Are Women More Easily Deceived Than Men?

Yes, we are more easily deceived. It is that easy. Women have a strong tendency to value relationships and work on them; while men tend to be more goal-oriented. It is for this reason that a person can deceive a woman more easily than a man.

Can a woman CONTINUE to be more easily deceived after she is aware of being deceived once by a particular person? The answer is generally no, I think. When a relationship has been betrayed, we tend to be rather suspicious creatures -- although this can be quite individual.

It is in this context that we need to consider what happened in the Garden of Eden. If anyone takes the time to read Ezekiel 28, he or she will see a section, starting with verse 12, where, through Ezekiel, the Lord is addressing Satan himself via the King of Tyre. In this address the Lord states

You were the model of perfection,
full of WISDOM and perfect in bearty.
You were in Eden,
the garden of God;
...You were anointed as guardian cherub,
for so I ordained you."

I think it is safe to say that Eve both knew and trusted this guardian cherub. And thus she believed the lie he told her and 'thought for herself' rather than trusting the direction from God, whether it came from God Himself or through Adam. Adam must have been immediately suspicious, although I am not intending to add to Scripture here, but if he was NOT deceived, then the obvious conclusion is that he knew better. Some day maybe we will know the war that went on in Adam's mind and heart when he saw this beautiful wife he had been given fall into temptation. Whatever went on with him internally, he sinned volitionally and was not deceived. He knew he was disobeying God.

And today we have not changed much. Women can still be easily deceived in a relationship. On a sexual basis, this can be referred to as seduction. However in other areas, it is generally recognized as flat-out betrayal of trust.

So what about teaching and usurping authority? The clear meaning of Paul is that women should not be the authorities and teachers in church where men are concerned. This does not mean we cannot add to discussions and that there might not be something to be learned from a woman, but rather that the woman is not to take responsibility for the class or the congregation.

And Paul's reason is clear and simple -- we are more easily deceived. This generally takes place within relationships and has nothing to do with common sense at all, actually. But having a woman at the head of a church will polarize that church because the emphasis will be on relationships. That's how we were created. It's perfect for a family and a web of friendships, but horrid for a church.

Can a woman teach a Sunday School class about a subject in which she has expertise, such as history or science? Yes, I think so, as long as she is under the authority of an elder or the pastor himself for the time of the teaching (which should not be permanent). This usurps nothing and is not a matter of spiritual guidance or authority.

In short, we need to look at more Bible than just the verses in 2 Timothy. We also need to look at men and women in a straightforward way, without being afraid of being either chauvinistic (or sexist) or un-politically correct.

 

Cheers, bro'! I accept that my exegesis of this passage may struck some as somewhat unusual, but it has been prayerfully arrived at after a fair amount of research.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Actually, Ulsterman, I was referring to teaching an adult -- both men and women -- Sunday School class. Call it sharing if you like...

But I have taught, or shared, regarding both Intelligent Design and the creation/evolution arguments. Neither of these have anything to do with the 'interpretation' of the Bible (except taking Genesis at face value), and in neither of these instances was I 'in charge' of the class. It's just that I was the one most knowledgeable regarding those things at the time and the others wanted a chance to learn about them.

This sort of thing I do not feel violates Scripture at all.

 

Diane If you think you have scripture to support your assertion that Adam lied to Eve, please post it.


quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nudity is a sin. Just because they were ignorant of sin does not mean they were innocent of sin. God is fighting sin with sin (Adam and Eve). They were both naked (sin) in their creation.-----------------------------------------


Nudity is NOT a sin! Lustful thoughts are a sin!
--------------------------------------------------
You know, you are the second time I ever heard that nudity is not a sin but lustful thoughts are. There are so many scriptures that state to "cover thy nakedness" or "thy nakedness is uncovered". The church of Sardis in Rev. says buy of me gold tried in fire, that thou mayest be rich and clothed and the shame of thy nakedness do not appear."

The church at Sardis was "wretched, miserable, poor, blind and naked." The association is that nakedness is sin.

Genesis 2:15 God commanded the "man" -- "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thou shalt surely die."

Six verses later God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and God made a woman out of Adam's rib. Eve was not created when God made that statement to Adam.

When Eve replied to the serpent, "neither shall ye TOUCH IT, lest ye die". Eve believed that touching it would be fatal. Where did she get that? The next thing she did was look at the tree. She saw that the tree was good for food and pleasant to look at. This was the first surprise. She had thought is would be ugly. Maybe Adam had told her it was ugly. Maybe she just thought that up on her own. But she did not convince herself that TOUCHING the fruit would cause death. Adam has to have told her that.

In the cool of the evening in the Garden God called to Adam. Not to Adam and Eve. Adam was the priest mediator between God and man. Adam hid. Not because he had eaten the fruit. Adam hid because he was naked. If it is thought that makes nudity sinful, then the sin is the other person's. Not the person that is running around naked.

Adam saying, "I (was) naked." "was" is added but not in the manuscripts. Adam was actually saying he was still naked. This is the scripture that says nakedness is sinful. Adam had fig leaves on himself; yet he still knew he was naked and sinful. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. If nakedness was not a sin then; but it is today, then God is very changeable. And we are in constant jeopardy of His changeability. (If there is such a word.)

As far as God saying they were "very good" at creation, implying they were sinless --- God said everything every day was good (except for day 2 in which He put a reservior of water into space above the earth pending a deludge flood . He found nothing that day good.) Just because He said it was good does not mean it was sinless. Day 1, 3, 4, & 5 were also good. Good for His purposes. Day 6 He said the first half of that day was good. The second half of that day he said was "very good". Man is in the highest order of all creation. For male and female were made in His image.

Diane - I go to church regularily. Just not a Primitive Baptist church close enough to go to. That does not mean I can not use logic and reasoning along with prayer and see some of the errors in today's teachings.

Hearing the creation story in error so many times while too young to use logic and see contradictions causes these errors.

 

One good thing with your theology, Copen, you can save water because you have to shower with your clothes on. In fact, no need to even purchase a washing machine! I wonder how God expected Adam and Eve to fill the earth with descendants while remaining clothed at all times.

 

I would love to know just how you are so sure that Eve "may" have imagined the tree was ugly, but you have no doubt that Adam lied re: touching the fruit?

Sounds like you've been reading a commentary put out by CNN.

 

I have enjoyed this discussion as I have to think more on this issue. I am not sure Copen about your stance on "naked". I have always thought of it as removing themselves from God's covering (spiritual) not physical. In the NT we are to be "covered" or clothed in the righteousness of Christ not only literally clothing. I have taken it that Adam and Eve were "naked" by throwing off the covering or righteousness of God. When they tried to cover themselves it seems to me they were trying to cover their sin with their "own righteousness", which is as filthy rags (our own works).

The garment Jesus covers us with is "His righteousness" not just a literal robe. Their realizing their nakedness was the outward manifestation that they sinned. Before they were unaware and there was no shame. God created them naked and it was good.
We are to cover ourselves physically now as a result of the fall because it reminds us to be uncovered, (not clothed in his righteousness) is to fall short.

That has been my thinking.