1 Timothy 2:15 (New International Version)
15But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
This verse has caused some confusion. At first glance it is inconsistent with the majority of scripture. The key to interpreting it is understanding the words “saved” and “through”. From e-Sword:
- saved
G4982
σώζω
sōzō
sode'-zo
From a primary word σῶς sōs̄ (contraction for the obsolete σάος saos, “safe”); to save, that is, deliver or protect (literally or figuratively): - heal, preserve, save (self), do well, be (make) whole. - through
G1223
διά
dia
dee-ah'
A primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; through (in very wide applications, local, causal or occasional). In composition it retains the same general import: - after, always, among, at, to avoid, because of (that), briefly, by, for (cause) . . . fore, from, in, by occasion of, of, by reason of, for sake, that, thereby, therefore, X though, through (-out), to, wherefore, with (-in). In composition it retains the same general import.
So if we read the verse as “women will be protected throughout childbearing,” it doesn't contradict the theology taught throughout the New Testament. This is how I think it should be interpreted.
Posts
I'm guessing your concern about contradiction is a concern that the verse sounds as though works are important to a woman's salvation, specifically the work of childbirth.
ReplyDeleteYet in your interpretation the verse still has an emphasis on a woman's works meriting her "restoration" - ie "if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."
The immediate context is that Paul has just contrasted the virtues of men and women in that "Eve was deceived and became a sinner," to justify his position that women should "learn in quietness and full submission," and not to "to teach or to have authority over a man." Without verse 14 one is left with an image of "the woman" as more prone to sin than the man. Verse 14 seems to ameliorate this by giving salvific significance to something women can do that men cannot. Something that perhaps makes women holy in a way men could never be.
I think your interpretation doesn't do justice to the context. But admittedly the interpretation I offer gives us the problem that women who avoid childbearing put themselves in grave danger of condemnation, of not attaining salvation - which is problematic fr obvious reasons as Protestants who base our soteriology so entirely in grace. Perhaps less problematic for Roman Catholics? But does this merely call our soteriology into question?
If we don't want to accept the interpretation I offer, I think we have better grounds to merely say Paul was wrong to say what he said, rather than to try and reinterpret to suit our post-sexual revolution Protestant sensibilities, at the expense of the integrity of the text.
Personally, I side with the matters on matters of contraception. And I believe a person's salvation is only meaningful if accompanied by regeneration and the putting on of the mind of Christ. Thus I have no problem to read the passage as saying that a saved woman will not scorn or reject the nature that God has graced er with.
Of course, to accept Paul was wrong on this point is the easiest solution in some ways, but it has a whole host of other implications.
ReplyDeleteI think I need to chew over this for a while.