When was authority of man over woman first established?

[Alchemy]

Originally Posted By: Woodenavaklu

St Paul referred to the laws of Moses as the reason a woman should not have authority over a man. From this we can deduce that the bible regards those laws as still being in force.

The question is which area are you refering to and does it actually say those things, when you factor in historical context....If the context is different, then the principles extracted are also different and you could be advancing ideas counter to the bible and more in line with Satan....Remember, Jesus wants willing people in His kingdom...Satan would rather use force and coercion and oppression....If women were viewed as property, things, objects, then they could be [in a mans mind] reduced to the level of a type of slave...a baby factory...someone who picks up after me messing up the house...

Quote:

If Jesus didn't view the laws of Moses that way then what was He doing pulling St Paul out of the Sanhedrin and sending him out as a missionary and to write over half of the New Testament Scriptures. Did Jesus make a mistake?

If Jesus didn't view the laws of Moses that way, perhaps our views of Paul are wrong.....

God, in His Word, has always given man the head over the woman! There is not any example in the Bible where God changed that!

There are a few instances where men either were not available or were unwilling to do the Lord's work, so God used a woman in a leadership role. But, once a man became available, the man took that position.

I also have a question; Have some of my posts on this subject been deleted? There are a couple I've been looking for and can't find.

[Neil D]

God, in His Word, has always given man the head over the woman! There is not any example in the Bible where God changed that!

There are a few instances where men either were not available or were unwilling to do the Lord's work, so God used a woman in a leadership role. But, once a man became available, the man took that position.

[Yoda mode-on]

Sweeping accusations a scholar does not make you...

[YM-off]

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

I think that another critical question that needs to be addressed is what is/was the nature of that authority supposed to be like? Most contemporary western Christians have a natural resistence to the word authority because they always equate it with abusive power. Americans are particularly infected by this love of autonomy, resisting any suggestion that anyone should rule over them.

In the books of Moses a woman could make a vow but it only had force if a male in authority permitted it. When she was single her father could override her vow. Once she was married it was the husband that could do so.

[jasd]

QR frame:

>>When was authority of man over woman first established?<<

Perhaps, at the end of the Matriarchate age? Funny, that anthropology dates the Golden Age to that of Matriarchy. So, wh'as that say?--that the Patriarchate is best signified by

brass, iron, wood...? Don't know 'bout thems, but I'd say, ____storm. But tha's not mineral, eh?--more the organic. Oh well. :(

[Woodenavaklu]

Originally Posted By: Woodenavaklu

In the books of Moses a woman could make a vow but it only had force if a male in authority permitted it. When she was single her father could override her vow. Once she was married it was the husband that could do so.

I think that is the carnal way of looking at it.

I think God was taking into consideration the control freak nature of man - in the biblical sense- and letting woman off the hook if hubby was of the dictatorial nature, like Naban perhaps.

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

I'm not so sure Jesus viewed the laws of Moses that way.

"They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them." Strange that the One who gave Moses the laws would seek to eliminate them upon arrival.

Right on Doug! That would be strange, indeed.

[teresaq]

In the books of Moses a woman could make a vow but it only had force if a male in authority permitted it. When she was single her father could override her vow. Once she was married it was the husband that could do so.

[olger]

I think God was taking into consideration the control freak nature of man - in the biblical sense- and letting woman off the hook if hubby was of the dictatorial nature, like Naban perhaps.

There is no Naban in the Scriptures.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: Woodenavaklu

In the books of Moses a woman could make a vow but it only had force if a male in authority permitted it. When she was single her father could override her vow. Once she was married it was the husband that could do so.

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

I think that is the carnal way of looking at it.

I think God was taking into consideration the control freak nature of man - in the biblical sense- and letting woman off the hook if hubby was of the dictatorial nature, like Naban perhaps.

Originally Posted By: Woodenavaklu

It seems to me that your opinion trumps what the bible teaches.

Either that or we project onto the text, any text actually, our own way of thinking.

Please note wording of the text (we also have to take into consideration all the texts concerning vows to come to an accurate picture.):

Num 30:5 But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the LORD shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her.

Num 30:8 But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard [it]; then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect: and the LORD shall forgive her.

Num 30:9 But every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced, wherewith they have bound their souls, shall stand against her.

Women with noone to interfere were held accountable for the vows they made. Other women were protected from the vengeance of the Lord due to the controlling nature of Papis and hubbys.

Jesus called it "hardness of heart".

Mat 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

I am looking at the principle here. If God had to rescue women from being accused of adultery and stoned by granting divorce, then He was also protecting women from that same "hardness of heart" when it came to vows.

Quote:

St Paul referred to the laws of Moses as the reason a woman should not have authority over a man. From this we can deduce that the bible regards those laws as still being in force.

Which "laws" specifically would you be referring to?

Quote:

Numbers 30.

Could you get just a w ee bit more specific? Which texts of Paul are you comparing with which verse of Numbers 30? What text of Paul's has anything to do with women making vows?

[doug yowell]

I think God was taking into consideration the control freak nature of man - in the biblical sense- and letting woman off the hook if hubby was of the dictatorial nature, .

And how does God deal with the control freak nature of women? ("...your desire shall be to your husband...")this is exactly what EGW was referring to when she noted "...sin had brought discord,and NOW their union could be maintained and harmony preserved ONLY by submission on the part of the one or the other." As sinners both sexes have, as inherent to their natures, a control freak gene.Until that sin nature is completely rooted out of the human race what's God's solution to the problem?

[Gordon1]

It's ironic that women who hate men for sinful aggressive behaviour employ the same tactics themselves.

That's exactly how the world works. Get a bigger gun, be a bigger bully. Resort to force.

There's no point in claiming Christianity if not under His government.

[teresaq]

It's ironic that women who hate men for sinful aggressive behaviour employ the same tactics themselves.

That's exactly how the world works. Get a bigger gun, be a bigger bully. Resort to force.

There's no point in claiming Christianity if not under His government.

A particular scripture and I meant it in that sense.

I do stand corrected tho. I know many men who are not control freaks. That protection God instituted was not meant for them, but for the ones who need to control others.

An apparently sensitive area...hmmmm.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

I think God was taking into consideration the control freak nature of man - in the biblical sense- and letting woman off the hook if hubby was of the dictatorial nature, .

And how does God deal with the control freak nature of women?

Now Doug. What is the problem here? I was responding to the interpretation of a particular scripture.

You pulled part of that response out of its context....speaking of Christian behavior...

So. Since the context was women making vows and men overriding those vows...and you want to bring "control freak nature of women" into that discussion...Apparently God did not feel women had enough power to override a husbands's or father's vow? That is why the scripture does not address that.

By the way, Doug, do you not know what "man" in the biblical sense is?

Got all sensitive and insulted pa'nada as I see it. Got me flamboozled. Must be something going on.

[doug yowell]

It's ironic that women who hate men for sinful aggressive behaviour employ the same tactics themselves.

That's exactly how the world works. Get a bigger gun, be a bigger bully. Resort to force.

There's no point in claiming Christianity if not under His government.

Women don't have to hate men in order to want to control them, it comes with their make-up(pun?). The desire to submit to someone who you see as an equal (or less) is not inherent. Why do you think Peter and Paul had to continually remind Christian women to be submissive and to respect their husbands? It went against their nature. Men,also don't need to hate women in order to want to control them.Since women are inherently weaker is is natural for most men to take advantage of that rather than treating her as someone to die for. So God must continually remind men to love and protect her.This also goes against his naturally aggressive/competitive bent. "...sin has left a crimson stain."

[teresaq]

In general I could agree with you except that control issues are a fallen nature problem not a "woman" problem. Some ----- made that up. Some women are control freaks, some men are. They are usually made that way by dysfunctional families.

It is all about fallen nature short and sweet, pure and simple. The only way we can obey is not by being reminded. If being reminded were all we needed we would not need that "new heart", change of mind. We could all just, what do they say, "bootstrap"? it. Whatever we do without that new heart is just phoney self-righteousness. We might be convinced...but God isn't. Usually not too many others are either.

What we all need is that conversion experience, that new heart. Both of which are supplied on a daily, minute-by-minute basis.

[doug yowell]

In general I could agree with you except that control issues are a fallen nature problem not a "woman" problem. Some ----- made that up. Some women are control freaks, some men are. They are usually made that way by dysfunctional families.

It is all about fallen nature short and sweet, pure and simple. The only way we can obey is not by being reminded. If being reminded were all we needed we would not need that "new heart", change of mind. We could all just, what do they say, "bootstrap"? it. Whatever we do without that new heart is just phoney self-righteousness. We might be convinced...but God isn't. Usually not too many others are either.

What we all need is that conversion experience, that new heart. Both of which are supplied on a daily, minute-by-minute basis.

A converted heart is still a human converted heart, one that does now not know all things. It must now work with God's Spirit to overcome the tendancies and habits of the rest of it's carnal nature. THe human being is more than just a heart it must think,reason,and act.Education from God's Word comes first in order to make the newborn person aware of what Godliness is and what thinking and behavour is expected of the human being. Reminders are an essential part of the process. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.Husbands love your wives (as Christ loves His church).Don't forget the poor. Obey the authorities, As you have received Christ Jesus so walk in Him.Wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord,ect... Reminders serve as the road signs on the highway to eternal life.Stop,Speed limit 45mph, Kansas City Next Exit,Click it or ticket it,ect...The Holy Spirit does not provide cruise control for the Christian.

[olger]

It's ironic that women who hate men for sinful aggressive behaviour employ the same tactics themselves.

That's exactly how the world works. Get a bigger gun, be a bigger bully. Resort to force.

There's no point in claiming Christianity if not under His government.

A very useful point, Doug.

G

[teresaq]

Most Christians seem to mistakenly assume that the authority of man over woman was established in Genesis 3. This is not correct and a study of the pattern in Genesis 1 and 2 will show us why.

I will argue that the authority of man over woman was established in Genesis 2. The reasons are as follows.

It was God who created light. He gave day and night their names. He has authority over day and night.

It was God that created the atmosphere, the sea and the land. He gave them their names. He has authority over them. This authority was manifested on the Sea of Galilee.

He created the animals. He gave man dominion over the animals. The dominion was manifested by God bringing the animals to Adam who then proceeded to name each one. This naming was man's signature of authority over the animals.

The woman was created from Adam's rib. She was brought to Adam by God. Adam gives woman her name thereby establishing his dominion over her.

In today's world naming rights are still a stamp of authority such as when parents give children their names.

Hence the authority of man over the woman has been part of the order of creation since before the fall.

Nice presentation. Makes sense. But only if we disregard Genesis 1 where the HS is very clear about who received dominion.

Genesis 1:26 And God said , Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over ...27So God created man... male and female ... 28 ...God said unto them, ...have dominion over ...

Genesis 2 just details a bit more as to how God went about creating man, making the point that God wanted man to see and realize his aloneness by bringing the animals to Adam who then noticed that each had a companion except himself.

Perhaps a study in itself it would seem. Sin has destroyed the lesson and appreciation of the fact for the most part. Maybe that is why we do not get that lesson, the vast majority of us anyway.

[doug yowell]

Again, I note that the words dominion and rule over and authority over andhead, ect...all have negative connotations in today's anti-authoritarian western culture. The fact is that the Bible uses these exact words to describe something!! In context,the use of the terms are not inherently sin struck.Ellen White undeniably uses the same descriptive language in describing the curse of Gen.3. In it she looks at it as being a blessing not an evil. For the converted heart, the evil is not in the idea of authority,dominion, or rule, but rather in the misuse of the position.It is exactly the same reaction that the ignorant(non-pejoritive) have when reading about the Sabbath thru the lens of the Pharisees' imposition of repressive controls. Mention the word Sabbath to the typical evangelical and they'll have the same response as an SDA who is asked about a husband's authority. When God declared that man was to have dominion over all of His creation, what exactly did the word "dominion" describe?