Dave

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?