Sarah Sumner\u2019s chp 11 in Men and Women in Ministry <\/em>discusses what 1 Peter 3:7 means when it says that women are the \u201cweaker vessel.\u201d Sarah begins with a lesson in how to do word studies, but first our questions. Sarah Sumner\u2019s chp 11 in Men and Women in Ministry discusses what 1 Peter 3:7 means when it says that women are the \u201cweaker vessel.\u201d Sarah begins with a lesson in how to do word studies, but first our questions. My questions today: How might we \u201cempower\u201d women in order that they may not be […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":197,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[476,425,1750],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1947","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-books","category-missional","category-women-and-ministry"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nMy questions today<\/strong>: How might we \u201cempower\u201d women in order that they may not be seen as the \u201cweaker\u201d vessel in a redemptive sense? How can we do this \u201cin church,\u201d in society, at home, etc.? (If the primary senses of \u201cweaker vessel\u201d are either \u201cphysically weaker\u201d or \u201csexually vulnerable\u201d, then how might we empower women to minimize that weakness or empower it or protect it?)
\n
\nSumner looks up \u201cweak\u201d in a Webster\u2019s Dictionary, sees that it means \u201cinferiority of physical, mental, or moral strength.\u201d Then she concludes that, if we use English dictionaries, we could conclude that being the \u201cweaker\u201d vessel means \u201cinferior\u201d to men. But, she immediately observes that we don\u2019t do word studies by examining what English words mean, but have to examine the language and word of the original \u2014 so that means examining what asthenes <\/em>means.
\nShe observes that 1 Cor 1:25 (\u201cthe weakness of God is stronger than men\u201d) shows that God is \u201cweak\u201d (relatively speaking); 2 Cor 13:4 uses the same term of Christ (\u201ccrucified because of weakness\u201d) \u2014 therefore, she concludes (my terms), women are in good company. Overall, she concludes that \u201cweaker\u201d cannot mean \u201cinferior.\u201d
\nShe argues that the word is best translated \u201cmore vulnerable.\u201d In fact, she makes a big point at this point: men are not said to be \u201cstrong\u201d vs. women being \u201cweak\u201d but the text implies that men are \u201cweak\u201d and women \u201cweaker.\u201d
\nIn the next chp Sumner argues that \u201cvulnerable\u201d is particularly sexual in orientation \u2014 women are more vulnerable physically than men. It is about the design of the body.
\nHere\u2019s a correction she insists on:
\nLie: Women are vulnerable; men are invulnerable.
\nTruth: Men are vulnerable; women are physically more vulnerable than men (p. 135).
\nHere are some important other NT references to \u201cweaker\u201d: physical weakness (Mar 6:56; 2 Cor 12:7-10); humans are by nature weak (Heb 5:2); some parts of the body are weaker than others (1 Cor 12:22); spiritual weakness and neediness (Rom 5:6); weakness of the flesh (Rom 8:26); economic weakness (1 Cor 1:27).
\nIt was conventional to speak of women as the weaker gender in the ancient world (see JH Elliott\u2019s new commentary on 1 Peter<\/em>, 576-577, if you have it, for references).
\nThe vulnerability of women in the ancient world, and still in many ways in our world, required on the part of Christian men to be mindful and sensitive of their wives (or of women in general). That is Peter\u2019s point. If they aren\u2019t, Peter says, they will be spiritually stunted \u2014 their prayers will not catch the ear of God.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"