Finding Biblical Context For Women 'Are More Easily Deceived'

[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 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.

Bushnell believes the verses should be punctuated and translated as follows: (She's a Greek and Hebrew scholar so she's probably qualified!)

1 Tim. 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived [when he sinned], but the woman [having] first been thoroughly deceived [became involved] in his transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, [i.e., the bearing of Jesus Christ] if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.


Adam was older and more mature than Eve. When it's said that Adam was not deceived when he sinned, that means...he sinned willfully. He knew what he was doing.

Eve was deceived...that means she didn't have full realization of what she was doing...unlike Adam who willfully sinned.

Gen 3:12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. 13 And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me (deceived me), and I did eat.

So, Adam blamed God. There is no record that Adam confessed his sin in this passage. Of course, that doesn't mean he didn't repent at some point, but there is no record here, and his behavior doesn't indicate contrition on his part.

God said to Eve: What have you done? Eve admitted she was deceived and she admitted to eating what God told them not to eat. She confessed. I don’t know for sure, but if you admit you are deceived, it might be that you are no longer deceived and you understand that what you did was wrong, but that’s my thought. It makes sense to me.

Which is worse, being deceived, or willful sin? The woman did confess. She acted on a precursor of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Adam didn't. His behavior was cowardly.

I don't know for sure why Paul brought Eve's name into the record here, but in this context, I don't think he was blaming her for being deceived. Rather, he honored her confession. Maybe Paul wanted to underscore his point that the women of the church needed protection rather than pushing them to the front lines with the men to be assaulted by Nero.

After the woman confessed, God turned to the serpent and cursed him; he turned to the woman and in effect, blessed her. Then God turned to the man and booted him from the garden.

An interesting verse...written by Paul: Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

...death reigned from Adam (not Adam and Eve, not Eve). ...Adam's transgression...not Eve's. Eve may have sinned first, but Adam was held accountable.

So, maybe we should also discuss whether men are more given to willful sin. Whaddyatink?

Nell

[Curious]

As I’m the source of this thread originally, I feel I have a bit more to add now its been revisited.

My opening diatribe was my attempt to compare what the bigger view of the council of scripture would indicate on the idea that women are more easily deceived, rather than take a big lead on this from one statement of Paul, though I don’t pretend to have all the answers.

History attests to much mistreatment of women, especially from Homer the Greek philosopher, onwards, in the rise of Western Civilisation. But most parts of the world have exercised misogyny as part of the cultural norm without the help of Homer’s philosophies. In Italy in the middle ages, it is advised to men to treat their wives as they will, with the only caution being not to beat her too harshly while she is heavily pregnant, or a disaster may happen.(!) The implication being that a man can beat his wife to the degree that could cause a miscarriage in a heavily pregnant woman, at any other time, including while in early pregnancy. He also has liberty to use her body in any way that so pleases him in regards to sexual practice, she is as ‘meat’ to be had according to his inclination. This is from literature written during the time. Disturbingly, that sort of attitude is not unusual for most of the world, for most of time.

I advise anyone subject to human nature to be cautious about doctrines that elevate men to positions that give free reign in terms of authority without due accountability. The fallen nature of either gender loves this kind of liberty. As women carry babies and are physically weaker and as child rearing necessitates their dependency on men, this puts women in a more vulnerable situation. This is important to keep in mind in my opinion.

An alternative possibility I’ve heard regarding Paul’s words is that when he said ‘A woman’ must remain silent, he was referring to one particular woman, but not naming her. He did not mean every woman, just one asking questions and disrupting the flow of the meeting. That could be a possibility.

Also, ‘she must ask her husband at home’….women were not educated, only men could read and study the scriptures. This is an undisputed fact from the times. They also had been allotted a separate area in the temple, although this had not been the case originally. So being once again included in the proceedings of the gathering of the faithful, they had lots of questions and learning to catch up on. To ‘ask their husbands’ at home was the revolution in including women, advising husbands to teach them, rather than exclude them as had been the norm.

I think we in our times don’t appreciate the dangerous and perilous nature of existence of people, especially women, in the times of the bible (as per Nell’s post). Nor do we appreciate the extent of the ‘oppression’ and exclusion of women from education and higher pursuits. That women are capable of these activities is born out by women who wrote under male pseudonyms and even the odd artist was secretly a woman, in past centuries. Personally, I can’t accept the position that God only equips one half of the human race with talents and abilities only to supply genes to the other half. But that issue is not really at question here, except as an extension to ‘teach (include) your wives at home’.

My last bit here is to say: Any human who submits their life to God, is going to develop wisdom, good character, faith, resistance to careless sinning etc, over time. Regardless of their gender. Any person who does not, will be prone to both disobedience, (to any Christian values they don’t subscribe to) and deception, self-deception etc. A wise person teaches others by word, conduct, even just their composure and presence. It is unavoidable that when a person possesses substance, it influences others. It is impossible to avoid learning from a maturing person. If it’s a person’s journey with the Lord that is being testified, how can that be a sin, based on their gender? We all learn from each other all the time. It is intrinsic to relationship that mutual learning happens. To take Paul’s instruction to mean he is forbidding all women to ever teach any man just makes no practical sense to me and is impossible to implement.

Men in the church who subscribe to the doctrines that have come from these scriptures of Paul, often seem more worried they might sin by overlooking those scriptures, than they are worried about the danger they might sin by denigrating, misusing and abusing through disempowerment, the helpmeet God gave them. Adding to, if even in a lesser way, the volume of injustice that has and continues to happen against women. That’s my thoughts.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Nell

Bushnell believes the verses should be punctuated and translated as follows: (She's a Greek and Hebrew scholar so she's probably qualified!)

1 Tim. 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived [when he sinned], but the woman [having] first been thoroughly deceived [became involved] in his transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, [i.e., the bearing of Jesus Christ] if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

There is no record in Genesis that Eve ever directly heard God's command to NOT eat the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (TOKOGAE) So how can all women be considered "easily deceived" compared to all men when we really don't know what kind of instruction Eve had received, apparently 2nd hand thru Adam. Perhaps on their wedding night Adam only mentioned it in passing, "Oh, by the way Lovie, you might want to avoid that one tree in the morning . . . "

If women are supposed to learn in silence and at home, why did that not apply to Adam? What examples do we have in scripture of women being properly educated in silence at home by their husbands? How can we fault Eve for listening to a talking serpent? Did other animals talk too? Was she ever warned about the serpent? Where was Adam to protect her from all of the animals which he had previously named in the presence of God?

If Eve was deceived, then Adam was doubly deceived. And he disobeyed God, which was his transgression alone.

What we are missing here is "context." What was the situation Paul and Timothy were discussing? What had been said that we don't know.

[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 Ohio

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?

Yet women are targeted. Women are stereotyped and punished.

I don’t disagree with your comments.

I asked SoG a question because of his comment. I would like to know where he’s coming from.

Nell

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Nell

Yet women are targeted. Women are stereotyped and punished.

I don’t disagree with your comments.

I asked SoG a question because of his comment. I would like to know where he’s coming from.

Nell

To reply, let me copy what I wrote in my post from two days ago, because no one commented and it perhaps explains where I'm "coming from':

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

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!

So I think we all have a covering according to God's plan, according to our need. The man/husband needs to be headed-up and have a covering, and this is the Lord; Woman/wife needs to be headed-up and have a covering, and this is the man/husband; children needs to be headed-up and have a covering, and this is their parents.

This wise administration is according to supplying their need and provide for their protection. Why? Because there is weakness. Man isn't able to do this alone and needs the Lord. Woman can't do this alone and needs the man. Children (this is the most obvious) need protection big time, and have both parents (ideally). This is the loving arrangement in God's household . . . for a good reason - for the proper care of everyone and to cover their weaknesses.