Meat Complementarianism vs. Biblical Patriarchy

[steve]

“Hello Walmart, how much popcorn do you have in stock?”
“How much do you need?”
“All of it, and get some more on the next truck”

 

[steve]

For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Except there are plenty of righteous women in Scripture whose agency wasn’t defined and directed by men.

Can you unpack this a little bit? There’s one that comes to mind but I can’t think of “many”?

 

[The Revolting Man]

If your wife isn’t spurring you to be a better man, she isn’t being a godly woman. A woman who excuses your sin, who never pushes back, is bad for your soul.

There’s some truth to this statement but probably not what you want to focus on.

I Peter 3:1-2

1 ¶ In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives,

2 as they observe your chaste and fnrespectful behavior.

I used the NASB here but the KJV pulls even fewer punches.

1 ¶ Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

So there is a place for a woman to challenge her man, but it’s by so completely demonstrating true submission that he is convicted to then submit that same way to God. Is that what you’re talking about?

I’m worried you’re talking about a direct challenging, calling out sin and issuing evangelistic calls to repentance. That requires a woman to set herself up as the spiritual authority over the man so that she can sit in judgement of his actions. This of course is abominable.

So which one are you?

 

[NickF]

It’s Hebrew. The language of Scripture.

What are the verses? Feel free to post them in hebrew.

Submission and assisting someone in attaining righteousness are not at odds.

Assisting, sure... But you go on to change the goalposts in the next sentence.

If your wife isn’t spurring you to be a better man, she isn’t being a godly woman.

I do not "spur" Christ to do anything. He is my Lord. He tells me and I am not at liberty to say no. He is a man under authority, when he says go, I go. A Godly woman submits herself to her husband's will and obeys him in everything. She even calls her husband lord. She fears her husband.

A woman who excuses your sin, who never pushes back, is bad for your soul.

*blink blink* What scriptural foundation do you have for this?
I've never seen where God instructs women to judge their husbands and "push back". I've seen where they're commanded to obey and submit with fear. The type of fear is terror type fear, like the fear you would have walking into the presence of a king who can command your head be lopped off...

Zipporah made Moses a better man, and not by simply agreeing with him when he was in error. She followed him to Egypt but she also called out his failing to circumcise his son (saving his life in the process).

Um... What? Zipporah was not saving Moses.. she was criticizing her husband who was obeying God. You need to go back and re-read that passage.
I'll do the same, I could be wrong on it but from my previous study. God sends Moses back to Egypt to give a message to Pharaoh, God prepares to kill the pharaoh's son in an inn... Moses holds his son while Zipporah uses a sharp flint to circumcise Moses' son, she's disgusted and throws it at Moses and shows her disgust by calling him a bloody husband.

If you don't know who the antecedent is in each of those passages you can get a really wacky interpretation.

 

[NickF]

 

[NVIII]

Authority is a different concept.

I was speaking to @HomesteadWife who I believe was framing her topic in regard to authority. Wasn't really considering any replies, and wasn't directing it to you. Many others have answered you, however, and I want to give you a word of caution.

You are going to take the things they're saying personally, and you will feel an emotional response. They are not personal attacks; they are confronting the error they see in your beliefs. It's done from a position of love. Stern love, you might say. They don't want you to be confused or to cause anyone else's confusion. Their confrontation is given in good faith, so listen in good faith. Don't plug your ears, but do test everything, including your own beliefs.

I know that you are considering the real possibility of becoming a man's second wife. It is ugly enough in a monogamous family when the wife does not acknowledge her husband as her lord in earth. It will be disastrous if you can't recognize and acknowledge his authority as the single head of that family.

 

[NickF]

I was speaking to @HomesteadWife who I believe was framing her topic in regard to authority. Wasn't really considering any replies, and wasn't directing it to you. Many others have answered you, however, and I want to give you a word of caution.

You are going to take the things they're saying personally, and you will feel an emotional response. They are not personal attacks; they are confronting the error they see in your beliefs. It's done from a position of love. Stern love, you might say. They don't want you to be confused or to cause anyone else's confusion. Their confrontation is given in good faith, so listen in good faith. Don't plug your ears, but do test everything, including your own beliefs.

I know that you are considering the real possibility of becoming a man's second wife. It is ugly enough in a monogamous family when the wife does not acknowledge her husband as her lord in earth. It will be disastrous if you can't recognize and acknowledge his authority as the single head of that family.

AMEN!

My posts were definitely done in love. But strongly against even a hint of a spirit of feminism.

 

[HomesteadWife]

*Note - I am not putting these forth because I believe them. I am mainly putting forth arguments I am reading in support of a more Complementarianism POV to see what, if any, weight they may hold.

I have seen the argument @southernphotini is putting forth. That the word helper, Ezer (An additional other translation being Azer)
Strong's Concordance
ezer: a help, helper
Original Word: עֵזֶר
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: ezer
Phonetic Spelling: (ay'-zer)
Definition: a help, helper
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from azar
Definition
a help, helper
NASB Translation
help (18), helper (2), helpers (1).

​

Brown-Driver-Briggs
I. עֵ֫זֶר noun masculinePsalm 121:1 help, succour; — ׳ע absolute Genesis 2:18 +, suffix עֶזְרִי Exodus 18:4, עֶזְרֹה Ezekiel 12:14, etc.; —
1 help, succour Isaiah 30:5 ("" הוֺעִיל, opposed to בּשֶׁת, חֶרְמָּה), Daniel 11:34; from ׳י Psalm 20:3; Psalm 121:1; Psalm 121:2; Psalm 124:8; in Psalm 89:20 read נֵזֶר for ׳ע Dy Gr Kau (עֹז Bi Che), compare Hup; מָגֵן עֶזְר֑ךָ Deuteronomy 33:29 (= ׳י).
2 concrete = one who helps (compare 1. עֶזְרָה 2) ׳בְּע (בְּ essent., see ב 17b, Ges§ 119 h, i) Genesis 2:18,20; (J) + Hosea 13:9 (read ׳מִי בְע Che We GuKau Now); collective (without בְּ Ezekiel 12:14 (si vera lectio; Co עֹזְרָיו); especially of ׳מִצָּרָיו י ׳ע Deuteronomy 33:7 (poem), ׳ע + מָגֵן Psalm 33:20; Psalm 115:9; Psalm 115:10; Psalm 115:11, + מְפַלֵּט Psalm 70:6; ׳בְּע (see above) Exodus 18:4 (E), Deuteronomy 33:26 (poem), Psalm 146:4.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
help
From azar; aid -- help.
see HEBREW azar

Englishman's Concordance
Genesis 2:18
HEB: אֶֽעֱשֶׂהּ־ לּ֥וֹ עֵ֖זֶר כְּנֶגְדּֽוֹ׃
NAS: I will make him a helper suitable
KJV: alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
INT: to be alone will make A helper suitable
Genesis 2:20
HEB: לֹֽא־ מָצָ֥א עֵ֖זֶר כְּנֶגְדּֽוֹ׃
NAS: there was not found a helper suitable
KJV: there was not found an help meet for him.
INT: not found A helper suitable
Exodus 18:4
HEB: אֱלֹהֵ֤י אָבִי֙ בְּעֶזְרִ֔י וַיַּצִּלֵ֖נִי מֵחֶ֥רֶב
NAS: of my father was my help, and delivered
KJV: of my father, [said he, was] mine help, and delivered
INT: the God of my father was my help and delivered the sword
Deuteronomy 33:7
HEB: רָ֣ב ל֔וֹ וְעֵ֥זֶר מִצָּרָ֖יו תִּהְיֶֽה׃
NAS: he contended for them, And may You be a help against
KJV: be sufficient for him; and be thou an help [to him] from his enemies.
INT: his hands be sufficient help his adversaries become

The argument being that since the word is used in reference to the Holy Spirit, in relation to aid in battle, and for women that it does not contain the subservience that is applied to it.

 

[The Revolting Man]

*Note - I am not putting these forth because I believe them. I am mainly putting forth arguments I am reading in support of a more Complementarianism POV to see what, if any, weight they may hold.

I have seen the argument @southernphotini is putting forth. That the word helper, Ezer (An additional other translation being Azer)
Strong's Concordance
ezer: a help, helper
Original Word: עֵזֶר
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: ezer
Phonetic Spelling: (ay'-zer)
Definition: a help, helper
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from azar
Definition
a help, helper
NASB Translation
help (18), helper (2), helpers (1).

​

Brown-Driver-Briggs
I. עֵ֫זֶר noun masculinePsalm 121:1 help, succour; — ׳ע absolute Genesis 2:18 +, suffix עֶזְרִי Exodus 18:4, עֶזְרֹה Ezekiel 12:14, etc.; —
1 help, succour Isaiah 30:5 ("" הוֺעִיל, opposed to בּשֶׁת, חֶרְמָּה), Daniel 11:34; from ׳י Psalm 20:3; Psalm 121:1; Psalm 121:2; Psalm 124:8; in Psalm 89:20 read נֵזֶר for ׳ע Dy Gr Kau (עֹז Bi Che), compare Hup; מָגֵן עֶזְר֑ךָ Deuteronomy 33:29 (= ׳י).
2 concrete = one who helps (compare 1. עֶזְרָה 2) ׳בְּע (בְּ essent., see ב 17b, Ges§ 119 h, i) Genesis 2:18,20; (J) + Hosea 13:9 (read ׳מִי בְע Che We GuKau Now); collective (without בְּ Ezekiel 12:14 (si vera lectio; Co עֹזְרָיו); especially of ׳מִצָּרָיו י ׳ע Deuteronomy 33:7 (poem), ׳ע + מָגֵן Psalm 33:20; Psalm 115:9; Psalm 115:10; Psalm 115:11, + מְפַלֵּט Psalm 70:6; ׳בְּע (see above) Exodus 18:4 (E), Deuteronomy 33:26 (poem), Psalm 146:4.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
help
From azar; aid -- help.
see HEBREW azar

Englishman's Concordance
Genesis 2:18
HEB: אֶֽעֱשֶׂהּ־ לּ֥וֹ עֵ֖זֶר כְּנֶגְדּֽוֹ׃
NAS: I will make him a helper suitable
KJV: alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
INT: to be alone will make A helper suitable
Genesis 2:20
HEB: לֹֽא־ מָצָ֥א עֵ֖זֶר כְּנֶגְדּֽוֹ׃
NAS: there was not found a helper suitable
KJV: there was not found an help meet for him.
INT: not found A helper suitable
Exodus 18:4
HEB: אֱלֹהֵ֤י אָבִי֙ בְּעֶזְרִ֔י וַיַּצִּלֵ֖נִי מֵחֶ֥רֶב
NAS: of my father was my help, and delivered
KJV: of my father, [said he, was] mine help, and delivered
INT: the God of my father was my help and delivered the sword
Deuteronomy 33:7
HEB: רָ֣ב ל֔וֹ וְעֵ֥זֶר מִצָּרָ֖יו תִּהְיֶֽה׃
NAS: he contended for them, And may You be a help against
KJV: be sufficient for him; and be thou an help [to him] from his enemies.
INT: his hands be sufficient help his adversaries become

The argument being that since the word is used in reference to the Holy Spirit, in relation to aid in battle, and for women that it does not contain the subservience that is applied to it.

Of course and if that was the only reference patriarchy was based on it would be a very convincing argument.

 

[HomesteadWife]

Note - I am not putting these forth because I believe them. I am mainly putting forth arguments I am reading in support of a more Complementarianism POV to see what, if any, weight they may hold.

So the main patriarchy arguments made for womens subordination pre-fall are. Per Genisis 2.
1. Order of creation - woman after man
2. Woman was taken from man.
3. Man named woman (showing dominance.)
4. Woman was made as a helper for man.

Here are arguments made against them.
1. Order of creation - animals were created before man, thus women after doesn't mean as much.
2. The fact that woman was taken from man expresses correspondence rather than inferiority.
3. The fact that man named woman does show a leadership role, but the name given in itself implies "sameness" rather than subordination.
4. The Ezer( suitable helper)definition also implies stresses correspondence rather than subordination.

 

[steve]

The animals were made from nothing.
Adam was made from the dust.
Eve was made from something taken out of Adam.

Was there any significance to the source materials?

 

[Bartato]

I'm so glad that HomesteadWife brought up this subject. It is a topic I have also thought about bringing up.

For me personally, Complementarianism was a step in the right direction moving from the egalitarian feminism I was raised in towards a more Biblical understanding of the roles of man and woman.

I greatly benefitted from some of the truths I learned from complementarians like Wayne Grudem and John Piper.

In time however, I realized that they were still compromising important Biblical truths, and I had to move on towards patriarchy as defined by the Bible.

Overall, I think complementarianism tends to either (1) "soft sell" Biblical patriarchy trying to make it more palatable to the ungodly, (2) more frequently "soft sell" feminism to the people of God.

That would make it "shady" either way, even though there is a lot of truth in it.

 

[NVIII]

Note - I am not putting these forth because I believe them. I am mainly putting forth arguments I am reading in support of a more Complementarianism POV to see what, if any, weight they may hold.

So the main patriarchy arguments made for womens subordination pre-fall are. Per Genisis 2.
1. Order of creation - woman after man
2. Woman was taken from man.
3. Man named woman (showing dominance.)
4. Woman was made as a helper for man.

Here are arguments made against them.
1. Order of creation - animals were created before man, thus women after doesn't mean as much.
2. The fact that woman was taken from man expresses correspondence rather than inferiority.
3. The fact that man named woman does show a leadership role, but the name given in itself implies "sameness" rather than subordination.
4. The Ezer( suitable helper)definition also implies stresses correspondence rather than subordination.

These are good points, and I'm looking forward to someone more learned than I to answer them! I, too, have wondered what the world must have been like pre-fall. As in, why would Adam consider it a valid excuse to say, "The woman you put here with me gave me some", as if he didn't have authority to tell her no? Why would God not rebuke him for that if it was baseless, and what sort of redundant curse would the woman's have been if Adam already ruled over her? Is it possible they were created equal? But, man was not created equal to God, so that would disrupt the image. Or would it? We know woman wasn't. We know that because otherwise Eve could not have been tempted by the line "you will be like God". Also, their eyes were not opened when she ate, but when he did, and "through one man sin entered the world". Sometimes I also wonder if it had been possible for Adam to redeem Eve in that moment just as Christ redeemed us. After all, he was blameless up to that point. That's a mind-bender.

 

[Bartato]

These are good points, and I'm looking forward to someone more learned than I to answer them! I, too, have wondered what the world must have been like pre-fall. As in, why would Adam consider it a valid excuse to say, "The woman you put here with me gave me some", as if he didn't have authority to tell her no? Why would God not rebuke him for that if it was baseless, and what sort of redundant curse would the woman's have been if Adam already ruled over her? Is it possible they were created equal? But, man was not created equal to God, so that would disrupt the image. Or would it? We know woman wasn't. We know that because otherwise Eve could not have been tempted by the line "you will be like God". Also, their eyes were not opened when she ate, but when he did, and "through one man sin entered the world". Sometimes I also wonder if it had been possible for Adam to redeem Eve in that moment just as Christ redeemed us. After all, he was blameless up to that point. That's a mind-bender.

I wonder if Eve even needed redemption before Adam sinned. It seems like the Fall happened when Adam ate, not when Eve ate.

 

[HomesteadWife]

Note - I am not putting these forth because I believe them. I am mainly putting forth arguments I am reading in support of a more Complementarianism POV to see what, if any, weight they may hol

Here are arguments made against them.
1. Order of creation - animals were created before man, thus women after doesn't mean as much.
2. The fact that woman was taken from man expresses correspondence rather than inferiority.
3. The fact that man named woman does show a leadership role, but the name given in itself implies "sameness" rather than subordination.
4. The Ezer( suitable helper)definition also implies stresses correspondence rather than subordination.

Based off of the above points being their grounding to prove that men and women essentially have equality in the pre-fall created order. Mutual submission rather than subservience of woman with equal value and different functions and roles. The complementarianist will then go on to view the new testament through this lens. Rather than the patriarchal, woman being subservient to man, as the base lens.

There is a distinction made between person hood (which all are equal in to salvation), and function and role. The Complementarianism view being that patriarchy limits or devalues women's 'true and equal, though different' functions and roles biblically.

Based off 1 Corinthians 7: 2-5 the arguments are:
V 2. Equality of conjugal responsibility. ( both husband and wife belong to each other equally.)
V 3. Equality of responsibility in duty to each other. (They claim there is no responsibility in this given to the husband to 'police' the wife to make sure she fulfills her side. Community in action is supposed with both parties willingly fulfilling their side.)
V 4. Equal responsibility in duties to each other. Sexually both men and women have right to their husbands/wife's body equally. (Thus making women more than a sex slave to men.)

The claim is made that men and women are equal in the body of the Messiah and therefore both submit to him as their ultimate authority.

 

[Mark C]

At least the first part of this list sounds like it might have come right from Tom Shipley's book,
Man and Woman in Biblical Law. (Many here no doubt know him as well.)

So the main patriarchy arguments made for womens subordination pre-fall are.
1. Order of creation - woman after man [Gen. 2:18]
2. Woman was taken from man. [Gen. 2:21-23]

3. (from Tom) The temporal sequence of the creation of the man and then the woman.

3. Man named woman (showing dominance.)

4. Adam's naming Authority - of first the animals, and then the woman, both in generic and specific aspect. (isha, Chava)

There are others, Tom observes:

5. Elohim acted to BRING the woman TO the man (HaAdam).

...which leads to:
6. The name "Adam" itself, generically the name for Adam-kind (mankind). Interestingly, he comes directly from 'Ha-adamah' in Hebrew - the ground. I've always found that a fascinating creation poser...

4. Woman was made as a helper for man.

OK. But there's more to it. She was made BECAUSE there "was no suitable help-meet found for him" - among all the animals Yah brought to HaAdam to inspect, and then name.

Here are arguments made against them.
1. Order of creation - animals were created before man, thus women after doesn't mean as much.

Unless it was, as arguably suggested right there in the Genuine Text, leading to a position of dominion, or authority, and a charge to, say, Gen. 2:28, "Be fruitful, and multiply...replenish, subdue [HaEretz, the earth]...and have dominion over [everything!]" else that He had made.

2. The fact that woman was taken from man expresses correspondence rather than inferiority.

Who said "inferiority"?! Could there be a not-so-subtle bit of semantic twisting in there?

3. The fact that man named woman does show a leadership role, but the name given in itself implies "sameness" rather than subordination.

No, the text says it implies she was taken "from ish".

4. The Ezer( suitable helper)definition also implies stresses correspondence rather than subordination.

And I don't like that shorthand. The correct Hebrew phrase used is 'etzer kenegdo'. Not just a helper, but a help-meet, a helper explicitly SUITABLE for him.

Honestly, I could care less for high-falutin' phraseology intended to excuse poor Scriptural scholarship:

"dispensationalism." Just say it...we think He was a liar, and did away with His own word, 'cause that was then, this is NOW - THIS 'dispensation', no, not that Olde One.

(I could name others - but this isn't a stand-up routine, it's a thread...)

So - "complementarianism." I kinda like some of what was said a bit earlier on the order of feminism-lite, but might paraphrase it this way:

We REALLY hate "patriarchy". But we'd rather soft-peddle it... (especially now that 'feminism' has more of a trangender feel to it...)

 

[Mark C]

PS> This didn't really fit that post, but it is a VITAL element of the discussion, was at least reference above, and is among my very FAVORITE elements to explore and teach in Bereshiet/Genesis.

The TIME element also includes 'the Fall'. Without an entire session, it boils down to "how much time elapsed between Gen. 3: 6 from beginning to end? Seconds? Minutes? More? We are NOT told!"

But this is NOT an argument from silence, because the text (in the Hebrew, and also in any good English rendering) makes clear that - at least for a some time - AFTER Chava/Eve ate the fruit, NOTHING happened. (Numbers 30, and Paul's midrash, give us a clue!)

It was ONLY after she gave 'also' to him, and THEN he then ate [and here I suggest - he 'ratified' her decision] that the eyes of BOTH of them were opened.

Nothing happened immediately - until HaAdam also ate. And notice who "bears her guilt," to look ahead a bit.

That is at least a VERY strong implication of another level of authority, certainly borne out throughout Scripture thereafter. (And this, BTW, is Tom Shipley's 'wheelhouse,' if you haven't read it. He suggests that without that understanding, "we are left without a Gospel.")

 

[Bartato]

PS> This didn't really fit that post, but it is a VITAL element of the discussion, was at least reference above, and is among my very FAVORITE elements to explore and teach in Bereshiet/Genesis.

The TIME element also includes 'the Fall'. Without an entire session, it boils down to "how much time elapsed between Gen. 3: 6 from beginning to end? Seconds? Minutes? More? We are NOT told!"

But this is NOT an argument from silence, because the text (in the Hebrew, and also in any good English rendering) makes clear that - at least for a some time - AFTER Chava/Eve ate the fruit, NOTHING happened. (Numbers 30, and Paul's midrash, give us a clue!)

It was ONLY after she gave 'also' to him, and THEN he then ate [and here I suggest - he 'ratified' her decision] that the eyes of BOTH of them were opened.

Nothing happened immediately - until HaAdam also ate. And notice who "bears her guilt," to look ahead a bit.

That is at least a VERY strong implication of another level of authority, certainly borne out throughout Scripture thereafter. (And this, BTW, is Tom Shipley's 'wheelhouse,' if you haven't read it. He suggests that without that understanding, "we are left without a Gospel.")

If anyone hasn't read Shipley yet, they really should. "Man and Woman in Biblical Law" is an important work.

 

[NickF]

My additions in Bold to the quotes for clarity and brevity.

So the main patriarchy arguments made for womens subordination pre-fall are. Per Genisis 2.
1. Order of creation - woman after man God made man, then made a helper "for him"
2. Woman was taken from man. Woman was made "for and from man"
3. Man named woman (showing dominance.) Not necessarily dominance, but authority over and dominion over. Dominion and dominance are different.
4. Woman was made as a helper for man. Correct. Not the other way around.

Here are arguments made against them.
1. Order of creation - animals were created before man, thus women after doesn't mean as much. Nonsense argument. Nothing is established as argument, no logical conclusion or support.
2. The fact that woman was taken from man expresses correspondence rather than inferiority. Patriarchal men are not saying women are inferior in value. Simply inferior in authority.
3. The fact that man named woman does show a leadership role, but the name given in itself implies "sameness" rather than subordination. We don't base doctrine on implications and assumption. Nor do we try to eisegete out of this passage something not supported elsewhere in scripture.
4. The Ezer( suitable helper)definition also implies stresses correspondence rather than subordination. Helper by definition explicitly describes a subordinate.

Based off of the above points being their grounding to prove that men and women essentially have equality in the pre-fall created order. Mutual submission rather than subservience of woman with equal value and different functions and roles. The complementarianist will then go on to view the new testament through this lens. Rather than the patriarchal, woman being subservient to man, as the base lens.

There is no proof that men and women were equal pre-fall or post fall. Woman was created specifically to help man. A master carpenter is not equal in authority to the helper carpenter. To insist otherwise is to deny reality at the same level as people claiming a man can be pregnant.

There is a distinction made between person hood (which all are equal in to salvation), and function and role. The Complementarianism view being that patriarchy limits or devalues women's 'true and equal, though different' functions and roles biblically.

You cannot devalue something by correctly defining it's value. You similarly cannot devalue a hammer by saying it is not a bird.

Based off 1 Corinthians 7: 2-5 the arguments are:
V 2. Equality of conjugal responsibility. ( both husband and wife belong to each other equally.)

This is explicitly false. They do not belong to each other equally. The greek words explicitly show that. The man has his heautou wife. (belonging to him) And the woman has her idios husband (the husband she belongs to).

1 Corinthians 7 :: King James Version (KJV)

1 Corinthians 7 - Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: [It is] good for a man not to touch a woman.

www.blueletterbible.org

V 3. Equality of responsibility in duty to each other. (They claim there is no responsibility in this given to the husband to 'police' the wife to make sure she fulfills her side. Community in action is supposed with both parties willingly fulfilling their side.)

Equal responsibility to have sex with the other does not establish they have equal standing or authority. Simply that there is a sexual duty upon both.

V 4. Equal responsibility in duties to each other. Sexually both men and women have right to their husbands/wife's body equally. (Thus making women more than a sex slave to men.)

answered above.

The claim is made that men and women are equal in the body of the Messiah and therefore both submit to him as their ultimate authority.

Equal what? Equally heirs to salvation. Equal in their responsibility to respond to Jesus.

There has not been one provable argument presented that substantiates the claim that men and women are created equal. We are created different in purpose, physical makeup, duties, responsibilities, authority, and submission. The only way I see men and women created equal is we are equally human and have intrinsic worth. We are different in almost every way. Gloriously and wondrously so.

I don't have the time to dredge up ALL of the copious amounts of scripture that command women specifically to obey, submit to, and fear their husbands. Be daughters of Sarah.

Ephesians 5
Colossians 3
Titus 2
1 Peter 3
Genesis 3:16 "He shall rule over you"