If, as John Piper says (thanks to Scot McKnight @ Beliefnet), the church is propagaged by spiritual rebirth and not physical birth, then what does this do to the complementarian plank based on I Timothy 2:15, that women are saved through childbearing? (And therefore women should get married and bear children, if they are able?)
(Not to mention what this would mean for the infertile — those who are “barren.”)
To quote the eminent theologian William Jefferson Clinton, who is an authority on the use and place of women: “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ’saved’ is.”
Eric, that is hilarious!
An approach to this verse that I learned decades ago still makes sense to me. The asceticism taught by the false teachers Paul is opposing – such as in their forbidding marriage (1 Tim 4:3) – reflects an early form of Gnosticism. The key to this verse, then, is that for the Gnostics the danger in all sexuality – including for a woman giving birth – is not physical but spiritual, a hindrance to spiritual perfection. In this understanding a woman is saved “through” childbirth – “through” used in a sense similar to 1 Cor. 3:15 (saved … through fire) – her salvation will remain intact through it.
Bill Mounce has posted an article about the translation issues which is interesting.
I have not yet read a complementarian resource that interprets 1Tim 2:15 as an exhortation for women to get married and have children if they can. I’m admittedly a newcomer to studying complementarian theology, though! Is there a specific author or group you can refer me to? I’m in the early stages of my first serious study into the gender debate and I’m very interested in good resources on both sides.
Amanda,
This is taken from Ascertaining Women’s God-Ordained Roles: An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:15 by Andreas Kostenberger. I found this on the CBMW website.
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 centering around the natural household.
found here: https://www.cbmw.org/images/articles_pdf/kostenberger_andreas/ascertainingwomensroles.pdf
This is one of many examples of this idea.
Amanda,
I recommend John G. Stackhouse’s Finally Feminist as a thought-provoking intro to the debate. It’s a rather mis-labeled book, I think. His premise is that neither side perfectly answers the tough questions.
Otherwise, the classic tomes for the two sides are both excellent resources:
Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (available to read for free online)
and
Discovering Biblical Equality
Two useful websites are:
http://www.cbmw.org
and
http://www.cbeinternational.org
Both have numerous articles available.
“The asceticism taught by the false teachers Paul is opposing – such as in their forbidding marriage (1 Tim 4:3) – reflects an early form of Gnosticism. The key to this verse, then, is that for the Gnostics the danger in all sexuality – including for a woman giving birth – is not physical but spiritual, a hindrance to spiritual perfection. In this understanding a woman is saved “through” childbirth – “through” used in a sense similar to 1 Cor. 3:15 (saved … through fire) – her salvation will remain intact through it.”
Wayne, that has always made the best sense to me also, especially since the theme running through 1 Tim. is how to deal with the false teachers and their false teachings.
TL -
Like to let people know when I respond. I did a full response on my blog regarding the nakedness issue. Is it a sin to see someone naked?. It is mainly directed at the terrible job of translating the NKJV does, my blog is pretty heavily focused o bashing bad translations. So consider yourself notified if you want to respond.
YLT 1Ti 2:15 and she shall be saved through the child-bearing, if they remain in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.
I take this as a ref. to Gen 3:15, the promised seed of the woman. This is partly due to the use of “THE childbearing” where the Greek article translated “the” indicates a unique event. My take is Paul is using terminology familiar in Ephesus in a Christian way, which is why it may sound so strange to us.
I take this as a ref. to Gen 3:15, the promised seed of the woman. This is partly due to the use of “THE childbearing” where the Greek article translated “the” indicates a unique event.
On what do you base your understanding that the use of the Greek article here means “a unique event”? If the author had omitted the article and simply written dia teknogonias, what would that have meant – “but she will be saved through an act of childbearing….?
Since the article can function as a possessive, couldn’t dia tês teknogonias also mean “[but she will be saved] through her act of bearing (a) child(ren)”?
I take the Greek article as primarily making something definite, that is, specific. Yes, it can do other things, but I first try the primary meaning and try to see if that makes sense. Without the article the noun MIGHT be more general or might be specific, but with the article it is specific; the question is specific to what? I take it as Paul using terms familiar in Ephesus with the Artemesion and fertility stuff and showing how the same words can be used in a Godly way contra pagan use.
What I see Paul doing is setting up 2 mappings: he is mapping Adam, (the undeceived sinner) to the 2 men kicked out of the church; and he is mapping Eve (the deceived sinner) to himself and a woman or some women at Ephesus; this is so Timothy will know how to handle each appropriately. The former need to hear the gospel and will be taught by satan roughly, the latter need/needed to hear the truth so they could become undeceived and will be taught by believers gently.
But if Paul had meant tês teknogonias to have referred to Christ’s birth (i.e., a past event as far as the Ephesians and all other Christians were concerned), wouldn’t he have used an aorist participle form of the verb “to bear a child” (i.e., “through the having-born-a-child” or “through the having-been-born-child”) instead of a noun meaning “the act of childbirth”?
“”Since the article can function as a possessive, couldn’t dia tês teknogonias also mean “[but she will be saved] through her act of bearing (a) child(ren)”?
That would be a ‘work’ of salvation and negate everything Paul teaches and the basic Gospel message.
That would be a ‘work’ of salvation and negate everything Paul teaches and the basic Gospel message.
Only if one insists that “salvation by faith alone” is the clear and unambiguous teaching of the New Testament and/or that faith vs. works is such an either/or proposition. But you won’t find a “saved by faith alone” gospel in the Early Church Fathers’ writings, nor does James promote it in his Epistle.
Eric,
As I see it, Paul is using terms familiar to the Ephesians, deliberately showing that the very words they used can be used in a redemptive way. That is, he is becoming as “Ephesian” as he can, while remaining true to the faith.
Also, “faith alone” needs to be understood as a Hebrew would understand it, then there is no conflict between Paul and James. for example.
Is there any evidence that hê teknogonia was a TT (technical term) or special phrase in Christian circles at that time for the birth of Christ (i.e., “the seed of the woman”)?
Eric,
Paul’s term “the” childbearing (a noun) is a unique term in the NT. Since Paul had referenced Eve as the one who sinned through being deceived, “the” childbearing, a reference to the promised Messiah – the seed of the woman in Genesis 3, is the best fit for this verse. Also Paul’s use of “saved” in his epistles is always a reference to spiritual salvation. This makes sense when we consider that the very first deceived woman had the promise that it was her seed who would defeat the one who deceived her.
Since Paul is talking about deceived people in 1 Timothy and there is a special need to stop one woman (who Paul compares to the very first deceived woman), verse 15 then becomes the end result of the prohibition in verse 12. She (the deceived Ephesian woman) will be saved through the Messiah who was promised to come through the very first deceived woman, if they (the woman and her husband) continue in the truth with love for God and self-control to stay away from the false doctrine. This makes the whole passage flow together and gives reason why Paul references “the” childbearing (noun). His concern was deception.
One deceived woman in Ephesus…another deceived woman in the garden. Both to be saved through the promise of God that satan’s deception will be defeated by the God-man who came through the deceived. Satan will not win with this woman either because Paul is confident that in the end she will come out of her deception and experience freedom through the seed of the first deceived woman.
Andreas Kostenberger’s take on the passage is faulty and I have dialogged with him about the problems of his view. Nowhere has God promised deliverance from satan by men keeping to their “roles”. If God promised this to women then he was being prejudiced against men and unmarried or barren women who had no such “promise” from God. Not only that but Paul’s specific use of the singular to the plural is improper grammar if both occurrences reference women (plural) in essence making she = they. This is faulty grammar and the Holy Spirit doesn’t inspire faulty grammar. It is only when we understand that she cannot be the same thing as they (although she can be a part of the group of they), will be understand Paul’s unusual grammar and the specific argument that Paul makes that Timothy would have completely understood since 1 Timothy was a personal letter to Timothy who was adequately familiar with the specific problems in Ephesus.
Now as far as James goes, there is no contradiction regarding salvation by faith alone. Both Paul and James use Abraham as an example of saving faith. Paul says that Abraham was not justified by works but by faith (Romans 4:2). Paul was speaking of justification before God which is by faith alone and James was speaking about justification before men. While James affirms that Abraham’s faith brought justification with God:
James 2:23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS,” and he was called the friend of God.
…James also affirms that saving faith cannot be shown to other men without works:
James 2:18 But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”
Therefore James emphasizes faith by works as evidence of salvation before men and Paul emphasizes faith without works as the origin of salvation with God. No contradiction at all.
Not that I know of.
One thing to see in Gen 3:16 is that God promises to increase Eve’s conception, that is, be pregnant with multiple children.
As they say, it’s all Greek to me.
One thing to see in Gen 3:16 is that God promises to increase Eve’s conception, that is, be pregnant with multiple children.
While the Hebrew says “I will greatly increase your pain and your conception,” the LXX translates it as “I will greatly multiply your griefs and your groaning,” which suggests the translators didn’t understand it to refer to increasing the number of children. As the NET Bible notes, the LXX translators may have had the proper understanding of the etymology of the word that usually translated as “conception”:
4 tn Heb “your pain and your conception,” suggesting to some interpreters that having a lot of children was a result of the judgment (probably to make up for the loss through death). But the next clause shows that the pain is associated with conception and childbirth. The two words form a hendiadys (where two words are joined to express one idea, like “good and angry” in English), the second explaining the first. “Conception,” if the correct meaning of the noun, must be figurative here since there is no pain in conception; it is a synecdoche, representing the entire process of childbirth and child rearing from the very start. However, recent etymological research suggests the noun is derived from a root הרר (hrr), not הרה (hrh), and means “trembling, pain” (see D. Tsumura, “A Note on הרוֹן (Gen 3,16),” Bib 75 [1994]: 398-400). In this case “pain and trembling” refers to the physical effects of childbirth. The word עִצְּבוֹן (’itsÿvon, “pain”), an abstract noun related to the verb (עָצַב, ’atsav), includes more than physical pain. It is emotional distress as well as physical pain. The same word is used in v. 17 for the man’s painful toil in the field.
I know it is often claimed to be a hendiadys, but I fail to see it as such. It makes so much more sense to me to see it as 2 things, not one thing.
“itsebon” is used 3 times in the Bible and defined the 2nd (Gen 3:16) and 3rd time (Gen 5:29) as “the sorrowful toil as a result of God’s curse on the land as a result of the man’s sin” which I agree is a mouthful. That is, there is no reason to see it as less or more than that and God is informing the woman what to expect, hard work of the soil (as opposed to the garden) not due to her acts but due to her husband’s (as explained later) and more conception, which is a blessing, esp. as her seed (offspring) is promised to stomp the serpent’s head (as explained before).
Conception and seed form a (conceptual) linkage between Gen 3:16 and 3:15.
Itsebon links Gen 3:16 and 3:17 directly.
The other point the NET Bible makes, which seems to explain the LXX translation (and interestingly, the LXX translates the first word as a plural – “griefs” – but the second word as a singular – “groaning”) is that translators may have assumed the wrong root word for the word that is translated as “conception.” If that’s true, then the hendiadys issue/debate is probably moot. I find the LXX translation intriguing, but don’t have my commentaries here to read more about it.
Don:
FWIW, it looks like the nouns in the Hebrew text of Genesis 3:16 are also both singular nouns – i.e., “thy pain” and “thy childbirth.” If God wanted to say that He was increasing the woman’s number of conceptions and births, one would, I think, expect a plural form of the second noun – i.e., “thy pain and thy childbirths.”
It may be because labor pains are “pains” (plural) that the LXX translates the first word in the plural, but translates the second as a singular.
http://www.hebrew4christians.net/Grammar/Unit_Six/Pronomial_Suffixes_Plural/pronomial_suffixes_plural.html
FWIIW, I see it as important to use the Hebrew text as canonical, with the LXX translation providing a commentary as it were. In some cases, the LXX commentary is quoted as authoritative at times by Jesus, etc.; in other places Hebrew text is quoted. Esp. because of the gender debate, I think it is important to stick to what the Hebrew actually says, as the Pharisees and rabbis were misogynistic, claiming there were 10 (ten!) curses on Eve when there were actually none.
Eric,
you might be interested in Katherine Bushnell’s commentary on Gen 3:16. From Paragraph 117
I think “the childbearing” in 1 Tim 2:15 could be referring the the formation of Christ within ie sanctification. Paul uses childbirth as a metaphor for spiritual formation in Gal 4:19 referring to himself as “travailing in childbirth until Christ be formed in you”.
Eric,
“Multiplying I-will-multiply your-sorrow and-your-conception” is the way I read it. To (greatly) multiply singular nouns is to make them plural in effect, i.e., you will have multple sorrow and multiple conception.
So if one uses the Hebrew text, then “conception” is in the singular, which I think argues against saying that God says that He is increasing the number of children she will bear.
And again using the Hebrew text, the more recent etymological studies, per NET, seem to support the word being “pain” and not “conception.” (which indirectly supports the LXX translation against the rabbinical and usual translation of the Masoretic Text of Genesis 3:16)
A question: What do you mean when you say that one is to use the Hebrew text as “canonical”?
1. That only the canon of the Jewish Hebrew OT is to be used (i.e., the OT books without the so-called Apocrypha), as opposed to the LXX or the Samaritan Pentateuch, etc.?
2. That the Hebrew text in whatever book one is reading is the “canon” (i.e., measuring rod) for determining the correctness or validity of a textual reading?
3. ??
I mean both 1 and 2. The Jewish Tanakh defines a set of canonical books for me, but I do not agree the canon was closed the NT is also canon AND the Hebrew text of the Tanakh is what counts, except specifically when the NT quotes the LXX as a correct understanding, which it does a LOT, but not always.
I see God saying he will increase/multiply the woman’s conception, this does not mean a BIGGER conception but MORE. All she knew from Gen 3:15 is that she would have at least 1 child. In Gen 3:16 she learns she will have multiple pregnancies and then she learns she will have multiple children.
Eric,
Bushnell also says in paragraph 121 at the same link as above:
Reading Bushnell’s remarks make me think perhaps the translators might have been influenced by the thought that a woman’s purpose in life was to have multiple children.
Of course, I don’t Hebrew or anything about translation methods. This is just a guess on my part.
“Only if one insists that “salvation by faith alone” is the clear and unambiguous teaching of the New Testament ”
It’s not? Why would I care what the early church fathers thought when Jesus said: Repent and believe.
If bearing children could be a form of works for salvation, what about the women who cannot?
Richard Elliott Friedman, Professor of Hebrew and Comparative Literature and holder of the Katzin Chair at the University of California, San Diego, Commentary on the Torah with a new English translation and the Hebrew Text:
3:16a To the woman He said, “I’ll make your suffering and your labor pain great. You’ll have children in pain….”
Robert Alter, Class of 1937 Professor of Hebrew and Comparative Literature at the University of California, Berkeley, The Five Books of Moses:
3:16a To the woman He said, “I will terribly sharpen your birth pangs, in pain shall you bear children….”
Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis:
3:16a To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply your suffering, especially of your childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children….”
Everett Fox, holder of the Allen M. Glick Chair in Judaic and Biblical Studies at Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts, The Five Books of Moses, A New Translation:
3:16a To the woman he said: I will multiply, multiply your pain (from) your pregnancy, with pains shall you bear children….
I.e., it does not seem to be about increasing the number of children/conceptions Eve will have.
Gen 3:16 interlinear
al
to
־
-
ה הָאִ ָ
e·ashe
the·woman
אָמַר
amr
he-said
ה+ הַרְ ָ
erbe
to-increase
ה+ אַרְ ֶ
arbe
I-am-increasing
) נֵ* ב; עִ ְ
otzbun·k
grief-of·you
) וְהֵרֹנֵ
u·ern·k
and·pregnancy-of·you
. Unto the woman he
said, I will greatly multiply
thy sorrow and thy
conception; in sorrow thou
shalt bring forth children;
and thy desire [shall be] to
thy husband, and he shall
rule over thee.
16
עֶצֶב +ְ
b·otzb
in·grief
לְדִי &ֵ
thldi
you-shall-give-birth
בָנִי
bnim
sons
וְאֶל
u·al
and·to
־
-
) אִי ֵ
aish·k
man-of·you
) קָתֵ &ְ
thshuqth·k
impulse-of·you
א וְה
u·eua
and·he
ל יִמְ ָ
imshl
he-shall-rule
־
-
)+ָ
b·k
in·you
I respect the people you quoted, but one needs to see that Jews are taught there are 10 curses given to the woman, when actually there are none. That is, there is a HEAVY tradition that overlays these verses for rabbinic Jews.
Sorry for the formatting, I extracted this from the pdf for Gen 3 at scripture4all.org.
I have seen one of the CBMW interpretations of Gen 3:16 ASSUME that the things it describes are bad, so that she can then interpret the text in the way she does. Once one sees that the verse is not REQUIRED to describe all bad things, then one is free to see it differently.
As I see it, a Bible student should compare and contrast what God says to the serpent, the woman and the man; there is no “Because” in what is said to the woman and there is no curse associated with anything the woman did, in contrast to the serpent and the man. The point is that if ANY of the verses MIGHT not be all bad, this is the one to look at.
Did everyone die?
LOL !
It’s slow everywhere. All the blogs. Don’t know anywhere where there is a hot topic.
Maybe because summer is ending …. last minute getaways. Also, children will be going back to school shortly.
No.
I’m still getting over the mad porn advocate from the other thread. I’d still like to talk about Driscoll a bit but am afraid that guy will come in and crash our party again.
Besides, the Driscoll thread it closed. And I don’t blame anyone for closing it.
No, we didn’t die. Even we lurkers are alive and commenting (but my last comment didn’t make the cut – probably didn’t fit the criteria of the comment guidelines), but we are still reading the other posts and comments.
bonnie (NOT Lindblom)
FWIIW, sometimes valid comments get put into the spam folder (by mistake of the filter) and it is possible to “delete all spam” via a button.
I know, old thread, but after reading skimming most of it, it seems like no one has proposed the explanation, the ONLY explanation, of this passage that has ever made sense to me.
I don’t remember where I heard/read it, but it found the key to this mystery in the original context and intended audience.
I believe Timothy was in Ephesus at the time, which is where the temple of Diana/Artemis. She was the goddess of, among other things, childbearing. It was traditional and customary for pregnant women to bring gifts or sacrifices to her temple as their delivery drew near.
So here Paul is talking to an audience that is used to taking this concern and request to a false goddess, and he merely is reminding these young believers that they can turn to God for this. Being “in Him” includes “faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint”. It follows naturally after talking about the consequence dealt to women in the Curse at the Fall, that he should address that specific act.
Hi Alisa,
“It follows naturally after talking about the consequence dealt to women in the Curse at the Fall, that he should address that specific act.”
When/where in this passage did Paul talk about the consequesnce “dealt to women” in the Curse at the fall?
Yes, Timothy was at Ephesus and yes, Artemis of Ephesus was a “goddess” of fertility and childbearing.
One problem with seeing the verse as dealing with all childbearing is that Christians sometimes die in childbirth. But THE childbearing is a specific thing in the Greek, that is what the article implies.
I believe until modern times a lot of women were dying in childbirth. I’m not sure what the percentage was. I know my own great grandmother died in childbirth, and that my grandmother would have died in childbirth except that medical establishment of the 1920’s was able to save her life.
One of my dear friends mother died in childbirth around 1958.
One time I read that in 18th century America about 1 in 50 women died in childbirth. I do not know how reliable the statistic was.
Rich women avoided pregnancy as that was one of the main causes of death. This is why Augustus passed lex Julia to encourage births in the Roman empire.
What is lex Julia?
Roman marriage law.
First was lex Julia and then Lex Papia, but they are most often joined together as “Lex Julia et Papia”.
Augustus wants births so he passed Lex Julia et Papia
25-60 year old man must be married
20-50 year old woman must be married
Widow can wait < 24 months, divorcee 18
Living together is a legal marriage
Paperwork if pregnant or earlier by choice
One point is that if Paul had wanted to forbid remarriage in 1 Cor, he would have needed to be very explicit, as Roman law REQUIRED remarriage and one is to obey the civil laws unless it would be violating God’s laws.
Corinth was a city under Roman law so this provides some info on the cultural context in which to understand 1 Cor 7, etc.
Somebody, please – come up with a new blog topic! Please….
LOL , JLP. It has been quiet, that’s for certain.
I thought I was going to be without the internet for a week or two. But my MAC airport device actually keeps me online when my main computer is disconnected. It’s getting a cleaning on the inerds. Fan is overheating and shutting it down. WOW is that impressive that the Airport keeps it online without a computer connected.
But my laptop tends to get over heated too,if I leave it on all day like I often do my desktop computer.
I’m also pretty busy creating curriculum for two studies in church: Keys To Unlocking the Scriptures, and going through Genesis. I’m so impressed with my women’s group that has chosen to keep going through the book of Genesis. We just went through Adam’s geneologies this morning. I taught them something about collecting data and making small records and how it unveils a lot of interesting data we usually miss. So, my hands are full.
However, I will think on it and see if anything comes up.
I submitted a post for review. Hopefully Molly or someone will check it out for approval. I’m on another computer and don’t have their email addy’s.