Misplaced Modifiers

In the movie, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, the eccentric grandpa, Jeremy Potts, says to his grandkids, “One morning, I shot an elephant in my pajamas.” He continues, “How he got in my pajamas, I don’t know.” In this sentence, “pajamas” was meant to modify “I shot” = “I shot [while] in my pajamas.” But when it modifies the elephant = “elephant in my pajamas,” it is humorous. Sentences like these have dangling or misplaced modifiers. Other examples include, “Taped to the wall, Margret read the note” (who taped her to the wall?). “Driving home late the other night, a deer suddenly appeared in our headlights” (talented deer who can drive). “The waiter served a dinner roll to the woman that was well buttered” (poor lady).

In Greek, writers place subordinate ideas in participles. A famous example is the Great Commission: “Going . . . make disciples . . . baptizing . . . teaching,” where the participles (going, baptizing, teaching) are subordinate ideas to the main verb “make disciples.” Sometimes, even they can be misread.

Such is the case with 1 Peter 3:5–6. After asking the wives to adorn themselves with inner beauty, Peter referred to the Old Testament women saints as examples.

“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, 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.” (NIV).

A plain reading of the text implies Sarah obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. Based on this, Christian men in the past have expected their wives to call them “masters” or not utter their names. My mother never called my dad by name.

The structure of Greek gives another possible translation. Just like the Great Commission, this sentence has three participles sounding the single main verb: hoping . . . they adorned . . . submitting . . . calling.

“This is the way, the holy women of the past, hoping in God adorned themselves by cooperating with their husbands . . . and calling him Lord.”

Hoping in God and calling him Lord are like the buns in a burger surrounding the “cooperating with their husbands.” In other words, they adorned themselves by hoping in God, cooperating with their husbands, and calling God their Lord. Their hope in God and belief that God was their Lord/Master led them to cooperate with their husbands. Peter wasn’t saying that Sarah called Abraham her lord or master.

Peter caused the confusion because soon after saying, “cooperating with their husbands,” he gave the example of Sarah by saying, “as Sarah listened to Abraham.” You see, when the angels said to Abraham that by the time they returned the following year, Sarah (90 years old and barren) and Abraham (100 years old and impotent) would have a baby, Sarah heard it from her tent and laughed. But when Abraham said they would have more sex, she agreed and had Isaac. Her agreement with her husband, when all odds were against them, showed her inner beauty of hoping in God and considering him her promise-keeping Lord.

“This is how the holy women of the past, hoping in God, adorned themselves by cooperating with their husbands (e.g., Sarah listened to Abraham) and calling YHWH Lord. Whose daughters you have become so that you can do good and not be terrified of anything frightening.”