LadyLike Living Biblically

[John Mundinger]

I don't think any of this would be in any way controversial but for the fact that the vocations of husband and wife are sex-specific.

Somehow that takes us back to the Cleavers and the Nelsons, doesn't it?

It is a dodge to say the husband is not the head of house because Christ is, as though the two ideas contradicted each other.

When you stand on vocations, rather than stand on Ephesians 5:21 - 33, in its entirety, the two ideas do contradict each other.

[peter_speckhard]

I don't think any of this would be in any way controversial but for the fact that the vocations of husband and wife are sex-specific.

Somehow that takes us back to the Cleavers and the Nelsons, doesn't it?

It is a dodge to say the husband is not the head of house because Christ is, as though the two ideas contradicted each other.

When you stand on vocations, rather than stand on Ephesians 5:21 - 33, in its entirety, the two ideas do contradict each other.

No, it doesn't. Do you know any families who consider themselves practitioners and/or advocates of traditional marriage? Do you really think that if you showed up at the homes of either of the authors of the book in question, you would find the Cleavers and the Nelsons? You have to get your stereotypes out of your head and really listen to what we're saying. I take all of Ephesians 5, going all the way back to verse 1, when I teach on this stuff. You take Vs. 21 as definitive and use it to cancel out everything it goes on to say.

[mariemeyer]

In an attempt to unscramble what biblical feminine/lady like/womanhood is all about it the family living I quote the following and ask several questions for clarification.

" Of course the husband and wife together can decide the family is best provided for by his wife keeping her well-paying job and him staying home with the kids. But it is still his responsibility, one that he instinctively knows, to make sure they are provided for. Just as a pastor might have someone else teach a Bible class while remaining responsible for what is taught, so a husband might "farm out" the role of provider to someone else without losing the responsibility for providing."


What does it mean that the  husband can "farm out" the role of provider to his wife if she has a well-paying job and so fulfill his responsibility and role as provider?   

Where in Scripture do we read that "providing" for the emotional, physical, material, educational and spiritual needs of the family defines different "roles" for the father and different "roles" for the mother? 

Long story short, according to scripture do father and mother...
1) mutually share the responsibility of providing for all family needs or
2) do father and mother have different "roles" in providing for different family needs or
3) does the father have the God-given "role" of responsibly providing for all family needs which he may  then "farm out" to wife, doctors, pastors, teachers etc.

Marie Meyer         

[Mark Brown]

Long story short, according to scripture do father and mother...
1) mutually share the responsibility of providing for all family needs or
2) do father and mother have different "roles" in providing for different family needs or
3) does the father have the God-given "role" of responsibly providing for all family needs which he may  then "farm out" to wife, doctors, pastors, teachers etc.

Marie Meyer         

There is definitely a mutual responsibility.  Father and Mother and Husband and Wife are overlapping vocations.  I think this is the one difference, while the roles are overlapping, it is the man or the male who under the law is held to a higher account.  Like the minister has a terrible accountability for the entire flock.  Like Christ has a terrible accountability for all of humanity.  That accountability is the call to ultimate sacrifice for those of which you are the head.

In a house ruled by the gospel the husband takes serious that accountability and offers himself, and wife and children respect that headship.  And they do so not because of the law, but because of the recognition of the sacrifice that is taken.  In all of this if you are not up to the sacrifice, do not get married (don't seek holy orders).  So roles can be quite fluid, probably as different as each couple.  (Biblical example would seem to be Isaac and Rebekah where Rebekah did much of the traditional "male" role, and Isaac ratified her actions.) But the distinction is not in us, but in how God holds us accountable.  God didn't accept Adam's dodge that it was his wife's fault.  He was still accountable.

[peter_speckhard]

In an attempt to unscramble what biblical feminine/lady like/womanhood is all about it the family living I quote the following and ask several questions for clarification.

" Of course the husband and wife together can decide the family is best provided for by his wife keeping her well-paying job and him staying home with the kids. But it is still his responsibility, one that he instinctively knows, to make sure they are provided for. Just as a pastor might have someone else teach a Bible class while remaining responsible for what is taught, so a husband might "farm out" the role of provider to someone else without losing the responsibility for providing."


What does it mean that the  husband can "farm out" the role of provider to his wife if she has a well-paying job and so fulfill his responsibility and role as provider?   

Where in Scripture do we read that "providing" for the emotional, physical, material, educational and spiritual needs of the family defines different "roles" for the father and different "roles" for the mother? 

Long story short, according to scripture do father and mother...
1) mutually share the responsibility of providing for all family needs or
2) do father and mother have different "roles" in providing for different family needs or
3) does the father have the God-given "role" of responsibly providing for all family needs which he may  then "farm out" to wife, doctors, pastors, teachers etc.

Marie Meyer       

In the curse on Adam and Eve, God took what was supposed to be a good and mutual blessing and said it would now function only through pain and toil. He said to Adam that the act of getting food (providing) would no longer be a delight but a matter of toil. And to Eve He said having children and submitting to her husband would no longer be pure delight but a matter of pain and conflict. In Christ and viewing our lives through the lens of vocation we begin to see that situation repaired, not by abolishing the varying roles but by embracing the crosses involved in those varying vocations and seeing God graciously at work in our lives through them.

He could have said the same thing to both of them at the same time. "By the sweat of your brows you shall..." and "Your desire will be for each other and you will rule over each other." But He differentiated. That differentiation is not itself the curse or even an aspect of the curse, and the liberation of the Gospel is not a matter of overcoming that differentiation. There is nothing threatening to the Christian about the idea that husbands and wives have differing roles/vocations. 

[mariemeyer]

In Genesis one Adam and Eve were given responsibility to tend the garden. God blesses both, gives both plants that yield seed and  trees that bear fruit.  There is no indication that Adam only was to till the soil, plant the seed, pick the fruit and harvest the vegetables.   

The serpent was cursed by having his face turned to the dust of the ground. The ground was cursed in that  it would now bring forth weeds and thistles.     

Something about the relationship between the woman and her husband would change. Translating 2:16 "Your desire shall be for your husband" suggests that a wife's sexual desire for her husband is a result of the fall. LCMS interpretation of the text moves in the direction of interpreting "desire your husband" to mean the wife would now want to have the rule given to the husband or she would be "against" her husband (see LSB).  In today's language we would say the wife  would now want to wear the pants in the family there by confusing the role of husband and wife.     

It is my understanding that the Hebrew better reads that the woman would now be turned toward her husband.  The change in woman was a change in to whom she was turned. The pain of child birth would be multiplied.  While not specifically said, the husband and wife would now experience the pain of losing a child through miscarriages and still birth. Birthing and caring for children would require suffering on the part of fathers and mothers.

There would a negative change in the relationship between husband and wife... the wife would now be turned toward her husband and he would now rule over his wife.  It is my understanding that Luther interpreted "he shall rule over you" as a consequence of the fall, not a Law established in Genesis One.

Marie Meyer

[peter_speckhard]

Marie, where do you read of Adam and Eve both being given responsibility to tend the garden? In Genesis 1 Adam and Eve were given one  and only one mission, to be fruitful and multiply. In Genesis 2 we learn that God first put Adam in the garden "to work it and keep it" before Eve was created. Never do we hear of Eve being given any command whatsoever to work and keep the garden. After God created Eve and Adam recognized her as an extension of himself (humanity) God said (and we know God said this because Jesus quotes it as the words of the Creator) "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two shall become one flesh." Thus, in both Genesis 1 and 2 we see the relationship of Eve to Adam being linked to family and procreation, not mutually tending the garden.

I simply don't know what verses from Genesis you're using as the basis of your previous post. 

[peter_speckhard]

In Genesis one Adam and Eve were given responsibility to tend the garden. God blesses both, gives both plants that yield seed and  trees that bear fruit.  There is no indication that Adam only was to till the soil, plant the seed, pick the fruit and harvest the vegetables.   

The serpent was cursed by having his face turned to the dust of the ground. The ground was cursed in that  it would now bring forth weeds and thistles.     

Something about the relationship between the woman and her husband would change. Translating 2:16 "Your desire shall be for your husband" suggests that a wife's sexual desire for her husband is a result of the fall. LCMS interpretation of the text moves in the direction of interpreting "desire your husband" to mean the wife would now want to have the rule given to the husband or she would be "against" her husband (see LSB).  In today's language we would say the wife  would now want to wear the pants in the family there by confusing the role of husband and wife.     

It is my understanding that the Hebrew better reads that the woman would now be turned toward her husband.  The change in woman was a change in to whom she was turned. The pain of child birth would be multiplied.  While not specifically said, the husband and wife would now experience the pain of losing a child through miscarriages and still birth. Birthing and caring for children would require suffering on the part of fathers and mothers.

There would a negative change in the relationship between husband and wife... the wife would now be turned toward her husband and he would now rule over his wife.  It is my understanding that Luther interpreted "he shall rule over you" as a consequence of the fall, not a Law established in Genesis One.

Marie Meyer

Sorry, I messed up the quote. The above is the post to which my previous post was a reply.

[mariemeyer]

Marie, where do you read of Adam and Eve both being given responsibility to tend the garden? In Genesis 1 Adam and Eve were given one  and only one mission, to be fruitful and multiply. In Genesis 2 we learn that God first put Adam in the garden "to work it and keep it" before Eve was created. Never do we hear of Eve being given any command whatsoever to work and keep the garden. After God created Eve and Adam recognized her as an extension of himself (humanity) God said (and we know God said this because Jesus quotes it as the words of the Creator) "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two shall become one flesh." Thus, in both Genesis 1 and 2 we see the relationship of Eve to Adam being linked to family and procreation, not mutually tending the garden.

I simply don't know what verses from Genesis you're using as the basis of your previous post.

Adam and Ever were given only one command - be fruitful and Multipy

Marie, where do you read of Adam and Eve both being given responsibility to tend the garden? In Genesis 1 Adam and Eve were given one  and only one mission, to be fruitful and multiply. In Genesis 2 we learn that God first put Adam in the garden "to work it and keep it" before Eve was created. Never do we hear of Eve being given any command whatsoever to work and keep the garden. After God created Eve and Adam recognized her as an extension of himself (humanity) God said (and we know God said this because Jesus quotes it as the words of the Creator) "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two shall become one flesh." Thus, in both Genesis 1 and 2 we see the relationship of Eve to Adam being linked to family and procreation, not mutually tending the garden.

I simply don't know what verses from Genesis you're using as the basis of your previous post. 

We must have different Bibles.....According to my Bible being stewards of God creation was part of the deal.  Being fruitful and multiplying would have been pretty difficult to sustain without the man and the woman caring for and subduing the earth. 

Marie

In 1:19 - were the seeds given only to Adam? 

[peter_speckhard]

Marie, where do you read of Adam and Eve both being given responsibility to tend the garden? In Genesis 1 Adam and Eve were given one  and only one mission, to be fruitful and multiply. In Genesis 2 we learn that God first put Adam in the garden "to work it and keep it" before Eve was created. Never do we hear of Eve being given any command whatsoever to work and keep the garden. After God created Eve and Adam recognized her as an extension of himself (humanity) God said (and we know God said this because Jesus quotes it as the words of the Creator) "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two shall become one flesh." Thus, in both Genesis 1 and 2 we see the relationship of Eve to Adam being linked to family and procreation, not mutually tending the garden.

I simply don't know what verses from Genesis you're using as the basis of your previous post.

Adam and Ever were given only one command - be fruitful and Multipy

Marie, where do you read of Adam and Eve both being given responsibility to tend the garden? In Genesis 1 Adam and Eve were given one  and only one mission, to be fruitful and multiply. In Genesis 2 we learn that God first put Adam in the garden "to work it and keep it" before Eve was created. Never do we hear of Eve being given any command whatsoever to work and keep the garden. After God created Eve and Adam recognized her as an extension of himself (humanity) God said (and we know God said this because Jesus quotes it as the words of the Creator) "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two shall become one flesh." Thus, in both Genesis 1 and 2 we see the relationship of Eve to Adam being linked to family and procreation, not mutually tending the garden.

I simply don't know what verses from Genesis you're using as the basis of your previous post. 

We must have different Bibles.....According to my Bible being stewards of God creation was part of the deal.  Being fruitful and multiplying would have been pretty difficult to sustain without the man and the woman caring for and subduing the earth. 

Marie

In 1:19 - were the seeds given only to Adam?

Different indeed. Mine says, "And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day."

[peter_speckhard]

If you meant 1:29, it refers to God giving them grains and fruit tree for food. It established their authority to eat of the fruit of the plants, as God's provision for them. In other words, they weren't transgressing against the plants by eating of them. That is what the plants, at least in part, were for. It certainly doesn't say that God have them seeds for the purpose of planting and tending a garden together, for the simple reason that He refers to all of them covering the face of the earth. And He similarly "gives" the animals every green plant, which certainly does not set the animals up for agriculture. It doesn't stand up to common sense scrutiny to say that 1:29 establishes some co-responsibility for tending the garden. It establishes the purpose of plants in relation to humans.

[mariemeyer]

And what about the responsibility of humans to plants that belong to what God placed on the earth for mankind?    Is there a difference between your stewardship of the earth than mine?

I suppose one could say that Bill has "farmed out" responsibility for tending the vegetable gardens we've had over the years to me, but that's not the way we have understood responsibilities  husband and wife share.    I've done the planning, planting and harvesting, he's done the weeding and composting.    This time of year he picks most of the berries (currents, raspberries, blue berries and goose berries)  from bushes I have planted.   

After 53 years have we gotten our responsibilities mixed up?   Not only have we had co-responsibility in tending the gardens, but that's been the pattern in all areas of our life together as husband and wife. The idea that he "farmed out" certain responsibilities to me in keeping with his  role of provider is totally foreign to both of us.

Marie Meyer

[peter_speckhard]

And what about the responsibility of humans to plants that belong to what God placed on the earth for mankind?    Is there a difference between your stewardship of the earth than mine?

I suppose one could say that Bill has "farmed out" responsibility for tending the vegetable gardens we've had over the years to me, but that's not the way we have understood responsibilities  husband and wife share.    I've done the planning, planting and harvesting, he's done the weeding and composting.    This time of year he picks most of the berries (currents, raspberries, blue berries and goose berries)  from bushes I have planted.   

After 53 years have we gotten our responsibilities mixed up?   Not only have we had co-responsibility in tending the gardens, but that's been the pattern in all areas of our life together as husband and wife. The idea that he "farmed out" certain responsibilities to me in keeping with his  role of provider is totally foreign to both of us.

Marie Meyer

From what you've shared about your marriage, I would say it is and has been a success and has also looked very much like a traditional marriage. Few young people who do not consciously adopt a more traditional view of marriage will end up replicating your marriage.

Per the example I gave upstream of me being pastor and the principal being principal, there are a thousand different way see can divvy up duties, work together, etc. it is only the kids who don't get it who look to the fact that the principal reports to the senior pastor as though that means I go around giving orders to the principal. Same with families. Being the head of the house does not mean giving orders or imposing straight jacket roles on everybody.

Edit: I left out a crucial "not" in the paragraph above. It is fixed now. Hope nobody got spooked.