The earlier comment that suggested that if things were going to change, they would have by now is almost an evolutionary idea. Things will only change as human beings take God’s word seriously and listen to his heart on issues of justice. We can all do our small bit to help bring about change and the first would be to believe that we can make a difference.

This sword cuts both ways…I know I have a tendency to impute impure motives or lack of thought to those who disagree with me.

Regarding historical precedent: it is true that men have, in general, “ruled” women throughout history, and it might be argued that women may be more vulnerable in general due to their intimate ties to children and lesser physical strength. However, this general rule might show nothing other than the sinful tendency of those individuals and groups in power to use it to control those less able to fight back. As a matter of fact, the idea of women as inherently inferior or the property of men has popped up repeatedly throughout history and around the globe, as has human sacrifice, cannibalism, and despotism and tyranny in general. As a matter of fact, false religion has been pretty much universal in human history, even among those to whom God revealed himself directly.

In a world marred by universal sin, universal practice may not be a reliable indicator of virtue or created intent.

You make several negative remarks about our views. When you make a negative remark you should tie it specifically to the post you are responding to so that the person whose view you are criticizing has a chance to directly reply to your negative remark.

And just for the record, I don’t agree with any of the negative conclusions you have stated in your posts about our views.

Rather, the discussion in the main seems to be bent on denying that these scriptures exist.

That I wish to read the scriptures in the original languages does not equal the same thing as denying the scriptures exist.

Some women do escape from abusive husbands and are able to raise their children on their own. Therefore, for the individual abused woman, a solution can be found. You seem to write off abused women entirely.

Your concept of “helper” is so remote from scripture, that I can’t help wondering where you got it. Ezer is defined in English as succourer/succorer. You could look that up in a dictionary.

You should know that in Titus 2:4-5

That they may teach the young women to be …obedient to their own husbands

the word “obedient” does not occur in the Greek, but “submissive”.

The really sad thing is, to me, that some of the WORLD is finally understanding that men ruling over women isn’t the way it has to be, but so much of the church (thank God, not all of it) is still settling for the sin.

As I said, that’s the BEST way that can be interpreted. There are worse ways, but I want to give Richard the benefit of the doubt and not speculate further about the disturbing possibilities.

I’ve said before, and I think it bears repeating here: If submission is such a godly thing for women (and I agree that it IS godly), why do so few men in the church dare to submit to their wives out of reverence for Christ? If they consider themselves leaders of their wives (as so many pro-patriarchy speakers and authors prescribe for husbands), oughtn’t they to at least TRY to model submission as all Christians are required to practice toward one another? Oh, I know someone’s going to say, “But husbands submit to God.” Sorry. Submission works the same way that love does. Those who claim to love God but do not love their neighbor, are liars. John says so. And there’s very, very little difference between self-sacrificial love and true biblical submission. Both are required of all believers, toward all believers. (No exemptions for husbands toward their wives or wives toward their husbands.) Both require surrender of the self in favor of the other. Both require a genuine, chosen act of the will. Both require that the other be considered higher than oneself. I think that there has been some careful re-definition of biblical submission so that husbands are given a pass on ever having to practice it fully and wholeheartedly toward their wives. That’s because if they did, they’d have to give up the worldly positional “authority” over their wives and have the humility to acknowledge, as Adam did,

“This is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh!” (My wife is one with me, not apart from me, not mine to rule over, not my inferior or my subordinate. We’re one-flesh partners!)

That’s the real deal. Sin ripped that apart into a “leader” and a “follower.” It doesn’t have to, and indeed in Christ it is NOT, to be so among us.

From 80062: The Bible doesn’t say the serpent and Eve were talking near the tree? Fine. It doesn’t say they weren’t either. Interpreting “with her [Eve]” to mean “in the area” when she ate of the tree is a stretch. Interpreting Adam’s choice to eat of the tree into some sort of distorted nobility and love for Eve isn’t even in the Scripture at all. If anything, Mary’s description of events in 80067 is much more in line with Genesis 3.

Egalitarians get accused of not believing in the plain reading of Scripture, yet we’re being told we’re wrong when we’re doing it? We’re accused of adding to Scripture, yet this theory of Adam’s part in the fall is supposed to be swallowed without question?

Going to 80735: Adam didn’t assign blame? He tried to blame God! Referring to Eve as “The woman you [God] put here with me” while trying to get himself off the hook isn’t exactly a mere bland statement of fact.

From 80736:

“I understand that some men seek to abuse their position, and the targets of this abuse have suffered for that. That concept stands on it’s own and it is admirable that folks should want to find a solution for it. But a solution will not be found. Men have always and will always rule over women and children in general (there are always exceptions to the rule). If it could be any different (if women were capable of taking control away from men), it would have happened by now. The fact that it hasn’t happened by now is primary proof for the truth of the proclamation “… and he will rule over you” at the beginning of Genesis. You may not like that, but I repeat – if it were possible for things to be different, they would have been by now.”

Am I the only one who found this paragraph disturbing?
So does he think that men abusing their power is really OK, since he says a solution will not be found, and that male rule over women is the way it is supposed to be? Is he really telling abused women to shut up and take it because male rule is God’s order, and so what if a man abuses it? It certainly seems that way, even while giving lip service to the idea that seeking solutions to abuse is good.

Unfortunately for Richard, some men would disagree with him that women have never been able to gain power — although I find these men just as disturbing as his quote. Certain men’s groups call American society a “matriarchy”, blaming feminist “control” for all of society’s ills. I’d like to put him in a room with one of these “it’s the matriarchy” guys and let them fight it out. I’ll bring the sodas. Who wants to bring popcorn?

Also from 80736:

“Because the scriptures quoted below do not teach that husbands are supposed to dominate and abuse their wives and treat them as less than human – the main point of discussion in this topic. The scriptures are not directed to the husband – they are directed to the wives. They are telling the wives to submit, they are not telling the husbands to dominate.”

This part is true, and there is no part of Scripture that does tell men to dominate. Unfortunately, sinful men have chosen to interpret verses about submission as permission to dominate, and churches aren’t really doing anything to stop that.

“When done Biblically, it is the wives themselves that willingly place themselves into the position of helper (providing what is asked for or what is needed, asked for or not) for their husband. It was this concept that I was hoping to find an intelligent discussion of – but it appears such discussion will not be found here.”

What? You’re not describing a normal woman, there. You’re wanting a mind-reader. Psychic ability is explicitly condemned in Scripture. Providing what is needed whether asked for *or not*? Sorry, I prefer open communication with my husband, and he would say the same if he were posting. Even if you are not talking about “asked for or not” in the psychic sense, I know many men get angry and offended when someone else provides unrequested assistance or advice. And you’d want to tell a woman it is her duty to put herself in the line of fire like that? No. Absolutely not.

We don’t talk about women submitting here specifically because we talk about *all* believers submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. This is much more Biblical than unilateral female submission to an unaccountable man. To get that kind of false submission requires ignoring that ezer does not mean “inferior or subordinate helper” because God describes Himself with that word. Contrary to hierarchal beliefs, women’s submission is assumed here as part of the total submission of all believers in Ephesians 5:21. Yes, I’m going to repeat myself over and over because I’m really sick of hierarchs claiming we do not believe in submission. If anything, Christian egalitarians believe more strongly and more completely in Biblical submission than any hierarch ever can or will. We’re not giving half of our population a pass on it because of their Y chromosomes. Around here, it’s “everyone submit to one another out of reverence for Christ”, not “women submit to men and you have no right to say anything about it”. For hierarchal men, who do not believe Ephesians 5:21 applies to them if the nearby “one anothers” are women, to tell us that we who believe in Ephesians 5:21 have a problem with submission is completely backwards.

Speaking as an ex-traditionalist: I have to laugh when traditionalists say egalitarians deny Scripture. I was exposed to much more Scripture twisting and denial under traditionalist teachers. Much more Scripture had to be outright denied, Bible history and culture had to be ignored, and a lot of objective reality had to be tuned out. Egalitarianism, not traditionalism, is by far the more Bible-honoring point of view.

“Where in the referenced verses does it state that the Serpent and Eve were standing beside the forbidden tree while they spoke? Where in the referenced verses does it state that Adam was with Eve during her conversation with the Serpent? Where in the referenced verses does it state that Adam saw Eve take and eat the forbidden fruit?”

The passage IS silent on these questions. That’s why we can’t invent alternative stories. You can’t discount “her husband, WHO WAS WITH HER.” You can’t claim he wasn’t with her, and Scripture doesn’t say he was only with her after she had the conversation alone, went to the tree alone, ate alone, then came back to be with him and give him the fruit. Such an invention is an argument from silence. It contradicts what IS said, which is simply that the man was with her.

You also said, “When done Biblically, it is the wives themselves that willingly place themselves into the position of helper (providing what is asked for or what is needed, asked for or not) for their husband.”

Egalitarians are going to challenge you on this, because your stated idea of what our first mother being EZER KENEGDO to our first father means, is not biblical. You’ve read your definition of “helper” — synonymous with “assistant” — into the passage when that is not what EZER KENEGDO means. You’re not even addressing that all believers, including husbands, are to submit to one another. There is no exemption in marriage. All are to love and sacrifice themselves for one another. You apparently make the classic error of creating separate, different lists of commandments for husbands and wives based on what is specifically instructed for each, without taking into account the general instructions for all. Without exception, there’s nothing that is specifically instructed for wives and husbands that is not also covered in general instructions for all believers.

I call saying these things, part of having intelligent discussion. If that’s not what you’re looking for, I’m sorry. You can put forth any opinion you like. If you do, you should expect it to be read carefully, and possibly challenged. That’s what has happened.

I stumbled onto the CBE Scroll accidentally. A cursory glance through some of the topics made me think that I could find some intelligent discussion of the scriptures listed below. I have seen plenty of intelligent discussion. But much to my surprise, it has not centered on the scriptures listed below. Rather, the discussion in the main seems to be bent on denying that these scriptures exist.

I understand that some men seek to abuse their position, and the targets of this abuse have suffered for that. That concept stands on it’s own and it is admirable that folks should want to find a solution for it. But a solution will not be found. Men have always and will always rule over women and children in general (there are always exceptions to the rule). If it could be any different (if women were capable of taking control away from men), it would have happened by now. The fact that it hasn’t happened by now is primary proof for the truth of the proclamation “… and he will rule over you” at the beginning of Genesis. You may not like that, but I repeat – if it were possible for things to be different, they would have been by now.

However, the paragraph above has nothing to do with the scriptures quoted below. These scriptures are in the Bible and they do inform us of what is most likely meant by the “husband is the head of the wife” scriptures discussed in this topic. Many people refuse to become christians or be active in the church because it is too hard for them to forgo the sin that the Bible says we must forgo. Likewise, I can accept that many christian women will abstain from marriage because they do not want to place themselves into the situation that the Bible says married women are to place themselves into.

And that is the kicker for me. Because the scriptures quoted below do not teach that husbands are supposed to dominate and abuse their wives and treat them as less than human – the main point of discussion in this topic. The scriptures are not directed to the husband – they are directed to the wives. They are telling the wives to submit, they are not telling the husbands to dominate. When done Biblically, it is the wives themselves that willingly place themselves into the position of helper (providing what is asked for or what is needed, asked for or not) for their husband. It was this concept that I was hoping to find an intelligent discussion of – but it appears such discussion will not be found here.

Stating that you don’t like what the Bible says is one thing. But insisting that the Bible doesn’t say something which it clearly does say is something else entirely.
—–

Colossians 3:18

Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

Titus 2:4-5

That they may teach the young women to be …obedient to their own husbands …

1 Peter 3:1

Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands …

Ephesians 5:21 – 24

Wives, submit to your own husbands …