Tag Archive | Women’s Value

He Must Set Her At His Heart

Dante Gabriel Rossetti - Carlisle Wall (The Lovers)“The wife was made of the husband’s rib; not of his head, for Paul calleth the husband the wife’s head; not of the foot, for he must not set her at his foot. The servant is appointed to serve, and the wife to help. If she must not match with the head, nor stoop at the foot, where shall he set her then? He must set her at his heart, and therefore she which should lie in his bosom was made in his bosom.”

— Henry Smith

Source: http://christianquote.com/marriage-3/



We Shall Reap Only Good

Gustave Léonard De Jonghe Die Genesung“Benjamin B. Warfield was a world-renowned theologian who taught at Princeton Seminary for almost 34 years until his death on February 16, 1921. Many people are aware of his famous books, like The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. But what most people don’t know is that in 1876, at the age of twenty-five, he married Annie Pierce Kinkead and took a honeymoon to Germany. During a fierce storm Annie was struck by lightning and permanently paralyzed. After caring for her for thirty-nine years Warfield laid her to rest in 1915. Because of her extraordinary needs, Warfield seldom left his home for more than two hours at a time during all those years of marriage.1

Now here was a shattered dream. I recall saying to my wife the week before we married, “If we have a car accident on our honeymoon, and you are disfigured or paralyzed, I will keep my vows, ‘for better or for worse.’” But for Warfield it actually happened. She was never healed. There was no kingship in Egypt at the end of the story—only the spectacular, patience and faithfulness of one man to one woman through thirty-eight years of what was never planned—at least, not planned by man. But when Warfield came to write his thoughts on Romans 8:28, he said, “The fundamental thought is the universal government of God. All that comes to you is under His controlling hand. The secondary thought is the favour of God to those that love Him. If He governs all, then nothing but good can befall those to whom He would do good . . . . Though we are too weak to help ourselves and too blind to ask for what we need, and can only groan in unformed longings, He is the author in us of these very longings . . . and He will so govern all things that we shall reap only good from all that befalls us.”2″

~John Piper, Future Grace (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 1995), 176.

  1. See Roger Nicole, “B. B. Warfield and the Calvinist Revival,” in John D. Woodbridge, ed., Great Leaders of the Christian Church (Chicago: Moody Press, 1988), p. 344.
  2. B. B. Warfield, Faith and Life (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1974, orig. 1914), p. 204.

Source: http://bbwarfield.com/biography/#identifier_1_17

The Puritans Were The First To Outlaw Wife Beating

a_fair_puritan“Puritans became the first Western society to expressly outlaw wife beating. “Every married woman,” stated the Massachusetts Body of Laws and Liberties in 1641, “shall be free from bodily correction or stripes [lashings] by her husband unless it be upon his own defense upon her assault.””

“Three decades later—and still a century before the Declaration of Independence—the pilgrims of Plymouth Plantation went even further. A husband who beat his wife could be prosecuted and subjected to a fine—or even a public whipping, they decreed.”


Source: http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/89203-Missions-Case-Study-Wife-Beating, Comment #20

Not Because She Is Inferior To Man


Robert Lewis Dabney (1820-1898):

A second answer is seen to this plea in the nature of the apostle’s grounds for the law. Not one of them is personal, local, or temporary. Nor does he say that woman must not preach in public because he regards her as less pious, less zealous, less eloquent, less learned, less brave, or less intellectual, than man. In the advocates of woman’s right to this function there is a continual tendency to a confusion of thought, as though the apostle, when he says that woman must not do what man does, meant to disparage her sex. This is a sheer mistake. His reasoning will be searched in vain for any disparagement of the qualities and virtues of that sex; and we may at this place properly disclaim all such intention also. Woman is excluded from this masculine task of public preaching by Paul, not because she is inferior to man, but simply because her Maker has ordained for her another work which is incompatible with this. So he might have pronounced, as nature does, that she shall not sing bass, not because he thought the bass chords the more beautiful- perhaps he thought the pure alto of the feminine throat far the sweeter- but because her very constitution fits her for the latter part in the concert of human existence, and therefore unfits her for the other, the coarser and less melodious part…

Every true believer should regard the scriptural argument as first, as sufficient, and as conclusive by itself. But as the apostle said in one place, that his task was “to commend himself to every man’s conscience in God’s sight,” so it is proper to gather the teachings of sound human prudence and experience which support God’s wise law. The justification is not found in any disparagement of woman as man’s natural inferior, but in the primeval fact: “Male and female made he them.” In order to ground human society God saw it necessary to fashion for man’s mate, not his exact image, but his counterpart. Identity would have utterly marred their companionship, and would have been an equal curse to both. But out of this unlikeness in resemblance it must obviously follow that each is fitted for works and duties unsuitable for the other. And it is no more a degradation to the woman that the man can best do some things which she cannot do so well, than to the man that woman has her natural superiority in other things.

~The Public Preaching of Women

Read more: http://www.piney.com/WomenDabney.html


As of a Gorilla with Two Heads

Skeleton of a man, a woman (pygmy) and a gorilla Wellcome V0029413

Liberals today, who by and large support the theory of evolution, like to claim that Christians and conservatives “hate” women.  At the same time, they scoff at the Christian belief that all human beings are made in the image of God and are therefore worthy of equal dignity and respect.  They do not seem to realize that it is this Christian belief that underlies the notion of the equality of the sexes.  Here is a quote from Gustav Le Bon on women’s brains that illustrates what evolutionists used to write about women.  Consider whether evolutionary theory, which changes with the political climate, can really provide a solid foundation for women’s rights.

Women’s brains, writes Le Bon,

are closer in size to those of gorillas than to the most developed male brains.  This inferiority is so obvious that no one can contest it for a moment; only its degree is worth discussion … Women … represent the most inferior forms of human evolution and … they are closer to children and savages than to an adult, civilized man.  They excel in fickleness, inconsistency, absence of thought and logic, and incapacity to reason.  Without a doubt there exist some distinguished women … but they are as exception as the birth of any monstrosity, as, for example, of a gorilla with two heads; consequently, we may neglect them entirely (Gould 1996, 136-137).

~Gould, Stephen Jay.  1996.  The Mismeasure of Man.  New York: W.W. Norton & Company, qtd in The Darwin Effect: It’s influence on Nazism, Eugenics, Racism, Communism, Capitalism & Sexism by Jerry Bergman (Master Books, 2014), p.235 (incorrect form of “its” occurs in original title)

Christianity Elevates Women From Birth

Albert Anker - Strickendes Mädchen, Kleinkind in der Wiege hütend

Rodney Stark, The Triumph of Christianity:

“The superior situation of Christian women vis-à-vis their pagan sisters began at birth. The exposure of unwanted infants was “widespread” in the Roman Empire, and girls were far more likely than boys to be exposed. Keep in mind that legally and by custom, the decision to expose an infant rested entirely with the father as reflected in this famous, loving letter to his pregnant wife from a man who was away working: “If—good luck to you!—you should bear offspring, if it is a male, let it live; if it is female, expose it. You told Aphrodisias, ‘Do not forget me.’ How can I forget you? I beg you therefore not to worry.” Even in large families, “more than one daughter was hardly ever reared.” A study based on inscriptions was able to reconstruct six hundred families and found that of these, only six had raised more than one daughter. In keeping with their Jewish origins, Christians condemned the exposure of infants as murder. As Justin Martyr (100–165) put it, “we have been taught that it is wicked to expose even new-born children…[for] we would then be murderers.” So, substantially more Christian (and Jewish) female infants lived.””

HT: http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/05/our-worldviews-influence-the-way-we-live.html

Influential Women of the Reformation

By Justin Holcomb – Posted at Church History/Christianity.com:

Katharina-von-Bora-07All too often, the textbooks focus solely on the men of the Reformation—Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, and others—and fail to take notice of the faithful women who served among, beside, and with the Reformers.

These women were dedicated to the gospel of Jesus Christ, some to the point of martyrdom. Many of these women were well-educated, especially by the standard of their time. They read theology books, especially the Bible, and anything they could get their hands on from the reformers. Their inner circles of friends were part of long and frequent Bible studies. Most were wives and mothers. Some were also authors, apologists, ex-nuns, and queens. All were faithful servants of Jesus.


Katherine von Bora was a former nun who married Martin Luther. They were married for 21 years and had six children…

Read more: http://reformedchristianheritage.wordpress.com/2014/07/24/influential-women-of-the-reformation/