Apparently there were some strange teachings going around at the time which stated that women lost their divine spark after giving birth and could no longer be saved. The part about being 'saved in childbearing' seems to make sense as a rebuttal of those teachings. The rest of the passage is another matter.
Apparently there were some strange teachings going around at the time which stated that women lost their divine spark after giving birth and could no longer be saved. The part about being 'saved in childbearing' seems to make sense as a rebuttal of those teachings. The rest of the passage is another matter.
Is there independent evidence for this, or is this one of those after-the-fact justifications based on nothing but the need to justify? (believe me, Orthodoxy is replete with those)
One interpretation of this passage I’ve heard is that the town where Paul (Or not-quite-Paul) addressed his letter was a centre of devotion to a goddess figure who women hoped would keep them safe from death in childbirth. Figurines were used as part of this hope and devotion - perhaps this is also where Paul pissed off the silversmiths? Can’t quite remember now.
Many women (I think it’s this passage) were also not marrying in the hope of keeping themselves safe from pregnancy. And ofc many women may not have had the choice about pregnancy if their husbands so desired.
So the instruction - that they continue in faith, love and modesty- is to the husbands and married couples - if you, the husbands, treat your wives well, and do not force endless pregnancies on them, they may (hopefully) be saved from death in childbirth, and then women may not need to avoid marriage.
One problem I have is that the 2 Timothy verse has been used as justification for Orders of Creation arguments. It also seems to contradict what Paul says in Galatians 3:28. There, the genders are put on equal footing in Christ. Timothy insists on the subordination of women.
@Gramps49 One of the things that convinced me not to set too much stock by 2 Timothy being read as an enduring "order of creation" (apart from being warned, by Wayne Grudem that failing to do so was an attack on the Godhead itself, which sounded more like fear than rational argument) is that so far as I can see, if one sets store by it one must do the same for 1 Corinthians 11:7-11 with regard to head coverings for women.
Almost nobody imposes head coverings for women these days (a change I've seen in my own lifetime), even though Paul's reasoning (apart from the mysterious angels bit) is very similar (v8-9):
For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man
The inconsistency in how this verse and 2 Timothy are applied by complementarians is strong evidence to me that we all contextualise when it suits us. And Paul's plea in v13, "judge for yourselves" is strong evidence to me that in fact he's not all that sure of his ground.
All of which has fed into my thinking that the pastoral bits of the epistles are best read as an attempt to get a hold of how to work out the implications of the risen Christ in a body of believers by those grappling with this revolutionary concept in their day than a sort of second set of Ten Commandments.
Complementarians would say that Gal 3:28 refers to the various categories' standing "in Christ", that we are all saved "on the same basis", but can nevertheless have different roles. So I supposed it can't be used by them to decry slavery, either.
With Paul's writings on women, the question for me is whether the true meaning of scripture is the meaning that was in the mind of the Paul at the time the epistles were written or not. If Paul's intent at the time was to restrict the role of women in the Church, not just in the historical context he was writing in, but forever (ie, until at least the second coming), is that what God intended, too?
No. Why would God do that? And what's the second coming?
Comments
Is there independent evidence for this, or is this one of those after-the-fact justifications based on nothing but the need to justify? (believe me, Orthodoxy is replete with those)
Many women (I think it’s this passage) were also not marrying in the hope of keeping themselves safe from pregnancy. And ofc many women may not have had the choice about pregnancy if their husbands so desired.
So the instruction - that they continue in faith, love and modesty- is to the husbands and married couples - if you, the husbands, treat your wives well, and do not force endless pregnancies on them, they may (hopefully) be saved from death in childbirth, and then women may not need to avoid marriage.
Tangent: I'd say I lost a fair bit of my Divine Spark in childbearing and childrearing....It's rekindled now though
Almost nobody imposes head coverings for women these days (a change I've seen in my own lifetime), even though Paul's reasoning (apart from the mysterious angels bit) is very similar (v8-9):
The inconsistency in how this verse and 2 Timothy are applied by complementarians is strong evidence to me that we all contextualise when it suits us. And Paul's plea in v13, "judge for yourselves" is strong evidence to me that in fact he's not all that sure of his ground.
All of which has fed into my thinking that the pastoral bits of the epistles are best read as an attempt to get a hold of how to work out the implications of the risen Christ in a body of believers by those grappling with this revolutionary concept in their day than a sort of second set of Ten Commandments.
Complementarians would say that Gal 3:28 refers to the various categories' standing "in Christ", that we are all saved "on the same basis", but can nevertheless have different roles. So I supposed it can't be used by them to decry slavery, either.
No. Why would God do that? And what's the second coming?