From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Men's/Women's role in marriage
Date: 7 Oct 92 05:52:03 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <Oct.5.23.34.03.1992.8164@geneva.rutgers.edu> thughes@ug.cs.dal.ca (Tracy L. Hughes) writes:
>    One good
>    example of this is an error in one of Paul's letters in which he partially
>    misquotes Genesis.  (Forgive the indulgent paraphrasing..I am writing this
>    ad lib)  Paul says that Genesis states that man was made in the image
>    of God, but woman in the image of man..

I assume this refers to I Corinthians 11.  Paul does not say that woman
was not made in the image of God.  The NASB renders
8 "For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9 for indeed 
man was not created from woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake." 
Paul continues to explain that men are born of women though woman came
from man.  Neither is independent of the other.  

Paul does not pretend to be quoting Genesis, but his statements do not 
contradict the Scripture which says that male and femal were created in
the image of God.  Woman was created in the image of man.  But she was 
created in the image of God- but then, so are all of us.  We are all made
indirectly in the image of God through procreation.

     It can be
>    understood to mean that God is telling them what must now befall them
>    since they have chosen to live outside of his law.  Since man is
>    physically stronger than woman in a lawless world he will naturally
>    dominate his wife.  This is not a commandment to the woman to submit
>    to her husband but God telling her that, for choosing to live outside
>    of his law, this is what she must now live through. 
>    
     If it is not sin to fix this
>    part of our lives, then neither can it be sin for a woman to no longer
>    have to submit to her husband because she is no longer in a situation
>    where she may be physically forced to do so.

Even if one interpret's this passage as a prophecy that is in no way a command,
there are still other passages throughout the Scriptures to discuss.  Paul 
seemed to feel that the Law, if not this particular passage, instructed
women to be in subjection.  He was not alone.
Peter wrote in I Peter 3, "In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your
own husbands."  and in verse 5 and 6 "For in this way in former times
the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being 
submissive to their own husbands.  Thus Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him
lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right, without
being frightened by any fear."  

This may be hard for many people to swallow, but the New Testament is full
of such statements which are difficult to digest.  Jesus said that if anyone
would be the greatest in the kingdom of God, he should be the servant of all.

Collosions 3:18 says, "Wives be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in
the Lord.  Husbands, love your wives, and do not be embittered against them."

Paul also tells of how in marriage, wives are to submit to their husbands 
as the church is to submit to Christ.  Husbands are to love their wives as
Christ loved the church, and gave Himself up for her. (Ephesians 5:22-33.)
The husband is given headship, like Christ.  But it appears that more is
required of the husband.  He is to care for the wife like Christ.  Christ
made Himself the ultimate Servant, and valued our lives above His own.

>follow.  Since none of these commandments states that a woman must submit
>to her husband, it follows from this that submission to one's husband is
>not an essential doctrine of Christianity and hence Feminism and Christianity
>are compatible

In the New Testament we see that wives are indeed to submit to their husbands
even when there is no threat of violence.  Husbands are to value there
wives as much, perhaps even more, than themselves.

Link Hudson.