Do Christian men rule over Christian women as God stated in the Bible?

Question

Genesis 3:16 "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

garo g: If you are going to quote something, at least state the source.

Gnostic: If Jesus said so, where? And if so, why did his followers for thousands of years not follow his teachings about that then and treat women like second class citizens?

nisha A: That appears to be happening that the pendulum has swung the other way. However, it is then up to all sexes to attempt to make things as equitable as possible, and it not become a male or female dominated world.

CMW: I did get past the first page. What about Exodus 21:7 where it states you can sell your daughters into slavery? What about Exodus 35:2, that anyone found to be working on the sabbath is to be put to death? What about Lev 21:20, where you can not approach the altar of God if you have an eye defect (glasses)?
Please do not assume that I have never read the Bible, been there done that have the badge.

Answer 1

Also try the famous passages in Paul's Letters to the Corinthians:

1 Cor. 11:3 - "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."

1 Cor. 14:34-36 - "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. "

And so on. There's quite as much scriptural evidence that women are second-class as there is that God hates gay people. So I suppose it's about time we enact legislation.

It doesn't matter. I've actually heard some "Christian" women say that they agree wholeheartedly; they "know their place" and they're content with it. Others will try the conventional trick of insisting that the Greek or Hebrew originals had a different sense. Others again have the gall to point to another biblical passage which contradicts the one in question - apparently not realizing that this merely discredits the authority of the book as a whole! Still others will say (of the Genesis passage) that those were the old days, and everything's different since Jesus. There's always a cheap trick for getting out of every kind of awkward jam in the course of your biblical exegesis, without ever having to face the bedrock fact that the entire book is just a collection of moralizing fables.

I wrote the above without reading other answers; and now I see numerous examples of each type I described.

Answer 2

From my view you have several misconceptions, but do make a good point. 1. Very few Christians will say that Jesus changed the laws, He himself said that not one commandment will be abolished. 2. Some of the 'commandments' that you listed were not 'rules' as some think, but put down as a social order for the Israelites to follow to establish a healthy society in their world. (eg. tattoos, shaving, 'kosher' food laws) the spirit of those laws should be followed, but the letter of them might change with the society. (ie. don't do things that are dangerous or unhealthy) 3. Many of what you listed were to keep the Israelite nation separate from the other nations (holy or different if you will) and to keep the influences of the other nations from mixing into their beliefs. The Church is not the Israel nation, but again the principles are still in place. As individuals we are to keep ourselves holy and encourage that life out of others that have chosen to follow God, but we are not a 'nation' in the same way as the Israelites were, so we haven't the authority (nor the need) to force our society to follow them. I know that this may seem like a 'cop out' (yes, I'm old enough to use that term) but for most Christians that is the reason for what you see as a discrepancy.

Answer 3

The man should be the leader of the house. God did make it that way. I checked a bunch of different translations and in everyone the wording came out the exact same. So it does mean rule over you. But we can think about what God was saying. The curse of sin resulted in painful childbirth. God did not design it that way, but it was a result of sin. Perhaps the role women have had throughout history has also been a part of that curse. They have always been looked down on, they are still paid less and in many countries the curse still continues. Based on other verses in the Bible, we can know how God expects the relationship of man and woman to be. Man is to love his wife and serve her, and woman is supposed to respect her husband. It is about mutual respect and love, not dominance.

God told Adam that he would toil with the earth. A lot of people aren't farmers anymore, but conditions have not been as favorable as they were before sin.
God also spoke to the snake and said that this would occur.

15 And I will cause hostility between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring.
He will strike[a] your head,
and you will strike his heel.”
This is a prophecy about Jesus coming and defeating Satan. So it could be assumed that the "rule over you" was a prophecy as well about how women WOULD be treated, not in fact about how they SHOULD be treated.

Answer 4

Good Grief! People need to stop looking at themselves as above everyone else. Men are equal with women. But, for any system to work we have to have a chain of command. Too often men try to get the scriptures to mean they can lord over women. Women get angry and say, "ain't no man rulin' my life." Men don't make the hard decisions. Husband and wife make them together. The man simply takes the decision made by them both and states it as final. He didn't make the decision alone. Any relationship that says the man makes all the "hard" decisions could be doing better to work together. In my opinion it was one of God's cruel jokes to put man in charge of anything. Women are better multi-taskers and fast thinkers. They don't let muscle do their talking. They actually think. As far as men writing the Bible. Yes. Men are arrogant jerks. Even way back with the sophists and sages. There are hardly any women. Men wrote things down because in their culture at the time women didn't do this. What people did with the Bible was record actual historic events. The four gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. First hand eyewitness writings. Written as early as 30 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus during a time when followers of his were killed for what they believed in. But don't forget about the women that did get into the Bible. Ruth, Esther, Mary, Martha, Sarah, Hagar, etc. What a profound difference these women made. Consider Islam where women are thought of as equal with cattle. Islamists state that even a women with a doctorate is lesser. When a man dies, dozens of virgins meet his every need. Now that's a religion that obviously states men are over women in every way. I'll stick with Christ. Signed, a man.

Answer 5

If this statement were given to Adam, it would have said,

"I give you the authority to rule over your wife."

It wasn't, so the meaning must be different. The statement was a curse awarded to women. It's not a statement of submission to authority but a curse of emotional dependance for the woman. It was not the fate of the man to be a ruler, it was the fate of the woman to always feel as though she needs to be ruled over.

The people who wrote these words understood this to be an explanation of the differences in physical strength. Women are the weaker sex, and default to being conquered. There was no women's liberation movement back then, and these curses were the means of explaining the balance created for us in nature. Men are regarded as the conquerers, and therefore have an inherent responsibility to protect them at all costs from outsiders who intend harm.

The "curse" of childbirth was the other side of the balance. The husband has no hope of preserving his heritage without the woman's ability to create new life. The entire family unit falls under the husband's responsibility to protect.

This is likely the basis for Paul saying that we ought to love our wives as Christ loved the church (and gave his life defending and preserving it).

Answer 6

Of course not, but that was the whole point of the bible being written anyhow. Do some research on this, you might be surprised to learn the bible was written by men, for men, to protect men, and men only.
They took all the good things about women - the fact we were smarter and more advanced, and turned them into bad things. Even the fact that we hold the miracle of birth- they turned around into women being created from mans rib bone. Give me a break.

Answer 7

God also said through His son Christ, that men should love their wives, and wives to submit to their husbands. If a man would ever show me anything but love than I would know it was not from God, and should not submit to such a man who does not have my basic needs on his heart. I hope that you hear from God, and treat your lady like the love of your life, so that way you will experience all that she can offer you in return.

Men are instigators, or offerers, by nature, that is how God made you....Women are receptors, recievers, that is how God made us. By your actions the woman in your life will react to that and hopefully she will react with her whole heart to that love that you have shown her first.

What God means in Genesis is a curse brought forth by sin, meaning that women would no longer have an easy child birth. I don't know if you have heard about post mortim syndrome, but that is when the mother is so distressed at having the child leave her body that she becomes depressed, physically. I have even heard urban legends where the mother killed herself she was so depressed.

As far as modern times, have you seen ads on the TV lately? They are so sex oriented that if a girl isn't wearing short shorts or a bikini, you will not buy it, right? Who is ruling who?

Answer 8

Hmmm. do you truly believe a credible "god" would actually state something so patently inane. While i can certainly hear some entry level i.q., troglodyte, bible thumper, nascar lover in texas suggesting this, i find it hard to believe that an omniscient being could be this crass. Does it seem logical to you that the bible may have actually been "written" in great part by texan equivalent trolls way back when, who were mostly interested in power and control? Just like their christo-fascist "brothers" today" ;-)

Answer 9

Nope. "Neither is a man without a woman or a woman without a man in God saith the lord..." sounds like it's an equal partnership to me. When God said this to Eve he was defining the patriarch of the home as being the man(something that has gone by the wayside in recent years). That doesn't mean that a man rules absolute with no questions asked, but it does mean that he is the head of the household and that it is his responsibility to follow Gods paths and commandments as he takes on that responsibility. If a man practices unrighteous Dominion then the wife is under no obligation to follow his paths.

Answer 10

Colossians 3v18-19 says :

Wives submit to your husbands as is fitting for those who belongto the Lord. And you husbands must love your wife and never treat them harshly

Ephesians 5v24-25 says:

As the church submits to Christ so you wives must submit to your husbands in everything. And you husbands must love your wives with the same love Christ showed the church.

The crux of this teaching is that its a two way thing; Yes wives should submit to their husbands, but then the husband shouldn't ill treat his wife and if he loves her perfectly (as Christ loves the church) then there is no way this can be a relationship where the wife is totally subservant to the husband.