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



## Afterthought

Does the teaching of 1 Corinthians 11 imply that man is head (Authority? Leadership? Requiring submission?) of the woman in all spheres of life, not just in the church and family? I notice that the terms are "man" and "woman" not "husband" and "wife," and that the teaching of headship is drawn from a creation principle. Would this then imply that a woman ought not to be in an authoritative role over man in all areas of life (which in turn would restrict certain economical, governmental, and social positions from women)?

If this is the case, then on what basis does one defend the traditional teaching that woman is sovereign in her own spheres of labor? Or the idea that a woman is not to obey just any male authority: it is her husband to which she is required to submit?

Furthermore, how is one to understand such things as "the woman was created for the man" in Paul's teaching here if not all women get married?

(In some ways, this is a spin off from the "Gender Roles" thread.)


----------



## lynnie

As somebody who wears a headcovering and thinks 1 Cor 11 is about wives, I like this piece:

http://www.russellmoore.com/2011/12/05/women-stop-submitting-to-men/

I was definitely, without question, made for my husband and the perfect complement for him. The wife is made for her husband. But no way I was made for all men. Ha. Never.


----------



## jwithnell

The critical distinction is one of relationship. Eve wasn't any ol' female given to Adam, but his wife -- Jesus was said to love his bride to the point of giving his life for her. In the church, women are to be gently guided as the under shepherd of the flock will one day have to give an account for her care. Otherwise, you see women in scripture handling their responsibilities with independence and confidence. She submits to the ones who have been given authority andd responsibility.


----------



## TylerRay

The general teaching of Scripture is that it is normative for womankind to be in subjection to mankind. That is how I understand the passage. This subjection does not look the same in every instance, and there are outright exceptions to the rule (like Deborah); but male leadership in all spheres is normative.


----------



## Parakaleo

TylerRay said:


> male leadership in all spheres is normative.



Well said, brother. Think on 1 Cor. 11 in light of Paul's instructions concerning men and women (not husbands and wives) in 1 Tim. 2. It is generally accepted that Paul's instructions in 1 Tim. 2 should be seen as mainly for conduct in the church. However, ask yourself if the justification Paul gives for this principle loses any force at all by being applied to human society in general?



> "For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived..." 1 Tim. 2:13-14



While male leadership is normative in all spheres, there are many details and particulars that will need to be worked out with wisdom, which will also account for the apparent exceptions we see in Scripture.


----------



## smhbbag

It also seems, Tyler, that the opposite position is simply incoherent. 

We are told that a woman must not teach or have authority over men for two reasons: 1) Adam was formed first and 2) Eve was deceived.

It would be terribly odd for facts based in Creation and Fall only to impact the church and home.

As others said, it does not look the same in every circumstance, and in some places the general word "submission" is odd to use. However, we can comfortably say the order of creation, and the nature of the fall cannot be meaningful only in church and home. If it has no relevance in the rest of life, then the restrictions for church and home become pretty arbitrary.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

It's not the case that we are free to make _different_ arguments than apostles and prophets make by simply borrowing their axioms, or a facile trade on the form their argument takes.

When we note Paul makes an argument from the creation-narrative--an aspect of special revelation; and then extrapolate to an argument from creation--i.e. general revelation, which we then apply to sundry conditions by our own wits; we cannot claim the same scriptural warrant for our conclusions.

When it comes to nature, we must operate within the parameters of wisdom/prudence, and the reality of circumstances/conditions. It may be the case that in the course of nature, profitability increases for society where males dominate the places of rule. This observation (if it held) plus Paul's revealed counsel concerning church and family leadership would NOT supply the Christian with a tool for judging the propriety of his submission to a queen.

What does nature say? Are males dominant in every phyla? Ants and Bees are among the most socially organized creatures, and they all (including males) bow to the hive queen. Parallelisms and analogies are not going to teach us if it's OK or not for a woman to be supervisor or a CEO. Those are not the questions the Bible addresses in anything like a direct manner. The "right" answer will most likely be variable.

God's Word supplies us with wisdom, along with moral norms; and it leaves us free to make a few trials of application in this setting and that without necessarily fearing a morally dubious choice.

By way of warning us of hasty judgments, I remind all that John Knox wrote: England had no legitimate head in the _female monarch_ Mary Tudor; and he greatly softened his tone as soon as the Protestant Queen Elizabeth succeeded her. hmmmmmmm


----------



## TylerRay

Contra_Mundum said:


> What does nature say? Are males dominant in every phyla? Ants and Bees are among the most socially organized creatures, and they all (including males) bow to the hive queen.



With due respect, Rev. Buchanan, that may be what is natural for ants or bees, but what is it that is natural to human beings? God created human beings to be in families headed by men. The principle of male leadership is found in mankind in his natural state, and is even displayed in the order in which the first man and woman were created. _That_ is Paul's point:



> For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. - I Cor 11:8-9



This principle need not be understood as excluding submission to female magistrates. It is natural that a child obey his mother, and the same (5th commandment) principle applies to female magistrates as well. However, it is normative that even a child's mother will be subject to her male head.


----------



## TylerRay

smhbbag said:


> It also seems, Tyler, that the opposite position is simply incoherent.
> 
> We are told that a woman must not teach or have authority over men for two reasons: 1) Adam was formed first and 2) Eve was deceived.
> 
> It would be terribly odd for facts based in Creation and Fall only to impact the church and home.
> 
> As others said, it does not look the same in every circumstance, and in some places the general word "submission" is odd to use. However, we can comfortably say the order of creation, and the nature of the fall cannot be meaningful only in church and home. If it has no relevance in the rest of life, then the restrictions for church and home become pretty arbitrary.



Very true, Jeremy. I will only highlight that the "order of creation" as you put it (I love that, by the way) is the order of _nature_ and it is on these natural principles that civil government is established.


----------



## MW

We have to accept the created order is fallen, and God has sanctified the use of the fallen world to the Christian. It does not need to be "redeemed" in order for the Christian to use it. We can say something is not right and still submit to it under God's sovereign allowance. A less than ideal civil government is one of those things, and this includes female leadership. The Church as the redeemed community must reflect the created order as renewed by God's grace. There is no place for female leadership there. But in the State, unredeemed, submission may be given to a female leader even while recognising it is a distortion of the created order. Obviously the tendency will be to normalise and rationalise it, and so what is wrong can start to look right over time; but for the Christian the rationale should only be that a less than ideal form of government is overruled by God to the good use of the Christian.

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. The issue is not primarily about "covering" but "speaking;" and the covering is brought in as an argument against the woman speaking because it assumes a function of headship. Just as it would be a shame for a man to cover his head in order to pray or prophesy, so it would be a shame for a woman to uncover her head in order to pray and prophesy; implied in the argument is the fact that the action of praying and prophesying requires the uncovering of the head because it is an act of headship. The translation "husband" and "wife" would effectively create an equivocation and loosen the terms of the argument.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Tyler,
Go back and read the OP, and you will see that I'm addressing this question:


> Would this then imply that a woman ought not to be in an authoritative role over man in all areas of life...?


Seems rather obvious that it's asking if (according to Paul and the Christian faith) women should be _subservient_ to men, generally and everywhere, and that in a fallen world (as Rev.Winzer aptly notes).

If the answer was "yes," then no wonder that men so answering are often in contempt of any woman having secular powers: government, business, etc. They have applied some principle they've identified as "biblical" across the board. I'm pleased that in contrast you have room in your orderly vision for valid submission to a female magistrate. The OP wasn't asking if the Bible teaches "male headship" (MH) if applied to church or family situations. Those were never really in dispute--although, there is considerable width to the spectrum of interpretation of what MH practically entails.

If it isn't "across the board" (for adults anyway), then there is no "natural" proposition that grounds Paul's argument; but "special revelation" grounds it, particularly that related to creation, vv8-9. When "nature" is brought in, v14, it is as an adjunct, a kind of "(godless) societal admission" that there is some truth (he connects it to "glory" not "submission") even those without special revelation can see.

Paul does not appeal to "the natural place of woman" to ground his argument. But to the revealed order of creation, so as (1Cor.11) to ground explicitly ecclesiastical society through its government as a thing minutely directed by the Word.


----------



## smhbbag

Rev. Buchanan, 

Why is it relevant that Adam was formed first? Why should we restrict teaching and authority in the church because God made Adam first?

And why does it matter that the woman, not the man, was deceived? So Eve was deceived...what connection does that have to women not teaching in the church?


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Contra_Mundum said:


> By way of warning us of hasty judgments, I remind all that John Knox wrote: England had no legitimate head in the female monarch Mary Tudor; and he greatly softened his tone as soon as the Protestant Queen Elizabeth succeeded her



Quite right, Bruce. Just also to remind us here that Calvin regarded Knox's ruminations in said volume to be "ravings," the product of "thoughtless arrogance," in his letter to William Cecil, minister to Elizabeth I, sometime in 1559 (Zurich Letters, XV), noting particularly that it's not so simple in a fallen world (as did Matthew).

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Afterthought

If it helps discussion, we can change the terms of the OP from "ought" to "normative," "ideal," or "point of good order." I don't think there are many who would say that headship (whatever the term may mean) applies across the board who do not also believe that headship is a point of good order/ideal, rather than something requiring insubordination in those subordinated to female leadership outside of the Church and family, i.e., I think most that apply headship across the board (based on what I read in the "Gender Roles" thread, where the terms of discussion were "ideal" vs "nonideal") would agree with Rev. Matthew Winzer above that female leadership in the State ought to be submitted to even though female leadership is a point of disorder/non-ideal.


----------



## Afterthought

Those arguing for "headship" to be applied in all spheres, on what basis do you then argue for female independence in her own sphere? And what do you make of applying the principle that woman was created for man if not all women or men are married? And do you hold that women ought not to teach men either (based on 1 Timothy) in any sphere?

Some have claimed that the text is referring to "mankind" and "womankind" rather than "man" and "woman" as individuals, thus arguing for a generic rather than universal headship. On what basis are the terms restricted in that way?


Those arguing that the headship is not universal, on what basis is "man" and "woman" as a principle of creation restricted? The argument requires the principle to be valid in itself in order to be applied to the specific church situation. We also often take the hermeneutic of the Scriptures to apply to other situations, e.g., Jesus' argument concerning "in the beginning" shows us that many things in creation are normative...including marriage as consisting of union between male and female contra same sex "marriage." If we cannot draw out the argument in this case of headship, then on what basis do we restrict it, and when can we tell that we should restrict the broader application of principles in Scripture?

There is also some natural revelation for male leadership among humans: namely, man as provider and woman as provided for. So there seems to be more than special revelation?


----------



## Parakaleo

I do not argue for female independence in her own sphere. My daughters will go from their father's household into their husband's household. Unmarried women should consider themselves still under the headship of their fathers. If the father is no longer living, the unmarried woman should look to her brothers. If she has no brothers, let her seek the oversight and protection of her uncle or pastor. If another man desires to marry such a woman, let him seek the blessing of the man most closely related to her.

A major theme of the first three chapters of Ruth is the suspense concerning whether Naomi and Ruth will be able to come under the protection of a male redeemer. When Boaz accepts this role, he goes to the closest male relative of the women and sought the permission to take responsibility for the property of Elimelech (including Ruth) in the presence of the elders. Boaz didn't ask permission of Ruth or Naomi, but sought the permission of the near redeemer to purchase all that was Elimelech's.

This principle is partially what makes Dr. Moore's article (linked above) so repulsive. Women are protected under headship when they remain submissive to their fathers and regard other men as they would brothers. Women are unprotected when they resist the headship of their fathers and wrongly give it to others (which is not submission at all). Lest anyone remind me that many fathers are wicked and abuse their authority, I would point out that engaging in sin is never proper submission. When Amnon took hold of Tamar, she did not willingly go to him, though he was her brother. She remained submissive in her resistance.

And I do believe Paul's argument in 1 Timothy 2 is grounds to seriously question whether women should be teaching grown men in any sphere at all.


----------



## Pergamum

Last time I checked Isaiah 3:12 was a curse and not merely an indifferent lifestyle option:



> As for my people, children are their oppressors, and *women rule over them*. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths


----------



## smhbbag

Bump: 



smhbbag said:


> Rev. Buchanan,
> 
> Why is it relevant that Adam was formed first? Why should we restrict teaching and authority in the church because God made Adam first?
> 
> And why does it matter that the woman, not the man, was deceived? So Eve was deceived...what connection does that have to women not teaching in the church?


----------



## Pergamum

Parakaleo said:


> I do not argue for female independence in her own sphere. My daughters will go from their father's household into their husband's household. Unmarried women should consider themselves still under the headship of their fathers. If the father is no longer living, the unmarried woman should look to her brothers. If she has no brothers, let her seek the oversight and protection of her uncle or pastor. If another man desires to marry such a woman, let him seek the blessing of the man most closely related to her.
> 
> A major theme of the first three chapters of Ruth is the suspense concerning whether Naomi and Ruth will be able to come under the protection of a male redeemer. When Boaz accepts this role, he goes to the closest male relative of the women and sought the permission to take responsibility for the property of Elimelech (including Ruth) in the presence of the elders. Boaz didn't ask permission of Ruth or Naomi, but sought the permission of the near redeemer to purchase all that was Elimelech's.
> 
> This principle is partially what makes Dr. Moore's article (linked above) so repulsive. Women are protected under headship when they remain submissive to their fathers and regard other men as they would brothers. Women are unprotected when they resist the headship of their fathers and wrongly give it to others (which is not submission at all). Lest anyone remind me that many fathers are wicked and abuse their authority, I would point out that engaging in sin is never proper submission. When Amnon took hold of Tamar, she did not willingly go to him, though he was her brother. She remained submissive in her resistance.
> 
> And I do believe Paul's argument in 1 Timothy 2 is grounds to seriously question whether women should be teaching grown men in any sphere at all.



[SIGH]....Russell Moore with another needlessly provocative title of "Women, stop submitting to men...".... This title ranks right up there with "Jesus has AIDS" and the other tweet about Jesus being an illegal alien.


----------



## TylerRay

Rev. Buchanan,

I'm sorry for my tardy response, and I'm sorry if I misunderstood any portion of your earlier post.



> If it isn't "across the board" (for adults anyway), then there is no "natural" proposition that grounds Paul's argument; but "special revelation" grounds it, particularly that related to creation, vv8-9. When "nature" is brought in, v14, it is as an adjunct, a kind of "(godless) societal admission" that there is some truth (he connects it to "glory" not "submission") even those without special revelation can see.
> 
> Paul does not appeal to "the natural place of woman" to ground his argument. But to the revealed order of creation, so as (1Cor.11) to ground explicitly ecclesiastical society through its government as a thing minutely directed by the Word.



I think we run the risk of talking past one another regarding our use of the word _nature_. I wasn't claiming an argument from _natural revelation_ exclusively, instead I was claiming and argument from what is _natural _to man (i. e., God's design for humanity). "Nature," in this sense of the word, is most clearly seen in Scripture, though we can learn a great deal about human nature from general revelation as well.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

smhbbag said:


> Rev. Buchanan,
> 
> Why is it relevant that Adam was formed first? Why should we restrict teaching and authority in the church because God made Adam first?



It's relevant to Paul's point, because he speaking to the church about order in the church. And the creation account is a matter of special revelation. That the man (male) alone was created first, and was given instruction of God, and performed the prophet's service of instructor to Eve, who was given her unique substance out of the original undivided human nature--this all speaks to a peculiar role assigned to various "heads" of institutions. It does not say that the class of men is superior to women in any/all spheres of life and human endeavor, or generally superior, or any such thing.

And, the whole matter is one of special revelation. Not one element of this counsel taught by Paul is accessible to men from general revelation. What general revelation teaches mankind as a whole, shorn of its interpretive counsel in Scripture, is perverted on account of the fall to self serving observations of nature's "laws," which in this case typically ends up as some expression of "the law of the jungle." Males, beasts driven by various levels of testosterone and pride, strive everywhere for domination; and if they don't strive for it, it must not be worth anything. "Hierarchy of strength" is not the same thing as "creation order."

Moreover, it is the revealed creation order that establishes a basis for the raising of women generally from a "place among the weak" to co-equal image bearers among men, and for the recognition of the superior competency of some women to some men in this or that. Where men and women respect the order of creation, a culture and civilization can be constructed that does not rely on force attempting a recast of nature, or view female competency as a threat of some kind.

The fallen world in which we live is full of inequities and bad order of every sort; but we can't always tell the difference at some particular point between a fundamental mixup, and people muddling through as best they can under the circumstances. At least in the church we have a foundation for clarity. Jesus is the permanent Head of this Institution. He's put men (exclusively) in the position of his ministers in part to serve as witnesses to his abiding human nature (X&Y) which he chose for himself; and it is "fitting" for males to represent him in his exclusive Mediatorial role. Further, the church (in a fallen world) will model the order of creation in a proper way to a confused population.

The structure of human societies larger than the family is not idealized in Scripture; and men are free to make trial and error of various set-ups, with or without women (or men) approved for this or that position. The Bible was not written to teach men to have or not have secular kings and/or queens, or the benefits of unicameral legislature comprised exclusively of eunuchs. Maybe one or the other of those will work best for some group. But I don't have to wonder what will be best for the church.



smhbbag said:


> And why does it matter that the woman, not the man, was deceived? So Eve was deceived...what connection does that have to women not teaching in the church?



Eve was responsible to her head, Adam, who was both her husband and her prophet. She was deceived away from minding the role she was given for her good. The devil said in effect, "Why don't you try teaching Adam a thing or two about practical religion?" The text says nothing like she was deceived because she was the dumber of the two, or the more naive, or weaker in some way intrinsic to ladyhood (though some have suggested 1Pet.3:7 to this end). That she was deceived is, again, a matter of special revelation: it is WHAT happened as a matter of fact; and it happened as a result of not simply taking God at his (mediated) Word.

And inasmuch as she then turned and deceived Adam, as if she was a teacher and a revealer of truth to him, she challenged the order of creation (all the way up to the Creator). So as a matter of _returning religiously under the reign of God and his good order,_ there must be acknowledgment of this disorder which proceeded from the first woman, and a willing acquiescence to the proper order. But it does not follow that women cannot teach at all (in a school for example), or that they may only instruct other women (there are approved examples of men learning from women in the Bible).

So, again it cannot be that Paul presents an axiom, which being true in and for the church is also applicable _semper, ubique, ab omnibus._ The things which are now--which are of this world destined to be shaken to nothing--we are not beholden to them to teach us what ultimate good-order contains. Many things pragmatism and good sense give sufficient guidance. And we should be careful about naming as sins all less-than-ideal choices.


----------



## smhbbag

> Further, the church (in a fallen world) will model the order of creation in a proper way to a confused population.



So, they should model the order of creation, but then contribute to the confusion of created order by promoting or permitting female magistrates?

Are we to take our firm knowledge that leads to clarity of created order in the church, and then pretend it doesn't exist (and undermine its principles) in the public square?



> Moreover, it is the revealed creation order that establishes a basis for the raising of women generally from a "place among the weak" to co-equal image bearers among men, and for the recognition of the superior competency of some women to some men in this or that.



What groups of people, ideologies, religions, etc. are you critiquing? What periods in Christian history do you think denied (in practice, at least) the co-equal image-bearing of women? That seems implied.



> Eve was responsible to her head, Adam, who was both her husband and her prophet. She was deceived away from minding the role she was given for her good. The devil said in effect, "Why don't you try teaching Adam a thing or two about practical religion?" The text says nothing like she was deceived because she was the dumber of the two, or the more naive, or weaker in some way intrinsic to ladyhood (though some have suggested 1Pet.3:7 to this end). That she was deceived is, again, a matter of special revelation: it is WHAT happened as a matter of fact; and it happened as a result of not simply taking God at his (mediated) Word.



It should be noted that Paul does not list Eve attempting to teach Adam, nor her deception of him, as reasons. It says that women must not teach because Eve was deceived. The connection to women not teaching must flow primarily from there, rather than transitioning into what she did after she was deceived. That transition slightly aids your argument, but it is simply not in the text. The text says: Eve was decevied, and therefore women should not teach in the church. 



> So, again it cannot be that Paul presents an axiom, which being true in and for the church is also applicable semper, ubique, ab omnibus.



Can you identify where someone here has said that it does?


----------



## Miss Marple

Is it true to say that women are more easily deceived? We are more naive, more trusting, perhaps more emotionally needy so we fall for lies more easily?


----------



## Pilgrim

Miss Marple said:


> Is it true to say that women are more easily deceived? We are more naive, more trusting, perhaps more emotionally needy so we fall for lies more easily?



I seem to recall Lloyd-Jones saying something to that effect, noting that many cults have been started by or eventually led by women, such as Christian Science, SDA, the Shakers, etc.


----------



## Afterthought

Miss Marple said:


> Is it true to say that women are more easily deceived? We are more naive, more trusting, perhaps more emotionally needy so we fall for lies more easily?


Since sin is brought about by deception, this would then suggest that women are more susceptible to sin than men. This seems to me an odd conclusion!


----------



## MW

Miss Marple said:


> Is it true to say that women are more easily deceived?



No. In Proverbs wisdom is personified as a woman using her intelligence to win men to truth, and falsehood is likewise characterised as a woman who seduces the simple away from what is right. 1 Tim. 2 does not give a psychological profile. It draws on the historical fact that the temptation subverted the created order in addressing itself to Eve, who was not created "first." It is only raised for the purpose of showing why women are prohibited from exercising authority over a man.


----------



## smhbbag

The problem is that the temptation subverted the created order?

So, in this thread, the text means lots of different things (Satan chose Eve to tempt and subverted the order, Eve taught or deceived
Adam, etc) except the one thing that the text actually says, which is that the problem is that Eve was deceived. It means everything except what it says.


----------



## MW

smhbbag said:


> The problem is that the temptation subverted the created order?
> 
> So, in this thread, the text means lots of different things (Satan chose Eve to tempt and subverted the order, Eve taught or deceived
> Adam, etc) except the one thing that the text actually says, which is that the problem is that Eve was deceived. It means everything except what it says.



I didn't deny the woman was deceived, so I am not sure why you are insinuating there is some attempt to thwart the meaning of Scripture. The point was to see it in context, and the context is stressing priority. It may also be pointed out that the statement draws on Gen. 3:12-13, which indicates the transgression involved a subversion of the created order.


----------



## Parakaleo

From Rev. Winzer:



> We can say something is not right and still submit to it under God's sovereign allowance.



Yes, but the problem raised by several in this thread is that we aren't really saying anything about it.


----------



## smhbbag

> I didn't deny the woman was deceived, so I am not sure why you are insinuating there is some attempt to thwart the meaning of Scripture. The point was to see it in context, and the context is stressing priority. It may also be pointed out that the statement draws on Gen. 3:12-13, which indicates the transgression involved a subversion of the created order.



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.


----------



## 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

smhbbag said:


> 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

Parakaleo said:


> 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?



MW said:


> 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

Afterthought said:


> 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

Pergamum said:


> 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

smhbbag said:


> 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

smhbbag said:


> 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.



smhbbag said:


> 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

MW said:


> 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

Afterthought said:


> 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.



Afterthought said:


> 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

MW said:


> 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?



MW said:


> 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

smhbbag said:


> 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
Click to expand...


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

Afterthought said:


> 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

Pergamum said:


> 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

Pergamum said:


> 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.”
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


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

Pergamum said:


> 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

smhbbag said:


> 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

smhbbag said:


> 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

smhbbag said:


> 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

smhbbag said:


> 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

smhbbag said:


> 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?
Click to expand...


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


----------



## smhbbag

> 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.



The nature being the problem does not, in any way, imply a bar from all teaching in all contexts. It would, however, imply a need, a warrant, and a different or greater manner of direction/accountability when teaching, and limited subject matter. I think scripture gives us all of those. My position requires at least something of that sort, but it does nothing to require a total ban beyond that.



> Titus 2 says nothing about the aged women teaching younger women "under male authority and direction."



Of course it does. It's built-in. Are you suggesting that believing women can somehow teach other women _without_ being under the direction or authority of men? Who are these women who don't have husbands, fathers, or elders?


----------



## MW

smhbbag said:


> But it doesn't automatically apply in the same way everywhere.



If it's nature then it must automatically apply in the same way everywhere. She cannot transcend what is natural to her. And to make it worse, your argument supposes this "nature" even applies in a state of innocence. It must be even more susceptible post-fall. You really should go back and reconsider your position. Besides being absurd it is dishonourable.



smhbbag said:


> Of course it does. It's built-in.



There is nothing in the text or the context that says an aged woman must teach a younger woman under the direction of a man. You have to read it into the text or context.


----------



## smhbbag

> There is nothing in the text or the context that says an aged woman must teach a younger woman under the direction of a man. You have to read it into the text or context.



Are you suggesting that believing women can somehow teach other women without being under the direction or authority of men? Who are these women who don't have husbands, fathers, or elders? What part of their lives is _not_ subject to the authority over them? Which of them would have a claim against their heads, or their elders, to leave them alone and let them teach as they please?



> If it's nature then it must automatically apply in the same way everywhere.



That's silly. Some parts of our nature affect some things, but not others. My nature allows me to do some things responsibly, but not others. 

I have a son who is very easily deceived. But that's okay. He's four years old. His makeup makes him quite susceptible to deception. Being smart on a relative scale to other four year olds doesn't mean that I let him do my taxes. But I can let him teach his younger brother how to put his shirt on, or his younger sister how not to get her hair stuck in her runny snot.

In this sense, I can say it would be "foolishly dangerous" to allow a four year old to teach, and not be remotely inconsistent, or deny his nature, if I let him teach some things to some people in some contexts. 

It's a total absurdity to suggest that one's nature applies the same everywhere.


----------



## Pergamum

Afterthought said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


It would seem that each sex has its own peculiar besetting sins. For example, men seem to be more visually tempted with tempting images or more tempted to anger. And the Apostle Paul seems clear in what he thought women's besetting sin was. Therefore, I must either say "Ah, Paul was just a first century Jew with all their first century Jewish hang-ups," or I must say, "Paul here is right, even in what he says about women." 

We should probably also begin to ask how Paul and Peter complement each other here when Peter calls women the "weaker vessel." Though "vessel" may make us think of physical weakness primarily, many commentators point out emotional aspects of this weakness as well which may complement the Apostle Paul's words quite well. 

In the very least, one must admit that the two vessel as not alike, but are different.


----------



## MW

smhbbag said:


> Are you suggesting that believing women can somehow teach other women without being under the direction or authority of men? Who are these women who don't have husbands, fathers, or elders? What part of their lives is _not_ subject to the authority over them? Which of them would have a claim against their heads, or their elders, to leave them alone and let them teach as they please?



Are you suggesting that believing women can somehow teach men as long as they are under the direction or authority of men? You claim the nature of woman prohibits her from teaching except under the condition that she is under the direction of a man. On this basis you would have to say that the apostle's prohibition of teaching a man only applies when the woman is not under the direction of a man. So now, in adding a qualification to your reason, you have added a qualification to the prohibition. That hole just keeps getting deeper.



smhbbag said:


> If it's nature then it must automatically apply in the same way everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's silly. Some parts of our nature affect some things, but not others. My nature allows me to do some things responsibly, but not others.
> 
> I have a son who is very easily deceived. But that's okay. He's four years old. His makeup makes him quite susceptible to deception. Being smart on a relative scale to other four year olds doesn't mean that I let him do my taxes. But I can let him teach his younger brother how to put his shirt on, or his younger sister how not to get her hair stuck in her runny snot.
> 
> In this sense, I can say it would be "foolishly dangerous" to allow a four year old to teach, and not be remotely inconsistent, or deny his nature, if I let him teach some things to some people in some contexts.
Click to expand...


The argument presupposes the woman is mature and has the cognitive and moral qualifications to teach. Equating her to an immature four year old only shows more disrespect.



smhbbag said:


> It's a total absurdity to suggest that one's nature applies the same everywhere.



Of course nature applies everywhere. If the male-female distinction in nature did not apply everywhere we wouldn't be having this debate. This discussion has taken for granted that the Bible's appeal to "nature" makes its teaching applicable everywhere.


----------



## smhbbag

> Are you suggesting that believing women can somehow teach men as long as they are under the direction or authority of men?



I knew this question was coming, because I counted on the same level of understanding and fairness as previous posts received. 

Yes, that is what it would mean, if this reason was given in isolation. But it is not given in isolation. We are also told that Adam was formed first, and the whole notion of created order puts away this idea. Your question might be fair if the woman being deceived was Paul's only reason given, but it was not. It was listed after the fact that Adam was formed first, and therein lies the answer to this question. 



> The argument presupposes the woman is mature and has the cognitive and moral qualifications to teach. Equating her to an immature four year old only shows more disrespect.



A comparison is not an equation, and you know that. The substance of vulnerability to deception, not the degree of it, is the relevant factor, and that is why this is both true and not disrespectful at all. We all recognize that some types of people are more easily deceived than others. Those people are not barred completely in all circumstances from teaching, but we do take account of their weakness in our structures. The example proves my point quite well.

You can take it as disrespectful if you wish, but it is not. The comparison is a matter of substance, not degree.



> Of course nature applies everywhere. If the male-female distinction in nature did not apply everywhere we wouldn't be having this debate. This discussion has taken for granted that the Bible's appeal to "nature" makes its teaching applicable everywhere.



Of course nature applies everywhere. It's nature. By definition, it applies everywhere. But it does not apply the same everywhere. And that is what I said, and that is what you have still not even mounted an argument against.

***Edit: I won't be responding for probably 18-24 hours. There are non-PB things to do.


----------



## MW

smhbbag said:


> I knew this question was coming, because I counted on the same level of understanding and fairness as previous posts received.



The logic of your position is being tested. That is all. There is no need to cry foul-play.



smhbbag said:


> Yes, that is what it would mean, if this reason was given in isolation. But it is not given in isolation. We are also told that Adam was formed first, and the whole notion of created order puts away this idea. Your question might be fair if the woman being deceived was Paul's only reason given, but it was not. It was listed after the fact that Adam was formed first, and therein lies the answer to this question.



When I brought the two reasons into correlation you said, "Paul reasons using the second one, not the first. The difference between those is stark." Now you are saying they must not be taken in isolation. Which is it?

If the two are now to be taken together it would mean that the deception relates to the priority of the man, not to the nature of the woman; but you have been arguing against the deception relating to the priority of man and have been arguing for it being related to the nature of the woman.



smhbbag said:


> A comparison is not an equation, and you know that. The substance of vulnerability to deception, not the degree of it, is the relevant factor, and that is why this is both true and not disrespectful at all.



Then your comparison is simply irrelevant. I will leave it at that.



smhbbag said:


> Of course nature applies everywhere. It's nature. By definition, it applies everywhere. But it does not apply the same everywhere. And that is what I said, and that is what you have still not even mounted an argument against.



You are, of course, pulling the rug from under your own feet. Your original argument was, "It would be terribly odd for facts based in Creation and Fall only to impact the church and home." Now you say, "that these apply everywhere, but do not apply the same everywhere." This is very inconsistent.

Your qualifications appear in a very confused manner without reference to the apostle's line of reasoning. Perhaps you could refer them back to the apostle's prohibition so that it can be seen what they amount to. As far as I can see your arguments and qualifications only serve to undermine the apostle's prohibition.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

I have appreciated this exchange and have found encouragement as a mother and grandmother. A Christian mother can and must teach and instruct her children, even in situations where the father is absent or not interested enough in spiritual things. In the home, there may be no direct male oversight over what she says to them or how she answers their questions throughout the course of a normal day. Some of her answers would likely be, "I don't know, let's ask our Pastor." God has entrusted this to her. Of course, like anyone else, a mother or grandmother "on their own" in the home will be submitted to and under the care of pastoral oversight. I think of Paul's words to Timothy giving honorable mention to Timothy's grandmother Lois and his mother Eunice. It's natural and right for a mother to speak to her children throughout the days and nights of the things of the Lord.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## smhbbag

> When I brought the two reasons into correlation you said, "Paul reasons using the second one, not the first. The difference between those is stark." Now you are saying they must not be taken in isolation. Which is it?



I am going to respond only to this part, so that I may shine a spotlight on such repeated, overwhelming misrepresentation of my words.

The text gives two reasons for women not teaching. I'll call this List 1.

List 1
1) Adam was formed first. 2) Eve was deceived. 

However, in what you quote from me ("Paul reasons using the second one, not the first. The difference between those is stark"), this was the preceding sentence:


> 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 listed exactly what I was talking about. My reference was to these two things, where we were arguing over what it meant for Eve to be deceived (two understandings of point 2 in the previous list). I'll call this List 2.

List 2:
1) The tempter created the temptation, and subverted the order.
2) The woman was deceived.

There, and only in that context, did I say the words you quote. 

But no, you ripped them out of that argument, ignoring the very sentence before, and pretended I was talking about the two reasons Paul gave in List 1, rather than the two understandings we had in List 2. 

When quotes are so abused, so consistently, I don't know what point there is in continuing. 

I do not know whether all of these were deliberate or not. And I do not actually know which would be more charitable to assume. Either way, all of the contradictions you allege are figments of your imagination, resulting from continual misrepresentation.


----------



## Parakaleo

This discussion is far too important for these repeated misrepresentations. Scores of people are following this subject, not to mention the thousands that may happen upon it in the future.

I happen to side with Jeremy. If "the deception relates to the priority of the man, not to the nature of the woman" as has been argued, what sense would the words "and she became a transgressor" make? And what sense would verse 15, "Yet she will be saved through childbearing," make? 

If the apostle has not made any remark on the nature of the woman, why would he give special instruction relating to her unique salvation? We know there is one Way of salvation only. Yet, for women, there is an added means of sanctification in the bearing and raising of children. The humility and selflessness involved in keeping the home and raising young ones will be of use to combat the unique nature of the fallen woman.


----------



## MW

smhbbag said:


> There, and only in that context, did I say the words you quote.



I accept your correction and acknowledge I have misread and misapplied your words in this instance, for which I am very sorry. Having said that, my point still stands that if the two reasons are not read in isolation then the position of the woman in relation to the man must be understood as an important element in the connection of the two, which is precisely the thing I have been stating.

Moreover, my criticisms still stand. Tracing the reason back to something in the woman's nature (which the apostle never does) would effectively disqualify her teaching BY NATURE, which would then have to be applied in every context, contrary to the apostle's own teaching in other places. His argument depends on the appeal to creation and the fall being universal. If it is not universal it would mean there are contexts in which it would be permissible for women to teach men. And if it is argued that the apostle's reason still allows for women to teach under the direction of men, it would mean by consequence that the apostle's prohibition allows for women to teach men under the direction of men. If his reasons provide universal application of his prohibition they must apply universally. Claiming that nature does not apply everywhere in the same way would defeat the purpose of the apostle in giving these reasons in the first place.

I have made a valid ad absurdum argument against interpreting the apostle as referring to the woman's nature, as it is properly applied to the analysis of a logical argument. I repeat for clarification, I am not saying that you argue for the universal exclusion of women teaching. I am saying that your interpretation of the apostle's logically structured argument leads to this conclusion, even though you refuse the conclusion. Basically, you have left yourself with no logical grounds for maintaining that women may teach in other contexts because you have interpreted the apostle as disqualifying the woman BY NATURE. Only on the basis that he was referring to the woman's POSITION in relation to the man can it be maintained that there are other contexts which are not ruled out by the apostle's reasons.

At any rate, I apologise for my blunder. It was through lack of care that I misapplied your words, not through any deliberate intention.


----------



## MW

Parakaleo said:


> This discussion is far too important for these repeated misrepresentations. Scores of people are following this subject, not to mention the thousands that may happen upon it in the future.
> 
> I happen to side with Jeremy. If "the deception relates to the priority of the man, not to the nature of the woman" as has been argued, what sense would the words "and she became a transgressor" make? And what sense would verse 15, "Yet she will be saved through childbearing," make?
> 
> If the apostle has not made any remark on the nature of the woman, why would he give special instruction relating to her unique salvation? We know there is one Way of salvation only. Yet, for women, there is an added means of sanctification in the bearing and raising of children. The humility and selflessness involved in keeping the home and raising young ones will be of use to combat the unique nature of the fallen woman.



To see how the role-reversal view consistently exegetes the text in context, please consult Douglas Moo's essay on this passage in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

There are numerous interpretations for verse 15. The role-reversal position is not dependent on any one interpretation in particular, because verse 15 does not introduce a consequence, but gives a further consideration which now incorporates the prior teaching about good works in v. 10.

If by "means of sanctification" you simply mean that child-bearing provides a vocation for doing the good works of v. 10, I think that is an acceptable application of the text, but it doesn't really bring out the meaning as I understand it. As an application it simply sets forth child-bearing as a context in which godly women can do good works as a fruit of sanctification. But I would also be on my guard against a doctrine which either introduces salvation (or sanctification) by works, contrary to the express teaching of chapter 1; or which supports the fundamentalist idea of sanctification by physical separation.

The interpretation which weighs more heavily with me is the one which sees the child-bearing as objectively setting forth the promised seed in Gen. 3:15, and the woman as "the mother of all living." Child-bearing, though cursed as a result of the woman being in the transgression, is also the appointed way by which mankind will be saved, and this includes womankind as long as they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. There are a number of key redemptive-historical issues related to this interpretation, so if one is not open to the insights of redemptive-historical interpretation it will not be of much influence; but for those who trace the seed-theology of Genesis throughout Scripture this position will bear some weight. The commentary by Patrick Fairbairn brings this out with skill and precision, and provides the necessary safeguards to keep the interpretation from slipping into a mystical mode of thought.


----------



## Afterthought

MW said:


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


Winding this thread back a bit (lots of activity here!), how does "honoring" imply that one recognizes authority? Supposing it does require recognition of authority, does it not simply note the praise-worthiness of operating in such a sphere, without necessarily saying anything about the sovereignty of the authority (since the authority could be subordinate)?


----------



## MW

Afterthought said:


> Winding this thread back a bit (lots of activity here!), how does "honoring" imply that one recognizes authority? Supposing it does require recognition of authority, does it not simply note the praise-worthiness of operating in such a sphere, without necessarily saying anything about the sovereignty of the authority (since the authority could be subordinate)?



Are you thinking in terms of 1 Peter 2:13-14; the king is supreme and governors are sent by him? If so, it might help if we use this as a contrast to see the difference between civil authority and the family authority of fathers and mothers. The civil magistrate as such is an ordinance of God; but in the family the ordinance authorises both fathers and mothers, and those two terms establish different relations and actions within the family. The father does not institute and empower the mother; he is not like the king delegating his authority to governors. The mother's power is derived from God, and as such it is not delegated power. Her sphere of service is not dependent on the husband in this respect; and it is in this respect of "power to relate and act" that the woman is said to be sovereign in her own sphere.


----------



## Afterthought

MW said:


> Are you thinking in terms of 1 Peter 2:13-14; the king is supreme and governors are sent by him? If so, it might help if we use this as a contrast to see the difference between civil authority and the family authority of fathers and mothers. The civil magistrate as such is an ordinance of God; but in the family the ordinance authorises both fathers and mothers, and those two terms establish different relations and actions within the family. The father does not institute and empower the mother; he is not like the king delegating his authority to governors. The mother's power is derived from God, and as such it is not delegated power. Her sphere of service is not dependent on the husband in this respect; and it is in this respect of "power to relate and act" that the woman is said to be sovereign in her own sphere.


Ah, I see now, although I still do not see how "honoring" implies recognition of authority.

Now for the tricky question: How far does this sphere extend, so that the woman does not need to be under male headship? It seems some political offices are obvious offices of leadership, but even here, how do we know that the woman's sphere does not extend to this place? And some roles are not as obvious, e.g., female bosses at companies. These are economic enterprises, so there could be some legitimacy to the woman acting in her own sphere to take care of her own; but on the other hand, they often require leadership over men. And even supposing the commercial enterprise was all female, does that really change matters, so far as sphere of service goes? There are also academic roles: professors and teachers; perhaps even teaching on matters of religion.

I guess I already asked the main question here: How can we determine how far this sphere extends and how can we determine when "headship" is required, and so male leadership is required?


----------



## MW

Afterthought said:


> Now for the tricky question: How far does this sphere extend, so that the woman does not need to be under male headship?



Sovereignty only relates to her "sphere" of service. It cannot be predicated of the woman herself without overturning the created order. Man is the head of the woman, and this applies everywhere at all times. The woman is of the man and created for the man. Her sovereignty in her sphere derives from God, but God has also placed the woman under man's headship.


----------



## Afterthought

MW said:


> Sovereignty only relates to her "sphere" of service. It cannot be predicated of the woman herself without overturning the created order. Man is the head of the woman, and this applies everywhere at all times. The woman is of the man and created for the man. Her sovereignty in her sphere derives from God, but God has also placed the woman under man's headship.


Sorry for getting back to this late. I myself only barely remember the flow discussion, but in the interests of trying not to create a new thread, here we go. I'll try to frame the question in a general way as if it were a new thread.

How does one determine what is the woman's sphere? How does one determine whether the man must have headship in some area of life, or if it is the woman's sphere of service? I'm trying to understand how to use this principle to apply it to other matters, e.g., who leads the prayer at prayer meetings; various economical or academic positions; political positions. Take a female CEO of some business, for example. One the one hand, we might say she has authority and thus headship over the men she employs. On the other hand, women have traditionally employed servants--some of them male--to do household work. Could a female CEO then be viewed as being within the woman's sphere of service in taking care of her family as a mother, wife, sister (since it is an economic position, it allows her to take care of her family)? And maybe also taking care of servants? And so I ask again: How do we determine what is the woman's sphere of service and what requires male headship? Perhaps it might clarify things to also know what exactly is "headship" and what does "headship" entail.


----------



## Pergamum

Afterthought said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sovereignty only relates to her "sphere" of service. It cannot be predicated of the woman herself without overturning the created order. Man is the head of the woman, and this applies everywhere at all times. The woman is of the man and created for the man. Her sovereignty in her sphere derives from God, but God has also placed the woman under man's headship.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry for getting back to this late. I myself only barely remember the flow discussion, but in the interests of trying not to create a new thread, here we go. I'll try to frame the question in a general way as if it were a new thread.
> 
> How does one determine what is the woman's sphere? How does one determine whether the man must have headship in some area of life, or if it is the woman's sphere of service? I'm trying to understand how to use this principle to apply it to other matters, e.g., who leads the prayer at prayer meetings; various economical or academic positions; political positions. Take a female CEO of some business, for example. One the one hand, we might say she has authority and thus headship over the men she employs. On the other hand, women have traditionally employed servants--some of them male--to do household work. Could a female CEO then be viewed as being within the woman's sphere of service in taking care of her family as a mother, wife, sister (since it is an economic position, it allows her to take care of her family)? And maybe also taking care of servants? And so I ask again: How do we determine what is the woman's sphere of service and what requires male headship? Perhaps it might clarify things to also know what exactly is "headship" and what does "headship" entail.
Click to expand...


Here is a good concise article:



> While the Proverbs 31 Wife’s husband was providing for the family, she was supervising home life, profit, and activities (v. 21). Paul exhorts women to “work at home,” (Titus 2:5, ESV).



https://carm.org/apologetics/womens-issues/should-christian-wife-work-outside-home


----------



## Afterthought

Pergamum said:


> Here is a good concise article


Wisdom in Proverbs 31 applies to men also, and I had thought the passage in Titus was not necessarily speaking to a universal moral principle but an application of principles to a particular situation?

But anyway, the article does not talk about "headship" in relation to the matter. It talks about wives/husbands but not about men as men or women as women. It says something about woman being home to take care of children but what of the woman who is not married?

I do agree that there is wisdom in a woman with children staying home to take care of them and the husband providing for them.


----------



## a mere housewife

I think any historical survey or survey of other cultures would show that most women throughout history have had to work, married or single. Even very young girls. Women who have the option to engage only in homemaking are in a very privileged minority position, not the historical or even the biblical rule. -- Not only is the virtuous woman quite busy in the public square, but her own homemaking involves all those 'handmaids'. They weren't her daughters, but someone else's -- girls working away from their family homes.

Given this reality, headship must surely involve helping women to qualify for jobs that spare them in various ways. Ie, if my husband and I both have to work, but one of us can work as a teacher, while the other must work as a manual laborer -- I know my husband would do everything in his power to see that I was qualified for the more dignified and less physically difficult job, as long as he was able to do anything about it. Girls who have aptitudes for more educated work should be qualified for those opportunities where work is a necessity.

One of the women in our church works long hours as a maid. She does not get any paid time off, even though she has need of medical leave at present. We pray for her (intelligent) daughter to be able to choose from better paying, healthier positions -- and we are trying to help her look for a good college. Many women without options are additionally subject to abuse; and not having options, they have to put up with it. Limiting women from the more educated to varying degrees 'managerial' positions will only mean they have no choice but to work at what is most demanding, demeaning, and poorly reimbursed. 

Think of Boaz instructing his male gleaners to make Ruth job's easier *and* to leave her alone, since she had to work. He's a good picture of Christ's headship -- especially after all the failures of at the end of Judges.


----------



## Afterthought

> Limiting women from the more educated to varying degrees 'managerial' positions will only mean they have no choice but to work at what is most demanding, demeaning, and poorly reimbursed.


This raises the interesting economic question of: someone needs to do those jobs, so who? But anyway, are you arguing that women should be allowed to have all the same jobs as men? If not, then this is the very question I am asking: How does "headship" and "sphere of service" work themselves out for various jobs or roles? How does one determine what falls under the appropriate category?


----------



## a mere housewife

Raymond, I don't think I know the specific answers! In very many situations men don't have a lot of options either -- in any society, a large number of both men and women will wind up at the bottom. I'm simply arguing that a principle of headship is to spare and ennoble women, not to disadvantage or demean them. This is modeling Christ's love for the church, and it has to apply to the realities of women in the workplace.

The Biblical ideal (grounded in the goodness of God) is always that those who have something are to use it for the benefit of others. So in Christian liberty, those who are strong have something to use for the advantage of the weak. The rich have something they can use for the advantage of the poor. Those in authority have something they can use for the advantage of those under authority. Your question seems to be stated in terms of competition (then should women be allowed to compete for the same jobs as men?); but the headship principle isn't about competition. It is about love -- and love is (I think) often a more particular, applied, individual principle than a one size fits all principle?

Certainly, I don't see Scripture anywhere taking issue with the facts of women having men under their authority in situations with servants etc. Women are sometimes wiser than men, even than husbands (Abigail and Nabal) -- wisdom is personified as a woman, crying out to men (that point was probably already made in past pages of the thread: I did read it a few weeks ago and was very grateful for some of the posts but some of it's slipped now): there is surely a larger point there, but it's clear that Scripture does not place the mental and spiritual capacities of women on an inferior level. Particular women are going to be as well, or better suited for some jobs than particular men. The requirement of particular submission is only spelled out of a woman to her husband in marriage, and that women should not hold office in the church. If you asked me to stop posting to this thread, I would respect your request as the author of the thread, but I am not sure I would do so as female to a male. 

I think a thoroughly Christian society would reflect various ways individuals in homes and churches seek to use what they have for others. It would reflect many fathers wanting their daughters to have the opportunity of dignified and satisfying work, many husbands wishing for their wives to work lighter jobs than they have to, many employers wanting to make sure their employees have reasonable working conditions, etc. It would also reflect women in jobs with authority wishing to use that not for their own advancement but for their families (as well as the good of those they manage). But society is not thoroughly Christian, and trying to use what we have for others in the present conditions is part of our light in a dark world.


----------



## Pergamum

Heidi,

You wrote:



> Think of Boaz instructing his male gleaners to make Ruth job's easier *and* to leave her alone, since she had to work. He's a good picture of Christ's headship -- especially after all the failures of at the end of Judges.



This sounds an awful like lot trying to argue for affirmative action for women (i.e. making it easier for working women). What Boaz did was charity. Do you believe all women who enter the workforce and desire to be treated as equals with men deserve such charity? Boaz saw Ruth's poor estate and aided her; he did not have to, nor does it say he did so for any other worker. And this is certainly not called for when modern feminists compete with men on the job now. If they want equality, they can have it... the charity of Boaz only makes sense when patriarchy is the norm.

You say that in a Christian society, fathers would be preparing their daughters for dignified work (outside the home) so as not to be left with the lowest jobs. But, on the contrary, in a truly Christian society, parents would not be preparing their daughters to compete in such a workplace, but would be teaching them how to love their husbands and run their homes and raise their children... the very things that the NT gives as admonitions. Unless, of course, we say that times have changed and the bible is not relevant to our modern workplace.

Here is a fine article from Carm.org: https://carm.org/should-christian-wife-work-outside-home I cannot get over the fact that Paul speaks of the norm for wives as being "workers at home."

Capitalism and the Industrial Revolution enabled women to enter the workforce in large numbers. Prior to that women have not always normally worked out of the home in the levels that we see today.


----------



## Parakaleo

a mere housewife said:


> The requirement of particular submission is only spelled out of a woman to her husband in marriage, and that women should not hold office in the church.



I'll ask the question again. Why is something that is excellent and wise for the church somehow considered optional or even sub-optimal for other spheres?


----------



## Afterthought

a mere housewife said:


> Raymond, I don't think I know the specific answers! In very many situations men don't have a lot of options either -- in any society, a large number of both men and women will wind up at the bottom. I'm simply arguing that a principle of headship is to spare and ennoble women, not to disadvantage or demean them. This is modeling Christ's love for the church, and it has to apply to the realities of women in the workplace.


Fair enough. To clarify, since I don't know if I'll be able to get back to this thread anytime soon, I am looking at the principle of headship and authority outside the realm of the church, since the creation order must apply outside the church. Clearly, there are limits (as your post has noted), but I do not know what they are since I am not sure how to apply the principle outside the realm of the church except in a few specific cases (and I mean _principle_; my own practical beliefs are likely similar to many of those in this thread; I am trying to study the principle behind such beliefs). I am also not necessarily talking about the practical realities that men and women face: many societies are disordered and poor, and there are some tough economic realities that may cause moral principles (like being able to take care of oneself and one's family) to take precedence over maintenance of good order.

I _am_ however talking about things in the ideal: how ought things to be ordered? How ought the order to be applied in the political and economic realms, given strong statements of headship, authority, and spheres of service? I am not trying to frame the question in terms of competition in the workplace, but insofar as one is trying to apply the principle of authority and sphere of service to the workplace, are there jobs that are ideally limited to men because they would require a woman to be in authority over men (disorder; not for ontological reasons)? This isn't a useless question seeing how we are to aim for ideals in what we do even if practical realities require us to do otherwise.


----------



## Parakaleo

Came across this today from another noted Bible commentator:



> "No imaginary good can come out of the violation of the original design; no benefits which females, individual or associated, can confer on mankind by disregarding this arrangement, can be a compensation for the evil that is done, nor can the evil be remedied unless a woman occupies the place which God designed she should fill. There nothing else can supply her place; and when she is absent from that situation–no matter what good she may be doing elsewhere–there is a silent evil reigning, which can be removed only by her return. It is not hers to fight battles, or to command armies and navies, or to control kingdoms, or to make laws. Nor is it hers to go forward as a public leader even in enterprises of benevolence, or in associations designed to act on the public mind. Her empire is the domestic circle; her first influence is there; and in connection with that, and in such scenes as she can engage in without trenching on the prerogative of man, or neglecting the duty which she owes to her own family." {Albert Barnes}


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Re: things in the ideal/how things ought to be ordered and applied in the political and economic realms: I think the Scriptures undoubtedly teach that a wife is to devote her greatest energies to helping and loving her husband, loving their children, and keeping hearth and home. By inference, an unmarried woman will reserve her greatest energies for service and devotion to the Lord, her family, and his church in all the ways Christ has commanded. For the Christian woman, it's very hard to do those things and keep priorities right when pursuing a career or even just working at a 9-5 job. It's just a matter of human nature and how things really work. A Christian woman may have to work from economic necessity. A wife and her husband in those cases, or a single woman and her Christian family, should pray and ask for wisdom about it. Maybe things can be rearranged so that doesn't have to be the case, or can be done in a way that is wiser. 

But these abiding principles of the ideal have now been lost to Western society, in general. We have to live in the culture we're in, so if a Christian man finds himself under a woman boss, or there is a woman ruling in a political office, we have to recognize the providence of God. From the example of Deborah, it seems that women will rise to fill positions and rule when men don't or won't. 

I certainly think there are jobs ideally limited to men; I think it's hard for a man to work under a woman ( though in our culture I think many men have suppressed that instinct). As Christians we have to live under the Providences of God in the times we live in, but we can certainly strive to have jobs or not have jobs that are closest to the biblical pattern. 

Coming from an older woman who has seen a lot, done much without wisdom, and has seen and lived with the consequences. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jeri Tanner

I love the quote above from Barnes, and find this line striking: "There nothing else can supply her place; and when she is absent from that situation–no matter what good she may be doing elsewhere–there is a silent evil reigning, which can be removed only by her return."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## a mere housewife

Pergs, Boaz was showing the kind of care for Ruth that I was suggesting husbands/fathers/brothers etc. should be showing for the women in their lives: this is how headship works. I expect a feminist would be pretty disgusted with what I wrote, yes. I am also aware that unbiblically weighted patriarchal man would be (I'm not saying that you are such -- you've always treated women here and elsewhere, in my experience, with respect. But you must be aware that some men, even Christian men, treat headship less about Christ's sacrificial love and more as a principle of their own eminence.) Think of the women Paul dealt with who were servants in other peoples' households (like Lydia's servants). Think of the servants of Caesar's household that were part of the church -- were they all men? Even in OT times, when economy was less industrialised, and the nation was directly in covenant with God, there have always been a class of women who are in charge of a household (including male servants) and a class of women who work in other peoples' households. Authority in that area was more about class than gender. If one only allows men only the opportunity to rise to a more privileged class, that does not seem like a proper application of headship on a societal level.

Mr. Law, perhaps something that works in family and church (if men are genuinely loving like Christ) is not mandated for other spheres because in the church and family that individual knowledge ('dwelling with her according to knowledge') out of which the particular decisions of sacrificial masculine love are made is possible. It is not as possible in a business, or at a state level. This is just a suggestion but as Christ's love involves a very individual knowledge, I think it worth considering. 

Raymond, thank you -- I understand. I think love itself is often the ideal in areas that are not specifically regulated (as with Christian liberty). So a wife's submission is also out of love for her *own* husband, as the husband's authority is exercised in knowledge of his own wife. Ie, maybe some 'ideals' necessitate individual variations -- it would be 'unideal' to iron them all out. Love is an ideal that works even in a fallen world.

My mom was working during the day as a babysitter, and at night in data entry when I was young. I was making the family's meals standing on a chair at the stove when I was eight and taking care of my siblings. This was not for 'extra' indulgences -- we were drinking half a glass of milk daily, either on cereal or in the cup -- one could not have milk both ways (one small area of economy). My mother burst into tears when my brother asked for a nickel for something at school. Both my grandmothers worked outside the home to make ends meet. Their mothers likewise worked. I have not come from that class of society where women working signifies moral downgrade: it was always so; but my mom's pay and hours improved (she was able to work as an office manager later). I don't work but both my sisters do. It's hard on them and they'd prefer to work less -- one sister, to spend more time with her little one. Both are sick often with stress from their jobs. Some women in my church work have to work hard for low pay and no benefits, despite health issues. I am privileged. Homemaking -- and especially with little ones -- is challenging and hard work; but some women don't have the option to focus their strength there. Some women don't have any option but that -- and if their husbands are not gentle and humble with them, that can be an equally difficult situation. Options are good to protect women (and a godly man will want to protect the women under his care), as they are for men.

I don't mean to argue here so will leave it at this. I am sure I haven't arrived at perfect wisdom by any means, and would certainly ask patience! But I think these things are good to consider and Raymond's questions are always thought provoking.


----------

