Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | 1 Peter 3:1 In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | 1 Peter 3:1 In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands [subordinate, not as inferior, but out of respect for the responsibilities entrusted to husbands and their accountability to God, and so partnering with them] so that even if some do not obey the word [of God], they may be won over [to Christ] without discussion by the godly lives of their wives, [Eph 5:22] |
Bible Question:
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? |
Bible Answer: joyduncan On other aspect of this discussion. We view terms in todays reference rather in generational reference. Take for example the word "leader". Today that means the person in charge, the boss, the person in command, the decision maker,the priveleged, the guy that hangs back and takes credit if it worked and sheds the blame to others of it doesn't. That is a corporate, industrial, millitary viewpoint. Viewed "generationally" it was a person that had exhibited enough wisdom, ability, courage, to have garnered enough respect for others to follow his lead. However the fact remained without his followers he was not a leader. He was usually the first to give his life. Credit for success as not his but shared with others and credit for all failure was his alone. You see it is almost a reverse of today. I wonder what would happen if we viewed these passages not using definitions of this generations but definitions that have existed for generations. Perhaps the "submitted one" would be the in the cat birds seat. :-) EdB |