Childbirth, A Protection For Women (Per Paul)... How?

by AGuest 212 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  AGuest

  To the Household of God, Israel, and those who go with... may you all have peace!

  This will be the second "reward" that I have the privilege of sharing with you today. If you recall, I have shared with you that virtually every time I've gone through a fairly grueling "battle" for our Lord... I receive a "reward". This one has to do with the following words from Paul, regarding how Christian women would be kept "safe" during the early days of the building up of the Body. In his first canonized letter to Timothy, Paul wrote:

  "Let a woman learn in silence with full submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach, or to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and came to be in transgression. However, she will be kept safe through childbearing..." 1 Timothy 2:11-15

  On previous occasions I've shared with you how Paul's admonition had nothing to do with the [Hebrew] Law (as to so restricting women), but with the Roman law at the time. Women speaking in public or showing authority over men was a crime... and grounds for arrest, even death. So, they had to learn at home from their husbands... who could go to the syngagogues and discuss, teach, share issues related to the Writings (scripture). Women, though, weren't permitted to do things publicly as men were.

  The point I want to share with you TODAY, though... is Paul's words regarding a woman being "kept safe" through childbearing. Many, including the WTBTS, teach that this admonition was so as to keep women safe "spiritually," by keeping them from becoming too independing and self-assured, by keeping them in the home and raising children. I received from our Lord today, however, that that is NOT what Paul meant at all. What Paul MEANT... what he was telling Timothy (to tell the men and women) is that childbirth would literally keep her safe... from death... BECAUSE of the Law. Here is the law... with reference to PREGNANT women:

  “... in case men should struggle with each other and they really hurt a pregnant woman and her children do come out but no fatal accident occurs, he is to have damages imposed upon him without fail according to what the owner of the woman may lay upon him; and he must give it through the justices. But if a fatal accident should occur, then you must give soul for soul, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, branding for branding, wound for wound, blow for blow." Exodus 21:2-25

  What Paul was saying was that... because of the Law... PREGNANT women were safer (from persecution in the form of physical assault from opposing Jews) than non-pregnant women. They were in the times when "tribulation" was coming upon the early congregation, when people had been delivered up, even to murder. Paul knew this... and because he had personally participated in delivering folks UP... KNEW what would keep certain ones SAFE! For women who were still of child-bearing years, pregnancy would keep them safe!

  I received this reward this very evening... and out of my gratitude, wanted to share it with you. Because, as with a LOT of things that were necessary for the SAFETY of the early Body members... they are not necessarily applicable today. Today, we have a relative freedom... of belief and speech... that our brothers didn't have at that time. Perhaps not everywhere, true. Even here, sometimes, such freedom... and the accompanying "boldness" of speech... raises great ardor. Many believe the WTBTS would, without the secular laws that prevent it, [have] put to death those who oppose it. I wonder, sometimes, if some with the same attitude don't exist here, as well. Regardless, I will share what I can... when I can.

  Again, peace to you... and may JAH bless!

  YOUR servant and fellow slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  Shelby, since we can put together a method to ensure I am not lying and, according to you, that was the reason your Lord wouldn't prove his powers and thus his assertion about me being an alcoholic, will he now step up to the plate and prove himself?

  As I mentioned, I have devised two methods to ensure honesty on all sides. That WAS what you said was the stumbling block and now it is gone, so we can get on with this.
• 

  botchtowersociety

  On previous occasions I've shared with you how Paul's admonition had nothing to do with the [Hebrew] Law (as to so restricting women), but with the Roman law at the time. Women speaking in public or showing authority over men was a crime... and grounds for arrest, even death.

  No. There were Roman priestesses and oracles at that time. Roman women could own property and even hold male slaves.
• 

  botchtowersociety

  For Adam was formed first, then Eve. Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and came to be in transgression.

  Doesn't seem that Paul was addressing issues regarding Roman culture here, was he?
• 

  Azazel

  Just an observation but maybe Paul remained single cause no woman in her right mind would have him?

  Always felt his words were a bit harsh on our dear sisters.( smarter than me thats for sure)

  Keep on doing your ministry AGuest 1 Corinthians 4:26

  Regards

  Az
• 

  AGuest

  No. There were Roman priestesses and oracles at that time.

  I personally do not know what the situation was, dear BTS (peace to you!), and so have to rely on what my Lord... who does know... told me, which appears to be corroborated by history. Apparently some women did perform religious duties and and so were "exempt" from things required of "regular" women, including daughters of the emperor:

  "The one major public role reserved solely for women was in the sphere of religion: the priestly office of the Vestals. Freed of any obligation to marry or have children, the Vestals devoted themselves to the study and correct observance of rituals which were deemed necessary for the security and survival of Rome but which could not be performed by the male colleges of priests." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Ancient_Rome

  Roman women could own property and even hold male slaves.

  Wealthy women, perhaps... and later in the Roman empire, yes:

  "Defined by the men in their lives, women in ancient Rome were valued mainly as wives and mothers. Although some were allowed more freedom than others, there was always a limit, even for the daughter of an emperor. Not much information exists about Roman women in the first century. Women were not allowed to be active in politics, so nobody wrote about them. Neither were they taught how to write, so they could not tell their own stories."

  and...

  "Legal rights - We do know a little, however. Unlike society in ancient Egypt, Rome did not regard women as equal to men before the law. They received only a basic education, if any at all, and were subject to the authority of a man. Traditionally, this was their father before marriage. At that point, authority switched to their husband, who also had the legal rights over their children..."http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empire/women.html

  and...

  "However wealthy they were, because they could not vote or stand for office, women had no formal role in public life. In reality, wives or close relatives of prominent men could have political influence behind the scenes and exert real, albeit informal, power. In public, though, women were expected to play their traditional role in the household. They were responsible for spinning and weaving yarn and making clothes. These were usually made from wool or linen, although wealthy women (whose servants made their clothes) often dressed in expensive, imported fabrics, like Chinese silk or Indian cotton. Women were expected to be the dignified wife and the good mother and, while these rules could be bent, they couldn’t be broken. ... Julia was daughter to Emperor Augustus and was renowned as a clever, vivacious woman with a sharp tongue. However, Augustus was traditional and insisted that Julia spin and weave like plebeian women, to demonstrate her wifely virtues." http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empire/order.html

  and...

  "Baby love? - The influence of women only went so far. The paterfamilias had the right to decide whether to keep newborn babies. After birth, the midwife placed babies on the ground: only if the paterfamilias picked it up was the baby formally accepted into the family. If the decision went the other way, the baby was exposed – deliberately abandoned outside. This usually happened to deformed babies, or when the father did not think that the family could support another child. Babies were exposed in specific places and it was assumed that an abandoned baby would be picked up and taken a slave.
  "Infant mortality - Even babies accepted into the household by the paterfamilias had a rocky start in life. Around 25 percent of babies in the first century AD did not survive their first year and up to half of all children would die before the age of 10. As a result, the Roman state gave legal rewards to women who had successfully given birth. After three live babies (or four children for former slaves), women were recognized as legally independent. For most women, only at this stage could they choose to shrug off male control and take responsibility for their own lives."

  http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empire/family.html

  "Freeborn women in ancient Rome were citizens (cives), but could not vote or hold political office. Because of their limited public role, women are named less frequently than men by Roman historians. ... Although the rights and status of women in the earliest period of Roman history were more restricted than in the late Republic and Empire, as early as the 5th century BC, Roman women could own land, write their own wills, and appear in court as their own advocates."

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Ancient_Rome

  None of the christian women would have been Vestals or fallen into the category of "wealthy" (recognized by Rome) and so most likely would have been perceived and treated as common Roman women were... or worse.

  I hope this helps and, again, peace to you!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  sizemik

  I had always read that verse (1 Tim 2;15) in the surrounding context . . . ie; the example of Adam and Eve. After reminding his audience of Eve's transgression, he simply reassures Christian women in light of the sentence God imposed on Eve at that time . . . ie; to greatly increase the pain of birth.

  Pauls observation placed in this context also seems to directly contradict Jesus words at Matt 24;19 which applied to the early Christians in Jerusalem. If he was clearly encouraging child rearing in contradiction of Jesus prophecy . . . I would have thought he would be more clear on the matter.

  Shelby . . .

  Many believe the WTBTS would, without the secular laws that prevent it, [have] put to death those who oppose it. I wonder, sometimes, if some with the same attitude don't exist here, as well.

  Suggesting there are some here who might have a desire to kill you, smacks of a deeply rooted persecution complex. You will be sending out invitations to your stoning next. Those types of comments are simply designed to inflame, are completely ridiculous and totally unnecessary IMO.
• 

  tec

  Thank you for sharing, Shelby, and also for that interesting peek into history :)

  Peace to you,

  Tammy
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  I've always imagined God doing what he always does, responding to challenges, like when he rained fire down from heaven at Elijah's behest, or sent a bear to kill children, or let Satan torture Job (although it appears the Lord himself did a wee bit o' the torturing there).

  So there's still that open challenge to him. Should be a piece of cake.
• 

  AGuest

  Those types of comments are simply designed to inflame, are completely ridiculous and totally unnecessary IMO.

  It was entitled to enlighten, dear Size (peace to you!)... but you're certainly entitled to your opinion on it... as I am to mine. I mean, why not? If it's okay to say such about the WTBTS (and some have... just like some openly call others liars and what not), then I can't see a problem with one saying the same about others who exhibit the same kind of... ummmm... fervor (I would say "zeal", but some won't get the use of that term, so...).

  Thank you for sharing, Shelby, and also for that interesting peek into history

  You are always quite welcome, my dear, dear tec (the greatest of love and peace to you, dear one!). Of course, I hesitated to post at all... because I knew there would be opposers and those who take issue "just because," but it was a great "reward"... and I think the Body deserves to have it as much as I. So, I put it out there. Thank YOU... for considering it, the message... without unnecessary bias as to the messenger. I am truly grateful.

  Again, peace to you, both!

  YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

  SA