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.

Well that argument isn't going to fly with me because I believe the Lord's Supper to be more than just symbolism.

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?

Maybe I should do some more in-depth study of the passage before delving into this, but I believe that in the Corinthians passage, the covering is directly related to hair.  That is why I asked when you mentioned veils---I'm not sure that is really what is being said there.  Seems to be a hairy issue (pun intended).

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.

And again, I wouldn't say that women are inequal or inferior.  This passage may clarify, but I certainly don't think it overturns what was just stated previously.  That would seem silly to do.

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.

But how does that affect the submission issue?  Maybe I'm not following you exactly here...

Maybe this is poor arugumentation,


Yours, mine, or Paul's?

Mine.  I'm into self-deprecating.

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.

Interesting comments.  I like your tact.  On the other hand, I don't think the fact that we've found some solutions to them changes the curse.  If the curse had been removed, we wouldn't have to shoot women full of drugs so they could have less pain.  Know what I mean?  

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.

Well, technically the curse was on the ground too, and not on humankind, but BECAUSE of humankind.

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?

No, but God has always chosen his leaders too.  God picked Noah, Moses, Abraham, the specific tribe of Levites for certain jobs, the family of Aaron to be priests, etc etc etc.  I think setting up a head of the family is just another example of this.  

I might add, I don't think God cares who leads the football team or the local knitting club, but He might want to be more involved when we are considering spiritual leadership.

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.

But then you would have to disregard the entire letter to the Corinthians wouldn't you?

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'm thinking of 1 Corinthians 7 in particular.  Is that what you are thinking of too?

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.

Heh, yeah you could make a case in the Timothy passage.  A CASE, I say--- it wouldn't be a cut and dry argument.  Again, I'm not flattered by your symbolism idea, as I seem to see much less symbolism in general than you it appears.

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?

As alluded to above, that passage seems to be dealing with hair and not veils.  But if you ask the same question---yeah I think women should have long hair and men short hair.  

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.

You consider yourself inequal to your local mayor? Or a policeman?  Or a teacher?

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.

Just because someone has authority over you, does that make you unequal?  See my questions above---I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning.

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.

Ephesians 5:21 even makes this point.  So, if this is the submission that is being referenced in Ephesians, could we assume the term has the same connotation in Corinthians as well?

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.

Wouldn't "husband" be a position?  I don't think that every man has authority over every woman.  For instance, I wouldn't have authority over your wife.  It is within the family structure.

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

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.

Well that argument isn't going to fly with me because I believe the Lord's Supper to be more than just symbolism. Wink

So does the winky face mean you don't really believe what you just said?  If so, you haven't answered my argument that sometimes symoblism is all that's required.  

If you do believe it, are you Catholic?  If not, you're going to have to explain yourself, since most, if not all, protestant denominations hold that the Lord's Supper is symbolic and that there is no actual transformation of the bread and wine.

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?

Maybe I should do some more in-depth study of the passage before delving into this, but I believe that in the Corinthians passage, the covering is directly related to hair. That is why I asked when you mentioned veils---I'm not sure that is really what is being said there. Seems to be a hairy issue (pun intended).

Cook has pointed out some problems with your interpretation.

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.

And again, I wouldn't say that women are inequal or inferior. This passage may clarify, but I certainly don't think it overturns what was just stated previously. That would seem silly to do.

And the clarification could be that the covering practice is symbolism.

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.

But how does that affect the submission issue? Maybe I'm not following you exactly here...

It turns on what Paul is actually saying about childbearing.  Is he saying the woman is saved by virtual of her being a childbearer or is he saying she is saved despite the curse placed on her as childbearer, or is he saying something else entirely?

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?

Interesting comments. I like your tact. On the other hand, I don't think the fact that we've found some solutions to them changes the curse. If the curse had been removed, we wouldn't have to shoot women full of drugs so they could have less pain. Know what I mean?

Good point, but perhaps that is simply the way God allowed the curse to be lifted.
 

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.

Well, technically the curse was on the ground too, and not on humankind, but BECAUSE of humankind.

This is tangential point at best, but hey, I'll point it out anyway. The snake was punished for its OWN transgression, not that of humankind.  The ground was cursed because of man's transgression.

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?

No, but God has always chosen his leaders too. God picked Noah, Moses, Abraham, the specific tribe of Levites for certain jobs, the family of Aaron to be priests, etc etc etc. I think setting up a head of the family is just another example of this.

Noah was picked because of his virtue and Abraham was picked because of his faith, so those aren't good examples for your position.  There are also fitness arguments that can be made specifically about Moses.  So that leaves Aaron's family as priests and the Levites.  But of course, didn't Christ do away with the need for intermediary's between humans and God?

I might add, I don't think God cares who leads the football team or the local knitting club, but He might want to be more involved when we are considering spiritual leadership.

How about the leadership of a nation?  Wouldn't that be important to God too?  You aren't saying women are unfit to serve as leaders in government, are you?

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.

But then you would have to disregard the entire letter to the Corinthians wouldn't you?

No, one would just have to have a method of sorting the timeless statements from local context statements.

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'm thinking of 1 Corinthians 7 in particular. Is that what you are thinking of too?

We're on the same page.   My comment still stands.

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.

Heh, yeah you could make a case in the Timothy passage. A CASE, I say--- it wouldn't be a cut and dry argument. Wink

Agreed.

Again, I'm not flattered by your symbolism idea, as I seem to see much less symbolism in general than you it appears.

Not sure that's so.  So far, I only see a disagreement with respect to the submission issue.   Perhaps there others, but they are not immediately apparent.

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?

As alluded to above, that passage seems to be dealing with hair and not veils. But if you ask the same question---yeah I think women should have long hair and men short hair.

Cook has pointed out some problems with your interpretation.  It seems unlikely that the passage is simply dealing with hair.  Which means, you still need an answer for it.  

But let's suppose it did deal with hair  Are you saying that women should not pray or prophecy (in public?) if they have short hair?  A women now cannot say the blessing in a dinner gathering if her hair is short?  Is that your position?  If not, how do you explain the nonapplicability of the teaching under your interpretation of what it says?

You consider yourself inequal to your local mayor? Or a policeman? Or a teacher?

Not as a person.  But with respect to the issue on which they have authority, yes.

Just because someone has authority over you, does that make you unequal? See my questions above---I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning.

See above.

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.

Ephesians 5:21 even makes this point. So, if this is the submission that is being referenced in Ephesians, could we assume the term has the same connotation in Corinthians as well?

Good question.  It is the same word, but the question is whether it is used in the same way.  If the point of Eph 5:21 is that husband and wife are subject to each other, then there is no captain, and David stands refuted.  If that's not the point, then it seems that submission with respect to husbands and wives may be utilized somewhat differently than in Eph 5:21.

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.

Wouldn't "husband" be a position? I don't think that every man has authority over every woman. For instance, I wouldn't have authority over your wife. It is within the family structure.

I thought about that.  But "husband" and "wife" are really both "spouse" with the more particular designation being based SOLELY upon gender.  So status as a spouse is a position, but a more specific status as husband or wife is an inherent characteristic.

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

Sorry for the long delay my friends.  I have been studying this passage some more though in that time.

Cimics-

So does the winky face mean you don't really believe what you just said? If so, you haven't answered my argument that sometimes symoblism is all that's required.

If you do believe it, are you Catholic? If not, you're going to have to explain yourself, since most, if not all, protestant denominations hold that the Lord's Supper is symbolic and that there is no actual transformation of the bread and wine.

I don't believe the Lord's Supper to be symbolic.  Nor am I Catholic.  Perhaps this is a discussion for another thread.  The point if this all being that I don't see a good reason to view 1 Corinthians 11 symbolically.  If you have different reasons for thinking it is, I would be interested to hear them.

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?

I think I explained this poorly before. The instruction for women to cover their heads is only for when they "pray or prophesy" (v.5).  So no, I don't think women should have their heads covered in church.....unless they are prophesying in front of the church.

"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.

And again, I wouldn't say that women are inequal or inferior. This passage may clarify, but I certainly don't think it overturns what was just stated previously. That would seem silly to do.

And the clarification could be that the covering practice is symbolism.

To look into this passage a little further.  The main point of this section really hinges on how you translate "head" (kephala in greek).  I think its fairly obvious that Paul is using "head" in two senses: a physical head, and head in the sense of authority.  Of course, head could also be "source" like the head of a river.  Something to think about.  

In verse 3, where the meaning certainly can't be the physical head, we have Paul giving this order: woman<man<Christ<God.   Now don't get upset I don't mean those as less than/greater than signs. But that is the order Paul gives in reference to who is who's head.  The real question here I think would be what does he mean by head?  Does he mean "source" or "authority"?  I think it could work either way.  Then, when you move on to verses 4 and 5, where men and women are dishonoring their heads, is that a reference to their physical heads, or to their authoritative heads?

It turns on what Paul is actually saying about childbearing. Is he saying the woman is saved by virtual of her being a childbearer or is he saying she is saved despite the curse placed on her as childbearer, or is he saying something else entirely?

I'm not really sure.  But either way I don't think it affects the headship issue.  What do you think?

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?

Interesting comments. I like your tact. On the other hand, I don't think the fact that we've found some solutions to them changes the curse. If the curse had been removed, we wouldn't have to shoot women full of drugs so they could have less pain. Know what I mean?

Good point, but perhaps that is simply the way God allowed the curse to be lifted.

This is an interesting conversation, but I think the fact that Paul is referencing order of creation sort of makes the curse idea moot. God's order of creation wasn't part of the curse.

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.

Well, technically the curse was on the ground too, and not on humankind, but BECAUSE of humankind.

This is tangential point at best, but hey, I'll point it out anyway. The snake was punished for its OWN transgression, not that of humankind. The ground was cursed because of man's transgression.

True.  Ok I think we have that all sorted out now.  

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?

No, but God has always chosen his leaders too. God picked Noah, Moses, Abraham, the specific tribe of Levites for certain jobs, the family of Aaron to be priests, etc etc etc. I think setting up a head of the family is just another example of this.

Noah was picked because of his virtue and Abraham was picked because of his faith, so those aren't good examples for your position. There are also fitness arguments that can be made specifically about Moses. So that leaves Aaron's family as priests and the Levites. But of course, didn't Christ do away with the need for intermediary's between humans and God?

What about the prophets?  They were God-chosen as well.  Now, I see your point about no need for intermediaries, but there is still a need for leaders.  There are instructions for leaders of the church even in the New Testament.

I might add, I don't think God cares who leads the football team or the local knitting club, but He might want to be more involved when we are considering spiritual leadership.

How about the leadership of a nation? Wouldn't that be important to God too? You aren't saying women are unfit to serve as leaders in government, are you?

Why would that be important to God?  He's concerned with the spiritual not the political.  I don't think the two issues are related.  And no, I don't have a problem with women serving in the government.

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.

But then you would have to disregard the entire letter to the Corinthians wouldn't you?

No, one would just have to have a method of sorting the timeless statements from local context statements.

So what is your method?

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'm thinking of 1 Corinthians 7 in particular. Is that what you are thinking of too?

We're on the same page. My comment still stands.

Maybe if you shared your method of determining we could hash this out.

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?

As alluded to above, that passage seems to be dealing with hair and not veils. But if you ask the same question---yeah I think women should have long hair and men short hair.


Cook has pointed out some problems with your interpretation. It seems unlikely that the passage is simply dealing with hair. Which means, you still need an answer for it.

Right.  The main gist of the passage is dealing with the authority or source issue as I mentioned above.  I believe the covering is the "sign of authority" referenced in verse 10.  It seems the allusion to hair was simply a comparison Paul was making to the custom of the time.  You and Cook caught me on that before---I wasn't reading it quite right I don't think.  But Paul is making this comparison: if a woman doesn't have her head covered when she prophesies, then it would be just like if she cut her hair off.  So apparently, women having short hair was disgraceful at the time (and some might argue still is).

But let's suppose it did deal with hair Are you saying that women should not pray or prophecy (in public?) if they have short hair? A women now cannot say the blessing in a dinner gathering if her hair is short? Is that your position? If not, how do you explain the nonapplicability of the teaching under your interpretation of what it says?

I would say women should not pray and prophesy in public with their heads uncovered.  You are correct and I was wrong about the hair thing.

You consider yourself inequal to your local mayor? Or a policeman? Or a teacher?

Not as a person. But with respect to the issue on which they have authority, yes.

And this is what I would say is the same between a man and wife.  The husband is the spiritual leader.  That doesn't make the woman inferior as a person in any way.

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.

Ephesians 5:21 even makes this point. So, if this is the submission that is being referenced in Ephesians, could we assume the term has the same connotation in Corinthians as well?

Good question. It is the same word, but the question is whether it is used in the same way. If the point of Eph 5:21 is that husband and wife are subject to each other, then there is no captain, and David stands refuted. If that's not the point, then it seems that submission with respect to husbands and wives may be utilized somewhat differently than in Eph 5:21.

I think there is something there similar to the submission between friends we are talking about there in verse 21.  But right after in verse 22, there is again a clear command for the woman to submit to her husband, and the reason given in verse 23 is that the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the man.  
Just like in 1 Corinthians: woman<man<Christ   (note: those are NOT greater than/less than signs----its the order)

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.

Wouldn't "husband" be a position? I don't think that every man has authority over every woman. For instance, I wouldn't have authority over your wife. It is within the family structure.

I thought about that. But "husband" and "wife" are really both "spouse" with the more particular designation being based SOLELY upon gender. So status as a spouse is a position, but a more specific status as husband or wife is an inherent characteristic.

But isn't it based on gender?  There are no female husbands.  I think that the gender is most certainly a factor here.  Unless we are going to get into a discussion about homosexuality?

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

Rare,
You said to cimics:

Cimics--
But Paul appeals to the order of creation to justify his view of the family structure. See 1 Timothy 2:11-14 and 1 Corinthians 11:3-10. He doesn't appear to be referring to a cultural norm to justify his ideas.

I agree that is doesn't appear to be a culture thing.

I do have a problem with how Paul explains things in that passage. But I think it is due to my lack of understanding. (I'm not calling Paul or the text wrong!!!) I just think it isn't as clear as it seems.

Here are the problems:
He bases it on Genesis (which is a mess to try and reconcile), again I am not calling the scripture wrong. I just can't make sense of it.

I accept both tellings of creation in Genesis as Jesus quotes from them both.

The first telling of male and female creation has them created together in God's image. It has both given dominion over the animal kingdom They were told to multiply (male and female both needed). It doesn't mention WHY they were created. They were pronounced good.

Second telling has Adam created first. Eve was create to be a helper to Adam because it was "not good" for him to be alone. So was procreation an after thought? The purpose for Adam's creation seems to be to till the garden.

So why insinuate that Eve was an after thought just for Adam's need and not follow through that Adam was an afterthought just for the Garden's need?

Also why does Paul accuse Eve of transgression and not Adam? Eve was not commanded by God (that we know of). But Adam was commanded by God.

God asks Adam why he ate of the tree he was commanded not to eat of.

But God does not mention to Eve that she was commanded.

So Eve was deceived but Adam purposely disobeyed.

Even Paul says that sin entered by one man (Adam). So what did he mean in Tim. about Eve being in transgression? Why should we take that to mean that she carried the greater burden. Is that really what Paul is trying to say? Is it worse to disobey man or God?

Why did the serpent approach Eve in the first place and not Adam?  I think there are clues in that fact alone.

Also I mention that the punishment over Eve contains a cryptic remark that is almost  identical to God's remark to Cain.
To Eve: Genesis 3:16   -   To Cain: Genesis 4:7

But  in Genesis 2:24 (which Jesus quoted) we have the first mention of marriage: And it doesn't sound like a call for female submission. "For this cause shall a man leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife and the tow shall be one". Actually, it kind of sounds the other way around, like she replaces the mother and father.

Sorry, I have more questions than answers about all of this.

It is clear that Paul does not want women in charge in the church. But why is not easy to answer!

cook

While I can't (nor do I want to) deny the biblical teaching regarding a wife submitting to her husband, I am convinced that unwillingness to accept this biblical teaching is far less of an issue today than the fact that many contemporary husbands altogether ignore the biblical mandate that they should sacrifice or even lay down their lives for their wives.  If a husband fully attends to living out the latter of these two biblical mandates, he will likely lack the energy or interest to demand, dictate or preach about the former.

Submission is a central biblical teaching, but the biblical notion of submission extends so far beyond the relationship betwee wife and husband.  What about submission to truth, a cause greater than self, the will of God, the ridicule of one's enemies?  I have little doubt that if one takes the time to explore through persistent practice, the mystery of these aspects of submission, the element between wife and husband will fall into a good and proper place.

I can't help quoting you, fact is equality as viewed by the world is not equality as viewed by christianity, however that does not mean christianity denies equality.
When I was about to be married to my husband we both decided to attend a premarital class by our LDS church, well...one of the first principles taught was husbands not taking advantage of their priesthood and treat their wifes as equal partners.
We wifes don't have the priesthood but we have motherhood , which is definitively not the same as fatherhood in importance, we can't all have everything, I don't believe it's a matter of gender bias more than saying kids have to go to school just because they're are kids and that's discriminatory.
I am a woman and am proud of my motherhood priviledge I will later have, I know my husband loves his priesthood so much that he knows better than using it to rule over me, in the wordly sense of the term.
Yes the Bible states clearly that the man shall rule over his wife , his power is  but sweet and in accordance with the Spirit, not authoritary, a hard concept for people who are not into it.

[He went on with the thought that some decisions just cannot be left undone so someone has to bend.

G.

that's why life is full of events, husband and wife can bend one at a time in turn or just come to a compromise or do both according to their momentary mood  

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.

YAY!!  I've always felt that there is a Biblical marriage model, and this comes really close to describing it.  What I've discovered in my 24.5 years of marriage is that if I treat my husband as the head of the household, generally, I get everything I want.  It's wonderful how that works.