What does saved through childbearing mean?

In his letter to Timothy Paul writes,

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. (1Ti 2:13-14)

The context of this passage is praying in church with decorum. The outline of chapter 2 is,

1. Pray for all people including secular leaders;
2. in order that Christians may lead a quiet life;
3. God desires everyone to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth;
4. men are to pray without quarreling;
5. women are to dress and behave modestly;
6. women should learn quietly and not exercise authority over a man.

Paul then writes the above statement and then discusses qualifications for elders and ministers.

It is not clear what Paul means. There have been several interpretations of what this passage means. Neither is it certain who the pronouns refer to. "She" is implicit in the verb "to save" and "they" is implicit in the verb "to continue." "She" may refer to a generic woman, such as those in the Corinthian church, or to Eve. "They" could refer generically to women, or to Adam and Eve, or to a husband and wife.

The NET Bible states,

“But she will be delivered through childbearing,” or “But she will be preserved through childbearing,” or “But she will be saved in spite of childbearing.” This verse is notoriously difficult to interpret, though there is general agreement about one point: Verse 15 is intended to lessen the impact of vv. 13-14. There are several interpretive possibilities here, though the first three can be readily dismissed (cf. D. Moo, “1 Timothy 2:11-15: Meaning and Significance,” TJ 1 [1980]: 70-73).

1. Christian women will be saved, but only if they bear children. This view is entirely unlikely for it lays a condition on Christian women that goes beyond grace, is unsupported elsewhere in scripture, and is explicitly against Paul’s and Jesus’ teaching on both marriage and salvation (cf. Matt 19:12; 1 Cor 7:8-9, 26-27, 34-35; 1 Tim 5:3-10).
   
2. Despite the curse, Christian women will be kept safe when bearing children. This view also is unlikely, both because it has little to do with the context and because it is not true to life (especially life in the ancient world with its high maternal mortality rate while giving birth).
   
3. Despite the sin of Eve and the results to her progeny, she would be saved through the childbirth—that is, through the birth of the Messiah, as promised in the protevangelium (Gen 3:15). This view sees the singular “she” as referring first to Eve and then to all women (note the change from singular to plural in this verse). Further, it works well in the context. However, there are several problems with it:
   
   
   1. The future tense (σωθήσηται, sōthēsētai) is unnatural if referring to the protevangelium or even to the historical fact of the Messiah’s birth;
   2. that only women are singled out as recipients of salvation seems odd since the birth of the Messiah was necessary for the salvation of both women and men;
   3. as ingenious as this view is, its very ingenuity is its downfall, for it is overly subtle; and
   4. the term τεκνογονία (teknogonia) refers to the process of childbirth rather than the product. And since it is the person of the Messiah (the product of the birth) that saves us, the term is unlikely to be used in the sense given it by those who hold this view.
   
   There are three other views that have greater plausibility:
4. This may be a somewhat veiled reference to the curse of Gen 3:16 in order to clarify that though the woman led the man into transgression (v. 14b), she will be saved spiritually despite this physical reminder of her sin. The phrase is literally “through childbearing,” but this does not necessarily denote means or instrument here. Instead it may show attendant circumstance (probably with a concessive force): “with, though accompanied by” (cf. BDAG 224 s.v. δία A.3.c; Rom 2:27; 2 Cor 2:4; 1 Tim 4:14).
   
5. “It is not through active teaching and ruling activities that Christian women will be saved, but through faithfulness to their proper role, exemplified in motherhood” (Moo, 71). In this view τεκνογονία is seen as a synecdoche in which child-rearing and other activities of motherhood are involved. Thus, one evidence (though clearly not an essential evidence) of a woman’s salvation may be seen in her decision to function in this role.
   
6. The verse may point to some sort of proverbial expression now lost, in which “saved” means “delivered” and in which this deliverance was from some of the devastating effects of the role reversal that took place in Eden. The idea of childbearing, then, is a metonymy of part for the whole that encompasses the woman’s submission again to the leadership of the man, though it has no specific soteriological import (but it certainly would have to do with the outworking of redemption).

The Lexham Study Bible states,

saved through the bearing of children The exact meaning of this statement is uncertain. Paul may mean that women will be saved because Jesus, the savior of the world, was born of a woman (see Gal 4:4). Alternatively, he may be arguing that women will be saved because a woman helped bring about the defeat of the devil (see Gen 3:15). Or, he may be saying that women will be saved from doing evil things by bearing children. Some of the Ephesian women may have been behaving in a manner that led them to neglect what was commonly viewed at the time as their household responsibilities. These women may have been influenced by new cultural trends about women and the false teachers’ negative views on marriage (1 Tim 4:3; compare 5:14; note on vv. 8–15; note on vv. 11–15). If these factors are in view, Paul’s reference to childbirth may represent a woman’s acceptance of what was considered her proper role within the household unit.

The ESV Study Bible states,

This is a notoriously difficult-to-understand verse. Paul clearly does not believe people can be saved in the sense of earning justification through childbearing or any other means (e.g., Eph. 2:8–9). But the NT can also use the term “saved” (Gk. sōzō) in the sense of progressively coming to experience all the aspects of salvation. In that sense, “salvation” is ongoing (see note on Phil. 2:12–13). A similar view is that “saved” can be understood as referring especially to the endurance and perseverance in faith that is necessary for eternal salvation (cf. Matt. 10:22; 24:13; etc.). People are saved as they persevere (continue) in the faith to carry out the Lord’s calling in their life, one example being the unique role of women in childbearing. (The change from singular she to plural they is a literal rendering of the Gk. text.)

Childbearing is likely a synecdoche, if refers to all the roles of motherhood. I think it possible that Paul is reassuring women here. He is not so much stating that childbearing is a means to salvation, rather that a mother may think that raising children is not overtly spiritual and thus question whether she is doing the activities appropriate for one who is saved. A mother may be taking care of what appears to be the mundane, bearing and raising children, not something that seems more spiritual like ministering or teaching within the church. Paul is reassuring such a woman that even if she is only involved in raising her children she still will be saved. Though he reminds women that within this role they must remain faithful to God: they must continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

Domains of authority

Howard Ahmanson has an interesting article on communitarianism, and why he is not one. What I found interesting were his comments concerning the domains of authority. He mentions the traditional ones of family, church, and state; yet considers there are 2 more.

The whole category of property ownership, business, the right to make rules regarding the conduct of others on our property, and the right to determine the conditions under which we do business.

... the rules of business and property ownership do guide our lives; many of the ‘regulations’ under which we live come not from the government but from what banks will and will not lend on, and what insurance companies will and will not insure.

And

Customs, cultures, and manners, including languages and their rules. 

So we would have

• State
• Church
• Family
• Business
• Custom

I haven't fully thought this thru. The last 2 may not seem obvious in that they are non-hierarchical, there is no one who necessarily makes these rules, and they can change over time. These categories are also divided into rational and arational.

	Rational	Arational
Hierarchical	State	Church
Ahierarchical	Business	Custom

Family is considered by Ahmanson as a small-scale version of all 4: The world in miniature.

I suspect this categorisation comes from an anthropological rather than a theological perspective. A theological categorisation comes from a chronological approach. In creation God assigns family as the authority. Post-fall (or possibly post-diluvian) sees the necessity of the state. Redemption brings about the creation of the church.

Event	Structure
Creation	Family
Fall	State
Redemption	Church

The church was always the intention even at creation, so will be eternal. The state is a temporary institution made necessary by our fallen nature. The family, while primary at the time of creation and currently still more foundational than the state, may be temporary as evidenced by Jesus' words that there is no marriage in heaven.

God ordained cultural structures

I currently don't mind democracy, though I am not adverse to monarchy and possibly other governmental structures. Christians are called into a different kingdom and can live under any political or economic structure, although some are more pleasant than others. Nevertheless, it is good to understand the proper role of the state; and if one finds himself in a democracy then it is good to vote well (if one thinks he should vote).

How should we frame our ideas about the state? The state is a social structure where leaders oversee community. There are, however, several God ordained social structures in this world and we need to start with the central ones.

Prior to the Fall we have Adam relating to God which is the first and highest order relationship. I think that the individual relationship and the group relationship with God—Adam and Eve pre-Fall; God-worshippers, faithful Israel, righteous Gentiles, and the church post-Fall—are all part of what will become the Bride of Christ. This is the pre-eminent social/ spiritual relationship in the universe. All of this world is building toward that relationship.

Prior to the Fall we also have marriage and family:

So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man....

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Genesis 2)

I have included family, however children, while very important and a blessing, are not as fundamental as marriage. They are temporary; given to us to train them to love God so they can depart to form a new unit—the son leaves his parents and joins with his wife.

These 2 relationships: God and man, and man and wife, are central to social order. Note that they both pre-date the Fall. Note also that the latter is a copy of the former:

"Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. (Ephesians 5)

And that marriage is temporary:

For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. (Matthew 22)

The other social structures are the community and the state, the state being the power that oversees the community as mentioned above. We are first introduced to the embryo of the state some 1600 years after creation. Earlier judgments are made directly by God; note the examples of Cain and the Deluge. Men take things into their own hands such as Lamech and the mighty men of old, but there is no evidence this is sanctioned by God. I am not certain if we can infer anything from the existence of antediluvian cities. After the Flood God gives specific commands to Noah and his sons:

But you* shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. And for your* lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.

"Whoever sheds the blood of man,/
by man shall his blood be shed,

for God made man in his own image...." (Genesis 9)

God is the giver and owner of life, we are made in his image. Thus God gives commands concerning life: Men are to refrain from eating blood because of the life symbolism; and men are not to kill men.

The context suggests that it is murder that is forbidden here, as the murderer is to be subsequently put to death for his actions, capital punishment being commanded not condemned even though it removes life. These commands of God establish legality. Even if full government is not required, there needs be some community structure to deal with murderers; be that egalitarian, or community elders, or kingship, or some other structure.

So the state is enacted by God some centuries after the Fall and it is necessary because we are fallen creatures. If marriage is a temporary institution, how much more so then is the state! There is much the Bible teaches us about ideal government, what God intends leaders to do, what they should concern themselves with, how they should rule; but this is on the background of the above concepts. Our ideas about temporal government need to be tempered by thoughts on eternal relationship and our current fallen nature.

Death of a daughter

I only became aware of this recently. Steven Curtis Chapman, Christian singer, lost his daughter in a car accident in May. Extremely sad. Steven and his wife Mary Beth talked about their loss on Good Morning America.

Family responsibility

My wife and I were discussing responsibility to family because she was having difficulty reconciling 2 passages of Scripture.

While travelling to Jerusalem, Jesus speaks to some of the crowd travelling with him.

As they were going along the road, someone said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go." And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." To another he said, "Follow me." But he said, "Lord, let me first go and bury my father." And Jesus said to him, "Leave the dead to bury their own dead. But as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God." Yet another said, "I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home." Jesus said to him, "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God." (Luke 9)

Leaving aside a full explanation of these sayings, Jesus is saying that belonging to the kingdom of God supersedes belonging to family. This is also seen in other passages such as:

"Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive many times more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life." (Luke 18)

So if we are to leave family for the sake of the kingdom, how does that fit in with Paul's statements about family responsibility?

Honor widows who are truly widows. But if a widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show godliness to their own household and to make some return to their parents, for this is pleasing in the sight of God.... But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. (1 Timothy 5)

Looking at Jesus' words it seems that leaving family members could theoretically be asked of us (not that it necessarily is). Note, however, that the comment about leaving houses etc. is in the context of the rich young ruler who does not want to give up wealth for the sake of the kingdom. So this is more a comment by Jesus on the importance of choosing the kingdom over anything else, even very important things such as houses and family. Jesus follows this with a promise that God will give us more than we give up. And this may be part of what Jesus is saying in the Luke 9 passage. Parents and family are having a hold on someone who Jesus wants to join the kingdom.

Compare with Paul's comments which do not relate to a competing call for believers. Rather they are to discharge the call of the kingdom by caring for those to whom they have responsibility for.

My conclusion in our discussion was that we are to care for those whom God has given us responsibility for, but we do not necessarily need to respond to those who would put their own claim on our lives.

We are responsible to look after our children. God may also give us other children to be responsible for. God may call us to give our children to others to look after so that we may do a task for him—we are still caring for them appropriately as we are delegating our responsibility for that child to another at God's request (one should be absolutely certain they are hearing correctly from God in such a situation!^*).

But an adult does not need to acquiesce to a demand from family to live or act according to their agenda. A request to remain part of the family business, or not to leave until one's parents have died may not be legitimate. If at some future time one's parents become infirm, the child may now have the responsibility for them placed on him by God and he needs to discharge that responsibility appropriately.

^*This comment needs its own post to explain more fully, I don't mean to suggest that this is a common request from God.