Now in actuality the theme of 1 Peter 3 starts before chapter 3. Where do you think it starts?
Where do all the “likewises” fit in?
And what do you think the theme is?
”TNIV
1 Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own 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, 2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. 4 Rather, 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. 5 For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, 6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.
7 Husbands, 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.”
My take:
1. The pericope is from 1 Pet 2:13 to 1 Pet 3:7.
2. The theme is submission.
3. “Likewise” is not in your TNIV quote; instead they translate the Greek “homoios” as “in the same way”. If a reader does not know this, your question is harder to understand.
Good point, “Mr. Bible Geek”
Yes, it will show up as: likewise, in the same way, in a similar way, in like manner, the same, also. It is a connective that connects everything said before to be included in some way with what is going to be said.
I agree the pericope of the primary meat/subject is as you say. But the theme actually starts with vs. 11-12 and goes on past 3:7. I would say that vs. 8-18 are the conclusionary remarks for all the categories of suffering experienced through government, masters, non-believing (or disobedient) husbands, nonbelieving wives.
The introductory admonishment – 2:11-12
The places of suffering – 2:13-3:7
The linking it all together – 3:8-18
So with that in mind, how does that expand ones understanding of the point and purposes of verses 3:1-7
I don’t get why Peter used Sarah as an example of submission when it appears that Abraham submitted to her as much as she submitted to him.
on June 7, 2009 at 5:04 am jlp_that’s_me!
I don’t get why Peter used Sarah as an example of submission when it appears that Abraham submitted to her as much as she submitted to him.
I kind of talked about this in an earlier post, IIRC. Sarah was considered one of the mothers of Israel. Peter is appealing to Sarah, as one of the holy women/matriarchs revered in Jewish/biblical tradition, to tell his women readers what they should be like. Peter likely mines the statement in Genesis 18:12 and what he knew of Jewish tradition to prove/show that she obeyed her husband because she called him “my lord/master.” It is irrelevant for his exegesis or his point what Sarah did the rest of her life or in other instances. Since in Genesis 18:12 and reportedly elsewhere this mother of the faith called her husband “lord” (and one does that to one to whom one is submissive and obedient), then to be a “daughter of Sarah,” a Christian women should likewise obey her husband.
I.e.:
The holy women in times past, who were trusting in God, adorned themselves with a gentle and quiet spirit and were submissive to their husbands.
As an example of this adornment and submissiveness, Sarah obeyed her husband.
We know she obeyed her husband because she called him “[my] lord.”
You will be her spiritual daughters if you do the same thing, not fearing what might happen to you.
You may say that this is bad exegesis, or even eisegesis, and that it misstates what kind of person Sarah was, since thanks to Paul Harvey and our Bibles we know “the rest of the story.” But you asked why Peter used Sarah as an example of submission, and the above explains both why and how. As you know, nowhere does Abraham refer to Sarah as “[my] lady” (i.e., the feminine form of kurios).
Perhaps, in addition we might note that Peter is discussing how to behave with disobedient (those unpersuaded of the Word/or resisting the truth of the Word) husbands. I don’t see that it was about wifely obedience because obedience has not been mentioned as the point, rather submission. Yes, submission can contain obedience but as a point of choice not demand.
Using Sarah brought up a time when Sarah did not have to do as Abraham requested because he was requesting her to lie, but choose to do so trusting in God to use it for their good, since they were in danger, especially Abraham. Therefore her submission was in the submission to arrange her life in a manner to support her husband. And she did so in spite of the fearful situation, even honoring him by calling him “sir” (todays equivalent) in spite of the fact he was requesting her to sin.
I disagree with much of what Eric wrote.
Sarah is a Jewish matriarch and a model for believers. Given that Peter is discussing how a believing wife is to deal with the challenges of having a non-believing husband, it is a puzzle why Sarah is used as an example, as Abraham was a believer. Yet Abraham asked Sarah to do questionable things, as an unbelieving husband might.
The 1st century cultural context is that wives were expected to obey their husbands even in matters of life and death and household “gods”. A husband could order a wife to abandon an undesired child, where abandonment meant death. A believing wife could not worship pagan “gods” and not let her child be abandoned to death. Peter simply could NOT be telling a wife to always obey her husband, this would violate many Christian principles.
However, it could be the case where the wife found herself between a rock and a hard spot, like Sarah. And Peter is pointing out that God protected Sarah DESPITE Abraham’s urgings.
On Sarah calling Abraham Lord, the very name Sarah means “princess” and the spouses used terms of royalty to describe each other; this is fine for believers today to do also.
TL:
AFAIK, the only biblical instance of Sarah referring to Abraham as “[my] lord” (“sir”) is Genesis 18:12, when the visitors tell her that she and Abraham are going to have a child in their old age. The occasion when Abraham told Sarah to say that she was his sister was many years and six chapters earlier in Genesis 12; I don’t think it says anything about her calling him “sir” in that situation.
Don:
I know you disagree with what I wrote, because we’ve discussed it before.
As I note in my just-posted reply to TL, AFAIK there is only one verse in all of Scripture where Sarah refers to Abraham as “lord” (specifically, “my lord”). So if Peter had only Scripture in mind when he wrote what he did, then Genesis 18:12 would have been the verse, a verse and context that has nothing to do with her being asked by Abraham to do questionable things, or God having to protect Sarah because she was between a rock and a hard place in terms of “obeying” Abraham.
I believe in the earlier thread on the subject, where I first posted my thoughts on 1 Peter 3, I cited some verses from a non-biblical Jewish life of Abraham wherein Sarah several times refers to Abraham as “my lord.” So he may be thinking of all the instances that he and his readers knew that Sarah referred to Abraham as her “lord” in Jewish tradition, and this could have included the instance in which he asked her to say that she was his sister. On the other hand, “my lord” was probably just the normal way in the culture a wife referred to her husband. As you pointed out, wifely obedience was expected.
Yes, in extra-Biblical Jewish stories, Sarah calls Abraham Lord at other times.
There are 2 things I think are crucial to see in this passage:
1. Submission SOMETIMES includes obedience. It is not the same as obedience, but in some contexts it is implied. The question is whether it is implied in the case of husband and wife.
2. Peter never explicitly writes that a wife is to obey her husband, rather he hints at it sometimes being done using Sarah as an example, and the examples WHEN Sarah obeyed in the Bible are not usually considered good examples.
Eric – the only time Sarah calls Abraham “My Lord” in the Bible is when she is referring to the fact she is going to have sexual pleasure with him again. It’s almost as if she was saying “Oh boy, me and my honey are going to be intimate again!”
Not only that, but Sarah was a very bossy wife. I find it humorous that Peter would use her as an example.
“As I note in my just-posted reply to TL, AFAIK there is only one verse in all of Scripture where Sarah refers to Abraham as “lord” (specifically, “my lord”).”
Reading Scripture in context requires us to understand that the usage of “lord” at that time would not be the same we might use it today. The was not calling her husband ‘god’. She was not even calling him her master as if she were a slave. It simply isn’t transferrable from that era to ours. When applied to a husband it was more in line with calling him ’sir’. It was respect. And as JLP noted it even in that instance you noted could be with much affection, which thought would easily transfer to what Peter was saying. The wife with an unbelieving husband should so arrange her life to honor and support him, not with fear but trusting in God. Adding Sarah’s example, adds affection, thus not grudgingly and disrespectfully, but with affection, trusting in God for the outcome.
Make any sense?
TL:
I agree it makes sense, but tell that to Peter, not me. After all, Peter is the one who uses this one Biblical instance of Sarah calling her husband “lord” to make his point that Sarah “obeyed” her husband. I.e., I’m not the one taking the verse out of context and/or misapplying it and/or making it say something more than what it says; Peter is the one doing that.
6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.
Here’s how Peter should have written it:
6 like Sarah, who bossed Abraham around while calling him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.
This isn’t about Sarah obeying Abraham. The Jewish audience who would have read Peter’s words would have known that Abraham obeyed Sarah as much as Sarah obeyed Abraham. And they would have been aware that in one very important situation, God told Abraham to do whatever Sarah tells him to do. Peter was aware of this and so was his Jewish audience.
I think Peter was encouraging wives with unbelieving husbands to use their enforced submission (by law) and turn it around into a way of serving their husbands in such a way as to win them to Christ. He’s not advocating that women should forever either call their husbands “Lord” or practice one way submission. But since women were forced to be in a one way submission relationship where the husband was the position of being a woman’s master, he was telling them how to turn around the situation and use it for good.
He’s not advocating either one way submission or calling a husband “Lord” as a way of life. He’s not using “Lord” to make a point, but rather to make a statement about the situation women were forced into against their wills in that culture.
Eric, the subject isn’t about obeying. The subject is submission. Even in that immediate context the subject is that ‘ in this manner’ (the manner of verses 1-4) the holy women who trusted in God, submitted. The subject is trusting God, being submissive without fear. Thus the point of the example is not that she obeyed (rather than was submissive, remembering that submission can become obedience, but it is a choice not a required response to demands) but that she did what she did respecting her husband, trusting in God without fear.
When you are forced into a marriage against your will, and forced into a position of obedience and subservience against your will, and had no possiblity of escape – when you are in a situation like that you have to learn to cope with it the best you can. In essense, these women were slaves. Peter is giving them advice on how to handle a situation in which they were entirely powerless. He is in essence, giving them hope within the position their society forced them into.
1 Peter2:18-21
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.
Peter didn’t mean for slaves to never go free, neither was he endorsing slavery. He knew that slaves had no possiblity of going free. So he took their enforced slavery and turned it into an opportunity for them to serve Christ.
In the same way Peter took the enforced slavery of wives and turned it into an opportunity for them to serve Christ.
Peter is dealing with 2 classes of slaves. The first are your regular slaves, the second are wives. But both are in enforced servitude. Neither have any rights or chance of gaining their freedom. He is taking their enforced servitude and turning into an opportunity to do good. But that doe not mean he endorses the enforced servitude of either slaves or wives.
That is really thought provoking JLP. Thank you for your contributions.
It’s worth noting, I think, that Sarah is nowhere in Scripture recorded as addressing Abraham himself as “lord.” She refers to him as such in her own musings as she laughs over the prospect of the two of them, elderly as they were, being intimate and her becoming pregnant at that advanced age.
He was the patriarch of their household, and that was a proper way to refer to him. Even so, we don’t see that she used that form of address directly to him. Quite possibly she did, but there’s no explicit example of it. Peter simply says that’s how she referred to him (that one time), not that she used it as any kind of formal address to him.
We forget that until recent history wives were legally in a position of slavery to their husbands. It wasn’t until 1880 that it was made illegal in New York for husbands to beat their wives. And it was somewhere in the 1800’s that married women in the US were allowed to own property.
Both Sarah, the holy women of old, and the women of Peter’s day were in the position of slaves. Obviously, a woman married to a good man wasn’t treated as a slave as in the case of Sarah. But most women had to put up with a life of slavery. They had no choice. If the holy women of old adorned themselves with one way submission it was because they had no choice in the matter. They were simply making the best of a bad situation. And they trusted God would protect them in their one way submission because they themselves had no other choice but to respond that way to their husband’s demands.
When we discuss these passages as if these women voluntarily chose one way submission – and we encourage women in the 20th century to act the same way, we are not dealing with the fact that one way submission and obedience were not a choice for the women Peter was talking to. It was a requirement with severe consequences if not met. So Peter is taking their position of one way submission and obedience and turning it around as an opportunity to advance the gospel. It’s not a lifestyle he is advocating, but rather a reality that he is helping these women deal with.
This passage shows the importance of taking things within their historical and cultural context in order to understand them. Taking the verses about slavery and women into the 21st century American context rather than referring to the 1st century context doesn’t help us understand what Peter is trying to do here. His purpose is to take a very bad situation, and turn it around into something hopeful.
If you found someone in slavery today, say in India, would you encourage them to be obedient to their masters? Of course not. You would probably do what you could to set them free.
If you found a man abusing his wife, would you tell her to stay and take it? Well, some Christians would, but some wouldn’t.
Back in Peter’s day slaves had no chance of getting away from their masters,and women had no chance of getting away from abusive husbands. They were stuck there permanently and there was no hope for freedom. So Peter is advising slaves and wives how to handle a situation in which there is no hope for them. He is trying to turn a hopeless situation around. Whether his words worked or not for the people who listened to them I don’t know. But I do know he was trying to turn situations in which there was no alternative. That’s why trying to import these words as directions in the 21st century doesn’t work. There are alternatives for both slaves and abused wives.
But I thought the gospel included a proclamation and act of release to the captives and a setting free of the downtrodden (Luke 4:18)? I don’t think Peter took the part about recovery of sight to the blind symbolically or spiritually, so why would he shrink back when it came to the other things Jesus said his anointing and message included? I.e., why would he preach continuance in slavery when Jesus expressly declared the opposite? (just being provocative)
How does one deal with an evil when the vast majority of society thinks of it as normal and necessary and advocating abolition is illegal, ala Spartacus?
“But I thought the gospel included a proclamation and act of release to the captives and a setting free of the downtrodden (Luke 4:18)? I don’t think Peter took the part about recovery of sight to the blind symbolically or spiritually, so why would he shrink back when it came to the other things Jesus said his anointing and message included? I.e., why would he preach continuance in slavery when Jesus expressly declared the opposite? (just being provocative).”
My thoughts on the question:
Because Jesus said we were supposed to pray,
“Your kingdom come,
Your will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.”
Meaning, it’s not done on earth as it is in heaven, but it’s our job to pray (and then act) to make it so.
By His prayer, Jesus shows us that:
1. not all was set right,
2. that though His death was foundational to the “cure”, it was not going to set every thing right yet,
3. that action would be required to see it set right (it wouldn’t just ‘happen’), and
4. that action (prayer, etc) was part of our job as we sought to set things right.
One more Scripture that profoundly changed the way I viewed Paul/Peter’s instructions:
Acts 15.
More later, I got to run, but there you see the church making a decision—-an authoritative decision—-that had EVERYTHING to do with cultural issues. If we didn’t have other Scriptures, we’d think this was a law for all time. That’s certainly how it’s written. The point being that Christ may have released us from our captivity, but WE are very slow to figure that out.
The message I get from our cultural baggage problem is redemptive though: we are supposed to be living in our culture, the cultural oddities that each people group have are things that God can dwell in, God comes in space and time and even into the midst of our baggage and that is His way [see the incarnation].
I think that is way cool.
“But I thought the gospel included a proclamation and act of release to the captives and a setting free of the downtrodden (Luke 4:18)?”
Great question. In addition to the great answers already given, let me say this. In the moment of our first proclamation of acceptance to and belief in God’s salvation through Christ, we were indeed changed instantly in some things. In the rest there was promise accompanied by our willingness to work for it as well as God’s wisdom to prepare us. That is the process of sanctification and our dying daily to sin, choosing to be set apart for the Lord’s work. While some seem to think that our salvation was only a couple steps up from the mire of sin, in reality we were deep in the pit (some more than others) and miles away from the surface when God pulled us free to stand on the solid ground at the foot of the cross. And all covered in the stinkiest, rotten, clingiest goop that will take years to extricate from our being.
In the same way, society/humanity has engaged in the rottenest, stinkiest, horribly clingy attitudes and activities. The only hope is the work of Christians, who are not as bound by the rot of sin as the rest of humanity. Our efforts are the ones that will shine the light of truth and freedom into the world and help them change some things for society.
Molly:
Per your post, I looked at Acts 15. I seems to me the council had to do with what Gentiles who entered the Messiah’s covenant had to do to be equal and legitimate members of the household of faith.
Interestingly, James and the Holy Spirit (“For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us”) still didn’t seem to release Jewish believers from these things. Also interestingly, neither Paul nor Peter dissented with him re: failing to say anything about relaxing or abrogating the Law when it came to Jewish believers.
Jewish tradition had long held that the Noahide commandments (of which Acts 15 is a restatement) were incumbent upon all mankind, so the Acts 15 decision was not really something new or an accomodation to culture.
I’m not sure which cultural issue you’re referring to. I guess in a sense the Church was a new “Culture,” one that included in one body/covenant two formerly-separate peoples.
Is that the cultural issue you’re referring to?
Peter was not giving directions in 1 Peter 2 & 3 to slaves and women. He was giving advice. People interpret his words as orders for slaves and women, when they weren’t orders at all. It was just advice.
I’m sure some of the women who took his advice received better treatment from their husbands because of it, and some received worst treatment because of it. Most likely his advice helped some women and hurt others. But he wasn’t giving orders from the Lord to women and slaves, just advice. And advice doesn’t always work in every situation.
In addition, people are taking advice for a 1st century marriage situation which was based on the slavery of wives, and trying to force it on 21st century marriages in which wives are no longer slaves.
If you are going to enforce 1 Peter 3:1-6 on women, then you have to enforce 1 Peter2:18-21 on the world’s slaves.
The words on slavery are part of the same section as the words to women. You cannot say that slaves should not be forced to obey their masters, and then say that women have to forced to obey their husbands. You cannot invalidate 1 Peter2:18-21 for slaves, and validate 1 Peter 3:1-6 for women. Of course, that’s precisely what part of the Christian community does.
“But I thought the gospel included a proclamation and act of release to the captives and a setting free of the downtrodden (Luke 4:18)?”
Eric – Many Christians both male and female only believe this is for males. They may not realize that they believe it is only for males, but that’s what they teach and practice. They don’t extend this freedom to females, that’s why they interpret 1 Peter 3:1-6 as an order from God rather than as advice from Peter. That’s why they don’t believe slaves should obey their masters (some of the slaves are male) but they believe wives should obey their husbands.
The freedom Christ extends they are not willing to extend to females because it would free them from the domination of males. And they are mostly only concerned about freedom for males.
I should say, I feel everyone who posts at this forum – even the elusive comps that occasionally show up – are as good to women as they are to men.
I hope no one feels that just because I’ve disagreed with any opinion of their’s on women or on any scripture that concerns women that I think they are a part of the Christian community that is negative on women. I don’t. I think this is a good group of people, who although they may disagree on interpretation on scripture on women – really do care for and respect women.
I’ve always felt my opinion as a woman was taken as seriously as a man’s here. And I’ve been never been put down by any man here as I have on other forums.
As far as the treatment of women, EVERYONE here is a part of the Christian community that is positive on women. THIS IS A GROUP THAT REALLY CARES FOR WOMEN – ALL OF YOU. I thank you and respect you for that.
I think the quickest way to turn a comp into an egal is to do one of these on him:
http://ak.buy.com/db_assets/large_images/085/40143085.jpg
(kinda cute film, by the way)
Walking a while in a woman’s shoes might help.
As long as they’re not high heels, TL. I don’t see how walking in heels helps ANYONE. Wearing them for years and years has been shown to cause permanent shortening of the tendons so a woman can’t wear flats. I think high heels are a modern form of foot binding (but that’s just me).
Perhaps a mild form. Those teensy feet of women whose feet were broken could hardly be called pretty.
Neither are women’s feet with all the toes smashed together from wearing tight heels. But at least they aren’t broken. Small respite!
When we want to understand 1 Peter 2 & 3, I think we should interpret these verses in light of these words of Jesus:
43″You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[i] and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
This is what Peter was advising slaves and wives to do. He was telling them to take their position of slavery and use it to do good to those who did wrong to them. People misunderstand what Peter was trying to do.
TL,
1 Peter 2 and 3 are not about obedience or submission. They are about behavior that would win someone who has power over you to Christ. In that culture, slaves and wives were legally bound to be obedient and submissive. So when they performed the expected duties with grace and kindness – in that culture they could be a witness of Christ.
In our culture if slaves and wives obey their masters/husbands it turns people off to Christ. I admit there are husbands that want to be obeyed by their wives, but a wife’s obedience is not necessary to bring him to Christ. In 1st century culture the expectation was so strong that a wife should obey her husband, that that is what they expected. There is no longer that expectation anymore.
And some people today realize how damaging it is for a woman to be obedient to her husband. In that culture, no cared. All’s they cared about was that a wife was obedient. If a woman’s life was destroyed as a result of it, that was just too bad. Today if a woman’s life is destroyed by it, part of the Christian community cares.
1 Peter 2 and 3 are not about obedience or submission. They are about behavior that would win someone who has power over you to Christ. In that culture, slaves and wives were legally bound to be obedient and submissive. So when they performed the expected duties with grace and kindness – in that culture they could be a witness of Christ.
jlp,
I see it that way, too. Women with disobedient-to-the-word husbands were in a very frightening position. One word from their husbands to the authorities and the women were dead (because they were comitting treason by being Christians).
Personally, I feel like we aren’t being faithful to the Scriptures when we apply them to things that they weren’t written for. This passage in 1 Peter 3 was used to bring hope and encouragement to women in a very specific and life-threatening situation. We can learn a LOT from it, that’s for sure…but whether it should be applied literally to all wives in all times is another thing altogether.
Eric,
On Acts 15, I see the church making authoritative laws that are based on issues going on in real cultures, real people, real times. If I read Acts 15:28-29 the same way that many people read 1 Peter 3:1-6, then I must apply it to all people, at all times, in all cultures, as an authoritative eternal command.
But even though it’s worded rather authoritatively (“it seemed good to us and to the Holy Spirit,”) we know that it’s NOT actually an eternal command, but a command based on a cultural issue, and made only because the maturity level of the believers required it (meaning, they weren’t mature enough to handle the higher truth).
The higher truth was that eating food sacrificed to idols didn’t actually matter at all. 1 Corinthians 8:1-13 states this very clearly, but Paul takes great pains to show that there is a higher truth than even that (!!), and that is that we are called to Love above all.
If eating foods sacrificed to an idol will cause a new believer to go back to idolatry, then our freedom to eat those foods is NOT WORTH IT. We care about others enough to submit to their needs, even if that means we give up some of our liberties in Christ. (As long as we are giving up those liberties out of love and not out of legalism or trying to attain righteousness, that is. Paul was very clear in Galatians that when the issue is giving up liberties in order to please legalists, we do NOT budge an inch. We only do it for weaker family members whose faith is new and tender).
That is the “nutshell” of what Acts 15 taught me about Paul’s teachings. Some things can be said very authoritatively, but we have to pay very close attention to the cultural backdrop and realize that for Paul, the law of Love was the grid through which he ran all issues. Acts 15 sounds very authoritative, a law for all the church at all times, but other passages show us that if we interpret it as a law for all time, we are totally wrong.
This, to me, is being very respectful to Scripture. I do not want to make it say something it is not saying. Scripture teaches me that there are legitimate cultural happenings going on, and that some authoritative “rules” are made because of the inability of the church to handle the higher eternal truth. This is why, when I was a comp beginning to ask questions, Acts 15 played an important role in my scriptural “re-look” at gender issues.
PS. I love that I follow a God who dwells with real people in real time!
Well stated.
We cannot take scripture out of its cultural context. The problem with 1 Peter 2 & 3 is that it generally taken out of its cultural context. That’s how the Christian community uses it to justify one way female submission. If it would take it in its correct cultural context this probably wouldn’t happen.
It’s not about power, it’s about being a witness of Christ in difficult circumstances.
Eric,
When my dentist began treating me for TMJ he told me never to wear high heels again because they put the spine out of alignment, which then tips the jaw out of alignment. TMJ is a jaw disorder.
AND ANOTHER THING – PETER IS GIVING ADVICE IN 1 PETER 2 & 3, NOT ORDERS FROM THE LORD.
I see Acts 15 as authoritative. If you want to eat with Messianic Jews and not gross them out, you should not eat meat sacrificed to idols. It is the law of love in action. I am very careful so that I am not seen as participating in pagan activities, I might watch, but participation goes too far for me.