David --

I understand your grounding comes mainly from Paul, which is as I anticipated it would be.  My response is that Paul was basing his comments on the relationship between husbands and wives at the time, just as he based his comments regarding slaves and masters on the fact that master-slave relationships existed.  Paul was not condoning slavery through those comments but was basically telling slaves they should respect the social order in which they find themselves.    See Eph. 6, Col. 3, Tit. 2.  The same was true with wives with regard to their husbands. Women had an inferior status to men in society at the time, and that inferior status translated into a subordinate role in the marital relationship.  Paul's comments do not condone that inferior status, but he recognizes it, and as with the master-slave relationship, is telling women to respect the social order in which they find themselves.

But the relationship that existed between husbands and wives then is not the same today.  Just as slavery has been abolished, legal inequality between men and women has been abolished as well.  Just as the slave's submission to the master assumes a relationship that no longer exists, so also the wife's submission to the husband is based on a gender status model that is no longer true in our society.

I sure hope all of your wives don't read this thread!

How about this...
By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.  Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

Rare --

Some hard passages for my position, I admit.  Some observations, though.  First, these passages do not directly relate to marriage.  The Cor passage revolves around whether women should have their hair covered and the Tim passage involves dress and teaching in the church.  On the other hand, several of the submission passages with respect to marriage are in the same discussion as the submission passages with respect to slavery.  An argument could be made from that juxtaposition that while female subordination in manner of worship may stem from creation order, submission in marriage is a function of the societal order of the times.

Second, the Cor passage you cite is immediately followed by a qualifying passage that seems to indicate equality:

"11In any case, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 11:12 For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman. But all things come from God."

Third, subtle changes in the wording of both passages can significantly change the impact on this discussion and different translations do appear to have some significant word choice differences.  The Tim passage seems to have some significant problems with its exact interpretation.  See http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm fn24

Fourth, the Tim passage indicates that subordination in worship occurs both because of creation order and because of the fall.  The explicit impact of the fall in Genesis was that Eve's desire would be for her husband and he would rule over her.  That suggests that the wife's submission to her husband was not the natural state of creation at the outset but occurred as a result of the fall (i.e. part of the curse).  Not surprising since Eve's greatest failure involved her taking the lead.  That would be a great confidence shaker, that might then be handed down through the generations, whether through God's dictates or practicalities.  Even with Christ removing the curse, the effects of generations of the curse would not be immediately removed.  If the effects of the curse lingered, it might make sense to require subordination of women who were not yet fit to lead.

You tell 'em Geegee!

Well, AH, as Copernicus once wrote to me, "Even when you write in all upper case, you fail to convince me, although it hurts my eyes."
And in response to the rest of your post, I say this:

I also women also dib dab dib doobie draft box social.

Rare --
Some hard passages for my position, I admit. Some observations, though. First, these passages do not directly relate to marriage. The Cor passage revolves around whether women should have their hair covered and the Tim passage involves dress and teaching in the church. On the other hand, several of the submission passages with respect to marriage are in the same discussion as the submission passages with respect to slavery. An argument could be made from that juxtaposition that while female subordination in manner of worship may stem from creation order, submission in marriage is a function of the societal order of the times.

Hmm, perhaps.  But why would the two be different?  Why should females be submissive in worship?  Your argument seems nonsensical in that regard.  If they are to be equal in all respects, why submissive in church?  The reverse is also true, if they are to be submissive in church, why not in the home?

Second, the Cor passage you cite is immediately followed by a qualifying passage that seems to indicate equality:

"11In any case, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 11:12 For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman. But all things come from God."

I don't think this changes anything.  I'm not disagreeing with this passage.  But it can still be true and the woman to be submissive as well.

Third, subtle changes in the wording of both passages can significantly change the impact on this discussion and different translations do appear to have some significant word choice differences. The Tim passage seems to have some significant problems with its exact interpretation. See http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm fn24

Not so sure about this.  Which words exactly are you referring to?

Fourth, the Tim passage indicates that subordination in worship occurs both because of creation order and because of the fall. The explicit impact of the fall in Genesis was that Eve's desire would be for her husband and he would rule over her. That suggests that the wife's submission to her husband was not the natural state of creation at the outset but occurred as a result of the fall (i.e. part of the curse).

Maybe this is poor arugumentation, but the other results of the fall (pain in childbirth, working the land, snakes on belly) are still in effect.  What makes you think this one should change?

Not surprising since Eve's greatest failure involved her taking the lead. That would be a great confidence shaker, that might then be handed down through the generations, whether through God's dictates or practicalities. Even with Christ removing the curse, the effects of generations of the curse would not be immediately removed. If the effects of the curse lingered, it might make sense to require subordination of women who were not yet fit to lead.

Then you have to deal with who is fit to lead and who isn't.  God is a God of order, and I think he has set up the family model in such a way so that there is good order.  

Some other thoughts occurred to me. I recall reading some background that there may have been issues with women in the church causing disruption that Paul was specifically targeting in his letters. That may lend support to the idea that perhaps there is a context in which these statements are made that would support a view that they were not necessarily intended to be timeless pronouncements.

Then wouldn't that be made clear?  Elsewhere Paul is not ashamed to say that a certain instruction is from himself and not from God.  I don't see that disclaimer in these passages, for sure not in the Corinthians one.

Another thought. Since those two passages much more directly impact worship and church activity, should women be required to wear veils during worship, or certain aspects of it? And should they be prohibited from teaching men, being pastors, or having any type of leadership role in the church? If you think you can wiggle on these, it would seem harder to say those passages control on a more tangential issue.

Veils?  Not sure where that is coming from.  I do think women should be prohibited from being pastors.

I might footnote this by saying that my view on submission may be different from some that you have encountered.  Submission (even biblically) is not the same as inferiority.  I would never say that women are inequal or somehow inferior to men.  Not at all.  It sort of bothers me that most women flinch when they hear the word submission.  There is nothing wrong with submission.  We submit to people every day---the government, the local authorities, parents, teachers.  In some ways maybe even to friends and people close to us.  This doesn't make you inferior to those people.  Just because I submit to the policeman's authority doesn't make me think I am of less worth than he is.  In fact, even Jesus submits to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:28), but no one is saying he is inferior.  Submission is necessary for the sake of order.  "For God is not a God of disorder, but of peace" (1 Corinthians 14:33).

I pity the fool who is in a relationship with David!
 

Valerie-

That wasn't a very edifying thing to say.

David --

Are you willing to trust these 'outside sources' on your interpretation of the Holy Scriptures?
Think about the severity of your proposition.
I have an 'outside source that says Jesus was never crucified and that he was married to Mary. I guess Christ rising on the third day was not meant to be a timeless pronouncement.

What outside sources?  

As for Christ rising from the dead, that would be a historical fact, not a pronouncement of what practice we should engage in.

Also, this thread is supposed to be about a woman's place in Marriage. The bible says that wives should submit to their husbands specifically. After that, they do not have to submit to a man more than another man would.

Rare is raising verses in support of subordination of marriage that deal with subordination in worship.  To that extent, I address the issue.  If you are talking about something else, you need to be more clear.
 
Rare --

Hmm, perhaps. But why would the two be different? Why should females be submissive in worship? Your argument seems nonsensical in that regard. If they are to be equal in all respects, why submissive in church? The reverse is also true, if they are to be submissive in church, why not in the home?

The Cor passage does not necessarily require submission in the church in all respects.  It just requires women to have a symbol of subordination in worship.  And the symbolism itself could be the important aspect of worship -- the woman recognizing the creation order.  Sometimes, symbolism is all that's required or wanted.  The bread and wine are symbolic of Christ's body and blood -- it is not meant as an injunction to engage in cannibalism, for example.

But here's a good question, which I raised (inartfully) elsewhere: Do women in most Christian congregations today have their heads covered in worship?  Should they?

Second, the Cor passage you cite is immediately followed by a qualifying passage that seems to indicate equality:

"11In any case, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 11:12 For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman. But all things come from God."  


I don't think this changes anything. I'm not disagreeing with this passage. But it can still be true and the woman to be submissive as well.

True, but my point is that the passage seems to qualify what came before.  Yes, the woman wears a symbol of her being made for man, but the substance of the matter is that they are partners with each other and subordinate to God.

 

Third, subtle changes in the wording of both passages can significantly change the impact on this discussion and different translations do appear to have some significant word choice differences. The Tim passage seems to have some significant problems with its exact interpretation. See http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm fn24  

Not so sure about this. Which words exactly are you referring to?

I seem to get a slightly different sense of the Cor passage when comparing, for example the Contemporary English Version with the KJV.  But perhaps that's just a subjective impression.  The objective one I can point to is the "childbearing" reference in the Tim passage.  What is said varies significantly from one translation to the next.  The NET Bible footnote discusses that.  

Fourth, the Tim passage indicates that subordination in worship occurs both because of creation order and because of the fall. The explicit impact of the fall in Genesis was that Eve's desire would be for her husband and he would rule over her. That suggests that the wife's submission to her husband was not the natural state of creation at the outset but occurred as a result of the fall (i.e. part of the curse).

Maybe this is poor arugumentation,

Yours, mine, or Paul's?

but the other results of the fall (pain in childbirth, working the land, snakes on belly) are still in effect. What makes you think this one should change?

Ah, but are they?  Medical technology is amazing.  For many women, the pain in childbirth can completely be taken away, and for others significantly diminished.  The Genesis curse says God would greatly multiply the pain of childbirth.  So there was going to be some pain even before the fall.  With medical technology, we could now have come full circle back to the pre-fall situation.  

As for working the land:  It is certainly true that most people don't need to work the land to survive.  And you have to be careful if you get more figurative and try to extend the curse to all types of work.  Adam was charged with taking care of the garden of Eden.   Also, the toil curse was in connection with the ground itself being curse.  It looks like God actually removed that curse in Noah's time.

As for the snake: that wasn't a curse on humankind, so Christ wouldn't have removed it.  Especially considering he set to bruise the serpent's head.

Not surprising since Eve's greatest failure involved her taking the lead. That would be a great confidence shaker, that might then be handed down through the generations, whether through God's dictates or practicalities. Even with Christ removing the curse, the effects of generations of the curse would not be immediately removed. If the effects of the curse lingered, it might make sense to require subordination of women who were not yet fit to lead.

Then you have to deal with who is fit to lead and who isn't.

Don't we have to do that all the time in just about every walk of life anyway?  Whether it's for a job, or a football team, or position of authority in government, we always make those decisions.  That doesn't make God a God of disorder, does it?

Some other thoughts occurred to me. I recall reading some background that there may have been issues with women in the church causing disruption that Paul was specifically targeting in his letters. That may lend support to the idea that perhaps there is a context in which these statements are made that would support a view that they were not necessarily intended to be timeless pronouncements.  

Then wouldn't that be made clear?

Perhaps not.  It is a letter to a particular group of people.  

Elsewhere Paul is not ashamed to say that a certain instruction is from himself and not from God.

But that's when he says it's optional whether to follow that instruction at the time it is given.  That's a somewhat different issue from whether a particular mandatory instruction is timeless.  

I don't see that disclaimer in these passages, for sure not in the Corinthians one.

But there might be one in the Tim passage, huh?  The "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man" giving you a little pause because it's an "I" statement?    But the Tim passage is much more obvious in its assertion of authority.  The Cor passage could just be talking about religious symbolism.

Veils? Not sure where that is coming from.

Perhaps that was inartful, but I would have thought you'd pick up on it.  What is the Cor passage all about -- women having a covering on their heads.  Some translations actually use the word "veil," but I should have phrased that better.  So what do you think?

I might footnote this by saying that my view on submission may be different from some that you have encountered.

Actually, I'm well familiar with your view on submission.  It's articulated at my church.  As I told David, I've heard "submission" spinned in a very egalitarian way.  I suspect David also holds to that version.  It's at the point, there may be little or perhaps no practical difference between how you or David do (or would?) conduct yourself in a marriage, and how I do.  But it's not quite equality, however much you spin it.

Submission (even biblically) is not the same as inferiority. I would never say that women are inequal or somehow inferior to men. Not at all. It sort of bothers me that most women flinch when they hear the word submission. There is nothing wrong with submission. We submit to people every day---the government, the local authorities, parents, teachers.

Those are all authority figures.  Saying the husband is an authority figure over the wife is denying her equality.  I am not an authority figure over my wife.  We decide things jointly, as equal partners.  It is true on some things one of us will defer to the other, sometimes due to expertise, and sometimes simply because an issue is much more important to one of us than the other.

In some ways maybe even to friends and people close to us.

That kind of submission, I don't disagree with.  But that kind of submission would be what the husband and wife should BOTH be doing with respect to each other.  That kind of submission does not require a "captain" in the relationship.

Just because I submit to the policeman's authority doesn't make me think I am of less worth than he is.

That is because of a particular position he holds, not because of some inherent characteristic.  It is different when you start saying that people have authority because of inherent characteristics.  It's ok for a policeman to have authority because of his position as a policeman.  It's not ok for a white person to have authority simply because he is a white person.

In fact, even Jesus submits to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:28), but no one is saying he is inferior.

Paul may be:  "15:27 For he has put everything in subjection under his feet.  But when it says