Later text
For Adam was formed first, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who was deceived and fell into transgression.
Intertextuality Pair
Allusion
Later text
For Adam was formed first, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who was deceived and fell into transgression.
Earlier text
When the woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and that it was desirable for obtaining wisdom, she took the fruit and ate it. She also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate it. And the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; so they sewed together fig leaves and made coverings for themselves. Then the man and his wife heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the breeze of the day, and they hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. But the LORD God called out to the man, "Where are you?" "I heard Your voice in the garden," he replied, "and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself." "Who told you that you were naked?" asked the LORD God. "Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" And the man answered, "The woman whom You gave me, she gave me fruit from the tree, and I ate it." Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" "The serpent deceived me," she replied, "and I ate."
Paul's argument in 1 Timothy 2:14 that "the woman was deceived" (exapataō) directly echoes Eve's own words in Genesis 3:13 LXX, where she confesses "the serpent deceived me" (ēpatēsen me). The verbal correspondence between Paul's exapataō and the LXX's apataō demonstrates a deliberate allusion. Paul draws on the Genesis narrative not merely as historical illustration but as theological ground for his instructions about the role of women in the church assembly. The sequence — Adam formed first (Gen 2:7), then Eve (Gen 2:22), and Eve deceived first (Gen 3:13) — provides the redemptive-historical basis for Paul's reasoning. This is not a typological argument but an analogical appeal to the creation order and fall narrative as establishing a pattern relevant to ecclesial practice.