logical sense of the conditional clause.
*I have to ask Mark, are you actually interested in the truth at this point. You do not seem at all concerned about your own lack of understanding of the passage. Your own interpretation of the conditional clause undermines scriptures teachings on salvation through our own faith. Because you do not offer an alternative, but instead a flawed interpretation which you yourself will not accept you begin to lose integrity in the discussion. You are not here to be helpful, but rathe unhelpful. Are you this strongly against women elders? Do you actually want the truth?

So sorry to hear that Cheryl. Our prayers are with you.

Mark, thanks for being honest about why you are here.

I do not think I am weakening the conditional clause. The conditional clause is that she will be saved if they continue in faith etc. The conditional clause is not that she will only be saved if they both continue in faith (is does not say this…but you are insisting that it does). You are trying to get the conditional clause to say more than it is. You are placing restrictions above and beyond what Paul does. I am not taking anything away from the conditional clause, nor am I adding to it.

Now, in light of the fact that you are not here to shed any light on what Paul does mean here, and that you admit you do not know what Paul is saying, and in light of the fact that you cannot find any holes in Cheryl’s exegesis, perhaps you would like to accept her interpretation? 🙂

Mark, I feel the need to point out some observations. I am happy to be corrected on any or all of them if I have misunderstood you.

*You have come here not to discuss or answer our questions, but to try and show holes in Cheryl’s exegesis.
*You will not offer your own interpretation.
*You take exception to Greg’s comments about the importance of Pauline writings, and yet you ask Cheryl to back up her exegesis from external documents, without which you willl not accept her interpretation.
*You place greater weight on historical church writings than interpreting the grammar that is there in Scripture.
*You develop arguments that rely on suggesting Paul is saying something that he clearly has not said, for example, that the womans salvation is dependant on the other person/s involved in verse 15.

Once again, I am a simple man and if I have misunderstood I am sorry, but is this where you are coming from? I am not trying to be confrontational for the sake of being confrontational, but rather so that we might all know where we stand.

Dave

Mark @ 46 said, “There is a difference between saying a spouse can influence your life/decisions etc and saying that their faith, love, sanctification and sobriety are all required for you to be saved. Can you see the difference?”

I can see the difference, but Paul has said that if both husband and wife continue…she will be saved. So what is the issue? He has NOT said, if only he continues…she will be saved, or she will only be saved if they both ocntinue. Why make Paul say more than he is saying? He is NOT suggesting (and has not said) that what the “he” does will determine “her” salvation but rather the simple truth that if they both continue SHE will be saved (as indeed BOTH of them will be). In regards to her salvation I am sure Paul would say that it is only, ultimately, resting on her faith in Christ…the childbirth, and the new life that springs from that.

(I have of course assumed the “they” is a “he” and a “she” for the purpose of making a logical point!).

Thanks for a very clearly explained post Cheryl! I appreciate your careful explanation of the grammar and the way you have put it together. It makes it easy for a ‘b’ grade (probably ‘C’ if we are being honest!) Greek scholar to follow.

I am constantly amazed by the interpretation used in translation resulting in the huge difference iamongst translations as people ‘guess’ the meaning that makes sense to them. I remember my very first Greek class and another student sitting next to me asked if theology influences translation. He was given an answer by the lecturer that would have made a politician proud. It was not far into the lesson that he had cause to say to me, “So theology does influence our translation”!

Hi All!
I am back from holidays…great discussion happening!
Happy BD GEngwall…I turned 40 on the 10th!
Hi Holly…good to have another Aussie around!
Other than that…I have nothing much to contribute except to say that I have really enjoyed Craig and Holly’s questions… 🙂
Dave

Great explanations Cheryl…and great illustrations!

Glad you are back!

The only help I can offer before I scamper off to church is to say that it is a very confusing passage! I find it so, anyway.

It is great that you brought verse 8 into it and are looking at the wider context of the words. At some point I think we need to realise that Paul is talking about some cultural traditions that made sense then but not so much now.

In light of that, verses 11 and 12 are interesting as they apply to us in Christ now – Paul at this point cuts through tradition to the reality of the way things truly are. I know others can explain these verses better than I…and I have to go and toddle off to church! If nobody does answer your questions (which I find unlikely!) I will do so when I have more time.

Great question.

I am a new creation in Christ. I have been born again. I have died to myself in Christ and I have been made alive in Christ. Colossians and the “firstfruits” of creation also come to mind.

I enjoyed reading back through these comments. Did we have a hoot with Mark or what? Ahhh the good ole days.

I had completely forgotton about “barbiblog”.

Got any pictures Cheryl?

Thanks for letting us know, pinklight.

I am with Kay, is <3<3<3 Hebrew or Greek?