Comments on: 1 Peter 3:7g http://versebyversecommentary.com/1997/08/31/1-peter-37g/ by Dr. Grant C. Richison Mon, 06 Sep 2010 23:25:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Grant http://versebyversecommentary.com/1997/08/31/1-peter-37g/comment-page-1/#comment-2210 Grant Mon, 08 Sep 2008 15:27:18 +0000 http://versebyversecommentary.com/1997/08/31/1-peter-37g/#comment-2210 Scott, your argument appears to be convoluted. It is not based on exegesis or exposition but upon inferential logic. As well, the "all things new" passage in Revelation has to do with heaven, not our current situation. The argument from Genesis is based on God's statement. Are we to take God's statement as irrelevant? God's statement has to do with the consequence of the fall. By negating God's statement, you render God's statement void. On top of this, God's purpose for Adam and Eve before the fall has to do with masculinity and femininity (1 Tim 2:12, 13). We live in a day where the man has been emasculated, not taking the responsibility for the family. Scott, your argument appears to be convoluted. It is not based on exegesis or exposition but upon inferential logic. As well, the “all things new” passage in Revelation has to do with heaven, not our current situation. The argument from Genesis is based on God’s statement. Are we to take God’s statement as irrelevant? God’s statement has to do with the consequence of the fall. By negating God’s statement, you render God’s statement void. On top of this, God’s purpose for Adam and Eve before the fall has to do with masculinity and femininity (1 Tim 2:12, 13). We live in a day where the man has been emasculated, not taking the responsibility for the family.

]]> By: Scott Morin http://versebyversecommentary.com/1997/08/31/1-peter-37g/comment-page-1/#comment-2209 Scott Morin Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:55:04 +0000 http://versebyversecommentary.com/1997/08/31/1-peter-37g/#comment-2209 This whole argument is built on Gen. 3:16. Gen. 3:16 was a consequence of the fall not God's intended way for relationships to function. As the Sons of Adam and Daughters of Eve the highest goal relationally should be to function as God intended Adam and Eve to function before the fall versus like Gen. 3:16. Therefore I believe this is an inaccurate commentary on how a husband and wife should function together because it is based on our post-fall tendencies. Jesus came to seek and save what was lost (Luke 9:10) through the fall beyond salvation to lots of things including rightly ordered relationships. He makes all things new (Rev 21:5) NOT He makes all new things. He makes our relationships new again and we can have the intention to relate like Adam and Eve did pre-fall because of Jesus work i.e. His Cross, Resurrection, and Ascension. This whole argument is built on Gen. 3:16. Gen. 3:16 was a consequence of the fall not God’s intended way for relationships to function. As the Sons of Adam and Daughters of Eve the highest goal relationally should be to function as God intended Adam and Eve to function before the fall versus like Gen. 3:16. Therefore I believe this is an inaccurate commentary on how a husband and wife should function together because it is based on our post-fall tendencies. Jesus came to seek and save what was lost (Luke 9:10) through the fall beyond salvation to lots of things including rightly ordered relationships. He makes all things new (Rev 21:5) NOT He makes all new things. He makes our relationships new again and we can have the intention to relate like Adam and Eve did pre-fall because of Jesus work i.e. His Cross, Resurrection, and Ascension.

]]> By: Grant http://versebyversecommentary.com/1997/08/31/1-peter-37g/comment-page-1/#comment-1448 Grant Sat, 29 Mar 2008 01:30:36 +0000 http://versebyversecommentary.com/1997/08/31/1-peter-37g/#comment-1448 Praise God. This is why Verse-by-Verse Commentary exists. Praise God. This is why Verse-by-Verse Commentary exists.

]]> By: Ken Connelly http://versebyversecommentary.com/1997/08/31/1-peter-37g/comment-page-1/#comment-1395 Ken Connelly Tue, 18 Mar 2008 02:56:17 +0000 http://versebyversecommentary.com/1997/08/31/1-peter-37g/#comment-1395 I am looking for some insight into the 'weaker' meaning more delicate - as in a fragile vessel of great honor (china vase or crystal glass - of greater honor and beauty). This is going to help me understand my wife better - to understand and memorize this verse in 1 Peter. I am looking for some insight into the ‘weaker’ meaning more delicate – as in a fragile vessel of great honor (china vase or crystal glass – of greater honor and beauty).

This is going to help me understand my wife better – to understand and memorize this verse in 1 Peter.

]]>