"She shall be saved through childbearing..."
I just wanted your ideas about it because I was reading this very wacky guy's view on sex and he quotes this verse and I thought.. "scripture twisting" and I brought up the whole chapter and was kinda surprised at what I read:
9I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with
braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10but with good deeds,
appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women[a] will be saved[b] through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
What is Paul's problem with women with braided hair? Was this a cultural thing? And what does he mean by verse 14. It seems very chauvanistic?
So of course I gave my response to him...I hope that is not in contradiction to the instruction of the passage. ;-)
The braids are a cultural thing...women were getting really outrageous with intricate braids in their hair and he was saying that they should focus less on hairstyle and clothes, and more on being the type of women God wants them to be. Its a statement kind of along the lines of Christ saying that for someone to truly love Him he must hate his family. Christ doesn't truly want people to hate their families, its just that our love for Him should be so great that our love for our families is so paltry in comparison as to seem like hate. Likewise, I do not believe that Paul is banning all braids, but he is saying that their significance should be WAY below the significance of a woman's internal beauty.
And no, vs. 14 is not chauvinistic. Not mentioning Adam's sin is not meant to imply that he did not sin--but it accurately states that he was not deceived. Eve was deceived. I've heard many teachings that Adam's sin was worse because he knew full out that what he was doing was wrong--God had told him directly not to eat of the tree. But Eve was deceived--tricked--into eating it. Yes, she did sin since she had some knowledge that she should not eat of it, but her knowledge was less full than Adam's.
Now that reference to childbirth...ooo...that is often ignored. It's just too "difficult" to figure out. While it is discussed in the very extensive commentary on the passage available at Bible Gateway, the discussion hardly comes to a conclusion, and kind of leaves it out there as a passage that can't really be interpretted.
My thoughts is that it is that most commentators don't know what to make of it because of their preconceived notions about birth. This passage mirrors Genesis 3--and if you really think about it, it is interesting. Because Eve's sin is mentioned but not Adam's, it has been taught in the past that Eve's sin is worse than Adam's. This is partly what was used by the church to justify the idea that women should not receive pain medication in labor because they had to atone for their sins through pain in labor--believing the passage meant that women would be saved through experiencing that pain.
So what then happens to the childless woman? Can she not be saved? No--and that is part of where this interpretation falls apart.
This passage does not mention Adam's sin...but clearly Adam sinned, so one can not interpret the silence about that in this passage to mean that Adam did not sin. No, this passage is a CLARIFICATION on Eve's sin. She was deceived. Adam out and out disobeyed, there was no deception. This passage gives women not a punishment, but a HOPE. It is not saying that through the process of childbearing that a woman will somehow earn salvation, but rather that if she will "continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety" she can possibly be restored to what God intended childbirth to be--not a painful agony, but a blessing--that is to say "saved through the period of childbearing of the agony." This is expounded upon rather beautifully by Jennifer Vanderlaan in her workbook "The Lord of Birth" that I use for my Christian classes.