I had the privilege of sitting in on a lecture by one of my colleagues entitled, 'The Beginning of Marriage'. He went through the biblical data on prelapsarian marriage including its institution, purpose, and necessity. It was quite good and well researched.One of his quotes stood out as quite refreshing to me. It amazes me the balance that our Puritan forefathers had on issues that today are confused and misused. Matthew Henry, speaking of Eve's creation said, Eve was not taken out of Adam's head to top him, neither out of his feet to be trampled on by him, but out his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected by him, and near his heart to be loved by him.
What a refreshing thought on Eve's creation. How could a feminist argue with the dignity and high value that God has placed on the woman?
6 comments:
Isn't that quote reading a little to much into scripture? I don't per se disagree but I think it's reading a little much into God's direct actions in creating Eve.
It is an application of the text.
A good application at that, very consistent with the rest of Scripture.
I think Henry's comments are to be understood as an analogy, and not his literal interpretation of the Genesis account.
The method is similar to the way Paul refers to the bondwoman (Hagar) and the freewoman (Sarah) in Gal 4:21ff, to illustrate living under the Covenant of Works vs under the Covenant of Grace.
Great analogy Nate. One of my old roommates, Ed, used to have that quote up on his wall. I always liked it.
It is easy to fall into one of these 2 extremes in our thoughts and actions towards women. I remember enjoying a few books on the Puritan's view of Family - balanced.
An analogy is fine, the quote on it's own makes it sound as though this is a direct interpretation of scripture.
"The method is similar to the way Paul refers to the bondwoman (Hagar) and the freewoman (Sarah) in Gal 4:21ff, to illustrate living under the Covenant of Works vs under the Covenant of Grace."
-Good and necessary consequence still doesn't make Paul interpret the Genesis text that way. NOr validates the analogy. Yet the analogy is consistent with the sense of a help meet, so it is valid, on grounds of an anology and explanation, but not as an interpretation of the Genesis account.
-So, in otherwords watch yourself.
Post a Comment