Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
It's more simple than that. As soon as Paul said there is headship FOR (or BECAUSE) man is not of the woman but the woman is of man, it is basing the issue on creation of woman from man's side before they ever fell. We would not read any reason existed by way of Woman's creation FROM man if there is a headship issue only since the fall.
|
MfBlume,
I hope you don't interpret my responses as argumentative. I'm simply typing information from this brain of mine, lol.
Your comments read:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
As soon as Paul said there is headship FOR (or BECAUSE) man is not of the woman but the woman is of man, it is basing the issue on creation of woman from man's side before they ever fell.
|
I realize that Paul mentions that women was brought forth from man's side, basing his information from creation. Even though Paul relays fact about how women originated, this don't conclude that she was created in a submissive state to man. Is it possible that Paul is simply referencing the origin of women without implying headship?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
We would not read any reason existed by way of Woman's creation FROM man if there is a headship issue only since the fall"
|
Well, here's my take on the issue, and your input is encouraged.
Genesis 1
26-Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27-So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
28-God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
Notice that God created mankind in his image, and He gave them (Adam/Eve) authority to RULE OVER CREATION (
Gen 1:26-27). From the very beginning God was explicit about submission. He told Adam and Eve to subdue and rule over animals, etc. God never implied that Adam was to rule over Eve and creature. I believe God would have establish submissive roles from creation, and we read that he did. He told Adam and Eve to rule without implying a submissive state between Adam and Eve.
Now consider this. In
Genesis 3:16 after Eve’s fall, God said to Eve,
"Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”
The word “rule" in Hebrew is - 4910
Mashal: have dominion.
It was here that God pronounced submissive roles between male and female, and here God pronounced that male would have dominion over female. If dominion and/or a submission state existed prior to Eve's fall, God would not have told Eve that she would be dominated by man for her disobedience
If a submissive state existed prior to Eve's fall, as you suggested that Paul mentioned, what do you perceive this additional “dominion” that God pronounced over Eve the man would have?
Hybrid Mode
