1In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives,
2as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior.
3Your adornment must not be merely external–braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses;
4but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God.
5For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands;
6just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear.
7You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.
8To sum up, all of you be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, and humble in spirit;
9not returning evil for evil or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead; for you were called for the very purpose that you might inherit a blessing.
[NASB]
How does this passage inform or effect your faith-and-gender framework?
I’ve recently discussing this passage with a comp. minister and I’m decidely unsure. The egalitarian interpretations I’ve heard of it aren’t very convincing.
Regardless of whether Peter is basing his statements about Sarah on the Old Testament or an apocryphal work, his point seems to be the same: that wives should be submissive to their husbands, and his example is a wife who obeyed her husband.
Thus, it seems to presume an authority structure of sorts which the wife should submit to, and doesn’t make any comments to indicate this authority structure is less than ideal — in fact given his example of Sarah, it would be more likely to conclude that Peter doesn’t view it as a negative state of affairs.
I don’t see this passage as a problem for an egalitarian if the context – both textual and cultural – is taken into account.
In 2:13 Peter says to submit to ‘every authority instituted among men’ and then goes on to state that ‘it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men.’ (v15)
In chapter 3 the purpose of the wife’s submission is ’so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives’.
Then again in 3:16, after describing our manner in giving an answer for the hope we have (gentle, respectful) Peter goes on to give the purpose: silencing those who slander Christians.
Running through this chapter and a half there is the theme of acting or speaking in a certain way in order to commend the gospel; and this includes the behaviour of wives. Given the 1st century expectations of how a respectable wife would behave, to not submit would have been seen as morally suspect – read Bruce Winter’s book ‘Roman Wives, Roman Widows’ to get some sense of this.
Reading this passage from 1 Peter makes me wonder if it is addressing the question of how a Christian wife can both have Jesus as Lord and yet submit to her husband. Surely this would not be an unreasonable question to ask especially if she was married to a non-Christian. From what I have seen of Christian women married to non-Christians there is a certain amoount of tension when the husbands wishes go against Christian practice -eg going to church.
Yes I know Abraham believed in God, but I am wondering if the example of Sarah is to show that submission to a husband is possible for those who are obedient to God. Sarah also shows that calling the husband master (kurios) is not inconsistent with calling God (or Jesus) kurios. Wasn’t one of the big problems for the early church that they did not call Caesar kurios?
Abraham is not a good analogy for a non-Christian husband but maybe there are no other examples that Peter could use of a believing wife submitting to her husband where the husband is not a believer in God. But maybe Peter is using almost an argument from the greater to the lesser. If Sarah could go as far as calling her husband kurios (which is the Greek word used in the LXX to translate YHWH) then it was OK for wives to submit to their non-Christian husbands.
To sum up:
For wives to not submit would have been culturally inappropriate and brought the gospel into disrepute.
Having Jesus as your Lord and submitting to your husband were not inconsistent. It was possible to do both.
@Amanda (from Syd?),
I agree with your two conclusions: (1) that wives not submitting would have clashed greatly with the culture, and (2) that a wife submitting to her husband does not prevent her submitting to the Lord.
The big question is ultimately why Peter gave these instructions. Complementarians would argue that it was because the natural pre-fall state of relationship between the sexes, especially in marriage, was hierarchical. In contrast, egalitarians argue (I think) that the natural pre-fall state was equal, without any hierarchy, but Peter instructs a compromise here for the sake of the gospel, in order to win over unbelievers.
Assuming this to be the case, I’ve had suggested to me a few weaknesses in the egalitarian interpretation.
Firstly:
12 Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us. (1 Peter 2:12, TNIV)
On face value this verse seems self-explanatory. But there is a qualifier at the end of the sentence: “on the day he visits us”. That is, Paul seems to be saying: live good lives now, despite the accusations of wrongdoing you will face now, so that in the future when God returns, the pagans will then recognize your good deeds and glorify God.
Secondly:
3 For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. 4 They are surprised that you do not join them in their reckless, wild living, and they heap abuse on you. 5 But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. 6 For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.(1 Peter 4:3-6, TNIV)
Here the principle of acting in a certain way to win over the pagans seems contradicted. Paul is telling the Christians not to act the way the pagans do, and the fact they are not joining them in “reckless, wild living” is causing the Christians to be abused and looked down on.
This verse in particular seems to be problematic for the view that Peter’s overriding concern was to be culturally appropriate and ensure the gospel was accepted by the unbelievers, and that he was willing to compromise the “ideal” way of life for Christians in order to achieve this.
In short, Peter’s dominant theme seems to be that the Christians should do what is right and good regardless of how much unbelievers hate them for it.
Personally I don’t think 1 Peter gives enough detail to make a firm case either way, but one conclusion does seem difficult to escape: that authority and submission in marriage, of some sort, is an acceptable way for Christians to live. If it were not, surely we would expect Peter to discourage it as he does the other evils in 4:3-6.
What do you think?
While Abraham might be the Father of the faithful, he also “ordered” his wife to do some pretty un-godly things: like lie to kings that she was not his wife. She obeyed him in those things. Which seems to go against many of the soft-comps I hear who say that a woman should obey her non-believing husband in everything unless it goes against scripture.
If indeed Peter is talking about women obeying non-believing husbands, using Sarah as an example might well say “And God will keep you save even when that yahoo you’re married to won’t.”
God also told Abraham to obey his wife.
This passage is about wives married to unbelieving husbands. The reason he writes this is told to us in 1 Peter 2:11.
11Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul. 12Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.
Then he goes into examples… Christians dealing with civil government (obey them), slaves with unbelieving masters and then women with unbelieving husbands.
This would not have been as much of a problem with a free man in Patriarchal society in his marriage. But it was for slaves and women who were saved.
Forget chapter and verse numbers…they always get us messed up with the context!
Hi Sam,
I was from Sydney now I’m in Melbourne.
I think that given Peter doesn’t refer to Gen 1 or 2 it would be a stretch arguing that the reason he gave these instructions. Either approach you outlined would require an assumption as to how Peter viewed Gen 1 and 2. As far as I can remember he doesn’t make any statements either way. I haven’t got the Rabbah on Genesis with me but I seem to remember at least some of the Rabbis saw female subjection to their husband as coming after the fall. Assuming what Peter thinks on this point seems dangerous.
Your first point:
I agree with you on verse 12; that there is a reference to the last day. But I think the idea is that we are responsible for how we behave but not how others react to us. We, however, are to act in such a way as to not give any good reason for people to accuse us of doing wrong.
Your second point:
The things listed there are things that are explicitly forbidden in the Bible. I think John Stackhouse’s idea of (I think he terms it) ‘holy pragmatism’. The idea is that there are some practices that are not the way God intended us to behave but which aren’t first order things. Rather than trying to change everything at once God forbids some things and ameliorates the effects of others or subverts some. Practices like polygamy in the OT. It isn’t forbidden and yet is shown in a negative light. Another is slavery. Nowhere is it forbidden but I hope not too many Christians would try to argue it was OK. (I have met one who did try.) But if the early Christians had tried to get rid of slavery it would have been seen as an attack on the state, (just as any changes to the way husbands and wives related would have been viewed). It would have made preaching the gospel almost impossible. And the gospel was the most important thing.
You wrote
‘In short, Peter’s dominant theme seems to be that the Christians should do what is right and good regardless of how much unbelievers hate them for it.’
I agree that this is the case but I think Peter also wants them to do it in a culturally appropriate way so as not to cause unnecessary offense. Remember submitting to others is not evil. We are supposed to submit to one another. If a husband doesn’t submit to his wife this doesn’t mean she shouldn’t submit to him. So submission, in itself, isn’t evil whereas idolatory is.
Remember there is also the principle of limiting our freedom for the sake of others. Changing our behaviour in order not to cause offense to other Christians should surely be applied to the situation where that behaviour could offend non-Christians. Imagine you lived in a country where drinking alcohol was seen as immoral although not illegal. If you were a Christian leader wouldn’t you advise Christians to not drink alcohol? Even if you believed there was nothing wrong with alcohol in moderation?
In one sense I agree with your last statement about authority and submission being acceptible in Christian marriage (even though my views are egalitarian). However, I would add the proviso that the husband can’t demand the wife’s submission and that the husband needs to obey Paul’s instruction in Ephesians 5. If he does that then I think the marriage will end up looking fairly egalitarian. I see those instructions in Ephesians as subverting the husbands authority.
Sorry I’ve gone on for so long
“In one sense I agree with your last statement about authority and submission being acceptible in Christian marriage (even though my views are egalitarian). However, I would add the proviso that the husband can’t demand the wife’s submission and that the husband needs to obey Paul’s instruction in Ephesians 5. If he does that then I think the marriage will end up looking fairly egalitarian. I see those instructions in Ephesians as subverting the husbands authority.”
Amanda, I wouldn’t say “subverting the husband’s authority”. Jesus didn’t vest husbands with a higher authority than their wives. Paul didn’t either! I don’t believe a wife submits to her husband’s authority, I believe a wife submits her will and life to Christ, and his wish that she work alongside her husband to fulfill his calling to them.
Note that the first command for a married couple is UNITY.
Being the head isn’t necessarily being the boss or the one with the last word, but the one with greater responsibility.
As the church submits to Christ: deny ourselves, pick up our cross and follow him (become Christlike, live as he did, join his cause…) that’s how a wife should submit to her husband. I don’t believe it’s obedience, because Paul would have stated it if it were the case.
If a husband is laying his life down, carrying up his cross and following Jesus, the authority is flowing from Jesus.
Does Jesus only call husbands? I don’t think so! Does God give clashing callings to a husband and a wife? I don’t think so either!
It sounds complicated, but it seems to fit in with the original purpose of woman. Being a helper is being the one that has that which the one in need of help doesn’t have.
I have always taken that passage of 1 Peter 3 at face value, both for the wives and the husbands, but Sarah’s example only as an example, not a command.
That leaves me with how a wife should behave if her husband is not obedient to the Word, even today, and how a husband should treat his wife.
The problem it raises is, why did Peter give instructions only to the wife and not to the husband of an insubmissive, or non-believing wife?
So that brings me back to wondering whether it’s not a command for the time it was written in.
The biggest problem I have is with the way that passage has been used. Pastors have used it to counsel women to stay with their abusive husbands and try to win them over quietly, becoming ever more subservient. But that goes against church discipline, confronting our brother with their sin, and forgiving repentant brothers (and sisters).
It was a huge stumbling block for me until I started to believe it could be I was reading it wrong. At face value it sounds like misogyny.
Enjoying all the discussion.
)
Considering the cultures (Jew and Greek), there was no such thing as “freedom of religion” in the way that we know it today.
The Jewish wife would be expected to remain a Jew. If she converted to Christianity, she could pay for that crime by death.
The Roman wife would be expected to remain serving the gods of her husband (one book I read said that the wife was in charge of offering a monthly offering to whatever god the husband decided was going to be their “fav”). If she converted to Christianity, it was a death sentance.
So it’s not really fair, I think, to treat this passage as if it’s talking about general submission issues. It’s talking about women who’ve *disobeyed* their husband’s will and joined up with a “fringe cult” (Christianity, as it was seen then) and are now legally chargable with treason (calling Jesus Lord instead of Ceasar).
I think Peter’s giving these women instructions on how, hopefully, they can stay alive instead of be martyred for their faith. These women were in a VERY difficult position.
Warmly,
Molly
@Amanda, sorry — I meant from elsewhere in scripture, comps. and egals. get those views and come to this passage. Obviously as you note Peter makes no references that could lead to the comp. view I described if this was the only passage that touched on the issue.
Good points though, thanks! Out of curiousity, do you know if Stackhouse leans toward egalitarianism?
Stackhouse is an egalitarian.
When he said “Men must repent of their sexual reading of women” it was profoundly moving for me.
One key insight for these verses for me is the “if” in 1 Pet 3:1 is a conditional that ASSUMES the condition, it is not an iffy if, it is a certain if. So Peter is talking to believing wives who are married to unbelieving spouses (perhaps including believing but disobdient spouses). And Peter NEVER says for the wife to OBEY, he just in an oblique way refers to it with Sarah.
I read this as saying that IF from some reason your unbelieving husband FORCES you to obey him, continue to hope in God as God can work it out.