Can't be saved unless you have children?!

[Momo-P]

Hate to bother anyone, but I must admit this just about made me cry.

Let a woman learn by listening quietly and being ready to cooperate in everything. But I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to listen quietly, because Adam was formed first and then Eve. And Adam was not tricked, but the woman was tricked and became a sinner: But she will be saved through having children if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.- 1 Timothy 2

My Bible has a note saying the whole "woman's authority" may be refering to the wives of deacons or women who serve in the same manner as deacons, but the last stuff really got to me.

So what? Man is saved because he believes and woman is screwed into "you better have a child or God won't save you." Also who can control what a child does? God made us, but gave us free will. He's not in trouble because of our free will, why should the mother be accountable as well? YES, she needs to teach them they right way, but this sounds like

- If you don't have kids you go to hell
- If your kids don't turn out perfect, you go to hell

Also, why does is specifically center in on Eve becoming a sinner? Didn't Adam sin too? Yes, Eve WAS the one to take the fruit...I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Adam actually resist? Obviously he took it in the end, but where as Eve was all "oh, but the SNAKE SAID IT WAS OK! 8D", Adam actually relied back on what God had said. Eve could've ignored the snake, but she DID let herself get tricked. But why does it act like she's the only one who sinned? Sure Adam may have not been as naive, but if he wasn't tricked, then he apparently let a pretty face and body cloud what His Father said.

So could someone explain this to me? Because man...I've never wanted children in my whole life. Ever. The fact that it's like...I'll be held responsible if they refuse to believe? You can teach until your head falls off, but God knows better than anyone that you can't force them to change.

[GhostontheNet]

You're totally misreading the verse in question. The passage is about being saved through childbirth, i.e. surviving the potentially dangerous birthing process.

[LadyRushia]

I think Ghost is right. "They" probably refers to the man and woman, and it may imply that the both of them will be saved through the hardest times if they fill the roles God has set for men and women. I'm not sure if that's right, but I do know that multiple times throughout the Bible it says that you are saved by faith. If the only way a woman could be saved is if she has children, then God would have rejected me when I came to Him.

[Sparrowhawk]

I will gladly try. No you dont need to have children to be saved. Paul also writes this in 1 Corinthians 7:

1Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: (A) "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." 2But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3(B) The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5(C) Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again,(D) so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

6Now as a concession,(E) not a command, I say this.[a] 7(F) I wish that all were(G) as I myself am. But(H) each has his own gift from God,(I) one of one kind and one of another.

8To the unmarried and the widows I say that(J) it is good for them to remain single(K) as I am. 9But if they cannot exercise self-control,(L) they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

If Paul thought it better to never marry, then obviously he can't hold to needing children for salvation within a Christian view for sex.

The passage you are referring to deals with gender roles, which in the modern church are hotly debated. Basically here is the what the verse you picked was saying - Women should have no spiritual authority over a man, your place is domestic.

The verse is basically saying how can you claim to be a believer if you are rebelling against the way God made you?

Now like I said this is hotly debated in the modern church and with good reason. Paul had a good female friend, Priscilla, who was very active in ministry. Also, the Israelites had a female prophet, Deborah, who was both their civil and spiritual leader. So is this to a certain group of women who maybe were trying to use their new found freedom in Christ wrong?

Also within the verse you pointed out is that women are supposed to be ready to help, which points back to the Garden when women was first created in Genesis 2.

18Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone;(R) I will make him a helper fit for[e] him." 19(S) Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed[f] every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and(T) brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam[g] there was not found a helper fit for him. 21So the LORD God caused a(U) deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made[h] into a woman and brought her to the man. 23Then the man said,

"This at last is(V) bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was(W) taken out of Man."[i]

24(X) Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

I think this is what Paul meant. Men have their role, women theirs. These roles are hotly debated in the church today, but no one believes you need to have children to be saved.



EDIT: I myself struggle with appropriate gender roles within the church, so I am not saying that women should not have a place in ministry, and the reason for this is Deborah. Because of that I have refused and continue to refuse to take a stance on what women's role in the church should be. I think both sides have a lot of good Biblical evidence to support their claim, and since I'm a single male I have always thought it better to keep my mouth shut.

[Cognitive Gear]

In b4 theology debate. (I hope I'm wrong.)

To give another perspective:

I believe that it's talking about how sin was brought into the world by a woman, but a woman is also what God used to bring Salvation into the world, through Mary giving birth to Jesus.

I'm not sure what translation you use, but here's how the NASB translated it (Which I have found to be most helpful):


But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.

EDIT: I don't mean to say that sin coming into the world is the fault of Eve exclusively. I was just giving the quick explanation. Adam is indeed at fault as well, as Sparrowhawk points out in the post below.

[Sparrowhawk]

In b4 theology debate. (I hope I'm wrong.)

To give another perspective:

I believe that it's talking about how sin was brought into the world by a woman, but a woman is also what God used to bring us Salvation, through Mary giving birth to Jesus.

I'm not sure what translation you use, but here's how the NASB translated it (Which I have found to be most helpful):


But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.

Just to make sure the other view is known, it is very clear that Adam was there when Eve took the fruit and did nothing to stop her, failing in his role as protector and thereby just as guilty.

We have to be very careful here guys or this could get really nasty really quick, this is a touchy subject, so be cautious of others feelings and also try not to get too upset if someone seems insensitive to your views

[ShiroiHikari]

Thank you Cog; that translation makes much more sense. After all, there is no other way to salvation except through Christ.

[Cognitive Gear]

Just to make sure the other view is known, it is very clear that Adam was there when Eve took the fruit and did nothing to stop her, failing in his role as protector and thereby just as guilty.

We have to be very careful here guys or this could get really nasty really quick, this is a touchy subject, so be cautious of others feelings and also try not to get too upset if someone seems insensitive to your views

I added an edit to my original post to hopefully avoid further confusion, thank you for pointing this out.

[Raiden no Kishi]

Just a minor note: It is a basic, essential principle of Bible study to take everything you read in context. Don't take any part of the Bible independent of the surrounding text.

.rai//

[Sparrowhawk]

[quote="ShiroiHikari (post: 1268017)"]Thank you Cog]

Precisely =)

[Kaligraphic]

It's important to note that childbirth was very dangerous back in those days. It was really quite common for a mother to die in childbirth, in bloody and painful manner. They didn't have the kind of medical knowledge or equipment that we do now. Women back then would have been quite pleased at a guarantee of safe childbirth.


Also, don't get bent out of shape by a lone statement, you need to view in in context and in contrast with other statements on the same topic. For instance, Romans very clearly lays the blame on Adam's head, not Eve's, and Galatians tells us that in the spirit, there is no male nor female. Sometimes things don't mean quite what you think they do, especially when we've had to translate them from Greek and whatnot.

[Doubleshadow]

But she will be saved through having children if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.

The concordance I use says this verse can be interpreted as "through the Child", meaning saved through Christ.
You should invest in a concordance; they help when you run head long into verses you can't make sense of. I like the one available at BibleGateway.com.

[Raiden no Kishi]

The Greek says they will be saved through "childbirth" (a noun describing an act) rather than "having children" (a participle {IIRC} and an object), so an interpretation that it is through the birth of a child (specifically Christ) rather than through the woman in question bearing children is not ruled out. The noun could be translated into English as "a childbirth" (being singular), which would point even more to Doubleshadow's thought. I'll have to remember to ask my Greek professor about it.

.rai//

[Purplefire]

Remember also the culture here that Paul was addressing. In what I have found on the subject, Timothy was facing a situation where false teachers were preying on women. Restricting the public teaching of women would have dramatically undercut the support of false teachers. Also, look at the other religions that Christianity was standing next to: Women in other religious organizations who were outspoken and dressed extravagantly was usually a prostitute. The guidelines for women to be quiet and submissive was to set the early church apart from the other common religious practices.

[minakichan]

If I got punched in the face for every time I heard a young born-again Christian female use this verse (or similar NT verses) to justify sexism against her own gender, I wouldn't have a face anymore.

[Kaligraphic]

Actually, I don't think it could be rendered "through the child". The expression is dia tes teknogonias (δια της τεκνογονιας), where teknogonias can be rendered childbirth, maternity, parentage - but I'm pretty sure that it can't be stretched to mean child. That would be teknon.

As we are saved from sin by Jesus' death and resurrection, rather than his birth, the verse itself quite lends itself to the interpretation offered by GhostontheNet et al. - namely, protection through the rigors of childbirth.

*edit* Cool, the Greek characters do seem to work, at least for me. I wasn't sure the site would accept them.

[Doubleshadow]

[quote="Kaligraphic (post: 1268056)"]Actually, I don't think it could be rendered "through the child". The expression is dia tes teknogonias (δ]

Right. I mostly agreed with previous statements, that Momo was simply misunderstanding the verse, so instead of just agreeing I offered another possibility. The source I used stated there are at least three interpretations that, after applying evidence and reason, can be considered valid explanations, though not necessarily to the same degree. That is the last one mentioned and the most far fetched. The author speculated Paul was altering his phrasing to directly address a particular false teachings phrasing.

[Fish and Chips]

Let a woman learn by listening quietly and being ready to cooperate in everything. But I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to listen quietly, because Adam was formed first and then Eve. And Adam was not tricked, but the woman was tricked and became a sinner: But she will be saved through having children if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.- 1 Timothy 2

I know I may stir up a bit of controversy with this (and am not entirely convinced by the idea myself), but I would like to note here that Timothy, like a number of the books of the New Testament, is a letter from Paul his planted churches on the subject of how they should be run, and while this is certainly important to us, it is useful to know that Paul did include both his own opinions and what he considered God's decision on the matter, though he usually keeps the two separate and clearly labeled. That's more towards the opening of this passage though.

That said, please remember that while, no, Adam was not "Tricked" like Eve was, he did blindly follow her lead, which is his mistake to bear. Eve was deceived, but Adam acted without thinking. No matter how you read this passage, it doesn't negate the fact that both Man and Woman have fallen from what they were intended to be.

As for childbirth, I just consider it interesting that even corrupted beings such as ourselves are still permitted to "Create" something as innocent and beautiful as a new life. Perhaps that, in part, is part of our redemption, but that's a subject for another thread.

- If you don't have kids you go to hell

"I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God] - 1 Corinthians 7:7-8

Granted, Paul is not saying this across the board (continue reading from verse 9), but the Bible is hardly guilty of saying the celibate are damned. Especially when there are so many prophets and Men and Women of God with no apparent offspring. Heck, that doesn't even get into things like the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch.

- If your kids don't turn out perfect, you go to hell

Do you think King David is in Hell right now? King David is frequently named as one of the most godly men to walk this Earth, honored above all Earthly kings by having his lineage tied to Jesus' physical birth. If God doesn't even have mercy for him, what hope do the rest of us have?

Then there [I]is that whole Absalom business.

Parents are responsible for their children, but children are not dolls. We are held accountable for our sons and daughters' molding, not their personal decisions.

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

Momo, you don't need to jump conclusions. Read things more carefully and try not to assume the worst, otherwise you'll be so stressed out you might have a heart attack by your mid-20s.

[Shao Feng-Li]

I think that verse from Timothy might refer to the influence that women can have over men.

We know that the only way to salvation is through the faith that Christ gives us, so we know that we must be misreading the latter part of that verse.

I think Fish and Chips pretty well nailed it here.

[termyt]

No one verse defines anyone's role in the church nor does any one verse describe the requirements for salvation. This is not the right way to approach scripture. Many of those who do want nothing more than to sow discord and doubt in those who would believe.

The "rules" Paul puts forth in his letters about the roles of men and women in the church and the home are designed, just as are the laws in the Old Testament, to provide structure and a chance for harmony among believers and to set apart God’s anointed from the corrupted culture around them.

It is important to be at peace with each other and our neighbors. The message of Christ is not affective when lobbed like a grenade but knows no bounds when delivered like a warm meal to the starving. Peace is not always possible, but it is preferred. To that end, the church is meant for worship and for the edification of the Christians. It is not the place for wild social experimentation or completions for who can out-do the other.

The point I’m trying to make is that gender roles and social/political freedom are of less importance to the Christian. That is not to say that these things are of no importance, but they are secondary to our walk with Christ. Truly, I say you can be a Christian in any situation – slave or free, male or female, politically empowered or socially insignificant. It does not matter, all are the same before Christ. This is our guiding principle – that we come to Christ first and allow Him to transform us, our culture, and our laws. We do not transform ourselves to approach Christ, we approach Him and He transforms us.

[Nikolai Melodie]

This might be an odd way to look at this, and I'm unsure if it's really a valid argument at all, but considering that members of the clergy are generally not supposed to engage in things that could lead to childbirth, I don't see how reading that as, 'if you don't have kids you're going to hell,' would work. I doubt that those who dedicate themselves most to God and his people are going to be the ones He throws first in the fryer. I think there are many figures in the bible (and a buttload of Catholic saints from much later in time), mostly male, but I think a few females, who never commit sexual acts even once.

It's difficult to see how that passage could be read in that way when you think of other examples through history. Besides; Jesus is and always will be the most important thing in finding salvation.

[Kaligraphic]

Actually, the requirement of celibacy is neither presently universal, nor historically unbroken. Even in the Roman Catholic tradition, the major proponent of clerical celibacy, there was a married pope (Adrian II) as late as the mid 800s, and has had married priests and bishops. Before the Roman tradition took over the British Isles, there were quite a number of Irish Catholic priests who passed their position in the church down to their children.

In fact, the high proportion of married ministers in the early church would seem to reinforce the understanding of the verse as protection from the rigors of childbirth.

[termyt]

The other side of that is the clergy are mostly male. The passage, and others like it (1 Timothy comes to mind) say that women can be saved through childbirth, not men.

That brings up a thought not just on gender roles, but level of education. Women did not have a lot of opportunities for education. Their role, their job, was to have and raise children - which is the most important function of any being.

Men traditionally left the home to work, farm, or defend because, quite simply, we are better suited to it and, quite frankly, we are more expendable.

The gender roles were made of necessity but once need was removed, the roles remained out of tradition and typical human failure to evolve with the changing circumstances.

That's where we find the first century church. Most women were not educated in religious thought or philosophy so Christian theology is much like asking someone to do algebra before they learn multiplication.

Paul is saying that that is OK, it's not their fault for failing to understand theology, but he does not want the church to spend all its time on remedial theology lessons. Women are given more freedom in the church (as opposed to the synagogues, which were segregated), but Paul wanted the church to focus on moving forward, so he gave the husbands the responsibility to educate their wives instead of the church as a whole.

Saying "let them ask their husbands later" is not saying "shut up and just accept it." It's saying to wait until you get home and allow your husband to take the time to educate the wife so as to not hold up the church meeting. The implication is that education would continue, just not in the the meeting itself.

But if a woman did not have time or the ability to study theology, then her simple faith is enough so long as she does what is most important - raise children and pass along your faith to them, just as he praises Timothy's mother and grandmother for doing.

It is not a requirement for women to do only that. There are numerous examples of women in the Bible - and even those close to Paul himself, who did understand and were given roles and responsibilities accordingly. They were not told to "shut up, go home and have children," but were given roles in the church according to need and ability.

[Song_of_Storms]

Everyone has done such a fantastic job explaining this to Momo! XD (much better then I could ever have done...) Everyone has also answered a lot of my own questions.

I'm just happy you asked about the Verse, Momo, instead of keeping quiet and risking forming bitter thoughts toward God. n.n (That could have been worded better, but its the best I can do! :3 )