Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
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.
|
Your complete lack of ability to see the difference in the two verses is evidence why your understanding is so flawed. They are not so similar as you would claim, but rather quite different.
The biggest part to all of this, even the quoting of various theologians on the subject, is that the premise is that there is something fundamentally wrong with how the verse has been treated. This gives us reason to question whether anyone that is not, in the present, engaged in this discussion is not simply caught-up in the perpetuation of the problem that dates back centuries. So the fact that a recent (and currently living) scholar would insist that certain things are intended to mean what has always been stated without addressing anything that gives reason to think they have considered the questions currently raised is to dismiss the question because it does not agree with the past.
That sort of works for court cases under that "stare decisis" rule (might not have the Latin spelling correct there). But even that rule is understood as insisting that until there is something substantial as a basis for changing a decision, it is not to be changed just on preference. But if it meant that there can never be a change in a ruling, then the very process of appeal should be questioned.
And there would never be reason to appear together in Acts 15 and question what had been going out across the Roman Empire under the name of the church in Jerusalem. They should have simply said, "That is just the way it is and we are closed to consider."
Your approach is not to actually consider, but rather to just not consider it and instead flood us with repeats of what has been presented in the past. You don't present anything that actually addresses the issues raised and carefully considers them (even if ultimately dismissing them). They just dismiss anything not in line with their thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
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.
|
So your consideration is that if she asks for it, then it is OK.
Sort of like "she dressed in a 'come on' style, so I did" and then expect that a jury will agree with you.
I will not give your quote concerning "I do not allow . . ." more visual space because even that is written with complete disregard for the context in which the statement in question is written.
And context is very important.
We are told not to judge, yet we are told to judge. So which is it? CONTEXT. There is too clearly a context in every one of Paul's statements to just ignore it. So rather than looking to Paul to answer the question about what is the underlying rule, look to the gospels because that is where the rules are. Paul is just interpreting them for use by Gentile and mixed Gentile/Jewish congregations. And each of those congregations has additional issues that are contextually different from each other. And are the reasons for the letters and the comments.
So a woman took an action that did not have the approval of any man in advance, got immediate statements of disagreement from any man (other than Jesus) who spoke at all, yet the statements of those men did not stand to stop her. She was approved — after the fact — by Jesus. Put that into your "under a man" theory and make it work. No one told her to do anything. What she did was of her own volition. Men immediately began to complain, declaring what should have been done. But God silenced them and left her following her heart. So the men who were not God were disapproved for even suggesting to stop her. Therefore no man between her and God.
No she did not instruct a man. But neither was she under the instruction of a man (other than God himself). The God to man to woman edict did not exist.
So rather than insisting on a one-size-fits-all use of that particular verse, maybe the thing to do is to see what might have prompted Paul's comments. Something was out of whack and it wasn't just that a woman was teaching. Something else was going on and this one edict given to one church was designed to nip it in the bud.
Besides, no matter what you think about the NT as scripture that is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, that does not turn every statement of Paul's into an absolute, for all times and in all places permanent edict of God. Paul did not say "thus saith the Lord." Rather "I say." And he spoke it into a context that you refuse to even consider.