Literary Context and Structure As Charles Swindoll mentions, 1 Peter 3:1-7 is probably one of the hottest potatoes in Scripture,

especially for women.1 In this passage the author gives wives and husbands a domestic code that resembles other marriage exhortations in the epistles. Encompassing six verses, the author instructs wives to trust God and accept the authority of their husbands, even if the husband is not a Christian. In a single verse, the author gives the husband four areas of care for the wife: emotionally, intellectually, physically, and spiritually.2 The chapter division is somewhat artificial as the specific passage of 3:1-7 comes toward the end of the larger theme found in 2:11 through 3:12. In the broader context, the author addresses social conduct and calls his audience to live exemplary lives and submit to every authority instituted among men, for the Lords sake. (v2:13) The key theme of this letter is to offer encouragement to suffering Christians. The author begins in 1:1 through 2:10 by exalting God and reminds his audience of their position in Christ. As Gods chosen, cleansed by the blood of Christ, who can expect a priceless inheritance in heaven, they (and all followers of Christ) can live with joy despite whatever trials and suffering might come. Those who trust in Christ receive the reward of salvation, which even the prophets of the Old Testament and angels eagerly waited for and watch now. As Gods children, Christians need to live obedient and holy lives, and remember He rewards his followers according to how they spend their time on earth. The author continues to say that because of Christs great sacrifice for them they need to love one another and get rid of all evil behavior. This section concludes with the author using temple metaphors to refer to his audience as living stones and holy priests, and that Christ is the chief cornerstone. By reminding and encouraging his audience of who they are in Christ the author sets up the next section, which contains the specific passage. After instructing the audience to respect people in authority the author progresses in ascending hierarchical order to address select groups within the congregations. First, he addresses slaves (servants) and tells them to accept the authority of their masters, even if cruel ones. God calls them to suffer patiently, even if wrongly punished, just as Christ suffered. Second, the author addresses wives, as seen in 3:1-6, and
1 2

Charles R. Swindoll, Hope Again (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1996) 102. Warren W. Wiersbe, The Transformational Study Bible (Colorado Springs: David Cook Publishing, 2009) 2115.

focuses on godly living, particularly to win-over unbelieving husbands. Next, the author instructs husbands to show the same respect and honor toward wives. Concluding this section on social conduct, the author speaks to all Christians. He tells them to love each other with humble attitudes, and quotes a passage from Psalms, which reinforces the principles of turning away from evil and seeking peace. After speaking directly to a few key groups above, the author reinforces his point in 3:134:19 that even if they suffer for doing what is right, God will reward them. Christ is the example, who is now in a place of honor next to God. Christians who suffer gain strength and hope in Christs suffering, particularly if they continue to do what is right. To conclude, chapter five speaks to elders of the church to lead as good shepherds and care for the people God gave them. He speaks generally, then to specific groups, from lower status to higher status. Perhaps as an afterthought the author singles out young men and instructs them to show the proper respect to authority, before telling everyone to trust God and resist satan. This flow of thought keeps in line with the overall theme of the epistle about submitting to authority and continuing to do right even if suffering for it. The author addresses numerous groups within the Christian community, ranging from those in servile positions to those in leadership. The author emphasizes that submission is bidirectional and in the best interest of those who consider themselves true followers of Christ. The literary context helps one to see that the author does not seek to subjugate women, and in perspective of the historical-cultural context he seeks their greatest well-being. Historical-Cultural Analysis Although certain scholarly camps question if Peter truly authored this book, enough external and internal evidence points to the apostle who walked with Jesus as the genuine source of the letter. Peter most likely addresses Jewish converts or a mix of Jewish and Gentile Christians living in providences of modern day Turkey (Asia Minor), and coming from strata of economic backgrounds. If Peter authored it, he probably did so from Rome around 62-64 AD, even as late as 65. The letters date of origin bears significance to understand the overall context. Some scholars claim a much later date, into the second century with the persecutions of Pliny the Younger (62113) and the emperor Trajan (reign 98-117) in mind. Pliny made Christians denounce their faith

or else executed them.3 Most likely, the sufferings and trials Peter refers to are during Neros reign (54-69). Nero blamed the 64 fire in Rome on the Christians, which led to many being killed. It is probable that the harsh treatment of Christians in Rome encouraged their enemies in Asia Minor and elsewhere to rise up against them.4 The impression which the letter as a whole conveys is not of juridical prosecutions by the government, but an atmosphere of suspicion, hostility and brutality on the part of the local population.5 In the specific passage of 3:1-7, Peter gives more attention to the issues facing wives than those of husbands, probably because Christian women were more likely to have non-Christian partners than Christian men and so were more liable to hostility.6 Culturally, it is significant that a woman at that time and place could have adopted the Christian religion, regardless of whether she was under the will of her husband or parents. Submission to the husband was the custom of the time, and she would normally adopt his religion. This placed converted wives in a difficult position.7 In both Jewish and Roman cultures the wifes legal position was weaker than the husbands. A (Jewish) husband could divorce his wife if he found some uncleanness in her, but the wife was not allowed to divorce her husband for any reason (Deut. 24:1-4)8 The Roman man ruled absolutely over wife and children. The patria potestas allowed the father to even implement capital punishment on one within his household if he so willed. Most scholars agree that Peter speaks to a predominantly Jewish audience. The Old Testament references and temple metaphors help validate this perspective. At this time in Judaism, women held fewer rights than previously. The gradual emancipation of women in Greco-Roman culture can be contrasted with the intensification of the inferiority of women in Judaism during the Roman period.9 There existed a regression of the status women held in the Old Testament, even in the more liberal Hellenistic Judaism, probably in reaction against the license allowed women in the cults of Dionysus, Isis, and Cybele.10

J.I. Packer and M.C. Tenney, eds., Illustrated Manners and Customs of the Bible, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1980) 111. 4 Albert Henry Newman, A Manual of Church History: Vol I, (Philadelphia: The Judson Press, 1933) 115 5 J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude, (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1969) 29. 6 I. Howard Marshall, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series: I Peter (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1991) 98 7 Ibid, 98-99. 8 Packer and Tenney, Manners and Customs, 421. 9 David L. Balch, Let Wives Be Submissive: The Domestic Code in I Peter, (Chico: Scholars Press, 1982) 9 10 Ibid.

As Peter would have experienced, Christ took women along with the twelve disciples traveling and preaching, as seen in Luke 8:1-3. Jesus also broke from gender roles when he spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well, and sent her off to evangelize about him as Messiah. (John 4). With the new freedom that Christians enjoyed in Christ, there also inevitably arose the temptation to carry things to excess, trespassing the bounds of social propriety at the time. Christians needed to show restraint so they would not get the reputation for being libertines given to excess.11 Following Pauls lead, as addressed in the other New Testament domestic codes (Col. 3, I Cor. 7, Eph. 5, Titus 2) Peter needed to guide the congregations in Asia Minor to not bring additional hostility on themselves with excessive counter-cultural behavior. If Paul wrote Galatians in the late 40s and Peters first letter circulated in the early to mid-60s, the church grew for nearly two decades with the concepts of Galatians 3:28, there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. The New Testament codes led to unrest among Christian slaves and women who desired emancipation.12 Besides combating the image of Christian libertine excess or worse, pagan rituals, Peter and Paul called all the congregations to the roles of evangelism and discipleship. The church members could only exemplify Christ, if like Christ, they voluntarily laid down their positional rights of liberty to seek the salvation of the world around them. It is important to note that a wifes submission is explicitly linked to purpose statements about evangelism and Christian mission. For instance, Paul instructs wives to submit to their husbands so that no one will malign the word of God (Tit. 2:5). Likewise, Peter tells wives to obey their husbands so that unbelieving husbands may be won over without words (1 Pet. 3:1)13 Peter seeks the well-being of these congregations. Not to prevent persecution, but first to seek evangelism, show that Christians would submit to the local secular authority, but that all believers behavior would give reverence to God and His calling. Yet, the call to submission also applies to the husbands (3:7). They do not submit to the authority of the wife, but to the authority of God, by treating the wives as joint-heirs of Gods unmerited favor. Not only did Christianity elevate women in these heavily patriarchal societies,
11 12

Marshall, I Peter, 99. Balch, Let Wives Be Submissive, 9. 13 William J. Webb, Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2001) 107

it also called the husbands and leaders to not exercise their cultural rights of unrestrained rule (patria potestas). The duty enjoined is that of an over-all thoughtfulness and respect, such as would never be accorded to a wife in a culture in which she was regarded as a thing, not a person; as a chattel to be owned, not a partner to be loved.14 Lexical Analysis In cultures significantly affected by feminist movements the words submit and weaker generate considerable controversy. However, in the specific passage of 3:1-7, the phrases won over and joint-heirs validate these seemingly chauvinistic words. By far, the word submit causes feminists the most consternation. Peter uses the same Greek word, hypotasso, twice in the specific passage and through out the letter (vv. 3:1, 3:5, and 2:13, 2:18, & 5:5). The word is primarily a military term, to rank under (hypo, under, tasso, to arrange)15 to obey, to put into subjection, subject16. These usages of the word involve Christian behavior in the context of established authority structures.17 The other use of submit, in 3:22, derives also from hypotasso, but the theme is that all things have been made subject to the exalted and cosmic Christ, including angelic powers and death.18 Likewise, Paul used hypotasso in the same context of established authority structures throughout his epistles (Col. 3:18; Heb. 12:9; Rom. 13:1, 5; Tit. 2:9 & 3:1).19 Elsewhere in the New Testament, hypotasso refers to the submission of Jesus to the authority of His parents (Luke 10:17) and Christians subject to God (Heb. 12:9 & Jam. 4:7). In the Greek world it did not mean to obey someone or to do the will of another person, but rather to lose or surrender ones own rights.20 The meaning in the LXX is essentially the same as in the Hellenized Greek. God placed all things in subjection to humans, and as punishment for disobedience, God subjected his people to their enemies. These subjects had little choice.
14 15

Paul S. Rees, Triumphant in Trouble: Studies in I Peter, (Westwood: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1962) 73 W.E. Vine, Vines Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997) 1099. 16 Robert L. Thomas, ed., New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, (Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 1981) 1690. Vines and the NAS Concordance use a u in hupo. 17 Verlyn D. Verbrugge, ed., New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology: Abridged Edition, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000) 584. The New International Dictionary uses y for hypo, and uses the words submit, be in submission, be in subjection, but does not use the military rank distinction of the definition as found in Vines and the NAS Concordance. 18 Ibid, 583. 19 Ibid, 584. 20 James R. Slaughter, Submission of Wives (1 Pet. 3:1a) in the Context of 1 Peter (Bibliotheca Sacra Vol.153, JanMar. 1996) 70

Most modern English Bible translations use the words submit and submission to interpret hypotasso. The King James version used subjection, which means the action, state, or fact of dominating or subjugating.21 Distinctly, submit is defined to place oneself under a certain control or authority; become subject or surrender oneself to another.22 Clearly, submit offers the better English translation of hypotasso, in the context of 1 Peter 3:1-7, as it means the voluntary act of placing oneself under the authority of another. Like Christ, Christians are to voluntarily submit to authority, whether a slave, wife, husband, young man, and even leaders. In 3:1 to win over is the reason for the wifes submission. The verb kerdainein is a commercial term and literally means gain, make a profit. Although this word does not appear in the LXX23, it occurs five times in I Cor. 9:19-22 as a standard missionary term for to make a Christian or equivalent to save.24 This is not to say that the wife should not share the gospel verbally, but the unbelieving husband is more likely won over to faith by his wifes manner of life.25 In 3:7, Peter addresses believing husbands. The force of the phrase, in the same way, sometimes translated likewise, tells husbands to fulfill their particular role in the marriage, just as the wives are to fulfill theirs. Both partners are obligated to the other.26 Since the husbands were given a natural authority over their wives, the meaning is not subordination but the principle requires husbands to exercise their authority with deference.27 to treat wives with respect. He refers to women as the weaker partner. The Greek term for weakness is asthenes. In this adjective form, and specifically in 3:7 it refers to a comparative degree of physical weakness.28 Most commentators interpret the term to mean physical weakness, or possibly economic or societal weakness. Weaker partner can indicate the lack of social standing of women in Peters day. However, there are physical reasons for women to be dependent upon men.29 The Gospels and Acts tend to use asthenes and its variations for bodily weakness or sickness. Paul uses the terms in relation to human sinful nature, and the concept of boasting in
21

Lesley Brown, ed., The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary: Vol. 2 N-Z, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993) 3118. 22 Ibid, 3120. 23 Verbrugge, New International Dictionary, 302 24 Kelly, Commentary, 128 25 Leonhard Goppelt, A Commentary on I Peter, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1978) 219 26 Marshall, I Peter, 104 27 Kelly, Commentary, 132 28 Vine, Vines Dictionary, 1216 29 Robert L. Hamblin, Triumphant Strangers: A Contemporary Look at First Peter, (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1982) 83-84.

his weakness which enables Gods power to work through him. Paul further uses weak in relationship to those Believers with a weak conscience, as in the case of meat offered to idols. The LXX uses astheneia to refer to Leahs weak eyes, and in comparison to the strength or weakness of people socially and politically.30 Similarly, the husbands consideration of being (fellow) joint-heirs (sunkleronomoi) of eternal life should motivate him to be considerate and respectful of his wifes weakness. Although equality should be voluntarily submitted in the natural order of husbands and wives, government and citizens, servants and masters, it is restored in Jesus atoning work on the cross. Jesus appointed us as His heirs. We are not merely fellow heirs with Him, but also fellow heirs with each other. The concept of inheritance has soteriological and eschatological dimensions, and is linked to Gods historical saving acts. The Old Testament usage varies from the concept of casting lots, of Israel possessing the land, that the Lord is the Levites inheritance, and fate of an individual.31 Grammar As an unlearned and ignorant (Acts 4:13) fisherman, it is unlikely Peter possessed the ability to pen the high Greek found in this epistle. Most likely, Silvanus acted as the amanuensis to bring the scholarly form to the heartfelt wisdom Peter expresses. Although Peter probably lacked the formal rabbinical training to scribe the letter, Peter brought the first-hand experience of walking with Jesus to his first epistle.32 The word submission is such a sticking point for contemporary audiences that additional evaluation through the grammatical structure can diffuse some of the controversy. The present tense of the verb hypotasso calls for an attitude (make it a continual practice) of willingness to be under the order established by God.33 As noted above, the verses from 2:11 to 3:12 are a unit with the same theme, which is indicated by the construction and usage of submission through out the section. The participle is, like the usage of submission in 2:18, circumstantial in that it describes circumstances associated with the theme of submission found in these verses and throughout the book.34 The opening words of 3:1, likewise or in the same way do not equate submissiveness due from wives toward their husbands as that expected from
30 31 32 33 34

Verbrugge, New International Dictionary, 76-77 Verbrugge, New International Dictionary, 307 William MacDonald, Believers Bible Commentary (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995) 2247-8 Thomas L. Constable, Dr. Constables Notes on 1 Peter, (Sonic Light, 2010) 37 Barth L. Campbell, Honor, Shame, and the Rhetoric of 1 Peter (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998) 147

slaves (2:18). Instead, as also seen in 3:7 the Greek adverb (homoios) connects back to 2:13, and implies that the patriarchal principle of subordination of the wife to her husband is not a matter of human convention but Gods established order.35 The word weaker is the comparative form of the adjective weak. The husband is weak, and wife the weaker partner. The fact is that we are all walking in weakness, liable to failure and error on every hand, and we should show the utmost consideration to one another.36 The two participles in 3:7 both point to facts, because also fellow heirs. While she is a weaker vessel, every Christian wife is also an heir of Gods grace, and there is no difference positionally between the Christian wife and Christian husband. This participle also denotes continuance and asks the husbands to continue to dwell and continue to render honor. The nominative as also (being) joint heirs simply states the fact and implies that, as the Christian husbands are heirs, so their Christian wives are heirs with them.37 Interpretive Problem The call for wives to submit, as to all others addressed in 1 Peter 3:1-7, is for evangelistic purposes. Its missionary aspect is at the same time its overall point of view, as with other domestic codes in the New Testament (Col. 3:18, Eph. 5:22).38 The two sides of the debate over this passage and other domestic codes in the New Testament are the egalitarians versus the complementarians. Egalitarians believe that women and men are equal in all ways, except for specific biological differences, but there should be no social hierarchy between the genders. The egalitarian view is not secular feminism, and considers the gender roles in light of Scripture. The complementarian view contains various camps from traditionalists to almost egalitarian. The complementarians see men and women as equal in sharing the image of God, but say that God ordained men to lead in the marriage role, to hold the senior or all leadership roles in the church, and depending on how conservative, to lead exclusively in other spheres of life. The passage studied deals only with roles in marriage, so this discussion will focus only on the husband and wife relationship. In light of the tone and theme of the entire epistle, the specific passage of 3:1-7 should not be viewed as such a hot potato issue, or egalitarian versus complementarian. As the literary
35 36

Kelly, A Commentary on Peter, 127. Tom Westwood, The Epistles of Peter, (Glendale: Bedrock Press, 1953) 100. 37 R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John, and St. Jude (Columbus: Wartburg Press, 1945) 139-40 38 Goppelt, A Commentary on I Peter, 217.

analysis reveals and in other New Testament domestic codes, the one clear purpose statement within the submission lists is that of evangelism and Christian mission.39 Despite the larger context and theme of 1 Peter, the selected passage gets miss used in order to validate the position of either side. As expressed in the lexical analysis, the words submission and weakness spark controversy. Egalitarians perceive that submission assumes the belief that women are inferior to men, or that women can never express any ideas of their own or develop their God given talents and abilities.40 Add to this the word weakness in light of the feminist movement, the limitation on outward adornment (v.3), the reference to Sarah calling Abraham lord (vv. 5-6), the number of verses addressed to women versus men, and Peter appears as a chauvinist. Complementarians could counter that Peter speaks of the relationship of wives to their husbands, not the relationship of women to men generically. He said "your own husbands." The wife has a special relationship to her husband in that she "belongs" to him, which is not true of the relationship of all women to all men generally. Neither was he addressing only wives with unsaved husbands, as is clear from the clause "if any of them do not believe.41 Also consider in light of the historical-cultural analysis that submission must be distinguished from unquestioning obedience. The very fact that these women refuse to maintain the religion of their husbands sets them off as highly insubordinate.42 Besides the counter-cultural perspective of women seen in this passage, it also radically redefines the authority husbands retain. The husbands God-given authority is not one of privilege but of responsibility.43 Both sides of the debate consider which of the components of scripture are cultural and which are transcultural. The liberal complementarian argument addresses Sarah calling Abraham lord. In any Western culture today a woman calling her spouse lord would possibly violate the transcultural application of this passage. The underlying principle of showing respect to authority is to win over the person to Christ. A literal application of the Scripture can actually undermine the efforts to win over the unbelieving husband.44 If an American woman interpreted this passage to mean she should wear frumpy clothes, no jewelry or makeup, and to call her
39 40

Webb, Slaves, 106 Dorthy McGuire, Submission: Are There Limits? (Denver: Tri-R Ministries, 1984) 3 41 Constable, Notes, 37 42 James R. Beck, ed., Two Views on Women in Ministry, Craig L. Bloomberg, A Complementarian Perspective (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001) 176 43 Ibid, 174 44 Webb, Women, 105-108

10

husband lord, he may view her faith as a cult and divorce her quickly. Then the intended application of the passage would be lost along with the husbands soul. The egalitarian view asks of the complementarians who do believe that women are equal, and yet see the Bible as restricting leadership to men, Why would God mandate that pattern forever?45 Society has shifted to egalitarianism (secular feminism), and there is no longer a rationale for women to remain in the culturally expected role of dependence and submission. The view is that Christians are lagging behind society by maintaining a submissive role for women.46 Either view seems to miss the big picture of Scripture, which is the story of Christ, not a manual for proving ones doctrine. The cultural interpretation must always fall under the transcultural one. Moral and religious expectations for wives and husbands remain valid throughout time. Accordingly, v. 7 sets the understanding of marriage that comes from a Christian perspective of the natural and historical paradigms, alongside the view of marriage that arises from the eschatological viewpoint that he gives her honor and they are joint-heirs of the gift of eternal life.47 The liberal complementarian view offers the best perspective. Women were made equal with men. They share equally in the eternal inheritance. Women may hold leadership roles in any sphere, except in the top leadership position of a church. In the home, despite her equal or even greater abilities, the wife needs to give way to the husbands leadership. In return, men need to lead with love while continuing to submit to Gods authority. Outline Theme: Wives and husbands respect each other. (1 Peter 3:1-7) I. Wives behave humbly toward your husbands (1-2)
A. Submit to him specifically (1a)

B. Even if he is not a Christian (1b) C. Win him over with your humility (1c) D. Your purity and reverence speaks volumes (2)
II. Do not focus on the outward appearance to influence your husband (3-4)

A. Do not obsess about your hair, jewelry, and clothes (3) B. Get dressed with an internal beauty (4a)
45

John G. Stackhouse, jr, Finally Feminist: A Pragmatic Christian Understanding of Gender (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005) 73 46 Ibid. 47 Leonhard Goppelt, A Commentary on I Peter, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1978) 227

11

C. A gentle and quiet spirit can not be stolen (4b) D. God treasures this heart-beauty (4c) III. Your examples to learn from (5-6) A. The matriarchs of the faith made themselves beautiful by their right attitudes (5a) B. They put their faith in God (5b) C. And they accepted the authority of their husbands (5c) D. Sarah obeyed Abraham (6a) E. Even called him master (6b) F. You share in her inheritance when you do what is right (6a)
G. But do what is right toward God, not fearing your husband (6b)

IV. A word to the husbands (7)

A. Show the wife respect in the same way (7a)

B. Understand her ways in your domestic life (7b) C. Respect that she is weaker in a way, and to be treasured (7c)
D. You are joint-heirs of eternal life (7d)

E. Treat her right so your relationship with God is not hindered (7e) Interpretive Summary In this passage of the epistle, Peter simply directs the Christian woman to do what lies in her control to do- be a good wife. The command to be submissive suggests that the vision of freedom reveled in Christ and the new faith resulted in restlessness among the married women. Ideas of emancipation from a rigid patriarchal society must have empowered women to revolt against servitude. Despite the cultural shifts introduced by Christ and His followers, particularly regarding women, the custom of the time expected that a wife show submission to her husband. Normally she would adopt his religion. This put converted wives in a difficult situation. The command to submit sounds strange to Western readers, but to Peters immediate audiecnce it was normative. He establishes some boundaries for the new Church culture that claims that there is neither male nor female. This call to submission refers to the wifes husband, whether a Believer or not, but does not mean the wife must show the same submission to all men. The central purpose of a humble submissive attitude is to loving express to and convince the unbelieving husband that the gospel

12

brings unity. Even without words, the pure and reverent wife can positively influence the unbelieving husband. The purity refers to sexual morality and the reverence is directed toward God. Peter then confronts women about how they try to win over their husbands. He challenges them to not express their beauty through fancy hairstyles, high priced jewelry, and elaborate clothes. Because Peter addresses both rich and poor in these congregations, he targets the rich church members to not focus on outward adornment, but to redirect their focus to that of the inner self. Developing a beautiful character will not fade, the way outward beauty does. God finds great value in adorning the heart with the incorruptible and unfading beauty of a gentle and gracious spirit. The matriarchs of the faith set good examples for Peters audience and for Christians today. These holy women adorned themselves with the same beautiful godly spirit of humility and submission. Sarah is a great example. She submitted herself to her husband Abraham, acknowledging his headship over her. Any married woman who ever lives out this same humble and submissive attitude becomes a daughter (inherently sharing) of Sarah. Although called to be humble and submissive, the wife is not to give way to fear. This means the believing wife needs to honor God more than her husband, particularly if the husband wants her to do anything against Gods will. Peter than shifts his attention to the husbands, particularly the Christian ones. Just as wives are called to show humility, respect, and live pure lives focused on strengthening character, so husbands must treat wives with honor and extra caring. In a complete reversal of the patria potestas husbands are instructed to put the wifes physical, emotional, intellectual, and spiritual needs before his. The consideration that a wife is weaker means that she faces a higher degree of vulnerability in society. Her raw physical strength is usually less than mans, so the husband needs to show the proper care with this in mind. Primarily, men and women are completely equal in receiving the gracious gift of salvation. God made us to reflect His image equally and to equally share in eternal life through Christ. A living relationship with God depends on right relations with other people. Both husbands and wives can block communication with God by not showing mutual submission and respect. This passage contains a few vital theological concepts. The theological principles are seen in the broader context of the letter and reflected in 3:1-7. Verses 1:3-5 of the epistle lay out

13

the salvation message, that by Gods mercy Believers receive new birth into an imperishable inheritance. The epistle also reveals soteriologic principles seen in humble submission to those in authority. The Believer must first accept the sovereign rule of God; come under His authority. Verses 3:1-7 reflect this soteriological principle. To the wife specifically, her submissive behavior can lead to the salvation of the unbelieving husband. The concept of mutual inheritance seen in v. 7 reveals the soteriology that salvation is available to both genders, and ultimately to all peoples of the world. Also, this salvation is future and yet present (already/not yet).48 The mutual inheritance concept also points to eschatological principles. Late in 4:7-11, Peter mentions that the end is near. Submissive behavior is important to lead to salvation, because no one knows when Christ will return. The idea of possessing the promised land passes beyond its first fulfillment in history to its later historical fulfillment in Christ and beyond that to the future final fulfillment at the end of time. The essential thought and usage throughout the New Testament is that of inheriting the promise to which Believers are called.49 The call to submission for wives offers a vital Christology. Christs submission to the Fathers headship and the mans submission to Christs headship reveal the transcultural relevance of a wifes submission to her husband.50 Wives reflect Christ when they humbly and lovingly submit to the husbands authority. The husband reflects Christ when he shows deference for the wife. Application Whether a wife, husband, or unmarried this passage holds bearing on our everyday lives. For the unmarried, the larger context is applicable to live and interact with all people from an attitude of submission and looking for evangelistic opportunities. As a husband, I see my need to take this verse more to heart. Most of the verses in 1 Peter 3:1-7 speak to wives, but as a complementarian view would attribute, the end responsibility rests with the husband. Just as with Adam and Eve, he bore the responsibility in his headship, because he remained passive when Eve was tempted. Similarly, Abraham did not take authority when Sarah intervened with her method to fulfill the Promise through human means instead of waiting on Gods timing. Abraham did not step into his authoritative role, which created thousands of years of enmity between the descendants of Ishmael and Isaac.
48 49 50

Verbrugge, New International Dictionary, 307 Ibid, 308-9. Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce Demarest, Integrative Theology, Vol 2. (Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1990) 140

14

In our home, my wife and I have learned to consult about finances. I manage the finances. She calls me from the store to ask about the account regarding unusual expenses. Likewise, I consult with her regarding certain expenses. Our tithe is the most important area for collaborating as a couple. We have some ministries we give to regularly, but occasionally individually we will hear the Lord tell us to give to someone outside of the usual groups. One time I had cash in my pocket after selling a used car. While at Seminary I saw a friend from a class. I was lead to give him some money. Later, I told my wife I did so. Sometimes during offering, my wife will open her wallet and give all her cash. In these situations we can individually make a decision to give, because we have an agreement and understanding about tithing. My wife and I discuss family matters by seeking to understand each others position, and to hear directly from God with individual and family prayer time. Because we first come under Gods authority, and believe in mutual submission, we can make decisions independently that influence the household. The other night we were in a special service. I asked my wife how much to give. She said I should choose because I know how much is in the accounts. I wanted to hear a number from her. She said a number much more than I was thinking. Usually I am lead to give more than she. I ended up going with the number she said, because I wanted to know her heart on the matter. Over the years I have learned to consult with my wife, make sure I understand her position, and to weigh her opinion equally against mine if they differ. In raising our son we seek mutual submission to each others opinion. In this specific aspect I do expect her to acknowledge my headship within the family. If I make a poor discipline choose toward my son I expect my wife not to contradict me in front of him. She can tell me later if I was wrong. As 1 Peter 3:1-7 shows us, taking an attitude of humility and mutual submission is essential for a happy life, and to live as an example of Christ for any person in any situation. The submission principle is particularly difficult to live out in a self-focused and personal-rights based culture. The submission principle is not just a call to women or those in subservient roles, but to any person who seeks to live for God. Mutual submission is how we reflect Christ and show the world that Christians are different and offering truth for eternal salvation.

15

Bibliography Balch, David L. Let Wives Be Submissive: The Domestic Code in I Peter. Chico: Scholars Press, 1982 Beck, James R., ed., Two Views on Women in Ministry. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001. By Craig L. Bloomberg, A Complementarian Perspective. Blaiklock, E.M. First Peter: A Translation and Devotional Commentary. Waco: Word Books, 1977 Brown, Lesley., ed. The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary: Vol. 2 N-Z, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993. Campbell, Barth L. Honor, Shame, and the Rhetoric of 1 Peter. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. Constable, Thomas L. Dr. Constables Notes on 1 Peter. Sonic Light, 2010. Goppelt, Leonhard. A Commentary on I Peter. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1978. Hamblin, Robert L. Triumphant Strangers: A Contemporary Look at First Peter, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1982. Kelly, J.N.D. A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1969. Lenski, R.C.H. The Interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John, and St. Jude. Columbus: Wartburg Press, 1945. Lewis, Gordon R. and Bruce Demarest. Integrative Theology, Vol 2. Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1990. MacDonald, William. Believers Bible Commentary. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995. Marshall, Howard. The IVP New Testament Commentary Series: I Peter, Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1991. McGuire, Dorthy. Submission: Are There Limits? Denver: Tri-R Ministries, 1984. Newman, Albert Henry. A Manual of Church History: Vol. I. Philadelphia: The Judson Press, 1933.

16

Packer, J.I. and Tenney, M.C. eds., Illustrated Manners and Customs of the Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1980. Rees, Paul S. Triumphant in Trouble: Studies in I Peter. Westwood: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1962. Slaughter, James R. Submission of Wives (1 Pet. 3:1a) in the Context of 1 Peter Bibliotheca Sacra Vol.153, Jan-Mar. (1996): 70 Stackhouse, John G. jr. Finally Feminist: A Pragmatic Christian Understanding of Gender. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005. Swindoll, Charles R. Hope Again. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1996) 102. The Holy Bible, New International Version, NIV Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc. Thomas, Robert L., ed. New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 1981. Verbrugge, Verlyn D., ed. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology: Abridged Edition. pp. 584, 306-7 Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000. Vine,W.E. Vines Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997. Webb, William J. Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2001. Westwood, Tom. The Epistles of Peter. Glendale: Bedrock Press, 1953. Wiersbe, Warren W. Wiersbe. The Transformational Study Bible. Colorado Springs: David Cook Publishing, 2009.

17