Saved in childbearing


laronius
 Share

Recommended Posts

JST 1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
            15 Notwithstanding they shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

This is the JST version where it says they instead of she. Does anyone have an opinion on the meaning of the underlined part? While childbearing is definitely a big part of the gospel we generally don't preach it's necessity for salvation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without the JST modification, it strikes me as an allusion to Genesis 3:16–painful childbearing is part of the “curse” pronounced on Eve and her posterity, but salvation/preservation is still possible through faith and obedience on Jesus Christ.

But the JST perhaps muddies this interpretation . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is easy to think of this as a "correction."  I don't believe it to be meant that way.  It is translated correctly as it is.  But Joseph was trying to make an overall doctrinal point for OUR day.

The chapter has a specific purpose: To remind women to be more "peaceful" or "tranquil" (this is an alternate translation of "silent" found in verses 11 & 12).  And they were counseled to be more modest in their dress and grooming.  In other words, don't be a hen-pecking over-bearing wife who always has to be the prettiest "specimen" at social gatherings. So, Paul's words were specifically addressing women and their roles & responsibilities in marriage.

This is not to say men can do this and women cannot.  It appears that at the time of the epistle, there was a problem in that particular area of women being overbearing to their husbands.  (Gee that doesn't sound familiar at all).  And there are plenty of other scriptures that urge men to be more kind and loving to their wives:

Quote

Eph 5:25

Col 3:19

1 Peter 3:8

So, why this commentary/correction?  It is really about the context of the era.

While the epistle was specifically addressing a problem for women of that area & era, the counsel in verse 15 (and, really the entire chapter) does actually apply to men and women equally.

Look at verse 14.  It indicates that Adam did nothing wrong.  Well, I don't necessarily agree.  I believe it was mainly a point of what to focus on to make the point.

  • For Eve, it was because she was deceived (or so goes the common wisdom). 
  • But for Adam, he had to do what he had to do.  But it was still transgression for him as well.
  • For both, it had to be done because (among other things) they were commanded to have seed.
  • So, if they continue to have seed abiding in "Faith, love, holiness, and modesty" then they will be forgiven of their transgression.

BTW, the "love" and "modesty" are the literal translations of those words from the Greek.  "Charity" we know to be "love".  But "sobriety" isn't quite what we think of as "modesty."  Another translation is "self-control."

So, Joseph's commentary is to point out that Adam also fell.  It wasn't just Eve.  They both could find salvation in child-bearing and child-rearing.  But specifically, they are reminded about the conditions of the Law of Chastity.  Remember, Joseph was not the prophet of the early Church.  He is the prophet of OUR dispensation.  So, any corrections/commentaries/modifications must be seen in that light.

This was not a question of it being "translated correctly" (as far as linguistics).  It is a question of "if it were written today, how would we APPLY the same doctrine being taught?"

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, laronius said:

JST 1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
            15 Notwithstanding they shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

This is the JST version where it says they instead of she. Does anyone have an opinion on the meaning of the underlined part? While childbearing is definitely a big part of the gospel we generally don't preach it's necessity for salvation.

Seems to me it follows "And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers. If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've spent some more time thinking about this.  And I'd like to add some things to the conversation.

Many people in the Church believe that everything Joseph wrote in what we have today as the JST is a full and complete "correction".  Well, they are wrong on two accounts.

  • He never actually completed all of his markups.  He was martyred before that was done.
  • While he restored much that was lost (e.g. Matt 24) many of his markups were simply commentary & clarifications.  They weren't meant to be "corrections" at all.

There is a very famous volume known as the "Matthew Henry Commentary".  It is considered the hallmark of Biblical commentaries throughout Christianity today.  It appears that many of the comments and clarifications that Joseph wrote were nearly word-for-word copies of some of M.H.'s commentary.

Some items, it seems, were not KJV mistranslations, but because Joseph was commenting that FOR OUR DAY, the scriptures would be worded a bit differently.  

1 Tim 2 is a controversial chapter because it tells women to shut up and do what their husbands tell them to do. (Eph 5:22 also is one that the woke crowd uses to justify the claim that the Bible was clearly written by bigoted men.  Forget about verse 21 or 25, that will ruin their narrative.)

I took a closer look at 1 Tim 2:15 in various translations.  Some translations will justify this connection of "she" (in the first phrase) and "they" (in the second phrase) by using "women" in place of "she".  But the Greek clearly does not say that.  The Greek texts clearly show a third person singular inflection for "she" and third person plural for "they".

So, what are we to make of this?  Many Saints will look at the JST and reckon that the version we have is simply a later version that didn't preserve the correct word.  I think that is a mistake.  I believe that the translation we have in the KJV is correct as it stands.  That is probably what Paul wrote. 

As I stated in my previous post, I believe it was more of a commentary to update it for our dispensation rather than a correction of what our current texts say.

There was counsel in that chapter about not wearing flagrant jewelry or hair styles, etc.  But as a rule men simply didn't do that back then.  It is only in today's society of luxury and opulence do men even have the notion of doing so.  They have historically men doing so have been outliers.  But since the renaissance?  Especially in the last 50 years?  Yes, men need to have the same counsel.

Let me bring you back to the last phrase of the chapter.  "...if THEY shall continue..."

It was always about the unity of husband and wife.  And if women have a particular problem, it is the prophet's job to shut women down.  If men have a particular problem, it is the prophet's job to shut them down.  

I can't tell you how many Priesthood sessions of General Conference we've had that basically yelled at men to stop practicing unrighteous dominion.  I would very often speak with Empress after every general conference to see if I was guilty of any of these behaviors that I'd just been lectured about.  Most of the time, no.  But there were times when she said yes.  And I'd make efforts to correct it.  But do we hear much of that being given to women? 

It is common to believe that we now have split priesthood and "women's" sessions in General Conference because of "wokeness" entering into the Church.  I don't think so.  I've read the Ensign after conference.  And I find it interesting how many times I hear similar "unrighteous dominion" type comments now being given to women.  It may be veiled.  But it is there.  Before, it was more like "stop being so hard on yourselves."  Now it is more like, "Women of the Church have a responsibility to..."  And sometimes, it isn't all sunshine and roses.

So, it if it was really giving in to wokeness, I'd say --  Be careful what you wish for.  You may get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate the comments so far. I don't know that I have THE answer but perhaps it pertains to the fact that multiplying and replenishing the earth was one of the original commandments, even before the Fall. In fact Adam references it in relation to his decision to partake of the fruit after Eve had. So for them having children was required to both keep the commandment and to eventually pave the way, many generations later, for the Savior to come into the world. 

I think it's pretty evident that any particular person's individual salvation does not rest on the fact of whether they become a parent in this life, but collectively as a race I think the commandment still stands. Also, salvation in it's ultimate sense, exaltation, is defined in part as "a continuation of the seeds forever." So eventually all such person's will in fact have to father/mother children, if not in this life then definitely in the next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/21/2022 at 10:57 PM, laronius said:

I appreciate the comments so far. I don't know that I have THE answer but perhaps it pertains to the fact that multiplying and replenishing the earth was one of the original commandments, even before the Fall. In fact Adam references it in relation to his decision to partake of the fruit after Eve had. So for them having children was required to both keep the commandment and to eventually pave the way, many generations later, for the Savior to come into the world. 

I think it's pretty evident that any particular person's individual salvation does not rest on the fact of whether they become a parent in this life, but collectively as a race I think the commandment still stands. Also, salvation in it's ultimate sense, exaltation, is defined in part as "a continuation of the seeds forever." So eventually all such person's will in fact have to father/mother children, if not in this life then definitely in the next.

 

A branch of that.  This is an interesting idea, if I may latch onto it and build a road around it.  Thinking on this idea, it is possible that Adam realized the problem set before him.

He COULD keep the commandment to not eat the fruit of good and evil, but if he did, it would leave Eve condemned.  He knew that with the Lord probably could even provide a new help mate for him if Eve was sent out alone.  However, this would mean that Eve would be condemned. 

There are some indications that they forgot some of the items they knew in the Garden of Eden, if this is true it could be that Adam was taught about the Plan of Salvation while in the Garden and understood that there could be a Savior born from children they had that would save them and their children if they should fall.  This is PURELY speculation on my part while I am thinking on this.

In that way, he made an informed choice, or transgression.  In choosing to partake of the fruit he didn't realize it was wrong, but he would realize that he would want to save Eve, or at least not leave her alone in the world.  It would be impossible for him and her to fulfill the commandment to have children if they were separated, and thus impossible for her to ever have he savior to save mankind and bring all men joy.

Even if he did not transgress the law, and stayed in the garden, and was given another to help him, if both he and the new helpmeet kept the commandment to not partake of the fruit it is very possible they would not be able to have children under those conditions as they would not be fallen.  He definitely would not be having the children with Eve in that situation.  Eve would be left alone in the world to be condemned because mankind would not be.  If men were to be, and the commandment to have children to be kept with Eve (not another), Adam HAD to choose at that point what to do.  It is like the no win situation.  A setup with conflicting positions, and he made the best choice he thought he could. 

Not that this is so, this is just speculation down the road, but an interesting thing to think about. 

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share