Mark

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…