The husband is the kurios of his wife (1 Peter 3:6)

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Olivencia, May 25, 2009.

  1. Olivencia

    Olivencia
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    281
    Likes Received:
    0
    1 Peter 3:1-6
    Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

    It has been asserted that the husband is not the lord or master of his wife. I will demonstrate based on the above passages that he is.
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    1. 1 Peter 3:5 "For after this manner"...so holy women did it so a Christian wife is to do it. Holy women "just as" Sarah called their husbands "master" (kurios). A Christian wife is to believe and act accordingly what all these holy women of old did.
    2. Thayer says 'hws' means "as, just as" (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, hws, page 681). Next to this passage he cites 2 Peter 2:1. There were false prophets "just as" (hws) there will also be false teachers. One group did something which another group will also do. What applies to one applies to the other.

    a. Holy women were submissive to their husbands. So too a Christian wife is to be submissive to her husband.
    b. Holy women demonstrated chaste and respectful behavior. So too a Christian wife is to demonstrate chaste and respectful behavior.
    c. Holy women did not focus on external adornments. So too a Christian wife is not to focus on external adornments.
    d. Holy women focused on having a gentle and quiet spirit. So too a Christian wife is to focus on having a gentle and quiet spirit.
    e. Holy women called their husbands master. So too a Christian wife is to call her husband master.

    It is quite selective to agree with the first 4 but then dismiss #5.

    3. Danker - Daughters of Sarah. Teknon. "of those who exhibit virtues of ancient worthies: children of Abraham Mt 3:9; Lk 3:8; J 8:39; Ro 9:7. True Christian women are daughters of Sarah 1 Pt 3:6" (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, teknon, page 995).
    4. Danker on kurios - one who is in a position of authority, lord, master - a. of earthly beings, as a designation of any pers. of high position; of husband in contrast to wife 1 Pt 3:6 (A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and Other early Christian Literature, kurios, page 577).
    - Danker then differentiates the use of "sir" --> As a form of address to respect pers. gener.; here, as elsewhere, = our sir
    5. Kittel - In marriage Christianity demands the subordination of the wife (hupotassesthai tois idiois andrasin, Eph. 5:22, 24; Col. 3:18; 1 Pt. 3:1, 5 [v.6 : kurios]) but also unselfish love from the husband such as that shown by Christ for the Church (Eph. 5:25, 28; Col. 3:19; 1 Pt. 3:7). (TDNT 1:362, 363, aner).
    6. Kittel - Children and wives "stand in a divinely willed relation of subordination" (TDNT 1:223, parakouw). Kittel cites 1 Peter 3:6.
    7. Brown: In 1 Pet. 3:6 her obedient attitude to her husband is set out as the pattern which Christian wives should follow (NIDNTT 1:80, Abraham - subdivided Sarah).
    8. Danker (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Chrisian Literature, kalew, page 502) surrounds the use of kalew (calling) as used in 1 Peter 3:6 with the following passages:
    a. Luke 20:44
    b. Acts 14:12
    c. Romans 9:25
    d. Hebrews 2:11
    e. 1 Peter 1:17
    f. Luke 6:46
    In ALL these passages kalew is used with an audible voice.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I have supplied evidence for my assertion based on the context of 1 Peter 3 and by my citations of Greek lexicons.
     
    #1 Olivencia, May 25, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: May 25, 2009
  2. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, I guess I fail miserably as a wife since I wore my hair braided to church yesterday and I also wore gold since my wedding ring is gold, and I don't call my husband "master".

    He must see something good in me since he's been married to me for almost 32 years. :laugh:

    I think it's 'cause I cook good. :thumbsup:
     
  3. matt wade

    matt wade
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,156
    Likes Received:
    76
    Don't feel bad, Olivencia doesn't believe that any American woman lives up to these "Biblical" standards.
     
  4. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
  5. sag38

    sag38
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,394
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ok, let's simplify things here.

    'Yes, Master Husband, I hear and obey." = Olivencia's Biblical interpretation of the role of a wife.

    This is the result when one used bad exegesis and selective scripture selection.
     
  6. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, that is sooooooo bad! Don't you come near my cats! :laugh:
     
  7. Olivencia

    Olivencia
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    281
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Offensive remarks removed] I supported my assertion based on the context and Greek lexicons.


    sag38 wrote: This is the result when one used bad exegesis and selective scripture selection.

    --> But then nothing is offered in refutation. Let me clue you in on something, an assertion without proof is no proof at all.


    When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man, The foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest (Proverbs 29:9).
     
    #7 Olivencia, May 25, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: May 27, 2009
  8. Scarlett O.

    Scarlett O.
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2002
    Messages:
    9,831
    Likes Received:
    114
    Olivencia,

    Now for this last sentence, let's have a grammar lesson.

    What is the subject and the verb in this complex sentence? The subject is "holy women". And the verb phrase is "adorned themselves".

    So we have "holy women adorned themselves".

    There are two adjectival prepositional phrases in front of the subject. "For after this manner" and "in the old time". There is another subordinate phrase after the subject that tell why they behaved the way that they did "who trusted God".

    "For after this manner" means "and just like this".

    So far we have this: "And just as I am describing wifely behavior to you, women in the old days adorned themselves in the same way because they trusted God."

    What way did they adorn themselves? In the manner that Peter just described.....with reverence to the husband's authority and with chaste behavior so that their unbelieving husbands would come to know Christ.

    Now....he mentions Sarah. He mentions her paranthetically. (See the phrase set off by colons?) She is not the subject of that sentence. She is not the standard of reverence. She is an EXAMPLE of reverence.

    So, now we have:

    "And just as I am describing wifely behavior to you, women in the old days adorned themselves in the same way, with great reverence for their husband's authority, because they trusted God; in fact, Sarah called her husband lord;....."

    The last part of this very long sentence contains the word "daughters". Peter is saying that wives are the spiritual daughters of the godly women of old, NOT SARAH. The phrase, "whose daughters ye are" are modifying the subject, "holy women".

    And how are they the spiritual daughters? He says they are "IF they do well and are NOT afraid". Do well in what? Reverencing their husband's authority. Aren't afraid of what? Of being a Godly wife and living a life that displays the attributes of Christ so that they husbands might be saved.

    So, here's the full meaning of that sentence in it's finality.

    "And just as I am describing wifely behavior to you, women in the old days adorned themselves in the same way, with great reverence for their husband's authority, because they trusted God; in fact, Sarah called her husband lord; and as long as you do well and aren't afraid of being a living witness to your lost husband, you will be just like these holy women of old."









     
    #8 Scarlett O., May 25, 2009
    Last edited: May 25, 2009
  9. matt wade

    matt wade
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,156
    Likes Received:
    76
    That's what you get when you put forth a pathetic and moronic post for commentary.
     
  10. sag38

    sag38
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,394
    Likes Received:
    1
    And, what would be the point of trying to teach someone who doesn't want to be taught? What would be the point of debating someone who insults others by calling their responses pathetic and moronic? I take it that's the way you treat your wife. Do you call her responses and suggestions pathetic and moronic? Do you put her in her place when she doesn't obey you and call you Lord?
     
  11. Olivencia

    Olivencia
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    281
    Likes Received:
    0
    1 Peter 3:6 begins with "hws" and I already demonstrated that it applies to both.

    Thayer says 'hws' means "as, just as" (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, hws, page 681). Next to this passage he cites 2 Peter 2:1. There were false prophets "just as" (hws) there will also be false teachers. One group did something which another group will also do. What applies to one applies to the other.
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    That's what you get when you put forth a pathetic and moronic post for commentary.

    --> Commentary? I also cited Greek lexicons. Get a clue. You cite....yourself. Which doesn't count for much except as an opinion.
    -----------------------------------------------------
    sag38 wrote: And, what would be the point of trying to teach someone who doesn't want to be taught? What would be the point of debating someone who insults others by calling their responses pathetic and moronic? I take it that's the way you treat your wife. Do you call her responses and suggestion pathetic and moronic? Do you put her in her place when she doesn't obey you and call you Lord?

    --> It's pathetic that you would write that but then let this comment go unaddressed: This is the result when one used bad exegesis and selective scripture selection.
    Then when we look for the proof for such an assertion it is nowhere to be found. Very telling.
     
    #11 Olivencia, May 25, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: May 25, 2009
  12. Scarlett O.

    Scarlett O.
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2002
    Messages:
    9,831
    Likes Received:
    114
    Yes, brother....from the group to the group!!

    NOT the group to the individual or the individual to the group.

    Sarah, being paranthetically inserted in his sentence, and NOT the subject of it, was merely an example of ONE holy woman of old who reverenced her husband in ONE particular manner.

    Peter could have inserted a HOST of women in that sentence and given MYRIAD examples.

    The point in that whole passage is that sometimes women will find themselves married to lost men or to men in a state of apostasty or backslidden behavior.

    Peter says that the best way to draw their husbands to Christ or back to Christ is through imitating the Christ-like behavior of humility.

    He gave no specifics except to say that wives cannot woo their husbands to Christ with a "pretty face". It must come from a reverent heart.
     
  13. abcgrad94

    abcgrad94
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    5,533
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen. In every instance where I've seen a man (and I use that term loosely), try to be a little dictator over his home, I can guarantee he is not loving his wife as Christ loves the church. Such men are insecure, proud, and horrible examples of Christ-like leadership.
     
  14. Olivencia

    Olivencia
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    281
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. Whatever the holy women did in these passages Christian women are to do.
    2. The holy women and Sarah referred to their husbands as kurios.
    3. Therefore Christian women are to do the same.

    I cited several Greek lexicons (not commentaries) that agree. Nothing has yet been cited (except opinions) that contradict what I have cited.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Amen. In every instance where I've seen a man (and I use that term loosely), try to be a little dictator over his home, I can guarantee he is not loving his wife as Christ loves the church. Such men are insecure, proud, and horrible examples of Christ-like leadership.

    --> And then offer nothing that refutes my OP. Incredible.
     
    #14 Olivencia, May 25, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: May 25, 2009
  15. Scarlett O.

    Scarlett O.
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2002
    Messages:
    9,831
    Likes Received:
    114
    Yes....and what did they do? According to scripture, they did three things.



    • they trusted God
    • they adorned themselves with a spirit of humility and not outward things
    • and they reverenced their husbands' authority


    That's all that Peter said that they did.


    No, they did NOT. Sarah did. Sarah is mentioned as an example of how one particular women showed respect for one particular husband. She is not the standard. There is no standard. Reverence is NOT work-based. It is heart-based.

    They are to do the same three things as the holy women of old did. Not Sarah. If they choose to call their husbands "Master", that's their business. If they choose to display their respect and reverence in other chaste, pure, and trusting ways, that is their business.

    I have given you no opinions......no one else's commentary.
     
  16. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    The foolish man laughs and rages at a wise post. When a foolish thread is started, for one, the proverb does not apply, and two, how does one respond to such garbage.
     
  17. Olivencia

    Olivencia
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    281
    Likes Received:
    0
    2. The holy women and Sarah referred to their husbands as kurios.

    No, they did NOT. Sarah did. Sarah is mentioned as an example of how one particular women showed respect for one particular husband. She is not the standard. There is no standard. Reverence is NOT work-based. It is heart-based.

    --> Thayer defines "hws" differently. What applies to one applies to the other.


    Quote:
    3. Therefore Christian women are to do the same.

    They are to do the same three things as the holy women of old did. Not Sarah

    --> And the holy women did as (hws) Sarah did.

    If they choose to call their husbands "Master", that's their business.

    --> No, that is not what hws means.


    I cited several Greek lexicons (not commentaries) that agree. Nothing has yet been cited (excpet opinions) that contradict what I have cited.

    I have given you no opinions......no one else's commentary.

    --> You have given me your own opinion. No authoritative Greek lexicons have yet been cited.
    I cited several.
    --------------------------------------------------------
    The foolish man laughs and rages at a wise post. When a foolish thread is started, for one, the proverb does not apply, and two, how does one respond to such garbage.

    --> When one can't refute something no matter how much they want to they simply refer to it as garbage or crazy to appease their wounded conscience.
     
  18. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,135
    Likes Received:
    364
    I guess if we follow Sarah we should also make sure that we lie for our husband so he looks good.

    I'm sorry, but your assertations just don't work here.

    God is the head of Christ. God does not domineer.

    We are God's children - not His slaves.

    Wives are to be a compliment - a completion of the husband. If a man demands to be called "master" by his wife, he has some serious confessions of sin to do because that is pride. If a man will only marry a woman who will call him master and allow him to domineer her, then he has some serious sin issues because he is prideful, angry and self-centered. If a man does not find a wife who will compliment him, help him in his ministry, pray for him, love him, support him and even at times confront him when he is in sin, then he might need to begin doing some self-evaluation to see if he is a man who has a heart for the Lord.

    I will never love and respect my husband because he is my master. I will love and respect him because he loves the Lord with all of his heart and he seeks HIS will in his life. He loves me, prays for me, treats me as a precious daughter of the King. I love him, pray for him and treat him as the son of the living God that he is.

    THAT is a marriage. What you are describing is very little more than a slave and master. I will pray for your wife.
     
  19. Olivencia

    Olivencia
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    281
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. Lie for your husband since Sarah did? Get real. It refers to her noble deeds such as calling Abraham her kurios. In John 8:39 Christ said to the Pharisees if they were Abraham's children then they would do the works of Abraham. Did Abraham ever sin? Yes. So according to your position Christ was wrong in telling them to do the works of Abraham because Abraham (like everyone else) was a sinner and so if they knew of one thing that Abraham did wrong (sin) they could correct Christ. Your theology is terrible.
    2. We are God's children and not His slaves? Well then I suppose Paul was wrong when he said that he was a slave (doulos) of God (Titus 1:1).
    3. In my OP I cited three Greek lexicons that specifically wrote 1 Peter 3:6 and applied it to Christian women in respect to their relations with thier husbands. This has gone unaddreesed.
    Yeah Danker, Brown and Kittel are all wrong and your're right. Right? Right (not).
    4. Hey annsni since you gave us your opinion without citing any authoritative Greek lexicons you really ought to pray for yourself (i.e. your disobedience). Thanks for giving such easy arguments to demolish. Keep up the bad work.
    By the way.....my wife loves how I treat her :)
     
  20. Scarlett O.

    Scarlett O.
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2002
    Messages:
    9,831
    Likes Received:
    114
    Olivencia,

    Let's try one last time. I'm moving on after this.

    Let's go with your Mr. Thayer (whoever he is) and his "hws" which means "as, or just as".

    Now.....

    The sentence says, "For as in this manner in the old time, the holy women, who trusted in God, adorned themselves......" (the women adorning themselves is the subject and verb)

    Let's substitute Mr. Thayer's words.....

    "Just as in the old time, the holy women, who trusted God, adorned themselves......"

    What is Peter talking about? He just finished talking about women adorning themselves with chaste conduct and a meek/quiet spirit.

    So, now, according to your Mr. Thayer.....there is a connection made. One group mimics the other. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

    The women that he is talking to are to "just as" themselves to these holy women of old, who trust God, adorn themselves chastely, and reverence their husband's authority.

    He cites an example, Sarah.....there is NOT "for as in this manner of Sarah" or "just as Sarah" in this passage.

    There is a "hws" or "just as" between the contemporary women and the holy women old.

    Sarah is only a paranthetical example. You have misunderstood Mr. Thayer, Peter, myself, and the structure of the sentence.

    I cannot beat my head against the wall anymore.

    I will not belittle your beliefs nor mock you. I have know two men exactly like you. They both "bought" wives from the Philipines and brought them here to the U.S.

    The relationships never worked out. Both "marriages" ended up in divorce. I pray yours does not. I also pray that you and your wife both come to represent Christ and the church and not the slave and the master.

    I bid you peace and will pray for both you and your wife.

     

Share This Page

Loading...