In a few weeks I will be preaching from 1st Timothy in a sermon entitled "Manhood and Womanhood in the Family of God" which deals with gender roles in the local church. Of course, one of the key passages I'll be dealing with is 1st Timothy 2:12-14. In that passage, Paul argues from Genesis that women are not to have authority over men or teach them. One of his arguments is that it was the woman who was deceived, not the man. How are we to understand that argument?Mark Driscoll has written what I think is one of the most provocative and controversial interpretations of this passage. I am not in full agreement with it. However, I would like to hear your opinions about his comments or Paul's argument.
(By the way: Driscoll is very blunt in his preaching. You've been warned.)
Without blushing, Paul is simply stating that when it comes to leading in the church, women are unfit because they are more gullible and easier to deceive than men. While many irate women have disagreed with his assessment through the years, it does appear from this that such women who fail to trust his instruction and follow his teaching are much like their mother Eve and are well-intended but ill-informed. . . Before you get all emotional like a woman in hearing this, please consider the content of the women’s magazines at your local grocery store that encourages liberated women in our day to watch porno with their boyfriends, master oral sex for men who have no intention of marrying them, pay for their own dates in the name of equality, spend an average of three-fourths of their childbearing years having sex but trying not to get pregnant, and abort 1/3 of all babies – and ask yourself if it doesn’t look like the Serpent is still trolling the garden and that the daughters of Eve aren’t gullible in pronouncing progress, liberation, and equality.
Thoughts?
2 comments:
Yeah... not so fond of this argument. Unfortunately, most views of this passage must be somewhat speculative because Paul doesn't explain himself much.
What Driscoll doesn't consider in this interpretation is that the woman got the man to eat, too. So, if he was convinced by Eve, who was of the more gullible gender, what does that make Adam?
Then also, the argument could be that at least Eve had to be deceived. Adam knew what he was doing the whole time and did it anyway. Does that make better leadership?
I like better the interpretation that Paul is giving an example of what happens when the created order gets mixed up.
Jim,
Good insights. Driscoll's list about women only prove that sinful women act foolishly - but men do so just as well. Like you, I think that Paul is pointing out that the origin of all sin came from the distortion of the created order in the beginning. Why would we want to continue that distortion in the church?
I'm curious, how do you guys understand the part about the woman being saved through child-bearing?
Post a Comment