Are Women More Gullible than Men?
Are Women More Gullible than Men?
Are women more prone to be led astray than men? Is your mother more gullible than your father? Are the women in your family—mum, sisters, grandmothers, aunts--more liable to deception than the men? Are your sisters more prone to be deceived by Satan than your brothers?
Was Margaret Thatcher more easily led astray by Satan than her husband Dennis? Is President’s Biden’s wife more gullible than he is? Is Amy Coney Barret, Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, more easily led astray by untruths than her husband?
We can push the issue to its logical conclusion and ask: If women are more liable to be deceived by lies, are women intellectually and ontologically inferior to men?
The Disputed Passage
The much-disputed passage in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 has been interpreted historically and applied as follows: Eve was targeted by the serpent because she was a woman. She was deceived by the serpent. So, all women in all cultures, at all ages in their lives, at all times, regardless of the level of their biblical education, are more easily deceived than all men. As a result, any good man’s teaching is better than any woman’s, regardless of how educated in the Scriptures and devoted to Jesus Christ she might be. Schreiner suggests that this is what Paul means in 1 Timothy 2:11-15:
Historically, a very common interpretation is that Paul is forbidding women from teaching because they are more liable to deception, more gullible, and more easily led astray than men…This interpretation, then, is quite possible and is much less speculative than the progressives.[1]
Are Women Restricted from Teaching Men?
Since the Genesis 3 account of Eve’s deception and the 1 Timothy 2 account of Eve’s deception are not restricted to religious matters, all women’s teaching—whether they are nuclear scientists, engineers, medical doctors, Prime Ministers, Congressional lawyers, professors of Near Eastern Languages or History or Mathematics with PhD’s or piano teachers, or a devoted Christian mother who has studied the Bible all her life, sight-reads the Hebrew Bible and the Greek New Testament, memorized vast portions, is still invalid. She is more easily led astray by Satan than her husband who might be a high-school drop-out.
Thus, because women are more easily led astray to believe lies than men, we are told that they are forbidden to teach men, despite the fact, that, Paul’s inspired words in the Colossians in 3:16 flatly contradicts such a view (the “you” is plural: “Let the word about Christ dwell in you all richly, as you teach and admonish each other”; both men and women are commanded to teach and admonish one another using the words about Christ).
But if Eve was deceived and Adam sinned willfully, this suggests that Eve at least wanted to obey God but Adam did not. Why, then, would God want men to teach women? If women are more liable to deception, are men more liable to willful sinning?
If women are more prone to deception, then why should women must teach other women and children? Of course, the logical result will be that since women are prone to deceit, they will inevitably pass on their errors to other gullible women and the most vulnerable and gullible among us, the children.
Despite the fact that almost every single phrase in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is disputed by NT scholars as to meaning and interpretation, it remains the home-base, the foundation for the view of women for many Christians. This is problematic.
A Basic Tenet in Building Theology
A basic tenet for Christians is to build our doctrines upon the firm foundation of Scripture passages that are clear and less disputed. So, if we wish to build a doctrine of the deity of Jesus Christ, for example, we ought to examine the clear passages where Jesus’ deity is asserted. The more disputed passages can be used to supplement the doctrine, but not employed to lay the foundation. Otherwise, the foundation is shaky.
To apply this basic tenet of interpretation and theology to our question, “Are women more liable to be deceived by the serpent than men?”, we ought, first, to examine the passages of Scripture that refer to Eve and her deception which are clear and less disputed. One such passage is 2 Corinthians 11:1-6, a close parallel to 1 Timothy 2:11-15. This is the place where we should begin to build our theology of women and deception.
But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds {the “your” is plural, not singular; it refers to the entire congregation} may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.” 2 Corinthians 11:3
Paul does not argue that the serpent used his cunning to deceive only the women in the Corinthian congregation. He uses the example of how Eve was led astray by the serpent’s cunning to express his fear that both men and women in the congregation were in danger of being deceived. Eve, a deceived woman, is used as an analogy for everyone, both men and women. Men also were susceptible to being deceived. Paul himself admits to being deceived (Romans 7:11; Titus 3:3). He asserts that the tendency to be deceived and to deceive impacts both men and women (Rom 1:29; 3:13; 16:18; 1 Cor 3:18; 6:9). These passages are clear.
Build Our Theology on Clear Passages
Paul’s words to the Corinthians about Eve and the serpent’s deception, are clear and undisputed. This particular passage, then, is an example of where we should begin to build our theology of both women and the issue of deception. It will help us answer the question, “Are women more gullible and liable to deception than men?”
Sunday, January 1, 2023
With God’s gracious and undeserved help, and for His glory alone, I plan on unpacking this passage of Scripture (2 Cor. 11:1-6) on Sunday, 1 January 2023, at Redeemer Bible Church. Sunday will be the first day of the New Year and 2 Corinthians 11:1-6 will be an encouraging place for us to start.
Thank you for reading.
Tim Cole
[1] Thomas R. Schreiner, “An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9-15: A Dialogue with Scholarship,” in Women in the Church, Eds. by Andreas J. Kostenberger, Thomas R. Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), p. 144.