Discussion on: "the wife, as to the weaker vessel" (1 Peter 3:7)
Forum category
In preparation for teaching on 1 Peter 3:1-7 in several weeks, I invite comments on the meaning of “the weaker vessel” from 1 Peter 3:1-7
Regular Baptist Press has this:
ESV:
Regular Baptist Press has this:
she is the ‘weaker vessel, which probably refers to the fact that God made women generally weaker physically than menFor reference purposes this is how various versions render the text:
ESV:
Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you[a: of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.NASB:
You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.KJV:
Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hinderedNIV:
Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayersNKJV:
Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.
- 700 views
I think the key is the word “as”. In every translation you quote, and every one I can find to check, the wording here is essentially the same. I think it is comparative of the action the husband is to take rather than descriptive of the wife. IOW, treat her like you would treat something fragile rather than saying that she is somehow fragile. This seems to fit the context of the discussion well.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
οι ανδρες ομοιως συνοικουντες κατα γνωσιν ως ασθενεστερω σκευει τω γυναικειω απονεμοντες τιμην ως και συγκληρονομοι χαριτος ζωης εις το μη εκκοπτεσθαι τας προσευχας υμων
- ἀσθενής, adjective, “weak, infirm, feeble”. Also consider (sampling):
- Matthew 26:41, “Watch and pray, lest you enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” “
- Romans 5:6, “For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.”
- 1 Cor 1:25, “Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.”
- 2 Cor 10:10, ““For his letters,” they say, “are weighty and powerful, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible.””
- 1 Thessalonians 5:14, “Now we exhort you, brethren, warn those who are unruly, comfort the fainthearted, uphold the weak, be patient with all.”
- Matthew 26:41, “Watch and pray, lest you enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” “
- σκεῦος, noun, “a vessel”. Sampling
- Acts 9:15, “But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel.”
- Romans 9:21-23, “Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory,”
- 2 Cor 4:7, “But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellence of the power may be of God and not of us.”
- 1 Thess 4:4, “that each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor”
- 2 Tim 2:21, “Therefore if anyone cleanses himself from the latter, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful for the Master, prepared for every good work.”
- Acts 9:15, “But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom45.iv.iv.iii.html?highlight=weake…
Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them. From husbands he requires prudence; for dominion over their wives is not given them, except on this condition, that they exercise authority prudently. Then let husbands remember that they need prudence to do rightly their duty. And doubtless many foolish things must be endured by them, many unpleasant things must be borne with; and they must at the same time beware lest their indulgence should foster folly. Hence the admonition of Peter is not in vain, that the husbands ought to cohabit with them as with a weaker vessel. Part of the prudence which he mentions, is, that the husbands honor their wives. For nothing destroys the friendship of life more than contempt; nor can we really love any but those whom we esteem; for love must be connected with respect.
Moreover, he employs a twofold argument, in order to persuade husbands to treat their wives honourably and kindly. The first is derived from the weakness of the sex; the other, from the honor with which God favors them. These things seem indeed to be in a manner contrary, — that honor ought to be given to wives, because they are weak, and because they excel; but these things well agree together where love exists. It is evident, that God is despised in his gifts, except we honor those on whom he has conferred any excellency. But when we consider that we are members of the same body, we learn to bear with one another, and mutually to cover our infirmities. This is what Paul means when he says that greater honor is given to the weaker members, (1 Corinthians 12:23;) even because we are more careful in protecting them from shame. Then Peter does not without reason command that women should be cared for, and that they should be honored with a kind treatment, because they are weak. And then as we more easily forgive children, when they offend through inexperience of age; so the weakness of the female sex ought to make us not to be too rigid and severe towards our wives.
The word vessel, as it is well known, means in Scripture any sort of instrument.
The duty of husbands, 1 Pe 3:7. It was their duty to render all proper honour to their wives, and to live with them as fellow-heirs of salvation, that their prayers might not be hindered; implying,Comment: Helpful but does not really address “weaker vessel”
- that in the most important respects they were on an equality;
- that they would pray together, or that there would be family prayer; and,
- that it was the duty of husband and wife so to live together that their prayers might ascend from united hearts and that it would be consistent for God to answer them.
The husband’s duty to the wife comes next to be considered.Comment: I added formatting and underlining to the above
- The particulars are,
- Cohabitation, which forbids unnecessary separation, and implies a mutual communication of goods and persons one to another, with delight and concord.
- Dwelling with the wife according to knowledge; not according to lust, as brutes; nor according to passion, as devils; but according to knowledge, as wise and sober men, who know the word of God and their own duty.
- Giving honour to the wife—giving due respect to her, and maintaining her authority, protecting her person, supporting her credit, delighting in her conversation, affording her a handsome maintenance, and placing a due trust and confidence in her.
- The reasons are, Because she is the weaker vessel by nature and constitution, and so ought to be defended: but then the wife is, in other and higher respects, equal to her husband; they are heirs together of the grace of life, of all the blessings of this life and another, and therefore should live peaceably and quietly one with another, and, if they do not, their prayers one with another and one for another will be hindered, so that often “you will not pray at all, or, if you do, you will pray with a discomposed ruffled mind, and so without success.” Learn,
- The weakness of the female sex is no just reason either for separation or contempt, but on the contrary it is a reason for honour and respect: Giving honour to the wife as unto the weaker vessel.
- There is an honour due to all who are heirs of the grace of life.
- All married people should take care to behave themselves so lovingly and peaceably one to another that they may not by their broils hinder the success of their prayers.
M.H. b 1662 – d 1714
I wonder if c 2010, we consider the woman to be
I wonder if c 2010, we consider the woman to be
- “the weaker vessel by nature and constitution” AND
- Accept this: “The weakness of the female sex”
- As smart as men
- They live longer then men (generally)
- Many are as tough and resilient as men!
[Chip Van Emmerik] I think the key is the word “as”. In every translation you quote, and every one I can find to check, the wording here is essentially the same. I think it is comparative of the action the husband is to take rather than descriptive of the wife. IOW, treat her like you would treat something fragile rather than saying that she is somehow fragile. This seems to fit the context of the discussion well.If I understand you correctly, the woman is not really weaker but should be treated as weaker.
Interesting. Never considered that!
so in ( 1 Thessalonians 4:4 ) the wife is called a vessel, and here “the weaker”; being so for the most part, both as to strength of body, and endowments of mind; and therefore to be used gently and tenderly, and not be treated with neglect and contempt, or with inhumanity and severity; but as, in every state and condition, the strong are to bear the infirmities of the weak; so a man should bear with, and accommodate himself to the infirmities of his wife, and hide them as much as he can, and not expose them, nor despise her on account of them. It is a saying of the Jews,John Gill, b 1697 – d 1771
“if thy wife be short of stature, bow thyself, and whisper to her.”
The meaning of the proverb is, that he ought to suit himself to her capacity and weakness:
Comment: I doubt many today regard a woman as weaker in the “endowments of mind”
(Should be a good discussion item with my wife tonight on our commute home from the office. Honey, a Baptist “Father” wrote that women are weaker in the “endowments of mind”.
I’ll let you know if I survive this conversation! :) )
[Jim Peet]Essentially, yes. I don’t think this passage deals with whether the woman is actually weaker. I can think of no other Scripture that describes women as inferior in design to men; all of the salient comments you made in your quotes point in the same direction. The context of this verse has to do primarily with the husband and how he is to act and think, not with the wife.[Chip Van Emmerik] I think the key is the word “as”. In every translation you quote, and every one I can find to check, the wording here is essentially the same. I think it is comparative of the action the husband is to take rather than descriptive of the wife. IOW, treat her like you would treat something fragile rather than saying that she is somehow fragile. This seems to fit the context of the discussion well.If I understand you correctly, the woman is not really weaker but should be treated as weaker.
Interesting. Never considered that!
((I didn’t really have to quote everything from your post, but I really wanted to see how the new program would display a quote in a quote :bigsmile: )
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Peter specifically identified the weaker of the two vessels with an articular adjective, ‘the womanly’ or ‘the wifely’ (τω γυναικειω).The designation …is abstract, not ‘the wife’ but ‘the female element’. The recognition of her greater weakness is not derogatory and does not imply inferiority. Generally speaking, the wife is physically weaker than the man, but it is unfair to imply that she is intellectually or morally inferior to him. By and large commentators have understood ‘weaker vessel’ as a reference to physical strength, but Susan Foh suggests an attractive alternative: ‘The wife may be considered weak because of her role as a wife. She, by marrying, has accepted a position where she submits herself to her husband. Such a position is vulnerable, open to exploitation’http://www.amazon.com/First-Peter-D-Edmond-Hiebert/dp/0884692523] Amazon link
Ya know Jim, your last post rang bells with me. I went back and checked my notes from preaching that passage several years ago. While I mentioned the descriptive aspects of “as” (referred to in my first post) my study brought me to this point. The wife’s position is weaker in that it is subordinate, “vulnerable, open to exploitation.” It brings tremendous impact to bear on the role and responsibility of the husband (we brutes).
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
I have a feeling that the truth is being missed here.
1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Then add the following
Mar 10:8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
The devil brought down Adam through the “Weakness” of Eve.
Just my way of seeing this.
1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Then add the following
Mar 10:8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
The devil brought down Adam through the “Weakness” of Eve.
Just my way of seeing this.
Hi Jim, I’m not sure exactly what type of things you want to hear when you asked for a woman to respond, but I’m happy to give you my opinion on the matter. I’m pretty sure it will be an unpopular one with many women and, surprisingly to me, many men, too. If you taught this sort of thing in your church, you may be run out of the church faster than you could say “weaker”.
Just a quick side note: I do think you’re pretty brave(? :)) asking for comments from women. It’s nice to know that you are being sensitive toward this very touchy (but why?) subject/conversation between the two genders. And you’re not just trying to bulldoze them from the pulpit which, of course, would be harder to hear, for most, I assume. As a laywoman—thanks for that. :)
I think if I follow where I believe Marty H. is headed, I mostly align with that view. Please, before I’m run out of the SI forums, let me explain a bit.
IMO (and many other’s), nothing has done more harm to women than the feminist movement (hating most things traditional that keeps the woman at home, particularly in the area of marriage) and modern feminism-lite (“I can still love my career, climb the corporate ladder and be a good mother and wife” mentality.)
Carolyn McCulley in her book Radical Womanhood: Feminine Faith in a Feminist World (which, btw, I wasn’t a huge fan of the book, but McCulley does write a good, I think, summary of the origins of feminism) writes this about Elizabeth Cady Stanton (some might view her positively, yes even some professing Christians):
In many ways, Elizabeth Cady Stanton was the embodiment of first-wave feminism. The Seneca Falls Convention was the beginning of her lifelong crusade. Though Stanton was married for nearly fifty hears and was the mother of seven children, she had a dim view of the institution of marriage: “It is in vain to look for the elevation of woman, so long as she is degraded in marriage… I feel that this whole question of woman’s rights turns on the point of the marriage relation.” McCulley goes on to talk about Stanton’s turn to atheistic views.
The (sometimes very blatent) agenda of original feminism, from what I can tell, is to uproot the God-ordained institution of the family, starting with marriage. Also, from what I can tell in McCulley’s book, everything else (women’s movements, career-building, etc.) all stem from this American cultural origin.
“Feminism-lite” is the softer, gentler side of feminism; all of the taste, none of the calories. Blech!
I’m not too concerned about what the world is doing—in fact, I can figure “them” out pretty well.
It’s the church where I’m a bit confused. Many stories I read or conversations I’ve had are about women in the church possessing (acquiring?) this subtle to not-so-subtle mix of feminism.
I’m quite surprised when I read of women who have young children taking an active role in politics (and being praised for it), or pursuing long-time careers because it “helps them be a better mother/wife.” I had one woman (professing Christian) say something like this, just recently, to me.
I think it would be hard for any American born, bred, educated, etc. woman (and men too!) to honestly say (I’m sure there are exceptions, but I’m generalizing) that they have a complete blank slate when it comes to their views of a woman’s niche, because it doesn’t start with Stanton, it starts with Eve.
Because of this, I believe that Scripture (surprise, surprise) is our only guide and if we see it with a “blank slate” in mind (might be impossible at this point), I think, we’ll see very clearly that if the design of women (Gen. 2, pre-curse stuff) was to be man’s helper and then it shows throughout Scripture that the woman’s role, at every turn (well, the kind where God commands/blesses), is to be a helper to men… then why can’t we (Christian women) just accept it. It’s pretty clear? And, if we can accept that, then the weaker part comes fairly easy, less clouded, IMO. I believe we are weaker mentally, physically, emotionally, etc. not because that’s my experience, but because the bible says that we are.
Commentaries by men are great, but when it comes to what the bible says about women, men (wisely) tread lightly, but in doing so, some miss/compromise? the (clear, IMO) message of the God-breathed text. When Agur in Proverbs says he’s stupid, few of us Christians pshaw at that in the way that we phooey at the bible calling women “weaker.” Blech!
If the Bible says it, it’s true.
The issue is when we bring what we experience into it. We all know and hear of women who are smarter, leaner, faster, stopping-from-plowing-long-enough-to-give-birth-and-then-strap-the-baby-on-her-back-and-keep-going in fields type stuff. But I hate those arguments. Yes, I know studies have been done, etc., but, IMO, there will never be a study that proves women are not weaker than men mostly because the Bible says that we are and secondly, because that kind of study is impossible to do, anyway. The minute anyone shows a faster woman, there’s a faster man, smarter woman—smarter man, and on and on. Pointless.
The point is what does my Creator say? He says that He made women for a specific purpose—to help men, to work at home, love husband and children (if applicable), church ministry (when applicable), etc. If I start with that presupposition, then why do I need to be smarter, faster, etc. for that? It doesn’t mean I don’t have my brilliant, bench pressing moments—it just means I’m not in competition to prove (essentially) that the Bible is wrong or doesn’t say what it clearly states just because every gender experience I have, the woman wins out (said tongue-in-cheekly :)).
We all have shining moments… that’s not the point of the “weaker” text in I Peter 3, IMO. It’s not to prove who’s “inferior”. It’s to protect women physically, emotionally, mentally, just as God has cared for us (women) throughout time starting with OT law for the Israelites. Whether we (women) think we need it or not. (Oh God’s surpassing grace!) And, IMO, to give a fairly sharp rebuke to men who don’t follow what He commands.
So when the Bible says “weaker”, I not only believe it, but (gasp!) I am weaker and I am thankful for the protection that God has provided for me in a stronger, smarter, less prone to emotional fits, husband. :)
A word that someone said in the comments up above made me stop and think. That word was “inferior” and I wanted to address that quickly. If it was used as a description such as, that chair is inferior to the other one because it’s made of different wood, then I’ll accept that.
But if it was used to describe that being made “weaker” is some sort of flaw, then I take exception. That’s the cultural standard of the way we view things. Weaker—only the strong survive—survival of the fittest type stuff. And we know throughout Scripture that God specifically made “vessels” weaker for a specific purpose in contrast to the strong, mighty human power and acumen. If He can do it with a whole nation (Israelites), He can certainly do it with me. It’s His perogrative. :)
I’m not concerned that some of my Christian peers don’t understand that we’re all of equal value before God (Gal. 3 stuff). I’m concerned that “weakness” has been perceived as flawed and we (both genders) are doing our best to climb out of something we keep digging bigger and bigger when the Bible provides the filler for the hole found, of course, in Christ Jesus and His agenda. Woman was created for the man, not man for the woman is perceived as some sort of design flaw, but we know from Scripture, that was the intent all along… and it was “very good.”
If that makes me weak for thinking this, then sobeit. I’m thankful for the position that God has given to me and pray that God will continue to grant me His grace to marvel at His workmanship in being “weaker” to (truly) help the strong(er).
Just to reiterate, this is my opinion.
I look forward to any exchange.
Kim Noble
PS__Jim, I’d be interested to hear about the dinner convo with your dear wife. :) I noticed you did post after, so I’ll assume, at the very least, you’re still breathing. :)
Just a quick side note: I do think you’re pretty brave(? :)) asking for comments from women. It’s nice to know that you are being sensitive toward this very touchy (but why?) subject/conversation between the two genders. And you’re not just trying to bulldoze them from the pulpit which, of course, would be harder to hear, for most, I assume. As a laywoman—thanks for that. :)
I think if I follow where I believe Marty H. is headed, I mostly align with that view. Please, before I’m run out of the SI forums, let me explain a bit.
IMO (and many other’s), nothing has done more harm to women than the feminist movement (hating most things traditional that keeps the woman at home, particularly in the area of marriage) and modern feminism-lite (“I can still love my career, climb the corporate ladder and be a good mother and wife” mentality.)
Carolyn McCulley in her book Radical Womanhood: Feminine Faith in a Feminist World (which, btw, I wasn’t a huge fan of the book, but McCulley does write a good, I think, summary of the origins of feminism) writes this about Elizabeth Cady Stanton (some might view her positively, yes even some professing Christians):
In many ways, Elizabeth Cady Stanton was the embodiment of first-wave feminism. The Seneca Falls Convention was the beginning of her lifelong crusade. Though Stanton was married for nearly fifty hears and was the mother of seven children, she had a dim view of the institution of marriage: “It is in vain to look for the elevation of woman, so long as she is degraded in marriage… I feel that this whole question of woman’s rights turns on the point of the marriage relation.” McCulley goes on to talk about Stanton’s turn to atheistic views.
The (sometimes very blatent) agenda of original feminism, from what I can tell, is to uproot the God-ordained institution of the family, starting with marriage. Also, from what I can tell in McCulley’s book, everything else (women’s movements, career-building, etc.) all stem from this American cultural origin.
“Feminism-lite” is the softer, gentler side of feminism; all of the taste, none of the calories. Blech!
I’m not too concerned about what the world is doing—in fact, I can figure “them” out pretty well.
It’s the church where I’m a bit confused. Many stories I read or conversations I’ve had are about women in the church possessing (acquiring?) this subtle to not-so-subtle mix of feminism.
I’m quite surprised when I read of women who have young children taking an active role in politics (and being praised for it), or pursuing long-time careers because it “helps them be a better mother/wife.” I had one woman (professing Christian) say something like this, just recently, to me.
I think it would be hard for any American born, bred, educated, etc. woman (and men too!) to honestly say (I’m sure there are exceptions, but I’m generalizing) that they have a complete blank slate when it comes to their views of a woman’s niche, because it doesn’t start with Stanton, it starts with Eve.
Because of this, I believe that Scripture (surprise, surprise) is our only guide and if we see it with a “blank slate” in mind (might be impossible at this point), I think, we’ll see very clearly that if the design of women (Gen. 2, pre-curse stuff) was to be man’s helper and then it shows throughout Scripture that the woman’s role, at every turn (well, the kind where God commands/blesses), is to be a helper to men… then why can’t we (Christian women) just accept it. It’s pretty clear? And, if we can accept that, then the weaker part comes fairly easy, less clouded, IMO. I believe we are weaker mentally, physically, emotionally, etc. not because that’s my experience, but because the bible says that we are.
Commentaries by men are great, but when it comes to what the bible says about women, men (wisely) tread lightly, but in doing so, some miss/compromise? the (clear, IMO) message of the God-breathed text. When Agur in Proverbs says he’s stupid, few of us Christians pshaw at that in the way that we phooey at the bible calling women “weaker.” Blech!
If the Bible says it, it’s true.
The issue is when we bring what we experience into it. We all know and hear of women who are smarter, leaner, faster, stopping-from-plowing-long-enough-to-give-birth-and-then-strap-the-baby-on-her-back-and-keep-going in fields type stuff. But I hate those arguments. Yes, I know studies have been done, etc., but, IMO, there will never be a study that proves women are not weaker than men mostly because the Bible says that we are and secondly, because that kind of study is impossible to do, anyway. The minute anyone shows a faster woman, there’s a faster man, smarter woman—smarter man, and on and on. Pointless.
The point is what does my Creator say? He says that He made women for a specific purpose—to help men, to work at home, love husband and children (if applicable), church ministry (when applicable), etc. If I start with that presupposition, then why do I need to be smarter, faster, etc. for that? It doesn’t mean I don’t have my brilliant, bench pressing moments—it just means I’m not in competition to prove (essentially) that the Bible is wrong or doesn’t say what it clearly states just because every gender experience I have, the woman wins out (said tongue-in-cheekly :)).
We all have shining moments… that’s not the point of the “weaker” text in I Peter 3, IMO. It’s not to prove who’s “inferior”. It’s to protect women physically, emotionally, mentally, just as God has cared for us (women) throughout time starting with OT law for the Israelites. Whether we (women) think we need it or not. (Oh God’s surpassing grace!) And, IMO, to give a fairly sharp rebuke to men who don’t follow what He commands.
So when the Bible says “weaker”, I not only believe it, but (gasp!) I am weaker and I am thankful for the protection that God has provided for me in a stronger, smarter, less prone to emotional fits, husband. :)
A word that someone said in the comments up above made me stop and think. That word was “inferior” and I wanted to address that quickly. If it was used as a description such as, that chair is inferior to the other one because it’s made of different wood, then I’ll accept that.
But if it was used to describe that being made “weaker” is some sort of flaw, then I take exception. That’s the cultural standard of the way we view things. Weaker—only the strong survive—survival of the fittest type stuff. And we know throughout Scripture that God specifically made “vessels” weaker for a specific purpose in contrast to the strong, mighty human power and acumen. If He can do it with a whole nation (Israelites), He can certainly do it with me. It’s His perogrative. :)
I’m not concerned that some of my Christian peers don’t understand that we’re all of equal value before God (Gal. 3 stuff). I’m concerned that “weakness” has been perceived as flawed and we (both genders) are doing our best to climb out of something we keep digging bigger and bigger when the Bible provides the filler for the hole found, of course, in Christ Jesus and His agenda. Woman was created for the man, not man for the woman is perceived as some sort of design flaw, but we know from Scripture, that was the intent all along… and it was “very good.”
If that makes me weak for thinking this, then sobeit. I’m thankful for the position that God has given to me and pray that God will continue to grant me His grace to marvel at His workmanship in being “weaker” to (truly) help the strong(er).
Just to reiterate, this is my opinion.
I look forward to any exchange.
Kim Noble
PS__Jim, I’d be interested to hear about the dinner convo with your dear wife. :) I noticed you did post after, so I’ll assume, at the very least, you’re still breathing. :)
[skjnoble] PS__Jim, I’d be interested to hear about the dinner convo with your dear wife. :) I noticed you did post after, so I’ll assume, at the very least, you’re still breathing. :)
Kim,
Your post was quite enjoyable (My response is a bit long and I don’t assume you agree with all I have to say, but I had some thoughts somewhat complementary to yours). It reflected something many men (no one specific is meant here, this is a general statement and not directed at anyone personally or individually and not even necessarily any posts here), unfortunately, cower from (for whatever reasons) which is a willingness to state the obvious in spite of political or social pressures such as domestic complaints or even immediate pressure. Now some may have theological reasons for not agreeing but they generally sound like a “Limited Atonementist” trying to explain “for God so loved the world” doesn’t really mean what it plainly says.
As to the matter of inferior, you bring up a vital nuance. In one case it can refer to a value judgment of the person, in the other case it can refer to capacity while not judging human value. Children are inferior to adults in capacity but not in personal or human value. The human essence is the same for all.
A woman’s inferiority is not an inferiority of human value but of design in capacity. Males are designed as initiators and women as responders. This gives the male an advantage which is designed by God but as you noted, a responsibility to his responder.
But how this capacity design for each man and woman, combined with their mentality and psychological make-up, plays out, varies from person to person. And because in many cases it is not distinguishable or easily perceived in our day to day socialization with one another, it does not mean it is not present or real. But in fact if we were to go beyond the limits of our socialization levels and could enter the intimacy of each relationship and its dynamics, I guarantee anyone that in appropriate relationships between a man and a woman we would see this to be quite true, even in cases where the woman may have accelerated gifts or skills in comparison to her husband. She is designed as a respondent, a man as the initiator and that does not change regardless of the gifts or skills present in each person.
And further, in relationships that deny this reality and refuse to acknowledge it in the administration of their lives we will observe varying levels of dysfunction, ultimately to the greatest kinds of dysfunction that impact human beings so much so that it leads to all kinds of denial and dysfunction of reality in other areas of life.
And as you noted there are many dynamics that people call to attention that they claim are exceptions. They are not. There is no exception to this reality. Take a wife who has a genius IQ. (my mother had this)and let’s throw in her coming from a home with a great deal of emotional maturity and genetic predisposition to rationalism and calm and imagine the husband to be impetuous, intellectually at an 85 IQ. and prone to psychological irregularities. Is he now the weaker vessel?
Well, her sister, Eve, who was all these things and in a state of commendation due to not having disobeyed God (sin was not present in her) apparently was deceived in spite of all of this. As you pointed out, the documentation of the Scriptures trumps even the unusual alignment of some marriages.
But still it does not answer the question. Is she the weaker vessel though the facts of the surface seem contrary to this? The Scriptures support this but beyond this and to our cursory evaluations, they are not enough. We must discover the true function of each person because a high IQ. is just that, a high IQ. and does not guarantee any positive response to the correct adjustment to the issues of life. Nor does a high IQ. guard against rationalism, excuse making, dishonesty, gullibility, and so on. And a calm demeanor or emotional maturity is not a guarantee that one will accept a proper viewpoint of life. Yes, such gifts are assets when used correctly but their existence, in and of themselves, are no guarantee. There are many emotionally/psychologically mature people who have been quite deceived by many a bad idea.
But even beyond this to the maladjusted male who in practical observations cannot keep up with his wife, it is just that, a maladjusted male. It is a man who, by defect and not design, is incapacitated. It does not change the reality or the administrative hierarchy of a the male/female relationship in the marriage. And if a man is so incapacitated that he cannot lead, then frankly he should not marry.
Leadership brings with it the implication that those filling the role have such capacity. As well, those entering in a relationship that entails yielding to leadership, if they are incapacitated so that they cannot follow or adhere to such leadership, they too are not prepared for marriage.
Additionally, not every single design or intent of God can be discovered scientifically. It might be that at times we can see God’s deliberate differentiation and why it results in the things it does but sometimes we cannot. And in this case I do not believe every single element of the cause and effect of gender difference can be discovered socially or scientifically.
Finally, as I said, the dynamics for each person do play out differently which is why not all women are for all men and vice versa. There is a certain appropriateness to matching one’s self with a spouse (btw, the example of the woman I gave with the high IQ. married to the lower IQ. certainly doesn’t speak to the wonderful decisions a high IQ. results in, if we are treasuring IQ.’s so if anyone finds themselves in this situation, possible your high IQ. wasn’t quite the asset you imagined :)).
I do find it fascinating the trepidation that ensues for so many when discussing the make-up and nature of women as opposed to men. It is reality of our person that frees us, not denial.
When a woman acknowledges this about herself and says to herself, “I need a man who can lead me” (and not every woman is led in the same manner but every woman must be led by her husband so she is responsible for identifying her right leader) and when a man acknowledges this and says to himself, “I need a woman I can lead”, then they will properly exclude those they identify as ones that they either cannot follow or cannot lead. Then, with the remaining potential candidates who appear to meet this basic criteria, they are free to add personality/temperament (not the goofy LaHaye voodoo temperament kind) mentality, and belief system compatible with their own resulting in a very high likelihood of domestic success. Unfortunately people often put personality and so on first with the most essential second, namely a right orientation or divine viewpoint as to their capacity and role, in choosing a mate.
Your post was quite enjoyable (My response is a bit long and I don’t assume you agree with all I have to say, but I had some thoughts somewhat complementary to yours). It reflected something many men (no one specific is meant here, this is a general statement and not directed at anyone personally or individually and not even necessarily any posts here), unfortunately, cower from (for whatever reasons) which is a willingness to state the obvious in spite of political or social pressures such as domestic complaints or even immediate pressure. Now some may have theological reasons for not agreeing but they generally sound like a “Limited Atonementist” trying to explain “for God so loved the world” doesn’t really mean what it plainly says.
As to the matter of inferior, you bring up a vital nuance. In one case it can refer to a value judgment of the person, in the other case it can refer to capacity while not judging human value. Children are inferior to adults in capacity but not in personal or human value. The human essence is the same for all.
A woman’s inferiority is not an inferiority of human value but of design in capacity. Males are designed as initiators and women as responders. This gives the male an advantage which is designed by God but as you noted, a responsibility to his responder.
But how this capacity design for each man and woman, combined with their mentality and psychological make-up, plays out, varies from person to person. And because in many cases it is not distinguishable or easily perceived in our day to day socialization with one another, it does not mean it is not present or real. But in fact if we were to go beyond the limits of our socialization levels and could enter the intimacy of each relationship and its dynamics, I guarantee anyone that in appropriate relationships between a man and a woman we would see this to be quite true, even in cases where the woman may have accelerated gifts or skills in comparison to her husband. She is designed as a respondent, a man as the initiator and that does not change regardless of the gifts or skills present in each person.
And further, in relationships that deny this reality and refuse to acknowledge it in the administration of their lives we will observe varying levels of dysfunction, ultimately to the greatest kinds of dysfunction that impact human beings so much so that it leads to all kinds of denial and dysfunction of reality in other areas of life.
And as you noted there are many dynamics that people call to attention that they claim are exceptions. They are not. There is no exception to this reality. Take a wife who has a genius IQ. (my mother had this)and let’s throw in her coming from a home with a great deal of emotional maturity and genetic predisposition to rationalism and calm and imagine the husband to be impetuous, intellectually at an 85 IQ. and prone to psychological irregularities. Is he now the weaker vessel?
Well, her sister, Eve, who was all these things and in a state of commendation due to not having disobeyed God (sin was not present in her) apparently was deceived in spite of all of this. As you pointed out, the documentation of the Scriptures trumps even the unusual alignment of some marriages.
But still it does not answer the question. Is she the weaker vessel though the facts of the surface seem contrary to this? The Scriptures support this but beyond this and to our cursory evaluations, they are not enough. We must discover the true function of each person because a high IQ. is just that, a high IQ. and does not guarantee any positive response to the correct adjustment to the issues of life. Nor does a high IQ. guard against rationalism, excuse making, dishonesty, gullibility, and so on. And a calm demeanor or emotional maturity is not a guarantee that one will accept a proper viewpoint of life. Yes, such gifts are assets when used correctly but their existence, in and of themselves, are no guarantee. There are many emotionally/psychologically mature people who have been quite deceived by many a bad idea.
But even beyond this to the maladjusted male who in practical observations cannot keep up with his wife, it is just that, a maladjusted male. It is a man who, by defect and not design, is incapacitated. It does not change the reality or the administrative hierarchy of a the male/female relationship in the marriage. And if a man is so incapacitated that he cannot lead, then frankly he should not marry.
Leadership brings with it the implication that those filling the role have such capacity. As well, those entering in a relationship that entails yielding to leadership, if they are incapacitated so that they cannot follow or adhere to such leadership, they too are not prepared for marriage.
Additionally, not every single design or intent of God can be discovered scientifically. It might be that at times we can see God’s deliberate differentiation and why it results in the things it does but sometimes we cannot. And in this case I do not believe every single element of the cause and effect of gender difference can be discovered socially or scientifically.
Finally, as I said, the dynamics for each person do play out differently which is why not all women are for all men and vice versa. There is a certain appropriateness to matching one’s self with a spouse (btw, the example of the woman I gave with the high IQ. married to the lower IQ. certainly doesn’t speak to the wonderful decisions a high IQ. results in, if we are treasuring IQ.’s so if anyone finds themselves in this situation, possible your high IQ. wasn’t quite the asset you imagined :)).
I do find it fascinating the trepidation that ensues for so many when discussing the make-up and nature of women as opposed to men. It is reality of our person that frees us, not denial.
When a woman acknowledges this about herself and says to herself, “I need a man who can lead me” (and not every woman is led in the same manner but every woman must be led by her husband so she is responsible for identifying her right leader) and when a man acknowledges this and says to himself, “I need a woman I can lead”, then they will properly exclude those they identify as ones that they either cannot follow or cannot lead. Then, with the remaining potential candidates who appear to meet this basic criteria, they are free to add personality/temperament (not the goofy LaHaye voodoo temperament kind) mentality, and belief system compatible with their own resulting in a very high likelihood of domestic success. Unfortunately people often put personality and so on first with the most essential second, namely a right orientation or divine viewpoint as to their capacity and role, in choosing a mate.
I’d add, in general agreement with Kim and Bro. Alex, that ‘weaker’ means weaker. Adam was not deceived, but Eve was deceived. Adam rebelled, but only Eve was seduced.
However, in spite of all the gender baggage we have to lug around, a woman who truly views her place in the home as a vital but supportive role isn’t going to feel inferior in the least, and shouldn’t be viewed as inferior. Her goal is still to build her house (Prov. 14:1) in a Scriptural manner, and her gifts- be they intelligence or creativity or handiness- are still God-given, and He expects them to be used to accomplish His will. God receives glory when we lay aside our desires to fulfill His design. (Titus 2:5)
The idea of keeping score in a marriage- who is smarter, more talented, more capable, etc… is just weird to me. Any abilities we have are from God, so it doesn’t make sense to act as if we have somehow attained our capabilities under our own power, and thus can use them however we please or feel superior to another human being. I think of it like this- if God gives me some talent or ability, then He has seen fit to entrust me with such, and I am even more responsible to find out what God wants me to do with it. I think that’s just scary.
In any case, and as any keeper at home can attest- marriage, house-keeping, child-rearing, and ministering in one’s church and community are NOT mindless tasks that don’t require intelligence or ingenuity. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-confused002.gif
However, in spite of all the gender baggage we have to lug around, a woman who truly views her place in the home as a vital but supportive role isn’t going to feel inferior in the least, and shouldn’t be viewed as inferior. Her goal is still to build her house (Prov. 14:1) in a Scriptural manner, and her gifts- be they intelligence or creativity or handiness- are still God-given, and He expects them to be used to accomplish His will. God receives glory when we lay aside our desires to fulfill His design. (Titus 2:5)
The idea of keeping score in a marriage- who is smarter, more talented, more capable, etc… is just weird to me. Any abilities we have are from God, so it doesn’t make sense to act as if we have somehow attained our capabilities under our own power, and thus can use them however we please or feel superior to another human being. I think of it like this- if God gives me some talent or ability, then He has seen fit to entrust me with such, and I am even more responsible to find out what God wants me to do with it. I think that’s just scary.
In any case, and as any keeper at home can attest- marriage, house-keeping, child-rearing, and ministering in one’s church and community are NOT mindless tasks that don’t require intelligence or ingenuity. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-confused002.gif
Susan, While I know that you are in fact right in your statement that Adam was in rebellion, I would not have stated it in quite the same way. I once heard Chuck Missler speak on this and I am inclined to agree with him.
What he said in a nut shell was this. That once Adam learned of what Eve had done, he had two choices. To stand back and watch Eve die alone or join her and die together. So yes, while anything we do that is against God is rebellion, I think the motive in his action was not rebellion, but love.
Once I heard Chuck say this, I find it hard to see it any other way. You may have another take on it and I’d be glad to hear it.
What he said in a nut shell was this. That once Adam learned of what Eve had done, he had two choices. To stand back and watch Eve die alone or join her and die together. So yes, while anything we do that is against God is rebellion, I think the motive in his action was not rebellion, but love.
Once I heard Chuck say this, I find it hard to see it any other way. You may have another take on it and I’d be glad to hear it.
[Marty H] Susan, While I know that you are in fact right in your statement that Adam was in rebellion, I would not have stated it in quite the same way. I once heard Chuck Missler speak on this and I am inclined to agree with him.I have heard this slant as well, and while it sounds very romantic, what Adam did was disobey a direct command from God. Another word for disobedience is ‘rebellion’. His motivations are not relevant except for a limited analogy/typology. Christ’s sacrifice for His bride is not in disobedience to the Father. Adam was not deceived when he decided to transgress (1 Tim 2:14). Eve was deceived- “as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty” (2 Cor. 11:3). If God thought Adam’s actions were sweet and noble, He sure had a fine way of showin’ it, what with the curse and eternal damnation and all that.
What he said in a nut shell was this. That once Adam learned of what Eve had done, he had two choices. To stand back and watch Eve die alone or join her and die together. So yes, while anything we do that is against God is rebellion, I think the motive in his action was not rebellion, but love.
Once I heard Chuck say this, I find it hard to see it any other way. You may have another take on it and I’d be glad to hear it.
So, I understand that the picture of Adam choosing to die with Eve instead of live without her ‘will preach’, but it doesn’t change the fact that what he did was rebel against God.
[Marty H] I think the motive in his action was not rebellion, but love.Love of man (specifically a woman, in the case of Eve) over love of God is idolatry!
@Jim, hilarious!
@Alex—thanks for taking the time to complement the post. Much of what you said really bolstered what I was trying to say and a few times you really honed the rambling to a more precise point. Even though it’s what I had in mind, I didn’t actually say it.
I like how you set things up through your initiator/responder. Boy is that mixed-up these days—eh? :)
Leadership brings with it the implication that those filling the role have such capacity. As well, those entering in a relationship that entails yielding to leadership,
Yes! I love this statement. Jehovah God provides it all!
if they are incapacitated so that they cannot follow or adhere to such leadership, they too are not prepared for marriage.
I think I understand what you’re saying, but I also believe, included in this is the response to leave room and look forward to the working of the Holy Spirit in both roles. I’m sure many of us can say that some of the best sanctifying agents are our spouses (and children, too!) :) Many single people may use that as an excuse or reason not to get married when, in fact, they should.
I do like how many encourage that if you’re trying to find a Prov. 31 woman, you better concentrate on becoming the type of man that a Prov. 31 woman would say “yes” to.
Additionally, not every single design or intent of God can be discovered scientifically. It might be that at times we can see God’s deliberate differentiation and why it results in the things it does but sometimes we cannot. And in this case I do not believe every single element of the cause and effect of gender difference can be discovered socially or scientifically.
While I believe that we should continue to search and discover the material, physical world in such a way that pleases and brings glory to God, I completely agree with you, Alex. To ultimately try and explain the supernatural with the natural (or worse yet, pop-psych) is pshaw-ness! :)
Finally, as I said, the dynamics for each person do play out differently which is why not all women are for all men and vice versa. There is a certain appropriateness to matching one’s self with a spouse
This is a great point that I neglected to bring out. I was so caught up in the male to female components of the “weaker vessel” defense that I did not hone in on the proper usage which is, unlike the animal kingdom, God specifically designed—not just any one man for any one woman—but your husband with his wife. I believe the term is possessive pronoun. It’s so detailed. God be praised!
I do find it fascinating the trepidation that ensues for so many when discussing the make-up and nature of women as opposed to men. It is reality of our person that frees us, not denial.
Me too, well said!
Unfortunately people often put personality and so on first with the most essential second, namely a right orientation or divine viewpoint as to their capacity and role, in choosing a mate.
Smells a little like how the world does things—yes? I’m in complete agreement. I’m glad that Isaac and Rebekah didn’t get hitched this way. Yes, I do understand that much of it was that his father wanted a good Jewish girl, but I think it was more because he knew there was something about a promise yet to be fulfilled. It’s a good thing Isaac didn’t do things the way we do things today. Isaac may have discovered what a sneak she was and never married her—;). But truly, the point is that everything is God-orchestrated, hand-designed by God. He is flawless.
@Susan
Any abilities we have are from God, so it doesn’t make sense to act as if we have somehow attained our capabilities under our own power, and thus can use them however we please or feel superior to another human being. I think of it like this- if God gives me some talent or ability, then He has seen fit to entrust me with such, and I am even more responsible to find out what God wants me to do with it.
I wish I would have said this—this is great! Thanks for this beautiful exhortation and reminder! :)
@Marty H.
What he said in a nut shell was this. That once Adam learned of what Eve had done, he had two choices. To stand back and watch Eve die alone or join her and die together. So yes, while anything we do that is against God is rebellion, I think the motive in his action was not rebellion, but love.
Hmmm… I’ve honestly never heard this angle—or at least that I can remember. I’m not sure if I would be inclined to believe it. Reading in Gen. 3 how Adam pretty much throws her under a (moving?) bus once God confronts them makes me think that something a little more perverse was at work. :) I tend to like the words “rebellion” and “idolatry” already mentioned here. Plus, the plain fact is that I don’t see that written in Scripture in any of the (legit) versions available —and since God’s 2nd greatest commandment to us is to love our neighbor as ourself, you’d think in the plethora of Scriptures verses that refer to loving and dying, He’d reference that somewhere.
But again, just my opinion and I’ve never heard of Chuck Missler—sorry. I’m interested in researching a bit about him, though. Thanks, Marty!
Happy corporate worship day, everyone! May Jesus Christ be praised!
Kim
@Alex—thanks for taking the time to complement the post. Much of what you said really bolstered what I was trying to say and a few times you really honed the rambling to a more precise point. Even though it’s what I had in mind, I didn’t actually say it.
I like how you set things up through your initiator/responder. Boy is that mixed-up these days—eh? :)
Leadership brings with it the implication that those filling the role have such capacity. As well, those entering in a relationship that entails yielding to leadership,
Yes! I love this statement. Jehovah God provides it all!
if they are incapacitated so that they cannot follow or adhere to such leadership, they too are not prepared for marriage.
I think I understand what you’re saying, but I also believe, included in this is the response to leave room and look forward to the working of the Holy Spirit in both roles. I’m sure many of us can say that some of the best sanctifying agents are our spouses (and children, too!) :) Many single people may use that as an excuse or reason not to get married when, in fact, they should.
I do like how many encourage that if you’re trying to find a Prov. 31 woman, you better concentrate on becoming the type of man that a Prov. 31 woman would say “yes” to.
Additionally, not every single design or intent of God can be discovered scientifically. It might be that at times we can see God’s deliberate differentiation and why it results in the things it does but sometimes we cannot. And in this case I do not believe every single element of the cause and effect of gender difference can be discovered socially or scientifically.
While I believe that we should continue to search and discover the material, physical world in such a way that pleases and brings glory to God, I completely agree with you, Alex. To ultimately try and explain the supernatural with the natural (or worse yet, pop-psych) is pshaw-ness! :)
Finally, as I said, the dynamics for each person do play out differently which is why not all women are for all men and vice versa. There is a certain appropriateness to matching one’s self with a spouse
This is a great point that I neglected to bring out. I was so caught up in the male to female components of the “weaker vessel” defense that I did not hone in on the proper usage which is, unlike the animal kingdom, God specifically designed—not just any one man for any one woman—but your husband with his wife. I believe the term is possessive pronoun. It’s so detailed. God be praised!
I do find it fascinating the trepidation that ensues for so many when discussing the make-up and nature of women as opposed to men. It is reality of our person that frees us, not denial.
Me too, well said!
Unfortunately people often put personality and so on first with the most essential second, namely a right orientation or divine viewpoint as to their capacity and role, in choosing a mate.
Smells a little like how the world does things—yes? I’m in complete agreement. I’m glad that Isaac and Rebekah didn’t get hitched this way. Yes, I do understand that much of it was that his father wanted a good Jewish girl, but I think it was more because he knew there was something about a promise yet to be fulfilled. It’s a good thing Isaac didn’t do things the way we do things today. Isaac may have discovered what a sneak she was and never married her—;). But truly, the point is that everything is God-orchestrated, hand-designed by God. He is flawless.
@Susan
Any abilities we have are from God, so it doesn’t make sense to act as if we have somehow attained our capabilities under our own power, and thus can use them however we please or feel superior to another human being. I think of it like this- if God gives me some talent or ability, then He has seen fit to entrust me with such, and I am even more responsible to find out what God wants me to do with it.
I wish I would have said this—this is great! Thanks for this beautiful exhortation and reminder! :)
@Marty H.
What he said in a nut shell was this. That once Adam learned of what Eve had done, he had two choices. To stand back and watch Eve die alone or join her and die together. So yes, while anything we do that is against God is rebellion, I think the motive in his action was not rebellion, but love.
Hmmm… I’ve honestly never heard this angle—or at least that I can remember. I’m not sure if I would be inclined to believe it. Reading in Gen. 3 how Adam pretty much throws her under a (moving?) bus once God confronts them makes me think that something a little more perverse was at work. :) I tend to like the words “rebellion” and “idolatry” already mentioned here. Plus, the plain fact is that I don’t see that written in Scripture in any of the (legit) versions available —and since God’s 2nd greatest commandment to us is to love our neighbor as ourself, you’d think in the plethora of Scriptures verses that refer to loving and dying, He’d reference that somewhere.
But again, just my opinion and I’ve never heard of Chuck Missler—sorry. I’m interested in researching a bit about him, though. Thanks, Marty!
Happy corporate worship day, everyone! May Jesus Christ be praised!
Kim
[skjnoble] I do like how many encourage that if you’re trying to find a Prov. 31 woman, you better concentrate on becoming the type of man that a Prov. 31 woman would say “yes” to.Since I have a weakness for playing with words, I always say that one should endeavor to become the kind of person that the person they want to marry would want to marry. :D
The problem is the view that a woman who is the ‘marrying kind’ can cook, clean, and care for children. Quite frankly, you can teach a monkey to run a vacuum cleaner and flip pancakes. Seldom do I see a young man considering a young woman for marriage trying to ascertain if she exhibits the fruits of the Spirit. If she isn’t already honest, kind, and generous when you marry her, then you have a long row to hoe once you say “I do”.
What’s more, many a young woman will obey her daddy and present a picture of a submissive spirit- but how does her father wield his authority? Is he the kind of dad who is a tyrant, verbally terrorizing his children, threatening to kick them out of the house if they disobey in any manner? Parents can kick a ‘rebel’ out of their house and people will congratulate them- but when a girl who has obeyed such a tyrannical father gets married, she knows full well that her husband can do no such thing. He can’t legally kick her out, nor would the church pat him on the back for doing so. Then the poor guy looks stupid because he can’t control his wife- without abusing her, that is.
That’s why I think it is important to spend time with a potential spouse and their family if at all possible, and as much as possible. Also seeing them interact with their closest friends will give clues as to whether or not the character they present is real or a facade.
In addition, I’ve seen young women who are new Christians and didn’t have all their i’s dotted and t’s crossed in areas such as modesty or entertainment choices, but they had a willing and humble spirit that far surpassed their ‘churched’ counterparts.
What does all that have to do with the topic? I don’t know- I’ve only had one cup of coffee.
Maybe it’s because the relationship with the father prepares a daughter for marriage, but only to a certain extent. The authority of the husband is not the same as the authority of the father, in the sense that husbands don’t discipline their wives the way a father disciplines a child. I think dads need to be careful to teach respect and submission in a manner that results in obedience that goes beyond verbal assent, or the guy who ends up with her is in for a bumpy ride. I think most parents instinctively give boys more independence than they do girls, and that’s not a bad thing, but there’s a right way and a wrong way to protect a daughter and teach her to be meek and quiet.
Lots of thinking ‘out loud’ here while I chomp my blueberry bagel.
Kim, I can’t blame the “Watch Eve grow old and die” idea on Chuck, I’m the guilty party there. Chuck Missler got me to think about what it really meant that Adam was not deceived.
What could have been his motivation ? If he knew the serpent offered lies, then he had to know there was no gain. He also had to know what he was about to loose. So what was his thinking ?
You can find Chuck’s teaching on this at -
http://www.blueletterbible.org/audio_video/comm_topic.cfm?AuthorID=21&c…] &SeriesOrder=5
If that link doesn’t work for you, Go to www.blueletterbible.org , Navagate to Genesis chapter 3:5, Hold your cursor over the “L” to the left of the verse and you will get a small window saying list audio, study tools, commentaries. click the “L” and another window will open between the verses. In the new window you have the option to pick a commentary, Select Chuck Missler Genesis 2:4-25;3:1-6.
I hope you get a blessing from it.
What could have been his motivation ? If he knew the serpent offered lies, then he had to know there was no gain. He also had to know what he was about to loose. So what was his thinking ?
You can find Chuck’s teaching on this at -
http://www.blueletterbible.org/audio_video/comm_topic.cfm?AuthorID=21&c…] &SeriesOrder=5
If that link doesn’t work for you, Go to www.blueletterbible.org , Navagate to Genesis chapter 3:5, Hold your cursor over the “L” to the left of the verse and you will get a small window saying list audio, study tools, commentaries. click the “L” and another window will open between the verses. In the new window you have the option to pick a commentary, Select Chuck Missler Genesis 2:4-25;3:1-6.
I hope you get a blessing from it.
Jim and Susan, If you would please, go to the following page and read about Adam as a “Type”. Though the idea I have offered here is not stated, I think you will see where I am going with it.
http://www.christianlibrary.org/authors/Grady_Scott/types.htm
Thanks
http://www.christianlibrary.org/authors/Grady_Scott/types.htm
Thanks
[Susan R post#19] His motivations are not relevant except for a limited analogy/typology. Christ’s sacrifice for His bride is not in disobedience to the Father. Adam was not deceived when he decided to transgress (1 Tim 2:14). Eve was deceived- “as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty” (2 Cor. 11:3)…I understand types and I’ve already answered that- as acknowledged in the link you posted, types only go so far. Adam’s sinful choice meant that he died with his bride, while a sinless Christ died for His bride.
So, I understand that the picture of Adam choosing to die with Eve instead of live without her ‘will preach’, but it doesn’t change the fact that what he did was rebel against God.
I also agree with Kim that Adam turned on a dime- one minute he was willing to die with her, and the next he’s blaming her and God.
In any case, the description of the woman as the “weaker vessel” does seem to hinge on the fact that Eve was deceived and Adam sinned with eyes open.
just for the record, i do have an extremely muscular husband physically, and even mentally, spiritually, etc.
i’m also ok with God saying i am the weaker vessel. i guess i mostly thought of that as meaning the more “delicate” vessel, not the more incompetent vessel.
Kim’s words here confuse me:
I think, we’ll see very clearly that if the design of women (Gen. 2, pre-curse stuff) was to be man’s helper and then it shows throughout Scripture that the woman’s role, at every turn (well, the kind where God commands/blesses), is to be a helper to men… then why can’t we (Christian women) just accept it. It’s pretty clear? And, if we can accept that, then the weaker part comes fairly easy, less clouded, IMO. I believe we are weaker mentally, physically, emotionally, etc. not because that’s my experience, but because the bible says that we are.
if i am my husband’s helper, i am not sure how it helps me to be “weaker” in every area in the sense of being less competent. Then he would have to be MY helper in every way! Does this confuse anyone else?
i’m also ok with God saying i am the weaker vessel. i guess i mostly thought of that as meaning the more “delicate” vessel, not the more incompetent vessel.
Kim’s words here confuse me:
I think, we’ll see very clearly that if the design of women (Gen. 2, pre-curse stuff) was to be man’s helper and then it shows throughout Scripture that the woman’s role, at every turn (well, the kind where God commands/blesses), is to be a helper to men… then why can’t we (Christian women) just accept it. It’s pretty clear? And, if we can accept that, then the weaker part comes fairly easy, less clouded, IMO. I believe we are weaker mentally, physically, emotionally, etc. not because that’s my experience, but because the bible says that we are.
if i am my husband’s helper, i am not sure how it helps me to be “weaker” in every area in the sense of being less competent. Then he would have to be MY helper in every way! Does this confuse anyone else?
@Marty:
Hi Marty, I tried the Chuck Missler link and it didn’t bring anything up—it just gave me an error message and said it couldn’t be found. Then I tried sermonaudio.com, but I couldn’t find it there either? Let me know if it’s my computer issue or if the link, for some reason, has been broken. I’m looking forward to listening to the message. Thanks!
@Anne:
if i am my husband’s helper, i am not sure how it helps me to be “weaker” in every area in the sense of being less competent. Then he would have to be MY helper in every way! Does this confuse anyone else?
Hi Anne—I addressed that in the second half of my post #14 and Alex addressed that in the first half of his post #16, when we talked about the nuances of the term “inferior” and how that’s actually defined. From what I’m gleaning from your question and your use of the words “less competent” that would fall under the category of using the word “weaker” incorrectly. Both Alex and I agreed, and it seems to me, that you would agree, as well. From what I can tell, all of us (you, Alex and I) would agree that the word “weaker” does not mean inferior-ly :) flawed (as in “less competent”) just inferior in design. :) Hope that helps and sorry about the confusion.
Kim :)
Hi Marty, I tried the Chuck Missler link and it didn’t bring anything up—it just gave me an error message and said it couldn’t be found. Then I tried sermonaudio.com, but I couldn’t find it there either? Let me know if it’s my computer issue or if the link, for some reason, has been broken. I’m looking forward to listening to the message. Thanks!
@Anne:
if i am my husband’s helper, i am not sure how it helps me to be “weaker” in every area in the sense of being less competent. Then he would have to be MY helper in every way! Does this confuse anyone else?
Hi Anne—I addressed that in the second half of my post #14 and Alex addressed that in the first half of his post #16, when we talked about the nuances of the term “inferior” and how that’s actually defined. From what I’m gleaning from your question and your use of the words “less competent” that would fall under the category of using the word “weaker” incorrectly. Both Alex and I agreed, and it seems to me, that you would agree, as well. From what I can tell, all of us (you, Alex and I) would agree that the word “weaker” does not mean inferior-ly :) flawed (as in “less competent”) just inferior in design. :) Hope that helps and sorry about the confusion.
Kim :)
[skjnoble] From what I can tell, all of us (you, Alex and I) would agree that the word “weaker” does not mean inferior-ly :) flawed (as in “less competent”) just inferior in design.sorry, i am getting confused. what does weaker in every way mean? women are inferior design in every way?
Weaker vessel does not mean!
The http://www.cbmw.org/ The Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood website has helpful articles. Search for http://www.cbmw.org/Search?base=cbmw&cof=FORID%3A11&cx=0114008819470943…] 1 Peter 3:7
The http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Articles/The-Danvers-Statement#affirmatio…] Affirmations of the Danvers Statement are helpful:
- That a woman is less intelligent than a man or
- Inferior in any way
The http://www.cbmw.org/ The Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood website has helpful articles. Search for http://www.cbmw.org/Search?base=cbmw&cof=FORID%3A11&cx=0114008819470943…] 1 Peter 3:7
The http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Articles/The-Danvers-Statement#affirmatio…] Affirmations of the Danvers Statement are helpful:
In the family, husbands should forsake harsh or selfish leadership and grow in love and care for their wives; wives should forsake resistance to their husbands’ authority and grow in willing, joyful submission to their husbands’ leadership (Eph 5:21-33; Col 3:18-19; Tit 2:3-5; 1 Pet 3:1-7).
http://www.sharperiron.org/filings/9-27-10/16447] The Wife as Ruler
I encourage all to wish to discuss that article, to discuss it over there (the above link). Thanks
I encourage all to wish to discuss that article, to discuss it over there (the above link). Thanks
Post #9 Commentary by John Gill is where I’d most align—although I’d add emotionally weaker as well. I like Alex’s use of the terms intiator/responder and capacity—as a general, overall summary.
Again—as I stated before, I believe the intent of the I Peter 3 passage was not to prove (or disprove) “less competent” but to prove God’s love and protection for women. If we start going down the road of who is better, smarter, stronger (men vs. women) then, we start going down a dangerous, cultural path. I think we start losing the original intent of the meaning of these precious verse—that calls us “weaker vessels” in general (explicitly), in design—biological, human body make-up.
I believe the verses are speaking/commanding the husband to protect his wife—IMO that should be the way we need to approach these verses. If we approach it that way—there must be a reason that we need protection—yes? If there wasn’t some sort of “inferior” design—why would we need to be protected?
Let me ask you this—do you have an opinion of what you think it means? Maybe that will help the discussion if we both understand where we’re each coming from.
Thanks, Anne! :)
Again—as I stated before, I believe the intent of the I Peter 3 passage was not to prove (or disprove) “less competent” but to prove God’s love and protection for women. If we start going down the road of who is better, smarter, stronger (men vs. women) then, we start going down a dangerous, cultural path. I think we start losing the original intent of the meaning of these precious verse—that calls us “weaker vessels” in general (explicitly), in design—biological, human body make-up.
I believe the verses are speaking/commanding the husband to protect his wife—IMO that should be the way we need to approach these verses. If we approach it that way—there must be a reason that we need protection—yes? If there wasn’t some sort of “inferior” design—why would we need to be protected?
Let me ask you this—do you have an opinion of what you think it means? Maybe that will help the discussion if we both understand where we’re each coming from.
Thanks, Anne! :)
Kim, Lets try this again.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/audio_video/asxgen/?AuthorID=21&commInfo…
Ok, this link works for me, If you can’t click it, copy it and paste it in your address bar. Hope it works. If not, PM me and I’m give you my yahoo msgr ID or some such and send it to you that way.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/audio_video/asxgen/?AuthorID=21&commInfo…
Ok, this link works for me, If you can’t click it, copy it and paste it in your address bar. Hope it works. If not, PM me and I’m give you my yahoo msgr ID or some such and send it to you that way.
i have heard this type of illustration, that the man is like a plastic cup and the wife is like a tea cup. the way you treat the one if different than the care needed for the other.
so i think in giving a man a reference point in how to handle his wife, it’s good.
but on the other hand, i don’t think it’s fitting to use this verse in any way to excuse women’s immaturity or sinfulness (not saying you’re doing this). women have a very different strength than men, more relational, perhaps it could be said. and maybe that strength and complexity inclines her to certain needs of protection. but it’s not a reason for her to remain childish or immature in any way.
i think actually that you agree with this, it’s just difficult to find the right words. I probably have not found them ;)
i don’t like the initiator-resonder paradigm at this point. i initiate a lot of things in my marriage; i respond to a lot of things, too. I adapt to a lot of things too :D I think those words are not complete or are somehow misleading. to tell a wife she should never initiate? I should never initiate holding hands? never initiate a conversation about a certain topic? never initiate him taking me out for dinner? like it gets really unrealistic. Maybe the idea is right and those words are just not working for me.
so i think in giving a man a reference point in how to handle his wife, it’s good.
but on the other hand, i don’t think it’s fitting to use this verse in any way to excuse women’s immaturity or sinfulness (not saying you’re doing this). women have a very different strength than men, more relational, perhaps it could be said. and maybe that strength and complexity inclines her to certain needs of protection. but it’s not a reason for her to remain childish or immature in any way.
i think actually that you agree with this, it’s just difficult to find the right words. I probably have not found them ;)
i don’t like the initiator-resonder paradigm at this point. i initiate a lot of things in my marriage; i respond to a lot of things, too. I adapt to a lot of things too :D I think those words are not complete or are somehow misleading. to tell a wife she should never initiate? I should never initiate holding hands? never initiate a conversation about a certain topic? never initiate him taking me out for dinner? like it gets really unrealistic. Maybe the idea is right and those words are just not working for me.
@ Jim: Thanks for all of the article links and the quote. I love the Biblical Council website and was eager to read what they had. Admittedly, I didn’t get through the first page of my search on I Peter 3 so I could be way off base here. But what did come up was not a lot, frankly, directly addressing the weaker vessel text. On that first page, there were 2 topical articles that referenced the verses in I Peter 3—one on submission and one on roles in the home. The closest article that came to taking up a defense on the verses came in Jeff Robinson’s article titled, Should Girls Play Sports? In his 5th paragraph, he starts it out by saying that the weaker vessel reference is talking about physical strength, only, but does not qualify why he believes that, from what I could see, beyond his intial statement. The Danvers Statement was fine, but to me, it did not address a lot in terms of defending either side, from what I could tell through skimming. It just talks about the husband protecting, caring and loving his family. The Wife As Ruler article was fine, but I think it was topically talking more about authority than the “weaker vessel” reference.
Jim, please correct me if I’m wrong on these assessments, seriously. I quickly skimmed and would love to be pointed to how this helps defend either side specifically referring to the topic we’re talking about in this thread.
I think our “takes” are different. From what I can tell, you’re willing to only go so far with it and confining the text to weaker in physical strength only. I’ll steal words from Susan where she was talking about something completely different. I think that preaches fine, but I think you’re missing the most wonderful parts of the text.
By God’s grace alone, He fully equips for the tasks ahead, through sanctification and maturity in His Word. If Peter is talking to regenerated husbands that listen to and heed the Word of God, which I believe he is, then God will always equip. Always.
I just can’t buy that Peter gives as sharp a rebuke to those in other parts of Scripture whom God basically says, don’t even think about bringing your offering of worship to me until you’ve reconciled with your brother type stuff. Hindered prayers seems to be the same tone here. Yikes! God won’t hear a husband’s prayers because he won’t help her open a jar or two or hold the door for her or chop some wood? No way. I think it goes beyond just physical stature. Prayers are going to be hindered if you (general, not you, Jim :) ) don’t love and protect your wife as the “weaker vessel”—because that’s how I (God) have made her and you better step up and be the godly, protecting husband that I am equiping you to be through Sunday morning, bilbical, truth-filled preaching, personal study, prayer, obedience to Scripture and so on. The wife is privileged to aid or help that in any way possible.
There’s obviously a ton of nuances, ins and outs, ups and downs to what I just said, and there’s always someone out there who’s like, yes, but my husband never protects me in anything and I’m the one who has to work and pay the bills—on and on and on. But I believe we’re talking to (truly) regenerated husbands and wives who are not blind and not deaf to the word of God. Households will falter. But by God’s grace, regenerated Christians will continue to walk the countercultural path and fulfill the God-ordained roles through displaying God’s glory who makes and uses the weaker vessels of this world to help the strong (conformed to His image) vessels of this world in obedience to Scripture, thereby having a place of honor—not here, but in eternity. (My paraphrase) :)
And regarding the child-bearing aspects—I think you’re right on, but what about those wives who can’t bear children? Are they not be honored/protected in the same way? Have the exact same rights and privileges of God’s design as their counterparts? I believe a resounding yes, which, again, leaves me to believe that something more about the design of women and less about what a woman can or can’t do is a better fit for these verses.
@ Marty: I’m not home right now, but when I get home, I’ll let you know. I’m seriously looking forward to it! Thanks for keeping up with me and helping :) me get to the links.
@Anne: but on the other hand, i don’t think it’s fitting to use this verse in any way to excuse women’s immaturity or sinfulness (not saying you’re doing this). women have a very different strength than men, more relational, perhaps it could be said. and maybe that strength and complexity inclines her to certain needs of protection. but it’s not a reason for her to remain childish or immature in any way.
i think actually that you agree with this, it’s just difficult to find the right words. I probably have not found them
Thanks, Anne. I most definitely agree with this and you stated this just fine. I’m really thankful for it. :) This was a great exhortation to me, personally. “it’s not a reason for her to remain childish or immature in any way.” That’s absolutely wonderful.
I believe that with godly, true biblical leadership in the home through the husband, the woman is blessed (beyond measure by God’s grace) and challenged! to grow and mature alongside him. I definitely don’t want to give the impression that we are looking for practical perfection in this by either side. Please! There’d be no hope for me. :) But through Jesus Christ and His creation order/agenda, Christian women have the privilege of acknowledging a “weaker vessel” role which doesn’t leave them childish or immature, but leads them to grow in Christ by great leaps and bounds. Joyful submission to godly (and yes, sometimes faltering, but always renewed by grace) leadership in the home is sometimes the hardest because of the sin and weakenesses of the husband. But the wife isn’t looking to that as the end—her trust and faith is in Jesus Christ and the ways that He is conforming him to His image.
How can Christian women “win their regenerated (important word) or going-to-be-regenerated husband to the Lord?” You want to see a “weaker vessel’s” strength? The Bible says it’s not in intelligence or physical strength—it’s in quiet, joyful submission and self-control. There’s probably fewer things more convicting in a marriage than that and a (regenerated) husband’s desire to obey Scripture, step up and lead, aided by his godly wife, is, I believe the proper take. God has specifically put and designed women to be in a very vunerable role. I believe, the very harsh rebuke and warning is given by God to husbands for that very reason.
i don’t like the initiator-resonder paradigm at this point. i initiate a lot of things in my marriage; i respond to a lot of things, too. I adapt to a lot of things too I think those words are not complete or are somehow misleading. to tell a wife she should never initiate? I should never initiate holding hands? never initiate a conversation about a certain topic? never initiate him taking me out for dinner? like it gets really unrealistic. Maybe the idea is right and those words are just not working for me.
I don’t want to speak for Alex, but I actually really liked this—not as a practical, how conversation and tasks get done in the home on a day-to-day basis, but more as a general mentality or feeling/attitude in the home. It’s not that I never initiate a conversation. Let’s take your invitation for dinner example. I may say with my own dear hubby, “Hey Hon., is Chili’s restaurant on the radar tonight?” It appears that I’ve initiated the conversation about going out to eat at a specific restaurant—and you would be correct—if that were the only isolated context. But let’s bring in my conversation with him a week earlier where he’s gone over our finances and sees that we’re not able to pay, with cash, our bills for the rest of the month. Well, now, I’ve “responded” incorrectly to his direct leadership role as finance manager and asked to do something I know we can’t afford and I know he isn’t going to approve. Now add in my agitated, whiney, “I’ve been with the kids all day and cooked (not dinner) :) and cleaned, I deserve this” type attitude and suddenly I have an ungodly response to his initiatot, God-given responsibility of leadership in the home.
I love what my husband says and it is said with a sentimentality in mind. “Whatever way the world is turning, I want to turn the opposite way.” He’ll admittedly say it’s not always the best way to interpret Scripture, but it has helpd us, greatly, in practice. :)
Kim
Jim, please correct me if I’m wrong on these assessments, seriously. I quickly skimmed and would love to be pointed to how this helps defend either side specifically referring to the topic we’re talking about in this thread.
I think our “takes” are different. From what I can tell, you’re willing to only go so far with it and confining the text to weaker in physical strength only. I’ll steal words from Susan where she was talking about something completely different. I think that preaches fine, but I think you’re missing the most wonderful parts of the text.
By God’s grace alone, He fully equips for the tasks ahead, through sanctification and maturity in His Word. If Peter is talking to regenerated husbands that listen to and heed the Word of God, which I believe he is, then God will always equip. Always.
I just can’t buy that Peter gives as sharp a rebuke to those in other parts of Scripture whom God basically says, don’t even think about bringing your offering of worship to me until you’ve reconciled with your brother type stuff. Hindered prayers seems to be the same tone here. Yikes! God won’t hear a husband’s prayers because he won’t help her open a jar or two or hold the door for her or chop some wood? No way. I think it goes beyond just physical stature. Prayers are going to be hindered if you (general, not you, Jim :) ) don’t love and protect your wife as the “weaker vessel”—because that’s how I (God) have made her and you better step up and be the godly, protecting husband that I am equiping you to be through Sunday morning, bilbical, truth-filled preaching, personal study, prayer, obedience to Scripture and so on. The wife is privileged to aid or help that in any way possible.
There’s obviously a ton of nuances, ins and outs, ups and downs to what I just said, and there’s always someone out there who’s like, yes, but my husband never protects me in anything and I’m the one who has to work and pay the bills—on and on and on. But I believe we’re talking to (truly) regenerated husbands and wives who are not blind and not deaf to the word of God. Households will falter. But by God’s grace, regenerated Christians will continue to walk the countercultural path and fulfill the God-ordained roles through displaying God’s glory who makes and uses the weaker vessels of this world to help the strong (conformed to His image) vessels of this world in obedience to Scripture, thereby having a place of honor—not here, but in eternity. (My paraphrase) :)
And regarding the child-bearing aspects—I think you’re right on, but what about those wives who can’t bear children? Are they not be honored/protected in the same way? Have the exact same rights and privileges of God’s design as their counterparts? I believe a resounding yes, which, again, leaves me to believe that something more about the design of women and less about what a woman can or can’t do is a better fit for these verses.
@ Marty: I’m not home right now, but when I get home, I’ll let you know. I’m seriously looking forward to it! Thanks for keeping up with me and helping :) me get to the links.
@Anne: but on the other hand, i don’t think it’s fitting to use this verse in any way to excuse women’s immaturity or sinfulness (not saying you’re doing this). women have a very different strength than men, more relational, perhaps it could be said. and maybe that strength and complexity inclines her to certain needs of protection. but it’s not a reason for her to remain childish or immature in any way.
i think actually that you agree with this, it’s just difficult to find the right words. I probably have not found them
Thanks, Anne. I most definitely agree with this and you stated this just fine. I’m really thankful for it. :) This was a great exhortation to me, personally. “it’s not a reason for her to remain childish or immature in any way.” That’s absolutely wonderful.
I believe that with godly, true biblical leadership in the home through the husband, the woman is blessed (beyond measure by God’s grace) and challenged! to grow and mature alongside him. I definitely don’t want to give the impression that we are looking for practical perfection in this by either side. Please! There’d be no hope for me. :) But through Jesus Christ and His creation order/agenda, Christian women have the privilege of acknowledging a “weaker vessel” role which doesn’t leave them childish or immature, but leads them to grow in Christ by great leaps and bounds. Joyful submission to godly (and yes, sometimes faltering, but always renewed by grace) leadership in the home is sometimes the hardest because of the sin and weakenesses of the husband. But the wife isn’t looking to that as the end—her trust and faith is in Jesus Christ and the ways that He is conforming him to His image.
How can Christian women “win their regenerated (important word) or going-to-be-regenerated husband to the Lord?” You want to see a “weaker vessel’s” strength? The Bible says it’s not in intelligence or physical strength—it’s in quiet, joyful submission and self-control. There’s probably fewer things more convicting in a marriage than that and a (regenerated) husband’s desire to obey Scripture, step up and lead, aided by his godly wife, is, I believe the proper take. God has specifically put and designed women to be in a very vunerable role. I believe, the very harsh rebuke and warning is given by God to husbands for that very reason.
i don’t like the initiator-resonder paradigm at this point. i initiate a lot of things in my marriage; i respond to a lot of things, too. I adapt to a lot of things too I think those words are not complete or are somehow misleading. to tell a wife she should never initiate? I should never initiate holding hands? never initiate a conversation about a certain topic? never initiate him taking me out for dinner? like it gets really unrealistic. Maybe the idea is right and those words are just not working for me.
I don’t want to speak for Alex, but I actually really liked this—not as a practical, how conversation and tasks get done in the home on a day-to-day basis, but more as a general mentality or feeling/attitude in the home. It’s not that I never initiate a conversation. Let’s take your invitation for dinner example. I may say with my own dear hubby, “Hey Hon., is Chili’s restaurant on the radar tonight?” It appears that I’ve initiated the conversation about going out to eat at a specific restaurant—and you would be correct—if that were the only isolated context. But let’s bring in my conversation with him a week earlier where he’s gone over our finances and sees that we’re not able to pay, with cash, our bills for the rest of the month. Well, now, I’ve “responded” incorrectly to his direct leadership role as finance manager and asked to do something I know we can’t afford and I know he isn’t going to approve. Now add in my agitated, whiney, “I’ve been with the kids all day and cooked (not dinner) :) and cleaned, I deserve this” type attitude and suddenly I have an ungodly response to his initiatot, God-given responsibility of leadership in the home.
I love what my husband says and it is said with a sentimentality in mind. “Whatever way the world is turning, I want to turn the opposite way.” He’ll admittedly say it’s not always the best way to interpret Scripture, but it has helpd us, greatly, in practice. :)
Kim
so, are you saying that the weaker vessel means:
1. the woman is more prone to sin
2. the man has a stronger connection to God
3. the man is more in God’s likeness than woman
I’m just throwing out some ideas as to what you might be saying. I’m guessing you’re meaning #1, but i’m not sure. I actually have never thought that through.
1. the woman is more prone to sin
2. the man has a stronger connection to God
3. the man is more in God’s likeness than woman
I’m just throwing out some ideas as to what you might be saying. I’m guessing you’re meaning #1, but i’m not sure. I actually have never thought that through.
Continuing to view our gender differences as superior/inferior skews the conversation, IMO. God designed men to lead and women to follow, and our abilities are divinely composed to compliment each other. No one is superior or inferior. What’s up with all the men needing a helper anyway? Are they handicapped or something? ;)
If you were to choose a partner for your business, would you choose someone who was slightly inept or a bit daft? Of course not. You’d choose someone capable and of good character- someone you could trust implicitly while you were away, someone you could leave in charge of the business at times so you could focus on other things.
Isn’t that what husbands do? They trust their wives to “guide the house” and care for the children so that they can attend to the business of providing for the physical and spiritual needs of the home. Does anything about that scream ‘incompetent’ to anyone? Again- of course not. Does Proverbs 31 read like a description of an incompetent woman? Does not her husband trust her, venerate her, and praise her for her good character, wisdom, and many accomplishments?
For whatever reason, the difference in how Adam and Eve mentally responded to the temptation in the Garden has set the standard for gender roles. Adam sinned willfully, Eve was beguiled. Women tend toward this weakness, men don’t, so God assigned men with leadership of the home and the church. We realize that is a generality, but the exceptions prove the rule. For every woman who is wise and hard working, I can give you 20 who are as vacant as a mall parking lot at 2am.
What we should see more of is women acknowledging their weaknesses and endeavoring to overcome them with Bible study and prayer instead of shopping and lunch at Panera Bread with the girlfriends.
If you were to choose a partner for your business, would you choose someone who was slightly inept or a bit daft? Of course not. You’d choose someone capable and of good character- someone you could trust implicitly while you were away, someone you could leave in charge of the business at times so you could focus on other things.
Isn’t that what husbands do? They trust their wives to “guide the house” and care for the children so that they can attend to the business of providing for the physical and spiritual needs of the home. Does anything about that scream ‘incompetent’ to anyone? Again- of course not. Does Proverbs 31 read like a description of an incompetent woman? Does not her husband trust her, venerate her, and praise her for her good character, wisdom, and many accomplishments?
For whatever reason, the difference in how Adam and Eve mentally responded to the temptation in the Garden has set the standard for gender roles. Adam sinned willfully, Eve was beguiled. Women tend toward this weakness, men don’t, so God assigned men with leadership of the home and the church. We realize that is a generality, but the exceptions prove the rule. For every woman who is wise and hard working, I can give you 20 who are as vacant as a mall parking lot at 2am.
What we should see more of is women acknowledging their weaknesses and endeavoring to overcome them with Bible study and prayer instead of shopping and lunch at Panera Bread with the girlfriends.
but here’s the thing, this gender-genetic-sin-pattern says that women sin b/c they are deceived, men sin b/c they are rebelling. so those are the roots of our sins? I am not sure that this follows through biblically.
it was Adam’s sin that we all inherited, you know? eve isn’t named in that. sin came into the world through one man.
it was Adam’s sin that we all inherited, you know? eve isn’t named in that. sin came into the world through one man.
[Anne Sokol] but here’s the thing, this gender-genetic-sin-pattern says that women sin b/c they are deceived, men sin b/c they are rebelling. so those are the roots of our sins? I am not sure that this follows through biblically.The ‘sin pattern’ is about why men and women are given different authority roles. It isn’t given as a pattern for every time men or women sin.
Men are often deceived, which is why so much beer and so many sports cars are sold to men. :D
Peter may be reflecting the pre-existing Jewish perspective. Here is a quotation from the Talmud and then a footnote, copied and pasted from my book, The Midrash Key (sure is nice to have this stuff on hand):
Another footnote from my book about the Jewish view of women at the time of Jesus:
Our Rabbis taught: Concerning a man who loves his wife as himself, who honours her more than himself, who guides his sons and daughters in the right path and arranges for them to be married … Scripture says, “And thou shalt know that thy tent is in peace.”from Yebamoth 62
Another footnote from my book about the Jewish view of women at the time of Jesus:
Because many of us may not understand the passion devout Jews had for obeying mitzvot (commands and precepts), non-Jews often assign wrong motives to rabbinic statements. For example, devout Jews would bless God that they were not “born women.” This fact has been misused to imply that the men looked down upon women, but this is far from true. Women, for example, were not required to make the journey to Jerusalem to celebrate the festivals (Deuteronomy 16:16). They could, and often did, but not when limited by pregnancy or small children, for example. In The Essential Talmud, Adin Steinsaltz writes, “The fact that women were not obliged to perform many of the positive precepts was regarded as an exemption rather than a ban. Men persisted in regarding themselves as the more fortunate sex, privileged to fulfill a greater number of precepts; this is attested to by the benediction recited each morning in which a man praises God for not having made him a woman” (p. 139).
"The Midrash Detective"
I was browsing the http://www.credenda.org/ CREDENDAagenda blog, and came across Doug Wilson’s review of Twilight. This paragraph from http://www.credenda.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13…] Twilight #6 seemed pertinent to this conversation:
Lust is not a sin that afflicts one half of the human race, leaving the feminine half entirely unaffected. Because men are male and women female, because men are convex and women concave, their desires are correspondingly fitted to their natures. Men want what they want, and women want to be wanted that way. Men desire and women desire to be desired. This is a matter of emphasis, obviously. I am not saying that men don’t have a need to be desired, or that women don’t desire. These desires are both present in both sexes, and they are both weighted differently. And that weight is different enough to drive men and women into very different forms of personal destruction. Men destroy women very differently than women destroy men.I underlined the last sentence, because when you read literature about the psychology of crimes against men and women, this is very evident.
i don’t like the initiator-resonder paradigm at this point. i initiate a lot of things in my marriage; i respond to a lot of things, too. I adapt to a lot of things too I think those words are not complete or are somehow misleading. to tell a wife she should never initiate? I should never initiate holding hands? never initiate a conversation about a certain topic? never initiate him taking me out for dinner? like it gets really unrealistic. Maybe the idea is right and those words are just not working for me.
[skjnoble]You represented what I had in mind well, thanks.
I don’t want to speak for Alex, but I actually really liked this—not as a practical, how conversation and tasks get done in the home on a day-to-day basis, but more as a general mentality or feeling/attitude in the home. It’s not that I never initiate a conversation. Let’s take your invitation for dinner example. I may say with my own dear hubby, “Hey Hon., is Chili’s restaurant on the radar tonight?” It appears that I’ve initiated the conversation about going out to eat at a specific restaurant—and you would be correct—if that were the only isolated context. But let’s bring in my conversation with him a week earlier where he’s gone over our finances and sees that we’re not able to pay, with cash, our bills for the rest of the month. Well, now, I’ve “responded” incorrectly to his direct leadership role as finance manager and asked to do something I know we can’t afford and I know he isn’t going to approve. Now add in my agitated, whiney, “I’ve been with the kids all day and cooked (not dinner) :) and cleaned, I deserve this” type attitude and suddenly I have an ungodly response to his initiatot, God-given responsibility of leadership in the home.
Kim
Discussion