Corrie

“So if WOMAN can be strong, then that automatically weakens MAN, in that world view. MAN can’t be anything that WOMAN is. So it’s a whole lot easier to change the meaning of the Holy Scriptures than it is to change a hardened heart and a made-up mind.”

Psalmist,

I guess it is easier. I have seen where patriarchalists constantly slice and dice character qualities and attributes into pink and blue groups.

Add to this that scripture refers to women as the “weaker vessel” and “ezer” cannot mean strong! You are right, being strong is a masculine quality.

And since Grudem defines “ezer” as helping someone, then do not men also help others? When a man helps his wife or children, is he not then also like God, a subordinate to the wife and child? Or, are they higher than God? IOW, when a patriarch helps his child and wife it isn’t in an “ezer” sort of way because that is a word that is fit only to describe what God and women do for others. When they help it is in a leader/ruler type of way. No wonder they only use the first half of Paul’s statement without using the correcting and clarifying part of his statement. When Paul states in 1 Cor. 11:

“8For(M) man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9Neither was man created for woman, but(N) woman for man. ”

They like to forget that this was only HALF of the equation/truth. If woman was made for man, then woman helps man and he defines her use to him but since he was not made for her, he does not help her and she does not define his use to her. In fact, he has no use to her since he was not made for her, right? Wait…… Well, I guess if I remain consistent in their teachings it will actually undo some of their deeply held paradigms.

“1Nevertheless,(O) in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And(P) all things are from God.”

And here is where Paul delivers the missing part of the equation. Neither the woman or man is independent of each other (that speaks of mutuality and interdependency) and now the man comes from the woman so that all things are from God.

“Or maybe it’s fear of the idea that woman can be strong FOR THE MAN, rather than him being the he-man protector of the universe. NOBODY’s stronger than the man! Sadly, sometimes, God is even weakened to keep that “true.””

The Proverbs 31 woman was strong for her husband. We didn’t see her husband rescuing her and saving her over and over again like some helpless, weak damsel in distress. (Not that husbands don’t sometimes save and rescue their wives but I also know of many wives he save and rescue their husbands. In fact, I have saved my husband’s life more than once (he is a Type 1 diabetic) ). But, I look at the marriage relationship as one of mutual rescue. When one falls the other is there to lift them up, as Ecclesiastes so clearly illustrates. We saw the Proverbs 31 woman ministering to her husband from a position of strength. There seems to be no heirarchy to be gotten out of that portion of scripture. She seems to be a doer, a mover, and an initiator. She doesn’t seem to be a woman who sits back and waits to respond. She is like the ant:

“Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise: Which having no guide, overseer, or ruler, Provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest.” In fact, she is prepared beforehand so that means she must be someone who actually initiates much of what is going on around her.

Doesn’t seem to gel with the responder/initiator/little helper stuff I have read. I guess King Lemuel’s mother taught her son that he needed to look for a woman who didn’t wait to act. I would think that most men would want to be married to a woman who could look around and see what needed to be done and do it instead of waiting for their husband to direct their every step.