by Abel » Fri Dec 09, 2011 6:36 pm
No, what I have done is exactly what I said. I take the verse in its full context. Look at the portion of scripture in I Timothy you are referring to, but let's look at it in full context:
1 Timothy 2:9-10 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
Paul was emphasizing the uselessness of putting on the dog (as we say down here). He was referring to the importance of modest apparel. He was also stressing the fact that it is not the outward beauty that is important, but doing well. Good works done for Christ makes a woman more beautiful than all the gold and pearls she can wear.
However, he then describes a woman’s limitations lest they believe their good works should involve roles assigned to men: 1 Timothy 2:11-12 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
He then explains the reason for a woman’s restriction in the ministry:1 Timothy 2:13-15 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
Eve showed poor judgment by being deceived. As a result, she is forbidden from holding office over a man. Personally, I believe Adam showed worse judgment by knowingly eating the fruit, but I don’t see things from God’s perspective.
Now, please tell me how I have sliced and diced these verses to square with my personal opinion. Where have I misused these verses?