Gazza

Dear Cheryl
Thanks again for your prompt reply – sorry for the delay in my response – I am writing from Australia so I think I am reading your posts while you sleep.

In #19 you said “in the area of work and effect of rulership that God gave by design to both, there is no difference at all.” and
In #20 you said “They are dealt with together because they have a design that makes them recipients of the same design for ruler of this world. Does this make sense?”

I still fail to see how the text defines this interpretation. In post #19 you said
“What I am getting at is that everything that is given to the man and the woman is given to them both without division.” I agree fully

but your next sentence “In contrast the very nature of “roles” brings division.”

Is where I am having trouble keeping up. I know we have mentioned it twice already but parenthood was a task given equally to both but with distinct roles within it. Neither the father or mother is any less of a parent but the father will never carry the child and give birth – that is simply the mothers role. I do not think the fact that they are physical distinctions means they are any less intended by God and so I don’t think that they can be so simply dismissed. The main issue to me is if there are distinct roles in this part of the promise that are not precisely defined in the text (and it would seem that we agree that there are) how can you state so strongly that there are not similar distinctions in rule? Ie Is it not possible that both the man and the women are equally rulers of creation just as they are equally parents with different roles that are not defined in this verse?

It is the absolute certainty with which you interpret 1:28 that leaves me feeling like I am missing something important.