They Shall Be Saved Through Childbearing
tom October 10th, 2007
For most scholars, dealing with this passage is like trying to fold a fitted sheet – no matter how you manipulate it, it still doesn’t look right. The most they can hope for is to jumble together some cockeyed story and throw it in the closet hoping their guests won’t see the mess.*
This final verse in our pericope has taken a beating with the various interpretations – none of them offering anything theologically, contextually, or practically helpful. Most scholars would rather ignore the verse altogether. However, read in light of the Artemis Cult, it makes perfect theological and practical sense.
The usual interpretation – that is, taking the def. art. in front of ‘childbearing’ as specifying a specific childbearing, namely that of Mary’s deliverance of Christ, has nothing necessarily wrong with it. Both Egalitarians and Complementarians claim this as a legitimate interpretation. However, I do question it for this reason: Paul NEVER speaks of Christ’s birth anywhere else, and if this is going to be the only time he does so – why would he leave it so ambiguous? Just seems a bit odd to me. This doesn’t eliminate this interpretation as valid; rather it just poses a problematic question related to its oddity.
Now:
As noted previously, many Ephesian women considered the goddess Artemis superior to her brother Apollo because she preceded him in birth. This fact gave her female followers the ability to challenge the male dominance of Ephesus and rise above patriarchy (I know it’s an anachronistic term, but still helpful).
After her own birth, she helped her mother (Leto) in the delivery of her brother Apollo. For this action she became known as the goddess that assisted women in childbirth. Unfortunately, though, she killed many of these women, and this caused women to fear her as well as need her.
When Paul counters the Artemis cult in I Timothy 2 and replaces it with Hebraic narratives, he barbs Artemis in the process. Artemis couldn’t be trusted to save women. These women ‘will be saved,’ but not by Artemis. God (implied in the divine passive referred to later), by means of the Christian virtues he lists in this passage, will liberate these women.
The Genesis narrative offers no solutions to pain in childbirth; it only gives the origins thereof. Paul can use it to point to the problem, but cannot offer a solution. So Paul leaves Genesis and relies on Christian praxis for this liberation. (I know the dichotomy is a bit anachronistic, but I think it’s helpful at this point.)
By turning to Christian praxis, Paul can maintain that these women will be ‘saved’ (the Gk. word can mean ‘save’ ‘liberate’ ‘kept from harm’) through childbearing. This comes about “if” they appropriate a few specifically Christian virtues: faith, love, holiness, and modesty.**
The verb “will be saved” is a Gk. future passive indicative. This passive form is known as the ‘Divine Passive’ – suggesting that it is not the virtues that save, but divine action by means of the virtues. The salvation is contingent upon the virtues, but is enacted by God.
She will be saved “through childbearing” according to our English text. The Greek preposition here can also mean ‘during’ or ‘throughout.’ Thus, Paul may be speaking of being saved from the pain and possible death that arises during childbirth.
Following this, the listed Christian virtues actually transcend the punishment for the woman’s original sin. Christ’s death purchased salvation for sinners. In this act, He reverses the curses of the human sinfulness and institutes a community that is supposed to reflect pre-sin conditions, eliminating male patriarchy and pain in childbirth (the two punishments for the woman which just so happen to be the subjects of our pericope).
As women, through the appropriation of these virtues, return to the condition of the original community, they experience liberation from the original punishments. In other words, there is a reversal of the dominant world system of sin and a return to the original created order. Paul calls for a complete reversal, not only of our mythologies, but also of the way we order the world and see our community as a ‘new creation.’
SUMMARY: Sure, in their current sinful bodies, these women will still experience pain. But Paul offers a promise of hope. He barbs Artemis – where as Artemis may or may not save a woman in childbirth, Christ, through these virtues, offers these women hope of a future salvation (“they WILL be saved”) and a restoration of the created order within the community of faith – providing them present salvation from the original consequences of sin. They are being saved (both socially and spiritually) and will be saved (both socially and spiritually). He eliminates the fear of male dominance (as the first punishment) and death (the second punishment) in Christ and Christian virtues. Even though he is placing the original sin on the woman – he is liberating her from that sin through Christian virtues; something Artemis could have never done.
Ok: I’m sure there are some holes in my argument. Point them out so I can reflect on them. I’m still thinking through this issue and how this text works.
* Yep, I was doing laundry when I cam e up with this simile
** I don’t’ think these are strictly FEMALE Christian virtues. In fact, men are commanded to have these virtues in other place in the scripture. But in light of the female dominance in this community, Paul wants to emphasize these specific virtues and direct them at the women.
- Culture , Women in Christianity
- Comments(13)
i think that this is one of those verses that we have very little hope of coming to a final conclusion on. on the surface, it seems to contradiction Paul’s body of teaching on salvation. therefore, it is obvious that this verse has a located meeting. he was using a vocabulary that he shared with his audience, but that we are excluded from.
this is a good attempt at reconstructing it. i think your interpretation is just as acceptable as the Eve’s seed interpretation. the latter actually works for an egal. argument too. if Eve could be rehabilitated, then the ephesian women could also mature to the point of being able to teach.
to view the verses in light of a gnostic context doesn’t get you much further, but you might want the check out the Kroeggers’ arguments on the subject.
also, speaking of reversals… i can totally teach you how to fold a fitted sheet.
I think that your reflection on the Artemis cult is really compelling, but you are right in saying there are some holes. It would help to further flesh out how the text reverses the curse of the fall. That is where I saw the hole - like I had to jump to that. Again, really a compelling idea, but needs more.
Thanks Jesse. I see what you’re saying, and I agree.
I think the ‘reversing the curse’ stuff was more of an inference than an observatikon. Obviously Paul does not argue that the curse is being reversed here. However, we know that is a biblical doctrine in prevalent throughout the NT. So, with my analysis of this passage, I thought it was fitting to bring this in in further support of my thoughts - that is, placing this passage in the larger corups of NT teachings concerning the Christian communities relationship to the the original created order.
Also, I think it can be inferred quite nicely just based on the fact that the punishments of the fall for the woman (patriarchy and pain in childbirth) are being discussed in this passage along with the Genesis account from which we know about them.
So, I think a pretty strong case can be made for my inferences - though certainly I agree that it is not explicit within the text.
I agree with the inference… just needs more meat and flesh… fill in the connections a little more and beef it up!
I like it. I think I am in the same boat as Jessie.
I must agree with those above as well…this is the weakest part of your series IMO, and yet probably the most important. First off, I hate to say it, but I’m utterly unconvinced by the “divine passive.” If an agent is not supplied, then I find it a bit of a leap to say “God did it.” It seems that it’s more of a matter of fact statement. I’ve gone through my Greek grammar books, and there’s no mention of such a grammatical concept. However, this is a bit of a periphery issue.
I’d really appreciate a more fleshed out rendition of the Artemis myth (along with a citation or two). Then, make the connections with 1 Tim. more explicit. I honestly think there is something to this whole thing, and that a compelling case can indeed be done…I just need more.
thanks for the comments, all.
As far as fleshing it out more - I would if I had time. I’ve already written all these posts, which is why I am able to post them once a week. But at this time, with school and all, I just don’t have time to go back and flesh them out in the ways you would like. Besides, though these posts are somewhat academic, they are not dissertations. So in whatever way you all might find them lacking, contribute your own scholastic research and fill it in a bit…I’d be cool with that - I need help thinking through this stuff just as much as the next guy.
My whole point in this is that the Artemis Cult deals with the text as a whole - including this difficutl passage. This verse is not central to my main argument. The traditional reading of this text can still stand and my reading still be viable. That is probably why i didn’t originally flesh this out further - it is only supplementary to my argument, not necessary for it. In the end, my reading does not have to ignore this weird verse. If you all want to go beyond that - go ahead, I’d be happy to read what you have to say - assuming you all have more time than I do, and you can put such a thing together.
As far as the Divine Passive goes - I’m sorry that has not appeared in any Gk. grammars, but I’m not pulling this out of my ass. If a passive verb appears without an agent, and the agent is clearly God, then it is called the Divine Passive. Now, I admit, you may not think the agent here is necessarily God. However, I don’t know of theologically consistent way of dealing with this verb otherwise (no matter if one is an Egalitarian or a BC). I would suggest looking at some other Gk. grammars - particularly ones put together by people who primarily work with the biblical text - cuz the Divine passive is everywhere in the GNT. Consider Wallace - “The passive is also used when god is the obvious agent. Many grammars call this a divine passive or theological passive…” (Daneil B. Wallace, Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics. 437-438) Again, maybe a divine agent is not ‘obvious’ here, but I don’t know of that NT speaks of being saved by any other agent! If you have an alternative, theologically consistent way of interpreting this verb then let me know, I’d be happy to listen.
I’m not going to flesh out the Artemis Myth - I just don’t have time. There are numerous good books out there that I’m sure can assist you. I gave the basics of the story so as to get my point across. If I have skewed the evidence then I’m sure a more faithful reading of the Artemis Myth can be pointed out by someone by looking at these sources - though, as NT Wright was on board with my reading, good luck! The same goes for citing sources. If this were an academic paper then you can be sure I’d cite my sources. But this is a blog, not a research paper. I don’t see anyone doing that on this blog page, nor on any other blog page. I don’t know b/c I didn’t look, but I bet NT Wright, in the paper I gave the link to a few days ago, may have a great bibliography. If not, you all are intelligent people, look this stuff up for yourself. This is a blog, not a dissertation.
Cheapham,
Tom is spot on about the "divine passive." The "divine passive" is a vital part in understanding the book of Revelation, for example. This text is filled with passives that have as their actor God, e.g. angels in heaven receiving bowls of God’s wrath. Only God could have those bowls to give to anyone to pour out. You might indeed want to expand your selection of grammars.
and I think you are right - I haven’t seen an interpretation that deals with all of the features of the text as this one does.
I hope I wasn’t coming off harsh or anything, that was by no means my intent.
By being skeptical is of the “divine passive,” I’m more or less just weary of the term. It implies that the actual morphology of the word denotes divine agency, when that is not the case. We can absolutely infer divine agency by looking at the context in which a future passive takes place, but that is not something that is implicit in the grammar of the word itself. That’s my main point. I know you aren’t just making it up, and I’m sure it’s referenced in many Biblical Greek grammar books. However, I’m always skeptical of theologized definitions and grammatical concepts, as if the Biblical writers had some Christian-specific theological lexicon they were writing from.
I know this is just a blog entry, and I definitely understand not having enough time to do more work (I really shouldn’t even be writing this right now). I guess I just desperately want to be convinced by your argument, and thus I feel like I need more for that to happen. Next time I get the chance, I’ll definitely look into the history of the Artemis mythos and see what I can get out of it.
Again, I think that I echo Cheapham on this.
Loved your quote on grammar, Cheapham!
Thanks.
Just a side note of support, the preposition “dia” here definitely means “throughout” or “during.” “Through” is a poor choice by the translators, because the english translation could easily cause the reader to think that “childbearing” is the actual agent of the saving. That would require the preposition “hupo” (I’m horrible at transliteration), which is not the case here.
That raises the question, why is it necessary to say that the women will be saved “throughout/during childbearing?” What has brought this about? What crisis has led the women of Timothy’s community to think that they may be under threat during childbearing? I’d say that the Artemis mythos, with the fear that she may kill mothers, holds interesting weight here. In that case, the text is clearly subversive to the Greek religious Paradigm of Ephesus.