Paula

I disagree that men and women have to be different or one wouldn’t be needed. This very idea is what drives the Eternal Subordination of the Son movement, because they claim that hierarchy in the Trinity is required in order to distinguish the Persons.

The only difference in humans that’s truly **needed** is biological. The Bible speaks of the bond between David and Jonathan as “better than the love of women” (which of course some take wrong), and there are plenty of best friends of the same sex. If they happen to be of opposite sexes people presume the relationship to be sexual even when it isn’t. So the presupposition of a non-biological gender-based difference is flawed because there is so much evidence to the contrary.

I think some egals try to attribute non-biological differences out of an over-reaction to the bogus claim that we wish to blur the distinction between the sexes. But as I always reply, it is comps that wish to blur distinctions– between individuals within a sex. They read too much into the “help meet” thing, presuming a spiritual or emotional bond beyond that which any two friends could have, even though the first two humans **had** to be of opposite sex or there’d have been no other “friends” to come.

There is a good reason scripture calls only the male/female sexual relationship “one flesh”: it’s about the flesh. Oh I know, people will go ballistic over that, but as I said, two people of the same sex can be best friends, very complementary, without any hint of sexuality. I’m not saying a husband and wife don’t bond emotionally, but that sexuality is not a requirement for such a bond.

I will have to find some current studies, but those I’ve read in the past showed that while hormones affect the development of the brain, this does not result in any clear advantage in intelligence of one sex over the other, or in particular emotional or spiritual traits. Male and female brains have general tendencies to think in particular ways, but there are too many exceptions to make it a rule. In order for something to be a rule– that is, a universal trait that crosses culture and time– there can be no exceptions. And I am not aware of any study showing an emotional or spiritual trait that is clearly exclusive to one sex or the other.

So both scripture and science, along with much anecdotal evidence, agree that the only necessary and pre-Fall difference between male and female is physical.

“And that’s all I have to say about that.” — Forrest Gump

Cheryl, all I’m doing is trying to reconcile two statements you made:
1- a man can be harmed in his ego more easily than a woman
2- But we can be mindful of our respect and not purposely try to harm another human being

2 goes both ways but 1 only goes one way. I can’t reconcile those two statements. And I’m taking them on their face, not going beyond them.

a man can be harmed in his ego more easily than a woman
I disagree. Can the harm to women via society and church be measured? How many women’s spirits have been utterly destroyed, little by little, because we are presumed to have stronger egos? Why is this permissible against only women?

I know you agree that women have taken this abuse, but that’s why it so puzzles me that you would say that a man’s ego is more delicate, and that women must therefore be more careful of hurting men than they are of hurting women.

What I mean is that a man has a “tender” ego that can be easily shattered.

And that is a sin issue, a pride issue. A Christian man has no more need of having his weaknesses catered to than does a woman. Either there is mutuality or there is not. Of course each individual should know and be considerate of the weaknesses of others, per Rom. 14. But this is **not** a male-female issue, it is a person-to-person issue.

What delicate egos do **not** need is to be protected and pampered. They need to be faced and strengthened.

It seemed to me that you were looking at the term “lord” as almost a mocking term

I am. This doesn’t have anything to do with the meaning of “lord”, but Sarah’s sarcasm. Just the way I see it (not how I want to see it).

I agree, Lin. To say Peter is giving Christian wives a more stringent level of respect for their husbands than the other way around is to agree that men need more respect than women. It would mean he was catering to society, while Paul in contrast left cultural issues like head coverings up to the women to decide.

I would think that when it comes to unbelievers observing the whole Christian community, the greater and stronger witness would be for the men to respect the women.

Cheryl,

First let me clarify that I have no issues with “submit”; I know what it does and doesn’t mean, so that did not factor into my view of this passage at all. While there are indeed many who base an argument on a flawed understanding of a word, that isn’t the case here. And in turn, presuming this was my motive could have colored your response as well.

Of course you know also that I believe the Bible teaches mutual submission, such that Christian women are told to support Christian men, and vice versa. But, as you mentioned (… submission is given with the purpose or goal of winning the husband…), and that is Peter’s focus. A Christian wife of a non-Christian husband had a tough job, because she often could not say a word to him about religious matters. Her actions were her only witness, and such actions went beyond the norm for the society, which considered women to lack the depth of character Peter encourages here.

As for Sarah, I think the OT shows both from Abraham’s actions and Sarah’s demands on him concerning Hagar that she did not hesitate to openly scold him at times. And since both husbands and wives are to respect each other, especially in public, the wife is under no greater constraint than the husband. So Peter is not giving all Christian wives a more restricted range of behavior than husbands, but advising believing wives on how to achieve the difficult task of witnessing to unbelieving husbands. It was a delicate balance, much like the head covering issue. And again, my interpretation is not driven by fear of the word “lord”; I am well familiar with its usage.

Good thoughts, gengwall. But I have noticed that in the Greek the term “stubborn to the word” is used frequently in contexts concerning the lost, and can’t think offhand of any where the context is clearly about backslidden believers. I’ll have to check on that sometime to be sure though.

But yeah, where translators get “obey not” is mystifying… unless you know that the primary motivating factor for the KJV was to make it as king-centered and authority-focused as possible. 😉

I think it’s the combination of the “if” with “any”. Yes it could possibly mean that the unbelieving husbands will not the behavior of all believing wives, yet I don’t think Peter is addressing groups here, but only couples. The word I’m keying on for this is “own”. Peter says to Christian wives, “Be subject to your own husbands…”, which I think gives it a more restricted scope. Just my opinion. 🙂

Good question and observation, TS. But I still think it means only unbelieving husbands.

Peter is giving the reason for the wordless witness. Why would a saved husband need a witness at all? In other words, if we think this through, this wouldn’t make much sense:

If all Christian wives are submissive to their husbands, the lost husbands will take note and be converted.

See what I’m saying?

Just a couple observations…

I think we really need to emphasize 3:1 since it gives the reason for a wife’s submission: to win over unbelieving husbands. This is not directed to Christian men at all! I also bristle at the translation of hagnen as “chaste” instead of “pure”. The English word “chaste” is, curiously enough, only ever used for women in our translations, implying sexual purity. But the Greek word means inward purity, as it would for any man. Peter is not enjoining the wife’s sexual purity, as this was expected and demanded in society. How would being “chaste” be a way to win over a husband who already expected it from any pagan wife? Peter adds the importance of inner qualities of character, which truly were unexpected of women in that culture.

As for verse 5, I’m not convinced that it’s in the past tense. The tense is aorist, which only denotes a point in time not necessarily in the past. The other verbs are in the present tense. I understand it as “For this is how holy women rely on God, outfitting themselves with support for their own husbands…”

Regarding Sarah calling Abraham ‘lord’, she only ever used it in derision, in Gen. 18:12, where she thought to herself, “After I am worn out and my lord is old, will I now have this pleasure?” In Gen. 16:5 she clearly stood up to Abraham and called God as a witness between the two of them. And we can’t forget that Abraham had tried on two occasions to pass her off as his sister (Gen. 12:12-13, 20:2). So what is Peter saying? That Christian women are like Sarah when they do what is right and do not give in to fear. Sarah clearly had no fear of Abraham, social norms notwithstanding.

So overall, I see the emphasis not on subservience but on inner strength, on depth of character.

I’ll be curious to see if she comes to the same conclusion I did. It ain’t what we been told…

Thanks gengwall… that’s much better. 😉

I had to read that one a few times!

How about selfcontradarian?

Comp-silly-contrarian? Works for me. 😛

Let’s see…

Fencitarian?
PushMe–PullYouWhereian?
WishWasharian?
ToTauItarian? (you know, the yin/yang thing… sorry)

Oh, don’t get me started… 😛

Oops… I carelessly thought the post after gengwall’s was an afterthought because it started with “and”.

So, thanks TS!

Tanx gengwall!

But we both know that the comeback for what is obvious from the grammar is along the lines of “His Royal Infallibleness Dr. Manlyman says “she” really means “they” and “a woman” really means “Eve”, so who are you to disagree?”

And I know Cheryl holds that it does refer to salvation from eternal wrath, but for “the woman”, and so she believes “the childbearing” must therefore refer to the birth of Christ. However, I know of no other instance (second witness– wink wink) where salvation from eternal wrath was referred to in terms of “the Childbirth”.

On the other hand, maybe Paul had to write vaguely whenever the social order was the topic, since it could get him executed. But I agree, it would have been nice to have more precision

You might be interested in my rebuttal to a male supremacist on this passage: Snake Oil Theology. Even they admit that vs. 11-15 are set off from the context of the whole congregation, yet they still try to pull plurals from the preceding section anyway. Also, my NT Letters (of course you’ll want to go to p. 178-179) has a rendering very similar to yours.

Glad I got that pronunciation right. Someday I’ll be bilingual. 🙂

You mean like, “Pooool Peeitt”? Kinda like putting eighteen syllables in “God” or “Jesus”?

😛

Interesting. I wonder how that would work with males who teach falsehood?

“Oh, Mr. Denominational Bigwig, I never taught that we can be saved by painting the pastor’s house and mowing his lawn. I only suggested those things.”

See, Lin? You mixed up Titus and Timothy so you can’t talk about spiritual things. Except to us ignernt wimmin. And our kids. The boys of whom will transmorgify into undeceived emitters of the Magical Umbrella when they reach puberty.

Lol!

Yeah, we iz howl raisers!

There once was a comp man named Howell
Who, when challenged, would always cry “foul!”
But hard truths never fazed him
For which his friends praised him
And Truth had to throw in the towel.

Good points, TS. Islamanity.

Glad to brighten your day, Stickler!

Lin, you know what response we’d get: “You just don’t understand. You’re deceived. You can’t grasp the deep things of God.” Etc. etc. etc.

Ooo, Lin… you know I could have that same kind of fun with Calvinism. 😛

But all so true. It’s a rigged game.

Yer on a “role”, Greg! 😛

But… in the land of Patriarchy, up is down and left is right, so dirty is clean. See?