Man is Head of Woman in all Spheres? 1 Cor 11

[Pergamum]

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible:

And Adam was not deceived - This is the second reason why the woman should occupy a subordinate rank in all things. It is, that in the most important situation in which she was ever placed she had shown that she was not qualified to take the lead. She had evinced a readiness to yield to temptation; a feebleness of resistance; a pliancy of character, which showed that she was not adapted to the situation of headship, and which made it proper that she should ever afterward occupy a subordinate situation. It is not meant here that Adam did not sin, nor even that he was not deceived by the tempter, but that the woman opposed a feebler resistance to the temptation than he would have done, and that the temptation as actually applied to her would have been ineffectual on him. To tempt and seduce him to fall, there were needed all the soft persuasions, the entreaties, and example of his wife.

Satan understood this, and approached man not with the specious argument of the serpent, but through the allurements of his wife. It is undoubtedly implied here that man in general has a power of resisting certain kinds of temptation superior to that possessed by woman, and hence that the headship properly belongs to him. This is, undoubtedly, the general truth, though there may be many exceptions, and many noble cases to the honor of the female sex, in which they evince a power of resistance to temptation superior to man. In many traits of character, and among them those which are most lovely, woman is superior to man; yet it is undoubtedly true that, as a general thing, temptation will make a stronger impression on her than on him. When it is said that “Adam was not deceived,” it is not meant that when he partook actually of the fruit he was under no deception, but that he was not deceived by the serpent; he was not first deceived, or first in the transgression. The woman should remember that sin began with her, and she should therefore be willing to occupy an humble and subordinate situation.

But the woman being deceived - She was made to suppose that the fruit would not injure her, but would make her wise, and that God would not fulfil his threatening of death. Sin, from the beginning, has been a process of delusion. Every man or woman who violates the law of God is deceived as to the happiness which is expected from the violation, and as to the consequences which will follow it.

Coffman's Commentary on the bible:

The argument here is that Adam was not deceived, whereas Eve was deceived, thus exhibiting a serious flaw that disqualified her from being the head, or leader. That quality of women being easily deceived is alone sufficient to justify the appointment of men as elders and evangelists, and as heads of the family. As Lenski observed on this verse, "This fact is not complimentary to women."[24] We are living in an age that exhibits a widespread rejection of God's teaching on this question, but the teaching remains clear enough.

John Gill:

ow inasmuch as the serpent did not attack Adam, he being the stronger and more knowing person, and less capable of being managed and seduced; but made his attempt on Eve, in which he succeeded; and since not Adam, but Eve, was deceived, it appears that the man is the more proper person to bear rule and authority, as in civil and domestic, so in ecclesiastic affairs; and it is right for the woman to learn, and the man to teach: and seeing that Eve was the cause of transgression to Adam, and of punishment to him and his posterity, the subjection of the woman to the man was confirmed afresh: and she was brought into a more depressed state of dependence on him, and subjection to him; see Genesis 3:16.

Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Being more easily deceived, she more easily deceives [Bengel], (2 Corinthians 11:3). Last in being, she was first in sin - indeed, she alone was deceived. The subtle serpent knew that she was “the weaker vessel” (1 Peter 3:7).

Wesley's Explanatory Notes

And Adam was not deceived - The serpent deceived Eve: Eve did not deceive Adam, but persuaded him. "Thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife," Genesis 3:17 . The preceding verse showed why a woman should not "usurp authority over the man." this shows why she ought not "to teach." She is more easily deceived, and more easily deceives.

John Trapp:

Yet Adam sinned more than Eve, because he had more wisdom and strength.

Thomas Coke Commentary on the Holy Bible

1 Timothy 2:14. And Adam was not deceived,— Not first deceived. The apostle hereby seems to intimate, that the tempter chose to make his first attack on the woman, as being, even in her original and most glorious state, the inferior, and consequently less fit in future life to take the lead in important affairs. The verse may be paraphrased thus: "It is further to be recollected, that, at the fatal entrance of sin into the world, Adam was not immediately deceived by the fraud of the serpent; but that artful seducer chose to begin his attack on the woman; who, being deceived by him, was firstinthetransgression,andprevailed upon Adam by her solicitations to offend. Now it should be a humbling consideration to all her daughters, that their sex was so greatly concerned in the introduction of guilt and misery, and make them less forward in attempting to be guides to others, after such a miscarriage."

Matthew Poole:

Besides, Adam was not first deceived, nor indeed at all deceived immediately by the serpent, but only enticed, and deceived by the woman, who was the tempter’s agent; so as that she was both first in the transgression in order of time, and also principal in it, contributing to the seduction or transgression of the man; which ought to be a consideration to keep the woman humble, in a low opinion of herself, and that lower order wherein God hath fixed her.

Schaff's Popular Commentary on the New Testament

1 Timothy 2:14. (2) The woman was in that first typical history the one directly deceived by the Tempter, Adam’s sin being thought of as more against light and knowledge,’ and so ‘she has come to be in the state of a transgressor.’ The implied thought, of course, is that that greater liability to deception continues now; and this was probably strengthened by what the apostle actually saw of the influence of false teachers over the minds of women (2 Timothy 3:6-7). The history of the fall seemed to him acted over again. Comp. the position of the woman Jezebel in the Church of Thyatira (Revelation 2:20), and the false prophetesses in Ezekiel 13:17.

Ellicott's Commentary:

(14) And Adam was not deceived.—Priority in creation was the ground alleged by St. Paul as the reason why the woman was never to exercise authority over man, the eldest born of God. “Adam was not deceived;” the Apostle now refers to the general basis of his direction respecting the exclusion of women from all public praying and teaching contained in 1 Timothy 2:9-12. The argument here is a singular one—Adam and Eve both sinned, but Adam was not deceived. He sinned, quite aware all the while of the magnitude of the sin he was voluntarily committing. Eve, on the other hand, was completely, thoroughly deceived (the preposition with which the Greek verb is compounded here conveying the idea of thoroughness)—she succumbed to the serpent’s deceit. Both were involved in the sin, but only one (Eve) allowed herself to be deluded. So Bengel, “Deceptio indicat minus robur in intellectu, atque hic nervus est cur mulieri non liceat docere.” Prof. Reynolds thus comments on the argument of the Apostle:—“This may sound to our ears a far-fetched argument, when used to discountenance female usurpation of intellectual supremacy. It was, however, a method current at the time to look for and find in the Scriptures the concrete expressions of almost all philosophical judgments. At the present day we could hardly find a more vivid illustration of the essential difference between the masculine and feminine nature. If there be this distinction between the sexes, that distinction still furnishes the basis of an argument and a reason for the advice here rendered. The catastrophe of Eden is the beacon for all generations when the sexes repeat the folly of Eve and Adam, and exchange their distinctive position and functions.”

Many of the commentaries of the past posit an ontological difference between male and female and seem to indicate women as less discerning than men, not only as a penalty for sin, but as a creational difference between men and women.

Do we need a feminist rejection of this interpretation to correct us and make us think more biblically...or is this what the Bible really says?

Also, many of these past commentaries seem to assume that the Apostle Paul's words indicate that women are not to be superiors to men in all spheres of life, not merely the church. Now, I am not a bible commentator and most on the PB are not either....can we trust these commentators of the past to be true to Scripture...or were they merely children of their age and victim to their own peculiar cultural prejudices?

 

[Afterthought]

^I also found such thoughts in Henry Smith's Preparative to Marriage. I don't have time to reference them, but here they are. I can't answer your question, but I don't see how women could be more susceptible to sin than men. (Edit: I would be comfortable affirming that men are generally more susceptible to certain kinds of sin than women and vice-versa, i.e., that each sex generally has their own besetting sins, since the Scriptures seem to address particular kinds of sins for men and women, even though those sins are applicable to both sexes.)

"[F]or the ornament of a woman is silence: and therefore the Law was given to the Man rather than to the Woman to shew that he should be the teacher, and she the hearer."

"As we do not handles Glasses like Pots, because they are weaker Vessels, but touch them nicely and softly, for fear of cracks; so a man must intreat his Wife with gentleness and softness, not expecting that wisdom, nor that faith, nor that patience, nor that strength in the weaker Vessel, which should be in the stronger; but think when he takes a wife, he takes a vineyard, not grapes, but a vineyard to bear him grapes: therefore he must sow it, and dress it, and water it, and fence it, and think it a good vineyard, if at last it bring forth grapes."

 

[MW]

You did not deny that the woman was deceived. But, you did deny that the woman being deceived was the reason for women not teaching.

You say that the problem was that the "temptation subverted the created order in addressing itself to Eve."

That would mean that Satan is the reason that women can't teach in the church.

Paul doesn't pin it on the temptation nor on the tempter (as you do) but on the woman. The problem wasn't that the tempter chose her, but that she was deceived. There is a big difference.

You are putting words in my mouth. I said nothing about Satan and I have already clarified that I haven't denied the deception. The only thing I denied is that the text intends to provide a psychological profile of the woman. It does not say anything about the woman's susceptibility. My point is, if you care to listen, that the context speaks of a priority. Man first; then the woman. The "deception" (which I stress so that you have no cause to make me an offender for a mere word) resulted because that order was subverted. It should be clear how this speaks to the overall point that a woman is not permitted to teach a man. The prohibition maintains the order of creation, which in turn removes the occasion for "deception."

 

[Afterthought]

I do not argue for female independence in her own sphere.

I appreciate your consistency. Although I had thought the traditional view was that women had sovereignty in their own spheres?

On 1 Cor. 11, it is better to translate "man" and "woman" throughout. The apostle makes a closely argued case for woman to be under the headship of man, and it depends on the terms "man" and "woman" in order to make sense.

Unless I misunderstand, it seems you hold that the "headship" is ideally universal, and application of that universal headship is made here. Would you argue that women are sovereign in their own spheres? If so, how? Also, what about women who are not married; in what sense are they made "for the man" and therefore under his headship?

 

[MW]

Unless I misunderstand, it seems you hold that the "headship" is ideally universal, and application of that universal headship is made here. Would you argue that women are sovereign in their own spheres? If so, how? Also, what about women who are not married; in what sense are they made "for the man" and therefore under his headship?

That is correct. The reference back to creation makes it clear that this order is universal so far as life in this world is concerned. From what Scripture reveals on the matter it appears there will be a different state of affairs in the world to come. On that basis we should stop short of saying that the male-female relation reflects some sort of eternal order.

1 Cor. 11:11, "Neither is the man without the woman." Males cannot have babies. This means females are sovereign in their own sphere and are to be honoured within it. The creation blessing is upon male and female together.

 

[Pergamum]

What does the phrase, "sovereign in their own sphere" mean?

 

[MW]

What does the phrase, "sovereign in their own sphere" mean?

Fulfilling duty and exerting power as a daughter, a sister, a wife, a mother, as the case may be.

"And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying."

"And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither."

"And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us."

"And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly."

"Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus."

"The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house."

"I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea: That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also. Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus: Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles."

"And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life."

"The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed."

"Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered."

 

[smhbbag]

My point is, if you care to listen, that the context speaks of a priority. Man first; then the woman. The "deception" (which I stress so that you have no cause to make me an offender for a mere word) resulted because that order was subverted.

I have listened, and I have summarized you accurately, as you repeat it again here.

You say the deception resulted from the order being subverted in the temptation. You say the temptation itself was the thing that violated the order.

But the text doesn't say the problem was the temptation, or the subversion of created order by the temptation, but the fact that Eve was actually deceived. Paul doesn't say anything related to Eve having the occasion for deception, but about her actually being deceived.

The tempter created the temptation, and subverted the order. The woman was deceived. Paul reasons using the second one, not the first. The difference between those is stark.

 

[MW]

The tempter created the temptation, and subverted the order. The woman was deceived. Paul reasons using the second one, not the first. The difference between those is stark.

I will try again. Granted, it is "deception" that is given as the reason. Still, the susceptibility of her nature is not given as an explanation for the deception. Nothing in her nature is given as the reason why she is not permitted to teach a man. It is her position in relation to the man that is giver as the reason why she is not permitted to teach a man. If the reason were to be traced back to something in her nature, it would lead to the conclusion that she was not fit to teach anyone, not even her own children. But the reason only extends as far as the prohibition, which is in relation to man.

If anything, placing the fault in the woman's nature weakens the reason given by the apostle. Because of the fall both men and women are susceptible to being deceived, and both depend upon grace to stand. But the woman's position in relation to the man remains the same after the fall and after being renewed by grace. That gives a firmer basis for saying that the reasoning of the apostle is universal.

 

[smhbbag]

If the reason were to be traced back to something in her nature, it would lead to the conclusion that she was not fit to teach anyone, not even her own children. But the reason only extends as far as the prohibition, which is in relation to man.

That does not follow from my position at all. My position does, however, imply the real requirement for supervision and authority over her. She would be quite free and able to teach children, or to teach younger women how to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, under the direction and authority of men, whether husbands, fathers, or elders of the church.

If anything, placing the fault in the woman's nature weakens the reason given by the apostle. Because of the fall both men and women are susceptible to being deceived, and both depend upon grace to stand. But the woman's position in relation to the man remains the same after the fall and after being renewed by grace.

On the contrary, the woman being deceived strengthens the reason. Not only was Eve made second, but she was deceived. It is both a violation of order, and a foolish danger, for women to teach.

However, if it is the temptation that subverted the order, then the tempter's choice of Eve is what bars women from teaching. And that simply does not follow. The tempter gave Eve the occasion for deception; therefore women should not teach? There is no logical connection between the decision of the tempter to subvert the order, and for women not to teach. Women aren't kept from teaching because the serpent picked Eve.

 

[MW]

It is both a violation of order, and a foolish danger, for women to teach.

That is the logical conclusion to your reasoning. You have made the woman inept to teach. You have not limited it to her relation to man. This is what follows if you do not limit the reason to the extent of the prohibition, which is her relation to man.

However, if it is the temptation that subverted the order, then the tempter's choice of Eve is what bars women from teaching. And that simply does not follow. The tempter gave Eve the occasion for deception; therefore women should not teach? There is no logical connection between the decision of the tempter to subvert the order, and for women not to teach. Women aren't kept from teaching because the serpent picked Eve.

For some reason you are still fixated on opposing my earlier use of "temptation," even though I have fully granted that it is a "deception." Let me repeat it again, the "deception" is related to her position in relation to the man. The apostle never traces it back to the susceptibility of her nature.

Note Patrick Fairbairn's comment: "simply by inverting the relative position and calling -- the helpmate assuming the place of the head or guide, and the head facilely yielding to her governance -- was the happy constitution of paradise overthrown, and everything involved in disorder and evil."

Consider also William Hendriksen, "Added to this fact of creation is that of the entrance of sin. Eve's fall occurred when she ignored her divinely ordained position. Instead of following she chose to lead... She was the leader. He was the follower. She led when she should have followed; that is, she led in the way of sin, when she should have followed in the path of righteousness."

 

[Afterthought]

That is correct. The reference back to creation makes it clear that this order is universal so far as life in this world is concerned. From what Scripture reveals on the matter it appears there will be a different state of affairs in the world to come. On that basis we should stop short of saying that the male-female relation reflects some sort of eternal order.

1 Cor. 11:11, "Neither is the man without the woman." Males cannot have babies. This means females are sovereign in their own sphere and are to be honoured within it. The creation blessing is upon male and female together.

I'm not seeing the argument. How are you going from "neither is the man without the woman" to "females are sovereign in their own sphere"? I can see how they are to be honoured in this sphere, since that seems to be the thrust of the argument in 1 Cor. 11.

Also, this argument depends on women having children. But not all women have children. And not all women get married. What does this argument mean in the context of such women? And what does the argument that the "woman was created for man" in the context of such women? It would seem that these arguments for male headship and female sovereignty in her own sphere would only obtain in the case of married men and women.

 

[MW]

I can see how they are to be honoured in this sphere, since that seems to be the thrust of the argument in 1 Cor. 11.

If you "honour" them you recognise their authority to act in such a sphere with such a power.

But not all women have children.

Men as men are born of women as women. Men as men only have children by women as women. There are no exceptions to this rule. The fact some women do not have children does not negate the fact that women have children.

 

[smhbbag]

That is the logical conclusion to your reasoning. You have made the woman inept to teach. You have not limited it to her relation to man. This is what follows if you do not limit the reason to the extent of the prohibition, which is her relation to man.

Yes, that is what follows from my reasoning, which I believe is Paul's reasoning. Exceptions are made, and specifically listed elsewhere , for certain subject matters and audiences when done under male authority.

or some reason you are still fixated on opposing my earlier use of "temptation," even though I have fully granted that it is a "deception."

I know you grant that it is a deception. But the fact that it is a deception is irrelevant in your position. It could have been any other sin or failing against the lead of Adam, and the rest of your argument would be unaffected. That is because you (and possibly Fairbairn and Hendriksen, as I haven't seen their full analyses) are not, as Paul does, focusing on the fact that Eve was deceived, but that she was tempted, that she led, or that she taught. Those things are true, but they are not Paul's argument. If they were, he would have argued it. But he didn't. Being deceived is what means women can't teach, not her leading, teaching, or temptation.

I am open to alternate exlanations of why being deceived is important in his argument. But I am not open to positions that simply change the grounds to something other than her being deceived.

 

[Pergamum]

"WOMEN AS MORE EASILY DECEIVED THAN MEN - The Traditional Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2: 14"

--- from "Slaves, Women & Homosexuals" by William J Webb:

Didymus the Blind (313-398): “Being strong [i.e., stronger than the woman who was weak under Satan’s deception], the man is more able than the woman to fight and defend himself against the trickery of the adversary; 1 he would not (and will not) let himself be drawn into seduction like Eve did.”

2 John Chrysostom (347-407): “For thus they will show submission by their silence. For the sex is naturally somewhat talkative: and for this reason he restrains them on all sides.” 3 “The woman [Eve] taught once, and ruined all. On this account therefore he saith, let her not teach. But what is it to other women, that she suffered this? It certainly concerns them; for the sex is weak and fickle, and he is speaking of the sex collectively.”

Augustine (354-430): “And [Satan] first tried his deceit upon the woman, making his assault upon the weaker part of that human alliance, that he might gradually gain the whole, and not supposing that the man would readily give ear to him, or be deceived, but that he might yield to the error of the woman. . .. For not without significance did the apostle say, ‘And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.’”

Epiphanius (365-403): “The female sex is easily mistaken, fallible, and poor in intelligence. It is apparent that through women the devil has vomited this forth. As previously the teaching associated with Quintilla, Maximilla, and Priscilla was utterly ridiculous, so also is this one. . .. Come now, servants of God, let us put on a manly mind and disperse the mania of these women. The whole of this deception is female; the disease comes from Eve who was long ago deceived.”

Humbert de Romans (1194-1277): “In connection with the preacher’s person, we should notice that he must be of male sex. ‘I do not permit a woman to teach’ (1 Tim. 2: 12). There are four reasons for this: first, lack of understanding, because a man is more likely to have understanding than a woman.”

Bonaventure (1217-1274): “The devil, envious of man, assumed the form of a serpent and addressed the woman. . .. By this temptation, he sought to bring about the fall of the weaker woman, so that through her he might then overthrow the stronger sex. . .. But it was by the devil’s own cunning that he approached the woman first. It is easier to overcome the weak. A clever enemy always attacks a stronghold at its weakest point."

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): “The human group would have lacked the benefit of order had some of its members not been governed by others who were wiser. Such is the subjection in which woman is by nature subordinate to man, because the power of rational discernment is by nature stronger in man.” 9 “St. Paul says ‘that women should keep silence in the Churches’, and, ‘I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men.’ [1 Tim. 2: 12] But this especially touches the grace of speech. Accordingly that grace [speaking publicly to the whole church] does not pertain to women. . . because generally speaking women are not perfected in wisdom so as to be fit to be entrusted with public teaching.”

Erasmus (1466-1536): “Eve was deceived first when, believing the serpent and beguiled by the enticement of the fruit, she disregarded God’s command. The man could not have been taken in either by the serpent’s promises or by the allure of the fruit; only love for his wife drew him into a ruinous compliance.”

Martin Luther (1483-1546): “Paul thus has proved that by divine and human right Adam is the master of the woman. That is, it was not Adam who went astray. Therefore, there was greater wisdom in Adam than in the woman. Where this occurs, there is the greater authority. . .. He [Adam] persevered in his dominion over the serpent, which did not attack him but rather attacked the weaker vessel. . . just as he does today.”

John Knox (1514-1572): “And first, where that I affirm the empire of a woman to be a thing repugnant to nature, I mean not only that God by the order of his creation has spoiled woman of authority and dominion, but also that man has seen, proved and pronounced just causes why that it so should be. . .. For who can deny but it is repugnant to nature, that the blind shall be appointed to lead and conduct such as do see? That the weak, the sick, and impotent persons shall nourish and keep the whole and strong, and finally, that the foolish, mad and frantic shall govern the discrete, and give counsel to such as be sober of mind? And such be all women, compared to man in bearing of authority. . .. I expect such as God by singular privilege, and for certain causes known only to himself, has exempted from the common rank of women, and speaks of women as nature and experience do this day declare them. Nature I say, does paint them further to be weak, frail, impatient, feeble and foolish: and experience has declared them to be inconstant, variable, cruel and lacking the spirit of counsel and regiment. And these notable faults have men in all ages espied in that kind, for which not only they have removed women from rule and authority, but also some have thought that men subject to the counsel or empire of their wives were unworthy of all public office.”

John Bunyan (1628-1688): “This therefore I reckon a great fault in the woman, an usurpation, to undertake so mighty an adversary, when she was not the principal that was concerned therein; nay when her husband who was more able than she, was at hand, to whom also the law was given as chief . But for this act, I think it is, that they are now commanded silence, and also commanded to learn of their husbands: 1 Co. xiv. 34, 35. A command that is necessary enough for that simple and weak sex: Though they see it was by them that sin came into the world, yet how hardly are some of them to this day dissuaded from attempting unwarrantably to meddle with potent enemies, about the great and weighty matters that concern eternity. 1 Ti. ii. 11-15.”

Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687-1752): “In the preceding verse [1 Tim.2: 13], we are taught why the woman ought not to exercise authority, now [1 Tim. 2: 14], why she ought not to teach; more easily deceived, she more easily deceives; comp. Eccl. vii. 29 [sic 7: 28]. Deceiving indicates less strength in the understanding; and this is the strong ground on which a woman is not allowed to teach.”

John Gill (1697-1771): “Now inasmuch as the serpent did not attack Adam, he being the stronger and more knowing person, and less capable of being managed and seduced; but made his attempt on Eve, in which he succeeded; and since not Adam, but Eve, was deceived, it appears that the man is the more proper person to bear rule and authority, as in civil and domestic, so in ecclesiastic affairs; and it is right for the woman to learn, and the men to teach.”

John Wesley (1703-1791): “The preceding verse [1 Tim. 2: 13] showed why a woman should not ‘usurp authority over the man.’ This verse [1 Tim. 2: 14] shows why she ought not ‘to teach.’ She is more easily deceived, and more easily deceives.”

Patrick Fairbairn (1805-1874): “As already indicated, the case [1 Tim 2: 14] is referred to as a grand though mournful example, at the commencement of the world’s history, of the evil sure to arise if in the general management of affairs woman should quit her proper position as the handmaid of man, and man should concede to her the ascendancy. She wants, by the very constitution of nature, the qualities necessary for such a task in particular, the equability of temper, the practical shrewdness and discernment, the firm, independent, regulative judgment, which are required to carry the leaders of important interests above first impressions and outside appearances, to resist solicitations , and amid subtle entanglements and fierce conflicts to cleave unswervingly to the right. Her very excellences in other respects— excellences connected with the finer sensibilities and stronger impulses of her emotional and loving nature— tend in a measure to disqualify her here. With man, on the other hand, in accordance with his original destination, the balance as between the intellectual and the emotional, the susceptible and the governing powers, inclines as a rule in the opposite direction.”

Henry P. Liddon (1829-1890): “The point is that Eve’s facility in yielding to the deceiver warrants the Apostolic rule which forbids a woman to teach.The experience of all ages that woman is more easily led away than man, is warranted by what is said of the first representative of the sex.”

Bernard Weiss: “From this [ 2: 14] it follows that the woman is more easily susceptible to seduction than the man, and accordingly needs the leadership of man, not vice versa. From what is said at this place concerning the first woman, the Apostle proceeds to that which is applicable to the woman in general.”

Newport J. D. White: “The point in which Adam’s superiority over Eve comes out in the narrative of the Fall is his greater strength of intellect; therefore men are better fitted for the work of public instruction.”

P. C. Spicq: “A woman will always be more easy to deceive than a man , that is why the Apostle does not permit women. . . to teach in the church, especially in Ephesus where the faith was being challenged.”

Donald Guthrie: “But Paul is concerned primarily with the inadvisability of women teachers, and he may have in mind the greater aptitude of the weaker sex to be led astray.”

J. N. D. Kelly: “His point [ Paul’s in 1 Tim. 2: 14] is that since Eve was so gullible a victim of the serpent’s wiles, she clearly cannot be trusted to teach. If we are to follow Paul’s reasoning, we must recall that like other exegetes, Jewish and Christian, he regards Adam and Eve as historical persons, but also as archetypes of the human race. Their characters and propensities were transmitted to their descendants, and in their relationship can be seen foreshadowed the permanent relationship between man and woman.”

The possibilities after reading this list of quotes is that: (1) -These men quoted were children of their age and were reflecting the ancient view of women that needs correction (although there are quotes from all ages included), (2) -That Christianity is full of bigots, starting with the apostle Paul and all those taking Paul at face value will also become bigots, (3) -That these quotes might have been worded more nicely but reflect the true biblical teaching that there is a difference between the sexes. And if these quotes sound alarming, it may be, rather, that it is our modern age which needs adjustment, not our interpretation of the Scripture.

 

[Afterthought]

If you "honour" them you recognise their authority to act in such a sphere with such a power.

But it only follows that the power might be a subordinate power, not sovereign?

Men as men are born of women as women. Men as men only have children by women as women. There are no exceptions to this rule. The fact some women do not have children does not negate the fact that women have children.

Ah, so this would be the exegetical basis for viewing the terms as "mankind" and "womankind," as Tyler pointed out earlier in the thread. Likewise, it would have to be said that woman as woman was made for man as man? Sounds a bit strange. But more importantly, suppose an objector in the Corinthian church said: "These reasons suppose marriage and children. I am not married (or) I do not have children. In fact, I am called to singleness. So I, as a particular woman, am not created for the man, but have a different purpose and role in this life, so these reasons do not hold in my case. I may therefore prophesy."

 

[MW]

That is the logical conclusion to your reasoning. You have made the woman inept to teach. You have not limited it to her relation to man. This is what follows if you do not limit the reason to the extent of the prohibition, which is her relation to man.

Yes, that is what follows from my reasoning

On that reasoning you had better not let the poor deceived woman near anyone at any time lest she teach them anything to her detriment.

The apostle is clear in what he prohibited. The prohibition is only in relation to the man. If the reason proves too much it is because it has been misinterpreted, and it must have been misinterpreted when it is known that the apostle encourages women to teach in other contexts.

 

[MW]

But it only follows that the power might be a subordinate power, not sovereign?

To whom is she subordinate in mothering children? She is the child's mother, and in that relation she is to be honoured. No other human power determines whether or not she should receive that honour. It is the mother's by virtue of being a mother.

As to being "called to singleness," that is understood to be a special gift. It can only be understood as a special gift in contrast to the "ordinary calling" of married life. Their special call to singleness is understood to have some extra benefit for society, otherwise they are only robbing society of the ordinary duty that individuals owe to it.

 

[Afterthought]

The possibilities after reading this list of quotes is that: (1) -These men quoted were children of their age and were reflecting the ancient view of women that needs correction (although there are quotes from all ages included), (2) -That Christianity is full of bigots, starting with the apostle Paul and all those taking Paul at face value will also become bigots, (3) -That these quotes might have been worded more nicely but reflect the true biblical teaching that there is a difference between the sexes. And if these quotes sound alarming, it may be, rather, that it is our modern age which needs adjustment, not our interpretation of the Scripture.

They only sound alarming to my ears if "deception" means women are more susceptible to sin than men. If by "deception" they are referring to a specific kind of sin, rather than the act of being deceived itself (as occurs in all sin), and if they are not saying things that imply the woman is unable to teach in any context, then I see no problem. Admittedly, the quotations do seem to show they believed that women were more easily deceived than men and that this idea was taught from the particular text. Fairbairn's quotation is interesting in light of the other quotation by Fairbairn on this thread.

 

[MW]

Erasmus (1466-1536): “Eve was deceived first when, believing the serpent and beguiled by the enticement of the fruit, she disregarded God’s command. The man could not have been taken in either by the serpent’s promises or by the allure of the fruit; only love for his wife drew him into a ruinous compliance.”

Martin Luther (1483-1546): “Paul thus has proved that by divine and human right Adam is the master of the woman. That is, it was not Adam who went astray. Therefore, there was greater wisdom in Adam than in the woman. Where this occurs, there is the greater authority. . .. He [Adam] persevered in his dominion over the serpent, which did not attack him but rather attacked the weaker vessel. . . just as he does today.”

These two quotations are intriguing. Apparently the man is the stronger because he did not succumb to the serpent's deception, yet he is supposed to have complied out of his love for the woman. In my opinion this makes the man just as weak and susceptible as the woman; only it is the cause of the susceptibility which differs. This being the case, the man's susceptibility out of love to the woman would make him open to deception and disqualify him from teaching. Such is the absurdity of human reasoning when it moves outside the bounds of divine revelation in order to interpret divine revelation. The best method is to let the text speak for itself. The woman is not permitted to teach the man. Any reasoning that proves more than this is beyond the intention of the text.

 

[MW]

The possibilities after reading this list of quotes is that: (1) -These men quoted were children of their age and were reflecting the ancient view of women that needs correction (although there are quotes from all ages included),

One possibility you might consider is that they have read their psychological judgements into the text. What do other commentators say? Are there considerations which might demonstrate some of the exegetical conclusions are faulty? Calvin, for example, traces Paul's statement to the judgment of God, and discredits some of the ideas presented about the woman. The Westminster Annotations speak along the same lines. The fact you can find representatives of a position in different ages of the church does not give it any more or any less weight. It simply raises it as an interpretation which needs to be weighed according to its own merits.

 

[smhbbag]

On that reasoning you had better not let the poor deceived woman near anyone at any time lest she teach them anything to her detriment.

The apostle is clear in what he prohibited. The prohibition is only in relation to the man. If the reason proves too much it is because it has been misinterpreted, and it must have been misinterpreted when it is known that the apostle encourages women to teach in other contexts.

It doesn't prove too much. I have plenty of logical room for women, who are more easily deceived, to teach under the direction of male authority. Nothing in her weakness in this area would require an absolute prohibition. I don't know why supervision and direction by men, and limited teaching contexts, would be problematic. I accept those because scripture commends them, and they are good.

If you want to say that my reasoning requires prohibition of all female teaching in all contexts everywhere, then you need to argue for it, not just assert it.

 

[MW]

If you want to say that my reasoning requires prohibition of all female teaching in all contexts everywhere, then you need to argue for it, not just assert it.

I don't need to argue for it. You yourself have stated it. You said, "It is both a violation of order, and a foolish danger, for women to teach." If you make room for women to teach you bear the burden of showing how this does not contradict your own moral judgment.

 

[smhbbag]

I don't need to argue for it. You yourself have stated it. You said, "It is both a violation of order, and a foolish danger, for women to teach." If you make room for women to teach you bear the burden of showing how this does not contradict your own moral judgment.

In post #47, you cut off my quote, removing the part where I affirm the goodness of women teaching in certain contexts. Now, you rip the "foolish danger" quote apart from my context (summarizing Paul's reasoning about teaching in the church), and try to leverage it against my clear meaning and direct assertions in the very sentences you quote.

I'll proceed as if this wasn't willful.

Teaching in the church implies a certain level of self-direction and judgment, and a de facto air of authority. That is the context in which I echoed Paul, where having women teach is a foolish danger. Of course, this same reasoning, the weakness or vulnerability of women to deceit, has effects elsewhere and that is why the passage speaks beyond merely the church.

But it doesn't automatically apply in the same way everywhere. Because scripture specifically commends women teaching some audiences, on some subjects, under male authority and direction, we know that those are good. In these contexts, the deficiencies in the sex are managed and the virtues channeled.

I don't need to resolve a contradiction that you concocted by quote-chopping.

 

[MW]

In post #47, you cut off my quote, removing the part where I affirm the goodness of women teaching in certain contexts.

To which you replied, "Yes, that is what follows from my reasoning, which I believe is Paul's reasoning." These are your words, not mine.

Note, I am not saying this is your actual moral judgment or that you deny there are other contexts for teaching. I am saying it is what it leads to if your reason holds good. It is an ad absurdum argument. If your reason holds good, and the problem is with the woman's nature, then the woman's nature forbids her from teaching in general. If, however, the reason is limited to her relation to the man, as I argue, then the reason only serves to support the prohibition of teaching in relation to the man.

 

[MW]

Because scripture specifically commends women teaching some audiences, on some subjects, under male authority and direction, we know that those are good.

Titus 2 says nothing about the aged women teaching younger women "under male authority and direction." So here again your psychological profile of the woman is imposing standards on the scripture.

 

[smhbbag]

Note, I am not saying this is your actual moral judgment or that you deny there are other contexts for teaching. I am saying it is what it leads to if your reason holds good. It is an ad absurdum argument. If your reason holds good, and the problem is with the woman's nature, then the woman's nature forbids her from teaching in general. If, however, the reason is limited to her relation to the man, as I argue, then the reason only serves to support the prohibition of teaching in relation to the man.

I have argued for why my reasoning does not lead to that conclusion, repeatedly, and in the very posts and sentences you chopped. You've offered no response beyond continued assertion. I recognized the reductio, and showed why it simply doesn't work. Then the reductio is repeated. The burden is on you, not me.

 

[MW]

I have argued for why my reasoning does not lead to that conclusion, repeatedly, and in the very posts and sentences you chopped. You've offered no response beyond continued assertion. I recognized the reductio, and showed why it simply doesn't work. Then the reductio is repeated. The burden is on you, not me.

You trace the reason back to the woman's nature. Does the woman somehow transcend her nature in other teaching contexts? Of course not. So the reason for not teaching in one context remains relevant in other contexts. Her nature is the problem, according to you. On that basis, the woman must be prohibited from teaching at all. If you have found a way around the logic of your reason, good for you; but it could only be in spite of your reason, not because of it.

 

[smhbbag]

You trace the reason back to the woman's nature. Does the woman somehow transcend her nature in other teaching contexts? Of course not. So the reason for not teaching in one context remains relevant in other contexts. Her nature is the problem, according to you. On that basis, the woman must be prohibited from teaching at all. If you have found a way around the logic of your reason, good for you; but it could only be in spite of your reason, not because of it.

I answered this question in post #54. Shall I quote myself?

 

[MW]

You trace the reason back to the woman's nature. Does the woman somehow transcend her nature in other teaching contexts? Of course not. So the reason for not teaching in one context remains relevant in other contexts. Her nature is the problem, according to you. On that basis, the woman must be prohibited from teaching at all. If you have found a way around the logic of your reason, good for you; but it could only be in spite of your reason, not because of it.

I answered this question in post #54. Shall I quote myself?

If you want to keep digging your hole deeper, be my guest.