Genesis 3:16
How is it understood. Is it a license to have authoritarian control over one's partner or is it a sad statement of how sin will operate?

Is it saying, women will desire to be loved by their husbands, but instead husbands will act as authoritarians and rule over them?

Or are we to accept this distorted view we see in some OLD commentaries that claims: Women are not to be allowed to follow their own desires, their husbands must rule over them and tell them what they can and can't do?
.
Yet the first is the reality we see fulfilled as the sad state of women all over the world throughout history have suffered as men have implemented their faulty interpretation.

That's why Paul tells women -- yes, respect your husbands leadership. But he then goes into a lengthy appeal to husbands to love their wives and treat them as they themselves would want to be treated.

But guess what? So many ignored that part of much larger part of Paul's message and only thundered the "submit" part over their wives. That's why we have women's lib -- it's not what God planned either. His plan was for love and respect on both sides, neither is to use authoritarian power over the other.

For sure -- people have been doing exactly what God foretold since sin began.
But that's because they have largely ignored His ideal.

People have grasped for every excuse to exercise power to control others, whether to enslave other people in slavery, claiming the Bible supports slavery, or treating women as mere possessions, really not much different than a slave, again claiming the Bible supports this.

But all this is about marriage -- (not ordination)

I know there are some good marriages where love and respect reign, blessed are they that find that kind of relationship.

But sin reigns on earth -- both the sinful ambition to control and rule over others, and the lack of genuine love, true unselfish love, ( there is lots of self centered, lustful, selfish love, that's not true love), true love has been hugely missing.

God's ideal for marriage is one of love and respect, not an authoritarian/subservient arrangement.

A good leader is NOT an authoritarian. A good leader is respected and trusted, but an authoritarian is not respected, nor trusted even if he forces submission, and achieves outward control.


Again, this isn't about really about ordination any more. It's about marriage.
Someone ordained for spiritual ministry, is NOT ordained to be the husband or wife of the the rest of the members. There really is no correlation.
Someone ordained for spiritual ministry is actually a "SERVANT" there really shouldn't be any debate over "who is the greatest" among the ordained "servants" of God .

If it's not a power struggle, why use your interpretation of Genesis 3:16 -- and insist men are to rule over women, as proof women can't be set apart and officially recognized to minister in a spiritual way to people.

Why would ordaining a woman (recognizing her as representing the church) to partner in the work of ministering to the congregation, be challenged with the supposed belief that men need to rule over women, if it's not a power thing?


As far as "my side" constantly ignoring the GC decision -- what proof do you have of that?
I'm not ordaining anyone, man or woman -- and the GC didn't vote that no one can ask questions, or think of other ways of looking at ordination.

Heb_13:8? Jesus Christ, the same yesterday and today and forever.

Mal_3:6? For I, Jehovah, change not. Because of this, you sons of Jacob are not destroyed.

Genesis 3:14-16 is one poem. There are different characters: The serpent, the woman, her children, and her husband; but the focus of the poem is on the promised seed who comes up being referred to as "He" and "His" Dr. Doukahn in his wonderful commentary on Genesis points out that the "He" of Genesis 3:16 is the exact same "He"/"His" in Genesis 3:15. These verses point out the relationship of the promised seed to the serpent, the woman, her children and her husband.

To the serpent, the serpent has fallen, the spirit behind Babylon has fallen. The serpent will try to kill the promised seed but his attacks will only wound, but cause the serpent's destruction. It is one act with two results. This act and it's results will describe the relationship between the serpent and the promised seed

In birth the woman will have a special connection to her children; not only the pain of labor and birth, but that her bearing children will give her a special connection to the events in their lives, both the joys and the pains. And living in a sinful world will be mostly the pain. But instead of avoiding the pain by not having a mate, or to use the mate and treat him like some insects in the mate dying after his contribution, the woman will still desire her husband to be a part of the family.

Then comes the relationship of the promised seed to this dysfunctional family. The promised seed is not pie in the sky in the by and by, sometime way off in the future maybe. But the promised seed already exists. Before Abraham was, Before the man and the woman ate the fruit, before the serpent, He is!! YAHWEH!!! The way for the family to get through all the pain and dysfunction is by allowing "HE" to rule the family.

When we want to put the husband in the place of this eternal "HE" the eternal gospel, the lamb slain from the foundation of the world, we are setting up an idol.

We find in Genesis 3:14-16 the same message as we find in Revelation 14. God's last message to the sinful world is a repeat/parallel,/paraphrase of God's first and ever lasting message to the lost world.

I don't remember discussing this with you. You'll have to refresh my memory.

I think there are two legitimate reasons for the church to ordain (officially recognize people in leadership):

2. Government legalities
Secondly, the government sort of demands a person to be legally set in place by ordination before they can perform marriage and act in other legal capacities representing the church.

WHAT IT SHOULD NOT BE

1. It is not to be a sacramental view of ordination. Investing the person with some holy power. Convey some change in the character and innate abilities of the person.

2. Nor a clericalization (i.e., separation between clergy and members, instead of facilitators to get everyone working together to further God's work.

Is that true? Or is it a church imposed process to allow paperwork to be done to be forwarded to the government?
Seems like what it has become to me.

Act 2:42? And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.?
Act 2:43? And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.?
Act 2:44? And all that believed were together, and had all things common;?
Act 2:45? And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.?
Act 2:46? And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,?
Act 2:47? Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.?