|
Post by Josh on Nov 6, 2007 22:14:54 GMT -8
1 Peter 2:13-3:8
2:13Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. 16Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. 17Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king. 18Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. 20But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 21To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. 22"He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth." 23When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. 24He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. 25For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.
1 Peter 3 1Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. 4Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. 5For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, 6like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear. 7Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.
8Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble.
Post your comments/ questions/ discussion starters on this passage as replies here.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 6, 2007 22:17:31 GMT -8
Ah, submission! I'm glad I'll finally be teaching on an easy, non-controversial topic for a change!
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Nov 9, 2007 18:48:29 GMT -8
Sweet, I can't wait! I'm especially looking forward to the part where women submit to their husbands.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 12, 2007 16:39:15 GMT -8
So, a couple questions about the topic of women in this passage:
1) What potential problems for the modern reader does the commentary about women in this passage present?
2) What solutions to these problems might interpreters of this passage seek? I'm not talking about specific solutions, but approaches to solving the dilemma.
One example: researching the Greek words involved and suggesting different interpretations than those traditionally expounded.
Others?
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Nov 15, 2007 7:53:04 GMT -8
I'm soooo bummed that I will miss this lesson (I'm in children's church). I've always wanted to have this discussion/hear someone talk about this.
I'll post my concerns about this passage later tonight as I have to get to work right now. But I have a few answers to your questions.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 15, 2007 13:15:55 GMT -8
Michelle, I'm leaning toward focusing on a basic thread underlining this whole passage that is somewhat removed from the controversial aspects of this passage for this Sunday. What Peter is saying here about slaves and women especially is really hard to 'cover' in 50 minutes. I'll probably point us in some directions for further thought and research. I think perhaps the more tricky aspects of this passage might be better addressed online anyway... as people can put more thought into the dialogue over time, etc... So, fire away when you get a chance!
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Nov 15, 2007 23:29:26 GMT -8
Oh, I see. Going to take the easy way out, huh? J/K. Well, here were my issues. 1) Peter tells women to submit to their husbands just after he tells slaves to submit to their masters. I think the easy conclusion to draw is that Peter is comparing wives to slaves. They are both supposed to submit to their masters. 2) One of the things that bugs me a little is that women are asked to submit (Strong's - to subordinate; reflexively to obey: - be under obedience (obedient), put under, subdue unto, (be, make) subject (to, unto), be (put) in subjection (to, under), submit self unto) and men are asked to give honor (Strong's - a value, that is, money paid, or (concretely and collectively) valuables; by analogy esteem (especially of the highest degree), or the dignity itself: - honour, precious, price, some). It just seems so unfair. It just seems like men have the final say and whatever they say goes. More to come later...
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 18, 2007 19:00:46 GMT -8
Not as on my game as normal this week. I've got a lot of material to post on here from the lesson I taught today and other stuff. I'll put it up sometime this week hopefully.
Any of you that were there for the lesson today have thoughts to add?
Oh, and I seem to have almost completely lost my voice as of this evening. So tomorrow at school should be pretty interesting!
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 19, 2007 15:55:33 GMT -8
Some thoughts on this section of Peter:
1. Regarding the section on submission to governmental authority: There's a parallel passage in the writings of Paul that is nearly identical and work comparing: Romans 13:1-7 Some interpreters see the NIV's "authority instituted among men" as better translated as "created authority" implying that although the authority itself comes from God, He has left the particular form of governement up to the creation of men. Thus, we might find fault with aspects of various governmental systems while still accepting that God has put governments in authority in a general sense.
2. Why did Peter (and Paul) need to say these things? Because Christians might get the wrong message and begin a political revolt. The message to live as free men and women wasn't to be taken as a license to revolt against the government. Peter and Paul had to do a lot of work (just as Jesus did) to get their disciples to understand this paradox. The Kingdom of God is not of this world and would not/ should not be established by force. The gospel wasn’t going to be sidetracked by a message of political insurrection/ liberation.
3. What is the purpose of government in this passage? To punish evil and reward good. Even most bad governments do this reasonably well.
4. Still, a further question would be "what if the government doesn’t punish evil, but rewards it and punishes righteous actions?" The emperor at the time of this writing was probably Nero. He started off largely fulfilling this obligation, but by the end he was definitely not fulfilling the mandate to punish evil and reward good. I wonder what Peter and Paul were thinking about their words regarding government as they were awaiting execution.
We talked Sunday about how it seems there's no easy cut-and-dry solution solution to what the Christian should do in the face of a government turned evil. Should a Christian ever advocate armed resistance? That's a huge debate.
5. V. 15 gives us the reason for this entire passage on submission– it is an evangelistic/ apologetic strategy (live such good lives among the pagans...) To me, this is the key to understanding the sections on slaves and women in particular. Peter is outlining a strategy on how to conduct ourselves in a less-than-perfect society. To reach a society that allows slaves and devalues women and promotes paganism, Christians can't just completely break from the system. They should focus (at least at first) on the most important elements of the gospel, and submit in any way not absolutely necessary in order to get that message across. There is a lot in this passage, I sense, about picking the right battles to start with.
This is a realistically radical approach based on Jesus' example- the literal translation of example is "a tracing", like a school-age kid tracing letters. He laid down rights for a greater good. We as Christians will need to do the same. Jesus is the example of patient endurance and submission. We are to live like Him. Because he submitted to God and patiently endured, he was able to heal us, and after healing us, leads His Church in patient endurance and submission to God and others.
This means to me that the details in this passage don't necessarily still apply, (and I think we can be glad that they don't), but that the strategy and way of thinking about submission is an inspired theme for every Christian in all cultures.
6. On slavery, Christianity is decidedly anti-slavery (see Philemon), but did not advocate in the early stages bringing that about through violent means, but through persuasion and patient endurance. The idea was to win over the slave-masters, not kill them.
This could be considered a very different situation than colonial/ American slavery, where all the slave-holders claimed to be Christians and were not working toward liberation whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 19, 2007 16:00:51 GMT -8
Commentary quotes on the section regarding women:
“[Greco-Roman] culture demanded absolute submission [by women] to their husbands, including in matters of religion. This epistle is calling for [women] to take an independent stand on religion and morality, but to be model wives in every other way, which means that Christ would not be blamed for what was not truly the result of obedience to him.” Hard Sayings of the Bible
“There is a quiet subversion here, since the assumption within that social setting was that wives would follow the religious practices of their husbands…” NIB commentary
One way of looking at this might be- doing what is right before God compared to Roman standards might very well mean contradicting your husband on many matters- so try and submit on everything else– and believe in God even when this seems perplexing.
“This passage illustrates the fact that the concept of marriage as an intimate relationship between husband and wife is a relatively modern concept. The Mediterranean culture did not expect emotional intimacy between husband and wife. A man was closest to his mother and siblings; he might also have male friends (the father-son relationship generally was not an emotionally close one). A woman was closest to her children and her siblings, perhaps having other women friends (although women were generally expected to stay at home). The emotional distance between husband and wife in this passage (which the term “lord” certainly indicates) would not have bothered Peter, for while there are a very few examples in Scripture of marital emotional intimacy, it was not a cultural expectation. Likewise, although it may be culturally desirable today, it cannot on biblical grounds be made the essence of marriage. The essence is the publicly sanctioned covenant or commitment of each spouse to the relationship.” Hard Sayings...
“The culture may look at the woman as ‘weaker’ or inferior—in fact, that low view of women was very true of the Mediterranean culture of Peter’s day-- but 1 Peter says that she is a “joint heir” [1 Peter 3:7] (the ‘heirs with you’ translation in the NIV may disguise the strength of the phrase). In other words, in the realm that counts, the spiritual, she is an equal.” Hard Sayings...
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 19, 2007 16:18:08 GMT -8
My commentaries tended to dislike the NIV's rendering of several terms in this passage, prefering other translations strongly. Two notable ones are:
In the part about Sarah called Abram "master", "master" is better translated as "lord", which still implies authority, but not servitude.
The NIV says "weaker partner" when the literal rendering is "weaker vessel".
This may mean one of three things:
1) physically weaker 2) socially weaker 3) or evoke the image of a delicate piece of pottery or cup
I used an illustration between a fine wine glass and a camping mug to illustrate how point 3 might be seen.
On another note, we talked about how it's difficult for our generation to deal in generalities because we've been trained to avoid stereotypes by always thinking of exceptions to the rule.
There are differences between the sexes, but the differences are not black and white, but reside on a spectrum.
Peter and Paul in these kinds of passages deal in generalities in regard to gender. But there are plenty of examples of exceptional men and women in the bible who defy stereotype (we talked about Deborah in the OT as an example and Junia, the female apostle in the New Testament)
I think it's helpful to remember that the entire section is exhorting all the recipients to submit- citizens, wives, husbands, slaves, etc... Though it doesn't happen to use the word directly in relation to husbands, it does say, "in the same way", indicating that submission is still the goal here.
Ephesians 5:21 is very helpful here at leveling the playing field as well.
And, it's also important to note that the whole reason to submit is Christ's example himself.
Still, I do think this passage reflects, as I've said above, an "interim ethic" designed not as a timeless universal approach, but as a temporary strategy for the Church to practically work within the world without being "of it".
Lastly, here are two extremes I think we must not fall into when thinking about passages like this:
1) That these are hard and fast rules about gender and societal roles that can be ripped out of context and applied universally
2) That we might as well not even read these passages because they have nothing to offer us today.
If we believe in the inspiration of Scripture, it seems obvious that there is something here for us to gain. And I believe that these kinds of passages are primarily useful in giving us an example of how to think shrewdly about our interactions with the dominant culture so that we can maximize our impact on the world with the gospel. We might work the details out differently than they did in the first century, but the principles to consider are still the same.
We need to realize that different Christians interpret these passages in various ways and have some flexibility on that, as long as we avoid these extremes.
|
|
aimee
Advanced Member
Posts: 136
|
Post by aimee on Jun 27, 2011 10:53:35 GMT -8
Regarding 1 Peter 3:7 I am having an awesome bible study with God on marriage including some scripture in this section. .... Taking from Josh's comment on the interpretation 'weaker vessel' could I in good conscience substitute the word 'delicate' ? As in delicate pottery (i.e. weaker vessel) Somehow it seems to correspond well with the 'beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit' 'of great worth in God's sight' mentioned earlier in the same passage. Our word delicate also shares some of the other meanings of the Greek word used here ἀσθενεστέρῳ (delicate constitution etc.).
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 28, 2011 15:05:37 GMT -8
I'm sure I'll be back to comment more on this, but just for the moment:
ἀσθενεστέρῳ
You go Aimee!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 29, 2011 21:06:02 GMT -8
Regarding 1 Peter 3:7 I am having an awesome bible study with God on marriage including some scripture in this section. .... Taking from Josh's comment on the interpretation 'weaker vessel' could I in good conscience substitute the word ' delicate' ? As in delicate pottery (i.e. weaker vessel) Somehow it seems to correspond well with the 'beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit' 'of great worth in God's sight' mentioned earlier in the same passage. Our word delicate also shares some of the other meanings of the Greek word used here ἀσθενεστέρῳ (delicate constitution etc.). I really do think it's the best way to read the phrase.
|
|