TRADITIONAL EXPLANATIONS

I have yet to see an even remotely persuasive view of this verse in any commentary I've read. Yes, I've gone through all of them on biblehub.org. Here are the answers given on that site and others:

1- It's a reference to the fact that a woman would give birth to the Messiah (Elliott, Benson, Matthew Henry, and virtually everyone else)

  • Benson suggests Eve is the one saved through child-bearing, fulfilling Genesis 3's curse on the serpant

2- Paul just put the women in their place, so he felt obligated to make them feel better by highlighting that they can have kids and men can't; that is: women still have an honorable function in the earth, if not through teaching then through bearing children (Elliott's)

3- If women are faithful and holy, God will remove the curse of the pain of child-bearing, or perhaps even the possibility of death (Benson)

4- Child-bearing references all maternal duties, being what will save women (Barnes, Geneva)

5- Child-bearing is "synonymous with education ... woman, by the proper training of her children, can obtain salvation as well as her husband, and that her appropriate duty is not public teaching, but the training of her family" (Rosenmuller)

6- The real emphasis is that women must continue in faithfulness and holiness to be saved, as is apparent from the entire rest of the new testament, and the mention of child-bearing is merely because it was the curse on the woman, suggesting that she will be saved even despite the fact that she still experiences pain while bearing children (Barnes, Poole)

7- Child-bearing, and the work associated with it, would be the context in which women are most likely to be saved, whereas a lifestyle of public teaching would actually decrease their likelihood toward salvation (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown)

WHY THEY DON'T WORK

1) There is NOTHING in the context to support the reference to the Messiah. Further, the future-tense of the child-bearing being a salvific event precludes the option of the past child-bearing event of Jesus' birth, not to mention the "if they continue" language. This point is also made moot by the fact that men are also saved by the fact of Mary (a woman) having given birth to Jesus, so why would women be singled out in this way? For this to make sense, Paul would have had to re-word himself: "Women will be honored by being the gender through which the Messiah was born," yet that's not what he said. Barnes does a decent job shredding this view apart.

2) The passage doesn't say women will be "honored" or "esteemed." It says they will be "saved." The word for "will be saved" is used a dozen or so other times, none of those times being translated anything remotely close to honored/esteemed. The only two times it's not used salvifically are, ironically, references to Jesus bringing someone back from the dead. It seems apparent that these are interpretive translations whereby "will be resurrected" or "will be made well" could have just as easily been translated: "will be saved [from death]."

3) One could argue that the invention of epidurals has fulfilled this verse, defeating the curse. The problem is that this is available even to the most vile of women, having nothing to do with faith and holiness. There seems to be no distinction between those who are faithful/holy and those who aren't when it comes to pain in child bearing.

4) Again, if we take "saved" in a soteriological sense, as seems to be the case from the other uses of the word, this interpretation would make the passage read: "Men are saved by grace through faith, but women are saved if they have kids, but only if they're faithful and holy also." This is against most of the rest of the new testament on soteriology.

5) This interpretation seems to create an unnatural separation of the words as if it's suggesting, "Women will be saved, just like men, and they will also have a role of teaching among their children." It ignores the "saved THROUGH child-bearing" part.

6) This is perhaps the most plausible of the unlikely options. My only objection is that the word "through" in the phrase doesn't lend itself to be reinterpreted this way. Every other use of the word "through" here is a direct causal relationship. Many translations of the Greek word for "through" also say "because of." The majority use it in the context of something being said "through the prophets," emphasizing that they were the vehicle by which something would happen. It's also frequently translated as "by." None of the alternative translations lend themselves to this interpretation.

7) I'm fascinated by this interpretation, affirming my appreciation for the JFS commentary whenever I have come across it. But there is still too little context for this interpretation to make sense, and it ignores the causal nature of the word "through" in the actual text.


WHAT IT DOES MEAN

Virtually every commentary on the subject tries to "explain away" the phrase as if it means something other than it says. I propose that the Bible means what it says in this situation. The context is obviously soteriological, as it blatantly references the fall of humanity by its reference to Eve's first sin, and then immediately explains how women are to be saved going forward.

To give my TL;DR: We often discuss here that physical reproduction is a shadow of the reality of spiritual reproduction. I have also referenced on many occasions the soteriological connection to spiritual reproduction (which I will reiterate below). In this, child-bearing for women does have both spiritual soteriological significance (in the sense of producing spiritual children for them to mother, being the women they convert and disciple) as well as physical significance (by producing children to be the primary objects of their evangelistic efforts).


THE FULL EXPLANATION

Understanding the Fruit

Jesus talks a lot about plants, fruit, seeds, farming, growing, etc. He is consistent in his use of them. The parable of the sower is the most obvious one to interpret because he actually takes his disciples aside and explains exactly what it means:

  • The seed is God's Word.

  • We are the soil.

  • The plant is when God's word grows in a person.

  • When the plant grows large enough, it bears fruit.

  • Fruit is the seed-bearing part of the tree that drops into the nearby soil.

  • That seed then can grow, if the nearby soil is good soil.

  • The result is that the tree yields a crop "30, 60, or 100 times what was sown."

  • Only the good soil does this, and there's no room for the expectation that the good soil WON'T do this. It WILL.

In this, we see some imperative that those who are genuinely saved will produce fruit and a crop. The fruit contains the seed that we spread to those around us. The crop are those who grow from that seed, being those who we convert and ultimately disciple. Paul talks about evangelism as the planting process and discipleship as the one who tends the plant with water, fertilizer, etc. God is the one who makes it grow.

Caveat

Before I go much further, let me make clear up-front: I am not suggesting that spiritual reproduction is a prerequisite to salvation. That would be an absurd conclusion, as that would mean that one must have sex (physical reproduction) before they can be married. Instead, the marriage precedes reproduction, yet is also what consecrates it. Just as sex affirms the authenticity of the marriage and precludes the possibility of annulment, so also does spiritual reproduction - bearing fruit for Christ - affirm the authenticity of our salvation and preclude the possibility of a spiritual annulment, as will be addressed more with regard to the soteriological significance of the fruit, below.

Let me also make clear up-front that the fruit is not the actual disciple who is produced from our effort. That would be the plant that grows from the fruit falling in the nearby soil. Instead, the fruit is the part of us that goes out to spread seed into the nearby soil. The soil it falls in is still separate from the fact of the fruit that spread the seed there.

Soteriological Significance of Fruit

With that foundation, look at many other passages and the soteriological significance of bearing fruit and helping the crops grow:

First, the parable of the sower itself shows that this is directly associated with being good soil. I won't rehash that.

Second, in Matthew 7, Jesus says that we will recognize true believers from false ones by their fruit, showing the soteriological significance of bearing fruit (i.e. spreading seed, being God's Word out of us).

Third, in that same passage, Jesus doesn't say that the tree that produces bad fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire (though this is also implicit), but that the tree that "fails to produce good fruit" is the one that is burned up.

Fourth, if we look at the parable of the talents/minas, it's all about reproducing what God gave you. The one who had 10 reproduced 10, the one with 5 reproduced 5. The one with 1 talent/mina held onto it and did not reproduce. He didn't lose it! That's important. He kept it safe. But he didn't reproduce it. What happened? It was taken away from him and he was cast into a place with the exact same description Jesus uses for hell ("weeping and gnashing of teeth").

Fifth, the parable of the fig tree (Luke 13:6-9) tells of a fruitless tree that the master wanted to cut down. It wasn't producing bad fruit. It wasn't a dead tree. It was a barren one. The gardener asks for one more year to fertilize it, tend it, and help it grow. He says, "If it produces fruit, I've saved the tree. But if it doesn't, then after giving it that one last chance, you're welcome to chop it down and throw it in the fire."

There are many, many more examples, but it's quite obvious throughout Scripture that spiritual reproduction is tied to soteriology. And consider how a woman's barrenness in the old testament was such a great shame over her! It was considered a sign of God having cursed her. She could have otherwise been a fantastic wife and woman, yet by being barren she was considered disgraced all the same. So it is with the barren believer.

The Unforgivable Sin

I'll actually add one more example: the unforgivable sin. Lots of people ask what it is. Jesus says it's "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit." Most people don't like the actual context of the passage and will say, "No, saying something with your words can't make you commit it. It's a heart thing." Then they'll break it down into one of the two most popular answers: (1) It's callousing your heart so hard that you will never choose repentance again, or (2) It's ignoring the Holy Spirit's work in your life all the way to the point of death without ever repenting.

These answers are completely absurd because there is NOTHING in the context of the passage at all that would even remotely imply this. It requires eisegesis to impute those concepts into the passage to get there. Let's look at the actual context:

  • The pharisees verbally accused Jesus of working through denomic powers.

  • Jesus rebukes them.

  • He tells everyone that "every kind of sin and slander/blasphemy can be forgiven" - specifically highlighting verbal sins (slander).

  • He adds, "Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven" - again, a verbal sin.

  • "But anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come" - obviously talking about verbal communication.

So what does it mean to "speak against" or "blaspheme" the Holy Spirit?

The obvious contextual answer is to do exactly what the Pharisees just did to Jesus, which created the context for why Jesus said all this in the first place. The pharisees verbally attempted to thwart Jesus' efforts by preaching against him to convince others not to follow him. I have to imagine that if we do the same against the efforts of the Holy Spirit - that is, verbally attempt to persuade others away from the faith that the Spirit is drawing them toward - this would be blasphemy of the Holy Spirit instead of "blasphemy of the Son of Man."

Let's expand on this. Acts 1:8 tells us that the function of the Holy Spirit when he comes on us is to cause us to become God's witnesses to the world. That is: spiritual reproduction. God's Word grows in us because of the Spirit's work, which then produces the fruit that is spread into the nearby soil ("Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth"). So, the work of the Spirit is ultimately to cause us to produce good fruit (i.e. converts and disciples).

While the Spirit produces good fruit, one who produces bad fruit is one who does the opposite. Instead of generating life, they compel others toward death. Bad fruit is still fruit - it is still reproduction and not the same as barrenness. But it's producing something vile rather than nothing at all. The fruit is dead. So, one who produces "bad fruit" produces death in others, leading them away from life.

In short: those who "speak against/blapheme the Holy Spirit" are those who attempt to lead others away from the life that the Spirit offers to everyone. It is those who fight against the Gospel and attempt to lure believers away from salvation and into death.

To recap up to this point:

  • Trees with good fruit are those who are alive in Christ and actively sharing their faith among the soil (people) around them.

  • Barren trees are those who are neutral and apathetic, having no interest to share their faith or fight against the faith, except to the degree that they find the conversations stimulating/amusing.

  • Bad fruit comes from the active efforts made by those who seek to thwart the efforts of the Holy Spirit, leading others away from life and reproducing death in them instead.

The connectivity between the fruit and the unforgivable sin is obvious in that the very next verse after the unforgivable sin is: "Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit."

Oh, and after that Jesus goes into the verbal nature of the unforgivable sin: "how can you who are evil say anything good? For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of ... everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty WORD they have spoken. For by your WORDS you will be acquitted, and by your WORDS you will be condemned." I'm not sure how we ignore the verbal nature of this entire passage, or the context of the fruit.

... not to mention that the only reason Jesus is preaching on this at all is to rebuke the pharisees for trying to lead people away from following him, making it even more obvious that the unforgivable sin is to verbally entice others away from the life that the Holy Spirit is enticing them toward, specifically "blaspheming" the Holy Spirit in the process.

Oh yeah, and beyond the fruit being mentioned in the passage itself, you'll note that I bring up the parable of the sower a lot here because that parable is shared in the very next chapter and begins with, "That same day." That is, the parable of the sower was preached almost immediately after Jesus taught on the unforgivable sin (technically, he got interrupted before he could finish his explanation, the parable of the sower being Jesus's way to get back on track).

What about vocal atheists?

This always comes up, so let me clarify: it's one thing to present a defense of your own world view. Most vocal atheists are doing just that. They're pushy about it - not because they're trying to force Christians to give up their faith (much less with any success), but because they're intellectually ambitious and arrogant of their own views. They debate just because they enjoy the debate, not because they want to stifle the Holy Spirit (even though their actions may at least appear to have that impact). In this sense, most vocal atheists are forgivable, if they repent.

Under the view I'm presenting, the point where they cross the line is when they actually shift their focus off of mere verbal jousting as a game they enjoy, and instead adopt the focus of the pharisees: to allow their hate for the Holy Spirit's work cause them to argue that what the Holy Spirit does is evil in an effort to entice those who would live by the Spirit away (I may even add: "and actually succeeding").

Arguably, this wouldn't even apply to the degree they may persuade a fellow non-believer not to be saved, as there's no death being produced - there was already death in the non-believer in the first case. In that situation, they're merely nurturing the conditions for death to remain. Rather, if they actually persuade a genuine believer to give up their faith with the goal of stifling the Spirit's efforts, that's actually reproducing their own death into someone else who wasn't previously dead. That is when they have produced bad fruit.


Fun Fact

As something of an aside, the soteriological significance of spiritual reproduction also explains Deuteronomy 23:1 - "No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord." What a fascinating verse. Why not? Because if you have no capacity to reproduce, you have no business pretending to be among God's people. In the old testament, it references the testicles as the means of physical reproduction. We now understand this as spiritual reproduction, and therefore anyone who is spiritually incapable of reproduction cannot be among God's people. Fortunately, all people are "capable" - yet some of us refuse, becoming like the eunuchs who emasculate themselves by choice, which Jesus references in Matthew 19.


THE CHILD-BEARING ASPECT OF MARRIAGE

What does any of this have to do with women being saved through child-bearing? I know I've gone on what must seem to be a confusing side-track for a bit. But here's where it connects.

If failing to produce good fruit is what causes someone to be chopped down and thrown into the fire (i.e. go to hell), then it follows that the only way to know you won't go to hell is to produce good fruit.

In Malachi 2:15, we read, "And why did the Lord make them [husbands/wives] one [flesh], with a portion of his [Holy] Spirit in their union? To produce godly offspring." That is: the point of marriage is to produce godly offspring.

God didn't want just any offspring. Adam and Eve fully populated the world by the time of Noah, but God wiped them all away with the flood, saying through his actions, "That's not what I meant when I asked you to fill the earth." Instead, Malachi 2:15 clarifies that God wanted GODLY offspring - people who are spiritually alive.

In the New Testament we readily understand that godly offspring is not produced merely from our physical descendants (even the Old Testament, such as in Zechariah, we see that the physical offspring of the spiritually alive can still be spiritually dead), but through our spiritual descendants. While Paul was not Timothy's physical father, he calls him his son in a spiritual sense. Romans 9 talks about how it is not those who are the physical descendants of Abraham who are his true children, but those who are the descendants of the faith of Abraham. Peter and John, in their epistles, also reference having spiritual children.

So, just as Malachi 2:15 alludes to the godly physical offspring of husbands and wives, the way married couples bear physical children is a model for how the church (and us, individually, as part of it) ought to bear spiritual children. Per the above, this child-bearing concept is directly associated with salvation - not that it makes us saved, but that saving faith will always lead to a compulsion to spread seed (which is found in our fruit). Put another way, our spiritual marriage to Christ should create a desire to spiritually reproduce with him in the same way that our physical marriages should include a healthy desire to engage in physically reproductive acts with our spouse.


CONCLUSION

So, "women are saved through child-bearing" seems to be this: Just as a wife is to bear children for her husband, which was (biblically) her most significant role in the household for most of history, so also is Christ's bride - the Church - meant to bear spiritual children for our groom. This process of child-bearing is substantially and undeniably tied throughout Scripture to our ultimate judgment. Reproducing spiritual offspring for Christ, our spiritual groom, contributes to and affirms our salvation in the same way sex (physical reproduction) contributes to and affirms a physical marriage - not as a necessary prerequisite (lest we be accused of reproducing with Christ before we are married to him), but as the seal that binds a marriage in the same way physical reproduction consecrates a physical marriage, eliminating the possibility of annulment.

In this sense, women are quite literally and soteriologically saved through child-bearing - not merely in the physical sense, but in the sense of raising spiritual children for which their ability to birth and raise physical children is a template.

Interestingly, "women are saved through child-bearing" can't possibly mean that they have a different means of salvation than men, as if men are saved by grace through faith, but women through child-bearing. That would be an absurd and inconsistent result with the rest of Scripture. Instead, it's best to understand that the soteriological significance of spiritual child-bearing is imputed to men in the way that we also adopt the role of the bride in regard to our union with Christ. That is, the soteriological rubric is same between both men and women in our relationship with Christ, yet women as a physical gender are uniquely given the template for how spiritual reproduction ought to occur by virtue of the physical representation they express in human marriages.