Mark

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.