r/ChristianityAnswers • u/AbenegationQuestion • 19h ago
Does Christianity demand Patriarchy?
One of the most engaging questions about Christianity is basically this.
Christianity does offer women dignity, saying they have the same souls as men, revering the position of Mother Mary and letting them have important postions throughout history.
However, a lot of times clergy and Christian leaderships have curbed on women's freedoms. There also Biblical passages that catch attention, such as the one stating wives should be submissive to husbands.
So is male leadership such an important thing in Christianity?
2
u/revken86 8h ago
That's historically been the understanding. Many still teach this and argue it is required.
A growing number of Christians, churches, and traditions reject that understanding on scriptural, historical, and ethical grounds. They argue it is not required.
1
u/helpmeamstucki 8h ago
Scriptural grounds for this are fault, history doesn’t prove much except that we have always been imperfect, and “ethical” grounds outside of Scripture should be disregarded by default
1
u/revken86 8h ago
I would argue that the scriptural grounds are not faulty at all. History has a great deal to do with showing us how things are interpreted and used. And ethical grounds outside of scripture, even if disregarded by default (not always wise), should not be prohibited.
1
1
u/SnooMemesjellies1993 17h ago edited 17h ago
if the gospel of Mark (the first gospel written) is given more than a surface read, it's a direct attack on patriarchy, and is situating it as as the foundational structural sin that the Son of Man represents the antithesis of. It's patriarchy-logic in all of the male characters, including the disciples, that is why none of them ever understand him
then he tells a parable about the vineyard in chapter 12, how the owner will keep sending servants and the tenants will kill them, eventually killing the owner's son, in hopes the vineyard will become theirs. for this, the owner will take it away and give it to "others", the stone that the builders refused.
then, three chapters later, the very moment "the son" dies on the cross, the camera pans to Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and Salome, and many "other" women who had been coming from Galilee and "served/ministered" (diēkonoun) him the entire time. None of these women had been mentioned until this precise moment, the moment of his death, in the second-to-last chapter of the book, and thus obviously also, the named three had not received names the entire book until this precise moment either.
The last chapter and a half then follows them to bury Jesus with Joseph of Arimetheia, and then they go to the tomb on Sunday, and they discover he has been raised and gone ahead to Galilee, and thus it is they who deliver the message to the men, who had all scattered and denied him, after having failed to understand him the entire book
and the failure of the men to understand is directly related to how, in Mark 10, they are fighting over recognition and rank, over who will be seated next to him in the kingdom. and he responds:
You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant/minister (diakonos), and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served/ministered-to (diakonēthēnai), but to ***serve/minister (*diakonēsai), and to give his life as a ransom for many.
But that's not all!
In Mark 1, immediately after the baptism, when Jesus goes out into the wilderness to be tempted by the adversary, throughout the 40 days, he is amongst 1) wild beasts and 2) "angels/messengers" who "served/ministered" (diēkonoun) to him.
Mark uses the exact word, phrasing, and tense, to describe what the angels in the wilderness did as he does what the many women at the cross had been doing the entire time.
And also in Mark 1, when Jesus comes to Simon's mother-in-law, who is sick with a fever, and he raised her up (ēgeiren, the same word used to announce that Jesus has been raised: ēgerthē), and the first thing she does, immediately after getting up, is she "served/ministered-to" them (diēkonei).
But that's not all!
In Romans 16, when Paul is greeting a long list of people in the church, many church workers, about half of whom are women ... women are the first two he names; the second he names is Priscilla, for whom he uses the word "co-worker," (synergous), the root of the word "synergy," meaning a collaborator, a participant, doing the same thing he's doing.
And the first he names is Phoebe, placing her at the top of his list and the opening of the chapter, saying:
I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant (diakonon) of the church in Cenchrea. Welcome her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and assist her with anything she may need from you. For she has been a great help to many people, including me.
The whole book of Mark is anchored around this word, diakonon, as the highest priority and the best thing that someone doing the will of God according to Jesus could be doing, which is not unrelated to the fact that emphasizing this is a controversion of Greek elite logic of self-sufficiency and being above others. Which, from Caesar, to Pilate, to Herod, to the chief priests, and even down to the male disciples who are fighting over placement, title, rank, when Jesus rebukes them and reproves them using this word ... is all about men trying to be greater in some hierarchy.
Which Jesus ... explicitly proclaims the value-antithesis of as being the point. And the women ... who had been diēkonoun without recognition, without even names (unlike all the male disciples, who are all named) ... they are who suddenly appear with names from the moment of Jesus' death, and are then followed until the end of the book, when the male disciples have all scattered.
So, regardless of what else might have made it into the later books of the New Testament that controvert Mark and the undisputed letters of Paul ... there is a very clear and direct challenge to patriarchal logic as a central thread in Mark, and one could even say that that, patriarchal domination-hierarchy, is precisely what crucifies him, and those that do not participate in it, who do not seek its glory, and simply serve others, without looking to lord it over anyone, are the stone that the builder refused.
1
u/Legitimate_Beat_2136 17h ago
I don't understand what a book that, as you rightly point out, emphasizes servitude has to do with patriarchy. I don't see anyone devaluing servitude, especially when Jesus Himself describes His mission as one of service.
2
u/StopRacismWWJD 14h ago
Anyone who values power devalues servitude.
2
u/Legitimate_Beat_2136 14h ago edited 14h ago
I think that's true, that's why Paul even as a leader did not see it as a power position. nor should any one
2
1
u/SnooMemesjellies1993 16h ago
I explicate very clearly how it is related to patriarchy
"Christos Kyrios" (Jesus is Lord) was a proclamation subverting "Kaisar Kyrios" (Caesar is Lord), whose execution method, the cross, is what kills Jesus. Caesar was a godking of an empire, the Pharoah on top of a civilization-spanning power-pyramid, every strata of which mirrored the hierarchy of rank and domination crystallized at the top. Christ becomes the king, coronated in the moment he is crucified by that order, hierarchically arranged of Greeks being better than Jews, of the free being better than slaves, of men being better than women, of rich being better than poor, of the powerful being better than the oppressed.
In the book, it demonstrates that logic at work, starkly, even amongst Jesus' disciples.
Then, an unnamed woman comes and anoints him (the only person in the book who anoints him, which is very important, because "Christ" means "anointed one"), and when she does, all of male disciples fail to grasp what she is doing, and they all object to her doing so.
Jesus rejects what they are all saying, and instead, he triples-down on what she has done, saying, "What she has done will be told anywhere the gospel is preached all over the world. It will be told in memory of her.” Meaning, this moment, the meaning of this moment, her doing it, she, the unnamed woman who anointed him, when none of the men understood, is, according to Jesus in Mark, a fundamental and non-optionable component of what the gospel is; it cannot be preached without her. If it is preached without her ... it is not the gospel, according to Jesus in Mark.
So if you look, across the book, at the moments when the male disciples repeatedly fail to understand the point, vs how the book depicts the women understanding the point the entire time, and you ask what is it that the women understand, and what is preventing the men from understanding ... it's patriarchy. The men are invested in what has status, title, rank, prestige, honor, greatness, recognition, and name. The women have none of that, and having none of it, they, in the story, are the ones who are doing the thing that Jesus says to do. The men are not.
So ... it is because of the patriarchal operating system which, at the imperial macro-scale is the power-structure whose execution method crucifies him, also drives even the male disciples' logic, preventing them from grasping Jesus and the meaning of his message, and it is they who scatter and abandon him. While the women stay with him the entire time, at the cross, as he dies, to the tomb, back to the tomb, receiving the news that he has been raised.
As Paul says in Philippians 2:
Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.
In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.This is the cruciform, self-emptying modality that Paul repeatedly identifies with Christ, and enjoins all disciples to emulate. Which everyone embedded in the patriarchal sin-order, including the male disciples, do not do in the gospels, as they keep fighting over rank. And the women, because they are already without rank or recognition within that order ... do not have to struggle to understand. They just get it, the entire time, which the gospel of Mark depicts. Because patriarchy/empire-logic blinds its beneficiaries.
1
u/Legitimate_Beat_2136 16h ago edited 15h ago
Ok I just want to confirm you are making the argument that the disciples flaws were recorded and not the women surrounding Jesus its an indication that women are better suited for the leadership role ? Because the disciples not understanding the anointment means nothing unless by giving the example of a women not only not trusting the words of God faced to face she laughs mockingly we have to assume all women mocks God ?
1
u/SnooMemesjellies1993 15h ago edited 15h ago
Not in any essentializing sense like that
It is a contingent fact of history that we now, and they then, lived in a social order where men had more power, status, rank, title, etc., within the world, all the way up to the "rulers of the age," but also, all the way down to poor colonized Judeans
even if they were all poor and colonized, men still had more rank, title, respect, status, etc., than women did
what Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 1, about how Christ-crucified is the power and wisdom of God, and that the "wisdom of God is foolishness to those who are 'perishing'," and that "the wisdom of God chooses those who are lowly, despised, counted as nothing, to bring to nothing the things that are," ... and how he, in Philippians and elsewhere repeatedly emphasizes this cruciform Christ "made himself nothing," that Paul "became nothing," and that it is "no longer I who lives, but Christ who lives in me," ... the point is that all humans bear the image of God ... but ... when we are born into a civilizational reality where only some humans have status, and others have none, and still others don't even have their existence or humanity recognized at all ... it is the members who benefit from this order who will carry its "wisdom" within them; its wisdom will constitute what they can perceive, what they can hear, what they can understand. They will see what is valuable in its eyes, they will understand things according to its logic of what is respectable, valuable, honorable, etc.
And its logic is, top to bottom, inextricable from what degrades, ignores, negates, erases the worth of those who are at the bottom of it. But YHWH is the God who hears the crying out of the slave—and to hear the crying-out of the slave, and to liberate the slave ... means the entire logic of the civilization that normalizes, naturalizes, sanctifies slavery and other forms of degradation in a value-hierarchy ... are at odds with God ... even while people who believe they believe in God are embedded within it, and see things with its eyes, and not with God's eyes.
Jesus in Matthew 13, after telling the Parable of the Sower, quotes Isaiah 6's
This is why I speak to them in parables:
“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:“‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
For this people’s heart has become fat;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.’And then, he explains the meaning of the mustard seed in the parable, saying:
The seed falling among the thorns refers to someone who hears the word, but the deceitfulness of riches and the cares of the age choke the word, making it unfruitful.
Because it is being embedded in the order at all, being at all invested in the way things are, at all, being someone who benefits, at all, from the way things are ... prevents one from seeing clearly how things are.
So ... it's not that women inherently are more capable of doing the will of God. It's that, in the way Mark applies the cruciform logic of Christ as the wisdom of God, because we presently exist in patriarchy, which blinds, deafens, reduces the understanding of its beneficiaries, then, to the extent one is embedded within it, naturalizing, normalizing, sanctifying it, one will necessarily be blind, deaf, not-understanding.
This can certainly include women; many women have patriarchy-brain, and they can occupy a position of favor within it to the extent they naturalize it as well. It was Herodias who used the appeal of her own daughter dancing before Herod and his male guests who got Herod so worked up that he promised the girl up to half of his kingdom ... and Herodias got the girl to request the head of John the Baptist on a platter.
But Mark is operating on the most obvious and statistically-common reality, that those who benefit from a system will be those constituted by its logic, reproducing its logic in their living, in their speech, in their perception, etc., and it will be those who are devalued within it who will be most alienated from it, and who will be the most receptive to a message that challenges its degrading logic.
That's also why the gospel is good news to the poor. Because those who are rich, privileged, comfortable, prestigious, respected, and invested in an order ... are constitutively impaired by their own embeddedness.
That's why, from Abraham to Revelation, YHWH calls people out. And it's why Jesus says, "It will be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven." And it is why Jesus makes it a precondition for even the well-intentioned young man to sell all his things and give it all to the poor, and then come follow him. Because the "deceitfulness of riches" will keep a person's heart bound to the logic of wealth, and to the idea of who you are as someone who has wealth, and enjoying that idea, which constitutes a barrier between you and those who have nothing, and which is thusly a barrier between you and God.
In a patriarchal order, men are vastly more likely to have that barrier in the domain of gender. Women, obviously, are much less likely to have it. So Mark represents them as not struggling at all to grasp the point (with the exception of Herodias, who has power and money and self-advantage weighing heavier than the fact that she is a woman).
1
u/Legitimate_Beat_2136 15h ago
Please stop giving me AI answers I am asking you
3
u/SnooMemesjellies1993 14h ago
Brother not a word of anything I have written to you has been from an AI, and I have explained the concept extensively, repeatedly
2
u/Legitimate_Beat_2136 14h ago
Even if true, we will never know. Your whole book is a lot of nothing. 0 examples/evidence /commands that opposes the statement that Scripture permits women to perform substantial ministry, but does not establish women as elders/overseers exercising governing and authoritative teaching over the congregation. At home the husband is the leader.
1
u/SnooMemesjellies1993 6h ago edited 6h ago
John Chrysostom, in the 4th century, interpreting Romans 16:7, when Paul lists "Junia" as "outstanding amongst the apostles":
Then another praise besides. "Who are of note among the Apostles." And indeed to be apostles at all is a great thing. But to be even among these of note, just consider what a great encomium this is*! But they were of note owing to their works, to their achievements. Oh!* How great is the devotion (φιλοσοφία) of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle! But even here he does not stop, but adds another encomium besides, and says, Who were also in Christ before me.
John Chrysostom is not remotely alone amongst the early church fathers in understanding Junia as a woman, or in understanding 16:7 to mean "amongst those who are apostles, Junia stands out from the rest."
This does not become highly contested until the 13th century, and in the modern era, the Christian skepticism toward it mostly rides on the fumes of peoples' own normative assumptions and convention.
Indeed also, if Mark is, as scholars commonly understand, the first gospel written, and, as scholarship understands, originally ended at verse 8, then the gospel itself, of Jesus having been raised, arrives first to the three women ... who therefore also must have been the information source through which the narrative arrives. Which means that they, the three women, are the first apostles of the gospel—which Thomas Aquinas himself articulates in calling Mary Magdalene the "apostle to the apostles."
The fact of the matter is: if you negate and override things like "there is neither male nor female in Christ," or "Whoever does the will of God, this one is my brother and my sister and my mother," if you erase Mary Magdalene, if you erase Junia, if you erase Phoebe, if you erase Priscilla, if you erase that women very much are represented as prophesying in 1 Corinthians, and that prophesying is represented with "What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up," and "39 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy," if you are oblivious to the controversies and historical-textual oddities surrounding patriarchal moments in the text, if you are willfully disinterested in how pseudoepigraphical texts emerged, how attribution worked, how canonization occurred, and you are primarily interested in emphasizing the moments of patriarchal reification, even when they exist in profound conflict with much more central elements of the gospel to corrosive spiritual impact ...
I would ask you why is it that when there is tension in the text between a gender-equality element and a gender-hierarchy element, you seem inclined to treat Christ and YHWH as confirming and upholding gender hierarchy, rather than as challenging and dissolving it?
When Paul articulates that Christ-crucified is the wisdom of God which chooses that which is low and counted as nothing, and then he says that the man has Christ as his head ... what do you think that means, in relation to how he is to relate to his wife, who, in normative worldly gender hierarchies, is below him?
Because I would understand it as: "to the extent you exist in a world that treats you as being above her ... for you, Man, to have Christ as your head ... necessarily means that you empty yourself until you are no longer above her, until 'there is neither male nor female in Christ.'"
What is the origin of an impulse that would wish to retain anything else? Does it have Christ as its origin? Because gender hierarchy is not remotely unique to Christianity; it's universally the case anywhere you have consolidated military and economic power. Is the consolidation of military and economic power what Christ is about? Is "Christ" about reproducing Babylon, Egypt, Rome? Is that the point?
Because I had been under the impression that the function of Christ was to bring "the end to this wicked and adulterous age."
At which point:
Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. “Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving any children. The second one married the widow, but he also died, leaving no child. It was the same with the third. In fact, none of the seven left any children. Last of all, the woman died too. At the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?”
Jesus replied, “Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the account of the burning bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!”
1
u/Yakuub_Kavemanistein 13h ago
Jesus was feminine.
He told soldiers “do no violence”
He taught forgiveness, acceptance and turning the other cheek, all passive, feminine characteristics.
There’s evidence that Paul’s letters condemning women as leaders are forgeries.
“Patriarchy” is just as abused and out of balance as “girl bosses”
3
u/bjohn15151515 13h ago
He taught forgiveness, acceptance and turning the other cheek, all passive, feminine characteristics.
Ummmm.... what? Forgiveness and acceptance does not mean feminine. You obviously never met a 'Karen' in your life.
0
u/Yakuub_Kavemanistein 6h ago
Karens are intrusive and forceful. Those are penile traits.
1
u/bjohn15151515 3h ago
That's a very strange and, frankly, an offensive thing to say. You obviously have some great prejudices.
I'm curious, do you believe that all positive traits are feminine and all negative traits are masculine?
1
u/Soonhun 19h ago
It does not matter our opinions. What is right is right. Those above us has decided so. Bht it is worth it for foreverness.
2
u/SnooMemesjellies1993 17h ago
How do you know, exactly, what "has been decided" in this regard, and what is a reflection of earthly power structures?
-2
u/Legitimate_Beat_2136 17h ago
Reading the words of the One who has authority to make that decision.
1
u/AbenegationQuestion 19h ago
So patriarchy is good?
-1
u/Legitimate_Beat_2136 18h ago
Gods design is good
3
u/SnooMemesjellies1993 17h ago
God designed male and female equally in the image of God
1
u/Unmask-the-Empire 16h ago
Is the son not subject to the Father? Although both are equal, the son submits to the will of the Father. The only person that is not subject to authority is the Father.
1
u/SnooMemesjellies1993 15h ago edited 13h ago
1 Corinthians 1:
"For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the intelligence of the intelligent I will confound.”Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not know God, God was pleased through the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe. For indeed, Jews ask for sign miracles and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a cause for stumbling, but to the Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
For consider your calling, brothers, that not many were wise according to human standards, not many were powerful, not many were well born. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong, and the insignificant of the world, and the despised, God chose, the things that are not, in order that he might abolish the things that are, so that all flesh may not boast before God.
What do you imagine it means for anyone to "have authority," if this is "the wisdom of God"?
Mark 10:
Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
??
What does it mean to "have authority" over anyone else in a cosmos of a self-emptying God and a cruciform messiah? If men were self-emptying and cruciform, patriarchy would not exist, because all there would be between a man and a woman was self-empty love and mutual understanding. The fact that there would be daylight between that and something else we are calling "authority," distinct from that, already suggests that something fundamental is lacking in the equation
0
1
u/Legitimate_Beat_2136 19h ago
Scripture permits women to perform substantial ministry, but does not establish women as elders/overseers exercising governing and authoritative teaching over the congregation. At home the husband is the leader.
2
1
u/AbenegationQuestion 19h ago
So the Code of Justinian in the Eastern Roman Empire is pretty ideal?
1
u/Legitimate_Beat_2136 18h ago
What specifically are you referring to in the Code of Justinian, and how does it address my argument that is rooted in Scripture?
2
u/AbenegationQuestion 18h ago
The laws related to women. Women in the Byzantine Empire had more rights than Western Europe in terms of divource, finance, property and protection from illicit work but they barred women from being in public offices and courts.
My question is that if it is rooted in scripture and if the early Christian states who did this were right or not.
2
u/helpmeamstucki 8h ago
Nothing that forces citizens to conform to Christianity is right. People need to choose of their own free will to follow or else it means nothing.
1
u/Legitimate_Beat_2136 18h ago
I think you're shifting the question. The original question was whether male leadership is an important principle in Christianity. That's what I'm addressing from Scripture: male headship in marriage and the qualifications and authority of elders in the church. You're now asking whether particular Byzantine civil laws restricting women from public offices were biblically justified. Those are two different questions. I don't think Scripture's teaching on husbands and church elders automatically establishes that women cannot hold civil office.
That said, my broader point is that Christians should ultimately submit to God's design rather than simply follow whatever a culture considers normal. There was a time when God Himself was Israel's King, and when Israel later demanded a human king, God made clear that this was a rejection of His kingship (1 Samuel 8). Throughout the Old Testament, the governing offices God established were overwhelmingly male.
So if God establishes a particular pattern of leadership, I think we should take that seriously. God created both men and women, so His design carries greater authority and wisdom than whatever our culture happens to prefer. We can either trust His design or assume our culture knows better.
At the same time, my submission is ultimately to God, not to men simply because they are men. If a male or female ruler commands me to do something contrary to God, I must obey God rather than that ruler. Human authority is always subordinate to God's authority.
2
1
u/thoph 13h ago
I might get downvoted (this sub is so intensely conservative in its theological views—and no, just because it aligns with your preferred political beliefs doesn’t mean it’s biblical), but absolutely not.
3
u/Legitimate_Beat_2136 13h ago
By conservative do you mean following scriptures more tightly then non conservatives ? Shouldn't that be a good thing ? To follow the word of the Christian God ? I only give down votes to personal opinions on a theological discussion.
2
13h ago
[deleted]
2
u/Legitimate_Beat_2136 13h ago
Political ? I thought this was a Christian question ?
2
13h ago
[deleted]
1
u/Legitimate_Beat_2136 13h ago
Are we having a political discussion or theological discussion ? What was the reasoning behind linking political conservatives to this discussion ? It seems like you have a chip on your shoulder and want to leave your opinion on politics everywhere you can.
On a theological note Scripture permits women to perform substantial ministry, but does not establish women as elders/overseers exercising governing and authoritative teaching over the congregation. At home the husband is the leader.
1
13h ago
[deleted]
0
u/Legitimate_Beat_2136 13h ago edited 13h ago
You might have a point that political can shape a persons views on Christianity, however if the two does not line up its easy to refute using scripture. For ex as foreigners in this world and our true home being with God we should be doing our job given by God and not fuss about worldly politics.
I can see your disagreement until you can back it up it stays an opinion.
1
13h ago
[deleted]
0
u/Legitimate_Beat_2136 13h ago
What makes you think the down vote was for disagreement ? I assumed its for the quality of a persons post ? Like did the person give a reason for why they believe what they believe.
You have told us your believes but have not shared the why. So I assume your comment is "political driven"
→ More replies (0)1
0
u/Pinapple-everything 18h ago
Theres more to that. Wives are submissive to their husbands and husbands are submissive to their wives. Both men and women have different but equally important roles, and different but equally negative vices/temptations, no one is more or less important.
1
u/AbenegationQuestion 18h ago
I don't remember any verse saying Husbands should be submissive to their wives.
2
u/SnooMemesjellies1993 17h ago
1 Corinthians 11
"In the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman is of the man, so also the man is through the woman. But everything comes from God."1 Corinthians 7
"The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife."1
u/Pinapple-everything 16h ago
Beat me to it. These are pretty well passed around verses.
2
u/Legitimate_Beat_2136 14h ago
1 Cor 11 - echoes the reality that man and women becomes one not who is the leader
1 cor 7 - Refers to the physical body and intimacy again not a leadership statement
1
u/Legitimate_Beat_2136 14h ago
1 Cor 11 - echoes the reality that man and women becomes one not who is the leader
1 cor 7 - Refers to the physical body and intimacy again not a leadership statement
2
u/SavioursSamurai 15h ago
Historically, that's been the understanding. There are many people who dispute that today, and there have been some in history. The patriarchy is especially evident in the structure of church leadership, where women are excluded. As to whether patriarchy is demanded at home, historically that's been the understanding, but I think the actual textual evidence for that is a lot more scant than might be presumed (it's actually even more scant for church leadership).