Women Saved Through Childbearing? (1 Timothy 2:15)

[MysticMissMisty]

Salvete, omnes!

1 Timothy 2:15 suggests that “she will be saved through child-bearing, if they continue on” in various virtues.

I have always struggled with what precisely this verse means.

The passage begins by speaking of Eve and her having fallen into [the] transgression. The passage in question follows this exposition saying that, despite this, “she” will be saved through child-bearing, etc.

Frist of all, the tense-shift here is peculiar. It starts out by talking about a women, then about Eve, then, we have “she” mentioned. Does “she” in our passage in question go back to “women” generally or back to Eve in particular? (As I recall, I once read some Protestant commentaries that stated that the latter was the case.)

Secondly, who is the “they” in the next clause in our passage? Is “they” going back to women generally? Does it refer to the children of women? (Many of the early Fathers I’ve read seem to interpret it as being her children though, as I recall, at least one attributes the pronoun to women generally previously referred to.) In any case, both interpretations pose some questions.

If the women are the ones being spoken of, why does the tense shift (at least in ghe original Greek text) from “she” to “they” so suddenly? Why didn’t Paul simply is “if she continues in” etc. etc.? This sudden shift in subject seems quite jarring.

If the children are being spoken of, why doesn’t Paul simply say “if their children continue”? (Although, having just written and just thought of this, it could be because the word “child” is already present in the term “child-bearing”, so children would naturally have been understood as the subject. Yay, classics/literature training! )

OK, then, so, let’s say, for the sake of argument, that a woman’sEve’s “children” are the subjects of the “they” in this pasage.

If Eve is the subject of the previous “she will be saved through [the] child-bearing” clause, who are we to understand to be her children? The succession of women after her? (I recall another passage that seems to consider women as Eve’s children?) However, referring to women as having come from Eve’s own “child-bearing” seems a strange turn of phrase. I have, however, also read some Protestant commentaries that state that the Child-bearing somehow refers to Christ’s having been born. So, in any case, whoever this “she” is is saved through the Child-bearing, i.e., Christ, with particular reference to His Incarnation.

If women generally are being referred to here as being “saved through child-bearing”, does every woman’s salvation depend upon her children remaining in Christian Faith/the virtues? So, if her children or even any one child strays away from the Faith/virtues, does that necessarily mean that a) the women loses her salvation or b) she never had it in the first place? In other words, is her child’children’s falling-away evidence of the lack of her own salvation? Then, this would mean that any mother whose child/children fall away from Faith/virtue is necessarily condemned.

Lastly, what does this mean for single women? Now, here, I’m not speaking of women called to the single life through some vocation. I’m speaking of women who chose, for whatever reason, to remain single, or even women who are compelled, for whatever reason, to live that kind of life. I have been rather open myself in at least one previous post that I consider myself to be “asexual” in the sense that I have no personal desire for sexual intercourse. I have never had sexual attraction. If women are to be saved through child-bearing (at least those not specially called to singleness/virginity), should I, even if I have no desire, just go ahead and marry/produce children because my salvation as at stake? Should I see a doctor and get pumped up with medication to “make” myself have a desire? After all, does not one of the psalms say that having many children (and, thus, children, implicitly) is to be considered a joy? Up until I started thinking about this passage, I rather considered myself “gifted”, at least in the sense of not having any sexual temptation and having more time to devote to God (by necessity!) because I have no desire for sexual intimacy. (BTW, please don’t turn this particular thread into one about asexuality. I’ve already seen other threads about it, but I wish to keep this thread focused on the passage of Sacred Scripture at hand. If you wish to speak of asexuality here, please therefore keep it related to our present passage. Otherwise, please start a new thread.) Please note that I am already in my early 30s so, if I must be married/have children if not called to do otherwise, then I’d better get to finding myself a man right away with all earnest prayer!

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Sorry I had to quote myself below. My 20-minute editing limit had already expired.

If women generally are being referred to here as being “saved through child-bearing”, does every woman’s salvation depend upon her children remaining in Christian Faith/the virtues? So, if her children or even any one child strays away from the Faith/virtues, does that necessarily mean that a) the women loses her salvation or b) she never had it in the first place? In other words, is her child’children’s falling-away evidence of the lack of her own salvation? Then, this would mean that any mother whose child/children fall away from Faith/virtue is necessarily condemned.

I was just thinking that Paul, in this scenario, may have been thinking of that proverb which states that if one trains a child up in the way he should go, he will not depart from it. Yet, I hear time and time again mothers telling stories of their children falling away from their instruction in various ways, so this passage is still potentially problematic.

 

[Shin]

‘The human ideal of continence, I mean that which is set forth by Greek philosophers, teaches that one should fight desire and not be subservient to it so as to bring it to practical effect. But our ideal is not to experience desire at all.’

St. Clement of Alexandria

 

[faustinamary]

‘The human ideal of continence, I mean that which is set forth by Greek philosophers, teaches that one should fight desire and not be subservient to it so as to bring it to practical effect. But our ideal is not to experience desire at all.’

St. Clement of Alexandria

Isn’t that Buddhist to “not experience desire at all.” Have you heard of the “Fulfillment of All Desire” by Peter Kreeft? He also wrote: Practical Theology: Spiritual Direction from St. Thomas Aquinas.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Once again, let’s please keep the topic specifically-related to the verse at hand. Ife we going to discuss asexuality and its legitimacy, let’s argue it in its relation to our original topic…

 

[katy]

I’ve wondered about the originally quoted verse as well, and would like to understand it better. Getting back to the topic, has anyone heard a good explanation about it?

 

[MysticMissMisty]

I’ve wondered about the originally quoted verse as well, and would like to understand it better. Getting back to the topic, has anyone heard a good explanation about it?

Thanks for bringing this back up! I, too, still haven’t received a satisfactory answer to my questions.

Of particular interest to me are:

1. IF a woman, for non-religious reasons like mine, simply chooses not to have children, is she condemned for not doing so? After all, there is at least one Proverb, as I recall, that praises having many children, though I’m not sure if we are to take this as a declaration that everyone should enjoy children and, thus, implicitly(?), sexual relations, otherwise, they’re disordered. (Again, let’s try to keep conversations brief on these latter points as they can turn into massive tangents!)

and

1. Is a child/children departing from the good moral teachings of his/her/their mother by necessity of this Scripture evidence that the mother will not be saved (one scenario which might be indicated by both the current passage in question which says “she will be saved through childbearing, ifthey continue in…” etc. etc. and in the Proverb which says that, if you train a child up in the way he/she should go, he will not depart from it)?

Thanks again for re-hashin this! I even called into a Protestant “Bible answers” program with this a good long time ago when I was more thoroughly convinced in my Protestantism and the “Bible answer guy” even stumbled and stammered around at it and couldn’t give me a good answer!

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Also, some Protestant translations I know of have tried to get around this sticky situation, though probably mainly motivated by the “sola fide” notion of salvation, by translating the word for “saved” as “preserved” through childbearing, stating that many women in that age died in childbearing and that this was a statement claiming that they would be preserved through this rather dangerous endeavor. I, however, find this statement almost laughable (and even did when I was thoroughly Protestant)! First, it seems not to fit the context at all. Second, there have surely been “good” Christian women who have died in childbirth, unless we are to take by faith that they were not ultimately saved, even if they seemed it to us?? (These translators take the following clause about them “continuing” in the various virtues to refer to the women and not the children for logically obvious reasons, so even there, they falter a bit in the “sola fide” department!)

If we don’t get any satisfactory answers soon, this may be a good topic to call into the Catholic Answers show about? After all, it concerns salvation itself and is thus a very serious matter. Because of this, I am, indeed, surprised more folks haven’t tried to deal with it both within the laity and within religious communities. Is it because they simply can’t deal with it? Or that they are just as stumped as we are? (I believe I even recall that “Bible answerman” asking me why I picked “the hardest passage in all of Scripture” to call him about!)

If no-one can explain what, precisely, this passage means, can anyone tell me (us) what it definitely doesn’t mean, either by demonstrating it through authoritative Church teaching or through their own argumentation?

(BTW, if someone does ultimately decide to call this in/write to the CA show before me and I don’t happen to hear a response to the question if one is given, could they please let us know on this thread what that response was? Thanks.)

 

[thistle]

Salvete, omnes!

1 Timothy 2:15 suggests that “she will be saved through child-bearing, if they continue on” in various virtues.

I have always struggled with what precisely this verse means.

The passage begins by speaking of Eve and her having fallen into [the] transgression. The passage in question follows this exposition saying that, despite this, “she” will be saved through child-bearing, etc.

Frist of all, the tense-shift here is peculiar. It starts out by talking about a women, then about Eve, then, we have “she” mentioned. Does “she” in our passage in question go back to “women” generally or back to Eve in particular? (As I recall, I once read some Protestant commentaries that stated that the latter was the case.)

Secondly, who is the “they” in the next clause in our passage? Is “they” going back to women generally? Does it refer to the children of women? (Many of the early Fathers I’ve read seem to interpret it as being her children though, as I recall, at least one attributes the pronoun to women generally previously referred to.) In any case, both interpretations pose some questions.

If the women are the ones being spoken of, why does the tense shift (at least in ghe original Greek text) from “she” to “they” so suddenly? Why didn’t Paul simply is “if she continues in” etc. etc.? This sudden shift in subject seems quite jarring.

If the children are being spoken of, why doesn’t Paul simply say “if their children continue”? (Although, having just written and just thought of this, it could be because the word “child” is already present in the term “child-bearing”, so children would naturally have been understood as the subject. Yay, classics/literature training! )

OK, then, so, let’s say, for the sake of argument, that a woman’sEve’s “children” are the subjects of the “they” in this pasage.

If Eve is the subject of the previous “she will be saved through [the] child-bearing” clause, who are we to understand to be her children? The succession of women after her? (I recall another passage that seems to consider women as Eve’s children?) However, referring to women as having come from Eve’s own “child-bearing” seems a strange turn of phrase. I have, however, also read some Protestant commentaries that state that the Child-bearing somehow refers to Christ’s having been born. So, in any case, whoever this “she” is is saved through the Child-bearing, i.e., Christ, with particular reference to His Incarnation.

If women generally are being referred to here as being “saved through child-bearing”, does every woman’s salvation depend upon her children remaining in Christian Faith/the virtues? So, if her children or even any one child strays away from the Faith/virtues, does that necessarily mean that a) the women loses her salvation or b) she never had it in the first place? In other words, is her child’children’s falling-away evidence of the lack of her own salvation? Then, this would mean that any mother whose child/children fall away from Faith/virtue is necessarily condemned.

Lastly, what does this mean for single women? Now, here, I’m not speaking of women called to the single life through some vocation. I’m speaking of women who chose, for whatever reason, to remain single, or even women who are compelled, for whatever reason, to live that kind of life. I have been rather open myself in at least one previous post that I consider myself to be “asexual” in the sense that I have no personal desire for sexual intercourse. I have never had sexual attraction. If women are to be saved through child-bearing (at least those not specially called to singleness/virginity), should I, even if I have no desire, just go ahead and marry/produce children because my salvation as at stake? Should I see a doctor and get pumped up with medication to “make” myself have a desire? After all, does not one of the psalms say that having many children (and, thus, children, implicitly) is to be considered a joy? Up until I started thinking about this passage, I rather considered myself “gifted”, at least in the sense of not having any sexual temptation and having more time to devote to God (by necessity!) because I have no desire for sexual intimacy. (BTW, please don’t turn this particular thread into one about asexuality. I’ve already seen other threads about it, but I wish to keep this thread focused on the passage of Sacred Scripture at hand. If you wish to speak of asexuality here, please therefore keep it related to our present passage. Otherwise, please start a new thread.) Please note that I am already in my early 30s so, if I must be married/have children if not called to do otherwise, then I’d better get to finding myself a man right away with all earnest prayer!

Women are not saved by bearing children.

To be saved (women and men) you must die in a state of grace. What you do during your lifetime has no merit if you die in a state of mortal sin.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Women are not saved by bearing children.

To be saved (women and men) you must die in a state of grace. What you do during your lifetime has no merit if you die in a state of mortal sin.

That said, what’s your take on the Timothy passage?

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Ah! My apologies. I suppose you did answer my question about what this passage is not! embarrassed Perhaps I should read my own previous posts a little better…

At any rate, I’m still interested in your take on the current passage, if you have one.

Also interested in the opinions of others about what this passage means and/or doesn’t mean!

 

[CatholicRaven]

I believe it’s speaking more about loving and serving Christ in our daily lives and roles as women, not thinking we have to be “like men” to be holy (or happy). We, as women, don’t need to try to lead others to Christ the same way a man would. That doesn’t mean we can’t talk about our love of God–just that we shouldn’t “preach” to men.

See, I think of this more like, we shouldn’t preach at men. I take it as advice about respecting the differences in men and women and how we process another person’s words. Men don’t usually respond well to lots of talking; sometimes, without meaning to, we women can sound like we’re criticizing or being disrespectful–especially when we use a lot of words (long after we’ve made our point). We often need to stop telling our husbands what they should do, and instead encourage them in quiet faith to figure it out themselves.

Look at our Holy Mother, for example. She didn’t preach to the men about Her Son, even after His Assumption into heaven. She knew Him better than anybody! She wasn’t weak or timid, but she apparently also doesn’t say much to the men (but look at all she had to say to Elizabeth!). She could have been pointing out the Apostle’s mistakes (they made plenty). She could have told them many things about how they should follow Her Son, but all she said was, “Do whatever He tells you.” And yet, she is a perfect example of strength, faith, femininity, and love.

I don’t think it’s saying that women who aren’t mothers can’t be saved, or that every woman who gives birth will be saved (especially as it says, “if they” also do these other things…). I think it’s just saying that mothers (including spiritual mothers) do play an important role in their children’s spiritual lives… it’s just not the same role our husbands have. We should remember that, as women, we have a maternal instinct and a loving and nurturing nature, and those things can be used well to help others along their spiritual journey.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

I believe it’s speaking more about loving and serving Christ in our daily lives and roles as women, not thinking we have to be “like men” to be holy (or happy). We, as women, don’t need to try to lead others to Christ the same way a man would. That doesn’t mean we can’t talk about our love of God–just that we shouldn’t “preach” to men.

See, I think of this more like, we shouldn’t preach at men. I take it as advice about respecting the differences in men and women and how we process another person’s words. Men don’t usually respond well to lots of talking; sometimes, without meaning to, we women can sound like we’re criticizing or being disrespectful–especially when we use a lot of words (long after we’ve made our point). We often need to stop telling our husbands what they should do, and instead encourage them in quiet faith to figure it out themselves.

Look at our Holy Mother, for example. She didn’t preach to the men about Her Son, even after His Assumption into heaven. She knew Him better than anybody! She wasn’t weak or timid, but she apparently also doesn’t say much to the men (but look at all she had to say to Elizabeth!). She could have been pointing out the Apostle’s mistakes (they made plenty). She could have told them many things about how they should follow Her Son, but all she said was, “Do whatever He tells you.” And yet, she is a perfect example of strength, faith, femininity, and love.

I don’t think it’s saying that women who aren’t mothers can’t be saved, or that every woman who gives birth will be saved (especially as it says, “if they” also do these other things…). I think it’s just saying that mothers (including spiritual mothers) do play an important role in their children’s spiritual lives… it’s just not the same role our husbands have. We should remember that, as women, we have a maternal instinct and a loving and nurturing nature, and those things can be used well to help others along their spiritual journey.

Really, REALLY good analysis, here, IMO.

I’d honestly almost forgotten that the previous context had to do with teaching. Paul, then, according to your analysis, would seem to be saying that, alothough he doesn’t allow a women to teach in the way she might’ve wanted, she’ll have plenty of opportunity to do good works in raising her children (if she has them). Of course, in that time, that was the primary role of the woman, and most women would likely have had/chosen to have children, so perhaps he’s speaking to a “majority” here? Would this be a proper Catholic understanding of the text? If so, why? Is there any way that childbearing would be a necessity for ultimate salvation? Is there any evidence to exclusively rule that out?

There is still one major outstanding issue, however… The woman’s salvation appears contingent on her children being found in virtue. She will be saved “if they continue” in the virtues Paul states. Yet, there are apparently many cases wherein a woman tries hard as she can to set her children on the right path, but they, for whatever reason, forsake it, either while they are still with her or afterward. So, is this verse saying that, if her children go astray, she has knowingly not been doing right as a mother and will therefore naturally be condemned? So, then, if a mother does everything right, her children are guaranteed to remain in righteousness, at least by in large (as also the Proverb seems to say)? Is such something we must accept on faith? And, so, if a woman’s children do not continue in righteousness, are we naturally to presume that she is not (or no longer?) in a state of grace? What of forgiveness for such? This is very confusing and troubling to me!

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Yikes, CatholicRaven! Sorry about that! I see that you, in your understanding, took the “they” as referring back to the women and not the children.

Then, I guess my questions regarding children falling away are more directed to those who, like me, propose on grammatical grounds (tense shift from “she” to “they” mentioned above), that the children are the subject of the “they”.

Otherwise, why would Paul shift tenses so jarringly like that? If we’re talking inspired Scripture, can we have any room for grammatical “error” or “sloppiness”? Even so, shouldn’t we presume grammatical accuracy unless we have a really good reason not to do so, say, on strong theological grounds?

Even if “they” is referring to children, might it be referring to them generally and only when the mother is truly NOT raising her children properly? In other words, perhaps, we may say, like the Proverb, Paul is saying that children will generally not depart from the ways their parents teach them if they are taught/disciplined properly, but there MAY be some exceptions beyond the control of the mother.

And, a bit of a “side question”: What of fathers in this scenario? Aren’t fathers to have a role in their children’s instruction as well? Perhaps their salvation is also contingent on their children (generally?) following their teaching?

 

[Mintaka]

Cornelius a Lapide is the master of collecting authoritative interpretations through the ages, and he has some interesting stuff on this one.

1. That a woman doesn’t have to be a virgin to be saved, but that it’s also okay to be married and have kids and be saved.

(This would be a rebuke to those who thought all Christians should remain virgin and ascetic; or that the Marys of the world, having the better part, must cut the Marthas of the world right out of all holiness.)

(This would also be an extended comparison to Eve, who was “the mother of all the living.” Even though she didn’t have kids until after the Fall, her kids were part of God’s plan of salvation. “Teknogonias” (Greek for “childbearing”) is translated by St. Jerome as “filiorum generationem,” which can mean either “generating sons and daughters” or a “generation of sons and daughters,” and allows some good puns on other “generation” uses for the many generations of faithful Jews.)

1. Comparison to Abraham, who was the “father of all the believers” through his circumcision and his kids.
2. Actually, the important bit of the verse is the other stuff that is named last – women are primarily saved by perseverance in “faith and love and sanctification in sobriety,” and in childbearing too. (Which is traditionally regarded by various Jewish and Christian prayers as something brave and life-endangering, almost exactly the same as rescuing a man off of a battlefield.) But where childbearing is natural, faith and love and sanctification are supernaturally good and meritorious.
3. Reference to Mary, who definitely did help salvation out through childbearing, but a warning not to go too far out with this.
4. Mystical meaning according to St. Augustine in De Trinitatis, lib. 2, c. 17 – the production of good works is a sort of mystical birthing of kids.
5. Painfully and carefully birthing and raising kids, and educating them in the faith, as a really awesome meritorious act that women get a lot of credit from the Almighty for. Educating kids or newbies in the faith is like bearing children also.

He mentions that some have thought this means women shouldn’t be educated and can’t be saved through books, but he immediately hits back by mentioning that women should learn Scripture even if they can’t read, like St. Monica who became very learned in Scripture just by listening, and they can also study and do good works, like the learned Christian Empress Placilla.

1. He goes on to collect various sources saying that it’s especially important for mothers to persist in good morals, because they teach and evangelize their kids and husbands by their example as well as by their words and knowledge.
2. He also collects various writers melding this Christian Bible verse with the classical idea that kids are their mothers’ greatest treasure; whereas badly raised kids are a bad kind of spiritual impoverishment, no matter how rich the parents are.
3. The section ends with some thoughts on how mothers should educate and raise their daughters.

So yeah, there are a fair number of different angles to take. In general, it looks like a lot of Church teachers wanted to balance out “women can’t teach in church” with “women can teach at home,” “women can’t have authority over men” with “women can have authority over their homes and kids,” and “women shouldn’t wear too many jewels and fancy fashion” with “women can take pride in kids as their jewels.” Balancing talk of Eve with talk of Mary is also very natural in a sermon context.

 

[Mintaka]

Re: Emperor Theodosius the Great’s empress, Placilla or Flacilla, from Theodoret. This is an interesting example for Lapide to choose, because this is a woman who does have authority over men and women (in the outside world, not the Church).

Empress Placilla died in AD 385.

"…his wife used constantly to put him in mind of the divine laws in which she had first carefully educated herself. In no way exalted by her imperial rank she was rather fired by it with greater longing for divine things. The greatness of the good gift given her made her love for Him who gave it all the greater, so she bestowed every kind of attention on the maimed and the mutilated, declining all aid from her household and her guards, herself visiting the houses where the sufferers lodged, and providing every one with what he required. She also went about the guest chambers of the churches and ministered to the wants of the sick, herself handling pots and pans, and tasting broth, now bringing in a dish and breaking bread and offering morsels, and washing out a cup and going through all the other duties which are supposed to be proper to servants and maids. To them who strove to restrain her from doing these things with her own hands she would say, “It befits a sovereign to distribute gold; I, for the sovereign power that has been given me, am giving my own service to the Giver.”

“To her husband, too, she was ever wont to say, “Husband, you ought always to bethink you what you were once and what you have become now; by keeping this constantly in mind you will never grow ungrateful to your Benefactor, but will guide in accordance with law the empire bestowed upon you, and thus you will worship Him Who gave it.” By ever using language of this kind, with fair and wholesome care, she watered, as it were, the seeds of virtue planted in her husband’s heart.”

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I would say that the epistles of Timothy were about the most misogynistic of all the letters, and many people do not believe that Paul was the author of them. Paul thought women had an important role in the church, whereas in Timothy they are supposed to shut up and have children. I think these letters where some of the last written, when they were trying to make the church male-centric and not allow women to have leadership roles in the church. Just my:twocents:

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Cornelius a Lapide is the master of collecting authoritative interpretations through the ages, and he has some interesting stuff on this one.

1. That a woman doesn’t have to be a virgin to be saved, but that it’s also okay to be married and have kids and be saved.

(This would be a rebuke to those who thought all Christians should remain virgin and ascetic; or that the Marys of the world, having the better part, must cut the Marthas of the world right out of all holiness.)

(This would also be an extended comparison to Eve, who was “the mother of all the living.” Even though she didn’t have kids until after the Fall, her kids were part of God’s plan of salvation. “Teknogonias” (Greek for “childbearing”) is translated by St. Jerome as “filiorum generationem,” which can mean either “generating sons and daughters” or a “generation of sons and daughters,” and allows some good puns on other “generation” uses for the many generations of faithful Jews.)

1. Comparison to Abraham, who was the “father of all the believers” through his circumcision and his kids.
2. Actually, the important bit of the verse is the other stuff that is named last – women are primarily saved by perseverance in “faith and love and sanctification in sobriety,” and in childbearing too. (Which is traditionally regarded by various Jewish and Christian prayers as something brave and life-endangering, almost exactly the same as rescuing a man off of a battlefield.) But where childbearing is natural, faith and love and sanctification are supernaturally good and meritorious.
3. Reference to Mary, who definitely did help salvation out through childbearing, but a warning not to go too far out with this.
4. Mystical meaning according to St. Augustine in De Trinitatis, lib. 2, c. 17 – the production of good works is a sort of mystical birthing of kids.
5. Painfully and carefully birthing and raising kids, and educating them in the faith, as a really awesome meritorious act that women get a lot of credit from the Almighty for. Educating kids or newbies in the faith is like bearing children also.

He mentions that some have thought this means women shouldn’t be educated and can’t be saved through books, but he immediately hits back by mentioning that women should learn Scripture even if they can’t read, like St. Monica who became very learned in Scripture just by listening, and they can also study and do good works, like the learned Christian Empress Placilla.

1. He goes on to collect various sources saying that it’s especially important for mothers to persist in good morals, because they teach and evangelize their kids and husbands by their example as well as by their words and knowledge.
2. He also collects various writers melding this Christian Bible verse with the classical idea that kids are their mothers’ greatest treasure; whereas badly raised kids are a bad kind of spiritual impoverishment, no matter how rich the parents are.
3. The section ends with some thoughts on how mothers should educate and raise their daughters.

So yeah, there are a fair number of different angles to take. In general, it looks like a lot of Church teachers wanted to balance out “women can’t teach in church” with “women can teach at home,” “women can’t have authority over men” with “women can have authority over their homes and kids,” and “women shouldn’t wear too many jewels and fancy fashion” with “women can take pride in kids as their jewels.” Balancing talk of Eve with talk of Mary is also very natural in a sermon context.

A FASCINATING read! Thank you, oh, so much!

It would seem that this verse has been much thought-over, and, perhaps, much debated and much an “issue” over many years if not centuries.

I still wonder if there is any Church teaching (particularly that which is infallible and cannot be contradicted) that pertains to rejecting notions that women who are not virginal for religious reasons MUST have children to be saved or that, if their children do not continue in their ways, they are, by implication out of a state of grace? (Aside from the fact that it would seem there few, ifany, interpreters have held to these views.)

 

[CatholicRaven]

Then, I guess my questions regarding children falling away are more directed to those who, like me, propose on grammatical grounds (tense shift from “she” to “they” mentioned above), that the children are the subject of the “they”.

Otherwise, why would Paul shift tenses so jarringly like that? If we’re talking inspired Scripture, can we have any room for grammatical “error” or “sloppiness”? Even so, shouldn’t we presume grammatical accuracy unless we have a really good reason not to do so, say, on strong theological grounds?

May I ask which translation you’re using? The ones I have all seem to say, “women,” or “she,” not “they,” as if referring to any children. As do all the Catholic commentaries I can find on it (which honestly are few). That’s why I assumed the “they” to be referring to the women in your quote.

Also, in 2 Timothy 1, he speaks of, “your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, dwells in you.” So I think he feels that mothers are in a special position to pass the faith on to their children, and that’s reflected in the 1 Tim passage, also.

I don’t think he is saying that if our children stray after we’ve done all we can, that we mothers will be held responsible for that… but if our children are not given any instruction in the faith by us, we do bear some responsibility for neglecting their spiritual education (as part of our roles as parents). Therefore, if the correct translation is “they (her children),” then that’s probably what he’s getting at.

IMHO, though, I still think it’s referring to her (and her faith).

And, a bit of a “side question”: What of fathers in this scenario? Aren’t fathers to have a role in their children’s instruction as well? Perhaps their salvation is also contingent on their children (generally?) following their teaching?

Paul also wrote the letters to the Ephesians and the Colossians, and he talks some more there about a husband’s and father’s role (I’d have to look up the exact verses).

The Catholic Church teaches that both parents are responsible for their children. If it helps, the Catechism of the Catholic Church mentions the duties of parents, in particular I’m thinking of CCC 2221-2231 (well, also 2220 and 2232-33). I don’t have time to type them all out right now, though, sorry. I need to go fix dinner!

 

[MysticMissMisty]

May I ask which translation you’re using? The ones I have all seem to say, “women,” or “she,” not “they,” as if referring to any children. As do all the Catholic commentaries I can find on it (which honestly are few). That’s why I assumed the “they” to be referring to the women in your quote.

Also, in 2 Timothy 1, he speaks of, “your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, dwells in you.” So I think he feels that mothers are in a special position to pass the faith on to their children, and that’s reflected in the 1 Tim passage, also.

I don’t think he is saying that if our children stray after we’ve done all we can, that we mothers will be held responsible for that… but if our children are not given any instruction in the faith by us, we do bear some responsibility for neglecting their spiritual education (as part of our roles as parents). Therefore, if the correct translation is “they (her children),” then that’s probably what he’s getting at.

IMHO, though, I still think it’s referring to her (and her faith).

I don’t have time to type them all out right now, though, sorry. I need to go fix dinner!

Hee. Thanks for what you did cite, though!

What translation am I using? The original Greek…and the Latin… little grin They both have “she” for “she will be saved” (as in, there is no subject in the original, at least not in that clause, and the verb is third-person singular). However, in the clause saying “continue in…” etc., it has “if they continue in…” (third-person, plural). I’m sorry, BTW, I didn’t mean a “tense shift”, I meant a “person shift”. LOL Yay grammatical term fail… I should know better. So, the entire phrase should read literally something like, “but she will be saved through the childbearing, if they should remain in faith and love and holiness with sobriety” (my translation from the Greek). The “if” clause has a verbe in the subjunctive, for what that’s worth and for those who actually know what that means. BTW, I suspect the reason why translations vary so markedly for this passage is that translators are themselves trying to make proper sense it of! After all, translation can often be just as much about interpretation.

Pax tecum!!