"And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression." 1 Timothy 2:14
I look at my own life and have no problem believing that women are easily deceived. If a pair of pants fit me perfectly and are technically the same size as all my other pants, but are labeled one size larger, I refuse to buy them. I always buy toothpaste with "teeth whitening action", even though my teeth aren't any whiter after almost a year of use. I almost always buy name brand products, even if studies have shown that the cheaper versions work just as well. Women can absolutely be easily deceived. My question is, are women more easily deceived than men?
I started thinking about this question after reading an article about wives submitting to their husbands. As a fellow complementarian, I agreed with almost everything the author said, but one comment irked me. Most likely referring to 1 Timothy 2:14, the author explained that one reason women needed the protection of God and their husbands is because they are more easily deceived than men. "That's absolutely untrue!" I fumed to myself, "I see men being deceived all the time! You know, I'm going to post about this on my blog and show the world that 1 Timothy 2:14 is so not about women being more easily deceived."
So just like Martin Luther (who is said to have done his best theology when he was angry), I sat down to write my scathingly brilliant (at least in my mind) article. However, as I thought about it, I realized that my negative reactions to this comment weren't really based on anything biblical. Instead they were rooted in my personal experience - not the best grid for interpreting Scripture. Could it be that *gasp*, I've been deceived about women not being more easily deceived? Or does the Bible support what I've thought all along? I want to find out.
For the next few posts, I'll be delving into the concept of women being more easily deceived than men. I'll look at what smart people on both sides of the issue have said and hopefully come to a biblical conclusion.
And maybe next time I find the perfect pair of pants, I'll ignore the size on the tag and buy them. Or I'll just write a smaller size on the tag in Sharpie.
I look at my own life and have no problem believing that women are easily deceived. If a pair of pants fit me perfectly and are technically the same size as all my other pants, but are labeled one size larger, I refuse to buy them. I always buy toothpaste with "teeth whitening action", even though my teeth aren't any whiter after almost a year of use. I almost always buy name brand products, even if studies have shown that the cheaper versions work just as well. Women can absolutely be easily deceived. My question is, are women more easily deceived than men?
I started thinking about this question after reading an article about wives submitting to their husbands. As a fellow complementarian, I agreed with almost everything the author said, but one comment irked me. Most likely referring to 1 Timothy 2:14, the author explained that one reason women needed the protection of God and their husbands is because they are more easily deceived than men. "That's absolutely untrue!" I fumed to myself, "I see men being deceived all the time! You know, I'm going to post about this on my blog and show the world that 1 Timothy 2:14 is so not about women being more easily deceived."
So just like Martin Luther (who is said to have done his best theology when he was angry), I sat down to write my scathingly brilliant (at least in my mind) article. However, as I thought about it, I realized that my negative reactions to this comment weren't really based on anything biblical. Instead they were rooted in my personal experience - not the best grid for interpreting Scripture. Could it be that *gasp*, I've been deceived about women not being more easily deceived? Or does the Bible support what I've thought all along? I want to find out.
For the next few posts, I'll be delving into the concept of women being more easily deceived than men. I'll look at what smart people on both sides of the issue have said and hopefully come to a biblical conclusion.
And maybe next time I find the perfect pair of pants, I'll ignore the size on the tag and buy them. Or I'll just write a smaller size on the tag in Sharpie.
7 comments:
Ok, I couldn't help but post on this topic. In broaching this issue, you are no doubt setting off the proverbial timebomb in the proverbial playground of the proverbial egalitarian. Heck, I would guess that even a lot of staunch complimentarians would be hesitant about making a call on this passage! However, prima facie, Paul certainly seems to be saying that women are more easily deceived than men. What I really want to say in this post is that the egalitarian interpretation of this passage won't suffice. Those egalitarians who actually care about the authority of the biblical text (after all, the matriarch of feminist hermeneutics, Elizabeth Fiorenza, just thinks Paul is a typical 1st century patriarchalite, and that the passage isn't normative) will interpret the passage as follows... Paul is not saying women are more easily deceived! Rather, he's using the creation story to reprove the heretical feminazi homeliticians who were running around in Ephesus. These women wanted to jump in and start teaching heresy, and they were hurting the entire church body in the process. Thus he's saying, "slow down women! Remember, Eve was deceived first, so women aren't always all that great!" [see Linda Belleville, "Teaching and Usurping Authority," in Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy, Ron Pierce and Rebecca Groothuis eds. Downer's Grove, Ill: IVP, 2004); 205-213, for an interpretation like this]. This interpretation seems a little silly. First, it assumes that the "gar" in v.14 is being used illustratively. In other words, Paul is saying, "I don't want women jumping in and teaching. For example, Eve was deceived..." The problem is this. Paul gives commands, and then he gives reasons for commands. As Schreiner states, "When Paul gives a command elsewhere in the Pastorals, the gar that follows almost invariably states the reason for the command (1 Tim 4:7-8, 16; 5:4, 11, 15, 18; 2 Tim 1:6-7; 2:7, 16; 3:5-6; 4:3, 5-6, 9-10, 11, 15; Titus 3:1-3, 9, 12) [Thomas Schreiner, "An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9-15: A Dialogue with Scholarship," in, Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, Thomas Schreiner, Andreas Kostenberger, and H. Scott Baldwin, eds. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995); 135]. To say Paul is using the gar illustratively is therefore suspect. Second, those holding the aforementioned interpretation generally assume that there's this crazy Artemis fertility cult and there's all these women buying into this weird creation story, and yadayadayada. I suppose that if one assumes this background, the egalitarian interpretation is more plausible. However, there is scant evidence for this reconstruction. Why do I say this? Because Clint Arnold told me so and I agree with him. Besides all this, we tend to have an anachronistic view of how men and women interact in society. Thus, when people say "Ephesus was a really egalitarian city," they are often sayning, "Ephesus is kinda like Seattle." Unfortunately, Ephesus was not like Seattle. It was still a center of patriarchalism! It wasn't like the local government was run by a bunch of feminazi amizonians. Moreover, the Artemis cult still had a bunch of men running it! All that to say, the egalitarian position is fanciful and anachronistic, and I think that if egalitarians want to be consistent, they need to side with Fiorenza and just consent that Paul isn't the sensitive, latte- sipping egalitarian they want him to be (I'm not ripping on latte. I'm rather partial to it). Ok, I'll need to post again and talk about how in the world we should interpret the passage.
I've always loved the word "gar." It reminds me of the Sea Captain on "The Simpsons." Good thoughts, Jeffy! I think Schreiner's brilliant, but I'm not sure if I buy his take on 2:14. However, it makes a whole lot more sense than the egalitarian view. Something's wrong if you have to completely rewrite history to prove your point. Hey, that's actually not a bad idea. Maybe I'll do that the next time someone backs me into a corner during an argument. It might even work better than my usual "Well, you're a part of dream and I'm controlling everything you say" tactic.
Preface: given that this is a blog and that Jenny has enabled comments, things would not be right if someone did not swoop in with scathing ad hominems that don't help anything. Therefore, I have declared myself the humble soul willing to stoop to such a low position on this particular blog, only so as to keep the blogosphere police from shutting down Jenny's blog on the basis of it lacking the aforementioned condescending commenting. So here it goes...
Little brotha,
No offense, but you are clearly a giant idiot. The use of words like "prima facie" (which isn't even English!) and "anachronistic" do not make you smarter than anyone else. And I should add that I think this is a case of the proverbial pot calling the proverbial kettle black (which makes you wonder - since when did pots and kettles talk to each other?). If I'm not mistaken, there were no such things as nazis in or before Paul's day. Thus, referring to Ephesian women as "feminazis" is a clear anachronism. And similarly, as for fanciful historical reconstructions, where in the world do you get the idea that there were any amizonians in 1st century Ephesus? That is clearly unfounded.
In fact, what Little Brotha's post clearly illustrates is that it is, in fact, men, who are the more easily deceived. In this case, you have been deceived into thinking that you know anything.
Little brotha: please do us all a favor and pull your proverbial head out of your proverbial 21st century reader's rear. You clearly have no concept of the historical situation that Ephesus was in, whereas I can easily reconstruct its history without any doubts whatsoever. It is simple logic: if the Artemis cult was centered in Ephesus due to the Artemis temple, then women were crazy in Ephesus. If women were crazy in 1st century Ephesus, then Paul must have been referring to only those women in 1 Tim. 2:14. If Paul was only referring to those women, then it in no way applies to the condition of all women. Thus, since the Artemis cult was centered in Ephesus, 1 Tim. 2:14 only referred to those women.
Duh.
I rest my case.
Let me just add to the syllogistical gymnastics my friend...
(1) If Paul was only referring to those women, then it in no way applies to the condition of all women.
(2) Andrew is (in all essential respects) a heretical woman who propagates teachings from the Artemis Cult.
Clarification: Those essential respects being...(a)He doesn't know anything about the Old Testament or Paul,(b) he intrudes in conversations where his opinion is ultimately detrimental, and (c) he's a girl.
(3) Therefore, I contend that Paul's prohibition applies to Andrew.
(4) Therefore Andrew should stop posting on doctrinal matters because he's a little girl from Artemis.
And I quote: "...because he's a little girl ..."
Either you're a bad writer, you made a typo, or you have the I.Q., more or less, of a peanut. More likely it is all three, as clearly the masculine pronoun in reference to a girl is a direct indication that your conclusion is self-contradictory and thus self-defeating.
I should also like to restate the thesis that began my arguments in my previous post: you are a giant idiot.
- Andrew
Gentlemen. As much as I appreciate your comments, I take great offense at your tone, particularly Jeff using the word "girl" to insult his former roommate, implying that a girl is an undesirable thing to be and Andrew repeatedly referring to Jeff as a giant idiot. I think these frighteningly insensitive comments are the result of society placing you inside the "Be A Man" box for so many years. You've been brainwashed into believing that men must be strong and play sports and never cry at movies or talk about their feelings and insult each other to mask the pain they feel inside. I really hope this blog can be a healing place for you to share all of those deep thoughts and emotions that you've kept bottled up for so many years.
every heard of a generic pronoun Andrew? Ok, I can't take this anymore. I'm trapped. I can't even bring myself to use gender inclusive language.
Post a Comment