d. Living as married persons (3:1–7)
d. Living as married persons (3:1–7)
1. Wives: Be subject to your husbands (3:1–6)
1. Just as all Christians were to be subject to government authorities (2:13–17), and servants were to be subject to their masters (2:18–25), Peter now exhorts wives to be subject to their husbands (3:1–6). Unlike the previous two sections, this one also contains instructions to those who have authority over the group addressed, namely, the husbands (v. 7). The fact that Peter writes six verses to wives and only one to husbands should not be used to argue that there were more women than men among Peter’s readers (as does Kelly, p. 127)—the length of a discussion is determined by the number of words an author thinks necessary to make his message clear, not by how many readers or listeners there may be!
The word likewise (homoiōs) usually means ‘in a similar way’, but the degree of similarity intended can vary greatly (cf. Luke 10:32, 37; 16:25; 1 Cor. 7:22; Jas 2:25). Here the word might mean: (1) similar to the example of Christ in 2:21–25; or (2) similar to the way in which servants are to be submissive in 2:18; or (3) another possibility is that homoiōs simply means ‘also’, introducing a new subject in the same general area of discussion (relationships to authority), without implying similarity of conduct (see BAGD, p. 568, and 3:7; 5:5).
The second option is best here. Likewise modifies be submissive, and the reader would naturally make the connection with 2:18, the last time Peter used the verb ‘be submissive’ (hypotassō): ‘Servants, be submissive’ (2:18) … similarly, ‘wives, be submissive’ (3:1). (The form of expression is exactly the same in the Gk. text, with the comparatively unusual use of a participle to express a command in both cases.)
Nevertheless, Peter does not use the stronger term kathos, ‘even as, in the same way as’, nor does he say ‘in every way (kata panta, Heb. 4:15) be similar to servants in your submission’ (for wives clearly do not relate to husbands in every way that servants relate to masters!). The similarity intended is apparently in motive (‘for the Lord’s sake’, 2:13), in extent of application (to good or harsh masters, 2:18, or husbands, 3:1), and in attitude (with healthy apprehension of their displeasure [or fear of God], 2:18 and 3:2), as well as in the main concept of submission to an authority (2:18 and 3:1). (See note at 2:13 about obedience to authorities in general in Scripture.)
Be submissive to your husbands means willingly to submit to your husband’s authority or leadership in the marriage. The idea of willing obedience is involved in this submission, as is clear from verses 5 to 6. There Peter illustrates ‘being subject to their own husbands’ with the example, ‘as Sarah obeyed Abraham’, thus showing that obeying (hypakouō) is the means by which Sarah was being submissive (hypotassō, the same word as is used in v. 1).
Sometimes the word hypotassō (‘be submissive’) has been understood to mean ‘be thoughtful and considerate; act in love’ (toward another). But this is not a legitimate meaning for the term, which always implies a relationship of submission to an authority. It is used elsewhere in the New Testament of the submission of Jesus to the authority of his parents (Luke 2:51); of demons being subject to the disciples (Luke 10:17—clearly the meaning ‘act in love, be considerate’ cannot fit here); of citizens being subject to government authorities (Rom. 13:1, 5; Titus 3:1, 1 Pet. 2:13; of the universe being subject to Christ (1 Cor. 15:27; Eph. 1:22); of unseen spiritual powers being subject to Christ (1 Pet. 3:22); of Christ being subject to God the Father (1 Cor. 15:28); of church members being subject to church leaders (1 Cor. 16:15–16 [with 1 Clement 42:4]; 1 Pet. 5:5); of wives being subject to their husbands (Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Pet. 3:5; cf. Eph. 5:22, 24); of the church being subject to Christ (Eph. 5:24); of servants being subject to their masters (Titus 2:9; 1 Pet. 2:18); and of Christians being subject to God (Heb. 12:9; Jas 4:7). None of these relationships is ever reversed; that is, husbands are never told to be subject (hypotassō) to wives, nor the government to citizens, nor masters to servants, nor the disciples to demons, etc. (In fact, the term is used outside the NT to describe the submission and obedience of soldiers in an army to those of superior rank, see Josephus, War 2.566, 578; 5.309; cf. the adverb in 1 Clement 37:2; also LSJ, p. 1897, which defines hypotassō [passive] to mean ‘be obedient’).
Yet it must be remembered that submission to authority is often consistent with equality in importance, dignity, and honour—Jesus was subject both to his parents and to God the Father, and Christians who are highly honoured in God’s sight are still commanded to be subject to unbelieving government authorities and masters. Thus the command to wives to be subject to their husbands should never be taken to imply inferior personhood or spirituality, or lesser importance. Indeed, Peter affirms just the opposite: wives are ‘joint heirs of the grace of life’ (v. 7). Moreover, the general scriptural principle of obedience to authorities ‘except when commanded to sin’ (see note at 2:13) also applies here.
Of course, submission to a husband’s authority within a healthy marriage might not often involve obeying commands (though it will sometimes include this), for a husband may rather give requests and seek advice and discussion about the course of action to be followed (cf. Phlm. 8–9). Nevertheless, an attitude of submission to a husband’s authority will be reflected in numerous words and actions each day which reflect deference to his leadership and an acknowledgment of his final responsibility—after discussion has occurred, where possible—to make decisions affecting the whole family.
The purpose Peter mentions for this submission is so that some, though they do not obey the word, may be won without a word by the behaviour of their wives. Some commentators affirm that many or most of the wives to whom Peter was writing had unbelieving husbands, but the Greek text implies just the opposite. It says, ‘so that even if some do not obey the word’, and the phrase ‘even if (kai ei) suggests that this would be an unexpected or uncommon occurrence. It implies that Peter expected that most Christian wives among his readers had Christian husbands.
Those who do not obey the word are husbands who are unbelievers; the present tense verb (apeithousin) suggests a pattern of life characterized by disobedience not only to the gospel but also to God’s standards in other areas of life. The word means not just that they ‘do not believe the word’ (NIV), but has a much stronger sense of active disobedience to the standards of Scripture and even rebellion against them (see note at 2:8 on apeitheō, ‘disobey’). Some of them (not all) would have been harsh and unkind to their Christian wives, but Peter says that even such husbands can be won or ‘gained’ for God’s kingdom (note the use of the same word five times in 1 Cor. 9:19–22; also Matt. 18:15, and in a commercial sense in Matt. 16:26; 25:20, 22; Jas 4:13).
Unbelieving husbands can be won without a word—that is, not by continually preaching or talking about the gospel, but rather simply by the behaviour of their wives, their Christian pattern of life (see note at 1:15 on anastrophē, ‘conduct, behaviour’). This emphasis on conduct rather than words is also applicable to other situations in which Christians find themselves in regular daily contact with unbelievers (at work, within a family or college residence, etc.). Though Peter does not exactly say that Christians should never talk about the gospel message to their unbelieving husbands or friends, he does indicate that the means God will use to ‘win’ such persons will generally not be the Christian’s words but his or her behaviour. To know this should increase prayer both for grace to live rightly and for God’s working in the husband’s heart.
2. When they see your reverent and chaste behaviour could also be rendered ‘because they see …’ or ‘by seeing …’. The verse gives additional emphasis to observable behaviour as the key to winning the unbeliever. Reverent translates en phobō, ‘in (or with) fear’. See the note on ‘fear’ at 2:18—the same sense, ‘with healthy apprehension of their displeasure’, would also fit here, although ‘fear of God’ (as in 1:17 and 2:17) is not inappropriate to the context, so it is difficult to draw a definite conclusion. Yet since Peter cautions wives not to fear with terror or dread (of harm) in verse 6, any such nuance should be excluded here.
The word chaste (hagnos) means ‘pure, free from moral defilement’, and serves as another reminder that the submission Peter commands must never go so far as to include obedience to demands to do something that is morally wrong.
The attractiveness of a wife’s submissive behaviour even to an unbelieving husband suggests that God has inscribed the rightness and beauty of role distinctions in marriage on the hearts of all mankind. Such role distinctions include male leadership or headship in the family and female acceptance of and responsiveness to that leadership. Someone might object that female submissiveness is attractive to the unbelieving husband only because he is selfishly interested in gaining power for himself, or because it fits his culture’s current perception of appropriate male-female relationships, but in either case (so this position would argue) such role distinctions are still wrong or still incongruent with God’s ideal plan for marriage. However, this objection is unpersuasive because Peter would not encourage a sinful behaviour pattern (whether from the culture or the husband himself) to continue in order to bring someone to faith: it is ‘pure’ behaviour, not sinfulness, that attracts unbelievers to Christ. And this ‘pure’ behaviour, Peter says, especially involves wives being subject to their own husbands. The unbelieving husband sees this behaviour and deep within perceives the beauty of it. Within his heart there is a witness that this is right, this is how God intended men and women to relate as husband and wife. He concludes, therefore, that the gospel which his wife believes must be true as well.
3. The focus is now on the wife’s beauty, which consists not in external, visible things which perish but in unseen spiritual realities which are eternal. Let not yours be the outward adorning gives the sense of the phrase quite well and prepares the reader for the contrast with ‘inward adorning’ in verse 4. Adorning refers to the focus of attention for one’s attractiveness, the thing one uses to make oneself beautiful to others. Christian wives should depend for their own attractiveness not on outward things such as braiding of hair, decoration of gold, and wearing of fine clothing, but on inward qualities of life, especially ‘a gentle and quiet spirit’ (v. 4).
Although the RSV speaks of fine clothing (similarly NIV), the Greek text does not include an adjective modifying clothing (himation) and the text literally says, ‘Let not your adorning be the outward adorning of braiding of hair and wearing of gold or putting on of clothing.’ It is incorrect, therefore, to use this text to prohibit women from braiding their hair or wearing gold jewellery, for by the same reasoning one would have to prohibit ‘putting on of clothing’. Peter’s point is not that any of these are forbidden, but that they should not be a woman’s ‘adorning’, her source of beauty.
4. The hidden person of the heart is the wife’s inward nature, her true personality. It is not visible in itself, but it is revealed through words and actions which reflect inner attitudes. Imperishable is an adjective which the New Testament uses consistently to speak of heavenly realities, things which will not fade away with the passing of this present world (see note on this word at 1:4). Since Peter uses this adjective without a noun following it, some noun must be supplied by the reader from the context. Various suggestions have been made (RSV: ‘imperishable jewel’; NIV: ‘unfading beauty’; NASB: ‘imperishable quality’; NEB: ‘imperishable ornament’), but the sense is roughly the same in all of them: the beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit will last for eternity, in contrast to the fleeting beauty of jewellery or clothing.
The adjective gentle (praüs) only occurs three other times in the New Testament (Matt. 5:5; 11:29; 21:5), twice referring to Christ, but its related noun, translated ‘gentleness’ or ‘meekness’, is more frequent (Gal. 5:23; 6:1; Jas 3:13; etc.). It means ‘not insistent on one’s own rights’, or ‘not pushy, not selfishly assertive’, ‘not demanding one’s own way’. Such a gentle and quiet spirit will be beautiful to other human beings, even unbelieving husbands (vv. 1–2), but even more importantly it is something which in God’s sight is very precious. Why? No doubt because such a spirit is the result of quiet and continual trust in God to supply one’s needs, and God delights in being trusted (cf. 1:5, 7, 8–9, 21; 2:6–7, 23; 3:12; 5:7).
5. To underline the preciousness of inward trust in God, Peter appeals to the lives of holy women who hoped in God. Although he specifically mentions Sarah in verse 6, the plural ‘women’ refers generally to godly women in the Old Testament. ‘Hoping in God’ (the present participle suggests continuing in hope over a period of time), they used to adorn themselves ‘in this way’ or ‘so’ (houtōs, ‘thus’, referring to adorning with a gentle and quiet spirit). The verb adorn is related to the noun ‘adorning’ in verse 3, and its imperfect tense indicates continuing or repeated action over time in the past, i.e. ‘they were repeatedly or continually adorning themselves’ in this way.
And were submissive to their husbands brings us back to the theme of verses 1 to 2 and indicates that there is a relationship between a submissive attitude and the inward beauty of verses 3 to 4. Quiet confidence in God produces in a woman the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, but it also enables her to submit to her husband’s authority without fear that it will ultimately be harmful to her well-being or her personhood.
6. Sarah is a specific example of godly submissiveness. Wives are to be submissive to their husbands (v. 5) as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. Peter does not seem to be referring to any one specific incident here, for the main verb and both participles in verse 5 all indicate a continuing pattern of conduct during one’s life (see above).
The example of Sarah’s obedience would be an appropriate encouragement to the wives to whom Peter was writing, for Sarah became the mother of all God’s people in the Old Covenant (Isa. 51:2; cf. Gal. 4:22–26), even though there had been many times in which following Abraham had meant trusting God in uncertain, unpleasant, and even dangerous situations (Gen. 12:1, 5, 10–15; 13:1; 20:2–6 [cf. v. 12)]; 22:3). Yet Peter says you are now her children (or ‘daughters’), the true members of her spiritual family, indicating (as in 1:1 and 2:4–10) that Peter sees the church, not those descended physically from Abraham and Sarah, as the true descendants of Abraham and thus the true people of God. To be Sarah’s daughter is to be a joint heir of the promises and the honour given to her and to Abraham. The condition for being Sarah’s daughters is if you do right and let nothing terrify you. Both verbs are again present participles indicating a pattern of life continued over a period of time: ‘if you are doing right and not being frightened by any terror’, then you are (more accurately, ‘you have become’) Sarah’s daughter. Peter’s insistence on ‘doing right’ is a reminder that no acts of disobedience in Sarah’s life are to be imitated by Christian wives (cf. Gen. 16:2, 6; 18:15; perhaps 20:5); it is her submission to her husband and her trust in God that Peter commends. The condition ‘if you … let nothing terrify you’ is another way in which faith finds expression. A woman with ‘a gentle and quiet spirit’ who ‘continues hoping in God’ will not be terrified by circumstances or by an unbelieving or disobedient husband (cf. Gen. 20:6).
2. Husbands: Live considerately with your wives (3:7)
7. Now Peter speaks briefly but just as forcefully to husbands. The word likewise here has the sense ‘also’ or ‘continuing on the same area of discussion’ (BAGD, p. 568; cf. 1 Pet. 5:5), for the idea of similarity in submission is excluded by the fact that here (unlike 2:18 and 3:1) Peter does not command submission to, but rather considerate use of, authority.
The verb live … with does not carry any special nuance beyond its sense in English, except that it is used several times in the LXX to refer to a husband and wife who ‘live together’.
Live considerately with your wives is literally, ‘living together according to knowledge’ (for the use of the participle as imperative see the note at 1:14). Peter does not specify what kind of knowledge he means by ‘according to knowledge’, so some general phrase like ‘in an understanding way’ (NASB) is a good translation. The RSV’s ‘considerately’ (similarly, NIV) gives too much emphasis to a considerate attitude alone while neglecting the focus on actual ‘knowledge’ or information which is also implied by Peter’s word. The ‘knowledge’ Peter intends here may include any knowledge that would be beneficial to the husband-wife relationship: knowledge of God’s purposes and principles for marriage; knowledge of the wife’s desires, goals, and frustrations; knowledge of her strengths and weaknesses in the physical, emotional and spiritual realms; etc. A husband who lives according to such knowledge will greatly enrich his marriage relationship—yet such knowledge can only be gained through regular study of God’s Word and regular, unhurried times of private fellowship together as husband and wife.
Bestowing honour on the woman as the weaker sex affirms a theme found frequently in the New Testament, namely, that God is often pleased to give honour to those who are weaker or less honoured in the eyes of the world (cf. Matt. 5:3–12; 1 Cor. 1:26–30; 12:22–25; Jas 2:5; 4:6; 1 Pet. 5:5). In this case such honour ought to include kind and affirming words both privately and in public, and high priority in choices regarding the use of one’s time and money. (The NIV’s ‘treat them with respect’ is too weak—one can treat someone with detached, formal ‘respect’ and yet give no special honour to the person at all.) None the less, just as wives are not to obey their husbands when commanded to disobey God (see notes on 2:13 and 3:1), so husbands must never allow love for their wives to become an excuse for sin—a principle tragically ignored by Solomon (1 Kgs 11:3–8), Ahab (1 Kgs 21:25), Abraham (Gen. 16:2), and perhaps even Adam (Gen. 3:6).
The woman translates a rare word (meaning, more literally ‘the feminine one’). It suggests that Peter looks to the characteristic nature of womanhood or femininity and suggests that a wife’s ‘femaleness’ should itself elicit honour from her husband.
Peter does not specify the way in which he understands the woman to be the weaker sex, but the context would make it appropriate for him to have in mind any kind of weakness of which husbands would need to be cautioned not to take advantage. This would certainly include the idea that, by and large, women are physically weaker than men (i.e. if men tried they usually could overpower their wives physically). But the context also shows that women are ‘weaker’ in terms of authority in the marriage (vv. 1, 5–6), and Peter therefore directs husbands that instead of misusing their authority for selfish ends they should use it to ‘bestow honour’ on their wives. Yet there may also be a third sense of ‘weakness’ which would fit the context (because it is something husbands should not take advantage of), namely, a greater emotional sensitivity. While this is something which is also a great strength, it none the less means that wives are often more likely to be hurt deeply by conflict within a marriage, or by inconsiderate behaviour on the part of the husband. Knowing this, Christian husbands should not be ‘harsh’ (Col. 3:19) or fill their marriage relationship with criticism and conflict, but should rather be positive and affirming, ‘living together in an understanding way’, and ‘bestowing honour on the feminine one, as the weaker sex’.
The word translated sex in ‘the weaker sex’ is skeuos, which often means ‘vessel, jar, container’, but is also used in the New Testament to speak of human beings as ‘vessels’ created by God and intended for his use (Acts 9:15; Rom. 9:21; 2 Cor. 4:7; 2 Tim. 2:21). There is no derogatory nuance here, since the fact that the woman is called the ‘weaker vessel’ implies that the man is also viewed as a ‘vessel’. The term recalls God’s creation of all people, both men and women, and is a reminder both of human frailty and of obligation to God our Creator.
It should be noted that it is also possible to understand the two phrases ‘the woman’ and ‘the weaker sex’ as relating to the command ‘live together’ rather than to ‘bestowing honour’. This would give the sense, ‘live together with your wife according to knowledge, as with the weaker sex, the feminine one’ (cf. NASB, TEV). It is not possible to decide between this reading and that of the RSV (and NIV, AV) on grammatical grounds alone, nor do the arguments from context seem to be conclusive on either side. But there is not much difference in the end since the commands to live together and to bestow honour are both part of one large command, and the husband’s knowledge of the fact that Peter calls the wife ‘the feminine one’ and ‘the weaker vessel’ should in any case modify the whole complex of actions included in ‘living together in an understanding way’ and ‘bestowing honour’.
Since you are joint heirs of the grace of life reminds husbands that even though they have been given greater authority within marriage, their wives are still equal to them in spiritual privilege and eternal importance: they are ‘joint heirs’. Here as elsewhere the New Testament authors couple their treatment of differences in roles of husband and wife with an implicit or explicit affirmation of their equality in status and importance (cf. 1 Cor. 11:2–3, 7–12; Eph. 5:22–33; Col. 3:18–19). Although some have argued that Paul abolished differences in role or authority when he affirmed that men and women are ‘one in Christ Jesus’ and both ‘heirs according to promise’ (Gal. 3:28–29), it is significant that here Peter sees no difficulty in affirming that wives are ‘joint heirs’ in a sense that includes subjection to their husbands’ authority.
The RSV’s since expresses a possible relationship between this statement and the rest of the verse, but it could also be translated, ‘bestowing honour … as to those who are joint heirs …’. This would give slightly more emphasis to the way in which honour is bestowed instead of the reason for bestowing it, but the difference in meaning is not great.
Finally Peter adds a note of warning: in order that your prayers may not be hindered. Some think that your prayers refers only to times when the husband and wife pray together, but this view is unpersuasive because Peter is addressing this sentence to husbands only, not to both husbands and wives. ‘Your’ must refer to the ‘you’ to whom Peter is writing, namely, the husbands, and the reference therefore is to the husbands’ prayers generally. This ‘hindering’ of prayers is a form of God’s fatherly discipline, which Hebrews 12:3–11 reminds us is ‘for our good’ and is given to those whom God ‘loves’. (The NIV unfortunately obscures the evident reference to God’s discipline in the passive verb [‘be hindered’ in the Greek] and imports another idea, ‘so that nothing will hinder your prayers’—suggesting to the reader, perhaps, that human interference is in view, from interpersonal conflict or emotional turmoil, etc.)
So concerned is God that Christian husbands live in an understanding and loving way with their wives, that he ‘interrupts’ his relationship with them when they are not doing so. No Christian husband should presume to think that any spiritual good will be accomplished by his life without an effective ministry of prayer. And no husband may expect an effective prayer life unless he lives with his wife ‘in an understanding way, bestowing honour’ on her. To take the time to develop and maintain a good marriage is God’s will; it is serving God; it is a spiritual activity pleasing in his sight.