1 Timothy 2:13-15 (ESV)

For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
And Adam was not deceived
but the woman was deceived
and became a transgressor
Yet she will be saved through childbearing
if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control

“Yet she will be saved through childbearing” makes the most sense in light of the woman becoming a transgressor and the consequent curse of becoming such: “To the woman he said, ‘I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children’” (Gen. 3:16). Here Paul starts a digression on the order of creation, leaving women by the end of v. 14 in the consequence of her sin. Paul can assure the women that the curse will not keep them from salvation “if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control” because the Seed has come and bruised the serpent’s head (Gen. 3:15).

The sense of the verse then is that women will be saved despite childbearing (even through childbearing) which is her consequence of being “deceived” and “a transgressor.” This consequence—multiplied pain in childbearing—is not too much to bear and it will not keep them from salvation. Their salvation is rather dependent upon their faith and love and holiness which is evident by self-control. Faith, love and holiness and self-control are all results of regeneration. Salvation is tied to genuine regeneration by the Spirit and unhindered by childbearing.

Interpretations that give childbearing as the means through which women are saved must be rejected as well as interpretations that take “saved” to mean “preserved” and thenceforward posit that the woman’s heritage or legacy is preserved through childbearing. These are not most faithful to the Fall context in which women are said to be saved through childbearing. Similarly, the means of salvation is not in view. Instead, the phrase gives comfort to women who fear that the curse of multiplied pain in childbearing might overshadow salvation.

3 responses to “She Shall Be Saved through Childbearing”

  1. Jordan Avatar
    Jordan

    Actually it’s easier explained if you understand what Paul was writing to Timothy about. The people where Timothy was worshiped a deity named Diana, a goddess of fertility. They would pray and sacrifice to her because at that time it was literally a 50-50 chance of survival during child bearing.
    She was so believed in that even people in the church were praying to her. So Paul is telling Timothy to tell these people that they should “not” worship Diana because she was nothing more than an idol and that if they were to trust in God they would be saved through child bearing (preserved). Not that child bearing was a necessary part of Salvation.
    Historical, geographical, theological, and cultural context should always be taken into account

    1. kofi Avatar
      kofi

      No! Historical, geographical, theological and cultural context should never be taken into account. The bible is the word of God and will outlast this world as the bible says. God in his wisdom has hidden his messages in these stories that we read in the bible and if we try to explain his mysteries through historical, geographical, theological and cultural context, we will miss the point and misinterpret the hidden messages in these stories and statements written down for us. The church of today has too many people speaking and tongues and very few true prophets and teachers to reveal to us these mystries so we result to theological explanations for answers. If we truely desire to understand these things, we should do as is written in Josuah 1: 8 – 9. We should learn to medidate day and night and God will reveal to us what we desire to know. This is also promised to us in Jer. 33:3

  2. drew Avatar

    Jordan, thanks for weighing in on this verse. I appreciate your insight, but would like to offer some critiques. I’ll number them for ease of reading.

    (1) Concerning an easy or simple explanation, the text must be allowed to speak for itself. While we are both agreed that one must understand what Paul was writing to Timothy about, we are in disagreement (apparently) over what that was that Paul was writing about. The easy explanation does not first seek outside contextualizing details but first works with the scriptural material provided. So, here, no explicit mention of Diana is made. Importing Diana is then to some extent foreign to the text as Paul makes no reference to her. What you claim Paul is writing about is gathered from inference (which is not bad in itself, but I would insist primacy must be given to what the writer has made explicit). Diana may be in view, but I see no reason based solely on the text that we have to run to her immediately.

    (2) Along the same lines as the above you say that “Paul is telling Timothy to tell these people that they should ‘not’ worship Diana;” but proper objects of worship are not in view, nor idols nor false gods. The immediate context of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 simply cannot sustain this interpretation. Rather what is in view is Paul’s explanation as to why he does not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man (1 Tim. 2:12). Notice that this digression (1 Tim. 2:13-15) starts with “for” which serves to further explicate the previous verse, v. 12.

    (3) You are right to point out that “historical, geographical, theological, and cultural context should always be taken into account.” However, these details are not always pertinent to the interpretation of a passage. Knowing about Diana may be helpful for contextualizing first century child-bearing and false objects of worship and Ephesus in general, but fully relying on her for interpretation to the expense of the extant text is misguided and draws too much attention away from what Paul is actually saying to Timothy. The immediate context with its themes must be given primacy.

CommentsOnToast

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from MaustsOnToast

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading