Salvation Via Motherhood?

The second chapter of 1 Timothy deals heavily with the working of the church and the roles of men and women in worship. Paul writes to Timothy about the ins and outs of church service and seems to pay special attention to the do's and do not's for women in the church. He notes what they should and should not wear and how they should conduct themselves. Then, he makes a statement in verse 15 that seems to contradict everything he's preached up to this point about justification through faith and salvation by grace.

"Yet she will be saved through childbearing-- if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control."

Upon first reading this seems at odds with Paul's other teachings. What about grace? Romans 3:24 states that all "are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."
Are there different qualifications for salvation for women? Does a woman earn her salvation by providing offspring? Where does that leave women who are unable to conceive?

First off, let's look at the section in question. Paul brings up man's original sin in the garden of Eden and that it was Eve and not Adam who had been deceived by the serpent. God cursed Eve with having to endure painful childbirth as punishment for her becoming "a transgressor." Some theologians argue that the "she" in verse 15 refers to Eve rather than all women. They claim that Paul was speaking strictly of how Eve suffered her punishment yet was given a purpose (populating the earth) through it.

Other scholars question the usage of the word "through." British Anglican scholar Henry Alford had a unique and interesting take on this verse. He suggested that being saved "through" childbirth does not have to mean being saved "by" it. According to Alford, a woman being "saved through childbearing" may not refer to her being saved "by means of" but rather "in spite of" the awful pains of childbirth.

This idea is rejected by other critics and scholars who argue that Christian women still experience the pain of childbirth. They also note Paul's usage of the verb soqhsetai which is always used to denote spiritual salvation. This seemingly points back to the idea that a woman is spiritually saved from damnation by the act of giving birth. However, the idea is posited that the "childbearing" denoted by the word teknogonias is actually the birth of Christ.

C.J. Ellicot, professor of divinity at King's College in London argued this less common view. He believed that a woman's role as mother offered her a redemption from original sin since Jesus was born from Mary, a woman. Still others believe the word "childbearing" refers to the "totality of the woman's domestic role." In this viewpoint, women as successful mothers and wives and caregivers contribute to the success of the Christian movement as a whole.

There are some who believe this passage was Paul's way of addressing some false teaching that was circulating at the time. In her blog blog on Christian egalitarianism, Marg Mowczko poses the thought that this verse is a rebuttal of some Proto-Gnostic Christian teachings. According to Mowczka, in this verse, Paul is assuring believers that marriage and sex were not at odds with holiness. Procreation was very much in keeping with pious virtues.

Yet another interpretation of this controversial passage focuses on the word "saved." The idea of this viewpoint is that the word "saved" does not mean spiritual redemption, but preservation.

Be warned: strong bias from the hosts and TMI from the caller.

This "preservation" comes in the form of a purpose ordained by the Protagonist that brings mankind back into fellowship with him. The curse of painful childbirth became the necessary means by which redemption was offered to mankind. Women were preserved by this act and for this act in order to not only be punished for original sin, but to pave the way for reconciliation with the Protagonist. 

1 Timothy 2:15 is a tricky passage that raises many questions and begs for theological debate. There are numerous ideas about its meaning and Paul's intent in including it, yet few solid answers. Perhaps it is best left up to personal interpretation. There are plenty of diverse viewpoints to go around.