6 4 03

5:50a

I Timothy 2

Hmmm.

The first portion of this chapter sits well with me. Verses 1 through 8 are filled with well wishes and gentleness. Paul is asking for prayers and such for the leaders of the people � kings and rulers � so that the citizenry can live peaceful, Godly lives. That�s all good in my opinion. Yet, beginning in verse 9 and continuing through to the end, verse 15, Paul talks about women and their place in worshiping God.

Verses 9 and 10 are innocuous enough:

9 I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes,
10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

I agree with dressing modestly and being decent. I wonder, however, how braided hair, gold and pearls and expensive clothes could be considered immodest. I mean, were women of that age painting their bodies in gold with pearl accents? Were they using braids as their only source of covering? Were they using expensive clothing to show off?

I honestly don�t see how wearing gold and pearls, dressing in expensive clothing and having braids can be considered immoral or antagonistic toward God. I�m thinking there has to have been some very specific problems in that age. I�ve seen women dressed in finery who were modest, polite and, in my opinion, Godly. I have also seen, however, women who were dressed in finery in order to show off � to be seen and adored.

Are Paul�s comments here really directed at women in general? Was he speaking with a bias in mind? Were women simply considered lesser beings?

As I move on, I become more irritated. In verse 11, Paul says that women should learn in quietness, full of submission. Verse 12 has Paul saying he does not allow a woman to teach, or have authority over a man. He says she must be silent.

The reason he gives for these two things is in verses 13 and 14 � and this is something that probably rankles more because I heard it often in the Church. Paul falls back on the Adam and Eve argument in those two verses, stating that Adam was formed first, then Eve and Adam was not the one deceived. Paul says that it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

Finally, verse 15 says that women can be saved through child bearing, IF they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Can I scream now?

This is the Mormon perspective all over the place. In my understanding, the Mormon faith states that a woman will only receive access to heaven if her husband calls her by name.

This whole passage intimates that women are not worthy of salvation in and of themselves. This passage intimates that women are the only people to be mislead, deceived and sinners and that it�s a woman�s fault that man made mistakes.

HELLO?!?!

In my experience with Bible Study, I have read a lot of information Paul has written. I believe that he was chosen by God to lead many. I believe that Paul was a righteous man and did well in the eyes of God. However, Paul didn�t start out that way. I wonder if Paul blames a woman for his desire to destroy and persecute Christians. (That�s what Paul did before Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus, blinded him for three days and converted him to Christianity.)

As per Eve, was she deceived? Yes. Was she deceived first? Yes. Was she deceived because of a defect in her nature, or because she was a woman? I don�t think so.

Eve was designed very specifically by God. She was created to be a help, a companion to her husband, Adam. She was living in a perfect garden in peace and contentment. Did she consciously choose to sin? I don�t think so. She had absolutely no experience with lies or untruths. The way Paul seems to see it, Eve�s sin was not so much eating the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but being a woman at all. That bugs me.

Can�t understand why. *rolls her eyes*

What do I get from this, beyond the fact that Paul � probably most males in that era � was extremely prejudiced toward women? I know that God had a reason for including this information, and this is not the only place the Bible speaks of women being in a subservient role.

For the time being, I think I�m supposed to understand, from this passage, that I am to come before God with respect and submission to Him. I am to deal with males in a respectful manner, no problem with that. But, I do NOT believe that I am supposed to remain silent when someone else is doing something wrong. I do NOT believe that I am supposed to just sit by while a male is telling me to sin.

I have personal experience with this. There were a few things my ex suggested to me which I knew were wrong. I did them because he wanted me to. It seems, according to Paul, that if it had been the other way � if I had been the one to suggest illicit activity to my husband � that I would have been the sinner and he the innocent. It also seems to me, from Paul�s perspective, that the way things turned out between the ex and I, that I was still the sinner and he the innocent.

Sorry folks, I don�t go in for that. I�m not sure how to prove my point, I�m not sure how to say it any more clearly. I simply don�t agree with Paul in this chapter. I do not believe women are sub-par. I do not believe that simply because we are women, we are less than or less worthy of God�s love, time, adoration and praise.

There was more I was going to say, but it�s simply blathering on and on. I simply don�t agree with Paul in this case and I�m not sure how to reconcile my desire to do as God instructs and my natural proclivity toward leadership.

I�m going to end this now. I must think before commenting further.