1 Pet 3:7

Steven R. Lo Vullo doulos at appleisp.net
Fri Aug 31 02:31:26 EDT 2001

on 8/31/01 12:27 AM, Steven R. Lo Vullo at doulos at appleisp.net wrote:

>> Steve wrote:
>>> As for ASQENESTERWi referring to the wife being weaker "spiritually, as an
>>> unbeliever," I find this more than a little odd (and forced)...
>>> He is simply pointing out the obvious fact that
>>> the female is weaker physically than the male.
>> Quite possibly.  But now how does this help us with the
>> believing/unbelieving wives question, as either one could be physically
>> weaker?
> It obviously helps us greatly, when viewed in the context of our discussion.
> You contended that ASQENESTERWi perhaps means "weaker" in the sense of
> "unbelieving" (a non-attested meaning or connotation for the word). Clearly,
> if this is the case, the ballgame is over, since if ASQENESTERWi here means
> or connotes "unbelieving" that would *preclude* the wife from being a
> believer--argument over. On the other hand, if it means weaker physically (a
> well-attested meaning of the word), then we are not obligated on the basis
> of the meaning or connotation of ASQENESTERWi to accept the proposition that
> the wife is an unbeliever.
> And as far as the possibility of either the husband or the wife being weaker
> physically, *of course* either one *could* be physically weaker. In the
> first century it would be possible, if the husband suffered from some sort
> of disease, or if his wife were quite larger than he, etc., for her to be
> stronger physically. But since it was not common, as it is today, for women
> to participate in strength training, this would be true in a tiny minority
> of cases. The author isn't trying to deal with every possible exception;
> he's only commenting on the general state of things, what is common. To
> suggest that he would not describe wives as being physically weaker than
> their husbands because there may be some exceptions to the general rule I
> think is unreasonable.

After rereading my post, I realized that I misunderstood the last clause of
Stepahanie's question above. So the second paragraph of my response should
be disregarded. Sorry about that. I think, though, that my first paragraph
adequately deals with the issue raised.

Steve Lo Vullo
Madison, WI

More information about the B-Greek mailing list