Mark

Dave,

I agree with this

“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.”

But what i think you are watering down is the conditional clause. If the above statement is true then how do you reconcile the conditional clause? How can the wife’s salvation (sozo) be conditional on her husband’s faith and works? I think it is actually you who is making Paul say more than he is by inserting “only’ into the mix. You are assuming that Paul is saying both will be saved if both do x, y, z and not “only” the wife. The problem is in this interpretation the wife’s salvation is conditional on something, and according to you all, it is conditional on both her and her husband. This is the reality of a conditional clause.

Now to answer your questions
*You have come here not to discuss or answer our questions, but to try and show holes in Cheryl’s exegesis. Yes. I don’t think Cheryl’s exegesis is as flawless as portayed. So i am offering my opinions on her exegesis not pushing for acceptance of mine.

*You will not offer your own interpretation. Yes, been through all this before

*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. Not sure i understand the reference to Greg. Regarding external evidence i have discussed that. Any purely internal hermeneutic should be taken cautiously since the only thing it relies on, is one person’s interpretation of grammar. Why is it that the early greek speaking Church never understood Paul’s grammar the way proposed here? This should at least keep us discerning. That’s all!

*You place greater weight on historical church writings than interpreting the grammar that is there in Scripture. No, but historical evidence at least helps us understand how the natural speakers of this language understood the grammar. In terms of interpreting the grammar, who saids Cheryl is the only one who knows how to do it? IF it was that simple, then this verse would not cause the discussion it does. The reality is, the grammar is complex and thus anyone who saids that they have it nailed is either overly confident or ignorant of the difficulties of this verse. After all, i could argue that it was her brother not her husband…who knows? That is the problem with this approach
…it’s purely a guess on grammar.

*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. I am trying to take Cheryl’s exegesis and see where it leads so as to see if it actually stands up. I have not suggested anything contrary to the grammar and Cheryl’s own agreement that this is a conditional clause. Therefore we must take it as a conditional clause which is making the salvation (sozo) conditional on what is said in the sub clause. It is not good enough just to say (he) is helping her come out of deception because this is not what the verse saids, nor does it actually do justice to the conditional clause. This is basic grammatical rules. A conditional clause is a conditional clause. A is conditional on B in this case both the woman’s and the husbands faith and works (if we accept this to be husband and wife). So no i am not saying something wrong. I am taking the conditonal clause to be a conditional clause and applying that to Cheryls exegesis which she has not done.

Thanks