Women in 1 Timothy (Could Steve respond?)
Re: Women in 1 Timothy (Could Steve respond?)
Yes, he can. See below...
Last edited by steve on Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Women in 1 Timothy (Could Steve respond?)
Ken Schenk, the author of this article (hereafter referred to as “our author”) has chosen one of several popular ways to dismiss the Pauline teaching about women in the role of church eldership. Some do so by suggesting that Paul is demonstrating his lingering prejudices that were inculcated in him through his Pharisaic upbringing. Others say he is not really against women in leadership, but that he is accommodating the prejudices of the pagan culture of Ephesus (as he seems to have done with the head-covering issue in Corinth). Still others emphasize the leading roles of women in the pagan temples in Asia, and say that Paul did not wish for the Christian women to get mixed up in that kind of business.
Our author has chosen a four-pronged tactic: 1) to raise questions about the Pauline authorship; 2) to seek to show contradictions between Paul’s earlier positions and those expressed in 1 Timothy, so as to argue that, whatever Paul (or whoever) might have written here, it cannot be regarded as absolute; 3) to suggest that the specific local problem Paul (or whoever) was addressing was that of female false teachers; and 4) to find fault with Paul’s reasoning about women’s ministry roles. I would like to address each of these issues individually.
1. The Pauline Authorship.
The question of whether Paul was the real author of the Pastoral Epistles or not was never raised prior to the early nineteenth century. Whatever compelling linguistic or ecclesiastical evidence may now commend itself to liberal scholars as disproving the Pauline authorship was apparently invisible to the church scholars of the first 1800 years. No doubt the liberal scholars would chalk-up this slowness, on the part of the ancients, to recognize such indicators, to the persistent bias of the conservative church in favor of the traditional canon of the New Testament. However, I should think it more likely that the suspicions that arose in the nineteenth century reflect the mood and the anti-biblical prejudice of that period, in which the denial of the traditional authorship of the Pentateuch, of Isaiah, of Daniel, and of the majority of New Testament books was the order of the day.
I find seven times in this article that the author says “assuming Paul is the author…” (or the equivalent). One cannot help but wonder whether these repeated apparent “concessions” to conservative readers are intended to raise questions about the Pauline authorship by a sort of reverse-psychology. He writes: “Of course the majority of scholars think these letters are pseudonymous and thus written long after Paul was dead.”
Nonetheless he makes the following concession: “of course, even if 1 Timothy were pseudonymous, it is in Scripture and therefore must be treated as authoritative in the manner of Scripture all the same.”
In other words, even if the author of the Pastoral Epistles, who unambiguously identified himself as Paul, was outright lying about his identity, these books must be treated with reverence nonetheless, because someone two millennia ago had the poor judgment to include them with the genuine writings of Paul—as if there is a magical quality called “canonicity” that somehow confers authority upon a book that was spurious at the time it was written! It is clear that the writer of the article under consideration has a bizarre view of scriptural authority—if indeed his comment was not intended to be taken as entirely sarcastic.
If Paul did not write the epistles to Timothy and Titus, then some forger went to a great deal of trouble to fabricate fictional movements of Paul and his co-workers, without making any attempt to add credibility to his material by making these movements consistent with any of the known movements of Paul recorded in Acts. According to the Pastorals, Paul had visited Ephesus (1 Tim.1:3), Crete (Tit.1:5), Nicapolis (Tit.3:12), Corinth (2 Tim.4:20), Miletus (4:20) and Troas (4:13) on journeys that find no counterpart in the missionary journeys in Acts. Paul had left Timothy in Ephesus while traveling to Macedonia (1 Tim.1:3). He had left Titus in Crete (Tit. 1:5), who then went to Dalmatia (2 Tim.4:10). Mark was in Asia, and Tychicus had been sent to Ephesus (2 Tim.4:11-12). Demas had backslidden, deserted Paul and sailed to Thessalonica (2 Tim.4:10). This is a lot of detail for a forger to make-up when none of it is necessarily germane to the doctrines put forward in the epistle.
2. Contradictions between 1 Timothy and Paul’s earlier positions.
Our author opines: “1 Timothy is a departure in several ways from the church of Acts and Paul's earlier writings.” To establish this thesis, he provides several specific “exhibits” that represent, he thinks, markers of this trend in Paul. Let’s briefly consider each of these.
Exhibit A: Paul’s thoughts about widows
Our author asserts:
“Assuming Paul as author, he has apparently become very pessimistic about the ability of widows to stay single…1 Timothy 5 has all the feel of someone who has been burned by experience. No longer optimistic about widows staying single, he pragmatically caves in to advise them to remarry.”
In the twelve years or more between the writing of 1 Corinthians and the writing of 1 Timothy, much could have changed besides Paul’s mood. It is clear that the instructions that Paul gave to widows (and all unmarried people) in Corinth were conditioned upon a situation that Paul referred to as “the present distress.” He does not speak as if his words are an absolute command. In fact, he prefaces his remarks with such disclaimers as, “I have no commandment from the Lord…” (1 Cor.7:25), and “I suppose it is good because of the present distress…”(v.26). “I suppose it is good…?!!” Paul is not here disclosing some unchanging, transcendent cosmic law for widows of all times. He is giving them a practical recommendation for a specific, transient circumstance.
His advice concerning widows in 1 Timothy, on the other hand, reflects a different time and different circumstances. There is no evidence of Paul “caving-in” to the demands of younger widows, who wish to marry. He always allowed widows to marry—even in 1 Corinthians 7:28,39. It may be that, at the early date of Paul’s writing to the Corinthians (perhaps 53 AD, just two years after the establishment of the church in Corinth), there were relatively few women who had lost their husbands, and they may all have been older women—meaning his advice to them was entirely consistent with that which he gave concerning older widows in 1 Timothy, namely, that they should have the option of remaining single and being maintained by the church. He gave these Corinthian widows his frank counsel, without placing any requirement upon them to follow his advice.
Now, by the time he wrote 1 Timothy, there were apparently enough Christian widows in Ephesus to require specific policies to be adopted by the church for their support (5:3). Paul realized that the options for remarriage for women over 60 would be very limited, and so he instructed that the church should have a fund for maintaining qualifying older widows (5:9-10). He also knew that the younger widows might not feel that their options for future marriage had thoroughly evaporated, and that they would normally have it in their minds, potentially, to remarry. He encouraged them to take that step, if they had the opportunity—so that the resources of the church might not be depleted by the unnecessary swelling of the ranks of indigents (5:11-14). This does not mean that he had in any sense changed his mind concerning the personal, spiritual benefits of remaining unmarried. His concerns here were almost entirely economic.
Thus, I see no evidence here for anything like a fundamental change in Paul’s thinking. He applies his convictions appropriately to differing circumstances, as all sensible people do.
Exhibit B: Paul’s thoughts about marriage
Our author informs us:
“He talks of people forbidding marriage in those later times--an interesting change of trajectory again from 1 Corinthians 7. In 1 Cor. 7 Paul's trajectory is away from marriage. In 1 Timothy it is toward marriage.”
That is an interesting way of putting it. To say that “Paul’s trajectory is away from marriage,” in 1 Corinthians, is a safe way of suggesting the dubious thesis that a significant change has occurred, without really saying anything so specific as to allow refutation. The author could not say (without immediately being shown to be mistaken) that Paul was “against” marriage in 1 Corinthians, but “for” marriage in 1 Timothy. If such could be demonstrated, it would indeed be evidence of a significant change in Paul’s thinking.
However, in 1 Corinthians, where Paul’s “trajectory” is said to be away from marriage, Paul begins his discussion by saying, “because of [that is “to avoid”] sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband” (7:2). Whatever else he may go on to say regarding the benefits of remaining single, this sentence eliminates any possibility of saying that Paul is speaking negatively about, or forbidding, marriage. Even when he is strongly encouraging those who can do so to remain single, he interjects many disclaimers making it obvious that he is not “forbidding to marry” (7:9, 28, 36, 39).
Thus there is nothing substantial in the claim that Paul’s later warning, in 1 Timothy, about those who would “forbid marriage,” nor his advising of younger widows to settle into domestic life, nor his generally favorable attitude toward marriage, reflects anything like a “different trajectory”—that is, a different attitude—toward marriage from what he held when he wrote 1 Corinthians.
Even earlier than 1 Corinthians, Paul had written to the Thessalonians concerning sexual purity, and had advocated that “each man possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor” (1 Thess.4:4). While it is possible that “vessel” here refers to the man’s own body (cf. 2 Cor.4:7, and followed by most translators), many scholars think that “vessel” was a euphemism for a “wife” (cf. 1 Peter 3:7)—hence the RSV renders 1 Thes.4:4, “that each one of you know how to take a wife for himself in holiness and honor.” If this latter interpretation is correct (which is admittedly questionable), it provides testimony to Paul’s general advocacy of marriage, prior even to the writing of 1 Corinthians.
Exhibit C: Paul’s expectations about the second coming
We are told:
“Paul does not have the same heightened sense of Christ's immanent return that he had in 1 Corinthians. He now can distinguish ‘later times’ when people leave ‘the faith’ (4:1, here using faith in a different way than he normally does in his earlier letters). Paul himself would belong to the early times of the faith, so he is presumably thinking of a time after he has passed from the scene.”
I will admit that Paul may have felt the coming of the Lord was near when he wrote 1 Corinthians. If so, then it was a miscalculation on his part, not different in principle from his miscalculation concerning the proximity of his journey to Spain, via Rome, which was delayed at least four years longer than he expected, and may never have occurred at all (Romans 15:28-29). Paul was human, and was not above making mistakes and miscalculations (e.g., Acts 16:7; 21:4ff).
However, I am not sure that Paul was expecting the immediate coming of Christ when he wrote 1 Corinthians. Very few years earlier, he had written to the Thessalonians warning them not to heed any rumor—even if it purported to be from him—that the coming of Christ was immanent. He said there were significant events (i.e., the apostasy and the revealing of the man of sin) that would have to come first (2 Thess.2:1-3). It is not likely that, when he wrote 1 Corinthians, he now thought that these events had transpired in the three years since writing to the Thessalonians.
In my opinion, our author makes too much of Paul’s reference to “later times.” Paul tells Timothy that the Spirit had spoken expressly about conditions that would prevail in the “later times”(4:1). But Paul does not say whether he believed that those previously-predicted “later times” had now arrived (as all the other New testament writers seemed to believe), and that he and Timothy were witnessing the predicted “falling away,” or whether he was saying that those times were still ahead. Even if he believed that they were still ahead, this would not reflect a change in his earlier attitude. It is not different from what he had written much earlier, to the Thessalonians, about the coming of the Lord needing to be preceded by a great falling away and the appearance of the man of sin (2 Thess.2:3).
Also, the alleged dichotomy between Paul’s use of “the faith,” in 1 Timothy, and his use of “faith” in his earlier epistles is a liberal red herring—commonly presented to diminish confidence in Paul’s authorship of the Pastoral Epistles. The allegation is that Paul, in his earlier epistles, only thought of “faith” as simple belief in Jesus, whereas, in the Pastoral Epistles, “the faith” refers to a body of creedal beliefs that came to be associated with later Christianity, at a more institutionalized stage.
However, “faith” (as simple belief in Jesus) is also found in the Pastorals (e.g., 1 Tim.1:14/ 2 Tim.1:13; 2:18/ Tit.1:1), and “the faith” (as a reference to the body of beliefs identified as Christianity) is found frequently in the earlier writings of Paul, and of his friend Luke (e.g., Acts 6:7; 13:8;14:22/ Gal.1:23/ Phil.1:27/ Col.1:23; 2:7). There is no evidence here that the vocabulary of “the faith,” as Paul used it in 1 Timothy, reflects some change in Paul’s doctrine or attitude over against his earlier writings.
Exhibit D: Paul’s advocacy of institutionalism
Our author writes:
“What we are seeing here is a move toward institutionalization…the Pastorals begin to focus on the ‘example’ and ‘deposit’ of ‘teaching’ (1 Tim. 1:10, 16; 4:6, 16; 6:3, 20) Paul is leaving to the church after him--a focus and vocabulary we largely do not find in his earlier letters... Now we need standards for leaders, here overseers and deacons…The importance of wives being in subordination to their husbands becomes institutionalized in 1 Tim. 2:9-15…Paul (or the heirs of Paul) are shifting from a more charismatic and pneumatic environment where women have few spiritual boundaries to one where the church is buckling down for the long haul.”
There is no reason to believe that Paul was abandoning earlier commitments to charismatic and pneumatic ministry in favor of institutionalized religion in the Pastoral Epistles. The appeal to good examples, to established doctrines and to qualifications for church leaders need not be regarded as replacing any earlier values embraced by Paul in his earlier life. As far back as his epistles to the Thessalonians and the Corinthians (some of Paul’s earliest epistles), we find Paul recommending his own behavior, and that of other godly leaders, as examples for emulation by believers (1 Thess.1:6; 2:14; 4:1; 5:12/ 2 Thess.3:7/ 1 Cor.11:1; 16:15-16, etc.). How does this differ from this feature when found in 1 Timothy?
Already, in the Thessalonian correspondence, Paul was speaking about “traditions” which he had delivered to them, to which they should adhere (2 Thess.2:15; 3:6). How is this different from the “deposit of teaching” referred to by our author?
As for “standards” for church leaders, we find Paul and Barnabas appointing overseers in every church as early as the first missionary journey (Acts 14:23—before any of Paul’s epistles were written!). Are we to assume that the apostles had no standards that guided them in their selection? The suggestion is absurd. Even before Pentecost, there were standards that guided the apostles in their selection of a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:21-22).
There is no evidence that “The importance of wives being in subordination to their husbands becomes institutionalized in 1 Tim. 2:9-15,” any more than was the case when Paul urged such submission in Ephesians 5:22-24, Colossians 3:18, or 1 Corinthians 11:3ff.
Strangely, our author contrasts all of this with an alleged earlier, “more charismatic and pneumatic environment where women have few spiritual boundaries.” If he is thinking of 1 Corinthians as an example of this earlier attitude, it is hard to see why he characterizes Paul, there, as placing “few...boundaries” upon women (in view of 1 Corinthians 11:4-16 and 14:34-35).
In summary, every evidence for “institutionalism” given by our author as an example of change in Paul’s policies is 100% invalid and vacuous.
Exhibit E: Paul’s thought about women in ministry
According to our author, in the time of the Pastoral Epistles, “We no longer have the pneumatic world of the early Paul, where women seem to be part of the ministerial cadre (Priscilla, Phoebe, Lydia, Euodia, Syntyche).”
There is no evidence that Paul was less accepting of female ministries when he wrote 1 Timothy than at any previous time in his life. In 1 Timothy 2:12ff, Paul does not permit women to occupy whatever eldership roles may have existed in the Ephesian church. There is no reason to believe that he would have, at an earlier time in his life, been willing to appoint Priscilla, Phoebe, Lydia, Euodia, or Syntyche to positions of eldership over churches. Priscilla and her husband were hosts of a home church gathering (Rom.16:3-5). Phoebe was a “deaconess” (Rom.16:1—not a position of leadership). Lydia was the hostess of the church in her home , in Philippi (Acts 16:14-15), and Euodia and Syntyche were “laborers” in the same church (Phil.4:2-3). There is no evidence in 1 Timothy that Paul would, at any point in his life, discourage women from any of these activities. Our author's arguments just become more and more desperate!
Notwithstanding our author’s lack of even one convincing argument, upon the basis of the invalid points given above, he then reaches his tentative conclusion: 1 Timothy cannot be considered authoritative (especially in its teaching regarding women in church leadership). He writes:
“1 Timothy 5 is thus highly practical and, given its obvious shift from Paul's earlier writings, cannot be taken as absolute in character…the variance between Paul's earlier context and 1 Timothy shows that these structures cannot be timeless--Paul himself apparently has not always followed them. They have to be a concession to pragmatics…When we now approach the passage on women in 1 Timothy 2:11-15, we should do so with this sense that 1 Timothy as a whole is a different bird.”
He has not presented a convincing case for any of this. The specific passage restricting the placement of women in leadership actually contains the rationale that Paul believes justifies his instructions. He says it is based upon the order of the creation of man and woman in the Garden of Eden, and the subsequent sins of our first parents. There is no indication that Paul is being pragmatic, nor that he is addressing a local problem.
3. Paul’s concern is with female false teachers.
We read:
“It is a time when all the apostles have died and free wheeling charismatic prophesy is a major source of false teaching. It is a world where itinerant teachers are a major problem. In fact, we should see such false teachers as an element in the equation even when we assume Pauline authorship (cf. 1 Tim. 6:3-10)…One might hypothesize a situation at Ephesus where women are a major element in the false teaching equation.”
This is an entirely speculative leap. Were there female false teachers or false prophets causing problems in the church of Ephesus? If so, Paul either did not know of them, or else saw no need to make mention of them. He does name some of the false teachers that Timothy needed to look out for, but they are men (1 Tim.1:20). In 2 Timothy 3:1-8, Paul gives a lengthy profile of the false teachers and corrupting influences that he foresaw threatening the purity of the church. He specifically refers to these as “men” (vv.2, 8) and says that gullible women would be particularly vulnerable to their schemes (v.6)—but he presents these women only as victims, not as perpetrators of the deception.
If Paul believed that women were dangerously prone to being deceived, and, therefore, it would not be "safe" for them to teach the men, then why did Paul not share a similar concern about these women teaching children (2 Tim.1:5 w/ 3:15) or teaching other women (Tit.2:3-5)? On this author's view, Paul needed to protect the men (who allegedly were less prone to be deceived than the women) from the bad teaching of female teachers, but he did not see a similar need to protect the women and children (which included the next generation of men!) from the same dangerous influence! It simply makes no sense, and it does not represent anything Paul actually says.
If Paul was restricting the leadership roles of women because he believed that some women might be false teachers, why did he not also debar men from these roles, since he knew of some men who were false teachers? Why forbid women? Why not simply forbid heretics, both male and female, from being in church leadership? And if such concerns were Paul’s reason for what he said about women, why didn’t he express this concern? Why did he give an entirely unrelated reason for his instructions?
4. Paul’s invalid argumentation.
Now we find our author’s expression of disdain for Paul’s ability to make a sensible argument. He writes:
“The arguments used to substantiate these roles for husband and wife are the creational order of Adam and Eve and Eve's propensity to be deceived…The logic seems to be that women are more easily deceived than men and thus that they should not instruct men…But clearly this is not always true.”
To which I would say that Paul mentions nothing about the propensity of women to be deceived, and does not make such a proposition a part of his rationale for restricting women from eldership. Paul reminds us that Eve was deceived, but he does not extrapolate from that fact any corresponding tendency in all women.
He also writes:
“Here we should note that biblical arguments are often as enculturated as biblical injunctions are. Who today would put speckled rods in front of animals in the process of giving birth to try to result in speckled offspring (Gen. 30:37-43)?...the argument of 1 Timothy 2 appears strongly like a number of other arguments in Scripture with clear cultural characteristics. As speckled rods don't make cows have speckled calves, Eve's gullibility does not make all women gullible. Those who mindlessly apply this Scripture to today would appear to be the ones who easily misunderstand and shouldn't be teachers!”
This comparison is so lame as to embarrass the author, were he sufficiently clear-thinking to analyze his own arguments objectively. There is no parallel between Paul presenting qualifications of elders, on the one hand, and Jacob’s goat-breeding strategies, on the other (as an aside, the Bible does not tell us that Jacob’s actions affected the color of the lambs and kids. I believe there was something entirely different being suggested in Genesis).
The reasons that there can be no parallel drawn between the two cases are, first, because in the former we have apostolic instructions (imperative), whereas in the latter we have only a narrative of what a man did (indicative). Second, we know that the things Paul wrote were to be regarded as “the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor.14:37), but we know of no commandment of the Lord to Jacob to adopt the procedures he favored for animal husbandry.
The author speaks of those “who mindlessly apply this Scripture.” Is he saying that those who disagree with his conclusions are doing so mindlessly—that there is not a mountain of objective scholarship that supports their conclusions? If so, then he has done very little of his homework, and has himself spoken mindlessly.
Finally, he argues:
“Women cannot be held accountable for the sins of Eve ("the soul that sinneth, it shall die"--not the soul of all her descendants). To the extent to which women are not easily deceived, to that extent there is no reasonable prohibition against them being teachers. And clearly women are far more educated today than they were in the time of Paul.”
There is no indication that Paul is punishing women, or holding them accountable for Eve’s sins. If he was, though, this would provide apostolic warrant for believing it. Our author thinks Paul is saying that, but rejects Paul’s statements, as if he is a better arbiter of Christian theology than is the apostle himself. Knowing what we know about the role of church leadership—its temptations and the stricter judgment accruing to it—it would be more reasonable to suggest that Paul is protecting women, rather than punishing them. Only those who think of leadership as a privileged role would see Paul’s instructions as punitive—but those who see church leadership this way (as our author apparently does) are truly scary!
The last two sentences in the above quote are presumptuous. How does the author profess to know that “there is no reasonable prohibition against them being teachers” to the extent that women are not easily deceived. Paul never presents the gullibility of women as a reason for his instructions, and if such a thing is at all hinted at in his reference to Eve, this still would be the secondary, not primary reason.
Paul does not give women’s lack of sophistication as a reason for his instructions. The fact that God made man first is Paul’s primary argument, suggesting that God’s created order reveals God’s intentions for gender relations. No matter how many centuries may pass, how much the cultures evolve, or how educated women become, the facts of creation will remain unchanged. Insofar as these provide a valid basis for Paul’s instructions, these instructions will also remain valid.
Our author has chosen a four-pronged tactic: 1) to raise questions about the Pauline authorship; 2) to seek to show contradictions between Paul’s earlier positions and those expressed in 1 Timothy, so as to argue that, whatever Paul (or whoever) might have written here, it cannot be regarded as absolute; 3) to suggest that the specific local problem Paul (or whoever) was addressing was that of female false teachers; and 4) to find fault with Paul’s reasoning about women’s ministry roles. I would like to address each of these issues individually.
1. The Pauline Authorship.
The question of whether Paul was the real author of the Pastoral Epistles or not was never raised prior to the early nineteenth century. Whatever compelling linguistic or ecclesiastical evidence may now commend itself to liberal scholars as disproving the Pauline authorship was apparently invisible to the church scholars of the first 1800 years. No doubt the liberal scholars would chalk-up this slowness, on the part of the ancients, to recognize such indicators, to the persistent bias of the conservative church in favor of the traditional canon of the New Testament. However, I should think it more likely that the suspicions that arose in the nineteenth century reflect the mood and the anti-biblical prejudice of that period, in which the denial of the traditional authorship of the Pentateuch, of Isaiah, of Daniel, and of the majority of New Testament books was the order of the day.
I find seven times in this article that the author says “assuming Paul is the author…” (or the equivalent). One cannot help but wonder whether these repeated apparent “concessions” to conservative readers are intended to raise questions about the Pauline authorship by a sort of reverse-psychology. He writes: “Of course the majority of scholars think these letters are pseudonymous and thus written long after Paul was dead.”
Nonetheless he makes the following concession: “of course, even if 1 Timothy were pseudonymous, it is in Scripture and therefore must be treated as authoritative in the manner of Scripture all the same.”
In other words, even if the author of the Pastoral Epistles, who unambiguously identified himself as Paul, was outright lying about his identity, these books must be treated with reverence nonetheless, because someone two millennia ago had the poor judgment to include them with the genuine writings of Paul—as if there is a magical quality called “canonicity” that somehow confers authority upon a book that was spurious at the time it was written! It is clear that the writer of the article under consideration has a bizarre view of scriptural authority—if indeed his comment was not intended to be taken as entirely sarcastic.
If Paul did not write the epistles to Timothy and Titus, then some forger went to a great deal of trouble to fabricate fictional movements of Paul and his co-workers, without making any attempt to add credibility to his material by making these movements consistent with any of the known movements of Paul recorded in Acts. According to the Pastorals, Paul had visited Ephesus (1 Tim.1:3), Crete (Tit.1:5), Nicapolis (Tit.3:12), Corinth (2 Tim.4:20), Miletus (4:20) and Troas (4:13) on journeys that find no counterpart in the missionary journeys in Acts. Paul had left Timothy in Ephesus while traveling to Macedonia (1 Tim.1:3). He had left Titus in Crete (Tit. 1:5), who then went to Dalmatia (2 Tim.4:10). Mark was in Asia, and Tychicus had been sent to Ephesus (2 Tim.4:11-12). Demas had backslidden, deserted Paul and sailed to Thessalonica (2 Tim.4:10). This is a lot of detail for a forger to make-up when none of it is necessarily germane to the doctrines put forward in the epistle.
2. Contradictions between 1 Timothy and Paul’s earlier positions.
Our author opines: “1 Timothy is a departure in several ways from the church of Acts and Paul's earlier writings.” To establish this thesis, he provides several specific “exhibits” that represent, he thinks, markers of this trend in Paul. Let’s briefly consider each of these.
Exhibit A: Paul’s thoughts about widows
Our author asserts:
“Assuming Paul as author, he has apparently become very pessimistic about the ability of widows to stay single…1 Timothy 5 has all the feel of someone who has been burned by experience. No longer optimistic about widows staying single, he pragmatically caves in to advise them to remarry.”
In the twelve years or more between the writing of 1 Corinthians and the writing of 1 Timothy, much could have changed besides Paul’s mood. It is clear that the instructions that Paul gave to widows (and all unmarried people) in Corinth were conditioned upon a situation that Paul referred to as “the present distress.” He does not speak as if his words are an absolute command. In fact, he prefaces his remarks with such disclaimers as, “I have no commandment from the Lord…” (1 Cor.7:25), and “I suppose it is good because of the present distress…”(v.26). “I suppose it is good…?!!” Paul is not here disclosing some unchanging, transcendent cosmic law for widows of all times. He is giving them a practical recommendation for a specific, transient circumstance.
His advice concerning widows in 1 Timothy, on the other hand, reflects a different time and different circumstances. There is no evidence of Paul “caving-in” to the demands of younger widows, who wish to marry. He always allowed widows to marry—even in 1 Corinthians 7:28,39. It may be that, at the early date of Paul’s writing to the Corinthians (perhaps 53 AD, just two years after the establishment of the church in Corinth), there were relatively few women who had lost their husbands, and they may all have been older women—meaning his advice to them was entirely consistent with that which he gave concerning older widows in 1 Timothy, namely, that they should have the option of remaining single and being maintained by the church. He gave these Corinthian widows his frank counsel, without placing any requirement upon them to follow his advice.
Now, by the time he wrote 1 Timothy, there were apparently enough Christian widows in Ephesus to require specific policies to be adopted by the church for their support (5:3). Paul realized that the options for remarriage for women over 60 would be very limited, and so he instructed that the church should have a fund for maintaining qualifying older widows (5:9-10). He also knew that the younger widows might not feel that their options for future marriage had thoroughly evaporated, and that they would normally have it in their minds, potentially, to remarry. He encouraged them to take that step, if they had the opportunity—so that the resources of the church might not be depleted by the unnecessary swelling of the ranks of indigents (5:11-14). This does not mean that he had in any sense changed his mind concerning the personal, spiritual benefits of remaining unmarried. His concerns here were almost entirely economic.
Thus, I see no evidence here for anything like a fundamental change in Paul’s thinking. He applies his convictions appropriately to differing circumstances, as all sensible people do.
Exhibit B: Paul’s thoughts about marriage
Our author informs us:
“He talks of people forbidding marriage in those later times--an interesting change of trajectory again from 1 Corinthians 7. In 1 Cor. 7 Paul's trajectory is away from marriage. In 1 Timothy it is toward marriage.”
That is an interesting way of putting it. To say that “Paul’s trajectory is away from marriage,” in 1 Corinthians, is a safe way of suggesting the dubious thesis that a significant change has occurred, without really saying anything so specific as to allow refutation. The author could not say (without immediately being shown to be mistaken) that Paul was “against” marriage in 1 Corinthians, but “for” marriage in 1 Timothy. If such could be demonstrated, it would indeed be evidence of a significant change in Paul’s thinking.
However, in 1 Corinthians, where Paul’s “trajectory” is said to be away from marriage, Paul begins his discussion by saying, “because of [that is “to avoid”] sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband” (7:2). Whatever else he may go on to say regarding the benefits of remaining single, this sentence eliminates any possibility of saying that Paul is speaking negatively about, or forbidding, marriage. Even when he is strongly encouraging those who can do so to remain single, he interjects many disclaimers making it obvious that he is not “forbidding to marry” (7:9, 28, 36, 39).
Thus there is nothing substantial in the claim that Paul’s later warning, in 1 Timothy, about those who would “forbid marriage,” nor his advising of younger widows to settle into domestic life, nor his generally favorable attitude toward marriage, reflects anything like a “different trajectory”—that is, a different attitude—toward marriage from what he held when he wrote 1 Corinthians.
Even earlier than 1 Corinthians, Paul had written to the Thessalonians concerning sexual purity, and had advocated that “each man possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor” (1 Thess.4:4). While it is possible that “vessel” here refers to the man’s own body (cf. 2 Cor.4:7, and followed by most translators), many scholars think that “vessel” was a euphemism for a “wife” (cf. 1 Peter 3:7)—hence the RSV renders 1 Thes.4:4, “that each one of you know how to take a wife for himself in holiness and honor.” If this latter interpretation is correct (which is admittedly questionable), it provides testimony to Paul’s general advocacy of marriage, prior even to the writing of 1 Corinthians.
Exhibit C: Paul’s expectations about the second coming
We are told:
“Paul does not have the same heightened sense of Christ's immanent return that he had in 1 Corinthians. He now can distinguish ‘later times’ when people leave ‘the faith’ (4:1, here using faith in a different way than he normally does in his earlier letters). Paul himself would belong to the early times of the faith, so he is presumably thinking of a time after he has passed from the scene.”
I will admit that Paul may have felt the coming of the Lord was near when he wrote 1 Corinthians. If so, then it was a miscalculation on his part, not different in principle from his miscalculation concerning the proximity of his journey to Spain, via Rome, which was delayed at least four years longer than he expected, and may never have occurred at all (Romans 15:28-29). Paul was human, and was not above making mistakes and miscalculations (e.g., Acts 16:7; 21:4ff).
However, I am not sure that Paul was expecting the immediate coming of Christ when he wrote 1 Corinthians. Very few years earlier, he had written to the Thessalonians warning them not to heed any rumor—even if it purported to be from him—that the coming of Christ was immanent. He said there were significant events (i.e., the apostasy and the revealing of the man of sin) that would have to come first (2 Thess.2:1-3). It is not likely that, when he wrote 1 Corinthians, he now thought that these events had transpired in the three years since writing to the Thessalonians.
In my opinion, our author makes too much of Paul’s reference to “later times.” Paul tells Timothy that the Spirit had spoken expressly about conditions that would prevail in the “later times”(4:1). But Paul does not say whether he believed that those previously-predicted “later times” had now arrived (as all the other New testament writers seemed to believe), and that he and Timothy were witnessing the predicted “falling away,” or whether he was saying that those times were still ahead. Even if he believed that they were still ahead, this would not reflect a change in his earlier attitude. It is not different from what he had written much earlier, to the Thessalonians, about the coming of the Lord needing to be preceded by a great falling away and the appearance of the man of sin (2 Thess.2:3).
Also, the alleged dichotomy between Paul’s use of “the faith,” in 1 Timothy, and his use of “faith” in his earlier epistles is a liberal red herring—commonly presented to diminish confidence in Paul’s authorship of the Pastoral Epistles. The allegation is that Paul, in his earlier epistles, only thought of “faith” as simple belief in Jesus, whereas, in the Pastoral Epistles, “the faith” refers to a body of creedal beliefs that came to be associated with later Christianity, at a more institutionalized stage.
However, “faith” (as simple belief in Jesus) is also found in the Pastorals (e.g., 1 Tim.1:14/ 2 Tim.1:13; 2:18/ Tit.1:1), and “the faith” (as a reference to the body of beliefs identified as Christianity) is found frequently in the earlier writings of Paul, and of his friend Luke (e.g., Acts 6:7; 13:8;14:22/ Gal.1:23/ Phil.1:27/ Col.1:23; 2:7). There is no evidence here that the vocabulary of “the faith,” as Paul used it in 1 Timothy, reflects some change in Paul’s doctrine or attitude over against his earlier writings.
Exhibit D: Paul’s advocacy of institutionalism
Our author writes:
“What we are seeing here is a move toward institutionalization…the Pastorals begin to focus on the ‘example’ and ‘deposit’ of ‘teaching’ (1 Tim. 1:10, 16; 4:6, 16; 6:3, 20) Paul is leaving to the church after him--a focus and vocabulary we largely do not find in his earlier letters... Now we need standards for leaders, here overseers and deacons…The importance of wives being in subordination to their husbands becomes institutionalized in 1 Tim. 2:9-15…Paul (or the heirs of Paul) are shifting from a more charismatic and pneumatic environment where women have few spiritual boundaries to one where the church is buckling down for the long haul.”
There is no reason to believe that Paul was abandoning earlier commitments to charismatic and pneumatic ministry in favor of institutionalized religion in the Pastoral Epistles. The appeal to good examples, to established doctrines and to qualifications for church leaders need not be regarded as replacing any earlier values embraced by Paul in his earlier life. As far back as his epistles to the Thessalonians and the Corinthians (some of Paul’s earliest epistles), we find Paul recommending his own behavior, and that of other godly leaders, as examples for emulation by believers (1 Thess.1:6; 2:14; 4:1; 5:12/ 2 Thess.3:7/ 1 Cor.11:1; 16:15-16, etc.). How does this differ from this feature when found in 1 Timothy?
Already, in the Thessalonian correspondence, Paul was speaking about “traditions” which he had delivered to them, to which they should adhere (2 Thess.2:15; 3:6). How is this different from the “deposit of teaching” referred to by our author?
As for “standards” for church leaders, we find Paul and Barnabas appointing overseers in every church as early as the first missionary journey (Acts 14:23—before any of Paul’s epistles were written!). Are we to assume that the apostles had no standards that guided them in their selection? The suggestion is absurd. Even before Pentecost, there were standards that guided the apostles in their selection of a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:21-22).
There is no evidence that “The importance of wives being in subordination to their husbands becomes institutionalized in 1 Tim. 2:9-15,” any more than was the case when Paul urged such submission in Ephesians 5:22-24, Colossians 3:18, or 1 Corinthians 11:3ff.
Strangely, our author contrasts all of this with an alleged earlier, “more charismatic and pneumatic environment where women have few spiritual boundaries.” If he is thinking of 1 Corinthians as an example of this earlier attitude, it is hard to see why he characterizes Paul, there, as placing “few...boundaries” upon women (in view of 1 Corinthians 11:4-16 and 14:34-35).
In summary, every evidence for “institutionalism” given by our author as an example of change in Paul’s policies is 100% invalid and vacuous.
Exhibit E: Paul’s thought about women in ministry
According to our author, in the time of the Pastoral Epistles, “We no longer have the pneumatic world of the early Paul, where women seem to be part of the ministerial cadre (Priscilla, Phoebe, Lydia, Euodia, Syntyche).”
There is no evidence that Paul was less accepting of female ministries when he wrote 1 Timothy than at any previous time in his life. In 1 Timothy 2:12ff, Paul does not permit women to occupy whatever eldership roles may have existed in the Ephesian church. There is no reason to believe that he would have, at an earlier time in his life, been willing to appoint Priscilla, Phoebe, Lydia, Euodia, or Syntyche to positions of eldership over churches. Priscilla and her husband were hosts of a home church gathering (Rom.16:3-5). Phoebe was a “deaconess” (Rom.16:1—not a position of leadership). Lydia was the hostess of the church in her home , in Philippi (Acts 16:14-15), and Euodia and Syntyche were “laborers” in the same church (Phil.4:2-3). There is no evidence in 1 Timothy that Paul would, at any point in his life, discourage women from any of these activities. Our author's arguments just become more and more desperate!
Notwithstanding our author’s lack of even one convincing argument, upon the basis of the invalid points given above, he then reaches his tentative conclusion: 1 Timothy cannot be considered authoritative (especially in its teaching regarding women in church leadership). He writes:
“1 Timothy 5 is thus highly practical and, given its obvious shift from Paul's earlier writings, cannot be taken as absolute in character…the variance between Paul's earlier context and 1 Timothy shows that these structures cannot be timeless--Paul himself apparently has not always followed them. They have to be a concession to pragmatics…When we now approach the passage on women in 1 Timothy 2:11-15, we should do so with this sense that 1 Timothy as a whole is a different bird.”
He has not presented a convincing case for any of this. The specific passage restricting the placement of women in leadership actually contains the rationale that Paul believes justifies his instructions. He says it is based upon the order of the creation of man and woman in the Garden of Eden, and the subsequent sins of our first parents. There is no indication that Paul is being pragmatic, nor that he is addressing a local problem.
3. Paul’s concern is with female false teachers.
We read:
“It is a time when all the apostles have died and free wheeling charismatic prophesy is a major source of false teaching. It is a world where itinerant teachers are a major problem. In fact, we should see such false teachers as an element in the equation even when we assume Pauline authorship (cf. 1 Tim. 6:3-10)…One might hypothesize a situation at Ephesus where women are a major element in the false teaching equation.”
This is an entirely speculative leap. Were there female false teachers or false prophets causing problems in the church of Ephesus? If so, Paul either did not know of them, or else saw no need to make mention of them. He does name some of the false teachers that Timothy needed to look out for, but they are men (1 Tim.1:20). In 2 Timothy 3:1-8, Paul gives a lengthy profile of the false teachers and corrupting influences that he foresaw threatening the purity of the church. He specifically refers to these as “men” (vv.2, 8) and says that gullible women would be particularly vulnerable to their schemes (v.6)—but he presents these women only as victims, not as perpetrators of the deception.
If Paul believed that women were dangerously prone to being deceived, and, therefore, it would not be "safe" for them to teach the men, then why did Paul not share a similar concern about these women teaching children (2 Tim.1:5 w/ 3:15) or teaching other women (Tit.2:3-5)? On this author's view, Paul needed to protect the men (who allegedly were less prone to be deceived than the women) from the bad teaching of female teachers, but he did not see a similar need to protect the women and children (which included the next generation of men!) from the same dangerous influence! It simply makes no sense, and it does not represent anything Paul actually says.
If Paul was restricting the leadership roles of women because he believed that some women might be false teachers, why did he not also debar men from these roles, since he knew of some men who were false teachers? Why forbid women? Why not simply forbid heretics, both male and female, from being in church leadership? And if such concerns were Paul’s reason for what he said about women, why didn’t he express this concern? Why did he give an entirely unrelated reason for his instructions?
4. Paul’s invalid argumentation.
Now we find our author’s expression of disdain for Paul’s ability to make a sensible argument. He writes:
“The arguments used to substantiate these roles for husband and wife are the creational order of Adam and Eve and Eve's propensity to be deceived…The logic seems to be that women are more easily deceived than men and thus that they should not instruct men…But clearly this is not always true.”
To which I would say that Paul mentions nothing about the propensity of women to be deceived, and does not make such a proposition a part of his rationale for restricting women from eldership. Paul reminds us that Eve was deceived, but he does not extrapolate from that fact any corresponding tendency in all women.
He also writes:
“Here we should note that biblical arguments are often as enculturated as biblical injunctions are. Who today would put speckled rods in front of animals in the process of giving birth to try to result in speckled offspring (Gen. 30:37-43)?...the argument of 1 Timothy 2 appears strongly like a number of other arguments in Scripture with clear cultural characteristics. As speckled rods don't make cows have speckled calves, Eve's gullibility does not make all women gullible. Those who mindlessly apply this Scripture to today would appear to be the ones who easily misunderstand and shouldn't be teachers!”
This comparison is so lame as to embarrass the author, were he sufficiently clear-thinking to analyze his own arguments objectively. There is no parallel between Paul presenting qualifications of elders, on the one hand, and Jacob’s goat-breeding strategies, on the other (as an aside, the Bible does not tell us that Jacob’s actions affected the color of the lambs and kids. I believe there was something entirely different being suggested in Genesis).
The reasons that there can be no parallel drawn between the two cases are, first, because in the former we have apostolic instructions (imperative), whereas in the latter we have only a narrative of what a man did (indicative). Second, we know that the things Paul wrote were to be regarded as “the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor.14:37), but we know of no commandment of the Lord to Jacob to adopt the procedures he favored for animal husbandry.
The author speaks of those “who mindlessly apply this Scripture.” Is he saying that those who disagree with his conclusions are doing so mindlessly—that there is not a mountain of objective scholarship that supports their conclusions? If so, then he has done very little of his homework, and has himself spoken mindlessly.
Finally, he argues:
“Women cannot be held accountable for the sins of Eve ("the soul that sinneth, it shall die"--not the soul of all her descendants). To the extent to which women are not easily deceived, to that extent there is no reasonable prohibition against them being teachers. And clearly women are far more educated today than they were in the time of Paul.”
There is no indication that Paul is punishing women, or holding them accountable for Eve’s sins. If he was, though, this would provide apostolic warrant for believing it. Our author thinks Paul is saying that, but rejects Paul’s statements, as if he is a better arbiter of Christian theology than is the apostle himself. Knowing what we know about the role of church leadership—its temptations and the stricter judgment accruing to it—it would be more reasonable to suggest that Paul is protecting women, rather than punishing them. Only those who think of leadership as a privileged role would see Paul’s instructions as punitive—but those who see church leadership this way (as our author apparently does) are truly scary!
The last two sentences in the above quote are presumptuous. How does the author profess to know that “there is no reasonable prohibition against them being teachers” to the extent that women are not easily deceived. Paul never presents the gullibility of women as a reason for his instructions, and if such a thing is at all hinted at in his reference to Eve, this still would be the secondary, not primary reason.
Paul does not give women’s lack of sophistication as a reason for his instructions. The fact that God made man first is Paul’s primary argument, suggesting that God’s created order reveals God’s intentions for gender relations. No matter how many centuries may pass, how much the cultures evolve, or how educated women become, the facts of creation will remain unchanged. Insofar as these provide a valid basis for Paul’s instructions, these instructions will also remain valid.
Re: Women in 1 Timothy (Could Steve respond?)
Steve,
Thanks so much for taking the time to thoroughly respond to Ken's position. I think Ken Schenk is a good solid theologian for the most part. But he does, at the very least, give a lot of time to liberal arguments that, in my opinion, don't always deserve time. In this case, I think he is trying his very best to argue a position b/c of denominational and popularity pressures.
But I do like the guy in most cases. He's a Bible loving Christian. I just think he's trying too hard to say what's expected of him in this case.
Here's his regular blog: http://kenschenck.blogspot.com/
Thanks so much for taking the time to thoroughly respond to Ken's position. I think Ken Schenk is a good solid theologian for the most part. But he does, at the very least, give a lot of time to liberal arguments that, in my opinion, don't always deserve time. In this case, I think he is trying his very best to argue a position b/c of denominational and popularity pressures.
But I do like the guy in most cases. He's a Bible loving Christian. I just think he's trying too hard to say what's expected of him in this case.
Here's his regular blog: http://kenschenck.blogspot.com/
Re: Women in 1 Timothy (Could Steve respond?)
Paul does seem to say that the reason a woman is to learn in silence with all submissiveness, and is not to teach men or have authority over them, but is to keep silent,Steve wrote:To which I would say that Paul mentions nothing about the propensity of women to be deceived, and does not make such a proposition a part of his rationale for restricting women from eldership. Paul reminds us that Eve was deceived, but he does not extrapolate from that fact any corresponding tendency in all women.
is that Eve was created second, and that she was deceived and not Adam. This appears to suggest that Eve's weakness in being deceived can be universalized in application to women in general.
Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. FOR Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.I Timothy 2:11-14
If that little Greek word "γαρ" (for) does not link the two ideas, and give the reason for Paul's injuction, then in why does he use that little word?
Paidion
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Re: Women in 1 Timothy (Could Steve respond?)
I wasn't really following this thread but...Thanks, Steve for that in-depth analysis!
And, Matt, thanks for the link to Ken Schenk's blog!
I can see he & I probably have very similar ideas and methods along hermeneutical lines. That is, in terms of understanding the Bible {and people in it} in historical context as can be found in: intertestamental literature, Dead Sea Scrolls, non-canonical writings, and so on.
"NT background data,"
And, Matt, thanks for the link to Ken Schenk's blog!
I can see he & I probably have very similar ideas and methods along hermeneutical lines. That is, in terms of understanding the Bible {and people in it} in historical context as can be found in: intertestamental literature, Dead Sea Scrolls, non-canonical writings, and so on.
"NT background data,"
Re: Women in 1 Timothy (Could Steve respond?)
Paidion, I think the ideas are linked, as you say, by the word for, plus I think they are parallel ideas having to do with order of events. I don't have a problem being excluded from teaching men or having authority because I'm a woman. It just is what is it.Paidion wrote:Paul does seem to say that the reason a woman is to learn in silence with all submissiveness, and is not to teach men or have authority over them, but is to keep silent,Steve wrote:To which I would say that Paul mentions nothing about the propensity of women to be deceived, and does not make such a proposition a part of his rationale for restricting women from eldership. Paul reminds us that Eve was deceived, but he does not extrapolate from that fact any corresponding tendency in all women.
is that Eve was created second, and that she was deceived and not Adam. This appears to suggest that Eve's weakness in being deceived can be universalized in application to women in general.
Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. FOR Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.I Timothy 2:11-14
If that little Greek word "γαρ" (for) does not link the two ideas, and give the reason for Paul's injuction, then in why does he use that little word?
What do you mean by this statement? Do you mean that Paul is making a universal application about the gullibility of women, or do you mean that Paul is making a universal application about our (women, that is) disqualification in the areas of teaching and authority?This appears to suggest that Eve's weakness in being deceived can be universalized in application to women in general.
Re: Women in 1 Timothy (Could Steve respond?)
It SOUNDS to me as if Paul making a universal application about the gullibility of women. I wish he hadn't done so. I, myself, do not believe that women in general are more gullible than men. Yet, I think it was a fairly prevalent idea in those days.What do you mean by this statement? Do you mean that Paul is making a universal application about the gullibility of women, or do you mean that Paul is making a universal application about our (women, that is) disqualification in the areas of teaching and authority?This appears to suggest that Eve's weakness in being deceived can be universalized in application to women in general.
Paul seems to have reinforced this belief in his instructions to Timothy in 3:1-7
But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of stress. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, fierce, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,
holding the form of religion but denying the power of it. Avoid such people. For among them are those who make their way into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and swayed by various impulses, who will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth.
Having said this, I do admit that Paul may have been addressing Timothy about a particular subclass of women, and not about women in general.
Paidion
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Re: Women in 1 Timothy (Could Steve respond?)
I don't hear it, but maybe I'm listening with 21 century ears? I still hear two examples of order, one in creation, one in the fall.Paidion wrote:It SOUNDS to me as if Paul making a universal application about the gullibility of women. I wish he hadn't done so. I, myself, do not believe that women in general are more gullible than men. Yet, I think it was a fairly prevalent idea in those days.
If it was a prevalent idea in those days, which perhaps it was, and was due to the fact that women weren't educated like men; then perhaps Paul is actually going against conventional wisdom in suggesting that women indeed be educated -- maybe even as an antidote for gullibility caused by ignorance. Perhaps. Or maybe I'm just jumping to conclusions in order for it to make sense to me.
Yeah, in that passage it sounds like a certain type of woman, not women in general. In my experience, and I'm old enough to have a lot of experience,Paul seems to have reinforced this belief in his instructions to Timothy in 3:1-7
But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of stress. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, fierce, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,
holding the form of religion but denying the power of it. Avoid such people. For among them are those who make their way into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and swayed by various impulses, who will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth.
Having said this, I do admit that Paul may have been addressing Timothy about a particular subclass of women, and not about women in general.
I've met some pretty gullible men and I've met some pretty insightful women. I couldn't even agree that as a whole women are more gullible than men, but that may be just my experience, and it may be skewed. The scriptures seem to have plenty of examples of men who were easily led astray: Samson, Solomon, that young guy in Proverbs 7...
Re: Women in 1 Timothy (Could Steve respond?)
Thanks for the reply Steve. It was a good read. I can stop buggin ya now. 
He will not fail nor be discouraged till He has established justice in the earth. (Isaiah 42:4)