Because Christianity is bigger than Biblical manhood or Biblical womanhood (Blog of Retha Faurie)

Does creation and the fall make men leaders?

Moore starts with the creation account in Genesis 2, and highlight the part where Eve is formed from Adam. He then say:

Further, Scripture tells us that the woman is to be ruled by her husband, because Eve was deceived.

Genesis 3:16 To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children ; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.”

But that is simply eisegesis – seeing things in scripture that is just not there. The words are “he will rule“, not “he is supposed to rule” or “he will do right if he rules.” Jesus also said snares will take little ones from him (Matt. 18:7), but He never told anyone to place such snares.(Moore’s 1 Timothy verse will be handled later.)

I pointed out the absurdity of reading a man’s right to rule into it, by comparing it to other things God said will happen, and making similar arguments about them:

1 Scripture is clear that the earth will produce thorns. (Gen 3:18) Therefore, sowing weeds on someone’s field is the will of God

2 Scripture is clear that a woman will be ruled by her husband (Gen. 3:16) Therefore, husbands ruling wifes are the will of God

3 Scripture is clear that men will eat in sorrow. (Gen. 3:17) Therefore, creating an unpleasant atmosphere at the dinner table is the will of God, when a man is present.

To that, Moore answers in his second response:

God did not say to sow weeds, nor did God say to create an unpleasant atmosphere. But God DID say that man would rule his wife (Gen 3:16).

Yes, Wbmoore, would, not should

How then, should we view the creation story? Well, Genesis 1:27-28 say:

Gen 1:27 And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Gen 1:28 And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

For the sake of those readers who read the Bible in pink and blue, man in that verse is a word that mean humanity, not males. And him – as in “created he him”- does not refer to males either – it is the English word chosen to complete the sentence, as grammar rules in Hebrew differ from English. God made humans in his image, to have dominion over it. No mention there that male humans should have dominion over female humans.

Two other recent posts of mine make it clear that Eve was not created inferior at all, that the word translated into English as helper usually refers to God and not an inferior. She was made as strong rescuing help equal to Adam. (In his second response Moore tells me that ezer means helper, not rescuer. He is superficially right. “Rescuer”is shorthand for the sort of helper, mostly God as helper, ezer refers to.)

Genesis 3, point out what Eve’s daughters will do, not what they should do.

Does submission verses mean that men are to rule?

Have any Bible teacher ever taught you that people have the right to slap your face? Well, there is a teaching telling us to turn the other cheek. But to conclude, from that, that God gave the slapper the responsibility or even the right to slap you, will be ridiculous. It is similarly ridiculous reasoning to read the male right/ responsibility to rule into “wifes submit” verses.

Wbmoore gives several verses that tells us wifes are to submit to their husbands.

He starts with taking Eph 5:22 out of context. Here is some context:

Eph 5:21-22 subjecting yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ, wives, unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

Most translations do it this way:

…subjecting yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ.

(New paragraph) 22 Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

But the statement to wifes is not a new sentence as it does not have it’s own verb in the Greek we translate it from. It is a run-on of :21. The submission verse is connected “subjecting yourself to one another.” Similarly, 1 Pe 3:7, after an earlier verse told wifes are subject, told husband to do/be “likewise.”

My previous post also contains other truths about submission, for example that almost all submission verses seem to be in the passive voice in the original Greek. The passive statement “wifes are subject to husbands” is a simple truth in marriage. Male rule or no male rule, wifes are subject to husbands. If you pull in one yoke with someone else, his decisions affect you. I have no problem with Moore stating wifes are subject to husbands, except that he somehow links it to some never-mentioned-in-the-Bible male right to be the boss.

On the other hand, biblical orders to husbands on how to treat wifes are in the active voice.

(In his second response to me, he gets into a long tangential discussion to prove that the Bible does give some people authority. He does that because he misunderstood “So the first thing about the context is that everyone in the church should submit to one another. (Nobody is given authority).” In the Eph 5:21-22 context, there is no authority given and authority is not the reason to submit there. He reacts as if I said there is no authority in Christianity, while I said there is no authority in this passage.)

Advertisements

Comments on: "Men should lead? Responding to Wbmoore (Part 1)" (13)

  1. Yes, you are getting it exactly right and he is wrong, as I see it.

    Like

  2. *applauds* Well reasoned and well said!

    Like

  3. (For the sake of other readers, I make it easy to find responses to Wbmoore by inserting them in bold, in brackets, with my name. Statements in bold in brackets with my name is Retha’s, not Wbmoore’s. Notice how most of these are things I already said or linked to, how Moore would have known them if he read what I wrote and linked to-Retha 2011/2/26)
    Retha stated,

    The words are “he will rule“, not “he is supposed to rule” or “he will do right if he rules.”

    But the thing is, if this was merely God describing what will be, He would not have given the prophecy which speaks to what Christ would do to Satan. This is more than simply a statement of what would occur, but is the passage of a sentence of someone judged and found guilty by a judge to the judged. (There is nothing in the words to Eve, indicating judgment. Only Adam and the snake hear “because you did [x], [y] will be cursed.” http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/02/20/did-god-give-up-on-the-woman/ -Retha)

    Let us look at Genesis 3:11-19
    11And He said, “Who told you that you were naked ? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat ?” 12 The man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate.” 13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” And the woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” 14 The LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field ; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life ; 15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed ; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.” 16 To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children ; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.”17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life. . 18 “Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field ; 19 By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken ; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return.”

    This is not simply saying what will occur. This is a recording of a judicial decree that was passed in judgement of Satan and Even and Adam. There is a HUGE difference.

    Because of what the various parties did, God decreed certain things would occur.
    1) The serpent is cursed; it will go about on its belly; there will be enmity between it and the woman and the offspring of both (indeed, this is thought to be a prophecy of Christ coming to conquer Satan).
    2) God will increase Eve’s pain in childbirth, yet she will desire her husband and he will rule over her.
    3) The ground is cursed because of Adam and he must toil all the days of his life to eat of it. Man will eat vegetables of the field. The ground will grow thorns and thistles. Man will sweat to eat bread.

    According to Genesis 3:16, the husband is to exercise dominion over his wife. We see this reiterated and expanded in 1 Timothy 2:11-14, where he said women are not to teach or assume authority over men because Eve was deceived – reminding us of Genesis 3:16. Of course, the context is in a church.

    11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

    IF Satan had not deceived Eve, and IF Eve had not been deceived, and IF Adam had not listened to the voice of the woman God gave him, God would not have found them all guilty of sin and would not have decreed what He did.

    Retha wrote

    Wbmoore, would, not should…

    The “would” is because of the fact that Eve was deceived. She was judged and found guilty and given a sentence. Since it is a judicial sentence, it is a MUST, not simply a should.

    You say that men are to be subject to women and vice-versa (which I agree with, although you seem to want to ignore me having said that, as it apparently makes for better propaganda to make your points), but you seem to want to forget that men are to be the head of the woman, just as Christ is the head of man.

    But men are very obviously considered to be head of the house in both the Old and New Testaments. Take a look at the usage of oikodespotēs. It is a masculine noun and is only used to describe men. That term is translated as land owner and head of house. (http://christianrethinker.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/289/ -Retha)
    http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3617&t=NASB
    The qualifications for elder/overseer and deacons are that a man should rule/manage his household well to be able to rule a congregation.
    http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4291&t=NASB
    When we take it even farther and look at the term head, as was used in reference to Christ and men, kephalē, we see that this word indicates authority. (No, the Greek does not mean leader: http://www.godswordtowomen.org/head.htm -Retha)
    http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2776&t=NASB
    The same word that is translated as “chief” (in relation to the chief corner stone, Christ) is translated as “head” in describing Christ in relation to men and men in relation to women. And before one thinks this is in reference to anything other than authority, we see that in 1Cr 11:3, “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.” And then in 1Cr 11:10 that the woman is to have a symbol of authority on her head, “Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.” This idea of a husband having authority over his wife is reiterated in 1 Timothy 2:11-14 ( http://christianrethinker.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/16-reasons-to-be-careful-when-reading-1-timothy-211-15/-Retha)

    11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

    1 Corinthians 11:7-10 tells us that Man is the image and glory of God, while woman is the glory of God.

    7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God ; but the woman is the glory of man. 8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man ; 9 for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. 10 Therefore * the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

    (http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content/1-corinthians-112-16 -Retha)

    And we see in Eph 1:22 that God put all things in subjection to Christ and made Christ head (leader) over all things to the church: “And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church,” Of course, being head entails much more than simply leadership – it means source of sustenance (food enters the body through the head, and in the same way, the leader provides for his household).(You fail to mention :23 that put it in the source context, see http://christianrethinker.wordpress.com/2011/02/19/if-christ-is-the-head-what-is-he/. -Retha)

    Retha, it appears to me that you took 1 Peter 3:7 out of context, making it look like husbands are told to submit to their wives. But that is not what the text states. Go look it up: http://www.biblestudytools.com/nas/1-peter/passage.aspx?q=1+peter+2;1+peter+3
    1 Peter 2:13-20 speaks of living righteously and submitting to all human authority for Christ’s sake.
    1 Peter 2:21-25 speaks of it was for that purpose we have been called, and Christ is our example of righteous living and suffering in his submission to human authority.
    1 Peter 3:1-6 speaks of wives following the example of Christ by living righteously and submitting to their husbands so they might be won over.
    1 Peter 3:7 speaks of the husbands following the example of Christ by living righteously and living in an understanding way and honoring his wife so their prayers might not be hindered.
    1 Peter 3:8-22 sums it up that we are all to live harmoniously and righteously. ( Your Bible study tool does not mention that men are to submit too when treating wives likewise [like the things said to wives] so you don’t think men have to. How convenient.-Retha)

    You made the statement,

    almost all submission verses seem to be in the passive voice in the original Greek.

    A passive voice does not change the fact that wives are to submit to their own husband – just as we are all to submit to rulers (Titus 3:1).
    (A passive voice makes the difference between a statement of how things is, and an order. -Retha)
    You wrote,

    He reacts as if I said there is no authority in Christianity, which is not what I said.

    Did you forget what you said?

    Let me refresh your memory:

    So the first thing about the context is that everyone in the church should submit to one another(Nobody is given authority).

    YOU said everyone IN THE CHURCH should submit to one another. YOU said NODY IS GIVEN AUTHORITY (when speaking about the church). So I presented scripture which speaks of the fact that some people are given authority in church and we are to submit to those in authority (Acts 14:23; 1 Timothy 5:17-18; Titus 1:5; 1 Peter 5:5; Hebrews 13:17).
    (I said no-one is given authority-when speaking of Eph 5:21-22. -Retha)
    You wrote,

    I have no problem with Moore stating wifes are subject to husbands, except that he somehow links it to some never-mentioned-in-the-Bible male right to be the boss.

    I have never said there is a right for males to be the boss. What I have said is that God is clear that men are to lead (in the home and church) and women are to submit (short of sin) to their husbands. (since all Christians should submit to each other, that is as true/ untrue as “men are to submit (short of sin) to their wives”. -Retha)It is a requirement because of what happened in the garden of Eden, not a right. It is a responsibility, not a right. To lead is to be sacrificial.
    Mt 23:8-12 tells us that leaders need to be humble.
    8″But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. 11 But the greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.

    Titus 1:6-9 tells us that leaders have certain qualities they should possess.

    6 namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. 7 For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, notaddicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, 8 but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and torefute those who contradict.

    1 Timothy 3:2-12 gives us additional qualifications.

    2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine orpugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4 He must be one whomanages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (butif a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of thechurch of God ?), 6 and not a new convert, so * that he will not become conceited and fallinto the condemnation incurred by the devil. 7 And he must have a good reputation withthose outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. 8Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine orfond of sordid gain, 9 but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10These men must also first be tested ; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyondreproach. 11 Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate,faithful in all things. 12 Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households.

    Indeed, we see an example of a leader being a servant in John 13:5-10

    5 Then He poured water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipethem with the towel with which He was girded. 6 So He came to Simon Peter. He said to Him,”Lord, do You wash my feet ?” 7 Jesus answered and said to him, “What I do you do notrealize now, but you will understand hereafter *.” 8 Peter said to Him, “Never * shall You washmy feet !” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me.” 9 SimonPeter said to Him, “Lord, then wash not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.” 10Jesus said to him, “He who has bathed needs only * * to wash his feet, but is completelyclean ; and you are clean, but not all of you.”

    We see in Ephesians 5:25-31 that in the same way that Christ loved the church, sacrificing himself and nourishing and cherishing her to present her to Christ holy, spotless, and blameless, the husband is responsible to love his wife (obviously to the best of his ability).

    25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gaveHimself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing ofwater with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, havingno spot or wrinkle or any such thing ; but that she would be holy and blameless. 28 Sohusbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his ownwife loves himself ; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it,just as Christ also does the church,

    So no, being a leader in the home is not a right. It is a responsibility which God has decreed a husband will have.

    Like

  4. ”Take a look at the usage of oikodespotēs. It is a masculine noun and is only used to describe men. That term is translated as land owner and head of house.”

    Same word is used as a verb of young wives in 1 Tim. 5:14. Unforturnately it is usually translated as ‘manage the house’ or ‘guide the house’. It should be stronger.
    http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/1ti5.pdf

    ”The qualifications for elder/overseer and deacons are that a man should rule/manage his household well to be able to rule a congregation.”

    The word “man” is added by translators, its not in the original. Rather it says if ‘anyone’. Also, the word translated as rule, would be better translated as ‘lead’.

    ”When we take it even farther and look at the term head, as was used in reference to Christ and men, kephalē, we see that this word indicates authority.”

    Kephale does not mean or indicate authority over another. It was not used in that manner. The meaning is ‘head’ as in the head on ones shoulders. When it is used in a metaphor, it is the metaphor that determines the meaning. And it was not used in metaphors to indicate authority over.

    Unfortunately, the rest of your assumptions are equally off tilt.

    Husbands and wives are to together be one unit in leadership of their children who they together are to raise up in the admonitions of the Lord.

    Like

    • A noun is not a verb.

      As I said, oikodespotēs is not used in reference to women.

      Oikodespoteo is a verb, not indicating she is the head of the house.

      When wanting to ignore the qualifications for overseer/elder are for men, you seem to forget that they are to be the husband of one woman. That would indicate men.

      1 Corinthians 11 shows Christ as being the head and the woman needing a symbol of authority over her head.

      And as you said, the metaphor sets the meaning. Eph 5:22-24 is clear that Christ is the head of the church in the same way the husband is the head of the woman and just as the church is subject to Christ, so the wife should be subject to the husband.

      22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.

      Feel free to ignore the clear scripture commands for a man to lead in marriage and church. I will never worship with you and I will not have to answer to God for teaching error.

      Like

      • “1 Corinthians 11 shows Christ as being the head and the woman needing a symbol of authority over her head.”

        Did you know that the Bible actually say”the woman “ought to have authority on/ over her own head?” That is the original Greek text. “A symbol of” is words translators inserted, because that made sense to them. She ought to have authority over her own head, which probably mean deciding for herself on things like head coverings. Why should she have authority? “Because of the angels,” it says. What angels? Well, an earlier verse in 1 Corinthians say we believers will judge angels and therefore can really judge trivial matters for ourself.

        “I will not have to answer to God for teaching error.”

        Don’t be so sure.

        Like

  5. Victorious said:

    Please post one place in scripture where a husband is commanded to rule or have authority over his wife. If it is indeed his responsibility, surely God would have told him so.

    Like

  6. KR Wordgazer said:

    WB, you say that God’s judgments in Genesis 3:16 still continue today. And yet Christ came to set us free. Romans 5 says sin came through Adam, but grace has much more abounded to us through Christ.

    Do you think people should use modern farming techniques? Then you are for the mitigation of the curse on the ground. Do you believe women should have painkillers during labor? Then you are for the mitigation of the pain of childbirth. Why then are you against the mitigation of male rule over female? I’ll admit that the male tendency is STILL to try to rule over woman– as the “complementarian” position clearly demonstrates. But in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, there is not male and female, for we are all one. Christ came to bring about a new creation (1 Cor 5), of redeemed people who are still in the world, but no longer subject spiritually to its curses. We are to fight against our fleshly desires (such as the male desire to rule the female), which come from the old creation. But you would elevate the curse as God’s divine mandate. The whole New Testament testifies against that.

    As for 1 Tim 2:11-15, you are reading a lot into that passage that it doesn’t actually say, including a divine permanancy that Paul’s words “I (Paul, not God) do not permit” (Greek present tense, best translated “I am not permitting”) do not indicate.

    As for Ephesians and 1 Peter– Husbands are not to be little Christs to their wives; that is idolatry. There is much more that can be said about this, but suffice it to say that your interpretation is not convincing.

    Like

  7. Let us look at Genesis 3:11-19

    11And He said, “Who told you that you were naked ? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat ?” 12 The man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate.” 13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” And the woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” 14 The LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field ; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life ; 15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed ; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.” 16 To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children ; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.”17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life. . 18 “Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field ; 19 By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken ; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return.”

    This is saying what would occur, but it is not simply saying what will occur – but what must occur. This is a recording of a judicial decree that was passed in judgement of Satan and Eve and Adam. There is a HUGE difference that and saying what God will allow to pass.

    Because of what the various parties did, God decreed certain things would occur.
    1. The serpent is cursed; it will go about on its belly; there will be enmity between it and the woman and the offspring of both (indeed, this is thought to be a prophecy of Christ coming to conquer Satan).
    2. God will increase Eve’s pain in childbirth, yet she will desire her husband and he will rule over her.
    3. The ground is cursed because of Adam and he must toil all the days of his life to eat of it. Man will eat vegetables of the field. The ground will grow thorns and thistles. Man will sweat to eat bread.

    According to Genesis 3:16, the husband is to exercise dominion over his wife. We see this reiterated and expanded in 1 Timothy 2:11-14, where he said women are not to teach or assume authority over men because Eve was deceived – reminding us of Genesis 3:16. Of course, the context is in a church.

    11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

    IF Satan had not deceived Eve, and IF Eve had not been deceived, and IF Adam had not listened to the voice of the woman God gave him, God would not have found them all guilty of sin and would not have decreed what He did.

    Like

  8. Victorious said:

    “This is saying what would occur, but it is not simply saying what will occur – but what must occur. This is a recording of a judicial decree that was passed in judgement of Satan and Eve and Adam.”

    To be consistent in our interpretation of this passage, males should be confined to a career of farming, tilling the soil and should be eating only plants. He should also refrain from using any type of weed killers as the earth was “commanded” to produce thorns and thistles.

    The word translated “pain” in Genesis 3:16 is the same word translated “toil” in 3:17. Both Adam and Eve will either have “pain” or “toil” however you translate it. The more correct word is “sorrow” which both will experience as a direct result of their lives outside of the perfect environment of the garden.

    Nevertheless, even when one man (Adam) is standing before God for a “judicial decree” as you call it, He did not tell Adam to rule or have authority over his wife.

    Like

  9. Wbmoore- it is very clear from your responses (for example: ” the husband is to exercise dominion over his wife. We see this reiterated and expanded in 1 Timothy 2:11-14, where he said women are not to teach or assume authority over men because Eve was deceived”) that you are not even reading or considering any Biblical answers (see part 2 and “16 Reasons to be careful when reading 1 Timothy 2:11-15”).

    In that short quote alone, you abuse 1 Timothy 2:11-14 in at least 3 ways.
    ->There is no statement to men to exercise dominion in 1 Ti 2.
    ->There is at least 5 possible meanings for the word for which you choose the translation “have authority,” and you gave us no reason why yours is better than, say, Catherine Kroeger’s. (Catherine’s view here: http://www.godswordtowomen.org/kroeger_ancient_heresies.htm)
    ->You say women should not have authority over men, while the text uses singular woman and man. You need to tell us why you believe it applies universally.

    All these are things and many more you would know if you only read what I wrote in my other answers.

    To my other readers: Is it worth my while to respond to him further, even if for the sake of more objective readers and not his? Or is it time to shake the dust off my feet and move on?

    Like

  10. Retha, since WB has said this:

    “Feel free to ignore the clear scripture commands for a man to lead in marriage and church. I will never worship with you and I will not have to answer to God for teaching error.”

    I would say you should not further engage with him. He is convinced of his rightness and has even indicated he would break Christian fellowship with you over this issue. Clearly being right trumps walking in love for him, despite 1 Cor 13. Let him answer to God for what he does teach, as he is so convinced of it.

    Like

  11. The creation accounts of Genesis in no way supports or demonstrates that Adam had authority over Eve. Such things are traditional belief and not scriptural fact. It’s nowhere to be found in the creation accounts (Genesis 1-2). It is religious belief without basis in the original text.

    Since Eve was created in God’s image she too is God’s glory. Ascribing her as man’s glory is most vainglorious of men and insulting to God. Woman reflects that glory of God NOT the glory of man. Man had NOTHING to do with woman’s creation and so deserves no glory for it.

    Any rational, God-loving, God-fearing Christian ought to know better than to assign glory that belongs only to God to any mortal.

    Christians do well to go back to the creation account in Genesis to verify anything related to the creation order. If teachings by Paul or anyone don’t square with what scripture actually teaches, they should be dismissed.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: