The authority of rulership for Adam is clearly over animals and the earth,

This is not a mystery. It’s plain and it’s clear. God himself speaks of the authority both have over the animals and all the earth. The authority of rulership for the woman is clearly over animals and the earth.
Adam identifies the animals before the woman is created, but he doesn’t name them, or give them names like “Tommy the cat”, “Leo the lion”, or “Sparky the dog.” The woman’s name was never “Woman”. Her name was Eve, not “woman”. There is a difference between naming a creature and identifying or recognizing one.
Adam had rule over the animals only because God himself gave this authority to both the human and the woman. But God gave both the human and the woman authority over the animals and the earth only after he created the woman. So did Adam have authority over the animals and the earth before the woman was created? Did God give Adam authority over the animals and the earth before the woman was created or only after?
God never once spoke to Adam giving him authority over either when Adam was alone. Adam also wasn’t given permission to eat food outside the garden when he was alone. When the human was alone, God only gave him trees within the garden to eat from. The human was only given permission to eat outside the garden after the woman was created and he was given this permission when the woman was with him, as God spoke to both giving them authority over the animals and the earth, and permission to eat fruit with seed from the enitre face of the earth. God had only given Adam trees of the garden when he spoke to him, before the woman was created, not trees on the entire face of the earth. So if Adam was given trees on the entire face of the earth, and rulershipp over the animals and all the earth, it was only when God SAID so, which was when he was with the woman.
If we cannot presume that the human had permission to eat from trees outside of the garden before the woman was created, then we also cannot presume he had authority over the animals (which he named) before the woman was created. This leaves us then without the presumption that he had authority over the woman too before he and the woman were given authority over ALL the animals and all the earth and given permission to eat from trees outside the garden.
If Adam identifying the animals as “elephant” or “tiger” doesn’t show he had any authority over them because he wasn’t even given authority over any while he was alone, but rather he was given this authority over ALL of them after the woman was created, then Adam identifying the woman as “woman” doesn’t show that he had authority over her either because it wasn’t given to him at all, and rather both were told to rule the animals and the earth.

;P

I think that in the comp religion only poor widows who vow celibacy can be fed by the church.

This stuff can’t be for real, can it? *Nah* I deny that any of this gobblygooke is for real ;p

I do not think that one can claim right of authority over another because of gender, based on faith (unless they want to be treated that way too) because it’s a contradiction of the 2nd greatest commandment on principle. Real faith from above does not produce a result that is contradictory to the commandment. Impossible.

Hi Kay,

I agree with your points. And I’d like to add something speaking of “faith”.

In faith, can a person break the second greatest commandment?? This is a very serious question. What do you think??

I don’t think it is even possible. I do not think that it is even possible to treat someone – beginning with your neighbor – as if they are under you or as if you are over them in some hierarchy. Therefore what someone does To another outside of the principle of treating them As They themselves would like to be treated is Not of faith. If I cannot go to my neighbor’s house and claim right of authority, or leadership over them, then what would make me think that I can do such a thing to a family memeber who actualy lives with me under the same roof? The relationship of one to a neighbor is not even as close as one to a spouse. And the second greatest commandment is only elemental.

Need break…

Celibacy for food?! What?!
What is this??
James comes to mind:

James 1:27
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

If you cannot do it to your neighbor, by God then you cannot do it to your wife or sister in Christ without breaking the Law.

K, guys and gals, I’m amused by this talk of “flawed design”.

I still think that the comp view is simply not very nice. Within the position the women (or wives) are treated with less love than neighbors. What cannot even be done to your neighbor based on the second greatest commandment, is done in the name of God to women! It’s not very nice.

Anti-spam word “FALL”

How can specified married males be referred to as “anyone”? Where do those dots connect?

I think an explanation for how such a thing can be so should be given by comps.

How can a presbituro not really be a presbituro because one is female?

*A female physician is really not a doctor because she is a female*

I can’t find any sense in that view.

And presbituro, they say, can’t mean the same thing when referring to a woman because, well, she’s a woman.

It would be like saying when a woman is a doctor, she’s really not a doctor, or when a woman is a lawyer she is really not a lawyer because she is a woman. Absurd. What a person does, their work doesn’t become different work depending on their sex organs. A doctor is a doctor is a doctor lol.

Hi Kay!

Some people are only consistent where they choose to be.

Exactly. Kinda funny when ya think about it.

And should I add if “managing the family” does not mean literally that one must “have children” for a man, then it cannot on the other hand disqualify a woman because she also doesn’t have children. But that would contradict traditional interpretations of 1 Tim 2 ;P

And ofcourse if being married is a requirement then so is having children if one is going to be consistent.

Now I’m trying to make sense out of “anyone who desires” in comparison to “husband of one wife”.

A husband is not just “anyone” but particularily 1) a married person and 2) a male. So “husband of one wife” (if a requirement) just doesn’t fit logicaly with “anyone who desires”. Paul going from “anyone” to particularily a male who is married doesn’t make sense. A married man (“husband of one wife”) cannot be previously referred to as “anyone” – not sensibly. This may be reason why the interpretation is reduced to a meaning of males only whether married or not. But then that leads us right back to a problem -“However if “must be a **husband** of one wife” does not mean literally that one must be a **husband** for a man, then it cannot on the other hand disqualify a woman because she is also not a “husband”. You cannot have it both ways.”

I was re-reading some posts over @ http://www.achurchinryde.com/blog/?p=262 and found the following quote by Cheryl that just kinda hit me:

However if “must be a **husband** of one wife” does not mean literally that one must be a **husband** for a man, then it cannot on the other hand disqualify a woman because she is also not a “husband”. You cannot have it both ways.

Sharp wit Cheryl! So simple too!

*gawking*

82 con’t

but the two must not be separated if one is talking about a woman so that a woman cannot be a teacher because she is not to be a pastor?

Bingo.

If you now admit that pastor and teacher are “separate gifts” then why do you say that a woman cannot be a teacher in the church because she cannot be a pastor or elder?

I think the answer is something along the lines of – a woman can teach but she cannot be a teacher behind the pulpit (a pastor), or she can teach but she “cannot teach the church” which means “teach as a pastor”.

Did I get it right, Mark ;P

Actually using such a term distorts the NT teachings which show that there is a common “class” of Christians. All Christians are brothers in Christ and no one can lord it over another and because leaders are to be servants, there is no such thing as “offices” which would divide the body into clergy class and laity. Christians are one class not two.

I LIKE this!! 🙂 Christians are one class not two!!

Hi Mark 🙂

Mark, so women can be teacher, pastor and prophet and everything else that is a gift of God, but not “teaching and ruling” elder? Only gifted men can be teaching and ruiling elder but gifted women cannot, while elder is not even a gift since elders are already qualified by gifts? BUT elders are qualified by their flesh (gender) also, right?

“It seems that you feel that teaching is the higher gift and it is unfair if a woman is not aloud to be a pastor, when infact a woman with the gift of prophecy has a higher gift than that of a teacher.”

Hi Mark,

Where does Paul say anything about women not being allowed to be pastors or are denied the gift of pastor? Being an elder is one thing, something that is not a gift, but pastor is a gift which is not given based on gender. So unless women are denied some of the gifts then women can be pastors as God gifts them to be. And 1 Tim 2 is not about the gift of teaching and 1 Tim 3 is not about the gift of pastor therefore women can be pastor of men and women and teacher of men and women since the gifts are for the body which includes the congregation. Whether or not women can be elder is a different subject since elder is not a gift. And since women can teach as gifted by God (Eph 4) therefore 1 Tim 2 cannot be restricting women from teaching the church (men and women) when they are gifted by God as teachers. And since women can pastor as gifted by God (Eph 4) therefore 1 Tim 3 cannot be restricting women from pastoring the church (men and woman) when they are gifted by God as pastors.

So what is your reason Mark, for insisting that women are not aloud to be pastors, Mark?

Jewel,

You’d be surprised what the scriptures really reveal (like I have been) 🙂

If man was created for God and women was created for man, what was created for women? And if we ALL have a purpose, why was only men created for God?

Jewel,

Hi! I don’t/can’t read anywhere in the bible that “man was created for God”. Though it is true that woman (not women) was created for man (not men) – Genesis. And there’s no reason from the scriptures themselves to believe that men were created “for God” no matter how special to god they sound within the comp framework. Scripture is a marker for determining for us what is and what is not.

God cannot connect with a woman like He connects with a man because God’s understanding in His Word comes only through man.

This has got to be one of the worst things I’ve ever heard. To say that there is a “go between” God and woman doesn’t come from anything pure or godly.

Isn’t this an argument from silence?

That was my point though in different words.

The comp case literaly, never has support from the passage under fire. That’s the problem yet the “egal” position is supported all over the place. What doesn’t exist in scripture cannot be proven to be scriptural, comp case can never be proven. On the other hand there is support, evidence and proof everywhere for the “egal” position in the Bible. It’s amazing really.

Merely that this passage would be compatible with this case and therefore does not disprove complementarian claims. You will have to look for other arguments in support of your view.

Ofcourse it can be compatible, the society was patriarchal. So what? The time the text was written tells us nothing about whether or not male rule is biblical. God telling husbands that their wives have authority over their bodies amongst a patriarchal society doesn’t lend a thing but to egalism. The comp case has no support from the passage and the egal view does since both husband and wife have authority. The problem here is that the comp case has no support from the passage.

1 Cor. 7 disproves at the very least the full sovereignty of the man and since no authority is given the husband except for 1 Cor. 7 and the man and woman were given equal rulership in the beginning, the burden of proof identifying full sovereignty of the man would be on the shoulders of those who claim it.

Nice 🙂

The problem as I see it, is that you are continuing to look on the husband as a “governing authority” when 1 Cor. 7 shows that his authority is not that of “governing” but an equal authority with his wife.

Case in point.

NN, what you are bringing to the table is outside the text. What we want is the text.

NN,
You’re outside the text and arguing from there where nothing can be proven or disproven so really, who cares other than those who arn’t bound by the text itself (I’m not implying you but making a point)?