Can you unpack this a little bit? There’s one that comes to mind but I can’t think of “many”?Except there are plenty of righteous women in Scripture whose agency wasn’t defined and directed by men.
There’s some truth to this statement but probably not what you want to focus on.If your wife isn’t spurring you to be a better man, she isn’t being a godly woman. A woman who excuses your sin, who never pushes back, is bad for your soul.
1 ¶ In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, |
2 as they observe your chaste and fnrespectful behavior. |
1 ¶ Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; |
2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. |
What are the verses? Feel free to post them in hebrew.It’s Hebrew. The language of Scripture.
Assisting, sure... But you go on to change the goalposts in the next sentence.Submission and assisting someone in attaining righteousness are not at odds.
I do not "spur" Christ to do anything. He is my Lord. He tells me and I am not at liberty to say no. He is a man under authority, when he says go, I go. A Godly woman submits herself to her husband's will and obeys him in everything. She even calls her husband lord. She fears her husband.If your wife isn’t spurring you to be a better man, she isn’t being a godly woman.
*blink blink* What scriptural foundation do you have for this?A woman who excuses your sin, who never pushes back, is bad for your soul.
Um... What? Zipporah was not saving Moses.. she was criticizing her husband who was obeying God. You need to go back and re-read that passage.Zipporah made Moses a better man, and not by simply agreeing with him when he was in error. She followed him to Egypt but she also called out his failing to circumcise his son (saving his life in the process).
I was speaking to @HomesteadWife who I believe was framing her topic in regard to authority. Wasn't really considering any replies, and wasn't directing it to you. Many others have answered you, however, and I want to give you a word of caution.Authority is a different concept.
AMEN!I was speaking to @HomesteadWife who I believe was framing her topic in regard to authority. Wasn't really considering any replies, and wasn't directing it to you. Many others have answered you, however, and I want to give you a word of caution.
You are going to take the things they're saying personally, and you will feel an emotional response. They are not personal attacks; they are confronting the error they see in your beliefs. It's done from a position of love. Stern love, you might say. They don't want you to be confused or to cause anyone else's confusion. Their confrontation is given in good faith, so listen in good faith. Don't plug your ears, but do test everything, including your own beliefs.
I know that you are considering the real possibility of becoming a man's second wife. It is ugly enough in a monogamous family when the wife does not acknowledge her husband as her lord in earth. It will be disastrous if you can't recognize and acknowledge his authority as the single head of that family.
Of course and if that was the only reference patriarchy was based on it would be a very convincing argument.*Note - I am not putting these forth because I believe them. I am mainly putting forth arguments I am reading in support of a more Complementarianism POV to see what, if any, weight they may hold.
I have seen the argument @southernphotini is putting forth. That the word helper, Ezer (An additional other translation being Azer)
Strong's Concordance
ezer: a help, helper
Original Word: עֵזֶר
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: ezer
Phonetic Spelling: (ay'-zer)
Definition: a help, helper
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from azar
Definition
a help, helper
NASB Translation
help (18), helper (2), helpers (1).
Brown-Driver-Briggs
I. עֵ֫זֶר noun masculinePsalm 121:1 help, succour; — ׳ע absolute Genesis 2:18 +, suffix עֶזְרִי Exodus 18:4, עֶזְרֹה Ezekiel 12:14, etc.; —
1 help, succour Isaiah 30:5 ("" הוֺעִיל, opposed to בּשֶׁת, חֶרְמָּה), Daniel 11:34; from ׳י Psalm 20:3; Psalm 121:1; Psalm 121:2; Psalm 124:8; in Psalm 89:20 read נֵזֶר for ׳ע Dy Gr Kau (עֹז Bi Che), compare Hup; מָגֵן עֶזְר֑ךָ Deuteronomy 33:29 (= ׳י).
2 concrete = one who helps (compare 1. עֶזְרָה 2) ׳בְּע (בְּ essent., see ב 17b, Ges§ 119 h, i) Genesis 2:18,20; (J) + Hosea 13:9 (read ׳מִי בְע Che We GuKau Now); collective (without בְּ Ezekiel 12:14 (si vera lectio; Co עֹזְרָיו); especially of ׳מִצָּרָיו י ׳ע Deuteronomy 33:7 (poem), ׳ע + מָגֵן Psalm 33:20; Psalm 115:9; Psalm 115:10; Psalm 115:11, + מְפַלֵּט Psalm 70:6; ׳בְּע (see above) Exodus 18:4 (E), Deuteronomy 33:26 (poem), Psalm 146:4.
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
help
From azar; aid -- help.
see HEBREW azar
Englishman's Concordance
Genesis 2:18
HEB: אֶֽעֱשֶׂהּ־ לּ֥וֹ עֵ֖זֶר כְּנֶגְדּֽוֹ׃
NAS: I will make him a helper suitable
KJV: alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
INT: to be alone will make A helper suitable
Genesis 2:20
HEB: לֹֽא־ מָצָ֥א עֵ֖זֶר כְּנֶגְדּֽוֹ׃
NAS: there was not found a helper suitable
KJV: there was not found an help meet for him.
INT: not found A helper suitable
Exodus 18:4
HEB: אֱלֹהֵ֤י אָבִי֙ בְּעֶזְרִ֔י וַיַּצִּלֵ֖נִי מֵחֶ֥רֶב
NAS: of my father was my help, and delivered
KJV: of my father, [said he, was] mine help, and delivered
INT: the God of my father was my help and delivered the sword
Deuteronomy 33:7
HEB: רָ֣ב ל֔וֹ וְעֵ֥זֶר מִצָּרָ֖יו תִּהְיֶֽה׃
NAS: he contended for them, And may You be a help against
KJV: be sufficient for him; and be thou an help [to him] from his enemies.
INT: his hands be sufficient help his adversaries become
The argument being that since the word is used in reference to the Holy Spirit, in relation to aid in battle, and for women that it does not contain the subservience that is applied to it.
These are good points, and I'm looking forward to someone more learned than I to answer them! I, too, have wondered what the world must have been like pre-fall. As in, why would Adam consider it a valid excuse to say, "The woman you put here with me gave me some", as if he didn't have authority to tell her no? Why would God not rebuke him for that if it was baseless, and what sort of redundant curse would the woman's have been if Adam already ruled over her? Is it possible they were created equal? But, man was not created equal to God, so that would disrupt the image. Or would it? We know woman wasn't. We know that because otherwise Eve could not have been tempted by the line "you will be like God". Also, their eyes were not opened when she ate, but when he did, and "through one man sin entered the world". Sometimes I also wonder if it had been possible for Adam to redeem Eve in that moment just as Christ redeemed us. After all, he was blameless up to that point. That's a mind-bender.Note - I am not putting these forth because I believe them. I am mainly putting forth arguments I am reading in support of a more Complementarianism POV to see what, if any, weight they may hold.
So the main patriarchy arguments made for womens subordination pre-fall are. Per Genisis 2.
1. Order of creation - woman after man
2. Woman was taken from man.
3. Man named woman (showing dominance.)
4. Woman was made as a helper for man.
Here are arguments made against them.
1. Order of creation - animals were created before man, thus women after doesn't mean as much.
2. The fact that woman was taken from man expresses correspondence rather than inferiority.
3. The fact that man named woman does show a leadership role, but the name given in itself implies "sameness" rather than subordination.
4. The Ezer( suitable helper)definition also implies stresses correspondence rather than subordination.
I wonder if Eve even needed redemption before Adam sinned. It seems like the Fall happened when Adam ate, not when Eve ate.These are good points, and I'm looking forward to someone more learned than I to answer them! I, too, have wondered what the world must have been like pre-fall. As in, why would Adam consider it a valid excuse to say, "The woman you put here with me gave me some", as if he didn't have authority to tell her no? Why would God not rebuke him for that if it was baseless, and what sort of redundant curse would the woman's have been if Adam already ruled over her? Is it possible they were created equal? But, man was not created equal to God, so that would disrupt the image. Or would it? We know woman wasn't. We know that because otherwise Eve could not have been tempted by the line "you will be like God". Also, their eyes were not opened when she ate, but when he did, and "through one man sin entered the world". Sometimes I also wonder if it had been possible for Adam to redeem Eve in that moment just as Christ redeemed us. After all, he was blameless up to that point. That's a mind-bender.
Based off of the above points being their grounding to prove that men and women essentially have equality in the pre-fall created order. Mutual submission rather than subservience of woman with equal value and different functions and roles. The complementarianist will then go on to view the new testament through this lens. Rather than the patriarchal, woman being subservient to man, as the base lens.Here are arguments made against them.
1. Order of creation - animals were created before man, thus women after doesn't mean as much.
2. The fact that woman was taken from man expresses correspondence rather than inferiority.
3. The fact that man named woman does show a leadership role, but the name given in itself implies "sameness" rather than subordination.
4. The Ezer( suitable helper)definition also implies stresses correspondence rather than subordination.
3. (from Tom) The temporal sequence of the creation of the man and then the woman.So the main patriarchy arguments made for womens subordination pre-fall are.
1. Order of creation - woman after man [Gen. 2:18]
2. Woman was taken from man. [Gen. 2:21-23]
4. Adam's naming Authority - of first the animals, and then the woman, both in generic and specific aspect. (isha, Chava)3. Man named woman (showing dominance.)
OK. But there's more to it. She was made BECAUSE there "was no suitable help-meet found for him" - among all the animals Yah brought to HaAdam to inspect, and then name.4. Woman was made as a helper for man.
Unless it was, as arguably suggested right there in the Genuine Text, leading to a position of dominion, or authority, and a charge to, say, Gen. 2:28, "Be fruitful, and multiply...replenish, subdue [HaEretz, the earth]...and have dominion over [everything!]" else that He had made.Here are arguments made against them.
1. Order of creation - animals were created before man, thus women after doesn't mean as much.
Who said "inferiority"?! Could there be a not-so-subtle bit of semantic twisting in there?2. The fact that woman was taken from man expresses correspondence rather than inferiority.
No, the text says it implies she was taken "from ish".3. The fact that man named woman does show a leadership role, but the name given in itself implies "sameness" rather than subordination.
And I don't like that shorthand. The correct Hebrew phrase used is 'etzer kenegdo'. Not just a helper, but a help-meet, a helper explicitly SUITABLE for him.4. The Ezer( suitable helper)definition also implies stresses correspondence rather than subordination.
If anyone hasn't read Shipley yet, they really should. "Man and Woman in Biblical Law" is an important work.PS> This didn't really fit that post, but it is a VITAL element of the discussion, was at least reference above, and is among my very FAVORITE elements to explore and teach in Bereshiet/Genesis.
The TIME element also includes 'the Fall'. Without an entire session, it boils down to "how much time elapsed between Gen. 3: 6 from beginning to end? Seconds? Minutes? More? We are NOT told!"
But this is NOT an argument from silence, because the text (in the Hebrew, and also in any good English rendering) makes clear that - at least for a some time - AFTER Chava/Eve ate the fruit, NOTHING happened. (Numbers 30, and Paul's midrash, give us a clue!)
It was ONLY after she gave 'also' to him, and THEN he then ate [and here I suggest - he 'ratified' her decision] that the eyes of BOTH of them were opened.
Nothing happened immediately - until HaAdam also ate. And notice who "bears her guilt," to look ahead a bit.
That is at least a VERY strong implication of another level of authority, certainly borne out throughout Scripture thereafter. (And this, BTW, is Tom Shipley's 'wheelhouse,' if you haven't read it. He suggests that without that understanding, "we are left without a Gospel.")
So the main patriarchy arguments made for womens subordination pre-fall are. Per Genisis 2.
1. Order of creation - woman after man God made man, then made a helper "for him"
2. Woman was taken from man. Woman was made "for and from man"
3. Man named woman (showing dominance.) Not necessarily dominance, but authority over and dominion over. Dominion and dominance are different.
4. Woman was made as a helper for man. Correct. Not the other way around.
Here are arguments made against them.
1. Order of creation - animals were created before man, thus women after doesn't mean as much. Nonsense argument. Nothing is established as argument, no logical conclusion or support.
2. The fact that woman was taken from man expresses correspondence rather than inferiority. Patriarchal men are not saying women are inferior in value. Simply inferior in authority.
3. The fact that man named woman does show a leadership role, but the name given in itself implies "sameness" rather than subordination. We don't base doctrine on implications and assumption. Nor do we try to eisegete out of this passage something not supported elsewhere in scripture.
4. The Ezer( suitable helper)definition also implies stresses correspondence rather than subordination. Helper by definition explicitly describes a subordinate.
There is no proof that men and women were equal pre-fall or post fall. Woman was created specifically to help man. A master carpenter is not equal in authority to the helper carpenter. To insist otherwise is to deny reality at the same level as people claiming a man can be pregnant.Based off of the above points being their grounding to prove that men and women essentially have equality in the pre-fall created order. Mutual submission rather than subservience of woman with equal value and different functions and roles. The complementarianist will then go on to view the new testament through this lens. Rather than the patriarchal, woman being subservient to man, as the base lens.
You cannot devalue something by correctly defining it's value. You similarly cannot devalue a hammer by saying it is not a bird.There is a distinction made between person hood (which all are equal in to salvation), and function and role. The Complementarianism view being that patriarchy limits or devalues women's 'true and equal, though different' functions and roles biblically.
This is explicitly false. They do not belong to each other equally. The greek words explicitly show that. The man has his heautou wife. (belonging to him) And the woman has her idios husband (the husband she belongs to).Based off 1 Corinthians 7: 2-5 the arguments are:
V 2. Equality of conjugal responsibility. ( both husband and wife belong to each other equally.)
Equal responsibility to have sex with the other does not establish they have equal standing or authority. Simply that there is a sexual duty upon both.V 3. Equality of responsibility in duty to each other. (They claim there is no responsibility in this given to the husband to 'police' the wife to make sure she fulfills her side. Community in action is supposed with both parties willingly fulfilling their side.)
answered above.V 4. Equal responsibility in duties to each other. Sexually both men and women have right to their husbands/wife's body equally. (Thus making women more than a sex slave to men.)
Equal what? Equally heirs to salvation. Equal in their responsibility to respond to Jesus.The claim is made that men and women are equal in the body of the Messiah and therefore both submit to him as their ultimate authority.