Can we reliably assume that the background of an event caused that event? If a causality link is plausible, does this confirm its truthfulness?
A more difficult question is: Do we more readily accept an explanation for "the reason why," if it aligns with what we already think is best? Let’s explore a causality thought experiment before entering the uncomfortable.
Imagine someone 1000 years in the future writing stories about the lives of common people today. Further visualize, if you can, that somehow the following snippets regarding my life come to be included in this collection.
“Between the years 2000 A.D. and 2050 A.D., we know San Antonio contained a significant Hispanic population. Although many Hispanics were bilingual, some only spoke Spanish.
It was during this time that Barry lived in San Antonio. Occasionally, Barry would have met people who spoke only Spanish. In order to communicate with his community, Barry learned  to speak some Spanish – at least poorly.
Furthermore, this Hispanic culture provided a significant culinary impact upon San Antonio. Barry, who had grown up in New England and the Midwest, was accustomed to potatoes. Rice was largely foreign to his diet. However, due to the culinary influences permeating San Antonio Barry came to love rice and beans, an Hispanic staple.
Also during this timeframe, the San Antonio police utilized radar guns to both identify and ticket those exceeding the speed limit. In fact, evidence exists that the main road to Barry’s neighborhood was a frequent speed trap. This technology provided the motivational deterrent for why Barry did not rack up speeding tickets.”
Is it true that San Antonio contains a sizable Hispanic population influencing local culture and communication, plus our police use radar guns? Absolutely true.
So, what do you think? Are these explanations plausible? Yep!
Do these historical realities accurately explain why I speak a little Spanish, love rice and drive under the speed limit? Absolutely not!
Although these historical background details are true about San Antonio, they explain neither my behavior nor my preferences. Yes, I speak a tiny bit of Spanish. The reason is because when I lived in Brazil, I attempted to communicate with vacationing Argentines who were enjoying our beautiful city. My Portuguese-Spanish hybrid, although simplistic, proved to be at least minimally functional.
I grew up loving potatoes. Now, however, I love beans and rice. Why? The reason is due to my Brazilian born wife spoiling me with this delicious food for decades. It has nothing to do with San Antonio’s culture.
As for why I don’t exceed the speed limit, my behavior is based upon a promise, not radar guns. I promised myself and God how I would drive.
How responsible would it be for a future writer to describe the motivations based upon San Antonio’s culture? Or how responsible is it to assume background details provide the explanation for why scripture teaches what it does? Try this story.
The reason Paul prohibited women from teaching in 1 Timothy 2 is due to the Artemis cult’s presence in Ephesus as well as the impact of gender roles in their society.
Is it true that the cult of Artemis existed in Ephesus and that the culture of Paul’s day exhibited gender roles different from contemporary America? Absolutely.
However, is this the real reason why Paul prohibited women from teaching? Even Google AI coughed up Paul’s motives for his prohibition: “The first reason Paul gives is the order of creation (2:13), and the second reason is the manner of deception (2:14).”
Are we more likely to accept explanations that align with what we think is best? Will we prefer Paul’s explanation or something from someone who lived two millennia later?
- The Reason Why - 2025-04-02
- AuthenteĹŤ, Greek Lexicons & Translations - 2025-03-26
- 1 Timothy 2:12 & authenteĹŤ - 2025-03-19