My Better Half Continued...
The Grace of Life.I figured that I'd talk a little bit more about 1 Peter 3:7 and its meaning and instructions. Previously, in my first post on this subject, we focused more specifically on the idea of the wife as the "weaker vessel" and discussed the varieties of possible meanings.
1 Peter 3:7 : "Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered."
This is how I put it in the last post:
We, as husbands, are told to live with our wives with understanding, or knowledge, or consideration. Part of that consideration is met by giving honor to the wife. Peter then gives us two reasons why we should honor our wives:
1. Because she is the weaker vessel
2. Because she is an heir with us of the grace of life
And warns us what will happen if we don't honor our wives:
1. Our prayers will be hindered
"Heirs together of the grace of life." I've mulled this phrase over in my mind for quite a while and came to some surprising speculations. Previously, when I encountered this verse, I read it as meaning simply that our wives are heirs of eternal life just like we are, and I felt no need to take the verse any further. Of course, that could still remain the meaning--but what are some other possibilities?
1. I've often thought about our relationship to our spouses and how that would play out in the next life. I know that Jesus said that in the resurrection we will be like the angels in heaven, in that we will not marry nor be given in marriage. However, it seems weird that, unless we experience enforced amnesia regarding our entire earthly life, in heaven we will relate to our spouses as if they were the fellow who lives down the street. The relationship of the husband and wife is expressed in very unique terms: one flesh, heirs together.
Perhaps there's something more intriguing, more full than we have previously realized in the marital relationship which is expressed in this life and possibly in the world to come. A very perplexing verse is found in 1 Corinthians 7:14: "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy."
Now, most people recoil at the thought of the unbelieving spouse being "saved" simply by having a believing spouse, and the children being saved as well. I admit it goes against much that we have been taught as evangelicals, and I do not believe that this is what Paul is saying. Look at verse 16 for the reason why. However, having reached that conclusion, we shouldn't deaden the effect of his words. Words like "sanctified" and "holy" are reserved for spiritual conversations and matters, and we should strive to find a meaning of the verse that does justice to these words. Most people think the husband is more likely to be saved because there is a godly influence in his most intimate sphere of life, and I agree with that. But could there be more? I leave it up to you...
2. "Heirs together of the grace of life." Again, most people read the "grace of life" as the gift of eternal life through faith in Jesus. May I present another alternative: the "grace of life" could mean the bearing of children. With an open mind, you can see that it fits the verse just as well or even better than the generally accepted meaning. Husbands are to treat their wives with honor and understanding, because together you share the task of raising your children, who are "gifts of life." We know that the Bible speaks of children as an "inheritance from the Lord" (Psalm 127:3), and we know that the only time "the grace of life" is used is in speaking specifically to husbands and wives. Think about it. Peter could have used any number of terms to speak of eternal life, and in fact he does in other parts of his epistle. But not here; instead, we have this enigmatic "grace of life."
Now, for a second there I thought I was being original in my interpretation of this verse, and I must say I felt real good about it. But then I realized that if no one else had ever had these ideas cross their mind I was probably wrong. If in the New Testament's two-thousand year history, a book that has been studied more than any other piece of writing, no one ever had the same suggested interpretations that I have, than it's safe to say that I am way off. So before I posted these thoughts I looked into a number of commentaries. Thankfully, many commentaries suggested this as a possible meaning or a plausible alternative.
"That your prayers may not be hindered."
This suggests that how you treat your wife is of utmost importance to the Lord. If you are mistreating her through lack of honor as the weaker vessel, or as a mother to your children, you are severely displeasing to the Lord.
All right, I'm done. For now.
1 Peter 3:7 : "Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered."
This is how I put it in the last post:
We, as husbands, are told to live with our wives with understanding, or knowledge, or consideration. Part of that consideration is met by giving honor to the wife. Peter then gives us two reasons why we should honor our wives:
1. Because she is the weaker vessel
2. Because she is an heir with us of the grace of life
And warns us what will happen if we don't honor our wives:
1. Our prayers will be hindered
"Heirs together of the grace of life." I've mulled this phrase over in my mind for quite a while and came to some surprising speculations. Previously, when I encountered this verse, I read it as meaning simply that our wives are heirs of eternal life just like we are, and I felt no need to take the verse any further. Of course, that could still remain the meaning--but what are some other possibilities?
1. I've often thought about our relationship to our spouses and how that would play out in the next life. I know that Jesus said that in the resurrection we will be like the angels in heaven, in that we will not marry nor be given in marriage. However, it seems weird that, unless we experience enforced amnesia regarding our entire earthly life, in heaven we will relate to our spouses as if they were the fellow who lives down the street. The relationship of the husband and wife is expressed in very unique terms: one flesh, heirs together.
Perhaps there's something more intriguing, more full than we have previously realized in the marital relationship which is expressed in this life and possibly in the world to come. A very perplexing verse is found in 1 Corinthians 7:14: "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy."
Now, most people recoil at the thought of the unbelieving spouse being "saved" simply by having a believing spouse, and the children being saved as well. I admit it goes against much that we have been taught as evangelicals, and I do not believe that this is what Paul is saying. Look at verse 16 for the reason why. However, having reached that conclusion, we shouldn't deaden the effect of his words. Words like "sanctified" and "holy" are reserved for spiritual conversations and matters, and we should strive to find a meaning of the verse that does justice to these words. Most people think the husband is more likely to be saved because there is a godly influence in his most intimate sphere of life, and I agree with that. But could there be more? I leave it up to you...
2. "Heirs together of the grace of life." Again, most people read the "grace of life" as the gift of eternal life through faith in Jesus. May I present another alternative: the "grace of life" could mean the bearing of children. With an open mind, you can see that it fits the verse just as well or even better than the generally accepted meaning. Husbands are to treat their wives with honor and understanding, because together you share the task of raising your children, who are "gifts of life." We know that the Bible speaks of children as an "inheritance from the Lord" (Psalm 127:3), and we know that the only time "the grace of life" is used is in speaking specifically to husbands and wives. Think about it. Peter could have used any number of terms to speak of eternal life, and in fact he does in other parts of his epistle. But not here; instead, we have this enigmatic "grace of life."
Now, for a second there I thought I was being original in my interpretation of this verse, and I must say I felt real good about it. But then I realized that if no one else had ever had these ideas cross their mind I was probably wrong. If in the New Testament's two-thousand year history, a book that has been studied more than any other piece of writing, no one ever had the same suggested interpretations that I have, than it's safe to say that I am way off. So before I posted these thoughts I looked into a number of commentaries. Thankfully, many commentaries suggested this as a possible meaning or a plausible alternative.
"That your prayers may not be hindered."
This suggests that how you treat your wife is of utmost importance to the Lord. If you are mistreating her through lack of honor as the weaker vessel, or as a mother to your children, you are severely displeasing to the Lord.
All right, I'm done. For now.
posted by Team Kerbel @ 11:00 AM
12 Comments:
Matthew Henry says something entirely different about 1 Cor 7:14
2. We have here the reasons of this advice. (1.) Because the relation or state is sanctified by the holiness of either party: For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife by the husband (v. 14), or hath been sanctified. The relation itself, and the conjugal use of each other, are sanctified to the believer. To the pure all things are pure, Tit. i. 15. Marriage is a divine institution; it is a compact for life, by God's appointment. Had converse and congress with unbelievers in that relation defiled the believer, or rendered him or her offensive to God, the ends of marriage would have been defeated, and the comforts of it in a manner destroyed, in the circumstances in which Christians then were. But the apostle tells them that, though they were yoked with unbelievers, yet, if they themselves were holy, marriage was to them a holy state, and marriage comforts, even with an unbelieving relative, were sanctified enjoyments.
This makes more sense to me than the prospect of the unbeliever in the marriage being sanctified in any way because of the sanctification of their partner.
What do you think?
What do I think?
To be honest, this is the problem with evangelical Christianity. You are looking at the bible as if it were an instructional manual, seeking literal meaning in every word, every sentence, every paragraph.
What you end up with is a million interpretations in varying degrees.
The Bible also speaks of God-sanctioned ethnic cleasing, for example.
The Bible was written by so many different people, and therefore there are inconsistencies - and plain and simple errors.
Just look at the gospels of MMLJ...just the plain narrative of Jesus being crucified is told from four different perspectives - and threfore give four different versions of the SAME event.
Did Mary M. find the tomb completely empty or was an angel within? Depends on which apostle you read.
Compartmentalized thinking can't even resolve those inconsistencies.
Sorry - you asked.
Take care.
Sadie--
That's very interesting. I so much enjoy reading Matthew Henry's commentary, and the quotes you've given show why his is one of the most popular. I think that this interpretation is a very viable alternative; I would however, point out that his interpretation requires that instead of the husband or wife themselves being sanctified it is the relation itself. Which I can live with.
Phoenix--I really appreciate the tenor of your comments. I'd like to respond, albeit as briefly as I can, limited by the cramped space of a blog comment box.
I do look at the Bible as an instruction manual, though I realize that there are many unique literary genres at play in its pages. The verse in question, 1 Peter, I take as purely instructional, because it was written for believers in Jesus (that's me) who have wives (that's me too). I take Jesus' words as instructional. The Old Testament, with its history of Israel, I do not take as purely instructional; though surely there are many lessons to be learned in it. "Literal meaning" is a loaded term. I am not strictly literal in my interpretation of the Bible. Jesus told us to cut off our hand if it causes us to stumble, which I interpret as hyperbole, an accepted teaching convention. The apocalyptic literature of the OT prophets and the book of Revelation were never meant to be taken literally, and so I do not.
"God-sanctioned ethnic cleansing" is something that has caused a lot of people to stumble. It's funny that you've mentioned this specific topic, because as it happens, I am currently reading a book covering four Christian interpretations of the Canaanite slaughter, from interpretations to "Joshua and Moses thought they were hearing God but were not" to "as a theocracy, the people of Israel were carrying out God's command". Again, space precludes me from responding in full. Let me say, however, that there are Christians who wrestle with these ideas. From the second century AD, with the "heretic" Marcion wanting to do away with the Old Testament in the life of a Christian altogether, to today, Christians have thought about these issues with great zeal.
As for the gospels, there have been many attempts to find incontrovertible contradictions between the narrative accounts, especially between the Synoptics (MML) and John. And yet Christians still believe in Jesus. Is it because we hide our heads in the sand like ostriches when confronted with inconsistencies? I don't believe so. As early as 185 AD, we had the first harmony of the gospels, the Diatesseron. Did they find definite contradictions or were they able to reconcile the accounts satisfactorily? I guarantee you, there are acceptable harmonies of the crucifixion accounts, if one keeps an open mind. And that's really what it comes down to, the bias. Have the gospel writers shown themselves to be trustworthy and in agreement in the other parts of the narrative? Is their reason to a priori doubt their validity? Or does the burden of proof lie on those who seek to discredit them as witnesses? Some will accept the harmony, others will continue to stumble upon it, and the reason is that they have already made up their mind whether they are going to trust the gospels.
Again, I did ask, and I thank you for your comments. I do not presume to sweep away your doubts simply by this response. In fact, I haven't really addressed your objections at all. Suffice it to say that there are Christians who have struggled with these issues for thousands of years, and many if not all came up with answers that gave them peace and hope. All I ask is that you continue to keep an open mind, as I also will strive to do. Keep asking, keep seeking. Don't be satisfied that you have all the answers. Stay open to Jesus. And take care.
I agree, Christians have always stumbled from the inconsistencies of the Bible. Striving to find the harmony is best, that is for sure.
I bring up the Gospels of MMLJ only because they are all so interesting - separately and together. Such different perspectives from for very different men. I find it fascinating.
For me, the Bible is not 100% accurate nor infallable. I accept the inconsistencies and inaccuracies because men are both imperfect and inaccurate.
I am not an all-or-nothing believer. Although I have had spirited debates with many. To me, to find even one "mistake" or discrepancy in the Bible anywhere does NOT mean the entire book is meaningless.
The Bible is a rich and meaningful book. It's also a very powerful one. I like you open-minded approach, as that's what I like to take as well.
Later!
Very interesting musings. Of course, they may make us uncomfortable in contemplating them, they are worthwhile considerations nonetheless as they force us to reconcile our own theological biases.
Brad
thank you for this clear explanation. my husband and I have read this passage many times, and each time something new jumps out. thanks
Beautiful.
I like it!
Simon, I have never heard either of those interpretations, and find them quite thought-provoking.
The first, us having a unique relationship in heaven with our spouse, is nothing we can prove or disprove from scripture. However, I'm sure you see a romantic or sexual relalationship is absolutley denied by Jesus in Matthew 22:29-, and he seems to almost deride his listeners for considering it, telling them, "You're in error because you do not know the scriptures nor the power of God." It's funny, we who enjoy being married, and the love from our spouse imagine heaven as lackiing if there won't be romance. CS Lewis said that we're like a child, who when his father explains to him the birds and the bees, says, "And while doing this, they eat chocolates!" The father says, "No, this is so lovely and fullfilling, there's no need to eat chocolates at the same time." And the child asks, "How can anything be lovely if there's no chocolates?" When we get to heaven, we'll see that all of this was just a pale hint, a weak preview of the beauty of that country, and seeing Him, who designed it all, and who loves well. (Simon, I'm not suggesting that you were trying to create a doctrine of marriage in heaven, again, we may have unique relationships with those we love here. I certainly can't imagine life without hanging with my homeys, but who knows?)
Your second point, that the scripture may be teaching that children are "the grace of life", sort of choked me up. What a beautiful consideration.
Missed you last night. I don't like that your back goes out on Thursdays. I'll try to remember to pray for you on Thurs. morning. Allison's potstickers were the yummiest.
I enjoyed both your posts on these verses. I've actually been on a quest with God relating to women and the church. Most of what you have said I agree with because it is based on the Bible rather than your opinion. I will disagree with your statement "Most people think the husband is more likely to be saved because there is a godly influence in his most intimate sphere of life, and I agree with that" (assuming that you agree that men have a greater Godly influnce). I've come across a substantially greater amount of women who were more devoted to God than men. But that doesn't mean that I'm right, because we can't see the world through a mirror. It may be that I've noticed this because I am a woman myself. I really enjoyed your post. Take care and God bless
Ams:
I'm sorry about the lack of clearness in my statement. I actually meant that most people interpreted the verse to say that the unbelieving husband is more likely to get saved if his wife was a Christian, because she could share her faith with him at a more intimate level in a more intimate relationship.
Michele: Awesome comments as always. Yours are the comments I must look for in this section. Not that I'm dissing anyone else. All the comments I've received are awesome. Maybe it's because you're my "homey."
Thanks for the clarification Simon. And thanks so much for our wonderful comments on my blog. They really inspired me and reassured me in my prupose in having the blog. You really touched me. God bless ^_^
As a non-believer, I have to scoff a little at Peter's comment - the weaker vessel. Right. Maybe in upper arm strength, but in general - then why was the weaker vessel chosen to be the one that gives new life? I would say that women are definitely the stronger vessels.
We resist temptation to evil more often - women are less violent, less likely to end up in prison or addicted to drugs or alcohol, more likely to care for their families (third-world microloan agencies often only loan to women, because they will spend the money on improving their families lives, while men will spend the money on themselves), less likely to leave a sick spouse, it just goes on and on.
I am so sick of women being told they are weak, they are less than, they are the "second" sex. Women hold up half the sky.
Post a Comment
<< Home