Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
First, I am not reading beyond Genesis 3:16. Neither before nor beyond. So however we should cast the act of being deceived is not part of the discussion I am having. You are too quick to find a thing you want to attack and subsume everything else into it without so much as acknowledgement of anything else needs separate analysis.
But I did not say that there was sin and result. I said there was a stated cost (pain in childbearing) and that there was also a prophetic statement concerning woman's relationship with man. In a way it made both responsible for the outcome. (Don't anyone say that I must say that I would say that a woman has it coming when abused in any way by any man> I am merely noting that the way it was stated indicated she would bind herself to a man (her husband) and that he would rule over her. (Not a lot of details in what that might entail.)
As for who received what for the "crimes," there appears to be plenty to go around. Man (generically, though more generally at the male) now had to work the ground to eat. And it was not going to be simple as it was in the garden. Thorns and thistles. Unresponsive soil. Less ideal growing conditions. And the woman was somewhat cursed with respect to two things. One, a tough time of bearing children. Two, a tendency to desire for (whether or not at the extreme of "lust") for her husband in a way that would not always be to her benefit.
Sounds can be deceiving.
Just because you can cast the question in the same kinds of words does not make them even remotely similar. What would make them similar would be if there has been a statement that was then being questioned. In this case there is no question what words we are talking about. We are talking about words that were said to the woman. (Not the words said to the man.) In those words God clearly (it would appear) said there would be a painful consequence. But he also said that there would be a desire on the part of the woman that would lead to another consequence.
But he never said to the man that he was granted the right . . . no . . . given the command to rule over the woman.
"You aren't to eat from it, or even touch it . . . you will surely die"
Not at all the same as . . .
"your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you."
The first is a clear command as to what was to be done and not done and what would be the consequence for disobedience.
The second is the immediate consequence of disobedience with respect to the first. And it comes in two parts. A sort of specific curse. And a prophecy of where the whole thing (being self determined with respect to good and evil) would lead.
I realize that it is so tempting to say that since the first part — pain in childbearing — is stated as a fact (and in effect a decree from God) to assume that the second must be the same. But it is not stated in that way. It is not given in a soft way. But it is not stated in a prescriptive manner as the first part is. It is stated matter-of-factly as if it is inevitable. Man is not commanded to rule over the woman. Woman was told that it would happen that way.
It is clear that you want it to be true oh so badly. It would almost seem as if your very understanding of the Bible will be shaken if you can't get this one to be the way you have been taught and believed all your life.
But it would appear that you have never really read it. Oh, you've read the words . . . with the pre-programmed understanding blocking your ability to see what words that are actually there are saying.
And your little sect is littered with proud testimonies about how its men stand as rulers over their wives. They are proud to go to a meeting, leaving their sick wife at home to do the dishes, then return home, see her still working in a pitiful state, and just go off to their study to do "God's work."
And they are proud of how they are obedient to God.
Obedience to God is the man who quick working at the LSM and started meeting along with his wife at a little Baptist church. This was done to remain one with her and united properly as husband and wife.
You would probably mock this as an improper submission of a man to a woman.
Stop reading the epistles for alleged exemption from the gospels. Jesus said. Paul can only interpret. If you think he is altering or overriding what Jesus said, then you don't know Paul.
|
I suppose you interpret this verse:
Genesis 1:28 .... Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
To mean that man is not commanded to rule over the fish and the birds and the creatures that is just how God said it would happen.
Also, the interpretation of Gen 3:16 does not change Paul's appeal to the
order of creation (man first, then woman) in 1 Timothy 2:13. This indicates that God's divine arrangement was there from the beginning, having nothing to do with the forbidden fruit.
The fact remains that the man rules over the woman - that is the divine arrangement, regardless of whether "he shall rule over you" is because of her submission, or a mandated rule. It is a strange sort of "exegetical gymnastics" and twisting of God's Words to say otherwise.
Ligon Duncan said
The gymnastics required to get from “I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man,” in the Bible, to “I do allow a woman to teach and to exercise authority over a man” in the actual practice of the local church, are devastating to the functional authority of the Scripture in the life of the people of God.”