1 Timothy 2
12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
I'm curious people's perspectives on Verse 14 particularly. Do you think Paul is saying that women are more easily deceived? Why or why not?
1 Timothy 2:14
1 Timothy 2:14
Pastor Josh Coles, Aletheia Christian Fellowship
Visit the Aletheia Discussion Forums
Visit the Aletheia Discussion Forums
Re: 1 Timothy 2:14
I think it's talking about husbands and wives, not men and women in general (the Greek word for husband & man is the same, as is the Greek word for wife & woman).
Paul does not permit a wife to teach or have authority over her husband. In 1st century culture, wives did not usually speak in public, especially to men who weren't their husbands. The early church met in homes. Imagine 2 different scenarios
Scenario #1
A Christian woman goes out in public (which was not normal), into another home, and interacts with a man (any degree of interaction with a man might have been viewed as scandalous). This brings shame on her family, especially her non-Christian husband.
Scenario #2
A Christian man AND woman go to a church gathering in a home. The woman (perhaps empowered by her newfound equality in Christ) speaks directly to another man in the congregation. This embarrasses her husband (who even though he is a Christian, is still a part of his culture).
In both cases, Paul wants wives to stay silent in these meetings unless their husband authorizes them to speak. There is no need to unnecessarily provoke potential shame and scandal.
Thus, v. 12 is a command that a wife not take authority from her husband. v. 13 is a reminder of male headship of the home. v. 14 is then an illustration or example of the fact that significant problems may come about when a wife speaks outside the authority of her husband.
So, no. I do not believe Paul is saying that women, in general, are more easily deceived. I think Paul is illustrating the danger that comes when wives go against their husband authority (presuming that Adam shared the command given to him with his wife, which he apparently did since Eve knew it, although technically she added to the command, which either shows that Adam didn't teach her very well or Eve didn't learn very well, but this is now very much a run-on sentence, so I must depart)
Paul does not permit a wife to teach or have authority over her husband. In 1st century culture, wives did not usually speak in public, especially to men who weren't their husbands. The early church met in homes. Imagine 2 different scenarios
Scenario #1
A Christian woman goes out in public (which was not normal), into another home, and interacts with a man (any degree of interaction with a man might have been viewed as scandalous). This brings shame on her family, especially her non-Christian husband.
Scenario #2
A Christian man AND woman go to a church gathering in a home. The woman (perhaps empowered by her newfound equality in Christ) speaks directly to another man in the congregation. This embarrasses her husband (who even though he is a Christian, is still a part of his culture).
In both cases, Paul wants wives to stay silent in these meetings unless their husband authorizes them to speak. There is no need to unnecessarily provoke potential shame and scandal.
Thus, v. 12 is a command that a wife not take authority from her husband. v. 13 is a reminder of male headship of the home. v. 14 is then an illustration or example of the fact that significant problems may come about when a wife speaks outside the authority of her husband.
So, no. I do not believe Paul is saying that women, in general, are more easily deceived. I think Paul is illustrating the danger that comes when wives go against their husband authority (presuming that Adam shared the command given to him with his wife, which he apparently did since Eve knew it, although technically she added to the command, which either shows that Adam didn't teach her very well or Eve didn't learn very well, but this is now very much a run-on sentence, so I must depart)
Re: 1 Timothy 2:14
Interesting take. Thanks for sharing it!
Pastor Josh Coles, Aletheia Christian Fellowship
Visit the Aletheia Discussion Forums
Visit the Aletheia Discussion Forums
Re: 1 Timothy 2:14
Consider this: who was more guilty, the one who was deceived into sin or the one who went in with his eyes wide open?
Re: 1 Timothy 2:14
I posted an essay not too long ago dealing in large part with this verse: http://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=2869
My blog: http://dannycoleman.blogspot.com
“Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read’st black where I read white.”
-- William Blake
“Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read’st black where I read white.”
-- William Blake
Re: 1 Timothy 2:14
Homer, this is a rhetorical question, right?Homer wrote:Consider this: who was more guilty, the one who was deceived into sin or the one who went in with his eyes wide open?
I'm not sure of the answer.Re: 1 Timothy 2:14
I'm not even sure such a clear line could be drawn b/w the sin of Eve and the sin of Adam
Both of them knew the commandment (even if, possibly, in various forms)
Both of them committed the act of sin at the suggestion of another being (for Eve, the serpent; for Adam, his wife)
I'm more interested in WHY Eve record of God's command is longer (she adds, "and you must not touch it")
Maybe I'm reading too much into it and it isn't a significant addition
Maybe Adam, when communicating God's command to Eve, added that legalism as a 'hedge of protection' (it does seem wise)
Maybe Eve just added it herself, as a personal standard or whatnot
I suppose one could make the case, if we take the 3rd 'MAYBE,' that Eve had failed to be properly educated on the issue of this command. And, since she was uneducated, this led to The Fall and created a big problem. And so Paul, in this passage, could possibly be using the story as an illustration of the potentially dangerous consequences of allowing uneducated women to teach. Such an argument would probably conclude that once a woman is educated in the ways of the Lord (not the same as the ways of the world!), then she would be able to teach. But even then it need not follow that she can teach over and/or against the authority of her husband.
Both of them knew the commandment (even if, possibly, in various forms)
Both of them committed the act of sin at the suggestion of another being (for Eve, the serpent; for Adam, his wife)
I'm more interested in WHY Eve record of God's command is longer (she adds, "and you must not touch it")
Maybe I'm reading too much into it and it isn't a significant addition
Maybe Adam, when communicating God's command to Eve, added that legalism as a 'hedge of protection' (it does seem wise)
Maybe Eve just added it herself, as a personal standard or whatnot
I suppose one could make the case, if we take the 3rd 'MAYBE,' that Eve had failed to be properly educated on the issue of this command. And, since she was uneducated, this led to The Fall and created a big problem. And so Paul, in this passage, could possibly be using the story as an illustration of the potentially dangerous consequences of allowing uneducated women to teach. Such an argument would probably conclude that once a woman is educated in the ways of the Lord (not the same as the ways of the world!), then she would be able to teach. But even then it need not follow that she can teach over and/or against the authority of her husband.