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] |
Subject: So should your wife wear a headcovering? |
Bible Note: Tim Tim I don’t think I ever said there weren't cultural issues discussed in scripture, if I did or that was the impression I left, let me clear it up right now there ARE cultural issues in the Bible.. We don't carry wineskins and mill our wheat with oxen. What I’m saying is that scripture is explained away far to many times using, “the well this pertained to the culture of the day and since we don't do thus and such it doesn't pertain to us today.” To that I say hogwash. Here is a cultural precept that was given and is accepted, don't muzzle the ox that grinds the wheat. Instead of merely explaining it away as a cultural thing of the time and we need not worry about it now. We instead looked for the more universal meaning and realized this was an analogy that reinforced another precept that a work man is due his hire. Yet we try to dismiss issues like women be silent in church as dealing with a cultural issue which is doing a disservice to scripture and to women. I believe the man did very little research into what may the scripture be really talking about since it was against women and didn’t effect men. Later as the issue became Politically incorrect another understanding had to be found and found quick. Again very little study was used but great amounts of imagination. Context was ignored and someone envisioned the Puritan church where men and women were separated and hence for a women to ask a question of her husband she would have to shout across the church. This satisfied most “deep’ thinkers and became universally accepted. However the first century church was not a Puritan church at all but rather private dwelling. Women mingled with men. There was no reason to disrupt the church by hollering anywhere. I have given a viable explanation of this precept in another post and won’t bore our readers with repeating it. In the examples you gave with the exception of meat for idols all were Old Testment law of which we are no longer under. As for spiritualizing offerings to idols, I don't think so. I know many people that their job, or home, or children, or possessions have become their idol. I have also witnessed people that have prayed what I would term demonic prayers over their food as a form of offering that we would succeed in their quest for more power, more money, more fame. I sorry we do disagree I say when a precept is given we need to rightly understand how that precept effects us today and not discard it as merely addressing a cultural issue of the day. EdB |