Finding Biblical Context For Women 'Are More Easily Deceived'

[Curious]

Thankyou, guys for your support to my possibly unconventional take on that account. It prompts me to add the following:

If we think of Rahab the harlot, as a victim of abuse and exploitation, (which provides context for why she could hate the life she had to the point that she could betray her people and city so completely), then we can see that it can take only one abuse victim, taking action, to bring down a whole evil structure. The whole city was brought to the ground.

As well it brought her into a new life where she was married and able to live a dignified life, one deprived of her in jericho.

[Trapped]

Great posts, Curious, all of them.

I'm not sure whether to bring it up, but it's highly relevant to the thread title. What on earth do we do with these verses in 1 Timothy 2?

11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

The reason I say I'm not sure whether to bring it up is because I know there have been many many many papers and articles and commentaries out there written about this verse and the meaning of "assume authority" in the original language, with no consensus, and I'm not sure we'll reach an "aha, this is what Paul meant!" conclusion here either.

I personally read the verses and cringe. It makes it sounds like females function on half a brain, and I know enough of them to know they don't. But the verses are there and thus have to be contended with. Any thoughts?

[Sons to Glory!]

I recently heard a brother on the radio speak on this, and he was quite strong on the idea that scripture forbids women to take a leadership role in place of a man. I kept expecting the censors to come on and shut him down at any time!

Look, I've been married to a strong woman for 22 years. She bought a franchise over 30 years ago that facilitates leadership develop to organizations. When she was in the corporate world with an international Fortune 500 company, she quickly rose to the VP level. (BTW - she says she wasn't even aware of a "Glass Ceiling" and said so once when interviewed by media - that's not what they were looking for!) She's a very strong goal setter & achiever and very high on the accountability scale (for herself and others).

I've learned so, so much from her over the years, in both the business and personal realms (I've been full-time in the family business for some time). However, while we consider ourselves equals, we also know there are key differences & strengths to each. While she usually shows a lot less emotion than many women, there is still a pretty strong emotional side. I think it might be the emotional part that can cause issues for women, and I wonder if that's not a characteristic that lends itself to deception at times. Women and men are certainly complimentary to each other (FYI: I might not show enough emotion at times), and I so very much appreciate this of my wife, and she of me.

But we all are coming from a place of being in the post-Christian world, where feminism has gone to an extreme and saturated the culture. So talk like this (e.g., in 1st Timothy) can actually sound alien to many now days. But God sees things clearly, and I've had a glimpse of what His household administration looks like. He has an administrative order (i.e., economy) to things, in order that His household might thrive, and so everyone gets what they need in an atmosphere of love. This household order is the Lord, then the husband/father, then the wife/mother, then the children. Again, this order is set by Him so that everyone in the household gets supplied with what they need, in an administration of love, caring (and yes, accountability).

So we can "kick against the goads" of this, but we will likely get hurt in the process! I'd be very interested to get the take of others - AND ESPECIALLY SISTERS!

[aron]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

This household order is the Lord, then the husband/father, then the wife/mother, then the children. Again, this order is set by Him so that everyone in the household gets supplied with what they need, in an administration of love, caring (and yes, accountability). We can "kick against the goads" of this, but we will likely get hurt in the process!

I get this a lot in the fundamentalist Christian circles in which I swim, but I see it differently. I see the "women should submit themselves" to be in the same class as "slaves, obey your masters". Paul was writing in the context of his times. As the NT was being composed, Christians were no longer under religious compunctions. The only law was love. Love is the end of the law.

So what happens? People start to get wild. Women and children start to sass. Slaves say, "Hey, man, I'm free in Jesus Christ. Don't tell me what to do." Paul was saying, Remember the society in which you live and obey its constraints. We are still Greeks and Jews outwardly, still women and men, still slave and free. Don't take your freedom in Christ Jesus as an excuse to disorder.

Galatians 5:13 "You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love."

Cf: 1 Cor 8:9 "Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak."

And 1 Cor 9:19 "Though I am free of obligation to anyone, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible."

Similar, Paul's "Women will be saved by child-bearing" doesn't mean that this is their path to salvation, but that the circumstance of being a mother, caring for a drooling and pooping infant will give them the opportunity to unselfishly love others, and not just care for their own things.

Similar to being a husband to a wife, or father of children. Or, if you're a slave, to be subject to an earthly master because there is one Master in heaven, and he put you in that spot. So serve Him with fear, as you accept your earthly role. Imagine if your master's a drunken lout, and you're a pious sober Christian. Yet, because of God's sovereign arrangement, you have to be subject to this one. Find God in your circumstances.

Back then, women couldn't vote, couldn't drive carriages around etc. They were less than the men, in society. Paul said, Accept that. You are great in the kingdom. If you're nothing on earth, so what.

(And they never got this simple point, in the LC. There, it was all about being a respecter of persons. Women were "great" when Nee needed to leverage them. Ruth Lee, Peace Wang, Margaret Barber - lionesses of recovery.... then the worm turned, and 1 Tim 2 was invoked. What a ridiculous travesty. In the LC - Witness Lee was truly, transcendently great. Everyone else's greatness, or social position, was referent, or relative, to that singular point. Similarly, if you got into Harvard or Stanford you were on your way to greatness. Etc, etc. It was all about outward position. Either your place near Lee or your place in society.)

Paul and Jesus were very much alike in this manner - outward position was nothing. In fact it could be a terrible stumbling if one wasn't very careful.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by aron

I get this a lot in the fundamentalist Christian circles in which I swim, but I see it differently. I see the "women should submit themselves" to be in the same class as "slaves, obey your masters". Paul was writing in the context of his times. As the NT was being composed, Christians were no longer under religious compunctions. The only law was love. Love is the end of the law.

I agree with everything you said - so how do you "see it differently" from what I posted?

On further reading - you are saying they are in a slave class? Now I really need to hide for fear of collateral fallout! Actually, I think I do get your point . . . more to how things, legally, were viewed in their respective times, right?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

... to how things, legally, were viewed in their respective times, right?

Correct. If we said, "A woman's place is in the home" that would match public sentiment even 65 years ago. Certainly 150 years ago. So, in one era that might not be 'unspiritual' to say, or affirm. But today it would be seriously regressive, and called out, and rightly so. Times have changed.

Paul was saying, "Don't let your freedom in Christ overturn current societal constraints." Whether or not those constraints are equitable, or eternal (immutable and unchanging) are not the issue. Don't distract people from the message of Jesus' resurrection. We got freed from eternal death. Don't grumble over temporal matters. Don't throw off societal yokes because you believe in Jesus Christ.

Here's another way to look at it. Look at Jesus with women. He never, that I can see, overturned societal constraints of his time. Yet he was completely transcendent - his interactions with people, including (and especially[!]) women - were transformative. The human person Jesus took the petty, modest and mundane human interactions, even within their outward limitations and humiliations, and grew something so precious there.

Whether you're woman or man, slave or free, Greek or Jew or Scythian, is beside the point. You may have to live within the dictates of that "package" but in that "package" you can find something transcendent. There's a person waiting to meet you, there.

[Trapped]

What about Paul's reference to Eve being deceived who was not in that time and place and same societal constraints? In other words, what is Paul's point in bringing up Eve? That's the part that makes me cringe.

How do we know when to apply "that time/place/society" versus "for all time" to any given portion of scripture? All the epistles were to certain parameters of people and situations, and yet we follow them today.

These are head-scratcher questions on my part, not belligerent ones.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

... I think it might be the emotional part that can cause issues for women, and I wonder if that's not a characteristic that lends itself to deception at times.
...
I'd be very interested to get the take of others - AND ESPECIALLY SISTERS!

StG,

My take:

I think it might be the emotional part that causes issues for men.

I wonder if that’s not a characteristic of man that causes him to perhaps equate the emotional part of woman as her being “deceived”. The implication is that men, at times, believe because she is “emotional” she is deceived: “emotion=deceived”.

The woman was given to man as a helper. Could it be that the emotions of woman, created by God, are meant to balance perhaps the strong (perhaps stubborn) will of man (also created by God)...to help him...to help each other through situations that call for a balance of “mind, emotion and will”?

The man who was not deceived, but willfully sinned, is held accountable for the fall of man. The woman was deceived, admitted it, was likely “emotional”, but was blessed as the vessel to bring forth the Savior.

Could we say “women are more easily emotional” while men are more easily stubborn? I'd be interested in getting the take of others on these questions. I hope it's not too harsh.

—Nell

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Nell

My take: I think it might be the emotional part that causes issues for men.

We can all get easily lead away by our emotions. Over my lifetime it's been emotional outbursts, on my part, that have produced some of the biggest angst for me. And marketing is all about playing on people's emotions. Why? Because if the emotions are engaged, that's when they are very likely the most vulnerable. For instance, in auto sales school, they teach to ask people "So what color could you see yourself in?" And this is more typically asked of the female. (guys are often more interested in mechanicals & stats . . . color is much further down the list . . . though there certainlyy is emotion around a powerful engine! )

And I completely agree that woman was brought to man as a helper, and is so nicely complementary - man & woman are complimentary to each other. These complementary characteristics can work really well in parenting I think. And I so appreciate my wife's insights and strengths on a wide variety of things. But that means there are also things that are not strengths. Equal, but different for a reason.

So what did the devil know when he approached Eve with his scheme? Why did he go to her first, and not Adam? (I think he probably knew that going through Eve was a good way to get to Adam and that it would be difficult for him to resist Eve. Therefore he went to Eve first.)

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I think it might be the emotional part that can cause issues for women, and I wonder if that's not a characteristic that lends itself to deception at times.

So we can "kick against the goads" of this, but we will likely get hurt in the process! I'd be very interested to get the take of others - AND ESPECIALLY SISTERS!

Refering to your statement above, my question is, do you believe "women are more easily deceived" because of her emotions? Do you believe some form of "emotions=deceived"?

Nell

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Nell

Referring to your statement above, my question is, do you believe "women are more easily deceived" because of her emotions? Do you believe some form of "emotions=deceived"?

Nell

I always find these kinds of generalizations troubling. Yes, some girls/women are easily deceived, and yes, some boys/men are easily deceived. And many men and women are very discerning, and almost impossible to deceive. If women are deceived by emotions, are then men deceived by ear-tickling?

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Great posts, Curious, all of them.

I'm not sure whether to bring it up, but it's highly relevant to the thread title. What on earth do we do with these verses in 1 Timothy 2?

11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

The reason I say I'm not sure whether to bring it up is because I know there have been many many many papers and articles and commentaries out there written about this verse and the meaning of "assume authority" in the original language, with no consensus, and I'm not sure we'll reach an "aha, this is what Paul meant!" conclusion here either.

I personally read the verses and cringe. It makes it sounds like females function on half a brain, and I know enough of them to know they don't. But the verses are there and thus have to be contended with. Any thoughts?

Below is a passage from God's Word to Women by Katherine Bushnell. She was a medical doctor and a Greek and Hebrew scholar and a Christian writer who lived from 1855-1946.

The passage below puts Paul's letter to Timothy (1 Tim. 2) into context. Her book was written in the format of numbered paragraphs. This passage is an edited (by me) version of paragraphs 325 and 326.

325. And, then, there was a peculiar peril to women, of which Paul would know, though Christian women might be ignorant of it. We will describe it in the words of Prof. Ramsay … “The ingenuity of Roman practice had in A.D. 31 perverted a humane scruple . . . into a reason for detestable brutality [criminal outrage] to the young daughter of Sejanus; . . . If such things were done to the innocent daughter of a Roman noble, why not to a Christian criminal?” … We know, then, that the situation which women Christians occupied under Nero was that of extreme peril, not only to life, but, as Church history shows, to virtue also.

326. To be sure, one should not carelessly assume that anything in the Bible is of exceptional and temporary import only. Yet we are now dealing with a personal letter, and advice given to one individual, and given in a time of exceptional peril and these facts ought to count for a great deal….

… We might have suffered a stagger to our faith in Paul’s tenderness and prudence, if not a stagger to our faith in the Bible, if, in a time of such supreme peril to Christian women, Paul could be represented as urging women to the front of the fight, and putting on them equal ecclesiastical responsibilities with men, when he knew that the cost to them would be far heavier than to men.

Rather, we find in Paul’s letter to Timothy precisely that sort of natural advice that a tender over-pastor under such conditions would give to one in charge of a church in his jurisdiction: “I should not allow a woman to teach or control a man. They (the Romans...not the women) are attacking our reputation for common decency, and we must meet it by separating the women from the men, and having them keep very quiet.” All history testifies that women did not shirk martyrdom for Christ’s sake, but Paul says: “However willing they may be, I do not permit it. We men must take the lead: …

Thus might the Apostle, who, ten years before, wrote to the Corinthians about women “praying and prophesying,” and to the Galatians about the same time, to the effect that there could be no distinctions as regards sex in the Christian body, now consistently write after this manner to Timothy, for he must have regard for the situation under Nero, and the relations of Christian to the social order about them. It seems to us far more sensible, then, to ascribe Paul’s precautionary advice to the then existent perilous times, especially for women, than to go back to Eve, or to creation to find a reason.

The context of Paul writing a personal letter of advice to care for the health and safety of women who were in extreme danger and in under Timothy's pastoral care meets the need of the day. It also explains the seeming contradictions in Paul's writings wherein he is supportive of women, yet cares for them in a practical way to keep them from harm.

Hence the verses: 1 Tim. 2:8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. 9 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; 10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

I think it's totally believable. Hope this helps...
Nell

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Curious

Thankyou, guys for your support to my possibly unconventional take on that account. It prompts me to add the following:

If we think of Rahab the harlot, as a victim of abuse and exploitation, (which provides context for why she could hate the life she had to the point that she could betray her people and city so completely), then we can see that it can take only one abuse victim, taking action, to bring down a whole evil structure. The whole city was brought to the ground.

As well it brought her into a new life where she was married and able to live a dignified life, one deprived of her in jericho.

Here is what Witness Lee had to say about Rahab in the life study of Matthew #3:
K. Rahab
We proceed to Rahab (v. 5). Rahab was a harlot in Jericho (Josh. 2:1), a place cursed by God for eternity. Although she was a harlot in such a place, she became a grandmother of Christ. How could a harlot become a grandmother of Christ? In order to answer this question, we need to find the principles. The entire population of Jericho was destroyed except Rahab, her family, and her possessions. She was saved because she turned to God and God’s people (Josh. 6:22-23, 25; Heb. 11:31). After she turned to God and His people, she married Salmon, a leader in the army of the leading tribe of Judah and one of the men sent by Joshua to spy out Jericho. At that time, Salmon became acquainted with Rahab and, in a sense, saved her. Eventually, Rahab married him, and they brought forth a godly man named Boaz.

Pretty amazing.

Nell