i am very thankful for this video and illumination to something that was simply outside of my understanding. hearing the explanation and connection to other scripture was like when you finally get that realization of how to properly use a math formula. illuminating is the best word to use, thank you guys for the breakdown videos and lessons. Love and prayers in Christ to your ministry!
Thank you! I am studying the bible on my own then the pastor preaches it on Sunday and this one had mt completely stumped! Very much still learning how to study and looking up the word or phrase in other parts of the bible is very helpful!
The meaning of this verse (and the preceeding verses) makes perfect sense when read in the context of the religion that followed Artemis in Ephesus. The cult of Artemis was so important in Ephesus that the temple for her there at the time was one of the 7 ancient wonders of the world. Paul also references this same cult in Acts 19. Women at the time were taught and believed Artemis was their protection when giving birth. Paul is reassuring them that leaving behind Artemis is OK because they will still be protected by their faith in Christ. The word "saved" here has nothing to do with eternal salvation through Jesus blood on the cross and everything to do with reversing false doctrine of Artemis. I have huge respect for Piper, but his teaching concerning women is harmful to the spiritual wellbeing of female Christians. This passage is not confusing or even controversial if viewed with proper context of the reality for which the letter was written.
I was really struggling with this verse and its context, I've gone through multiple videos and none answered my question. thank you so much, your comment is God-sent
The answer is this: The verse doesn’t mean that giving birth or having children results in gaining everlasting life. It refers to the fact that a woman’s having children to tend to, along with other aspects of caring for a household, may keep her from falling into a pattern of gossiping and meddling in others’ affairs. (1Timothy 5:13) However, she may still face tribulations linked to marriage and family life.
I'm sorry what I got from this passage was since eve was a transgressor which is a sin unto God which meant death unto you, since God didn't destroy her which he could have instead he cursed her with the pain and suffering associated with childbirth. because the plan was to feel no pain or anything that we feel now. that's what happened when they took that bite of the fruit and their eyes were opened!!
Perhaps someone can help me: I don't see how childbearing could be considered a hindrance to a woman's salvation. Can someone explain this? It seems to me that there is a massive difference between a Christian teaching many things which turn out to be false, yet being saved anyway, and a woman bearing the children of her husband. The former reflects very poorly upon the man and there is a sense of relief that despite his false teachings, such a man will be saved; but the latter does not reflect at all poorly upon the woman, and I do not find myself being relieved (or perhaps, surprised) by her salvation. Childbearing just does not seem like a hindrance to salvation as teaching false doctrine does.
This is what the verse really means: It doesn’t mean giving birth or having children results in gaining everlasting life. A woman having children and a household to care for would keep her “safe”from becoming a gossiper or meddler in others affairs.(1Timothy 5:13) However, she may still face tribulations linked to marriage and family life.
I disagree. Through Childbearing means through Christ in her family line. Christ (Child beared in eve's line) is the way to saving... Does anybody agree?
I was taught that as well. Paul is speaking post-death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Therefore, he would be speaking future-tense of a past-tense occurrence which makes no sense. Salvation includes both men and women, and he is speaking of only women. Piper's is a better explanation, but an even better one takes into consideration the time period of the letter and location of the assembly - Ephesus, where Artemis was worshipped. I just watched a video on this. Sorry I don't have the link, but you can do a search. It's very short. Here's the link: czcams.com/video/HBAhcDPXMuA/video.html
Thank you for sharing this interesting perspective. Surely suffering may indeed be a hindrance, as you said, when approached with the wrong attitude. Perhaps, though, suffering may provide a means for salvation if approached with faith love, holiness and self control, as Paul mentions? Approaching suffering in this way requires real humility and trust in God and His goodness even when we can't see or feel it.
I don't think that's what the scriptural text in 1 Timothy 2 was meant to say. There’s a reason why versus 11-15 are lumped together in 1 Timothy 2. Paul is talking about a contextual situation with regards to women of that time in ministry: specifically about their role in “teaching”. This text has been misused by many (men) to prohibit women from serving in leadership ministry or being ordained. The text starts off with Paul prohibiting women from teaching, then he moves to the creation story, and ends with the “saved through childbearing” statement. Many read this passage and automatically jump to the negative narrative, and assert that Paul is being misogynistic, when in fact, he is actually trying to protect the women of that time from judgement. I believe that Dickson’s argument of the difference between “teaching” and “preaching” is valid and applicable. We know this when we look at other passages where Paul makes the distinction between Spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12:28, Rom. 12:4-8, etc.), and as you read his and others’ letters, it is clear that this distinction was understood among 1st Century Christians, and that “teaching” was a higher platform. In James 3:1, James strongly cautions the brethren/believers about not seeking to become “teachers”, because there is a greater judgement for those who teach incorrectly. “Teaching” is meant for those who can correctly read, interpret and explain the Word, whereas “Preaching” is intended for witnessing and sharing the good news after one has been taught. Paul is discouraging women of that time from “teaching”, not “preaching” (and not from prophesying, speaking in tongues, performing miracles or any other gifting/ministry either). It is clear from the passage that women were not in a position to be properly equipped to teach. You need mentorship to become a “teacher”, similar to how Paul studied under Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), but this was not available to women of that time - only to men - and he didn’t want women to use their new-found freedom to assume the role of teaching without proper training (additionally, considering the very low literacy rates of the time among men, women would be even less privileged to have an education, making matters worse). So given the opportunity, there’s no reason why women can’t teach or be Pastors. Paul uses the illustration from Genesis because God told Adam directly about the forbidden fruit in Genesis 2, prior to Eve being formed. Adam would have shared the knowledge about the forbidden fruit with Eve after she was formed. When Eve was tempted/questioned by the serpent/devil, she was unable to correctly respond/deceived, and eventually sinned, causing judgement on herself and Adam (to be clear, Adam sinned as well, as men are also prone to being deceived and sinning). Paul is basically trying to explain how important it is to have a full understanding and knowledge of the Word, otherwise you will be prone to fail/sin, which the women of that time would have been in a position to do so. Paul ends the passage about women “saved through childbearing”, not in the context that this is their only purpose (as Augustine incorrectly interpreted and asserted), nor that every women who gives birth gets saved and goes to heaven, but rather imploring women of that time that, if they want to do good, then they can carry out a very important role of “teaching” (without facing judgement, and thus “saved”): which is to raise up Godly children “in faith, love and holiness with propriety”.
Thank you for this! This explanation makes more sense to me since it takes the whole paragraph into consideration and not just v. 15. Your explanation clarifies why Paul is bringing up the Creation story and child bearing in the first place. To support his first claim and to provide a solution as to what women can be doing instead of being teachers.
This verse is actually saying that having children to tend to and having a household to care for would save her from becoming a gossiper and meddling in others affairs. However, she still may face tribulations linked to marriage and family life. (1Timothy 5:13) It doesn’t mean giving birth or having children results in gaining everlasting life.
@@sunnyjohnson992 Yes, and that was my point in the context of the passage: women are not “saved” by child bearing as a replacement of the salvation through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. I proceed to explain my interpretation of this statement in the context of Paul’s reference about women teaching. I would add in response to your comment that this passage does not reference gossiping and meddling (that’s a different topic that he deals with in Chapter 5). His preceding statement talks about Adam and Eve and being deceived, referencing the account of the fall and the judgement associated with it. What I’m suggesting is that the women of that time, due to lacking the means for proper training, would have been susceptible to a similar fall/judgement, but that’s not necessarily transcultural - i.e. today, women are educated and have the means to be trained in the scriptures, so there’s really no reason why they can’t have the opportunity to teach similar to men.
@@Lemon-sc2yq If you're referring to "saved" as in salvation from sins, then no, childbearing doesn't save you, otherwise Jesus' death on the cross was not necessary. But in this passage, I believe it's referring to the context of Paul's topic about judgment from teaching for women of that time: if they want to teach, they can serve a greater purpose by teaching their children than teaching adults, and in doing so, it's not under the same judgment (if they teach something wrong), and if you're not under judgment, then you are "saved" from it. It's the difference between teaching children versus teaching adults. You can see that the sentence doesn't end there, Paul continues on with ".....saved through childbearing, IF they continue in faith, love, holiness and propriety." - i.e. childbearing alone is not sufficient for salvation from sins.
Wow, I literally just finished reading this verse and began asking what does this mean… and then this is the first video that pops up on my feed when I open the app a minute later. 🤔 listening now
i do love the inductive bible study method you used to get to this conclusion and the sincerity of your goal. but my only question would be does this mean that NO christian woman who had continued in faith, love, holiness with self control DIED in childbirth?
If woman are saved via (through) children bearing, then Yeshua died in vain?! And would, woman who can't conceive, are they dammed? It appears Eve sin is a down transfer. All woman pay her price? I know Yehovah is right, but understanding this one is a puzzle locked in an enigma? Is "through" limited? Or pass down applicable?
Paul confessing he is possessed by a Demon. When did Jesus ever put Demons in people? Also Jesus said that he would not be in the desert hence where Paul had the encounter with that blinding Light. 2 Corinthians 12:7- And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a 👉messenger of Satan👈 to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure.
When you first read the verse, it almost seems as if Paul is talking about a situation where the mother dies in child-bearing or delivery and is saved by the sanctification of the marriage of the husband and the wife. Paul talks about the mystery of marriage In Ephesians 5:13-A man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” This being to say that my wife and I are of one flesh. So if the husband is a follower of christ and his wife is not, and the wife dies in child-bearing she is sanctified by the marriage of the husband??? 1 Corinthians 7:14-For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. This would make sense because the husband and wife are of one flesh. Definetly, a verse to ponder and pray over. Thanks for the explanation. Has anyone else thought of it this way?
@@Lemon-sc2yq Yes, your right.. Sanctification could also mean the husband or wife is set apart by a work of the holy to their conversion. Paul says how do you know if your faith could change your spouses mind.
I think this interpretation makes the most sense of the text. Perhaps a couple of words added to v.15 would help clarify it in the minds of some -- "she will be saved/rescued/kept *all the way through* the pain of childbearing". And note that "saved" (specifically, ΣΩΖΩ) has a range of meaning in the NT. I does not always mean spiritual-specific rescue. It can mean things like physical rescue (as from drowning) or healing (saved from a disease).
David Beamer I agree. Or a parenthesis like “saved by grace (in spite of the birth pains of childbearing) if they continue in faith, love, etc.” It makes sense in context too since Eve’s curse was not only pain in childbearing, but also the desire to rule over her husband. In the letter, Paul is discussing the women who want to rule over the men in the churches. So even though this may be a hard pill for them to swallow, Paul is reminding them they will still be saved. Just like how the pain of childbirth is difficult to process, we can be assured of our salvation and redemption on the other side if we continue in faith.
The woman will be saved by the Childbearing (means that through the women, Mary, Jesus would come and save mankind because it was through the women Eve that was deceived that gave the fruit of death to her husband that spiritually killed all of mankind. So through Mary, her seed shall save mankind.
I don't think I agree with this though. I don't like the idea of rejecting the literal context of a scripture to replace it with symbolism, I think we do that too often as Christians. The early church considered this to mean women were supposed to have children. Also far too often we look at the easiest interpretation to live by rather than the hardest as if Jesus always gives us the easy way out
Paul also was all for people remaining to celibate unless they couldn't control their passions so it seems highly unlikely he'd be on the modern conservative tack of "the only way to save yourself (and your country) is to have lots of kids" which while I am on the conservative side and definitely pro life and all that I feel that's an even more out of context interpretation. If you'll notice the emphasis on having children is drastically reduced throughout the entire new testament because it is no longer the MAIN means of bringing people to know God. The Hebrews were rhe chosen people and so more Hebrews having babies = more children for God. Since Christ salvation isn't confined to a single people group and therefore is open to any who will accept Christ as their savior and many more people can be brought to know Christ by one individual than could ever be born by one individual. So the emphasis moved from procreation to evangelism
What in the world are you talking about? Paul clearly states that women can only be saved through childbearing as long as we have all the other bases covered. While Paul offered many great incites to God and Jesus, Paul did not think much of women. He encouraged celibacy, even in marriage, as it would misdirect our attention to God.
@@Jonathan-A we all know the words. But the question is, what do the words mean? Like in John 14:13 Jesus says He will do "whatever" we ask Him. Does this mean I can ask for a private jet and Jesus has to do it? The Words are clear but we want to study to find the meaning. So again i ask you, what should we draw from this passage? Would you say that the only way for a woman to be saved is by giving birth because women can only be saved by childbirth? So all girls who died at 16 before having kids are in hell? You surely don't think this, but you still haven't presented your position of what you think the Words mean in 1st Timothy 2:15
@@IloveyouJesus545 Or, when the Lord says 'go and sin no more' to the woman - does that means we should go and sin no more? One analysis would be to say 'of course not, that would be wanting sinless perfection. After all he was talking to a Jewish woman living in her specific time and place. As I am not a Jewish woman living at that time or place, this instruction of the Lord has nothing to do with me. ' The problem with this ridiculous example of mine is that it is the logic that leads folks astray. They think it is ok to apply their own interpretations on what scripture says. As for the in's and out's of analysing what these passages mean I am in no position to posit a view, but what I have learned is this. To dart around the bible (biblical gymnastics), forcing a meaning on clear text is seldom accurate. By all means interpret scripture how you see fit, if you are happy to live in error - but to teach others is a risky business, especially if you are wrong. We are accountable for our every word. The endless scenarios we can invent when looking at these passages are, like the pre 16 girls point you make, are all well and good, and probably answered elsewhere. The motivation for finding alternate meanings to what is plainly written is simply this - people do not like certain things that are in the bible. They want to find justification for their disobedience. So, to answer your question, I just take it at face value, and trust that God is big enough to have good answers for all the 'what if' questions.
@@Jonathan-A so you still haven't come out and told your view of how to interpret 1st Timothy 2:15. Are you able to do that or is something preventing you? Since you haven't stated your view, I'm left to guess that you think a woman is not saved by faith in Jesus but instead you belive women are saved by giving birth to at least one child. Men are saved by faith in Jesus, but women must have a baby to be saved. If that's your understanding, then I would go with gymnastics all day over that. Because that's not what Scripture teaches
There are women that die Not suffer pain when giving birth. The question in thus Verse is what is it the women needs To be saved from - maybe thebpassage is Not talking about salvation at all. I believe that this Verse is Not talking about salvation - is would Go against what all the Other Passages of the bible teach and against Jesus - His sacrifice was enough. The whole bible teaches salvation trough faith.
Exactly. And Paul gives condition on women . She can't be saved without childbearing ,etc . Those are condition . This would throw anybody off ...it contridict what salvation is all humanity.
"she" is the church. the childbearing is Jesus, the son of man. then died and resurrected that we also can, if we/the offspring of Eve, hold dearly to heart the faith, charity, holiness with sobriety.
Wrong. When the Bible uses the word saved or salvation it's not always talking about spiritual salvation. 1 Tim. 2:15 is referring to a salvation from destroying the flesh in this life. This is a common mistake unsaved Lordship Salvationists make when reading scripture and it's because if you screw up the doctrine of salvation, you get twisted on everything. When women don't have children to raise they go off and do things they are not called to do and get into trouble and sin. Childbearing keeps women from turning aside after Satan like so many childless women have done today. Another one added to my false teachings playlist. "I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. For some are already turned aside after Satan." 1 Timothy 5:14-15 KJV
I like the cut of your jib JPL1o618. What you are saying makes the most sense, but I think people are repulsed by this truth because it is not politically correct.
Using other verses to shed light is awesome because the Bible basically answers itself, you just have to dig deeper. Thanks Pastor!! Blessings
i am very thankful for this video and illumination to something that was simply outside of my understanding. hearing the explanation and connection to other scripture was like when you finally get that realization of how to properly use a math formula. illuminating is the best word to use, thank you guys for the breakdown videos and lessons. Love and prayers in Christ to your ministry!
Thank you! I am studying the bible on my own then the pastor preaches it on Sunday and this one had mt completely stumped! Very much still learning how to study and looking up the word or phrase in other parts of the bible is very helpful!
Thank you for this! Currently pregnant so this hits even harder 😂 wanted to understand ans this was very helpful
The meaning of this verse (and the preceeding verses) makes perfect sense when read in the context of the religion that followed Artemis in Ephesus.
The cult of Artemis was so important in Ephesus that the temple for her there at the time was one of the 7 ancient wonders of the world. Paul also references this same cult in Acts 19.
Women at the time were taught and believed Artemis was their protection when giving birth. Paul is reassuring them that leaving behind Artemis is OK because they will still be protected by their faith in Christ. The word "saved" here has nothing to do with eternal salvation through Jesus blood on the cross and everything to do with reversing false doctrine of Artemis.
I have huge respect for Piper, but his teaching concerning women is harmful to the spiritual wellbeing of female Christians.
This passage is not confusing or even controversial if viewed with proper context of the reality for which the letter was written.
This is very interesting! Thank you for bringing this point of view into the discussion. 👏
thank you!
I was really struggling with this verse and its context, I've gone through multiple videos and none answered my question. thank you so much, your comment is God-sent
Writing letter to Timothy ...what pagan god have to do with women being saved though childbearing ?
What about those that have no children? We are saved through the sacrifice that Jesus did on the cross
Thank you for this. I've heard this interpretation before but you expressed it in a way that really made sense to me. God bless
The answer is this: The verse doesn’t mean that giving birth or having children results in gaining everlasting life. It refers to the fact that a woman’s having children to tend to, along with other aspects of caring for a household, may keep her from falling into a pattern of gossiping and meddling in others’ affairs. (1Timothy 5:13) However, she may still face tribulations linked to marriage and family life.
Hi, I have a question about scripture, may I ask?
Thank you very much, Pastor John! That sheds a lot of light on this verse ,and that makes sense as we go to scripture to interpret scripture.
thank you we were just reading this the other day and trying to figure it out thank you for setting the light on this subject
I'm sorry what I got from this passage was since eve was a transgressor which is a sin unto God which meant death unto you, since God didn't destroy her which he could have instead he cursed her with the pain and suffering associated with childbirth. because the plan was to feel no pain or anything that we feel now. that's what happened when they took that bite of the fruit and their eyes were opened!!
Perhaps someone can help me: I don't see how childbearing could be considered a hindrance to a woman's salvation. Can someone explain this?
It seems to me that there is a massive difference between a Christian teaching many things which turn out to be false, yet being saved anyway, and a woman bearing the children of her husband.
The former reflects very poorly upon the man and there is a sense of relief that despite his false teachings, such a man will be saved; but the latter does not reflect at all poorly upon the woman, and I do not find myself being relieved (or perhaps, surprised) by her salvation.
Childbearing just does not seem like a hindrance to salvation as teaching false doctrine does.
Rowan Murphy this passage is talking about jesus! halleluya! jesus was born of a women and saved us all! thank you jesus!
I think this video's explanation is talking about childbearing as a trial like other life trials, not necessarily a hindrance from being saved.
This is what the verse really means: It doesn’t mean giving birth or having children results in gaining everlasting life. A woman having children and a household to care for would keep her “safe”from becoming a gossiper or meddler in others affairs.(1Timothy 5:13) However, she may still face tribulations linked to marriage and family life.
Having babies is giving glory to God
Thank you, Pastoe. God bless.
I disagree. Through Childbearing means through Christ in her family line. Christ (Child beared in eve's line) is the way to saving... Does anybody agree?
I was taught that as well. Paul is speaking post-death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Therefore, he would be speaking future-tense of a past-tense occurrence which makes no sense. Salvation includes both men and women, and he is speaking of only women. Piper's is a better explanation, but an even better one takes into consideration the time period of the letter and location of the assembly - Ephesus, where Artemis was worshipped. I just watched a video on this. Sorry I don't have the link, but you can do a search. It's very short. Here's the link: czcams.com/video/HBAhcDPXMuA/video.html
Um no
Not every women can bear children. Are you saying they are not saved?
Thank you for sharing this interesting perspective. Surely suffering may indeed be a hindrance, as you said, when approached with the wrong attitude. Perhaps, though, suffering may provide a means for salvation if approached with faith love, holiness and self control, as Paul mentions? Approaching suffering in this way requires real humility and trust in God and His goodness even when we can't see or feel it.
I don't think that's what the scriptural text in 1 Timothy 2 was meant to say. There’s a reason why versus 11-15 are lumped together in 1 Timothy 2. Paul is talking about a contextual situation with regards to women of that time in ministry: specifically about their role in “teaching”. This text has been misused by many (men) to prohibit women from serving in leadership ministry or being ordained. The text starts off with Paul prohibiting women from teaching, then he moves to the creation story, and ends with the “saved through childbearing” statement. Many read this passage and automatically jump to the negative narrative, and assert that Paul is being misogynistic, when in fact, he is actually trying to protect the women of that time from judgement. I believe that Dickson’s argument of the difference between “teaching” and “preaching” is valid and applicable. We know this when we look at other passages where Paul makes the distinction between Spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12:28, Rom. 12:4-8, etc.), and as you read his and others’ letters, it is clear that this distinction was understood among 1st Century Christians, and that “teaching” was a higher platform. In James 3:1, James strongly cautions the brethren/believers about not seeking to become “teachers”, because there is a greater judgement for those who teach incorrectly. “Teaching” is meant for those who can correctly read, interpret and explain the Word, whereas “Preaching” is intended for witnessing and sharing the good news after one has been taught. Paul is discouraging women of that time from “teaching”, not “preaching” (and not from prophesying, speaking in tongues, performing miracles or any other gifting/ministry either). It is clear from the passage that women were not in a position to be properly equipped to teach. You need mentorship to become a “teacher”, similar to how Paul studied under Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), but this was not available to women of that time - only to men - and he didn’t want women to use their new-found freedom to assume the role of teaching without proper training (additionally, considering the very low literacy rates of the time among men, women would be even less privileged to have an education, making matters worse). So given the opportunity, there’s no reason why women can’t teach or be Pastors. Paul uses the illustration from Genesis because God told Adam directly about the forbidden fruit in Genesis 2, prior to Eve being formed. Adam would have shared the knowledge about the forbidden fruit with Eve after she was formed. When Eve was tempted/questioned by the serpent/devil, she was unable to correctly respond/deceived, and eventually sinned, causing judgement on herself and Adam (to be clear, Adam sinned as well, as men are also prone to being deceived and sinning). Paul is basically trying to explain how important it is to have a full understanding and knowledge of the Word, otherwise you will be prone to fail/sin, which the women of that time would have been in a position to do so. Paul ends the passage about women “saved through childbearing”, not in the context that this is their only purpose (as Augustine incorrectly interpreted and asserted), nor that every women who gives birth gets saved and goes to heaven, but rather imploring women of that time that, if they want to do good, then they can carry out a very important role of “teaching” (without facing judgement, and thus “saved”): which is to raise up Godly children “in faith, love and holiness with propriety”.
Thank you for this! This explanation makes more sense to me since it takes the whole paragraph into consideration and not just v. 15.
Your explanation clarifies why Paul is bringing up the Creation story and child bearing in the first place. To support his first claim and to provide a solution as to what women can be doing instead of being teachers.
This verse is actually saying that having children to tend to and having a household to care for would save her from becoming a gossiper and meddling in others affairs. However, she still may face tribulations linked to marriage and family life. (1Timothy 5:13) It doesn’t mean giving birth or having children results in gaining everlasting life.
@@sunnyjohnson992 Yes, and that was my point in the context of the passage: women are not “saved” by child bearing as a replacement of the salvation through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. I proceed to explain my interpretation of this statement in the context of Paul’s reference about women teaching. I would add in response to your comment that this passage does not reference gossiping and meddling (that’s a different topic that he deals with in Chapter 5). His preceding statement talks about Adam and Eve and being deceived, referencing the account of the fall and the judgement associated with it. What I’m suggesting is that the women of that time, due to lacking the means for proper training, would have been susceptible to a similar fall/judgement, but that’s not necessarily transcultural - i.e. today, women are educated and have the means to be trained in the scriptures, so there’s really no reason why they can’t have the opportunity to teach similar to men.
Okay, so women are not saved through child bearing?
@@Lemon-sc2yq If you're referring to "saved" as in salvation from sins, then no, childbearing doesn't save you, otherwise Jesus' death on the cross was not necessary. But in this passage, I believe it's referring to the context of Paul's topic about judgment from teaching for women of that time: if they want to teach, they can serve a greater purpose by teaching their children than teaching adults, and in doing so, it's not under the same judgment (if they teach something wrong), and if you're not under judgment, then you are "saved" from it. It's the difference between teaching children versus teaching adults. You can see that the sentence doesn't end there, Paul continues on with ".....saved through childbearing, IF they continue in faith, love, holiness and propriety." - i.e. childbearing alone is not sufficient for salvation from sins.
God bless mothers of God whom rejects satan.
John MacArthur has also a very compelling explanation on this.
John Piper ladies and gentlemen... awesome
this teaching is incorrect. you do not study scripture by reading into the text. you must read from the text. each word has a meaning.
Thank you this really helped
Wow, I literally just finished reading this verse and began asking what does this mean… and then this is the first video that pops up on my feed when I open the app a minute later. 🤔 listening now
Genius !! Great explanation linked with other scripture
Love this. Thank you.
Thank you so much Pastor John.
Be fruitful and multiply with your husband
i do love the inductive bible study method you used to get to this conclusion and the sincerity of your goal. but my only question would be does this mean that NO christian woman who had continued in faith, love, holiness with self control DIED in childbirth?
Very interesting, I never thought about it that way thanks a lot
Excellent. Thank you for helping.
If woman are saved via (through) children bearing, then Yeshua died in vain?! And would, woman who can't conceive, are they dammed? It appears Eve sin is a down transfer. All woman pay her price? I know Yehovah is right, but understanding this one is a puzzle locked in an enigma? Is "through" limited? Or pass down applicable?
Praise the Lord
So my question is .... What about those women who can't bear child or who remains unmarried or who is unable to bear a child.
My kjv Bible doesn't have the word " through " in either passage.
Paul confessing he is possessed by a Demon. When did Jesus ever put Demons in people? Also Jesus said that he would not be in the desert hence where Paul had the encounter with that blinding Light.
2 Corinthians 12:7- And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a 👉messenger of Satan👈 to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure.
Thank you!
Very helpful, thank you
When you first read the verse, it almost seems as if Paul is talking about a situation where the mother dies in child-bearing or delivery and is saved by the sanctification of the marriage of the husband and the wife. Paul talks about the mystery of marriage In Ephesians 5:13-A man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” This being to say that my wife and I are of one flesh. So if the husband is a follower of christ and his wife is not, and the wife dies in child-bearing she is sanctified by the marriage of the husband??? 1 Corinthians 7:14-For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. This would make sense because the husband and wife are of one flesh. Definetly, a verse to ponder and pray over. Thanks for the explanation. Has anyone else thought of it this way?
But isn't every individual in charge of receiving the salvation on their own?
@@Lemon-sc2yq Yes, your right.. Sanctification could also mean the husband or wife is set apart by a work of the holy to their conversion. Paul says how do you know if your faith could change your spouses mind.
I think i get it, but what if a woman does not have a child ever.
despite the curse she will be saved, if she remains in faith in Christ.
Can't be saved than lol nobody knows what Paul is talking about here . It seem like you can interpret whatever
1 cor 3;15 IS NOT ABOUT THE FINAL JUDGMENT
Explain please
I think this interpretation makes the most sense of the text. Perhaps a couple of words added to v.15 would help clarify it in the minds of some -- "she will be saved/rescued/kept *all the way through* the pain of childbearing".
And note that "saved" (specifically, ΣΩΖΩ) has a range of meaning in the NT. I does not always mean spiritual-specific rescue. It can mean things like physical rescue (as from drowning) or healing (saved from a disease).
David Beamer I agree. Or a parenthesis like “saved by grace (in spite of the birth pains of childbearing) if they continue in faith, love, etc.” It makes sense in context too since Eve’s curse was not only pain in childbearing, but also the desire to rule over her husband. In the letter, Paul is discussing the women who want to rule over the men in the churches. So even though this may be a hard pill for them to swallow, Paul is reminding them they will still be saved. Just like how the pain of childbirth is difficult to process, we can be assured of our salvation and redemption on the other side if we continue in faith.
Thank you, pastor John Piper.
Helpful ! Thanks
great explanation!!!
The woman will be saved by the Childbearing (means that through the women, Mary, Jesus would come and save mankind because it was through the women Eve that was deceived that gave the fruit of death to her husband that spiritually killed all of mankind. So through Mary, her seed shall save mankind.
When Paul, said woman should be saved through childbearing Jesus was already born buried and resurrected.
I don't think I agree with this though. I don't like the idea of rejecting the literal context of a scripture to replace it with symbolism, I think we do that too often as Christians. The early church considered this to mean women were supposed to have children. Also far too often we look at the easiest interpretation to live by rather than the hardest as if Jesus always gives us the easy way out
Paul also was all for people remaining to celibate unless they couldn't control their passions so it seems highly unlikely he'd be on the modern conservative tack of "the only way to save yourself (and your country) is to have lots of kids" which while I am on the conservative side and definitely pro life and all that I feel that's an even more out of context interpretation. If you'll notice the emphasis on having children is drastically reduced throughout the entire new testament because it is no longer the MAIN means of bringing people to know God. The Hebrews were rhe chosen people and so more Hebrews having babies = more children for God. Since Christ salvation isn't confined to a single people group and therefore is open to any who will accept Christ as their savior and many more people can be brought to know Christ by one individual than could ever be born by one individual. So the emphasis moved from procreation to evangelism
Seem pretty clear to me...is open for interpretation..this guy is false in his teaching anyway
I thought - They- meant Adam and Eve - is that wrong
What in the world are you talking about? Paul clearly states that women can only be saved through childbearing as long as we have all the other bases covered. While Paul offered many great incites to God and Jesus, Paul did not think much of women. He encouraged celibacy, even in marriage, as it would misdirect our attention to God.
Biblical gymnastics at it's very best.
What would you offer as a more plausible explanation for 1 Timothy 2:15?
@@IloveyouJesus545 What the words on the page say, perhaps?
@@Jonathan-A we all know the words. But the question is, what do the words mean? Like in John 14:13 Jesus says He will do "whatever" we ask Him. Does this mean I can ask for a private jet and Jesus has to do it? The Words are clear but we want to study to find the meaning. So again i ask you, what should we draw from this passage? Would you say that the only way for a woman to be saved is by giving birth because women can only be saved by childbirth? So all girls who died at 16 before having kids are in hell? You surely don't think this, but you still haven't presented your position of what you think the Words mean in 1st Timothy 2:15
@@IloveyouJesus545 Or, when the Lord says 'go and sin no more' to the woman - does that means we should go and sin no more? One analysis would be to say 'of course not, that would be wanting sinless perfection. After all he was talking to a Jewish woman living in her specific time and place. As I am not a Jewish woman living at that time or place, this instruction of the Lord has nothing to do with me. ' The problem with this ridiculous example of mine is that it is the logic that leads folks astray. They think it is ok to apply their own interpretations on what scripture says.
As for the in's and out's of analysing what these passages mean I am in no position to posit a view, but what I have learned is this. To dart around the bible (biblical gymnastics), forcing a meaning on clear text is seldom accurate. By all means interpret scripture how you see fit, if you are happy to live in error - but to teach others is a risky business, especially if you are wrong. We are accountable for our every word.
The endless scenarios we can invent when looking at these passages are, like the pre 16 girls point you make, are all well and good, and probably answered elsewhere.
The motivation for finding alternate meanings to what is plainly written is simply this - people do not like certain things that are in the bible. They want to find justification for their disobedience.
So, to answer your question, I just take it at face value, and trust that God is big enough to have good answers for all the 'what if' questions.
@@Jonathan-A so you still haven't come out and told your view of how to interpret 1st Timothy 2:15. Are you able to do that or is something preventing you? Since you haven't stated your view, I'm left to guess that you think a woman is not saved by faith in Jesus but instead you belive women are saved by giving birth to at least one child. Men are saved by faith in Jesus, but women must have a baby to be saved. If that's your understanding, then I would go with gymnastics all day over that. Because that's not what Scripture teaches
AMEN
Oh my! I cant say that I completely understand the passage, but this explanation is just convoluted and painful to listen to.
Nobody can . Idk what he talking about ..woman can't be saved ...that contridict in what Paul said about salvation .
There are women that die Not suffer pain when giving birth. The question in thus Verse is what is it the women needs To be saved from - maybe thebpassage is Not talking about salvation at all. I believe that this Verse is Not talking about salvation - is would Go against what all the Other Passages of the bible teach and against Jesus - His sacrifice was enough. The whole bible teaches salvation trough faith.
Exactly. And Paul gives condition on women . She can't be saved without childbearing ,etc . Those are condition . This would throw anybody off ...it contridict what salvation is all humanity.
"she" is the church. the childbearing is Jesus, the son of man. then died and resurrected that we also can, if we/the offspring of Eve, hold dearly to heart the faith, charity, holiness with sobriety.
adam, and eve where both saved through child birth, and his glorious name is jesus!
Wrong. When the Bible uses the word saved or salvation it's not always talking about spiritual salvation. 1 Tim. 2:15 is referring to a salvation from destroying the flesh in this life. This is a common mistake unsaved Lordship Salvationists make when reading scripture and it's because if you screw up the doctrine of salvation, you get twisted on everything. When women don't have children to raise they go off and do things they are not called to do and get into trouble and sin. Childbearing keeps women from turning aside after Satan like so many childless women have done today. Another one added to my false teachings playlist.
"I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. For some are already turned aside after Satan." 1 Timothy 5:14-15 KJV
JPL1o618
So are you! Armenian walking contradiction. Now go do good works to keep and maintain your salvation . And no I'm not a Calvinist.
Catfish Heaven I'm not armenian
Friend, what are the Fruits of The SPIRIT?
JPL1o618
C'mon man, don't do that, think before you write
I like the cut of your jib JPL1o618. What you are saying makes the most sense, but I think people are repulsed by this truth because it is not politically correct.