Mark

Thanks Craig,

But Cheryl appears to be making more out of the ‘likewise’ than it has to mean. This is not un-common though when arguing her position as it needs to push for more from the simple conjunctions in the greek.

I wouldn’t be happy to push the greek conjunction in this way. It is simply trying to manipulate the simplicity of the word.

I agree that a ‘deacon’ may therefore become an elder or vice versa, but the two offices are clearly distinct.

Anyway, my issue is not with the conjunction, that is a simple and moot point. My issue is if verse 1 and following are gender inclusive, why the need to switch to ‘gyne’ in verse 11. To simply say Paul needs to address “a group within the whole” is again making more out of the text than what is there. The natural progression in Paul’s argument is clearly seen i think, he beings with overseers, then deacons and then discusses women deacons or wives for 1 verse in 3:11. Paul gives no indication that he needs to address a group within the whole, this is an interpolation into the text.

Marg,

I simply will have to disagree. I don’t think it is acceptable to translate all the uses of diakonos as ‘minister’. Like i said earlier the context needs to decide the translation. In most of the NT instances, ‘servant’ is a much more logical and better translation. I agree that women had significant ministries, that is not in question. What is in question is in what way discussing Pheobe impacts the discussion. As iv’e stated, it is irrelevant to the comp theology as understood by Paul’s prohibition in 1 Tim 2:9-15.

Kay,

Don’t confuse soteriology with ministry. This is the mistake that egals make with Gal 3:28 and as it appears you are making with 1 Peter. ‘Preisthood of all believers’ is discussing soteriology as seen by the context. That is, through the work of Christ the once for all sacrifice was done and all people in Christ can approach God without the need of levitical priests and the sacrificial system. This is true of men, women and children. Yet the NT is clear that there are still differences in roles sanf functions within the church and home.

Kristen,

Your position seems contradictory. You want ‘husband of one wife’ to be gender inclusive. Yet you also want ‘gyne’ in verse 11 to mean ‘women deacons’. If both of these were correct it makes Paul’s discussion nonsense. What is the need to talk about ‘women’ in verse 11 IF he has been gender inclusive the whole time? The context simply cannot do what you want it to do otherwise it makes Paul’s discussion irrelevant and stupid. The shift to ‘gyne’ in verse 11 is obvious that the previous discussion therefore has not been applied to them. This is simple logic!

Note also your own acknowledge that ‘one woman man’ is different to ‘one man woman’ later in the epistle. You have to provide evidence why the context allows it to be gender inclusive. As iv’e said, the shift in verse 11 makes your claim unacceptable, aswell as the prohibition a few verses earlier. I am interested to know how you explain that away.

Kay,

You need to understand ‘elder’ in conjunction with ‘bishop’ (see for example Titus 1) to see that ‘elder’ and ‘bishop’ were synonymous for the same function/office within the Church.

1Tim 3 is also very clear on the offices of elders and deacons. Considering the context to 1 Tim 2:9-15 the connection is easily made.

I understand your point though, since ‘elder’ in some contexts simply means ‘older people’ or ‘elderly’ as in 1 Tim 5 or Titus 2. It’s the context again that determines the correct interpretation (similar to deacon/servant). You can’t just say all uses only mean ‘older people’, nor can you say all mean ‘elder’ as in the office of!

By the way, no, i understand the priesthood of believers to include all believers, male/female, young/old in line with the reformation giants of Luther and Calvin.

Hi all,

Re 73,
It’s easy on two accounts. I can legitimately claim that verse 11 refers to wives and Pheobe simply a servant. That is issue number one and is a fair and legitimate interpretation.

Number 2: Even if one allows verse 11 to be referring to ‘women deacons’ it can not be denied that verse 12 is also referring to the opposite (back to men). In fact, most commentators with any sense realise this. Either way, within the discussion of deacons, only one verse talks of women, be that wives or female deacons.

Therefore, no, ‘husband of one wife’ is not ‘gender inclusive’ which is an outlandish claim Kristen has made un-supported. Within the discussion of deacons verses 8-10, 12-13 refer to males and verse 11 refers to wives or deaconesses.

Unless Kristen can show why it should be understood as gender inclusive this discussion will become irrelevant. Since when does ‘husband’= husband and wife and wife=wife and husband. It’s almost ridiculous trying to even consider that. Where’s the proof Kristen?

Pinklight,

Hi! The whole argument regarding deacons i think is generally irrelevant to the comp/egal debate. Pheobe could easily have been a deacon without disrupting the teaching of Paul in 1 Tim 2 (understood the traditional way).

So as much as egals may use Pheobe as a proof text, it is simply irrelevant in arguing against a comp since even if she was a deacon, that church office as shown in the NT was not responsible for public scriptual teaching.

Therefore if i understand Pheobe to be a deacon, by necessity and to be consistent i must understand 1 Tim 3:11 to be referring to women not simply wives of male deacons. However if i understanding Pheobe to be a ‘servant’ as per other NT references to people, then i can contextually and grammatically argue that 1 Tim 3:11 refers to wives and not women deacons. I don’t think we can conclusively know just from the grammar itself.

But like i said, it is irrelevant for the discussion unless one distorts the NT teaching of the function of a ‘deacon’ and gives it a public teaching function and spiritual oversight (which it never has).

Hope that clarifies my position! This is why appealing to Priscilla is irrelevant also, since her ‘teaching’ was again private with her husband, not the pastoral oversight and biblical teaching discussed in 1 Tim 2:9-15. Similar to the fact that we are to teach each other with ‘psalms, music and spiritual songs’. Again women and men both do this without contradicting 1 Tim. Prophesy is another same example.

Paul’s restriction in 1 Tim 2 is for the elders of the church who have the spiritual resposibility of preaching. Egalitarians confuse the comp position by combining all the different ‘teaching’ elements in the NT as if they are the same thing. Perhaps if comps weren’t so misunderstood (or deliberately mis-handled) egals might not think we are so patriarchal and suppressive 🙂

Thanks Marg,

But i’m still missing your point. Are you trying to say that Pheobe fulfilled the same function as Paul, Timothy and even Jesus?

I could hardly think so. Jesus became a ‘servant’ to the circumcised. Timothy and Paul were both servants of Christ. It is unjustified to think that the office of ‘deacon’ is the same as simply being called a servant. But that is what i am understanding you saying. Is this correct?

Now in regards to Pheobe i can grant that she was a servant of the church (like most of the other NT uses of the word). I can even possibly grant that she was a deacon (based on 1 Tim 3:11 where it may refer to women deacons) but i cannot grant that all NT uses of diakonos in each of the context mean the same thing. The contextual evidence does not lead this way. In some circumstances, deacon is acceptable, in others it is not and servant is much more contextually appropriate. Pheobe could go either way without much disruption to my theology.

As i understand the NT, the office of ‘deacon’ were never responsible for the overseeing/shepharding of the church (as were the elders). The Book of Acts confirms this. Thus the elders are the responsible ones for the public teaching of the scriptures from which women are restricted.

I am interested in how you understand the office of deacon? In what way does it differ to elders? This may be where the confusion lies.

Considering the various translatable options, each context shows us which way to translate re: servant or deacon. You seem to be confusing or combining the two.

Thanks Marg,

But as for your claim that Paul ONLY ever uses diakonos to mean ‘minister’ or ‘deacon’, what do you base that on? PLease provide your claim with the textual proof and show why every instance of it’s use must be as you claim?

Kristen,
Can you likewise back up your overt claims? What evidence is there that things must translate and thus mean what you claim?

Kay,
I agreed that diakonos can mean ‘deacon’ in certain contextual circumstances and i likewise agreed that 1 Tim 3:11 could be refering to women deacons. BUT THAT IS NOT THE ONLY POSSIBILITY so to say it is or at least assume and promote it is, is misleading, that’s all.

Don’t be too narrow on the definitions of greek words. Paul may have called Pheobe a deacon OR he may have called her a ‘servant’. Both are legitimate translations seen throughout the NT. Likewise, 1 Tim 3:11 could legitimately be ‘wives’ or ‘women deaconesses’. There are pro’s and con’s in both arguments.

What is clear, is that women were never overseers nor were permitted to teach publically to the Churches.

Priscilla along with her husband taught Apollos, but it was privately. The text is explicit that ‘they took him away’.

As for any other examples Egals want to throw out there, they are pure conjecture and historical revisioning. We have no evidence that the ‘deacons’ were responsible for the sheparding of the Church or the teaching of the scriptures, so even if Pheobe was a deacon, her position/work does not contradict the traditional view of 1 Tim 2:9-15, since NT deacons were not responsible in that area.

Kostenberger has written a good article on all the texts where famale names are mentioned in ‘The Gospel to the Nations’. Anyone serious in studying the scriptures should read this…from both sides. The arguments for women leaders in the NT beyond perhaps Pheobe as a deacon is stepping beyond what the scriptures teach.

Dave,

I’m rather surprised at your dismissal of Rom 10. Maybe you can answer why Romans was written? Do we really know as much as you think?

We are looking at grmmatical construction and the best you offer is that we know more about Romans that we do about 1 Timothy. Really??

Is this not just another assumption becasue you believe that Paul didn’t need to name this false teacher.

Your rejection of Rom 10 speaks volumes, especailly considering the content and construction and it’s direct parallel with sozo.

You offered un-similar examples and then totally reject a direct parallel discussing the same outcome of a condition being met.

I’ve had it… we agree to disagree i guess.

Cheerio

Craig,

Re your illustration.

1. Why say he must do x, y, z if someone else can actually do it?

2. Again this is an assumption. A) that a famale false teacher existed. B) she was married and the ‘they’ refers to the husband (what if she was a widow?), C) we are dealing with eternal salvation (according to Cheryl) not someone’s health problems, D) would a doctor really say that she will be healthy if they do… or would he/she say, “Betty, you need to eat healthy if you want to get better”.

I’m not sure we are on the same page here. Let me emphasise the fact that this is eternal destinies at stake. Can we be so hap-hazard just to assume that someone else can bring her out? Can we assume that this is just a hypothetical situation about someone’s eternal destiny?

If we are going to allow this to actually speak about salvation, i think we all need to face the fact that this is a serious verse with serious consequences requiring serious conditions to be met.

Kay,

The basics of hermeneutics is to allow the ‘easy’ texts to explain the ‘difficult’ (verse 15).

This has been rejected by Cheryl, who works backwards.

But as i have shown, Cheryl doesn’t actually give a satisfactory explanation for verse 15 instead bringing her own idea of ‘husband helping bring out of deception’ into the text when the text is dealing with remaining in faith, love, holiness and self-control.

I’m not aware of any comp scholars who argue that verse 15 is the key verse in their exegesis, so i have to disagree that we use it to bolster our position. There are many offers of understanding, but i am yet to read any who are as confident as Cheryl that they ‘got it’! Or that they ‘don’t have any holes’.

It is just proper biblical exegesis to let the easy verses unlock the difficult, not vice versa.

Hi Dave,

Before i continue can i ask you to do something. Go back and read over all the comments thus far and see how this discussion has progressed.

Initially, Pinklight did not have an issue with saying the woman’s salvation is conditional on her husband’s behaviour.

TL said something similiar although not going as far as Pinklight simply changing salvation for behaviour since TL saw the theological dilemma suggested.

Craig gave a third suggestion to my former two not realising that point one was Cheryl’s argument not my own.

Then you began to preceed to say i was being too exclusive with the conditional clause.

If you follow the thread thus far, where are we at? There is actually no agreement between anybody, yet you all claim to hold to Cheryl’s view! Which is it? Pinklight’s, TL’s, Craig’s or Dave’s?

What that tells me, is that nobody actually understands Cheryl’s exegesis. Verse 15 is blurring since none of you have argued the same point. Your only common argument is that i am wrong, and you have aproached the discussion saying totally different things.

So we are back to square one. What is verse 15 saying? Which really highlights the main issue, this exegesis does not explain what verse 15 is saying except that the husband is needed to bring the wife out of deception and as i have stated, this actually ignores the grammar that is there.

Finally, re Colossians…

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. You cannot just choose a translation that you like and attempt to fit it in while that translation is unsupported in all other literature. Also i’m not interested in discussing kephale any further…i don’t see the point, you’ve proved my case. Rather than giving us proof of source you just jump straight to the text arguing your case unsupported. People may accept Kroegers sloppy scholarship, but that is just an indication of personal agenda’s rather than looking at the evidence. Colossians can easily be understood by the traditional understanding of kephale as many exegetes have shown. So Colossians is not proof for the egal case any more than Eph 5 or 1 Cor 11. You need to provide actual proof for your case not just your own re-interpretation with your own chosen translation.

Dave,

You said
“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.”

Let me answer with Cheryl’s own words…
“The last thing to point out where Paul has made a clear condition is that “they” are to work through these conditions for “she will be saved…if they…” (note Cheryl’s words…Paul has made a clear condition is that they are to work through these conditions…)

“The need for a helper to bring one to faith in Christ is never more crucial than in the issue of deception, for the truth of the matter is that the deceived rarely walk away on their own. The lure of deception is so strong that without help, the trap of the lie will keep the deceived in bondage. The one who knows the truth but who has been silent in correcting the error must now step up to the plate to be a major factor in encouraging the woman who is in sin. His encouragement will help her to step away from the deception and into the light of the truth.”

So the husband has been silent according to Cheryl and must now step up to the plate. In fact, here is a clear example of how verse 15 is simply ignored and replaced by the above quote. So ‘they’ are not to ‘remain in faith, love, holiness and self control’ but “he must step up from being silent, help her out of deception and into the light! Any correlation to the actual text????

Pinklight,

I haven’t been discussing Eph 5 nor am i going to. All i am simply asking is for you egals to show one clear text that shows that kephale can be understood as source when used between people.

All the egal scholars can offer is one 5th Century text that is disputed and is also not within an adequate timeframe to understand the NT.

Before people begin accusing me of not seeking the truth, you need to reconcile your own rejection of truth by basing whole exegesis on a meaning that is not even attested for in other literature. Hardly strong proof to argue you are seeking the truth!

Craig,

You lost me.

If we accept Cheryl’s exegesis we have two conclusions as i see it.

1. Verse 15 is simply saying that the wife will be saved by being brought out of decption by her husband.

2. Verse 15 is saying that the wife’s salvation is conditional on someone other than her own actions.

If we take 1, we actually are bringing our own opinion into the text, since nothing in it saids anything about helping the wife come out of deception. Also it ignores the grammar.

Option 2 creates a theological problem, but i cannot see any other alternative if we take the ‘she’ to be a woman and the ‘they’ as husband and wife.

Dave objects and states that i’m reading the conditional clause to ‘exlusively’ since the text does NOT say that this is the ONLY way the woman will be saved.

So i offered Rom 10:9 and i should be able to ask, is this an exclusive statement by Paul? If we say no, we have a theological problem as evanglicals by suggesting that we can be saved by some means other than professing Jesus as Lord. If we say yes, then we agree that this conditional clause is an exclusive statement.

Therefore 1 Tim 2:15 could likewise be an exclusive statement about eternal salvation (as per Rom 10:9)

The only way to avoid a theological problem is to choose option 1 above (which many have on this blog). But anyone can see that the interpretation offered doesn’t match the actual text and grammar.

So we are back to square one. We have an interpretation that does not deal adequately with the grammar, which is what this supposed interpretation offers as its strength.

If this is too much of a microscope, i can understand that, but that is what Cheryl claims as her strongest rebuttal. If it fails the grammar, well…it fails the grammar.

This interpretation can be fluffed up by roses as much as it likes, but the bare facts are that it does not deal adequately with verse 15. It has as much of a problem with this verse, as do all the other interpretations i have seen.

to defend biblical truth

Dave,

I agree we shouldn’t get side tracked on kephale…i brought it up to simply show how your argument about truth is flawed, since egalitarians cannot show one example to support their argument. You show the classic case by arguing that different metaphors have different meanings. But what about 1 Cor 11:3. Same context, smae structure, same metaphor, yet you argue that each relationship gets a different meaning. I can’t except those type of exegetical backflips to dismiss the clear meaning.

Second, let me ask you an example

Roman 10:9 If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Is Paul suggesting here that Jesus is not the ONLY way to be saved? What do you say? Are you really happy to follow your logic through here aswell?

This is an important example since.
1. It is also from Paul
2. It is dealing with salvation
3. It is also a future probable conditional clause.

Thanks. I broke my holiday to comment so i shall say no more until i return.

Dave,

Go back to the link and open up your greek NT. You will find that your first example (Satan and Jesus) is a first conditonal clause. Then look at 1 Tim 2:15 and you will see it is a third conditional clause. They are different.

That’s why your example is not satisfactory to prove your case for 1 Tim 2…it’s not an example of the same grammatical construction. I think Luke 4:7 may be the same type of construction but i haven’t had a chance to look at it yet in detail.

Now you are arguing for a hypothetical conditional clause, is that correct? If this is so, then please explain to me what 1 Tim 2:15 is hypothetically saying?

In what way is it satisfactory to substitute “if they remain in faith, love, sanctification and self control” for…

“the husband is needed to bring the wife out of deception.”

I cannot concede that this is a satsifactory explanation for this verse, considering what Cheryl has argued in the earlier verses.

Why is the deception the responsibility of the husband not Timothy as per chapter 1?

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.

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!

Anyway i’m away for the next week so we’ll speak soon.

Cheers

Dave,

I also haven’t had a chance to look at that other reference you gave me, but i thought it important just to highlight again my other point. You used Satan’s speech as proof. For example

‘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?

Here is a helpful website to show that the two are actually different types of conditional clauses. http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/conditional_sentences.htm

Dave,

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.

I’m arguing that if the ‘she’ is a specific woman, and the ‘they’ are her + husband, then we have a theological dilemma since this means the woman’s salvation is conditional also on the man.

Jeremy Duff saids the following about this type of clause, “Sometimes Greek will use ean+ Subjunctive rather than ei+ indicative in the protasis. [which is what we have here i 1 Tim 2:15) In such a condition, it is still the case that IF the protasis is true THEN the apodosis follows.” (The elements of NT greek, p.226)

Now let’s apply that to the text…

“she will be saved through/by childbearing (apodosis), if they continue in faith, love etc etc (protasis)”

So if the protasis is true (they remain in faith etc) then the apodosis is true (she is saved). Hopefully we agree on this point.

Yet, you protest, “but it does not say this is the ONLY way she will be saved so therefore there is no reason to assume that the husband adds to the wife’s salvation.” (sorry for this attempt at quoting you hypothetically)

So i ask, “well what’s the point of the verse then? Why bother saying that the husband also has to remain in faith, love etc as part of the condition if it is not actually a condition”

To which you respond…

Dave,

I only have a minute so just a quick comment. I can’t answer whether Grudem is seeking the truth or not, but comparing him against Kroeger what conclusion do you come to?

Did Grudem make up references? Did Grudem include AD greek references to claim for a classical greek definition of kephale? Did Grudem misquote quite badly citations?

C’mon Dave, Kroegers article was sloppy, false and somehow managed to make it into the Dictionary of Paul’s letters…what does that say about supposed Biblical Christianity?

Of course Grudem admits the ‘beginning’ can be the meaning of Kephale, no one denies that, but as the article showed (and which has been pointed out to Suzanne who follows in Kroegers footsteps) the one text is ambiguous adn can legitemately be undertood differently. Plus it’s a 5th Century AD text, hardly strong evidence for the NT.

And no, i don’t believe Grudem or I fall into the trap of making ‘source’ mean something different to beginning- egalitarians do this! It is only a more contemporary argument to combine all the meanings into one, which is of course necessary when ‘source’ isn’t legitimate. 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?

Let’s no be too critical of people bringing their agenda’s to the works either…we would be lying if we said no-one had an agenda. The point of Kostenbergers article is to show how difficult this verse is, which in reality makes the ‘flawless’ claim of Cheryl seem unacceptable. Was it not the false teachers in 1 Tim 1:6, 7 who Paul critiques for making confident assertions about what they taught? Let’s learn from this!

More later if i get the chance…

Kay, final thought

“And therefore, mutualists and egals should not question or criticize the comp/hierarchist’s even though there is not one unquestioned flatly stated prohibition against women teaching men in all of Scripture?”

This is not a good argument. There is not one unquestioned prohibition on homosexuality either. There is not one unquestioned theory on the atonement of Christ. Everything is always questioned. Look at critical scholarship, liberalism, denominationalism etc.

It’s as simple as this, don’t claim to have a flawless argument when you don’t. People can get any verse to say whatever they like- again, history teaches us this. It’s a matter of working out what is most consistent and backed up by evidence.

Kay,

Thanks for the questions. Yes, i don’t think Cheryl’s exegesis is flawless and especially when comments like these are made “My view doesn’t have any holes and, my friend, you haven’t found any holes either. ”

You would think an overtly strong statement like this should be taken cautiously, as i attempt to do. Basically all i am looking for is to try and understand what verse 15 saids.

All Cheryl has stated is that the woman will be saved by being helped out of deception by her husband (the they). But how on earth does it relate to 15b… not at all as i can see. Cheryl draws a correlation with 1:6,7 but the problem is, the four conditions in 15b are not the same as 1:6,7 and the one to correct false teaching in chapter 1 is Timothy not the husband/wives of the false teachers. So the correlation falls apart leaving us with no satisfactory explanation of 15b. You cannot just pick and choose which parts to correlate and ignore the others.

And yes i lean on the traditional views becasue a) there are other better interpretations to help understand this verse and b) no-one in the world in the last 2000 years has come to the conclusion like this (unless you know someone else out there before Cheryl, becasue i don’t) and c) we live in a heavily egalitarian society that has potential to cloud biblical instruction. Combine these 3 and you get me being cautious of this interpretation.

As to not offering any evidence look here as i pointed out to Dave earlier http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/roles_kostenberger.pdf
and look at what Kostenberger saids about this verse.

i am not claiming to have the flawless verse…iv’e stated that all along, i just don’t think Cheryl’s if flawless either. I don’t see why it is a big issue to critique this…everyone is very defensive.

trustworhtiness (is that spelt right?) is a good point Kay, but yes we do have good reason to trust some exegesis over others. External evidence is one. Theological coherence is another and modern cultural tendencies to re-interpret passages is another. A person’s overt confidence in their own exegesis could be another.

Now Cheryl may be right, i won’t know that until i go to be with Jesus, but on the scale of hermeneutics, it is low on the list for the above reasons (and maybe others).

Cheryl may argue that it is flawless, but in reality i doubt many people would think so. It’s a guess on grammar, that’s all.

Anyway, Cheerio, i’ve offered my two cents worth and i hope Cheryl can clear some stuff up once she returns.

P.S I should state that although i strongly disagree here, i find it refreshing to dialogue with egals who do truly have a passion for upholding the Bible. This is most probably what i respect Cheryl the most for. You too Dave! 🙂

Dave,

No worries mate, but just do a quick search on the net at conditional clauses and you will soon discover that the ‘basic greek grammars’ do not have the space or the ability to cover extensively every area including word order etc and what happens if the apodosis preceeds the prostasis.

So no, i am not making up definitions and perhaps you should do some more research on these things before being persistent in your opinion…that way you can pursue more fully the truth which you claim i’m not interested in. Just one example, show me one example in all of Koine Greek, where ‘head’ is used BETWEEN PEOPLE and it means ‘source’. Facts like these decide who is seeking the truth. Have a look here for example and see what unfolds http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/kephale.pdf

But i sympathise with you in these debates…truly! But it appears you have trouble with people disagreeing with you. I never made up definitions nor have i now, i used BDAG and the Oxford in our former debate…you just don’t like what they have to say.

Anyways may God bless your faithfulness at Ryde Pressie even though we as sinful men cannot agree on these issues.

Dave,

I would love for you to walk us through your understanding of verse 15, word by word, parsing and commentating.

That would help me understand your position better. At the moment i’m struggling to see how you and Cheryl are saying the same thing.

thanks

Dave,

Final point. Let’s take your understading of the conditional clause just for arguments sake.

Let’s assume the (husband) falls away, rejects Christ and shows lack of self control, love and no signs of sanctification.

How then is this decieved false teacher saved? How can she come to know the truth if her husband no longer has any faith?

Now, my guess is that you would say that we don’t know. She could be saved by many various different means apart form her husband. After all, this verse is not saying this is the ONLY way she will be saved.

Why then have this verse? What does it then actually teach? Nothing really, just a hypothetical situation that might just happen in the future, that this woman might just be saved.

Hardly an acceptable understanding of this verse i would have thought?

This woman’s salvation according to Cheryl is conditional on something. Why are you trying to water that down? Perhaps you and Cheryl don’t actually agree at this point.

Here are some quotes of you and CHeryl to show the conflict i see…

You say…”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.”

Cheryl saids…””First of all there is no question on his salvation, just hers”

Cheryl believes that his salvation is not in view. THe clause is ONLY set up for her. To quote her again…
“The conditional clause is set up only for her salvation. ”

But then Dave saids
“Your interpretation of the clause insists that the clause is ‘exclusive’, that the condition supplied is the ONLY way the outcome can occur.
“you claim that because of the conditional clause her ONLY chance of salvation rests not only with her but also the other party.

So Dave, perhaps you and Cheryl need to reconcile the differences. As i see it, you are saying different contradictory things but arguing for the same outcome or interpretation. Cheryl saids the conditional clause is only about her salvation, yet you critique me for not discussing the husband, when in actual fact you are critiquing Cheryl not me.

Remember this is not my interpretation. I’m adopting CHeryl’s and seeing what verse 15 actually then means.

Thanks

Lydia,

Perhaps you can show me where i have mentioned my understanding of authenteo in verse 12? Assumptions don’t help our discussion.

Nor does what that word mean actually help us understand the difficulties of verse 15. Verse 15 has to be understood on it’s own in relation to the context.

An exegesis cannot be governed around one’s own opinion on what authenteo means driven into every other verse.

Thanks

Dave,

1. This is not my own interpretation. I have accepted Cheryl’s argument for the sake of clarification and am seeing where it leads. So the way I am discussing verse 15 is not my own personal interpretation, but where Cheryl’s leads if we accept that the ‘she’ is a deceived false teacher, and ‘they’ are her plus husband.

2. The two examples you provide of rebuttles are not actually appropriate for this discussion. In both instances the conditional clause preceeds the main clause. If it said, “you will be the son of God, if you turn these stones into bread” we may be able to have a discussion. Your second example makes the same mistake. As you correctly state, there are many forms of conditional clauses, so perhaps you can find one that is helpful to our discussion, and then we can discuss it further. Also interesting to note Dave, that in your second example, Matt 9:21, ‘sozo’ is also used here, but how does it translate? Not eternal salvation but “I shall be cured/healed”. This ought to at least make us think that perhaps ‘sozo’ might not be best translated as ‘eternal salvation.’ Kostenberger makes this point also. “Sozo’ has quite broad usage.

3. The verse in discussion is vitally important since Cheryl is arguing that ‘sozo’ ought to be understood as eternal salvation. If this is true then the conditional clause should have a significant impact. As I see it, you nor her have offered an acceptable resolution to this interpretation. Perhaps you can offer your own if you like. It is no good appealing back to verse 12, 13 (because first of all you assume Cheryl’s interpretation there is correct) but it also in no way shape or form actually is supported by the grammar of verse 15. What has remaining in faith got to do with coming out of deception? What has love, sanctification and self control got to do with coming out of the deception? Hardly corresponding phrases?

4. Dave of course I’m interested in truth? But why do you assume that if I don’t accept this interpretation I have no interest in truth? Cheryl constantly asked to be challenged on her interpretation for this precise reason- to get to the truth. I offer such a critique and look what happens! It is frustrating to engage like this. I highly recommend reading that 30 pages of Kostenberger just to actually sit back and realise the complexity of this verse. An overly confident approach to this does nothing but show ignorance of the history of this text.

5. Cheryl’s quote is on this page we are discussing, just scroll up to the top of the page.

Change of topic- fantastic that the Church is growing. Continue to faithfully proclaim the message of the cross to the community at Ryde Dave. And if necessary, stop blogging!!! 🙂

But your right to ask, how can the woman’s salvation be conditonal on the husbands faith and actions? Obviously it can’t be!

But people will just continue to say that it only means ‘help bring out of deception which is actually denying the very thing they wish to claim- sticking to the grammar.

Thanks

Lydia,

See the comments above. THe Cornelius/Peter thing is a hypothetical that Craig was discussing.

I really like your last sentence and i completely agree, thus why Cheryl’s interpretation cannot be correct. This is where is inevitably leads…she will be saved (eternal salvation) if they remain in faith etc etc.

Yet, no one appears to be ready to realise this (except maybe pinklight if i understand her properly), since obviously it has theological implications.