Genesis 3:16 - As to ALL Women... or One Woman? A Favor, Please...

by AGuest 60 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Fernando

  Personally I believe the preventing women from speaking in a religious building or from being part of the apostate ruling religious clergy class hierachy has been a blessing and protection in disguise - for women.

  What woman in her right mind wants to advance the common enemy of God and man namely religion?

  Our friends fellowship in simple non-religious faith communities where we are the "church" or Ekklesia (which is not a building in scripture). We have never found the need to put any restrictions on (spirit led) women speaking or participating when we get together.

  So whereas men generally have a sad and sordid history of advancing religion, women being more community, family and peace oriented are in a great position to advance the gospel as God's final and ultimate answer to religion.
• 

  justmom

  Good morning Soft and Gentle...

  I am sorry that you had to be put in this situation. But I am happy that you were able to stand up on your hubbys defense and not cower to how unloving these elders can be. Am also glad that you can and let it role off. That is the spirit of LOVE! Maybe they will pick up on this and learn from it.

  Thanks for sharing this story

  JUSTMOM
• 

  justmom

  Thank you Vanderhoven7

  Eph 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
  Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
  Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
  Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
  Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
  Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
  Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
  Eph 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
  Eph 5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
  Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
  Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
  Eph 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
  Eph 5:33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she respect her husband.

  There is no conflict between verse 21 and verse 33. In fact verse 33 merely sums up verses 22-32 and clarifies what that submission looks like in terms of gender role. Being called to nourish/take care of your wife's every need is servanthood and submission of the highest order.

  So with verse 30 also here in context doesn't this apply to the body of Christ only ? Christ being the husband/wife role loving us as he does his own body. (which he already demonstrated by giving the ultimate sacrifice) and those of the body submitting and subjecting themselves to one another? as well as to their husbandly owner Christ?

  jus askin

  JUSTMOM
• 

  PSacramento

  There are times that my wife "submits" to my authority in certian matters and there are times when I "submit" to hers.

  It would be silly to do otherwise because that would be going with the view/opinion of the person that knows trhe least about the subject at hand.

  She loves technology and I am indifferent, so when it comes to that stuff, I "submit" to her view and opinion on those matters.

  When it comes to finacial matters, she is horrible with budgets so that becomes my "job" and she "submits" to that.

  In most things we are totally equal and in some things we are not.

  I believe in equality amongst equals.

  And we are not all equals.

  There are times when she needs to be reminded of "her place" and there are times when she reminds me of MY "place".

  Love works that way, our love sustains are relationship and the roles we are best at.
• 

  cofty

  Its funny watching christians prevaricate about some of the more embarrassing features of the bible.

  Please show me the verse that specifically says a husband should subject himself to his wife - then let's list the verses that say otherwise.

  You take your enlightened 21st century ethics and then try to read them back into the text. You cherry-pick verses and pluck them out of their literary, theological and social context.

  I honestly believe that as an atheist I have more respect for the intention of the authors of the bible than christians do.

  The bible is misogynistic from Genesis, where Eve is presented as an afterthought and possession of Adam, to Revelation where the elect are lauded for having not "defiled themselves with women".

  Just congratulate yourself for being more ethical than any bible writer and admit nobody ever got their ethics from that horrible book.
• 

  bohm

  Uhm, yah. Just like the quran dosnt tell us to kill infidels, it merely tell us to bill the infidels.
• 

  PSacramento

  The OT and even the NT were written in a male dominated society, patriarchal to the max really and there is no way around that.

  The women had prominant roles in early Christianity is clear from ACTS and Romans BUT that in no way implies that they had equal rights (in the legal sense) as men.

  One could argue that the writer of Genesis "back tracked" His view of women and their inferiority back to Eve and justififed it by what she did.

  WHile it can be argued that women under the Torah and later under CHrist, had more rights than their counter-parts, it was still nothing close to equality with men.

  That said, I don't understand why one would think to see such equality in the bible anyways.

  In terms of theology, Paul's comment that there is no man or woman under Christ is clear that, theologiclly speaking, ALL are equal and same BUT that has little to do with the social and cultural situation of women.
• 

  tiki

  i think the patriarchal system has caused much damage over the centuries, and that people should realize that one sex is no better than the other, merely different. a man and a woman can work and live together harmoniously if they express and live with mutual respect and consideration. neither should attempt to dominate the other.

  religious systems have traditionally been based on the ancient patriarchal system. where it is very deeply imbedded and rigid, such as in certain islamic communities, women suffer and are treated as animal property. there is nothing loving or purposeful in that. denying individuals education and human rights simply because of what they were born with for genitalia goes against all reason and justice and love. other religious systems are less strict, but still maintain dominance of the male, and it typically results in friction sooner or later. many fear that women want to relegate males to a lesser role and assume the dominant one - and likely there are those who think that would be lovely, but really not......the sane thing is to want to celebrate our differences in character, talents and abilities, while nurturing eachother, growing and developing and spreading the love, self-assurance and self-esteem.
• 

  PSacramento

  Patriarchal systems had very little to do with religion and far more to do with " might makes right" and the superiority (physical) of the male species.

  In terms of religion, women in some of them were viewed as high priests and held a stature close to that of the kings ( Males) at times.

  One would wonder if suddenly the world "fell back" into a state of ancient times, how long "equality of the sexes" would lats when faced with ancient warfare and agricultral methods.

  Men ruled because they were the stronger sex in those days and in those days that made ALL the difference.
• 

  AGuest

  I appreciate all of the comments (peace to you all!), including those stating perspectives as to the husband/wife relationship and even men/women in human culture in general. I understand the basis for those (even if I don't agree with them; not to say I don't, but that even if I didn't). What I am more interested in, though, is the perspective from the WTBTS POV... that women, in general, are in subjection/to be submissive to men, in general (and even, as someone pointed out above - my apologies, I forget who - to their minor male children, once such child is baptized).

  It is understandable that society in GENERAL may have fomented such a belief for many reasons, and many of them valid. Also, I can see where the admonishment of women as to their own husbands (Eve and then Peter's words) might play a role... as well as within human culture in general (placing women in a secondary role) might make sense, given the customs and traditions of society, whether religious or not. I cannot, however, see the basis within the WTBTS... in general... other than [their own] custom/tradition. Given that that organization often takes issue with custom and tradition, though, I find it... curious... that this is one they uphold, and particularly on the basis of "scripture." WHAT "scripture", though, given what was actually stated to Eve (that her craving would be for HER husband and he - HER husband - would dominate her), and Peter stated to the congregation (women are to be in subjection to their OWN husbands).

  I can even see where some might believe that they are to obey/submit to those "taking the lead" among them (Hebrews 13:17) although, I think that might be a bit of a stretch, particularly in light of the meaning of the word used for "obey" (Greek peitho) and what Christ is recorded to have said at Matthew 23:2, 3... but that was not my point, either (I mean, is a woman's baptized 12-... 14-... heck, 38-year-old son "taking the lead"... just because he's baptized??).

  My point is, then, is on what basis is a woman to be in subjection to ANY other men (OR other women)... other than their own husbands... and, of course, Christ (even above their own husbands)... and for any man other than her husband (and Christ) even expecting such from her?

  I am trying to get those who might still believe there IS some "biblical" justification for this... to see that, in truth, no such thing exists for christians, either as to scripture OR custom/tradition.

  I appreciate, then, dear S+G's response (peace to you, dear one!) because it indicates that she put her husband's wishes above that of some other man, which man apparently thought he had a "higher" position in her life/world. WHY? Why did he think HIS "authority" took precedence over her own husband's authority? (And I don't mean authority in a negative sense, but only in the manner this man apparently did - he apparently thought that she was supposed to do what HE wanted her to do because... of WHAT?). There are a plethora of verses admonishing wives to be in subjection to their own husbands (Ephesian 5:22; Colossians 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1, etc.). And when speaking of women being "submissive" when "learning" as well (because this is also with reference to learning from their own husbands... because the husbands were the ones who attended the public meetings and brought information back, for the safety of the congregation).

  If, then, you are a christian man or woman who believe that this is the proper conduct for a christian... for a woman to submit to the will of a man who is not her own husband (and for me doing as to a husband is a topic that deserves it's own thread)... why... other than WTBTS custom/tradition which you may have been taught all your life and/or simply accepted as truth... DO you believe this?

  Again, I do not knock the responses received thus far; indeed, I again thank you all for them and if you want to continue along those lines, please, by all means do. But it was not my intent to get into submissiveness within the husband/wife relationship and the bases for that, or even in the overall man/woman dynamics of society. I am specifically interested in the WTBTS-indoctrination POV: that women, in general, are in subjection to men, in general... which "men" include baptized sons.

  Again, peace to you all!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA