The Childbirth and the Curse: Eve, Adam, and the Messianic Reading of 1 Timothy 2:15

J. Neil Daniels

Nota Bene: A "Deep Dive" audio overview is available here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BtkD-OmPTiIKYLyjV8bE1600CUVi8JqL/view?usp=drivesdk

Introduction

Few passages in the Pauline corpus have stirred as much exegetical controversy as 1 Timothy 2:15. The text is brief, enigmatic, and yet oddly insistent: “But she will be saved through the childbirth—if they continue in faith and love and holiness with self-control.”¹ The surrounding verses, already thick with debates about women’s roles in teaching and authority, make this verse feel like the final knot in a tangled cord. What does it mean that “she”—apparently Eve—will be saved “through the childbirth”? For centuries, interpreters have been divided: some say Paul meant women in general are preserved through the act of childbearing, others that he envisioned a metaphor for good works, and still others that this is a cryptic nod to the Messiah himself, born of woman, who would undo the curse of Eden.

This essay will take the last view seriously. Drawing from Jared M. August’s study in Themelios (2020), I argue that 1 Timothy 2:15 fits best when read in messianic light, with Eve as the subject and Christ as the promised “seed of the woman.”² This reading coheres with Paul’s use of the Adam/Christ contrast elsewhere and honors the narrative texture of Genesis 3, where judgment and promise intertwine. My aim here is not to prove beyond doubt—Paul’s phrase is simply too compressed for a definitive solution—but to show that this interpretation is not only viable but richly resonant with the whole arc of Scripture.

Eve as the “She” of Salvation

The grammar of 1 Timothy 2:15 gives us our first clue. The verb sōthēsetai (“she will be saved”) is singular, not plural, in contrast to how some translations render it (“women will be saved”).³ It naturally points back to “the woman” (hē gynē) of verse 14, who in turn is Eve. In Genesis 2–3, before she is named, Eve is consistently called simply “the woman,” and Paul seems to be picking up this usage. To shift abruptly from Eve to women in general would require a clear signal, but none is given.

If this is right, then Paul’s point is startling: the woman who was deceived, who became a transgressor, will nevertheless be saved. Already there is a paradox. Eve, the paradigmatic sinner, stands as a type of redemption. That redemption is linked to “the childbirth”—and here the definite article is crucial. Paul does not say Eve will be saved through childbearing in general, as if maternal vocation itself has salvific power. He says through the childbirth (tēs teknogonias), a construction that can naturally point to a singular, climactic event. It evokes Genesis 3:15, the terse promise that the woman’s seed will bruise the serpent’s head, and so the curse itself contains a promise.⁴ Paul seems to hear that promise reverberating in the background.

The Adam/Christ Contrast

The messianic reading gains further support when set within Paul’s larger use of Adam. Every time Adam is named in the New Testament he stands as a foil to Christ: Adam’s disobedience produces death; Christ’s obedience produces life (cf. Romans 5; 1 Corinthians 15).⁵ Luke’s genealogy (ending with “Adam, the son of God”) frames Jesus as the faithful Son who triumphs where Adam failed. Against this backdrop, 1 Timothy 2 is not an oddity but another link in the chain—Adam and Eve plunge the world into sin, yet the promised seed ushers in salvation. The protoevangelium of Genesis 3:15 thus finds a Pauline echo here.

Digression: A Word on Interpretive History

It is worth pausing to acknowledge that this interpretation is not novel. Nineteenth-century commentators such as Charles J. Ellicott found the messianic reading hard to avoid; twentieth-century scholars like Donald Guthrie and modern commentators such as George Knight have entertained it sympathetically. Ben Witherington famously quipped (with characteristic bluntness) that “multiple women cannot give birth to a single child,” so Paul’s language naturally points to a particular childbearing—the birth of Christ.⁶ On the other hand, Andreas Köstenberger and others have resisted this view, arguing the article can denote the generic and that the Pastorals do not normally embed elaborate typologies. I admit that is a serious objection; nonetheless, once one has Adam and Eve in view and Paul’s saving-rhetoric close at hand, the messianic reading begins to feel less exotic and more plausible.

“Through the Childbirth”: Salvation by Means

The preposition dia with the genitive, used here, normally indicates instrumentality—salvation by means of the childbirth rather than merely amid it.⁷ Read that way, the verse coheres with Paul’s overall soteriology: salvation comes historically and instrumentally through the coming of the Christ-child. This is no odd incursion of works-righteousness into the Pastorals; it is a christological claim. The childbirth is not a meritorious human activity but the historical means—the axis—through which God’s redemptive plan comes to pass.

Adam and Eve Together

One intriguing wrinkle is the plural clause that follows: “if they continue in faith and love and holiness with self-control.” Who are “they”? The most natural antecedents are Adam and Eve, just named in vv. 13–14; Paul appears to be narrating creation, fall, and the offered restoration as a unit.⁸ On this reading, the condition is hypothetical (the Greek third-class condition), which leaves open whether Adam and Eve actually persevered, but it treats them as representative figures to whom promise—and thus hope—was extended.

Read in this light, the passage is pastoral and typological at once. Even the first couple, who precipitated judgment, stood within the orbit of God’s promise. If Eve—the one who was deceived—could be offered salvation through the childbirth, then Timothy’s hearers need not despair over their failures: the promise penetrates even the depth of the fall.

A Trustworthy Saying

That the author then appends pistos ho logos (“this is a trustworthy saying”) is telling. The critical editions of the Greek text (UBS5, NA28) place this formula so that it most naturally concludes the Adam–Eve discussion, rather than merely introducing the qualifications for an overseer.⁹ Elsewhere in the Pastorals the same formula encapsulates gospel essentials—“Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1 Tim 1:15), “the living God … is the Savior of all people” (1 Tim 4:10). If pistos ho logos here comments on 2:13–15, Paul is not offering folk wisdom about childbearing; he is pronouncing a gospel truism: salvation comes through the birth of the promised Seed.

The Broader Canonical Echoes

This reading sits snugly inside the larger canonical thread. Genesis 3:15 sets the trajectory; later prophets (Isaiah’s Immanuel oracle, Micah’s Bethlehem oracle) tighten the focus; and Paul himself writes that “when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman,” thereby anchoring salvation in a historical nativity (Gal. 4:4).¹⁰ Even Revelation’s pregnant symbolism—the woman in labor who bears a child who is caught up to God—recalls the same salvific birth motif. Taken together, the canon’s forward-and-backward conversation makes it natural to hear tēs teknogonias as messianic.

A Side Note: Maternal Mortality and First-Century Context

Some have suggested a more prosaic, pastoral reading: Paul reassures women facing the real peril of childbirth that God will preserve them—physical preservation in birthing circumstances. Moyer Hubbard, for instance, argues along these lines, pointing to ancient maternal mortality rates.¹¹ Historically plausible, certainly; exegetically strained, in my view. Throughout the Pastorals Paul uses sōzō in a spiritual-soteriological register, and promising bodily safety to women (many of whom actually died in childbirth) would have been an odd pastoral tack. The messianic reading avoids this tension by shifting the locus of “saving” from the perils of labor to the victory achieved in the child born.

Christ and the Undoing of the Curse

At the heart of the passage is the paradox of redemptive reversal. Through a woman came the fall; through a woman comes the remedy. Adam’s transgression brought death to all; the last Adam brings life. Paul delights in such paradoxes elsewhere—strength through weakness, wisdom through folly—and here he subtly sings the same refrain. The childbirth that once portended pain now becomes the means of grace. Eve’s curse, in other words, contains the seed of her salvation.

Conclusion

So what are we to make of 1 Timothy 2:15? The messianic reading is, to my mind, the most compelling. Eve—the deceived, the sinner—is nevertheless promised salvation, not by her works nor by generic motherhood, but through the childbirth, namely, the birth of Christ. This reading coheres with Paul’s theology of Adam and Christ, respects the verse’s grammar and context, and resonates across the canonical testimony from Genesis to Revelation. Paul’s terseness leaves room for hermeneutical disagreement; yet if we allow Genesis 3:15 to speak into 1 Timothy’s echo chamber, the verse’s cryptic note resolves into a gospel chord: salvation has come through the birth of the promised Child.

---

Endnotes

1. All Scripture quotations are from the Legacy Standard Bible.

2. Jared M. August, “What Must She Do to Be Saved? A Theological Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:15,” Themelios 45, no. 1 (2020): 84–97.

3. See the discussion of the singular verb and article in Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 227–29; and Stanley E. Porter, “What Does It Mean to Be ‘Saved by Childbirth’ (1 Timothy 2:15)?” in Studies in the Greek New Testament: Theory and Practice, Studies in Biblical Greek (New York: Peter Lang, 1996), 258–66. For lexical nuances on sōzō, see BDAG s.v. “σώζω.”

4. Gen. 3:15 (LSB). For discussion of the protoevangelium and its reception in Paul, see Jared M. August, “The Messianic Hope of Genesis: The Protoevangelium and Patriarchal Promises,” Themelios 42 (2017): 46–62.

5. For the classic Adam/Christ contrast in Paul, cf. Rom. 5:12–21; 1 Cor. 15:21–22, 45; and Luke’s genealogy (Luke 3:23–38). For modern treatments, see Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 2nd ed., NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018); Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014); and Paul Gardner, 1 Corinthians (ZECNT; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2018).

6. For representative statements in favor of a messianic reading, see Charles J. Ellicott, The Pastoral Epistles of St. Paul (London: Longmans, Green, Reader, & Dyer, 1869); Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles (TNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990); George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992); and Ben Witherington III, “Literal Renderings of Texts of Contention—1 Tim. 2.8–15,” blog post, 25 February 2006. For a major critique of the messianic view, see Andreas J. Kostenberger, “An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:15,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 7 (1997): 107–44.

7. On dia + genitive as instrumental, and the syntactic parallels in Pauline usage, see Porter, “Saved by Childbirth,” 258–63. For a survey of Paul’s sōzō usages in the Pastorals, see the discussion in Jared M. August, “What Must She Do to Be Saved?” Themelios 45.1 (2020): 84–97.

8. For the Greek third-class condition and reading 2:13–15 as a unit, see Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 696–99; and Andrew B. Spurgeon, “1 Timothy 2:13–15: Paul’s Retelling of Genesis 2:4–4:1,” JETS 56 (2013): 543–56.

9. On pistos ho logos as a Pauline summary formula, see L. Timothy Swinson, “Πιστὸς ὁ λόγος: An Alternative Analysis,” Southeastern Theological Review 7, no. 2 (2016): 57–76. For text-critical placement consult The Greek New Testament, 5th ed. (UBS5), and Nestle-Aland, 28th ed. (NA28). See also the parallel occurrences: 1 Tim. 1:15; 1 Tim. 4:9–10; 2 Tim. 2:11; Titus 3:8.

10. See Isa. 7:14; Mic. 5:2–3; Gal. 4:4. For canonical intertextual discussion of the natal motif, cf. G. K. Beale, ed., The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994). For the apocalyptic recapitulation, compare Rev. 12:1–6.

11. Moyer Hubbard, “Kept Safe through Childbearing: Maternal Mortality, Justification by Faith, and the Social Setting of 1 Timothy 2:15,” JETS 55 (2012): 744–49.