Bible Commentaries
1 Timothy 2

Verses 1-4

I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people – 1 Timothy 2:1

This whole chapter seems to be made up of directions about how public worship should be conducted. The thing that stands out immediately is the vast outreach of the prayers during this worship. No doubt we are all familiar with the little rhyme that made up a very selfish prayer for some poor soul. It went like this:

God bless me and my wife,
My son John and his wife,
Us four and no more.

We will not find such an idea of prayer in this chapter. Public prayer was a very important part of worship in the early church. The expression "first of all" indicates just how important it was. These words are not related to primacy of time but primacy of importance.^(F1) In this verse Paul uses four descriptive words: requests, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings. Scholars have worked hard to identify these aspects of prayer but their efforts have not been too fruitful. Even the great reformer Calvin once said that he did not completely understand the difference between them.^(F2)

Requests or petitions, is the Greek word deeseis. It seems to be closely related to profound personal needs. Prayers (Gk. proseuche) is rather self-explanatory. The next word (Gk. enteruxis) is related to the idea of coming before a king and making petition to him.^(F3) The last Greek word, eucharistia is more connected to simple thanksgiving.

Prayers were to be made for everyone. Jesus once said that his house would be called a house of prayer for all nations (Mark 11:17). In Paul's instruction here we see that the church is to reach out to all the world, the high and the low, the rich and the poor.

Paul requests that prayers be made "for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness" (2:2). This may sound a little strange to us in the western world. We are prone to criticize our leaders but we are not especially prone to pray for them. We need to make some corrections here. Paul had already laid down clear instructions in Romans 13 about how we should look upon earthly rulers (cf. 1 Peter 2:17). He instructed us that these authorities are established by God (Romans 13:1). We should thus submit to them and not rebel against them (13:2). They are in fact, God's servants for good. We no doubt remember how the Kings Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus were actually called God's servants or his anointed ones (cf. Jeremiah 25:9; Isaiah 45:1).

The Bible says, "In the LORD's hand the king's heart is a stream of water that he channels toward all who please him" (Proverbs 21:1). He is God's messenger to provide protection and provision for the people. We are well aware how in recent times the collapse of several central governments has led to terrorist groups actually taking over whole countries, and all the suffering and death that have resulted. The national ruler is there for our benefit so we should not fail to pray for that person.

In the Old Testament we see this principle in operation when Jeremiah requested that the exiles from Judah pray for Babylon's peace and prosperity. When Cyrus ordered the rebuilding of the temple he ordered the people to pray for his family's wellbeing. Early believers were careful to pray for Rome. We see in the New Testament that the peaceful conditions brought about by the pax romana, or Roman peace, were very important to the rapid spread of the gospel.^(F4)

Augustine in comparing the City of God to the Roman Empire or Babylon, as he called it, once said, "For as long as the two cities are mingled together, we can make use of the peace of Babylon. Faith can assure our exodus from Babylon, but our pilgrim status, for the time being, makes us neighbors."^(F5)

So when we pray earnestly for leaders and governments it results in our living more peaceful lives. It seems that there is a progression here. Christians not only confess and profess, but they express their faith through their daily lives.^(F6) Christian lives are lived in godliness and holiness. The Greek word godliness (eusebeia) speaks of our religions devotion while holiness (Gk. semnotes) speaks of our Christian dignity and demeanor. It includes the seriousness of our purpose.^{eusebeia." Barclay, p. 67.">(F7)} It is rather amazing when we consider that evil Nero was at the time ruler of the Roman Empire. Paul was requesting prayer for him although it was Nero who would shortly take Paul's head.

"This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" (2:3-4). It is good to pray for all people because God wishes all people to be saved (2 Peter 3:9; 1 Timothy 2:4; Romans 5:18). However, this is in no way a statement that all people will eventually be saved. It is not even a statement that all "Christians" will be saved (Matthew 22:14). Salvation means our coming to a "full knowledge" of the truth. There is a "cultural Christianity" throughout most of the world today that has a knowledge of the truth in some respects but not a full knowledge (Gk. epignosis). This word is defined as a "precise and experiential knowledge of the truth."^(F8)

In this passage we have one of the great scriptures in the Bible that stresses the universality of the gospel. It has even been called "the charter of missionary work."^(F9)

But we must be clear on this great promise. The gospel must be presented to all people but all people will not necessarily believe unto a saving knowledge. There has always been a hot discussion in the church whether or not all people can be saved or only those who are called "the elect." To ask it another way, are some people predestined to salvation or chosen before the foundation of the world as Ephesians 1:4 indicates? Or, does humankind possess a free will to decide or not to decide on salvation? We can surely answer "yes" to both these questions. Here is just another case where our finite minds cannot grasp the vastness of God's plan. Stott says here that we must, "…affirm both parts of the antinomy as true, while humbly confessing that at present our little minds are unable to resolve it."^(F10)

Verses 5-7

ONE MEDIATOR

For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 1 Timothy 2:5

This is a passage that thoroughly irritates our postmodern, pluralistic, and "politically correct" world. The firmly held and oft repeated philosophy of this present evil age is that one person's truth is just as good as another's truth. Thus the pagan's truth is just as true as the Christian's truth. If there is a sin in this postmodern age it is the sin of questioning some other person's "truth." Thus all religions are equally valid. It is a terrible offense in this age to think that our religion is better than the religion of others, or that our religion is in any way exclusive, and the only one that is true.^(F11)

The world is thus aghast at Paul's statement here, that Jesus is the only mediator between God and man. Of course, the world is also aghast at some other of Jesus' statements like the one found in John 14:6, where he says, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." It is at just this point that the postmodern sacred concept of "tolerance" breaks down. Charles Colson quips here, "Tolerance has become so important that no exception is tolerated."^(F12) Quite simply, the postmodern philosophies will never in this age tolerate real Christianity.

We realize that with the words "one Mediator," Paul was actually dealing the final blow to the Gnostic heresy that was invading Ephesus. The Gnostics were insistent that there were many mediators, many aeons or angelic beings between man and God, as we have said.

The word "mediator (Gk. mesites) used here is an important word (cf. Hebrews 8:6; 9:15; 12:24). Most of us know that we need a mediator to stand between us and God. Long ago Job cried out, "If only there were someone to mediate between us, someone to bring us together, someone to remove God's rod from me, so that his terror would frighten me no more" (Job 9:33-34).

Over the centuries people have looked to angels, to priests, to saints (even dead ones), to Mary, and to preachers or teachers to be their mediators. Unfortunately, none of these will really do. To be a mediator with God in the truest sense one needs to share both the human and divine natures. The church father, Theodore of Mopsuestia (ca. 350 – 428) says, "The fact that Jesus shares a common humanity with us is the whole key to salvation."^(F13) Of course, the fact that Jesus shares the divine nature as well as the human, supremely qualifies him to be our Mediator. Hebrews 7:25 assures us that Jesus is presently in heaven and is there mediating or interceding for us with the Father.

It was Jesus, our Mediator, "who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time" (2:6). In God's great and mysterious order of things the Mediator is also our Great High Priest and he himself is even our offering. Paul calls it a ransom because in some unknown way Jesus paid the price, or the offering, for our deliverance from sin. The Greek word used here is antilytron. The anti added to lytron emphasizes that it is a substitutionary ransom. Jesus paid the price that we could not pay (1 Corinthians 6:20; 1 Peter 1:18-19).^(F14) He paid the price by substituting his own life.

The idea of a testimony in due time may well be a reflection on the critical area of time when the gospel was given. It was the close of one period in history and the beginning of another. No doubt, also reflected here were some of the conditions in the first century Roman world. At last, the known world was connected by Roman roads and by relatively safe sea lanes. There was the common language of Koin" Greek and the blessings of the Roman peace over the whole area (pax romana).

There is another thing that certainly figures in here. People had become desperate in their need of salvation and sorely needed such a testimony. They were sick and tired of useless pagan worship and were really hopeless. At this precise point the good news came that the God of heaven had sent his Son to ransom and to save them.

Barclay tells the story of a man who lost his son in World War II. He had lived a careless and godless life but he was shocked into reality with his son's death. His life was changed because of it. "One day, he was standing in front of the local war memorial, looking at his son's name on it. And, very gently, he said: 'I guess he had to go down to lift me up.' That is what Jesus did; it cost his life and death to tell us of the love of God and to bring us home to him."^(F15)

Related to the testimony mentioned, Paul says, "And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle – I am telling the truth, I am not lying – and a true and faithful teacher of the Gentiles" (2:7). In ancient times when the king or ruler wished to make a public proclamation he sent his message by imperial heralds. They would go to each village or city and make a formal, public proclamation of the Emperor's message.^(F16) Paul was such a herald, but he was heralding the good news of the gospel. No doubt the false teachers had questioned and even discounted Paul's credentials as a herald and an apostle. Here Paul sets the record straight.

Verse 8

THE MEN OF GOD IN PUBLIC WORSHIP

Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing. 1 Timothy 2:8

For ages the Jewish people had lifted their hands in prayer to the true God. Now, Gentile people the world over are able to do the same. The prophet Malachi had spoken of such a time when he said, "'My name will be great among the nations, from where the sun rises to where it sets. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to me, because my name will be great among the nations,' says the LORD Almighty" (Malachi 1:11). In the Jewish world it was always the men who made public prayer. They often did so standing with arms and hands outreached (Exodus 9:29,33; 1 Kings 8:22).

Stott reminds us that postures for prayer are not mandated in the Bible. They are rather cultural with a wide variation illustrated in scripture. He remarks how David even sat down before the Lord in prayer. So, in scripture we have people standing, sitting, bowing down, kneeling, and falling on their faces.^(F17) Our prayer position is not so important, but the position of our heart is of utmost importance.

Paul makes plain that hands and hearts must be right before prayer can be heard. He warns against anger (Gk. orges) and disputing (Gk. dialogismos). Relationships had to be right before worship was acceptable, just as Jesus had already made clear (Matthew 5:23-24). God will not listen to us if our hands are full of blood (Isaiah 1:15). Barclay makes plain that this latter word, dialogismos can mean both argument and doubt.^(F18)

It is nice when a church can be peaceful and without fighting. The evangelist Ray Stedman tells the story of a man going through a church building with his son. The boy asked the father about a bronze plaque that was hanging on the wall. He wanted to know why it was there. "The father replied that it was a memorial plaque to commemorate the young men who had died in the service. The boy asked, 'Which one, the morning or the evening service?'"^(F19)

Verses 9-10

THE WOMEN OF GOD IN WORSHIP

I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. 1 Timothy 2:9-10

Here Paul continues to speak of public worship. Through the ages this instruction of Paul has often been abused and women have been put down as a result. Some religions have dressed women in hideous attire. In some Moslem lands the woman is often covered from head to foot with an uncomfortable and unsightly burka. Sometimes, only the women's eyes can be seen. In certain Christian circles the situation is not too much improved. Some groups have required long, drab dresses. Others have insisted on strange-looking head coverings. Many groups have forbidden any makeup to the woman. All this is amazing when we consider the creation around us and realize that God is a God of infinite variety, of dazzling color and of utterly amazing beauty and glory.

We can no doubt say first of all that matters of dress and makeup, like the postures of prayer, are often cultural and therefore can change from age to age. What might be modest in one era, could actually appear immodest or even ridiculous in another. Today in Israel, some Ultra-Orthodox men are still wearing the clothing styles of two or three centuries ago. It is almost as if they were caught in a time warp. This is no judgment on their devotion to God or their worship, but their attire is almost comical.

With all this in mind let us take a closer look at the clothing and hair styles mentioned here. The clothing or dress (Gk. katastole) is to be orderly (Gk. kosmios), with modesty (Gk. aidous) and sobriety (Gk. sophrosune). There has been a lot of discussion about the clothing or dress among interpreters. The stola, catastola and girdle were normal items of ancient dress for the woman. Although they were simple garments, among the Greek and Roman women they were often highly decorated with precious stones and gold.^(F20) Guthrie feels that the word katastole can also be a reference to demeanor as well as to attire.^{katastole here, the only place where it occurs in the New Testament. Alford argues strongly in favor of the meaning 'apparel.' But it may also mean 'steadiness' or 'quietness' of demeanor; and then the phrase will be exactly parallel to 1 Peter 3:5,'The incorruptible apparel of a meek and quiet spirit.'" (Exell, v. 2:9).">(F21)} This is really the point Paul wishes to make.

We can bring all this down to the present day as women come before the Lord to worship. Pastor Ray Stedman says, "If a woman comes with her hair done up in the latest fashion, wearing the latest low-cut dress and flashy jewelry, she is obviously not trying to get God's attention; she wants men's attention. Her choice of clothing, etc., reveals her heart."^(F22)

So women, like the men, are to come before God in orderly, modest and sober fashion. The woman's makeup and hairstyle should also reflect these qualities. Moderation should be the key word in all this. We know from sculptures and literature of the ancient world what women often wore their hair in elaborate arrangements. They had their braids and curls piled high and decorated with gems and gold.^(F23) Stedman, who has a great sense of humor, tells of hearing Phyllis Diller say that she spent three hours in the beauty parlor. Then she added "and that was just for the estimate!"^(F24)

God is not against a woman looking the best she can look, as long as it is done with modesty. We think of mother birds, how God has clothed them with beauty, but with colors that often blend in with their surroundings and provide good camouflage from predators. In this way even the young are protected from harm. Still, God does not will that women look drab or ugly. Coffman sums up this verse saying, "The inherent good sense of the church in all ages has permitted and approved the wearing of some ornaments, as for example, gold wedding rings; and there can, in fact, be no authority whatever in these passages for the imposition of a church-administered dress code. Even the gold, pearls, etc., mentioned are not prohibited, but downgraded."^(F25)

Paul says that ostentatious clothing and hairdos are out. But modesty, moderation and common sense are in. Peter also gives us his summary saying of women, "Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight" (1 Peter 3:3-4).

Verse 11

THE SUBMISSION OF WOMEN

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 1 Timothy 2:11

We now come to a section of scripture that is hotly debated today. For a writer or interpreter to deal with this section is a little like walking through a minefield. Much of this has come about because of the seismic shift in opinions and morals that began to take place in the 1960s and 1970s. I liken it to a spiritual tsunami a thousand feet high that struck the US and much of the western world. Pent-up evil, that had been restrained for hundreds of years by the church, suddenly burst forth and swept everything in its wake. Morals and mores thousands of years old were smashed. Churches were damaged, families were destroyed, and lives were turned upside down. Since that time we have been trying desperately to pick up the pieces and somehow put normal life back in order.

At the heart of this social revolution was an attempt to overthrow all authority. Students rebelled against both governmental authority and school authority. Citiy dwellers rebelled against police authority. Workers rebelled against employer authority. There was a widespread rebellion against church and pastoral authority as well.^(F26) In short, there was a rebellion against God, the Bible or most other things connected with Christianity.

This great rebellion had an immense effect upon the home, the family and particularly upon women in general. Women began to throw off and despise male authority in the home or anywhere else. Several radicals from the women's liberation movements took it upon themselves to abolish marriage. Gloria Steinem said plainly, "We have to abolish and reform the institution of marriage…"Feminist author, Vivian Gornick, tenured professor at the University of Arizona, said, "Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession…" Author, scholar, and university lecturer Germaine Greer said, "If women are to effect a significant amelioration in their condition it seems obvious that they must refuse to marry." Radical feminist and author Andrea Dworkin even said, "Like prostitution, marriage is an institution that is extremely oppressive and dangerous for women."^(F27)

In 1972, Helen Reddy released her number one hit, I Am Woman, which sold over a million copies. It was a song celebrating female empowerment and went on to become an enduring anthem of the women's liberation movement. Reddy bellowed out in the chorus, "…If I have to, I can do anything…I am strong…I am invincible…I am woman."

All this emphasis upon liberation and empowerment of women did not fare well in family relationships. No doubt, primarily because of such ideas, there is now a family meltdown in the US. Fatherhood is rapidly disappearing on the American scene. This is not only due to young people refusing to marry, or living together unwed, but to an extremely high rate of divorce for those who do marry. In American courts today divorce and custody battles make up over half of the civil litigation.^(F28) Author David Kupelian says, "Numerous studies show that adult children of divorce have more psychological problems than those raised in intact marriages." He makes plain that "fatherlessness far surpasses both poverty and race as a predictor of social deviance."^(F29) This family tragedy has hit the blacks much harder than whites. By 1995, it was noted that almost 70 percent of black children were being born out of wedlock,^(F30) destined to live in fatherless families and on welfare.

Now, with all this as a background, perhaps we can tackle the problem of submission of women as it is dealt with in the Bible. Paul says here, "a woman should learn in quietness and full submission." First, let us deal with the matter of quietness. Several commentators, such as Stott, Wuest, and Pett, feel that this statement was directed against disturbances and interruptions being made by women in the worship services as they asked questions.^(F31) Christianity had set women free from the great bondage they had felt in Judaism and especially in the Greek culture. These commentators feel that some women were abusing this freedom with their interruptions. It is also possible that the false teachers had elevated some women to be surrogate teachers of their heresies.^(F32) We will see clearly in this whole section that women are not to take authority over men in public worship or in teaching. Paul deals with this same subject of quietness again in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, but in this instance it specifically has to do with public worship.^(F33) Yet, we still see women praying and prophesying in the church (1 Corinthians 11:5).

The Bible in several places makes plain that the wife is to be submitted to her husband. This is God's order from the creation forward. Paul says in Ephesians 5:24, "Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. In Colossians 3:18, he says, "Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord." Peter says, "For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, (1 Peter 3:5)."

Many women today will probably not accept any of these statements. However, it behooves Christians to take them very seriously, that is, if they are Christians who believe the Bible. The teaching of Paul about submission in these verses and in several other places is clearly not taken from customs of the ancient world but from core, foundational teachings of God's word.

Let us look closely at the word submission, hupotage from the Greek hupotasso. This is a military term. So in one sense, submission under the man's teaching and in marriage is somewhat like submission in the military. In fact the Greek word used has the meaning "to be under rank." In the military the private may be much smarter than the general, but he is "under rank" to the general, not because he is a person but because he is the general.^(F34) Things can run smoothly in the military, in the nations, in the church and in the family only when there is submission to God's prescribed order of things.

There is a prescribed order in the whole of creation. God made it that way. When we see a flock of geese or ducks there is always a leader. The same is true when we see a school of fish. There is one person who is leader of a country; one general who is leader of an army; one pastor who is leader of a church and one man who is leader of a family. In the case of the family, that person is the husband. It has been said that "there never was any kind of effective organization that functioned without a head."^{The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT (Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2007), p. 754.">(F35)}

In the matter of marriage for instance, Paul makes it clear in several places that the wife is to submit to the husband and his spiritual headship (cf. Ephesians 5:22; Colossians 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1). This submission has nothing to do with inferiority, lack of talent or intelligence on the part of the wife. But rather it has to do with mission. There is a spiritual mission to marriage and this mission is involved with bringing glory to God. For this mission to succeed there must be "submission."^(F36)

Verse 12

WOMEN AS TEACHERS IN THE CHURCH

I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 1 Timothy 2:12

This scripture flies in the face of much that has been discussed and taught about women in our culture since the 60s and 70s. It is doubtful that the pagan society of today will accept Paul's statement here. However, serious Christians should accept it. To do otherwise is confusion and folly. We remember what we discussed earlier, that in order to be a mission there must be submission. The woman must be careful not to exert her authority over the man because God is looking to him for the success of the mission.

We see here that women are not permitted to teach the congregation or to take authority over the man. Obviously, this passage does not exclude women teaching. For ages, women have proven their great ability to teach classes of women, girls and children in Sunday Schools and in other settings. In Titus 2:3-4, Paul plainly says that women are to teach other women. But women are not to have authority over a man in the church. The Greek word for authority (authenteo) means "to have the mastery of," or in a more colloquial sense, "to lord it over."^(F37) We need to remember that Paul is not speaking of women in the secular world but in the church world.

In the Old Testament we see this principle of submission in the prophetess Deborah. Although she was a prophetess she would not lead God's army into battle. She insisted that Barak lead the troops. However, she was willing to go along, and in the end she provided Barak with the exact prophetic timing in which to attack the enemy (Judges 4:4-24). In the New Testament we see the blessed but submitted attitude of Mary who sat at the feet of Jesus and heard his every word (Luke 10:39).^(F38)

Verses 13-14

THE FOUNDATION FOR PAUL'S TEACHING

For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 1 Timothy 2:13-14

We can see here how Paul's teaching is rooted in the very creation of the world. The theologian, Dr. J. I. Packer says, "That the man-woman relationship is intrinsically non reversible…This is part of the reality of creation, a given fact that nothing will change. Certainly, redemption will not change it, for grace restores nature, not abolishes it."^(F39)

The pastor and web commentator, David Guzik adds here, "At the time that command was given, Eve was not yet created from Adam. Therefore, Adam received his command and his authority from God, and Eve received her command and authority from Adam… the Bible never blames Eve for the fall of humanity, but always blames Adam (through one man sin entered the world, Romans 5:12)."^(F40)

So Paul's teaching is anchored in the creation story. Let us review carefully the important points of the story. 1. Adam was formed first, as we have said, placed in the Garden of Eden and given certain commands regarding it, including the command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:15-17). 2. Eve was formed second and was taken from the rib of the man, thus illustrating her subjection (Genesis 2:21-22). 3. Eve was formed as a helpmeet for her husband (Genesis 2:20). After the curse, we see God saying to Eve in Genesis 3:16, "Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you" (cf. 1 Peter 3:7). 4. Adam was not deceived but the woman was deceived by the serpent's temptation (v. 14). It was the woman who first became a sinner. The Bible is clear that Adam was not deceived, but in a sense, he sinned with his eyes wide open. As Coffman says, "The disaster came when Eve became the leader instead of the helper and led her husband into the tragic fall of the entire race."^(F41) 5. The good news of this whole sad scenario is that in God's wise order of things, the deliverance of the human race ultimately comes from the woman. We see this prefigured in what is called the "protoevangelion" of Genesis 3:15. We are promised here that eventually the seed of the woman would crush the serpent's head. This of course is the promise of the woman Mary bearing the Christ child, Jesus.

Men and women are essentially different regardless of what our unisex culture teaches today. Women in their composition are the "weaker partner" (1 Peter 3:7). Their bodies are more designed for tender nurturing of children. The man was designed to protect both the woman and the children. He was made strong and muscular for this purpose. He was designed to bear the hardships of earth and provide for the woman and children. Today our society scoffs at such ideas and is insistent on making men and women alike.

Stedman compares the difference between men and women to the difference between a knife and a spoon. They are both important, but they do not perform the same function. We certainly do not claim that the spoon is inferior to the knife. We happily use them both for the function of eating. But we do not demand that they be employed the same way. No doubt, some folks may still be insisting on doing so, as this little jingle suggests:

I eat my peas with honey,
I've done it all my life.
It makes the peas taste funny,
But it keeps them on the knife!^(F42)

Verse 15

ONE OF THE BIBLE'S MOST DIFFICULT VERSES

But women will be saved through childbearing – if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. 1 Timothy 2:15

When we come to this last verse, Texas professor Bob Utley remarks, "This is a very difficult and involved passage. It is possibly the most difficult in all of Paul's writings."^(F43) We know right off that there are two things this verse does not mean. It does not mean that women will be saved naturally as they bear children. Many devout and holy women have died in childbirth. We know it does not mean that women will be saved spiritually through the act of childbearing. Such an idea would disqualify single or barren women from any hope of salvation. Paul has just said that there is one Mediator between God and man, thus there is only one way of salvation (v. 5) and that is through Jesus. As often happens in biblical interpretation, the obscure passage is cleared up somewhat by the obvious passage.

What can we make of this difficult verse? Some are quite sure that this verse is a reference to woman ultimately bearing the Messiah. We see this idea reflected in the early Christian father Ambrose (c. 340 – 397). He says, "Yet woman, we are told, 'will be saved by childbearing,' in the course of which Christ became born of woman."^(F44) Guthrie says, "If the whole passage is concentrating on Eve, it is possible that there is an allusion to the promise of Genesis 3:15, to the promise of the one who would crush the serpent's head."^(F45) This is an attractive idea and may be a possibility. However, as Barnes points out, there is really nothing in this passage requiring that it should have any reference to the birth of the Messiah. Barnes feels that the word in general properly refers more to the normal act of child-bearing.^(F46)

Also, the verse switches emphasis from the singular Eve to the plural, representing all women, saying – "if they continue…"^(F47) This seems to be important. There is a wide meaning in the Greek word for saved, sothesetai (from sozo). Stedman says that the word as used here does not mean "regenerated" but rather it means "fulfilled" or "to find significance." He would translate the verse to say, "…Your significance, your sense of fulfillment, will come as you bear children and they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty."^(F48)

John Dumelow sees "in childbearing" that the woman will be saved, "by keeping faithfully and simply to her allotted sphere as wife and mother."^(F49) Clarke adds, "The apostle did not mean to say that she alone was to be saved through child-bearing, but that all her posterity, whether male or female, are to be saved through the child-bearing of a woman… (Genesis 3:15)"^(F50)

Likely, Peter Pett the London scholar gives us the best understanding of this troublesome passage. He says:

The truth is that the solid core of the church of God is built on children borne by Christian women…Indeed one of the dangers of the present day is that enthusiastic Christian women, eager to be involved in what they see to be of prime importance, are planning to restrict their families, or not have one at all, thus nconsciously robbing the church of its central base…The "debt" that eternity will reveal as owed to godly mothers is beyond telling, and their final influence will probably be seen, in the consummation, to have exceeded that of the majority of "elders" in the church, to say nothing of the ordinary male members.^(F51)

As we close this section we need to remember Paul's words in Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

This great truth overshadows all else about the relationship of male and female. In Jesus, spiritually speaking, the playing field has been leveled and there is really no difference between men and women in God's sight.