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 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. :) |
Bible Answer: Joy, Quite a thread here. A little off the main theme but very relevant is this book. The author was quite an accomplished professional archivist of France. I have read her and thing you may find her interesting. "Women in the Days of the Cathedrals By: Regine Pernoud Description: Regine Pernoud has addressed herself to the study of many questions about the status of women in the Middle Ages and presents her surprising answers in this captivating work. Here one learns that the most ancient treatise on education in France was written by a woman; and medicine was practiced regularly by women in the thirteenth century; that in the twelfth century the Order of Fontevraud gathered both monks and religious sisters under the authority of an abbess. This is a systematic study that provides a multitude of concrete examples. No aspect of feminine activity in the course of the medieval periods is neglected: administration of property, professions and commerce, the intellectual life, even politics; writers, educators, sovereigns, and those who enlivened the royal courts. Moreover, the author draws from the history of law and the history of events and social customs to sketch something never before attempted, an outline of the evolution of the power of women. This is a classic work without reference to which any inquiry into the questions addressed here must remain incomplete." Emmaus |