The western world hates PATRIARCHY and the church ignores it. By this are we sinning?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ohorseman

Take up your cross and follow Me
Oct 15, 2007
313
106
USA
✟33,711.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
This of course is now way off topic, save for the truth that Patriarchy was part of the dominant culture in the milieu in which the scriptures were written, so it was just what it was and needed no explanation or justification, and just got written into the text. They didn't hang a question mark over it and ask why, it was just the accepted order of things.

Has the "order of things" changed, or is it just us that has changed? And I am not referring to the good kind of change, as in repentance from sin.

Back to the Woman at the Well. Jesus said, "Go, call your husband, and come here." He knew she did not have one, but still He asked. Was that just "written into the text" because "patriarchy was part of the dominate culture". The writer was not actually there with Jesus and the woman. So, maybe the writer is biased and just wrote that in the story. Well now, if we go that direction then nothing in the Bible is believable. So, we go back to believing Jesus actually said that. I find it hard to believe that Jesus said things merely because it was conventional. That would mean that He gave into peer pressure. And that goes against our belief that He is the spotless lamb and Divine. Additionally, we have example after example of Him going against convention. So why did He ask? It mattered. Now we want to imagine that it no longer matters. Now, suddenly head of household no longer matters. It is a thing that belongs in the tombs, a "relic"?

Now, I am not attacking any person here. But, I will be critical of certain human made systems of thought. Feminist and egalitarianist type thinking skips over certain things - what Jesus said to the woman at the well, how God had Adam name the animals without the woman, and how God called out to Adam, "the man", when God found them hiding in the garden after they sinned. I could go on and on with examples. These things do not fit in their paradigm.

Indeed, there are many scriptures that lift up women. Things we should all obey, abide. But feminist & egalitarianist type thinking takes all those instances, melts them down, and forms a golden calf with them. For them, the things in scripture that do not bow down to this golden calf they made they try to "kill, steal, and destroy". This is how they do it:

1.) Set the disagreeable things (like patriarchy) aside, leave them in the by-gone era where thy belong as they are nothing more than biases and we should leave these "relics" in the tombs of the past - KILL

2.) Re-interrupt sacred texts with our new understanding of this and that. After all, we now understand ancient Greek better than the early church fathers and even those that wrote the sacred texts. And we understand things better than they did because our culture is so much more refined, well without slavery and our sophisticated inclusion of sodomites, and all - STEAL

3.) Tear down, dismantle the old paradigms and make room for new ones, well just ours actually - DESTROY

That's their religious practice, or modus operandi.

Obviously, like it or not, this eventually allows for accepting and blessing of gay pride...and beyond. This is why I previously compared gay pride to the demon named Legion. Legion possessed the tomb dweller. Gay pride possesses tomb dwellers too.

Like it or not, feminist and egalitarianist type thinking tolerates or opens the door for gay pride, I would say is even possessed by it. And more. Even though by today's standards it would be considered bullying or some type of toxic masculinity, patriarchy as God intends it does NOT tolerate gay pride.

offer to christ by devil_zpsmdtbffrq.jpg
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Philip_B

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured
Supporter
Jul 12, 2016
5,382
5,501
72
Swansea, NSW, Australia
Visit site
✟602,036.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Like it or not, feminist and egalitarianist thinking tolerates or opens the door for gay pride, I would say is even possessed by it. And more. Even though by today's standards it would be considered bullying or some type of toxic masculinity, patriarchy as God intends it does NOT tolerate gay pride.

John 6:35-40
Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and anyone who comes to me I will never drive away; for I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. This is indeed the will of my Father, that all who see the Son and believe in him may have eternal life; and I will raise them up on the last day.’​

ChristosAnesti.png
 
Upvote 0

Philip_B

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured
Supporter
Jul 12, 2016
5,382
5,501
72
Swansea, NSW, Australia
Visit site
✟602,036.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Has the "order of things" changed, or is it just us that has changed? And I am not referring to the good kind of change, as in repentance from sin.
Yes. The dominant cultural thread of Patriarchy no longer survives unquestioned. There is a very real possibility that those question will ultimately claim the head of our Prime Minister in Australia in the not too distant future.

Back to the Woman at the Well. Jesus said, "Go, call your husband, and come here." He knew she did not have one, but still He asked. Was that just "written into the text" because "patriarchy was part of the dominate culture". The writer was not actually there with Jesus and the woman. So, maybe the writer is biased and just wrote that in the story. Well now, if we go that direction then nothing in the Bible is believable. So, we go back to believing Jesus actually said that. I find it hard to believe that Jesus said things merely because it was conventional. That would mean that He gave into peer pressure. And that goes against our belief that He is the spotless lamb and Divine. Additionally, we have example after example of Him going against convention. So why did He ask? It mattered. Now we want to imagine that it no longer matters. Now, suddenly head of household no longer matters. It is a thing that belongs in the tombs, a "relic"?
I think you are missing one of the points about how the author of John's Gospel builds his stories regularly based on misunderstandings and a feature often described as divine humour. These stories were told largely to be heard, so the are regularly punctuated which these points which made them memorable. The fact that the woman did not have a husband did not make it OK for Jesus to talk to her, you are correct in realising that there is a lot in the story that is unconventional, including the bucket she leaves standing at the well.

Now, I am not attacking any person here. But, I will be critical of certain human made systems of thought. Feminist and egalitarianist type thinking skips over certain things - what Jesus said to the woman at the well, how God had Adam name the animals without the woman, and how God called out to Adam, "the man", when God found them hiding in the garden after they sinned. I could go on and on with examples. These things do not fit in their paradigm.
Ok! that is a real question. Is patriarchy the God Given absolute gold standard for social cohesion? or is it just the way the world evolved. There is a strong patriarchal thread in scripture, however that is not the only thread in scripture. The Genesis 1 account of creation is significantly more egalitarian and the Genesis 2 account in more Patriarchal. I accept that. The expulsion of Haggai is a story where Patriarchy and justice seem, to be at odds.

Obviously, like it or not, this eventually allows for accepting and blessing of gay pride...and beyond. This is why I previously compared gay pride to the demon named Legion. Legion possessed the tomb dweller. Gay pride possesses tomb dwellers too.
I don't believe you have established causality here, and quite honestly, like it or not, it is certainly not obvious to me.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Paidiske
Upvote 0

Gregorikos

Ordinary Mystic
Dec 31, 2019
1,095
887
Louisville, Kentucky
Visit site
✟113,638.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
It is good that you guys put this on the table. It explains why some see the sacred texts as malleable while others do not. Positions on the infallibility of scripture matter. Sometimes a disagreement may be more about that than the actual subject being discussed.

Others can put that on the table if they want to, but for me, the The Bible–the Old and New Testaments–is the Word of God, and, as such, is verbally inspired, inerrant in the original autographs, authoritative, infallible, and wholly reliable. The Scriptures are the only guide and rule of faith and conduct for the believer. Our responsibility is to learn them, obey them, and conform to their requirements in all of life. The Bible is God’s final revelation to man. It is not to be added to, taken away from, or altered in any way.

But I disagree with you as to the interpretation of them concerning patriarchy.
 
Upvote 0

Ohorseman

Take up your cross and follow Me
Oct 15, 2007
313
106
USA
✟33,711.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Others can put that on the table if they want to, but for me, the The Bible–the Old and New Testaments–is the Word of God, and, as such, is verbally inspired, inerrant in the original autographs, authoritative, infallible, and wholly reliable. The Scriptures are the only guide and rule of faith and conduct for the believer. Our responsibility is to learn them, obey them, and conform to their requirements in all of life. The Bible is God’s final revelation to man. It is not to be added to, taken away from, or altered in any way.

But I disagree with you as to the interpretation of them concerning patriarchy.

Please add to your bold proclamation, "and don't skip stuff". Then it might be good. And then answer those questions I asked you.

It will either get you out of your box, or enlighten me. Or, some other unanticipated outcome. It's worth a try if you have the time please. Maybe after Easter.

May you and yours have a Happy Easter.
 
Upvote 0

Gregorikos

Ordinary Mystic
Dec 31, 2019
1,095
887
Louisville, Kentucky
Visit site
✟113,638.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
No, I am not dishonest. Are you? Yes, I follow the conversation.

It's not a debate tactic. I was NOT acknowledging error. I was agreeing with you that motherhood started before the Fall (per God's words but not yet realized). ADDITIONALLY, I was trying to get you to acknowledge that an aspect of the curse is associated with motherhood and this came after the Fall.
And do you acknowledge that the part that came at the fall is bad and we should seek to reduce, minimize, or eliminate entirely the pain associated with childbirth?
Look at it in this simplified way:

BEFORE FALL
> motherhood existed (in word)
> work existed
> patriarchy existed

#3 is false. There is no Bible statement establishing patriarchy prior to Genesis 3:16

We do not say motherhood is a sin. We do not say that work is a sin. We do not say that patriarchy is a sin. You cannot put patriarchy in the "same category" as "murder". Surely you can see that.

You're wrong. Motherhood and work came before the fall. Patriarchy came after the fall, the same as murder, slavery, and homosexuality.

It is not deflection. It is not a change of topics. This all has to do with the human condition before the Fall compared to the human condition after the Fall. What is sin.

I maintain it was a deflection. I don't need to type it again. The relevant messages are 471 and 476 on page 24.

What is not. That said, you ask questions and want answers... but then ignore my questions. You have done this for pages and pages. Respectfully, my questions are meant to break you out of the box that you think in. And, your "classic example" that you provide is cherry picked to your liking and does not reflect the whole.

I'm trying to keep you on point, so I avoid your rabbit trails when you ignore the obvious fallacy of your own logic by introducing something new.

Maybe you find this toilsome because it challenges your strongly held egalitarian mindset. I'm sorry if the way I think and express myself frustrates you. I do the best that I can and it is not my intention to irritate you, honestly. Again, I'm sorry.

But, please answer my questions. Thanks.

Not at all. I see you as evasive and obfuscatory. Your questions don't bother me in the least, but they are usually irrelevant and would only take us away from the items being discussed. But this seems like a good time to address your questions:

So, what do you make of Adam naming the animals without the woman? If Eden, before the Fall, was about equality and human hierarchy was not intended, why was this task not done after the creation of the woman? Did God make a mistake there. It seems this is at least a precursor for patriarchy is it not, to say the least?

That's akin to asking me what I make of the fact that my parents didn't invite me to their wedding, and implying the conclusion that they must not love me very much. But I didn't even exist on their wedding day, so how can you deduce anything from my exclusion?

Only God and Adam were present in Genesis 2:20. The context already establishes that the point is finding Adam an ezer kenegdo. (Genesis 2:18) God brings the animals to Adam one by one, and he names them one by one. The point of the naming was that Adam had to seriously consider each animal. He couldn't name them without knowing something about them, so he had to spend time with each animal to get to know it in order to name it. It was through this process that the point was made that none of these animals would work as a mate for Adam.

The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. Genesis 2:20 (NASB)

That does nothing toward establishing patriarchy prior to the fall. In fact, the very term ezer kenegdo implies equality, not patriarchy.

Next question:

{Don Johnson's translation of Genesis 3:16}

Sorrow increased. Bear sons in sorrow - this shows hardship beyond birth. Is that not motherhood since motherhood is more than just giving birth? Sorrow... the curse... infused everything, motherhood included. The sorrow of motherhood indeed is a fallen condition.

I've known Don Johnson several years. He knows Greek fairly well, but if he knows Hebrew that's news to me. Let's stick with legit translations:

To the woman He said,
“I will greatly multiply
Your pain in childbirth,
In pain you will bring forth children;

Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And he will rule over you.” Genesis 3:16 (NASB)

He said to the woman:
I will intensify your labor pains;
you will bear children with painful effort.

Your desire will be for your husband,
yet he will rule over you. Genesis 3:16 (CSB)

To the woman he said,
"I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children,

yet your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you." Genesis 3:16 (RSV)

So no, to answer your question. Motherhood is not part of the fallen condition. Painful childbirth is. And again, we do everything we can to eliminate that pain and suffering caused by that fallen condition

UNIVERSALLY we avoid the affect of the fall. Patriarchy is an affect of the fall, and should be avoided.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Philip_B
Upvote 0

Eloy Craft

Myth only points, Truth happened!
Supporter
Jan 9, 2018
3,132
871
Chandler
✟386,808.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
This is about authority not equality. A parent is equal in dignity to their child but has authority from above over it. Motherhood is more painful after the fall speaks to the woman's role in the family. Adam's sin does as well.

Gen 3


And to the man he said,

‘Because you have listened to the voice of your wife,
 
Upvote 0

Gregorikos

Ordinary Mystic
Dec 31, 2019
1,095
887
Louisville, Kentucky
Visit site
✟113,638.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
This is about authority not equality. A parent is equal in dignity to their child but has authority from above over it. Motherhood is more painful after the fall speaks to the woman's role in the family. Adam's sin does as well.

Gen 3


And to the man he said,

‘Because you have listened to the voice of your wife,

Parental authority would exist whether there was a fall or not, but children were to grow out of that. (Genesis 2:24) But women never grow out of patriarchy, it is lifelong condition, just like every other aspect of the fall.

Patriarchy came as a fruit of mankind's fallen nature, just like sickness, slavery, and homosexuality. Notice that God didn't tell Eve to submit to Adam. He didn't give Adam authority over Eve or tell him to rule over her. Instead he told Eve that patriarchy would was going to happen. Just as God didn't tell anyone to die or to sin or to get sick, he didn't tell Adam and Eve to begin patriarchy. It simply did as a result of their corruption.

For the eagerly awaiting creation waits for the revealing of the sons and daughters of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. Romans 8:19-22 (NASB 2020)
 
Upvote 0

Eloy Craft

Myth only points, Truth happened!
Supporter
Jan 9, 2018
3,132
871
Chandler
✟386,808.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Parental authority would exist whether there was a fall or not, but children were to grow out of that.
Patriarchy would as well. That's why Adam's sin was listening to her voice. That's a euphemism for authority.

Patriarchy came as a fruit of mankind's fallen nature, just like sickness, slavery, and homosexuality. Notic
Patriarchy like Motherhood were empowered by the punishments God gave to Eve. Both are increased in her experience of life. Both are violated by the original sin.

Notice that God didn't tell Eve to submit to Adam. He didn't give Adam authority over Eve or tell him to rule over her. Inst
Adam already had authority over Eve, that's why his sin is listening to her voice. She received the commandment from Adam.

Instead he told Eve that patriarchy would was going to happen. Just as God didn't tell anyone to die or to sin or to get sick, he didn't tell Adam and Eve to begin patriarchy. It simply did as a result of their corruption.
Matriarchy was the maternal environment in which Cain was raised. After that ran it's deadly course the healing was the restoration of Adam as head of the family.

the eagerly awaiting creation waits for the revealing of the sons and daughters of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. Romans 8:19-22
That 8s not about consequences of the fall. That is entropy hardwired into the Universe. Unless you believe there was no decay before humans entered the scene. That's another thread.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Gregorikos

Ordinary Mystic
Dec 31, 2019
1,095
887
Louisville, Kentucky
Visit site
✟113,638.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Patriarchy would as well. That's why Adam's sin was listening to her voice. That's a euphemism for authority.

Patriarchists habitually find sins committed by Adam or Eve prior to the eating of the forbidden fruit that brought on the fall. The text makes no such claim, and that stand sin contradiction to centuries of theological understanding:

Question 15: What was the sin whereby our first parents fell from the estate wherein they were created?
Answer: The sin whereby our first parents fell from the estate wherein they were created, was their eating the forbidden fruit. (Westminster Shorter Catechism)


Adam was faulted for listening to his wife, not because listening to his wife was bad, but because she was encouraging him to disobey God.

Patriarchy like Motherhood were empowered by the punishments God gave to Eve. Both are increased in her experience of life. Both are violated by the original sin.

I don't understand what you're saying there. Motherhood was empowered by a punishment for sin? I can't find that in the text.

Adam already had authority over Eve, that's why his sin is listening to her voice. She received the commandment from Adam.

None of the above is in the text. You are making an inference that Adam had authority over Eve prior to the fall, but the Bible makes no such claim. Nor does it state that she received the commandment from Adam.

Matriarchy was the maternal environment in which Cain was raised. After that ran it's deadly course the healing was the restoration of Adam as head of the family.

That isn't in the Bible text at all.

That 8s not about consequences of the fall. That is entropy hardwired into the Universe. Unless you believe there was no decay before humans entered the scene. That's another thread.

The most common, if not universal understanding of Romans 8:19-2 is that it is speaking about the fall. If that's not what you believe, that's up to you. We don't need to debate that.
 
Upvote 0

Ohorseman

Take up your cross and follow Me
Oct 15, 2007
313
106
USA
✟33,711.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
That last line really takes the cake. Are you dishonest? Or are you simply unable to follow the conversation?
It's a lot of work talking to you, because when you are countered, you deflect and change topics.

Caught in a clear error, you acknowledge my point that motherhood began before the fall, but you ignore how that point refutes your earlier point that motherhood is comparable to a fallen condition. And you deflect to attempt to switch the topic to when work began and a discussion of when the animals were named. This is a debate tactic intended to bypass the error in your own logic and continue the debate without addressing your own error. Please stop it.

Let's have an honest conversation or just be done with it.

#
Not at all. I see you as evasive and obfuscatory. Your questions don't bother me in the least, but they are usually irrelevant and would only take us away from the items being discussed. But this seems like a good time to address your questions:

Dude. That’s three times now. You asked if I was “dishonest”, told me to have “honest conversation, and said that you see me as “obfuscatory”.
obfuscatory - Wiktionary

Concerning the motherhood/work parallel, I thought it was clear and moved on. I was not changing the subject to distract you or hide under my questions what you imagine as error. My opinion being different than yours does not = error nor dishonesty outside of your reality. Maybe you should be more egalitarian minded toward me… or, maybe you think only people that agree with you are equal to you. But no more with this level of personal attacks. Moderate thyself.

Now, I know I have written about egalitarianism and feminism creating a golden calf to worship and being possessed by gay pride like the tomb dweller was possessed by Legion. Indeed, high level stuff. But I don’t say that you worship an idol or that you are possessed by a gay pride demon. And you have indicated that you do not bless gay pride. I am criticizing a thought system. It’s like this, I have a dear brother in the Lord whom I love. He likes Osteen and the prosperity messages. I criticize that as well. I may razz him a bit but I don’t impugn his character.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jacks
Upvote 0

Ohorseman

Take up your cross and follow Me
Oct 15, 2007
313
106
USA
✟33,711.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
@Gregorikos , Prior to the curse, I see something. Is it patriarchy? I don't see equal. Certainly, it is a hierarchy of some sort, as the man is primary throughout the narrative.

GEN 1
27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
GEN 2
24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked, but they were not ashamed.
GEN 3
8 Now they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9 Then the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, “Where are you?” 10 He said, “I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself.” 11 And He said, “Who told you that you were naked?​

Blue = man. Pink = woman. This is before the curse, and I do not see balance. Maybe not patriarchy as we know it but there is emphasis on the man as the primary. Why? The thing that stands out the most is how God called out specifically to the man. You may say that God did that because God directly told the man to not eat. Yes, and that too shows an emphasis as him being primary.

A word can be altered and an agenda can be developed around that new word. It is a little harder to alter a narrative, that shows an emphasis on the man as primary. It means something. You can say that it is biases written into the text by fallen man. But, if that's true, then why would you think egalitarianism is above doing the same thing. We are still Fallen and so the egalitarianist is just as prone to being biased as anyone else. A pain pill, air conditioning, and weed killer does not change that.

And, why does NOT the woman leave her father and her mother? Can you explain that verse better than this:
Does a woman leave her parents and cleave to her husband?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Philip_B

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured
Supporter
Jul 12, 2016
5,382
5,501
72
Swansea, NSW, Australia
Visit site
✟602,036.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

Gregorikos

Ordinary Mystic
Dec 31, 2019
1,095
887
Louisville, Kentucky
Visit site
✟113,638.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Dude. That’s three times now. You asked if I was “dishonest”, told me to have “honest conversation, and said that you see me as “obfuscatory”.
obfuscatory - Wiktionary

Concerning the motherhood/work parallel, I thought it was clear and moved on. I was not changing the subject to distract you or hide under my questions what you imagine as error. My opinion being different than yours does not = error nor dishonesty outside of your reality. Maybe you should be more egalitarian minded toward me… or, maybe you think only people that agree with you are equal to you. But no more with this level of personal attacks. Moderate thyself.

Now, I know I have written about egalitarianism and feminism creating a golden calf to worship and being possessed by gay pride like the tomb dweller was possessed by Legion. Indeed, high level stuff. But I don’t say that you worship an idol or that you are possessed by a gay pride demon. And you have indicated that you do not bless gay pride. I am criticizing a thought system. It’s like this, I have a dear brother in the Lord whom I love. He likes Osteen and the prosperity messages. I criticize that as well. I may razz him a bit but I don’t impugn his character.

You've taken your share of jabs at me as well. My last comment was in response to this:

Maybe you find this toilsome because it challenges your strongly held egalitarian mindset. I'm sorry if the way I think and express myself frustrates you. I do the best that I can and it is not my intention to irritate you, honestly. Again, I'm sorry.

And again, it isn't the strength of your arguments that I find toilsome.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Gregorikos

Ordinary Mystic
Dec 31, 2019
1,095
887
Louisville, Kentucky
Visit site
✟113,638.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
@Gregorikos , Prior to the curse, I see something. Is it patriarchy?

You're asking me if this "something" you see in the text prior to the curse might be patriarchy. That's a tacit admission that the text lacks any clear mention of patriarchy prior to Genesis 3:16.

I don't see equal. Certainly, it is a hierarchy of some sort, as the man is primary throughout the narrative.

GEN 1
27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.​
And right off the bat, the "hierarchy" you think you see isn't there. The first "man" in Genesis 1:27 is both of them. (See Genesis 5:2) This speaks of equality, not hierarchy.

GEN 2
24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked, but they were not ashamed.
GEN 3
8 Now they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9 Then the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, “Where are you?” 10 He said, “I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself.” 11 And He said, “Who told you that you were naked?]
Blue = man. Pink = woman.
This is before the curse, and I do not see balance. Maybe not patriarchy as we know it but there is emphasis on the man as the primary. Why? The thing that stands out the most is how God called out specifically to the man. You may say that God did that because God directly told the man to not eat. Yes, and that too shows an emphasis as him being primary.

So you're saying there is no clear statement then that God had put the woman under the man's authority. That's interesting because he clearly stated that he put the entire earth, animals, and plants under the authority of both the man and the woman. (Genesis 1:28-29)

There are so many clear and unambiguous statements in Genesis 1-2 as God establishes the world as we know it.

God was the creator. 1:1, 2:4
Everything God created was originally good. 1:31
Mankind was created in the image and likeness of God. 1:26-27
God created marriage. 2:22-24 and blessed the sexual union of man and woman. 1:28
Mankind's dominion (Genesis 1:28)
Mankind's source of food (Genesis 1:29)
Etc, etc, etc.

Yet you think it's reasonable to assume that God put one half of the earth under the authority of the other half without stating clearly that he did so? He forgot to mention it with all the other things?

But we do see the clear statement is in Genesis 3:16. That's where Eve is told that Adam would rule over her. Well if he was already ruling over her, how does that make a lick of sense? It doesn't. Genesis 3:16 represents a change in what existed before. The only reasonable explanation is that Adam didn't rule over her prior to 3:16.

A word can be altered and an agenda can be developed around that new word. It is a little harder to alter a narrative, that shows an emphasis on the man as primary. It means something. You can say that it is biases written into the text by fallen man.
But, if that's true, then why would you think egalitarianism is above doing the same thing. We are still Fallen and so the egalitarianist is just as prone to being biased as anyone else. A pain pill, air conditioning, and weed killer does not change that.

I never said that. Ever. Why would you put such words in my mouth and then argue against them?

And, why does NOT the woman leave her father and her mother? Can you explain that verse better than this:
Does a woman leave her parents and cleave to her husband?

The woman DOES leave her father and mother. (Genesis 24:58)

By the leaving of father and mother, which applies to the woman as well as to the man, the conjugal union is shown to be a spiritual oneness, a vital communion of heart as well as of body, in which it finds its consummation. This union is of a totally different nature from that of parents and children; hence marriage between parents and children is entirely opposed to the ordinance of God. (Keil and Delitzsch Commentary)​
 
Upvote 0

Eloy Craft

Myth only points, Truth happened!
Supporter
Jan 9, 2018
3,132
871
Chandler
✟386,808.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
right off the bat, the "hierarchy" you think you see isn't there. The first "man" in Genesis 1:27 is both of them. (See Genesis 5:2) This speaks of equality, not hierarchy.
The person who received the commandment has authority over those that receive it from them.
Gen 2
15The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, ‘You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.’




That order was reversed when Adam listened to Eve.
 
Upvote 0

Ohorseman

Take up your cross and follow Me
Oct 15, 2007
313
106
USA
✟33,711.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You're asking me if this "something" you see in the text prior to the curse might be patriarchy. That's a tacit admission that the text lacks any clear mention of patriarchy prior to Genesis 3:16.
When I ask, "Is it patriarchy", I am just trying to spur you to describe what we are seeing in the narrative. I know that the "rule over" as part of the curse begins Genesis 3:16. But there is something there... and to me it is clear to see in the narrative.

Okay, I am not trying to change the subject. Again, I am trying to show a parallel.

Genesis 2:15
The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it.​

So work was before the curse. Here, it is plainly in the text. Then, it can be said that work becomes hard at the curse.

The narrative shows man to be primary. God placing the man alone in the garden to work and telling the man to not eat the forbidden fruit shows primacy. Sure, the women was not yet made, but God knew what would happen and did not wait. And the narrative continues to show the primacy of the man after the woman was created.

HOWEVER, there is not "clear mention" of this equality, nor is it in the narrative. The Hebrew word for helper "ezer kenegdo" is not even "clear mention" according to the admission by those on your side of this:
Kenegdo: Is the woman subordinate, suitable, or similar to the man? | Marg Mowczko

When a particular word is used in only one biblical text, and there is no other usage and context we can draw on for comparison, it is difficult to determine with certainty what the biblical authors meant when they used that particular word.[1] Despite the difficulties, in this article, I look at what the Hebrew word kenegdô might mean.

That being the case, we look for meaning in the narrative. The narrative shows that the man is primary. This becomes hard at the curse. It changes to "rule over", just like holy work changes to hard work at the curse.
And right off the bat, the "hierarchy" you think you see isn't there. The first "man" in Genesis 1:27 is both of them. (See Genesis 5:2) This speaks of equality, not hierarchy.
GEN 1
27 So God created man in His own image, (SINGULAR)
in the image of God He created him; (SINGULAR)
male and female He created them. (PLURAL)

Again, I see an emphasis on the man. I read it like poetry. Why structure it this way? I see man-man-both. I would agree that it is certainly not patriarchy as in "rule over". Certainly not. But he is primary.
So you're saying there is no clear statement then that God had put the woman under the man's authority. That's interesting because he clearly stated that he put the entire earth, animals, and plants under the authority of both the man and the woman. (Genesis 1:28-29)
Again, the narrative shows us something if we just look. Authority. Maybe. But not man's authority, if so it would only be that which is from God. But I don't think the text would have used the word "helper" if it was about authority. It would have used a word that means subordinate. So, maybe not authority. But the man is primary in something. Maybe responsibility. God placed the man in the garden before the woman. God told man to not eat it. So, he has these primary responsibilities, and she helps him fulfill them. Equal in value. Different roles.
Yet you think it's reasonable to assume that God put one half of the earth under the authority of the other half without stating clearly that he did so? He forgot to mention it with all the other things?
I don't see it that way. They are one flesh. This does not mean equal in role.

.5 + .5 = 1 (one flesh) - God talked to the man, so not this level
.6 + .4 = 1 (one flesh) - here?
.9 + .1 = 1 (one flesh) - here? I like to think she helped more than that

You get the idea. I am not referring to power here. It is about responsibility. It is obvious that God sees the man as the primary in following what God said to him.
But we do see the clear statement is in Genesis 3:16. That's where Eve is told that Adam would rule over her. Well if he was already ruling over her, how does that make a lick of sense? It doesn't. Genesis 3:16 represents a change in what existed before. The only reasonable explanation is that Adam didn't rule over her prior to 3:16.
But it does make sense... if you don't describe it the way you do. Prior to the curse, indeed it was not "ruling over". As I said, she is helper not servant. Man being primary existed prior to the curse, just like work existed before the curse. Both became hard at the curse. Proof is in the narrative I previously provided... that you just skip over.
I never said that. Ever. Why would you put such words in my mouth and then argue against them?
Yes, I know. I said you "can" say... not that you "did" say. It was a hypothetical. If I am going to claim you said something, I will use the quote system that we always use here. Easy there big fellow, LOL.

The woman DOES leave her father and mother. (Genesis 24:58)

By the leaving of father and mother, which applies to the woman as well as to the man, the conjugal union is shown to be a spiritual oneness, a vital communion of heart as well as of body, in which it finds its consummation. This union is of a totally different nature from that of parents and children; hence marriage between parents
and children is entirely opposed to the ordinance of God. (Keil and Delitzsch Commentary)​

Hold up, brother. You are running ahead here. Genesis 24:58 is after the curse. Come back here where we are. I am referring to Genesis 2:24-25.

Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.
Even that has primacy of the man built into the narrative. Not power. Not rule - this is BEFORE the curse. Something else. Responsibility. Divine call. Again, man and woman are equal in value. Different roles.

Well, I say equal in value... but judging the words of the man about his wife, he probably placed her life ahead of his. This is a logical conclusion to me. Alone was the only thing "not good" before the Fall. And when God brought the woman to him, he said "This at last...." He was longing for her. Next, it mentions that he will even leave his parents for her, moving forward. Indeed, a helper and nothing remotely like a subordinate. After all, she brings forth life. It is a beautiful picture to me.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Eloy Craft
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Eloy Craft

Myth only points, Truth happened!
Supporter
Jan 9, 2018
3,132
871
Chandler
✟386,808.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Where did you get such an idea?
Did the prophet Nathan have authority to correct King David? Did Moses have authority over the Hebrews? What did the Father say about Jesus that pointed at the authority of the Son?
Luke 9:35
Then from the cloud came a voice that said, “This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him!”
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.