Wednesday, April 9, 2014

"Saved": What it Cannot Mean


I remember well a discussion of Proverbs 31 that took place in one of my college literature classes.  The professor, along with several of my classmates, used that well-known Scripture passage to attempt to demonstrate that traditionally-held, Biblical roles for male and female are, in fact, not Biblical at all.  They argued that the virtuous woman is a businesswoman, an entrepreneur, a farmer, a designer.  They were right, she is all those things.  What they failed to recognize was that all of her work – from her spinning to her buying a field – revolved around provision for her household.  As a result of her work, her husband, children, and servants were finely dressed, well-fed, and diligently nurtured.  The Proverbs 31 woman is an exemplary “child-bearer.”
                I explained in a previous column that the term “childbearing” as it used in 1 Tim. 2:15 includes not only carrying and giving birth to children, but rearing them as well.  I noted, too, that women who are not mothers can still be “child-bearers” through their hospitality and nurture of strangers and saints.  But what does the text mean when it says that this is the way in which women are saved?  
                Let’s consider first what it cannot mean.  The word “saved” in this context cannot refer to the grounds on which a woman is justified before the Almighty God.  Scripture is clear that our salvation is not founded on our works:  “For it is by grace ye are saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph. 2:8).  Acts 4:12 is one of many passages that clearly state that salvation is in Jesus Christ alone, “for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”  Jesus affirmed this: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me” (John 14:6).  This is true for male and female, bond and free (Gal. 3:28).  Additionally, we can be certain that Paul does not intend to imply that child-bearing merits salvation by looking back several verses in this very chapter.  There, in verse 5, he writes, “For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
It is following this line of thought that some define the “she” in 1 Tim.  2:15 text typologically, understanding the pronoun to refer to Mary, the “second Eve” and the mother of Christ, through whose Child-bearing all of God’s people – including herself – are saved.  A variety of commentators suggest this position, reasoning that since Jesus had no human father, women acquire a special dignity by being the gender through which Christ came.[1]  It’s true that Christ is referred to as “her seed” in Genesis 3:15, but since Mary is not mentioned at all in the context, this interpretation seems a stretch.  It also looms dangerously close to making “child-bearing” the work which saves women.  It is not the mere fact that Christ was born that saves: His suffering, death, resurrection, and ascension earned eternal life for us. 
 Another popular Christian author interprets the passage also typologically, but differently: she suggests that the “Adam” in the text is Christ, “Eve” is the Church, and the “childbearing” in which the Church is saved is “fruit bearing in Christ” – i.e. good works.  According to her, this interpretation “solves the conundrum of thinking that Paul is saying that women are saved by giving birth to biological children.”[2]  It is also a view that, in her opinion, “reinforces the profound mutuality of men and women,” for “both are church. Both are saved by the type of union that results in spiritual children—the union with our husband, Christ. Both must continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.”  Essentially, she takes a text that refers directly to women and attempts to make it politically correct.  Granted, her perspective accounts for the reality that not all women are mothers.  But we’ve already established that Paul does not use the word “saved” in the sense which she implies, and the typological way in which she reads the passage seems forced.  Not to mention, even though fewer women are choosing to bear children in our day, more women are still mothers than are not. 


[1] Barnes, commentary on 1 Tim. 2:15
[2] http://www.girlsgonewise.com/women-typology-and-1-timothy-2-15/

No comments:

Post a Comment