Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is submission of wives for today? | 1 Pet 3:1 | joyduncan | 124344 | ||
I have been really struggling with some of the interpretations I am hearing of how to follow the directive for a wife to submit to her husband. I have been reading the verses in the Bible dealing with this subject and I've noticed that often the issue of slavery is not far in front of or behind the writers mention of submission. This, of course, is the case in 1 Peter, as my pastor had mentioned a couple of weeks ago. If I remember correctly, my pastor noted that the Bible did not support or condone slavery, rather gave directives with how to operate or submit within its confines. Why is it that we don't see the issue of women submitting to husbands in the same light? At the time of the writing of 1 Peter, abuse and suppression of women was completely normal, as was the institution of slavery. Women were often viewed as little more than slaves and as the property of the husband, weren't they? So why don't we see that the "institution of suppression of women" (for lack of a better term) was not supported by the Bible, and that the Bible was only giving directives for women to submit under that authority as long as it existed? Therefore that passage would have as much application as the verses pertaining to slavery - we would glean only the general concepts and principles. It is so easy for us today to see slavery as sinful, but it seems like we do the reverse by interpreting the wives/submission verses by continuing many of the sinful traditions of the past. Why don't we read/interpret the verse like, "as long as the culture supports and condones the suppression of women, and the defining of women as less than equal - Wives, submit to your husbands." Isn't that how we are reading the slavery verses? Weren't the roles of men and women during the time of the writing of the Bible a good example of an authority structure that we in America no longer adhere to, therefore don't need directions on operating within? I also would like to know why it is that we so literally are applying the 1 Peter verses, and others like them, but discount the verses pertaining to women wearing head-coverings. Also, Paul very specifically notes that women were not allowed to speak in the churches (1 Cor) - but we don't follow that literally today either. I am very confused by what seems like inconsistent interpretation. I have struggled with these verses and their interpretations for another reason as well. In my professional background, I have had a lot of experience with the DISC assessment, or others like them, which attempt to classify behavior and personality into 4 basic categories - sometimes they are also called Choleric, Sanguine, Phlegmatic, and Melancholy. Every message that I have heard with regard to the role of women has described the women's character or role as being almost textbook "S" or phlegmatic - as if we had been given a prescription for a certain personality. It would seem that women are not allowed to be choleric, or at least I have never heard anyone in the church describe how a marriage should work specifically when, due to personality styles, the wife is a choleric, the natural leader, the idea person, the pioneer, and the husband is the phlegmatic, or quiet, easy-going, even-tempered one. Please know that I am searching for truth, not a "way out" or a convenient loophole with any of my questions. I am not trying to be argumentative or insubordinate. I do believe that the Bible is the complete Word of God - I completely believe in the verbal-plenary view of scripture. But I need to see consistent interpretations, or I am left with nothing but confusion. Could someone help me out with this struggle? All truth is God's truth. :) |
||||||
2 | Is submission of wives for today? | 1 Pet 3:1 | Morant61 | 124380 | ||
Greetings Joy! May I add to XRing's excellent response? You raise a very insightful question from the context of the passage. As with slavery, could God be saying that the submission of the wife is more a matter of how a Christian woman should act toward her culturally biased husband than a matter of God's eternal plan for husbands and wives? I would agree with XRing that mutual submission is God's will for all Christians. Let's consider both the context and other relevent Scriptures. Rom. 12:1-7 makes it clear that all Christians are to submit to government. Eph. 5:21 commands Christians to submit to one another. Eph. 5:22 and 24 (Col. 3:18 as well) command wives to submit to their husbands. Eph. 5:24 also speaks of the church submitting to Christ. Heb. 12:9 and James 4:7 speak of submitting to our Father. Heb. 13:17 speaks of submitting to the church's leadership. 1 Pet. 2:13-17 speaks of submitting to all authority. 1 Pet. 2:18 (and Eph. 6:5-9) commands slaves to submit to their masters. I think the answer to your question is found in the context of Eph. 5:21-33. The picture given is not one of a wife submitting to a culturally biased man because she has not other choice in life. But, the picture is one of mutual love and submission to one another and to God. The wife is to submit to her husband, to God, to authorities, to other Christians, and to the local church leadership. The husband also is to love his wife, to submit to God, to authorities, to other Christians (including his wife), and to the local church leadership. My wife and I discuss every decision (especially those involving money). Very seldom are we not able to come to some common agreement. I believe that this is mutal submission at work. I love and respect her, and she loves and respects me. In those cases where a decision has to be made and we cannot come to an agreement, I believe that this is an indication of God's will for our lives. In fact, when ever either of us does not feel comfortable with a choice, I take that as an indicator that we probably shouldn't make this choice. Now, I do think that this passage may have been more culturally relevant in Paul's day simply because of the way that culture in general did view women. Scripture certainly elevated the status of women in contrast with the views of the current culture. However, I do believe that the command to submit to one another and love one another is very much God's univeral plan for Christians in general, and spouses in particular. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | Is submission of wives for today? | 1 Pet 3:1 | Bruce7 | 124404 | ||
I think as some Pastors and Counselors have said is, that some people have a problem with the instructions of being submissive. However, this is different than being subserviant. A husband and wife should serve each other in love, as Christ served others. A wife should be an example in Christian living for her husband, especially if he is not a Christian. Peace and love in our Lord Christ Bruce | ||||||
4 | Through Cultural Eyes - or not??? | 1 Pet 3:1 | joyduncan | 124409 | ||
I agree, but I don't want to shape my actions around what is easy or difficult. I just really want to understand the passage in a clear way. Would it be more difficult to have to look at my role as "submissive" - yes, probably. However, it shouldn't change the way in which I would interpret this verse. I don't like the way that we are using certain "rules of interpretation" for certain verses, and totally different ones for other very similar verses. It is especially difficult given the fact that most of the people who seem to be making the decisions as to which "rules" to use are men. So this is what I think I need clarification on - why do we look through such cultural filters for certain passages, and not for others???? I also incidentially studied the greek on this one - hupotasso (sorry I don't know how to type here in Greek font). I've noticed that the Greek is sometimes translated "be submissive" - might this be the best way to look at it - it is a little less direct, but the word used here is written in the middle voice - so perhaps "be submissive" is the best translation - what do you think? |
||||||
5 | Through Cultural Eyes - or not??? | 1 Pet 3:1 | Morant61 | 124421 | ||
Greetings Joy! The middle voice of 'hupotasso' simply means to 'submit oneself'. The middle voice is also more often used in exhortations than the other voices. As far as slavery is concerned, the passage is not so much about slavery as it is about relationships. As I mentioned in my earlier post, Christians should be characterized by submission to all authority. So, I don't think that people are applying a different standard to slavery than they are to marriage. The standard is the same - all of our relationships should be characterized by submission. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||