1 Timothy 2:15

http://pastormark.tv/2011/10/25/tough-text-tuesday-1-timothy-2-15


Scripture Study
by Pastor Mark Driscoll
Oct. 25, 2011


1 Timothy 2:8-15
I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness--with good works. Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 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.


This passage is perhaps one of the most debated passages in all of the Epistles. Everyone, it seems, brings an agenda to the table: Feminist-leaning interpreters want to liberate women. Patriarchal traditions limit women to a role of inferiority in the home and church. Midline evangelical scholars strive to harmonize the rest of Paul’s teaching on equality with this passage that seems to contradict it all. All in all, a lot of ink has been spilt over the passage and little agreement found.


Most difficult of all these verses is 1 Timothy 2:15, "Yet she will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control."


As one scholar puts it: “this pronouncement of the writer of 1 Timothy has puzzled commentators of all ages to no end, and agreement can be found in one thing only: that this passage has consistently defied attempts to interpret it.”[1] This has certainly been the case through history.


The issues with the verse are not simple, but the argument boils down to how we understand the phrase “will be saved” (one word, sotheisetai, in Greek) and the word “childbearing.” There are four primary views[2] concerning this verse, and they each take these two words differently. Two views understand the phrase “will be saved” to mean purely religious salvation.[3] The other two take the phrase to mean “preservation,” whether from physical harm or spiritual attack.[4] The four views also take “childbearing” to mean just that—the physical process of having a child, but some expand the meaning to include the whole process of child rearing.[5] The following, then, is a presentation of the four main positions concerning this text and how they deal with these difficult words.




View 1: Picture of the Virgin Birth
“Yet [humanity] will be saved through the Childbearing [of the Messiah]—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.”


This view is often argued to be one of the oldest interpretations of the verse in question. Two of the church fathers[6] have written something along these lines: When Eve was tempted by Satan, she conceived of sin in her heart and bore the fruit of rebellion. In contrast, Mary received the promise from the angel that she would conceive the Messiah. This she did, and her faithfulness meant a reversal of the Fall brought about through Eve. Essentially, women will be saved because of the Childbirth—the coming of Jesus.


This view is prominent because it avoids the sticky issue of making salvation a matter of reproduction. Not all women, it is argued, are capable of bearing children, so this verse most certainly cannot mean that the barren will never be saved. Instead, this view proposes that humanity is offered the chance of salvation because of the faith of Mary, the birth of Jesus Christ, and his subsequent life, death, and resurrection.


This view has problems, though. Unfortunately, the church fathers to whom scholars often appeal for this view do not actually cite 1 Timothy 2:15. Instead, they discuss the concept of curse-reversal between Eve and Mary in the abstract. In addition, the context of the passage is about the natural order of function and worship—not the Gospel.[7] At best this view makes use of broad themes of salvation beginning in Genesis 3:15 (the promise of a coming, serpent-crushing Seed) and ties them together with Paul’s teaching in 1 Timothy 2:15. At worst, this view depends too much on spotty church father teaching and vague allusion to salvation themes.




View 2: Eschatological Salvation
“Yet she will be preserved [until the end times] through childbearing [and wifely duties]—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.”


In order to understand this view, we must first define “eschatological salvation.” By this we mean, along with Howard Marshall, the final salvation from the wrath and judgment of God in the last days (eschaton).[8] The argument is as follows: Women will persevere in their salvation (having been already saved through faith in Jesus) to realize their ultimate, physical salvation from judgment if they continue in their God-given role of bearing and raising children.


This view has a lot to offer. It avoids the problem of works-based salvation, as if simply getting pregnant were enough for a woman to be justified in the sight of God, forgiven of all sin, and recipient of eternal life. Thus, it was the favorite view of the Protestant Reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin.[9] The salvation in question, then, refers to the same kind of consummate salvation that Paul talks about elsewhere.[10] There are several modern scholars who adopt this view, and with good reason. In addition to eliminating works-salvation, it focuses on the themes already present in the Epistle—the proper order for the house and worship. According to this view, Paul encourages women to faithfully pursue their God-given roles as wife and mother, and in doing so, they will receive rewards based on their labor.


There is not much negative to say about this view, and thus it is the most widely held. However, one weakness it does possess is the dogged dedication to avoid works-based salvation. Because this is so large of an assumption, it can easily be argued by less conservative scholars that the text has been bent to fit the designs of the interpreter. In so desperately wanting to avoid works-based salvation, could it be true that the interpreters have twisted the meaning beyond a reasonable point? Unfortunately, there is no satisfactory answer to the question, and this view tends to be prominent because there is little alternative.[11]




View 3: Physical Safety in Bearing Children
“Yet she will be kept safe in childbirth—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.”


Similar to the desires of the proponents of View 2, those who embrace this perspective are wary of a works-based salvation. However, instead of taking the words otheisetai to refer to religious salvation, those who hold this view understand the word to mean physical preservation. Simply put, those women who persevere in faith, love, and holiness will be protected from the dangers of childbirth.


This view has some support in the ancient context of the Epistle. Before the advent of modern medicine, childbirth was both a trying ordeal as well as a possible death sentence. Anyone who has either born children or been with a spouse who has will agree to this reality. Thus it is argued that faithfulness and holiness will preserve women through the traumatic event. Paul’s appeal in verses 13–14 to the Fall in Genesis 3 seems to support this—the curse against Eve was increased pain in childbirth. If there was hope to lessen this pain, the words of 1 Timothy 2:15 would have been encouraging to Paul’s female audience.


Unfortunately, the ultimate problem with this view is that Paul never uses the word “save” that way in his writing. He uses a different Greek word (rhuomai, meaning “to preserve”) when he wishes to discuss physical preservation in the face of physical danger. In addition, a simple fact stands in objection to this interpretation—godly, faithful women still suffer in childbirth, many to the point of death. If Paul’s intention truly was a promise of security in the birth process, that promise has fallen flat.


View 4: Escape from Satan’s Wiles and Attacks
“Yet she will escape [from Satan’s attack] through childbearing [and wifely roles]—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.”


The fourth view is perhaps the best at dealing with the difficulties of the passage, though it is not airtight.[12] Scholars propose an interpretation similar to that of View 2—that the salvation is not works-based, but instead refers to preservation. This preservation, however, is not for the Last Days, but from Satan and his attacks against women. Simply put, verse 15 should be read, “Women will be preserved [from the attacks of Satan] by [adhering to their God-given role of] childbearing [and raising].” Similar to View 2, this perspective also takes “childbearing” to refer to the raising of children as well.


There is great merit to this view. It harmonizes well with Paul’s themes throughout the book of preserving believers from Satan.[13] This interpretation gains even more force from the immediate context of verses 13–14, where Paul refers to the narrative of the Fall in Genesis 3. Eve, he argues, was deceived and not Adam. Paul seems to be implying that the natural order of things involved Adam’s protection of Eve from deception. However, Eve stepped out of her God-given role of submission to Adam and, as a result, was deceived by the serpent. Paul’s argument is that all women may avoid similar attacks if they adhere to their God-given role.[14]


Criticisms of this view are relatively few. Its only weakness is its interpretation of the phrase “will be saved” to mean something other than spiritual salvation. But as we have seen, two other views take similar interpretive paths with little repercussion. Apart from this, there is no criticism to be found.[15]


Thus, the teaching of this passage is not new. Paul’s exhortation is simple: we were created to operate in a certain order. Jesus is the head, the husband under him, and the wife and children under him. This is not devaluing; it is protection. When this order is broken—when a wife tries to take authority sinfully or the husband refuses to accept it lovingly—Satan is given an opportunity to attack the husband and wife.


References:
[1] Andreas J. Köstenberger, “Ascertaining Women’s God-Ordained Roles: An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:15,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 7 (January 1, 1997): 107.
[2] Some commentators report up to seven disparate views concerning this passage, but only the four most prominent are discussed here.
[3] Douglas Moo and others nuance this to include the eschatological salvation of humanity at the Second Coming, but the thrust of their interpretation remains the same. Cf. Douglas Moo, “What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority over Men? 1 Timothy 2:11–15,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton: Crossway, 1991), 179–93.
[4] Cf. particularly Moffat’s translation of the Bible and Köstenberger.
[5] Köstenberger, 119.
[6] Justin Martyr and Tertullian are often cited, though their comments concerning this issue are not always directly linked to the passage in question. Cf. Köstenberger’s summary, 109–110.
[7] E.g., instructions on prayer in v. 8, modesty in v. 9, teaching in v. 11–12, and roles in v. 13–15.
[8] I. Howard Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, The International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 470.
[9] Köstenberger, 114–115.
[10] Cf. 1 Corinthians 3:15, speaking of spiritual salvation despite loss of fruit in judgment.
[11] Marshall (469–70) and Köstenberger (120–21) agree on this.
[12] Marshall dismisses this view out of hand based on Paul’s semantic use of the word (“to save”), though the validity of such use is well defended in Köstenberger’s article.
[13] Cf. 1 Timothy 1:20; 3:6–7; 4:1–5; 5:14–15; 6:9–10, 20–21.
[14] The protection of the family by the headship of the husband is common throughout Pauline literature, and this interpretation seems to fit the pattern already established by prior verses in 1 Timothy itself.
[15] Additionally, it bears noting that feminist scholars accuse this view (along with other traditional views) of subjugating women to a lesser status—the proverbial “chained to the kitchen” argument. We must be careful to differentiate, however, between roles for protection and inherent value. Indeed, Paul promotes the full equality of men and women before God. The headship order is there for the protection and godliness of all involved and has no bearing on the worth of the different parts.