1TIM. 2:15 SWQHSETAI

c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Fri Jun 7 14:26:27 EDT 2002



Quotes from: Schreiner, Thomas R. Paul, Apostle of God's Glory in Christ: A
Pauline Theology IVP: 2001 pp. 284-5.
>> 
>> ". . . Paul regularly (especially in the Pastorals) uses SWiZW
>> to refer to
>> eschatological salvation."
>> 
>> Then on the very next page while discussing 1TIM. 2:15:
>> 
>> ". . . the meaning of SWiZW in Paul, where without exception it refers to
>> eschatological salvation."
>> 
>> So in less than one page we have progressed from a regularity to an
>> absolute. How can something be regular and apply "especially in the
>> Pastorals" which is made into an absolute statement in the same context?

on 6/7/02 4:05 AM, Iver Larsen responded:
> 
> That second statement is certainly problematic. I won't comment on
> Schreiner, but briefly on the semantic range of SWiZW in the NT.
> 
> First, I would make a distinction between
> 1) physical salvation/healing/restoration and
> 2) spiritual salvation/healing/restoration.
> 
> Sense 1) is common in the Gospels, Acts and also found in James and Jude.
> Paul never uses the word in this sense.
> 
> Sense 2) is found in the Gospels, but not common. It is very common in Acts,
> Paul and other letters.
> 
> Sense 2) can focus on the
> a) entry into spiritual salvation here on earth (beginning salvation) or
> b) the final entry into spiritual salvation at the end of times.
> 
> If by eschatological salvation 2b) is meant, which I assume, then it would
> be wrong to say Paul only uses the word in sense 2b. However, if
> "eschatological salvation" is broadened to mean sense 2a or 2b, i.e.
> "spiritual salvation" it would be correct. Paul only uses the word in sense
> 2), never in sense 1).
> 
> This is relevant for 1 Tim 2:15, since it would be against Pauline usage to
> refer to the physical sense of being kept alive or being unharmed through
> child birth, that is, sense 1) above.
> 
> 1 Tim 4:16 is also sense 2b) as I believe is 1 Tim 2:15.

Iver,

I think Schreiner's use of the term  "eschatological salvation" would
include sense 2a and 2b. This issue is rather complex, having to do with the
realized and future aspects of the eschaton.

It isn't Schreiner's conclusions that cause problems but his language and
his methods. First he equivocates between probability and certainty.
Then he proceeds to use the very same texts which are under consideration as
part of the database (i.e., evidence) for his lexical analysis. This is
viciously circular. The only reason I take the time to comment on this last
point is that Schreiner's lexical semantic logic here is used very
frequently in NT exegetical literature. You see it all the time.

Thanks Iver, for your insightful and lucid comments. I find nothing there to
argue with. 

greetings, 

Clay

--  
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062





More information about the B-Greek mailing list