The accusation you make of egalitarians is exactly the error I would level at complementarians: ignorance of context.
There simply is no inherent reason why prior creation would confer superiority of position. If anything, the overall tenor of Scripture is that the second-born is the favoured one. However, in the specific cultural/religious context into which Paul was writing, his statement makes perfect sense. The Ephesian female-led cults taught that Eve was formed first and that she was not deceived.
Unlike you, I don't need to use insults when I disagree with you. I thought you didn't either. Oh well.
We both agree that we consider each other ignorant of context, c'est la vie!
If first-born bears no significance in Judaic thought, why is the term 'first-born' so prevalent throughout scripture (I'm actually surprised that you even said that)? And thus, why did Paul even bring it up then in Tim 2:13? Second-born was only a concession, there was always an offense whenever the 2nd usurped the rights of the 1st. i.e. Rueben -> Jospeh, Esau -> Jacob, Ishmael -> Isaac, otherwise 1st born always had precedence. This is why Christ is called 1st born of creation, and 1st born from the dead, and why Israel is called God's 1st born. Again Dino, I can't believe that you said that, for again, why did Paul even state it?
Plus, scripture as a whole emphasizes this, ...your doing it again, isolating verses and bringing in cultural idiosyncrasies? Inspired men, when establishing Church governance, do not speak on such a circumstantial level. In other words, we may as well cut it out of scripture since it bears no modern day significance or just doesn't apply anymore (I say this for the sake of argument)?
1 Corinthians 11:7-10
11:7. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9. neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
Dino, I'm not being abusive, just assertive and austere about this. I'm not sure if your last comment was accusing me of that? But, as it may be mutual, I'm seeing denial and bias, I'm seeing practices that, in my mind, are missing the complete tenor of scripture, i.e. the Bible is male chauvinistic. All the main Characters, all the Authors, all the Kings, all the Judges, all the Priests, all the Major & Minor Prophets, all the 12 Apostles, all the 12 Tribes of Israel, the sequence of creation, etc... (i will not even entertain the exceptions, for even if i did, I'd be a fool to make a rule out of them).
Women are not inferior to men, both are created in God's image. We come into this world through women, and a man must love his wife as he loves his own body, and as I said before, must give his life for her, or any women, in any circumstance (that's my understanding and opinion). Only a coward, weakling and fool will treat her otherwise. She has as much intelligence and dignity as man, and I need not express how often she has more than men, that goes without saying. But, as I said before,
'sometimes children are smarter than parents, students more competent than teachers, civilians more upstanding than the authorities, it doesn't mean that they should defy or usurp their overseers inherent authority.'
In the end, I just believe that there are an overwhelming amount of scripture in favour of Complimentarianism, than there are in support of Egalitarianism.
