need some Spirit-filled understanding of this verse.

[cyberlizard]

Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. (1 Timothy 2:15)


opinions?

 

[cyberlizard]

personally I think this is simply one of those scriptures we simply read over without giving it the consideration it seriously warrants.

 

[jiminpa]

I've given it thought, but I honestly can't reconcile it to my "western" thinking. I would think that a Charismatic Messianic would have way more insight to the cultural context.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I've given it thought, but I honestly can't reconcile it to my "western" thinking. I would think that a Charismatic Messianic would have way more insight to the cultural context.

Maybe open a thread in that subforum for that.

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

I found this article on line...in my opinion it makes the most sense with everything else taught in scripture.

The Role of Women​

It also makes more sense than the many other teachings on it which would make an unmarried and childless woman unable to be saved.

 

[Frogster]

It is really not all that deep, it is soft speak, Paul is just saying to stay home, be a mom, and stay out of trouble.

Instead of the previous life style, values, mentioned in this verse.

9 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,

I might say to a young teenage guy, go get a job, raise a family, and behave.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I think back then, gender roles were much more important. It took much more work then, to say, cook meals. There was no Kraft Macaroni & Cheese, boil the noodles, add a little milk and butter. Then Bingo! Dinner. Same with clothes, clothes were hand made and just getting water was a big thing. Plus wood for warming water.

I'm sure with all the wars, there were a lot more women than men. Men were killed all the time in wars and they wiped out thousands at a time. I'm sure there were many things that women did do back then, to just adjust and keep on living.

I think God wants things the way He designed them. He designed men different from women for a reason and visa-versa.

 

[Alithis]

.

 

[Frogster]

I think back then, gender roles were much more important. It took much more work then, to say, cook meals. There was no Kraft Macaroni & Cheese, boil the noodles, add a little milk and butter. Then Bingo! Dinner. Same with clothes, clothes were hand made and just getting water was a big thing. Plus wood for warming water.

I'm sure with all the wars, there were a lot more women than men. Men were killed all the time in wars and they wiped out thousands at a time. I'm sure there were many things that women did do back then, to just adjust and keep on living.

I think God wants things the way He designed them. He designed men different from women for a reason and visa-versa.

yes, when a woman goes to fix a car, the car will run worse than it did before she fiddled with it! lol

 

[Biblicist]

yes, when a woman goes to fix a car, the car will run worse than it did before she fiddled with it! lol

Hey! When my wife and I were in the US a few years back, you never told me that you had met my WIFE, now I find out! That probably explains why my wife was talking to the guy in the Frog outfit on the Santa Monica pier - who would have thought!

 

[Biblicist]

personally I think this is simply one of those scriptures we simply read over without giving it the consideration it seriously warrants.

This along with many others as well.
1Tim 2:15 has certainly created a few headaches over the years but I feel that Ben Witherington has done a pretty good job with his explanation which you will find contained in the "spoiler".

"The question then becomes, What is the connection between 1 Timothy 2:13-14 and 1 Timothy 2:15? Here, much depends on the translation. One could argue that it should be rendered “but she will be kept safe through childbearing,” seeing here a promise of a reversal of the curse on Eve of pain and danger in childbearing, if one is a good Christian woman. Unfortunately, the translation “be kept safe” is unlikely here. Our author uses an entirely different word for the idea of being kept safe (see 2 Tim 3:11; 4:18)".​

Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, Vol 1. A socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1-2 Timothy and 1-3 John, Ben Witherington III (2006) pages 228-232

To provide an easier migration from MSWord into the forum, Witherington's footnotes have been removed.​

Click to expand and click to hide:

Spoiler

1Tim 2:13
Beginning at 1 Timothy 2:13 we have a biblical rationale provided for this current ruling that amounts to something of a midrash on portions of Genesis 2:7—3:12. It can be seen as an illustrative paradigm (in this case a negative one) after the fact that provides an “inartificial proof” or further clinching warrant for the imperatives just given. In order for us to understand the use of the story of Adam and Eve here, certain factors not directly mentioned here are crucial. In the first place, according to Genesis 2:16-17, only Adam received the initial prohibition to avoid eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Nothing whatsoever is said about God instructing Eve at this juncture; indeed, she had not even been created yet. One is left to assume that it was Adam who told Eve about the prohibition, and apparently he did not do a very clear or good job of it.

1Tim 2:14
This leads to the next point: as 1 Timothy 2:13 indicates, Adam was first in creation, but as 1 Timothy 2:14 stresses, Eve was deceived and was the first in the fall. In fact, the text says that while Adam was not “deceived” (epatethe), Eve was “truly deceived” (exapatetheisa). Indeed, so deceived is she said to be that she “happened” or “entered into a state of transgression.” This theme of Eve’s deception is found also in 2 Corinthians 11:3 (cf. Sir 23:24), where Paul is suggesting that it could happen to any of the Corinthians, male or female. It is unlikely that Paul thought that falling prey to deception was an inherent flaw in women to which men were not subject. Notice that in Romans 3:12-20 Paul is quite ready to blame Adam for the fall. It is likely, as Jouette Bassler suggests, that there is a link here with the false teachers, who are viewed as deceivers (1 Tim 4:1; 2 Tim 3:13; cf. Tit 1:10), and women in Ephesus who are being deceived (2 Tim 3:5-7).

I suggest that the reason why Paul mentions that Adam was formed first, before he speaks about Eve, is to remind the audience of the context of the story in Genesis 2. That story is quite clear that Adam alone was formed and was present for God’s original instructions about what was prohibited. Eve was not there for proper divine instruction, and thus she was more susceptible to deception. Nothing is said here about the woman being more susceptible by nature to deception, unlike what we find in, for instance, Philo (QG 1.23.46).

The verb “truly deceived” here is an important one, and it seems to refer to what happens when one is misled about something one has been taught, or even when one is subject to being misled because one has not been properly taught in the first place. Notice that in the Genesis 3 story Eve tells the serpent that she is not even to touch the fruit—something that God never told Adam. But where did she get this idea? Surely we are to think that it either came from Adam or she made it up.

1Tim 2:15
The question then becomes, What is the connection between 1 Timothy 2:13-14 and 1 Timothy 2:15? Here, much depends on the translation. One could argue that it should be rendered “but she will be kept safe through childbearing,” seeing here a promise of a reversal of the curse on Eve of pain and danger in childbearing, if one is a good Christian woman. Unfortunately, the translation “be kept safe” is unlikely here. Our author uses an entirely different word for the idea of being kept safe (see 2 Tim 3:11; 4:18).

More weight should rather be given to the presence in the Greek text of the definite article “the” before the word “childbearing” (tes teknogonias). One must ask, “Which particular childbearing is meant?” especially since the verb is in the singular (“she will be saved”), and surely the answer is “Jesus, born of woman, born under the law” (as Gal 4:4 puts it). In other words, the curse on woman incurred in Eve is reversed through Mary. Human fallenness came through a woman, and so did human salvation. This was the view of many of the church fathers about this verse, not least because they recognized that the Pastorals elsewhere had strongly insisted that salvation was by grace through faith, not by producing offspring while maintaining a highly moral lifestyle! For example, we can point already in the early second century to Justin Martyr (Dial. 100) in support of a messianic reading of 1 Timothy 2:13, and more remotely we can also compare Ignatius, Ephesians 19.

There is, however, a problem with a purely messianic reading of 1 Timothy 2:15: gyne here in the singular ought to mean the same thing as it does in 1 Timothy 2:11, where it is a generic term for “woman.” It seems unlikely that Paul is saying that Mary in particular was saved through the childbearing of Jesus, so that the focus is on her being the type of which Eve is the antitype. Rather, I suggest that although the subject in 1 Timothy 2:15 surely is women in general (which would include Jesus’ mother), “the childbearing” is indeed a reference to a particular birth, that of Jesus. The point is that it was through woman that the fall came, and through woman redemption came as well. In support of this we note first that the following verb, “if they continue/remain,” is in the third person plural. Second, this coming into the world is alluded to at 1 Timothy 1:15 in the first trustworthy saying in this letter, which states emphatically that Jesus came to save sinners. Our own text here has made emphatic that Eve was indeed the first and paradigmatic sinner. Thus women, the daughters of Eve, who is said to “have happened into transgression” in this very text, are indeed saved through his coming, dying and rising again. It is highly unlikely that this text is about women being saved by producing progeny.

Of what relevance is all this to the discussion of women learning rather than teaching? Eve is an example of someone who could be deceived by a false teacher (in her case a serpent), precisely because she had not been properly instructed in the first place. This, I submit, speaks directly to the problem in Ephesus, where we have some high-status, well-to-do women, likely with some education, who are trying to assume the mantle of teaching before they have learned the apostolic message properly, and in all likelihood after they have already been misled by the false teachers. This view makes sense not only in light of the context of false teaching, but also in light of what else is said about women in this letter and in 2 Timothy, which includes the following: (1) 2 Timothy 4:19 refers to a ministry couple, Priscilla and Aquila, who apparently are once more in Ephesus, a place where previously they were known to have taught, indeed to have taught a church leader named Apollos (Acts 18:26). This reference becomes all the more pertinent if in fact Luke wrote this letter on Paul’s behalf. There had been at least one woman who had taught and taught well in Ephesus with Paul’s approval. Priscilla was someone who had been properly trained, presumably in Corinth, by the apostle himself and then left in Ephesus to help start some house churches there. (2) We are told of widows who pray night and day to God (1 Tim 3:5). Clearly Paul has no problems with women praying or even with their praying out loud in worship (as 1 Timothy 2:9 suggests), and indeed 1 Timothy 5:9-10 even suggests that already there were older widows in the church who appear to have served various ministerial functions. (3) In addition to this, in all likelihood 1 Timothy 3:11 speaks of deaconesses, and although there is a concern about how they speak (not with malice), they are not banned from speaking or teaching. (4) In Titus 2:3 Paul has already told older women to teach what is good to younger women.

The issue, then, in 1 Timothy cannot be teaching per se, or women teaching per se. Nor in light of the example of Priscilla can the matter be women teaching men. The issue, rather, is untrained and unauthorized women, who need to be learning, seeking to teach and indeed to domineer men. This situation Paul may see as a violation of the creation order, but even more to the point, he sees it as an abuse or an unauthorized use of power, power and authority that perhaps because these were high-status women (and especially if the meeting was being held in their own home), they assumed they already had. These are the women whom Paul is currently not allowing to teach, but neither does he rule out, if they did indeed learn and submit to the teaching, that they might one day be authorized to do so.

The passage concludes in 1 Timothy 2:15b with the affirmation that women, like men, must persevere in the faith, working out their salvation with fear and trembling, as Paul suggests in Philippians 2. Here this thought is expressed by reminding them that Jesus’ first coming will indeed save them at the eschaton, provided they continue to persevere in faith, love and holiness in the interim. Once again final salvation (note the future tense of “will be saved”) is linked closely with the behavior of Christians here and now as they stand between having been saved and still living in the hope of eternal life in the future. Paul, in 1 Timothy 5:3-16 and 2 Timothy 3:5-9, will have to continue to correct women in Ephesus, so we must think that this was a problem that did not readily go away. I will say more about this in due course.

Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, Vol 1. A socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1-2 Timothy and 1-3 John, Ben Witherington III (2006) pages 228-232

 

[ToBeLoved]

yes, when a woman goes to fix a car, the car will run worse than it did before she fiddled with it! lol

Yeah, but cars have been around less than 100 years.

 

[Biblicist]

Yeah, but cars have been around less than 100 years.

Ummm...are you suggesting that it can take a woman almost a lifetime to understand how to change a tyre or the oil! Mind you, when it comes to my darling wife there could be some truth to it.

 

[Catherineanne]

Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. (1 Timothy 2:15)

opinions?

I find it helps to compare as many variants as possible, to determine what the meaning might be. From these it would seem to relate to the dangers of chidbirth, ie; 'bearing children is full of danger, but a woman who has faith, love, holiness and self control will be delivered safely of her child'. In other words, it is not about eternal salvation through childbirth, but safe childbirth through faith in God.

http://biblehub.com/1_timothy/2-15.htm

 

[Frogster]

Hey! When my wife and I were in the US a few years back, you never told me that you had met my WIFE, now I find out! That probably explains why my wife was talking to the guy in the Frog outfit on the Santa Monica pier - who would have thought!

I understand!

 

[Frogster]

Yeah, but cars have been around less than 100 years.

yeah, but as Biblicist implies, it would take one about a hundred years to learn how to fix one!

 

[2KnowHim]

Paul is speaking out of The Revealation of Christ......The Woman (Eve) is not what she appears to be to so many orthodox Christians.........she speaks of something much deeper than many have come to see.

I would suggest reading all of the times in scripture that the word "Woman" appears and how God sees her.

 

[ToBeLoved]

yeah, but as Biblicist implies, it would take one about a hundred years to learn how to fix one!

Silly Frog. We only let men 'think' that we don't know how to fix cars. That's one of the things we 'let' men believe so they have something to do

 

[ToBeLoved]

Ummm...are you suggesting that it can take a woman almost a lifetime to understand how to change a tyre or the oil! Mind you, when it comes to my darling wife there could be some truth to it.

A woman can do anythng she fixes her mind upon, but fixing cars is something most women don't fix their minds on cuz car engines are just not interesting to a woman. Now if car's were more like fashion or shoes, I'd be all over it.

 

[Biblicist]

Silly Frog. We only let men 'think' that we don't know how to fix cars. That's one of the things we 'let' men believe so they have something to do

Superb! And that comes from a 'mere male' who has three females in his household.