Mark

TL,

Thanks for your thoughts. However i am seeing a common thread with most of these comments which is associated with the conditional clause. You said

“Secondly, it is possible that the husband contributed somehow to the wife’s behaviour”

I agree that we influence others with our behaviour, but according to Cheryl’s interpretation we are not dealing with behaviour- we are dealing with eternal salvation (sozo). Now if the conditional clause is going to carry the weight that it should, i cannot see how one can divert that Cheryl’s interpretation inevitably leads to the wife’s salvation being (conditional) on the faith and actions of not only her but also her husband. This is a conditional clause remember! If the condition is not met, salvation is gone. See Cheryl’s own definition of a conditional clause in the main post.

Lydia,

I’m not sure where your going since i haven’t offered my own interpretation nor am i aware of what CBMW say on this. My assumption would be that there are numerous interpretations on what this verse means.

Greg,

Thanks for clearing that up, but i’m still not sure what you are then trying to say. I agree that there are essentials, one of which is justification by faith on a personal level, that is why the conditional clause in this particular interpretation is troublesome.