God's Design – Perth

What is the meaning of 1 Timothy 2:15, “But women will be saved through childbearing– if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety (NIV)”? Let’s be honest…most of us either skim straight past this verse, with a shrug of the shoulders and some bemused muttering, or find it highly problematic – “What about single women? Or those who can’t have kids? Does it mean women’s lives will be preserved in childbirth…because we know there’s no guarantee, especially for women in developing nations who don’t have access to the same healthcare that we do! And doesn’t this seem to create some sort of gender division in salvation that is out of line with everything else we know?” It’s not just ordinary believers in the pew who find this verse challenging – it has given scholars headaches for centuries. This is a notoriously difficult verse to interpret, and the approaches are many and varied. In this article, I will look at some of the common interpretations, and then look at how situating the verse in its context within the letter of 1^st Timothy helps us to better understand it.

Common Interpretations of “Saved Through Childbearing”

There have been many different interpretations of this verse over the years. There are several major streams of thought:

1. Women are saved through participating in the work of motherhood

Theologian Andreas Köstenberger provides one such example, an approach that is common among complementarians:

We may therefore conclude that 1 Tim 2:15 may best be rendered in the following way: “She (i.e., the woman) escapes (or is preserved; gnomic future) [from Satan] by way of procreation (i.e., having a family).”Moreover, in line with 1 Tim 5:14, one should view procreation as merely the core of the woman’s responsibility that also entails, not merely the bearing, but also the raising of children, as well as managing the home (synecdoche; cf. also Titus 2:4-5). The sense of the injunction in the present passage is thus that women can expect to escape Satan under the condition of adhering to their God-ordained role centring around the natural household.[1]

This appears to imply a form of gender-divided salvation through works. It is unclear how Köstenberger thinks single women or married women who are unable to have children are to be preserved from Satan.

This view leads to the glorification of motherhood as the primary (almost sole) role for all women, negating any other contributions women may possibly make to humanity, as exemplified by John MacArthur:

A woman led the human race into sin, yet women benefit mankind by replenishing it…as a general rule, motherhood is the greatest contribution a woman can make to the human race. The pain of childbearing was woman’s punishment for sin[2], but bearing and rearing children delivers woman from the stigma of that sin…women are to accept their God-given role. They must not seek the leadership role in the church. Primarily they are to raise godly children.[3]

These views make childbirth in 1 Tim 2:15 a figure of speech (a synecdoche) standing for the concept of motherhood and the role which women fulfil in the domestic sphere. MacArthur adds an almost salvific aspect to childbearing – something which cannot be too strongly protested against, as it is clearly in opposition to salvation through faith in Christ alone. Moyer Hubbard points out a further problem with this view – that “advocates of the synecdoche interpretation are compelled to conjecture a meaning for τεκνογονία (childbearing) that the word never has anywhere else.”[4]

Early church fathers were not concerned with this attempt to wrestle this text into a treatise on the ontology of women’s domestic roles. Their take was different. John Chrysostom focussed it on the importance of the mother’s role in the continuation of children in the Christian faith.  

If they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety’” that is, if after childbearing, they keep them in charity and purity. By these means they will have no small reward on their account, because they have trained up wrestlers for the service of Christ. By holiness he (Paul) means good life, modesty, and sobriety.

However, rather than simply idolising motherhood, Chrysostom then goes on to expand his discussion to the importance of parenting in general, including fathers, making a surprisingly egalitarian principle, despite some statements that feel problematic to modern readers.[5]

2. Women will be kept safe during childbirth

Some biblical commentators, including Craig Keener[6], argue that Paul intended the plain meaning of this text – to reassure women that God would bring them safely through labour. Moyer Hubbard differentiates between the use of the word “saved” for salvific purposes and for non-salvific purposes for deliverance and preservation, giving the example that when a person calls “Jesus, save me,” it will generally be interpreted as being a cry for salvation, but contextually, when Peter is sinking below the waves, we know to interpret this as a distress call that he might be rescued from physical death.  He then argues that this text is similarly one which we should interpret as addressing rescue from physical death from the dangers of childbirth.[7]

While this may be a reasonable, straightforward reading of the actual text, it does not sit well from a practical point of view. Of all the things that Paul could not promise that faith in Christ would achieve, this must have been one of the most significant, particularly in the ancient world, where death in childbirth was incredibly common. This poignant ancient gravestone captures this common fate of many young mothers:

This is the grave of Arsinoe. Stand by and weep for her, unfortunate in all things, whose lot was hard and terrible. For I was bereaved of my mother when I was a little girl, and when the flower of my youth made me a bride… Fate brought me to the end of my life in bearing my first son. I had a small span of years, but great grace flowered in the beauty of my spirit.[8]

3. Allegorical view

In this view, Paul’s language is merely figurative. Women “birth” the virtues of love, holiness, etc. Kenneth L. Walters is a modern proponent of this “entirely new reading,”[9] although allegorical views have been around since at least the time of Augustine. This interpretation sits uncomfortably with Paul’s very pragmatic language in this epistle.

4. Saved through “the childbearing” – i.e. the birth of Jesus

A number of respected egalitarian scholars, including Ben Witherington III and Philip B. Payne, believe this text points to Jesus. Payne states,

Coming on the heels of the reference to the fall (i.e. in 1 Tim 13-14), “she shall be saved” naturally refers to corresponding spiritual salvation. The passive of the verb points to salvation provided by another….Its future tense points forward beyond Eve to the promised Saviour.[10]

This is one possible interpretation, but although it does take into account the immediate context of verses 13 and 14, it does not bring this verse into harmony with other concerns Paul raises elsewhere in this epistle about false teachings.

Putting 1 Tim 2:15 in its Context Within the Epistle

A key mistake made by many interpreters is to fail to look at 1 Tim 2:15 in its context within the book of 1 Timothy and the other pastoral epistles (2 Timothy and Titus). They may consider it as part of the passage, 1 Tim 2:8-15, or consider it in the broader context of Pauline theology, but too few interpreters situate it within the context of the book of 1 Timothy.

As with all of Paul’s letters, 1 Timothy is a response to a problem (or a number of problems) in a local church (the only real exception being Philemon). The primary problem in the Ephesian church at that time is one of false teachers stirring up trouble, and those false teachings then being spread between church members (1 Tim 1:3-4, 6; 2:11-12; 4:7; 5:13; 6:4-5, 20-21).

So, what were these false teachers teaching, and might their dodgy doctrines have had anything to do with what Paul was addressing in 1 Tim 2:15? There are two main approaches to this, the first of which focuses on the worship of the Ephesian goddess Artemis.

1 Tim 2:15 as a Response to Artemis Worship

Ephesus was the centre of the worship of the goddess Artemis. Before they were Christians, the (non-Jewish) Ephesian women would have believed that Artemis would assist them safely through childbirth (or help to bring about a swift death when necessary). It is possible that they may have been turning back to her at the stressful time of childbirth, perhaps rationalising that a God who was addressed with male pronouns could not possibly understand or have power over such an intimately female circumstance. Matters of birth, death and marriage are situations in which superstitions and traditions tend to be hardest to leave behind. Paul may have been telling the Ephesian women that they had no need to turn back to their false goddess during labour – even at this intimately female moment in life, Christ is enough.

This theory was popularised among egalitarians in Catherine Clark Kroeger & Richard Clark Kroeger’s 1998 book I Suffer Not a Woman. A critique of the Kroegers and a new variation of the Artemis theory is offered by Sandra Glahn in her recently released book, Nobody’s Mother: Artemis of the Ephesians in Antiquity and the New Testament. Australian New Testament scholar Dr Lyn Kidson offers a thoughtful critique of Glahn’s book in her review here. As Kidson rightly points out,

Apart from Acts, what in the letter drives us to see the false teaching as derived from what was said or done in the Artemis cult? What grounds us in the letter so we know which direction to take? When one studies the literature of the New Testament, the historical, social, literary, and cultural background is vast. Although a lot of the evidence of the ancient world in the Mediterranean has vanished, we are still faced with an enormous amount of data. Beginning as Glahn has one could almost start at any point and find parallels that explain the meaning of 1 Timothy 2.

While outside cultural influences can be useful background which provide valuable context for understanding the biblical texts, we need to use this information judiciously. Historical details of the conflict between Jews and Samaritans are highly relevant to understanding the parable of the good Samaritan or Jesus’ interaction with the Samaritan woman in John 4, for example. But here in 1 Timothy, there is no direct connection that shows that Artemis-worshipping false teachers were influencing the church.

1 Tim 2:15 as a Response to an Ascetic Jewish Teaching

It is preferable, then, to let the text of these pastoral epistles do the talking and tell us about what was happening in the Ephesian churches at the time. It seems that there were a number of different false doctrines being taught:

• Forbidding people to marry (1 Timothy 4:3)
• Ordering them to abstain from certain foods (1 Timothy 4:3)
• Hymenaeus and Philetus had been teaching that “the resurrection has already taken place and (Paul claims) they destroy the faith of some” (2 Timothy 2:17-18)

The latter group may or may not relate to the first two – it is possibly a completely different false teaching, taught by a different faction.

The first two, however, suggest an ascetic faction. While some have suggested that it is an early gnostic teaching, more likely is that it is a Jewish group within the church. That Paul is concerned about factions teaching something about the Jewish law that is contrary to the Gospel is evident from the opening chapter of 1 Timothy (note how frequently Paul highlights concerns about false teachings):

³ As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer ⁴ or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work – which is by faith… ⁶ Some have departed from these and have turned to meaningless talk. ⁷ They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm. ⁸ We know that the law is good if one uses it properly.

Verse 8 strongly implies that some are using the (Jewish) law improperly. In the closely related epistle to Titus, Paul warns the recipient to “pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth..” (1:14). As a Pharisee, Paul was closely acquainted with the intricacies of the oral law.

Why would Jewish teachers be forbidding people to marry? Let’s look more closely at the passage in 1 Timothy 4:

The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. ² Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. ³ They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. ⁴ For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, ⁵ because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

Although need for Christians to follow the Jewish dietary laws had been overturned by Peter’s vision in Acts 10, 1 Tim 4:3 suggests that some false teachers were pressing believers to adhere to these restrictions. The voice of God had revealed to Peter “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean” (Acts 10:15). Now, in Ephesus, it seems that some Jewish teachers were not just teaching that certain foods were impure, but also sexual relations – not just improper sexual relations (fornication), but even those within marriage.

Some evidence of negative views withing Jewish oral law regarding childbirth is still extant. The excerpt below comes from the Babylonian Talmud[11], Shabbat 31b:

MISHNA: This mishna concludes the aggadic treatment of the topic of kindling the Shabbat lights. For three transgressions women are punished and die during childbirth: For the fact that they are not careful in observing the laws of a menstruating woman, and in separating ḥalla from the dough, and in lighting the Shabbat lamp.[12]

Teachings such as this from the Talmud give an indication that for some of the Jewish community, there was a belief that if a woman died in childbirth, it was not simply because of unfortunate medical outcomes (and therefore morally neutral), as we would view it today, but because she had sinned and was being punished by God. If an ascetic sect was teaching that sex itself was a sin, then how much more would childbirth -the outcome of sex – result in punishment from God?

If this teaching was being promulgated in the Ephesian church, Paul may have been reassuring women that, contrary to what they had been taught, God does not punish women for their sins by killing them during labour.

Marg Mowczko, in her article, “What does saved through childbearing (1 Tim. 2:15) mean?”, points to the importance of understanding the meaning of the Greek preposition dia (through) in understanding this verse.

Somewhat similar language for “saved through” is used in 1 Peter 3:20 and in 1 Corinthians 3:15, so it may be helpful to compare these verses.

Just as Noah and his family were “saved through (dia) the water,” which is given in an analogy of baptism and salvation in 1 Peter 3:20–21, the Ephesian woman will be saved through (dia) the experience of procreation. She won’t be doomed if she has babies.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while there are numerous theories about this verse, the best solution is one which situates the verse firmly within the locus of 1 Timothy as an epistle which is dealing with false teachers, and in particular, an ascetic Jewish faction which banned marriage. Paul affirms that marriage and childbearing are not impediments to salvation. It is ironic, then that this verse which was correcting an anti-marriage and childbearing sentiment in the local church in that time and place has been twisted by some modern commentators into an idolisation of the role of motherhood as the primary or only role for women – an error at the opposite end of the scale of the error that Paul was correcting, and one which I believe Paul would equally oppose. Paul commended a healthy approach to marriage, but also valued women as coworkers in the gospel and worked professionally as a tentmaker alongside at least one woman (Priscilla), rather than relegating women solely to the role of lifelong mother and homemaker, as some would try to twist this and other New Testament teachings to promote.

---

[1] Andreas J. Köstenberger ;1997 p 142), “Ascertaining Women’s God-Ordained Roles: An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:15,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 7 (1997), pp107-144, quoted in Iver Larsen, “Timothy 2:15 – Salvation Through Childbearing,” Timothy 2:15 -Salvation through childbearing | Iver Larsen – Academia.edu, p.2.

[2] Note that MacArthur promotes a common misunderstanding of Genesis 3:16, as Richard Hess outlines in “Equality With and Without Innocence,” in Ronald W. Pierce & Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, eds., Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Heirarchy, 2^nd ed. (Downer’s Grove, Ill., IVP, 2005), pp.90-91.

[3] John MacArthur, God’s High Calling For Women: 1 Timothy 2:9–15, John MacArthur’s Bible Studies(Chicago: Moody, 1987), 49–50, quoted in What is “The Childbearing” in 1 Timothy 2:15?, Anthony Daw, masters thesis, Western Seminary, pp.3-4. https://www.academia.edu/32383444/What_Is_The_Childbearing_in_1_Timothy_2_15 

[4] Moyer Hubbard, “Kept Safe Through Childbearing: Maternal Mortality, Justification by Faith, and the Social Setting of 1 Timothy 2.15,” JETS 55/4 (2012), p.750.

[5] John Chrysostom, Homily 9 on First Timothy, CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 9 on First Timothy (Chrysostom) (newadvent.org).      

[6] Craig S. Keener, Paul, Women & Wives (Peabody, MA, Hendrickson Publishers, 1992), pp.118-120.

[7] Hubbard, pp,743-62.

[8] CPJ/CIJ 1510; JIGRE 33. Cited in Ross Kramer, Women’s Religion in the Greco-Roman World: A Sourcebook (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), p.48; dated tentatively between the 2^nd and 1^st century BC.

[9] Kenneth L. Walters, Sr., “Saved Through Childbearing: Virtues as Children in 1 Timothy 2:11-15,” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 123, no. 4 (winter 2004), pp.704-735, Saved through Childbearing: Virtues as Children in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 on JSTOR

[10] Philip B. Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ (Grand Rapids, MI., Zondervan, 2009), p.418.

[11] Although the Talmud did not begin to be written down until a couple of centuries after Paul’s time, it was based on earlier oral law, handed down through generations. We must remember that at this time, Christianity had not yet separated from Judaism. Some members of the church community were Jewish, some were Gentiles.

[12] Shabbat.31b.9-10 with Connections (sefaria.org)