First Letter of Peter: Statements about the Role Women?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Angela77
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Angela77

Guest
In the First Letter of Peter, he says that women should be “subordinate” to men and that they are “weaker.” I, being a female who is totally into women’s rights, am troubled. Should Peter’s statements be interpreted literally? Is his attitude toward women more a product of his time than what God actually intended? Am I missing something?
 
In the First Letter of Peter, he says that women should be “subordinate” to men and that they are “weaker.” I, being a female who is totally into women’s rights, am troubled. Should Peter’s statements be interpreted literally? Is his attitude toward women more a product of his time than what God actually intended? Am I missing something?
Does Paul say in Ephesians that women should be submissive? Is this different from being “subordinate”?

Or is it the fact that women are “weaker” that bothers you?
 
Hmmm…it all bothers me. I don’t like thinking of myself as “subordinate,” “submissive,” or “weaker” to/than men. I just don’t think it’s true. In my mind, everyone’s equal.
 
What’s wrong with being subordinate or weaker?

Isn’t whatever God made you to be the best and truly good thing to be?
 
By nature woman are less violent then men, its natural. i think thats what thee above posters are trying to say.
 
Hmmm…it all bothers me. I don’t like thinking of myself as “subordinate,” “submissive,” or “weaker” to/than men. I just don’t think it’s true. In my mind, everyone’s equal.
First, we must be careful to look at the whole of scripture and not isolated verses. Observe Ephesians 5:21-33 for instance.
"21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing** her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[c] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband."**
We have trouble submitting ourselves to anyone. Submitting involves trust and lots of love. For a wife to submit herself to the husband like the Church to Christ puts a great deal of responsibility on the husband and requires a lot of trust by the wife in her husband.
We also see that the woman and the man when united in marriage become one body, like Christ and His Church. So, in a sense, there can be no disparity between between husband and wife because they are one person.
Now, let’s add another level complexity. Are we not supposed to love and honor our parents? Thus, are we not supposed to honor our mother? Christ honored his mother. We should honor our mother. When Mary asked Christ to perform a miracle at the wedding, Jesus turned the water into wine. When Jesus was hanging on the cross he told John to accept Mary as John’s mother - in other words, Jesus gives Mary as mother to the Church. Mary is Jesus’ mother and Mary is our mother.
Thus wives should submit to their husbands, and husbands should love their wives like Christ loves the Church (i.g. look at the cross). Moreover, men should honor their mothers. So, every wife should submit to their husbands, yes. But, every man has a mother to honor! And shouldn’t a man also have some veneration for the mother of his children?
In a sense, we get what we give. That said, we do not always get and give in identical ways. If, as you said, you think we are all equal in every capacity, then that view is not really “Catholic”, it’s egalitarian and it’s not true. Here is some excerpts from The Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary. I think you’ll find this very intersting. Also, I highlighted a few lines that I thought would be of particular interest considering the topic of this discussion.
Holy Mary
Holy Mother of God
Most honored of virgins
Mother of Christ
Mother of the Church
Mother of divine grace
Mother most pure
Mother of chaste love
Mother and virgin
Sinless Mother
Dearest of Mothers
Model of motherhood

Mother of good counsel
Mother of our Creator
Mother of our Savior

Virgin most wise
Virgin rightly praised
Virgin rightly renowned
Virgin most powerful
Virgin gentle in mercy
Faithful Virgin

Mirror of justice
Throne of wisdom
Cause of our joy


Shrine of the Spirit
Glory of Israel
Vessel of selfless devotion
Mystical Rose
Tower of David
Tower of ivory
House of gold
Ark of the covenant
Gate of heaven
Morning star
Health of the sick
Refuge of sinners
Comfort of the troubled
Help of Christians

Queen of angels
Queen of patriarchs and prophets
Queen of apostles and martyrs
Queen of confessors and virgins
Queen of all saints
Queen conceived without sin
Queen assumed in to heaven
Queen of the rosary
Queen of families
Queen of peace
 
There is an EXCELLENT read explaining the true beauty of Femininity. It’s called The Privelege of Being a Woman by Alice von Hildebrand I commend this book vehemently to ANYONE.

Hope this helps,
God Bless.
 
Hmmm…it all bothers me. I don’t like thinking of myself as “subordinate,” “submissive,” or “weaker” to/than men. I just don’t think it’s true. In my mind, everyone’s equal.
Are you actually thinking that women should stoop so low to consider themselves equal to men? 😉

IMO, women are far better than that?

But, back to your original post… Jesus was submissive to the Father. What are your thoughts on Jesus in relation to the Father?
 
=Angela77;8244664]In the First Letter of Peter, he says that women should be “subordinate” to men and that they are “weaker.” I, being a female who is totally into women’s rights, am troubled. Should Peter’s statements be interpreted literally? Is his attitude toward women more a product of his time than what God actually intended? Am I missing something?
It is indeed a product of its time AND the CURRENT Time.

The basis for this TEACHING of the Church stems from the FACT that Eve was born [created from] Adam. Not the other way around.

There has been no time period when the HUSBAND was not to be the HEAD of the family. That said the Church teaches an equality of authority and responsibility. BUT if a decision HAs to be made and the H & W cannot agree; th Husband takes presedience.

From the CCC

**1616 **This is what the Apostle Paul makes clear when he says: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her,” adding at once: “'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one. This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the Church.”

2365 Fidelity expresses constancy in keeping one’s given word. God is faithful. The Sacrament of Matrimony enables man and woman to enter into Christ’s fidelity for his Church. Through conjugal chastity, they bear witness to this mystery before the world.

St. John Chrysostom suggests that young husbands should say to their wives: I have taken you in my arms, and I love you, and I prefer you to my life itself. For the present life is nothing, and my most ardent dream is to spend it with you in such a way that we may be assured of not being separated in the life reserved for us. . . . I place your love above all things, and nothing would be more bitter or painful to me than to be of a different mind than you.

Even among equals: Someone has to be in charge.

God Bless you,
 
I, being a female who is totally into women’s rights,
That word “rights” gets thrown about a lot. Does your definition include abortion “rights”?
 
In the First Letter of Peter, he says that women should be “subordinate” to men and that they are “weaker.” I, being a female who is totally into women’s rights, am troubled. Should Peter’s statements be interpreted literally? Is his attitude toward women more a product of his time than what God actually intended? Am I missing something?
Hi, Angela!

…if you were to be. roughly, my age, height, and body weight… both of us having no special training, skills, abilities or disabilities… in order words if you, Angela, would be my counterpart, there would be no doubt that my physical characteristics would demonstrate that you, made up of more fat and less muscle, would be weaker than me, made up of less fat and more muscle; but there are other levels… you were made weak by function: you are the nourisher, the builder, the soft-hearted one… I was made less involved, able to embrace solitude and hardships more readily in order to provide safety and security–being more rough around the edges, and the middle, makes me less vulnerable and more combatant… finally, worldly speaking, you are more frail when it comes to ego (ie: guys can go from bed to road in 10 to 15 vs females that have to have everything just–including the matching assessories), this makes you more susceptible to matters of the senses–easier to crack by appealing to your ego (vanity)…

Did the Apostles believe that women are inferior to men? No! Can you imagine the problem that the early Church would have had if the various females were not allow to contribute in the building of the Church?

What I find interesting is that when St. Paul speaks of women submitting to the authority of their husbands not one person cites Paul’s statement about the husband’s responsibility to the wife: “love your wife as Christ Loved the Church, that He died for her…”

It is my job to support you (still working on the above module), provide for you (no not just financially), protect you, guide you… this, of course, depends upon a Christian Unity (husband and wife in the Lord, Jesus Christ)–this is as old as Creation, remember who was Called into accountability when the serpent lied about the Fruit?

It is Yahweh God’s formula: twelve sons of Israel, twelve disciples/Apostles… if I were to die (again keeping with the module) and our children (if we had any) were grown and did not need you any further, you could not seek to become a Priest and serve the Lord in the Priestly Office–that’s where the difference lies and ends… does that mean that God does not think that you are a capable person? No! …just look into the life experience of Mother Angelica, that frail woman that built EWTN and its various agencies—her whole purpose was to serve Christ not to be equal to man… so Jesus used her in her failty, her infirmities, her tech-illiteracy or check out Mother Theressa of Calcuta… how tall was she? …how financially connected was she? …she too did not seek equality with man, as the noted St. before them, these two ladies dimply sought to serve Christ!

…when the issue of man vs. woman comes about I like to reflect on St. Paul’s deliveration: (paraphrased) so woman comes from man… so what! None but a woman can give birth!

We are meant to be complementary not adversaries!

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Hmmm…it all bothers me. I don’t like thinking of myself as “subordinate,” “submissive,” or “weaker” to/than men. I just don’t think it’s true. In my mind, everyone’s equal.
…I think that you have answered your own query… how weak is the Word Incarnate? What did He Taught about power?

Why, do you suppose, is it necessary for a woman to “be the man” rather than the woman?

Why must hollowood’s definition of womanhood (masculine, loose) be emulated by Christian women?

Does a woman become stronger when she engages in the same immoral acts as men or does she become weaker?

…were there flaws in the past? Yes.

But if we go far into the past we discover that it was the fact that females were fulfilling their function in the Church that produced the changes in society (females were not encouraged to learn much more than those skills that made them a wife and mother–it was the work of enlighten women that produced the future generations of educated women and they did so in monasteries and other religious group homes–these were the true femenists who sought to raise women to their highest capacities without loosing their femininity); a woman does not need to be “the man” or be called “sir” or have a pair of “x” in order to be acknowledged as intelligent, able body/mind, and a valued member of society.

…and while we are all equal in the eyes of God ('for God is not a respecter of man…"/“for all have sinned…”) we are all individual with different Gifts and abilities… which means that we should serve Christ within our own means and abilities–it is He Who is the ultimate equalizer; we are called to live in Christ in Whom there’s no Jew or Gentile, man or woman, strong or weak.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Am I missing something?
I am not into women’s rights, because that sorry agenda boils down to oppressing men, killing children, and littering our future with other socioeconomic time bombs. I wholeheartedly agree with Peter when he says that women are weaker, and even the serpent in the Garden of Eden could see it, and Eve was a flawless direct creation of God. Peter’s attitude is a product of sober reflection on the facts of our early history, and if it is the mere product of his time, then so also is his contention in the same chapter that husbands should honor their wives, and we should dispense with both. Could you handle that?

What you’re missing is a clear grasp of what happens to a society when its women grow stronger and insubordinate. They stop winning their husbands, they try to control them with words, usually loud, repetitive, and ineffective words, they engage in unchaste and disrespectful behavior, indulge in vain self-centered adornment, develop labile, unquiet, and disruptive dispositions, fall into spiritual poverty, and bring their families down with them.

When I first read 1 Peter 3, I dismissed it. Decades later, I realized it was an indirect prophecy of what I have witnessed with my own eyes happening over, and over, and over again in the lives of women who dismiss it, and in the lives of their loved ones.

Love,
Diana ❤️
 
In the First Letter of Peter, he says that women …are "weaker." I, being a female who is totally into women’s rights, am troubled.
Pope Peter was right
1 Peter 3:7 Ye husbands, in like manner, dwell with your wives according to knowledge, giving honor unto the woman, as unto the weaker vessel, as being also joint-heirs of the grace of life; to the end that your prayers be not hindered.
a few paragraphs from : *Sexual **Dimorphism ***
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism

Humans

Main article: Sex differences in humans
**Sexual dimorphism **in humans is the subject of much controversy, especially when extended beyond physical differences to mental ability and psychological gender. (For discussion, see sex and psychology, gender, and transgender.) Obvious differences between males and females include all the features related to reproductive role, notably the endocrine (hormonal) systems and their physiological and behavioural effects. Such undisputed sexual dimorphism include gonadal differentiation, internal genital differentiation, external genital differentiation, breast differentiation, muscle mass differentiation, height differentiation, and hair differentiation.

Externally, the most sexually dimorphic portions of the body are the chest, the lower half of the face, and the area between the waist and the knees.[24][25][26]

The basal metabolic rate is about 6 percent higher in adolescent males than females and increases to about 10 percent higher after puberty. Females tend to convert more food into fat, while men convert more into muscle and expendable circulating energy reserves. Females (on average) are about 52 percent as strong as males in the upper body, and about 66 percent as strong in the lower.[27] Males, on average, have denser, stronger bones, tendons, and ligaments.

Males dissipate heat faster than females through their sweat glands.[citation needed] Females have a greater insulation and energy reserves stored in subcutaneous fat, absorbing exothermic heat less and retaining endothermic heat to a greater degree.[citation needed]

Males typically have larger tracheae and branching bronchi, with about 30 percent greater lung volume per body mass. They have larger hearts, 10 percent higher red blood cell count, higher haemoglobin, hence greater oxygen-carrying capacity. They also have higher circulating clotting factors (vitamin K, prothrombin and platelets). These differences lead to faster healing of wounds and higher peripheral pain tolerance.[28]on the other hand 😃
**
Species with larger females than males**
In some species such as insects, spiders, many fish, birds of prey and certain mammals such as the spotted hyena and the blue whale, the female is larger than the male. Cases where the male is larger than the female have been studied as well,[11] and require alternate explanations. As an example, in some species females are sedentary and sparsely distributed, and so males must search for them. Vollrath and Parker argue that this difference in behaviour leads to radically different selection pressures on the two sexes, evidently favouring smaller males.[11]
 
(females were not encouraged to learn much more than those skills that made them a wife and mother
Just a point of interest. This was not necessarily true in ancient Israel.

Israel had nearly 100% literacy rate. Children were taught at a young age how to read and write using the book of Leviticus which contained the “Holiness code” in chapters 17 through 22. Teaching children their ABC’s from the book of Leviticus served the dual purpose of literacy and learning the code of conduct expected by every Jew under the Mosaic law. Jewish men and women both spent hours in synagogue on the sabbath learning about “The law and the prophets.”

Formal schooling and education of both men and women was very important to Jewish culture at the time of Jesus. The nation of Israel as a whole and Jewish women in particular were highly educated, especially in terms of their faith, compared to their peers in the surrounding nations.

-Tim-
 
Just a point of interest. This was not necessarily true in ancient Israel.

Israel had nearly 100% literacy rate. Children were taught at a young age how to read and write using the book of Leviticus which contained the “Holiness code” in chapters 17 through 22. Teaching children their ABC’s from the book of Leviticus served the dual purpose of literacy and learning the code of conduct expected by every Jew under the Mosaic law. Jewish men and women both spent hours in synagogue on the sabbath learning about “The law and the prophets.”

Formal schooling and education of both men and women was very important to Jewish culture at the time of Jesus. The nation of Israel as a whole and Jewish women in particular were highly educated, especially in terms of their faith, compared to their peers in the surrounding nations.

-Tim-
Thanks for the clarification, Tim!

…this, of course, demonstrates the opposite of the common misconception that Faith in Yahweh God is a product of ignorance–the noted difference between Jewish and non-Jewish people is remarkable; I can only assertain that this difference is due to the fact that the Jewish culture was extensively intertwined with Judaism, which demanded a personal involvement with Sacred Scriptures.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top