Lin

“Note the creational order Paul uses to support his argument. Eve was made out of Adam and for Adam, not the other way around”

Mark, thanks for sticking with this and all the stuff thrown at you. The statement above is the main problem. It is how you view the foundational interpretation of creation. You automatically assume authority and preeminance for the man. If you start there, all the NT passages are going to read authority/follower to you. It means you cannot get what Paul is teaching. (Why would Paul teach more legalistic rules or laws in the NT that are NOT in the OT? It makes no sense)

If you read 1 Corin 3 close, you see that Paul is making an argument like a good Jew would. Note he says a bit later that MEN come from women. So after Adam, all men come from a woman. But ALL things come from God.

I don’t blame you. It would be hard for me to give up preeminance, too, especially if I had been taught this at church and seminary.

But this view does not fit with the theme of the NT. We are lowly servants. The greatest is the lowliest servant of all. The first will be last and the last first, we are not to lord it over anyone and let us not forget all the one anothers. So, where does authority/ follower fit into this within the Body and Marriage? There is no ‘servant-leader’…just lowly servants, depraved sinners…ALL of us…saved by grace. There are no special class of Christians. Comps cannot get around the fact they are making a special class of Christians who stand as a layer between a woman and her Lord and Savior. She is not saved or sanctified by how well she ‘plays’ her role. She is to abide in Christ, just like any man.

If we start with a wrong premise of creation order meaning big cheese/junior assistant to the big cheese, we have lost the entire redemptive story. Patriarchy started right after the fall. We see its sin evidence right away. God worked through and around sin for His Glory.

As a matter of fact, it means we are teaching the sin of the fall as virtue. Sanctified sin. It really is a problem for comps and why we see so many comps who are searching for truth going egal. We also see some comps going patriarchy as CBMW is doing.

The comp view needs a Talmud to tell us what is formal church..What age can boys no longer be taught by women, can they pray in church, etc., etc. Many comps do not agree on the specifics of what their interpretations mean in application. It is a big problem for them. If I hung around you, I would constantly be worried about what constitutes ‘formal’ church. Is it when the men are around? Is it when an elder shows up? Is it in a building with a steeple? What is it?