Finding Biblical Context For Women 'Are More Easily Deceived'

[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.

[Curious]

I just want to add two things quickly. One, I cringe too, not so much at Paul's instructions being considered here, but at my own origional post. I sound quite angry and combative now I read it again. Not delivered in a gentle spirit, perhaps a bit of 'truth without love'. My apologies for that.

Also I know I mention history here and there. That might seem odd or irrelevant. I think of history as 'the threshing floor' of truth. Big patterns that repeat over and over, like elevation of rulers to God-like status, exploiting the people hand over fist as Samuel warned would happen when the Isrealites demanded a King..... I see that history verifies this over and over. Every tyrannical despotic King, Tzar, Emporer, Pharaoh, Ceaser, General Secretary...to the little-known cult that your next-door - neighbor belongs to. Whatever the name, is just a WL on a bigger or lesser scale. A look at history reinforces the truth that authority without accountability is a means to darkness and evil, not light and truth.

Same with the woman issue.... I feel what I've said in the post about about how the fallen world has treated and viewed women historically is relevant to the discussion. Even though it might seem a bit left-field. The bigger lessons of history can only verify God as the source of truth. If the fruit of an interpretation of scriptures aligns with what has caused darkness and harm, then that raises at least a caution and rethink about where and how that interpretation really sits. Teaching 'full submission, silence, and that a man can not learn or be taught from a woman, and that she is prone to being deceived, and by implication men are not, definitely lowers her to that vulnerable state of being a lesser being. Its also what the LC basically teaches all it's people to do, replace 'man' and 'woman' with 'leaders of recovery' and 'followers' and you have the same exact deal.

[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 Ohio

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 . . . "

Another possibility is that God himself later repeated directly to the woman, his command not to eat of the tree of knowledge. Total speculation, but possible.

...
Where was Adam to protect her from all of the animals which he had previously named in the presence of God?

Good question.

Gen. 3:6 says this:
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Where was Adam? It appears he was standing right there beside her, watching the whole thing. Instead of protecting her, he just stood there watching it happen. He knew what God's command was...it was spoken directly to him...he knew exactly what was happening to her and he let it happen. Then later...like a coward...he blamed her for something that he could have stopped from ever happening.

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

Well...the Word says that Adam was not deceived, but I understand your point.
Paul says: 1 Timothy 2:14 "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

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.

I have provided some context in my post #16. We know from history that in the day, Caesar Nero was targeting women. Paul wrote a personal, "pastoral" letter to Timothy urging him to keep women out of harm's way by keeping them quiet, covered, "distance learning" if you will, etc.. See Post #16.

It would be interesting to ask Paul, someday, if he realized that his personal letter to Timothy...his attempt to protect women...would live to be misinterpreted as commands to follow for all time...to denigrate, mistreat, and otherwise stifle the woman in her position in the Body of Christ and in the world as a whole. This seems to be another instance of prescriptive vs. descriptive.

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.)

Sounds right. She was a target. Did the serpent know what a coward her husband was? He was more subtle than any creature yet made by God. He manipulated the man and the woman.

Genesis 3:3 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Nell

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Nell

Sounds right. She was a target. Did the serpent know what a coward her husband was? He was more subtle than any creature yet made by God. He manipulated the man and the woman.

Genesis 3:3 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Nell

I think she was the target because Adam was warned. Adam had time to have a relationship with his Creator that Eve did not get to have. So the Serpent targeted her.

Why did God create such a subtle serpent? Methinks it was all a setup in the garden. They both failed miserably. We all failed. We all have sinned. Why blame women? How does that help? Why suppress women? Doesn't that create more trouble?

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I think she was the target because Adam was warned. Adam had time to have a relationship with his Creator that Eve did not get to have. So the Serpent targeted her.

Why did God create such a subtle serpent? Methinks it was all a setup in the garden. They both failed miserably. We all failed. We all have sinned. Why blame women? How does that help? Why suppress women? Doesn't that create more trouble?

God created a perfect being, an angel, Lucifer, who rebelled and who God cast out of heaven. Lucifer wanted to be like God. The very thing Lucifer, as the subtle serpent tempted Eve with in the garden. But that’s another topic.

Nell