1 Peter 3:1–7

Peter 3:1–7

1WIVES, IN THE same way be submissive to your 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, 2when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. 4Instead, 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. 5For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, 6like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.

7Husbands, 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.

Original Meaning

Exhortation to Wives (3:1–6)

The Exhortation to Submit (3:1–2). As with the other units in this section,1 the exhortation to submit in 3:1a is part of a larger pattern: living a holy life before unbelievers with the hope that such conduct will have a positive impact on them. The exhortation to “be submissive” draws its energy from 2:13. Christian women, like Christian slaves, when they find themselves with a non-Christian husband, are to partake of the same ethic that Christians ought always to have: Live under all the orders of the day (2:13).

As with 2:18–25 on slaves, so with this passage—we must beware of the problem of hearing a passage today in a way that was never intended. To begin with, because of the dominance of men in the history of the church and the patriarchal-hierarchical nature of culture in the greater part of the world, we must admit that great abuses have taken place and have led many to see in this passage some kind of moral subjugation of women by men.2 While I do not want to pretend that “submission” did not really mean some kind of respectful deference to authority, neither should we go to the other extreme and think this text says nothing about the relationship of wives to husbands. Parallels with the relationship of the Christians to Roman authority and slaves to their masters have to be recognized: Peter sees an importance in wives “living under the order of their husbands.” Our problem here is with the fundamental abuse this text has created in the hands of too many men who have forced their wives against their wills.

Accordingly, to begin with this text is to begin with a problem: We will never hear this text the way it was intended to be read, nor will we able to bring this text into our world, until we confess the abuses it has been made to serve. Many women do not hear this text in any other way than how it has been practiced by abusive men. Until we learn to understand how women have heard this text, we will never learn what our interpretations are leading people to do. This means that the place to begin is with the ancient world.

What was it like for women in the ancient world?3 There are two dimensions to the answer to this question: (1) The women Peter addresses are in Asia Minor where, it may be supposed, a Greco-Roman attitude toward women prevailed; (2) yet some of his converts presumably had a Jewish background, where a different attitude dominated.

In Jewish perspective, while women were respected and protected in the laws, they were treated as inferior in most every way to men. In the words of Ben Witherington, III,

The dominant impression left by our early Jewish sources is of a very patriarchal society that limited women’s roles and functions to the home, and severely restricted: (1) their rights of inheritance, (2) their choice of relationships, (3) their ability to pursue a religious education or fully participate in the synagogue, and (4) their freedom of movement.4

While it would be wrong to think that everything was bad for women in the Jewish world, it would not be wrong to think that their world was highly restrictive, patriarchal, and clearly debilitating to the development of their gifts.

Women in the Greco-Roman world, on the other hand, were in most cases better off. But what women could or could not do depended on location and culture. Wives of citizens in Athens, for example, had about as much freedom as Jewish women in Palestine (though for different reasons), while women in Asia Minor had much more opportunity to pursue their own interests. Women there “engaged in private businesses, served in public offices, and had prominent roles in various religious cults.”5 They were even able to vote and hold public office. Roman society in particular—and we can assume that over time such attitudes influenced Asia Minor—allowed more property rights for women, permitted greater leverage for women in marriage and divorce situations, and encouraged more education for women.

What all of this means for our text is simple: Peter is urging the women of the Asia Minor churches to live a life that is respectable in society so that they will be able to maintain a good reputation for the gospel. If women in Asia Minor had considerably more freedom than women under the influence of Jewish customs, then we must interpret Peter’s words in the former context. That will mean that “submission” here probably does not refer to the same kind of restrictions in society that such a concept meant in Palestine. Furthermore, it makes his injunction a more pragmatic one.6 That is, Peter wants wives to submit because of the influence (3:1b–2) they can exert on their non-Christian husbands. This is entirely consistent with his agenda at 2:11–12, that Christians live such holy lives so that nothing can be lodged against the gospel because of their behavior. Any insults they receive must be the result of injustice.

Accordingly, Peter’s injunction to Christian wives is that they conduct their lives so as to win7 their husbands to the Christian faith “without words.”8 That is, “in certain cases the eloquent silence of Christian deportment is its most effective vehicle.”9 As we saw above, Asia Minor permitted freedoms to women, including some kind of religious freedom; however, most scholars are agreed that when a woman struck out on her own and joined a religion different from her husband’s, that could be seen as an act of insubordination.10 Far from making what was probably a difficult situation worse, Peter exhorts these women to be especially circumspect. Thus, as Wolfgang Schrage contends, “the author … expects missionary success from Christian life, lived in the power of the Word and representing its reality—not with a zeal for conversion, but in the knowledge that one’s life is a form of proclamation, which can affirm or deny the authenticity of the gospel.”11

Development of the Reason (3:3–4). Having mentioned that women ought to have a life that is noted by “purity and reverence,” Peter develops this lifestyle issue further by delving into the matter of appearance. He contrasts external beauty with internal beauty. Every culture has its own ideas of external beauty for women. Today, for example, the “ideal woman” is tall and thin, shapely, dressed in the latest of fashions (which change by seasons), and full of zest and confidence. For Peter’s day, the image was that of the woman with “braided hair,” who wore “gold jewelry and fine clothes”12—comments that might indicate some of Peter’s churches contained women of wealth and standing.13 Peter’s critique here joins a long list of ancient writers who chastised women for their concern with appearance,14 including Paul (1 Tim. 2:9–10). Some have suggested that Peter’s comments here actually prohibit Christian women of all ages from braiding their hair and wearing jewelry and fancy clothing,15 but the majority see a comparison of values: External appearance is relatively unimportant, but internal virtue is the prime pursuit of life.16 Yet this interpretation ought not to lead to the view that Christian women can dress as they like; rather, Peter urges them to regard their external appearance as a secondary matter to personal beauty and to dissociate themselves from the cultural trend of that day to adorn themselves so as to attract attention.

The virtues Peter praises are “the unfading17 beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight.” The “quiet spirit” Peter enjoins here is that Christian wives avoid a cantankerous grumbling that would prevent a non-Christian husband from seeing God’s grace and goodness in her behavior.18 This expression, however, is not a virtue assigned in the early churches exclusively to women: in fact, this “nonviolent disposition” was characteristic of the early church in general and is but one example of “living under the order” of the day.19 Such a beauty emerges from “your inner self,” the hidden person, a person who has been transformed from the inside out by God’s Spirit.20 Such virtues are pleasing to God and have a powerful impact on unbelieving husbands.21

Examples of Good Behavior (3:5–6). Peter now legitimates his instructions to Christian wives about their good behavior by appealing to “the holy women of the past.” What is noticeable here is that Peter extends the instruction to include women who had believing husbands, showing that his instructions to submit are not just some pragmatic expedient.22

Bridging Contexts

SOME THINGS ABOUT men and women apparently do not change: Just as men in the ancient world had a tendency to be demanding, both sexually and emotionally, so also today; and just as women had a tendency to desire compliments for appearance, so also today. Furthermore, although great strides have been made in the development of physical strength through today’s culture of physical training, it remains a fact of physical nature that women are physically weaker than men. And it also remains a tragic fact that men love to assert their strength and overpower women. In these traits of human nature, there is little change.

But many other features about men and women have changed since the first century, most notably in society’s perception of how the marriage relationship is to work itself out. Just arguing that the term “submission” (or translating it “living under/according to the order,” in order to take modern sensitivities into consideration) is a legitimate word to describe the relationship of a wife to her husband can make many readers hyperventilate. But it is in such a context that we must apply this text today.31 I am aware that some women appreciate this term today and dutifully submit to the authority of their husbands; but I am also aware that this is not the case with the majority. Some interpreters might want to spend time castigating the majority as living with less than God’s will. But I will not, because I believe times have changed, the culture has changed, and it is ours to relate the gospel to our modern world.

How, then, do we bring this matter into our day? First, as with the meaning of the term at 2:13 and 2:18, I do not believe “submission” here means always “living under the order of one’s husband.” It is obvious that the Christian woman who is married to a non-Christian man should not deny the Lord or refuse to associate with other Christians for the sake of submitting to her husband; such would be to make her husband tantamount to God. And note how Abraham at times was instructed to act (Gen. 21:10–13). No matter how one understands this category, there are times for “civil disobedience” for the Christian wife. Just as civil disobedience is necessary at times for the Christian in society (2:13–17), and just as it is necessary for the worker to buck heads with his or her boss, so it is sometimes necessary for the wife to take umbrage with her husband, whether he is a Christian or not.

Second, if we have understood the ancient context properly, Peter is saying that Christians have an obligation to live “under the order,” whatever order that may be, so as to maintain a credible witness. Living “under the order” always involves some kind of submissiveness. If this is the case, we have to examine carefully what the “orders” are today, so that we will know what kind of behavior is expected. There is little doubt that the “orders” have changed from a hierarchical to more of an egalitarian view; if this is the case, then changes of “living under the order” will follow.

To be sure, Peter justifies this orderliness on the basis of other godly women behaving in this manner (3:5–6) and not just on the basis of an expediency. In addition, we must also be prepared to admit that those “older women” lived in the same kind of environment. On the other hand, we must admit that they did so as one covenant member to another, not as a believer to an unbeliever so as to be a witness to God’s grace. Furthermore, in the wider sweep of the New Testament, Paul’s justification of submission is anchored in other themes (for example, Christ’s relationship to the church, creation).32 However, I am still of the view that both Peter’s and Paul’s prescriptions for a culturally relevant dress here are firmly anchored into a specific period of history and that the views of that culture helped shape each of their minds. Our culture has changed so dramatically that we have to think through this issue to discern how we are to apply such teachings to our world. To think that a one-to-one correspondence obtains for today would be a tragic (and completely unworkable) mistake.

One specific point we can make is that the principle of living for the sake of the gospel is transcultural. Thus, it would be wrong for a Christian woman to give the wrong impression of the nature of the gospel to her unbelieving spouse (and vice versa) by acting in a manner inconsistent with their marriage contract. This is where Peter’s focus is—with how believing wives relate to their unbelieving husbands. The wives must be beyond reproach, loving, and serving—so much so that their husbands will be won to the faith by their behavior. Christian women ought to be concerned with the kinds of obligations that are perceived by our society and with what is assumed in the marriage contract. For the sake of the gospel, these conventions ought not to be flaunted. Just as a mother who does not take proper care of her children receives deserved criticism in our culture, so also does the woman who shows no respect for her husband.

Furthermore, it is my firm conviction that we have placed the wrong emphasis on the word “submission”; we have also been preoccupied with “what we can do” and “what our rights are,” whereas the biblical injunction is that the wife ought to give her life to her husband, “to serve and cherish him,” and the husband ought to lay down his life for his wife.33 Thus, when the Christian wife is seeking to love her husband with her whole being and the husband is seeking to love his wife with his whole being, the issue of submission never emerges. If the Christian husband resorts to demanding sexual satisfaction, he is not considering his wife’s needs; if the Christian woman refuses to go along with her husband, she may not be considering her husband’s needs. In each of these cases, to apply the “doctrine of submission” is to focus entirely on the wrong thing. The focus of biblical marriage is on love and service of one another.

In Cloud and Townsend’s insightful book Boundaries, they come to the following conclusion:

We have never seen a “submission problem” that did not have a controlling husband at its root. When the wife begins to set clear boundaries, the lack of Christlikeness in a controlling husband becomes evident because the wife is no longer enabling his immature behavior. She is confronting the truth and setting biblical limits on hurtful behavior. Often, when the wife sets boundaries, the husband begins to grow up.34

What these two authors are saying is that focusing on submission is almost surely an indicator that one’s priorities are messed up. Husbands too frequently resort to demanding submission when they are unable to “get their way”; that indicates selfishness, not loving and devoted service to one’s wife (which is the way Christ loved the church). What the husband ought to be saying to himself is, “Why do I have to use force to get this done?” Often he has decided that his own desires and ideas have to be fulfilled and that his wife’s do not matter. Such behavior is not loving. Marriages that are full of love, respect, and honor rarely, I believe, need to resort to the issue of submission.

Perhaps discussing an issue in my relationship to Kris, my wife, will illuminate what Cloud and Townsend mean by boundaries and how they work themselves out in the issue of submission. I am a spontaneous type; my wife is not. I have learned over the years that major decisions around our home require time because Kris needs to process such decisions for a while. Often time will cure my “spontaneous urges”; on other occasions it will enable Kris to make the decision the way she likes to make them. Rarely do we disagree if time has been given for the decision; we do, however, disagree if I demand some spontaneous decision with significant implications for our life together.

One of my students illustrates this perfectly. He told me, rather humorously, that he had an old Volkswagen that had been sitting in our seminary parking lot, rusting and rotting there for two years. “Why?” I asked. He responded, “Because my wife was not ready to part with her dear old VW.” He also told me that she was now ready to “cut the cord.” I appreciated his sensitivity to her boundary line: She simply was not ready to make that decision, and he was respectful of that view. Someone might argue that she should have been submissive; I think my student was right and was “living with his wife considerately.” Had he pushed forward in the name of submission, he may have done irreparable harm to his marriage. Good for him!

Before bringing this text into our modern world, we must also address the issue of how such a practice (submission) is to be understood within a larger unfolding theme in the Bible, namely, the equality of the sexes in Christ (Gal. 3:28). Few will squabble with me when I contend that the Bible sowed the seeds that eventually grew into the doctrine of the total inappropriateness of slavery, even if the Bible itself permitted and accommodated itself to such a practice in the ancient world. I maintain likewise that the biblical notion of equality has given rise to the modern notion of the equality of all people, and in particular to the equality of the sexes in the church.

After surveying briefly the teaching that submission is rooted in the fall of humans into sin and that Paul teaches the equality of the sexes in Christ, I. H. Marshall concludes that “this teaching clearly shows that the effect of the Fall are undone in the new creation that is manifested in the Church.”35 And K. R. Snodgrass, at the end of an exposition of Galatians 3:28, concludes: “If God has poured out his Spirit on both the sons and the daughters (Acts 2:17ff.), it will not do for us to erect a modern-day ‘court of women’ for our churches.36

I agree with this approach in the main: The seeds of equality have grown so high that the earlier plants of hierarchy are not as visible. This is why I. H. Marshall can argue that “the command here [1 Peter 3:1] may be transcended in a Christian marriage.”37 He further adds, “Submission in marriage was the type of moral conduct required at the time, certainly by Jews and also by many Gentiles. Christians were to live at least at that level.”38 What he means by “at least at that level” is what he means by “transcending”: Christian wives who truly love their husbands in the way Jesus exhorted them to love and in the way Paul exhorts them to love will be more than submissive. They will be so loving that the term “submission” can hardly describe their relationship.

One time I was in a car with a well-known evangelical scholar, and we were discussing our wives. The conversation eventually flowed into the matter of submission, partly out of curiosity to what we each believed. A statement he made illustrates the previous paragraph: “I believe in a wife submitting to her husband, but I don’t believe the husband ever has the right to demand it. In fact, I know that when I am worthy of submission, my wife submits; and when I am unworthy of it, she does not.” His final words send up all the fireworks: “My responsibility as a husband is to be worthy.” That is the point! When a husband focuses on submission and the wife worries about it, the image of marriage is distorted. But when each focuses on the mutual responsibility to love and serve one another, the image of marriage is clear and beautiful.39

In our previous paragraphs the issue of feminism has been vying for discussion. This, then, is a good place to survey how modern feminists, and some of their opponents, interpret Scripture.40 Feminist hermeneutics describes how the various branches of the modern-day feminist movement interpret the Bible and examines the various ways that movement seeks to apply (or deny) the relevance of the biblical text. Radical feminist hermeneutics is suspicious of the text, ultimately repudiating the revelatory value of the text in many (if not all) of its dimensions because of an ideological agenda that drives the interests of the interpreter. Such interpreters see a chauvinistic world inherent in a text that is ultimately used in manipulating and subjugating women. The appeal to Sarah in our text, it is argued, is because she legitimates male dominance. The text for these interpreters has no value except to point to error.

Liberal feminist hermeneutics tones down some of the starker proposals of the radical feminists. Here there is a desire to retrieve what is good, even if heavily suppressed, in the ancient text, while there is also a clear decision to reject what is unacceptable to modern feminist experience and ideology. While the text is clearly influenced by a hierarchical and patriarchal world, there are features of that text that can be sustained across the centuries.

Within the orbit of evangelicalism, an evangelical feminist hermeneutic argues for a hermeneutic of understanding that is both socio-critical with respect to the text as well as mildly submissive to the text. This approach sees the text of 1 Peter 3:1–6 as a text for its time, accommodated to its cultural context. While it is not a chauvinistic act of manipulation, it is still heavily dominated by a male culture, and to that degree it must be reconstructed or altered. In other words, the text must be understood in its own terms, decoded, and then restructured to speak to modern women. While one might wonder if the text is allowed here to speak for itself, it should be pointed out that there is a living dialectic in this movement between the authority of the text and the modern world, creating what is clearly a living synthesis of how Christians ought to understand the Bible.

Finally, the hermeneutic of many conservatives is one of tradition. The text is timeless; a patriarchal world is what God intends, and women are to be submissive to the divinely ordained order, which has men as God’s appointed heads of authority. To be sure, there are abuses, but in the main the cultural changes we find today are inconsistent with biblical notions and therefore ought to be criticized. The key for this approach to our text (and other texts of the same ilk) is to understand it and apply it, though a minimal amount of restructuring may be necessary.

It is impossible for me to evaluate each of these methods here, nor is it necessary. The alternatives for evangelical scholars nearly always fall into the latter two camps: evangelical feminism or traditionalism. To the degree that one believes the text must be updated, to that degree the interpreter is feminist in orientation. However, rather than be labeled in this camp, I urge that each interpreter look long and hard at his or her own principles and see if consistency is achieved in the process of interpretation. It will simply not do for someone to dismiss slavery as outmoded, or to contend for civil disobedience to governmental authorities, or to argue for some kind of “Mr. Mom” theory, and then not be consistent in permitting to women the same freedom and change of application. Nor is it fair to argue without substantial reasoning for some things being cultural (like wearing jewelry or fancy clothing) and other things being transcultural. Above all, we must be both biblically anchored and culturally reasonable if we are to let the gospel have its way of power today.

Contemporary Significance

TRAGICALLY, WHILE MODERN society has made great strides in the direction of equality of all peoples, men have remained behind the times in learning how to love their wives respectfully and treat women appropriately. Too frequently interpreters have become so preoccupied with the verses about women that they have neglected the impact Peter’s exhortation to men ought to have on our world. But the words of Peter to husbands are highly relevant; therefore, I will devote my attention here to those words.41

There are, in the United States alone, around sixty thousand reported cases of rape a year, not to mention many more that are left unreported. That there are between three to six million women per year who are victims of some form of physical violence in their homes staggers the imagination. In addition, it is women (or the elderly) who are the favorite targets of robbery and assault. In each of these kinds of sinful, social deviance, the prominent issue is a violent act by a man who takes advantage of a woman because of his superior strength. In my judgment, the most blatant and pervasive form of men using violence against women is at the emotional and mental level—husbands intimidating, threatening, and manipulating their wives in countless ways. Anger is the foundation of it all; angry men at home may be the biggest problem in our society, however they appear in the public square. This problem of anger-induced violence, or violence against women in general, is not just found among non-Christians. The typical pastor sees over a dozen persons per year who are involved in family violence.42

Against each of these acts of violence the words of Peter could be cited. Some (too many) men, for whatever reason,43 try to strengthen their own egos by bully behavior and refuse to live within the limitations of their own inadequacies. Instead of living with the tension created by their inability to persuade or their inability to love or feel loved, they resort to violent activity targeted for a vulnerable woman. When the wife has small children, she becomes doubly addicted to staying with the abusive man: She both loves him (in spite of his violence) and loves her children. Furthermore, acts of violence against wives are often followed by some form of remorse, guilt, and apology, leading the wife to think things will get better. But the man will only change when he becomes convinced that the wife will no longer tolerate his abuse. Total separation is about the only hope for the wife and nearly the only form of communication that can get through to the husband. In some cases, the cycle of violence can be broken and restoration can take place.44

When violence takes place in a Christian home, it is sickening, both because of what happens to the wife (and children) but also because of the negative social implications it has for the impact of the gospel. Pastors, Sunday school teachers, parents, and Christian media need to devote large amounts of time and space to the instruction of boys and young men, not to mention adult men, in order to inform them of the hideousness of acts of violence against women and to guide them through and out of any feelings of violence or assaults of women. The church may pretend that acts of violence do not take place within its walls, but they do; and the church has this small word of Peter regarding any kind of violence against wives, daughters, and women.

Peter’s advice is rooted in the notion that Christian husbands need to understand their wives.45 To be sure, wives need to understand their husbands as much as husbands need to understand their wives, but we are not talking here about what women need to understand. Husbands need not only a crash course46 in understanding their wives, but they need to become lifelong learners of them because, just as husbands change over the years, so also do wives. Gary Smalley’s conclusion is as humorous as it is helpful:

I would venture to say that most marital difficulties center around one fact—men and women are TOTALLY different. The differences (emotional, mental, and physical) are so extreme that without a concentrated effort to understand them, it is nearly impossible to have a happy marriage. A famous psychiatrist once said, “After thirty years of studying women, I ask myself, ‘What is it that they really want?’ ” If this was his conclusion, just imagine how little we know about our wives.47

It would be foolish for me to think I could sketch here a “view of women,” but I do think that my experience of over twenty years of marriage to a wonderful (and challenging!) woman, my experience in studying the Bible, and my reading about marriage entitle me to a couple pieces of advice. Truly, no marriage is perfect because, as sinners, we all have personal problems that prevent us from being all that we could and should be to our mates. But that is no basis for excuse-making, nor is it any reason to avoid working hard at being a good husband.

First, I believe that wives want a husband who is loving, caring, sensitive, and understanding. Men may strut around thinking that what a woman wants is a strong man, a hulk, or a successful man who drives fancy cars and wears flashy suits; but when the doors are shut in the house, those things disappear into a mist. What remains is a desire by a woman to have a husband that understands her and loves her. A wife responds to a husband who showers all of his attention on her all the time, not just when he wants something. A wife wants a husband who calls her during the day to tell her an important piece of news because he can’t wait to share it with her—because she is his best friend. A wife wants a husband who listens to her, really listens and learns in each conversation just what she is saying. In other words, a woman wants to be “number one” to her husband (just as a husband wants to be “number one” to his wife). A good test here might be that you imaginatively eliminate your wife’s last birthday, the last Christmas, and your last anniversary, and ask yourself, “Are there any other special days during the year that I showered her with my love?” If not, you have much to learn about what it means to make your wife number one, to show her your love and affection, to show her that you care.48

Second, I believe that a wife wants a husband who is respectable and worthy of honor. Men are powerful at work and weak at home; men are famous in the public square but unauthoritative in the home. The reason for such a dramatic shift is that the wife knows what her husband is “really like,” and there is no pretense inside the home. What a woman wants is a man who is consistent and therefore respectable, a man who lives his life with personal integrity in such a manner that he is justly “famous in his living room” as well as at work.

Perhaps it is because I have been married to a psychologist for so long, but I rarely trust the “public image” of professional athletes, those who are in the media, or those whom we see often in public (at work, at school, etc.). What I like to know is, “What are they really like at home?” When we hear of the breakdown of marriages of people in the public eye, we are usually confronted with the obvious problem of someone whose public persona is quite different from the private reality (call it “hypocrisy,” if you want). Wives know these things, and what our wives want from us is integrity—and that means being who we are wherever we are. In other words, that means extending our private lives into the public, not creating two different personas.

I could go on about the implications of Peter’s advice to husbands to be considerate in their relationship with their wives. The above two pieces of advice only begin to illustrate what it means to “live with our wives knowledgeably.” Other points could be made, involving such things as leadership, responsibility, planning, caring for children, and taking time for vacations. But they will only strengthen the observations about what wives want from their husbands. If I go much further, my wife will have me cornered for the rest of my life.

Socially, those who believe men need to treat women considerately and kindly and who also believe, with Peter, that violence against women is morally despicable, need to agitate for stiffer punishment for those who abuse women. It is a blot against our society that abusive men—men who have raped women, who have had incestuous relations, and who have beaten women—can be sentenced and then freed all too quickly, only to commit the same or worse crimes. As Christians, we ought to speak vocally against light punishments and to argue instead for “truth in sentencing.” We ought to write to our public leaders and express our outrage about leniency for violent crimes. Furthermore, we ought to elect judges who take a stand against violence against women, just as we ought to protest against judges who are lenient with violent husbands and fathers.49

Original Meaning

Exhortation to Husbands (3:7)

HAVING ADDRESSED THE wives of unbelieving husbands, Peter now addresses Christian husbands. He assumes that their wives are Christians too, so his exhortation to them moves in a different direction. Inasmuch as his exhortation to them to “be considerate” borrows its force from the verb of 2:13,23 it is best to see here a specific kind of “living under the order” for husbands, a kind of submission,24 yet distinct from it.25 The order for Christian husbands is one of being considerate—literally, of “living with one’s wife knowledgeably.”26 The verb synoikeo (“living together”) was especially used for sexual relations between husband and wife (Deut. 22:13; 24:1; 25:5), and that is no doubt the intended meaning here, though obviously not limited to that.27 The Christian man, Peter says, is neither demanding nor selfish in his sexual and marital relations; he is instead considerate, sensitive, and serving.

The reason the Christian husband must be especially considerate in these relations is because his wife is “the weaker partner.”28 This expression has given rise to two major interpretations: physical weakness, and spiritual weakness. Inasmuch as the preponderance of evidence in the ancient world uses identical or similar language when describing a woman’s physical condition, it is almost certain that Peter has in mind a wife’s physical capacities.29

Peter largely repeats himself in the second clause of 3:7: Christian men are to “treat [your wives] with respect,” inasmuch as they are “heirs with you of the gracious gift of life.” Here again Peter participates in the early Christian tendency to elevate the position of women in society; they are seen as fellow heirs.30 Twice in this verse he forms a compound verb in his incorporation of women into the lives of husbands: “living together” and “fellow heirs.” In respecting their wives, these men and their wives will gain a hearing with God, and their prayers will be answered (cf. Matt. 5:21–26; 6:12, 14–15; 18:19–35; 1 Cor. 11:17–34; James 4:3).

Bridging Contexts

In Cloud and Townsend’s insightful book Boundaries, they come to the following conclusion:

Contemporary Significance