The following is an excerpt from
the book Marriage: Back to Bible Basics, written by me and my late wife, Judy.
We were married 46 ½ years.
“One of the most extended
treatments of marriage in the New Testament is found in Ephesians 5:21-33. The
literary form found in Ephesians 5:21-6:9, Colossians 3:18-4:1 and I Peter
2:18-3:7 reflects the ‘house codes’ common in secular literature in the first
century. The house codes addressed the proper deportment of wives in relation
to their husbands, children in relation to their fathers, and slaves in
relation to their masters. The secular house codes focused almost exclusively
on the responsibility of wives to obey their husbands, children to obey their
fathers, and slaves to obey their masters. These inspired house codes move
these relationships to a much higher plane. It was no surprise to the original
readers that they called on wives, children and slaves to submit, but it was a
radical departure from custom to discover the kind of responsibilities
Christianity called for from husbands, fathers and masters.
“Much of the New Testament
literature was written in response to specific problems that arose in the first
century church, and the house codes are no different. Early Christians were
accused by non-believers of destroying society with their emphasis on freedom,
love and following Christ, an emphasis which included placing new value on
children, servants (Mark 10:44) and women. [The sentiment that “children should
be seen, and not heard” was certainly current in the first century. Although
children were loved in the Jewish community, they had no legal status or
rights. Among the Jewish people, status was connected to age. (See Galatians
4:1-3.) Outside of the Jewish communities, children were commonly devalued. The
death of children by exposure was common. Jesus’ elevation of children as a
model of faith and humility would have been shocking to His disciples. (See
Matthew 18:1-6.)] With the ethnic, gender and social boundaries that divided
people in the first century, nothing could have been more shocking than Paul’s
declaration that ‘there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor
free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus
(Galatians 3:28, NKJV). Critics of Christianity took this to mean that this was
a subversive religion that relieved wives of their duty to submit to their
husbands, children of their duty to submit to fathers, and slaves of their duty
to submit to their masters [For a fuller discussion of these issues see Klyne
Snodgrass, The NIV Application Commentary, Ephesians (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1996), 293-296).
“Paul’s advice to Titus, which
follows to some degree the pattern of the house codes, seems specifically
intended to establish a pattern of behavior among Christians which would remove
any possibility of criticism from the non-Christian community. Wives are told
to love their husbands and children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good,
and obedient to their own husbands for a specific purpose: that the word of God
may not be blasphemed (Titus 2:4-5). To blaspheme is to speak evil against
something or someone. The behavior of Christian wives was to be such that unbelievers
would have no ground to speak evil against the gospel as if it were a movement
subversive to the stability of the family. . . .
“Rather than the house codes
being viewed as focusing on the submission of wives, children and slaves—which
was already the norm in society at large—they should be understood as
introducing a new dimension and purpose to the wife-husband, child-father and
slave-master relationship. It was nothing new to call on wives to submit, but
it was something new to call on husbands to love their wives in a
self-sacrificing way. There was nothing novel in the appeal to children to obey
their parents, but there was something innovative in calling on fathers not to
provoke their children but to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of
the Lord. There was nothing strange about the call for slaves to be obedient to
their masters, but it was a radically new idea to call on masters to
reciprocate by giving up threatening and treating them with goodwill.
“In other words, Christianity did
not seek to overthrow the established ethics of society. It sought to lift
those ethics to new heights by infusing love, kindness and thoughtfulness into
human relationships. . . .
“In Ephesians 5:21-33, the
marriage relationship is compared to the relationship between Jesus Christ and
His church. The duties of the wife are addressed in three verses (verses 22,
24, 33). The duties of the husband are addressed in four verses (verses 25, 28,
31, 33).
“Wives are called on to:
• Submit
to their own husbands as to the Lord, being subject to their husbands in
everything (verses 22, 24).
• Respect
their husbands (verse 33).
“Husbands are called on to:
• Love
their wives just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her
(verse 25).
• Love
their wives as their own bodies (verses 28, 33).
• Nourish
and cherish their wives (verse 29).
• Leave
fathers and mothers and be joined to their wives, becoming one flesh (verse
31).
“It should be readily apparent
that where husbands love their wives in the self-sacrificial way described in
this passage, nourishing and cherishing them and putting their interests ahead
of their own—as Christ did for the church on the cross—wives will have very
little difficulty submitting to their husbands and respecting them. But where
any husband fails in his responsibility as described here, it will be extremely
difficult for his wife to submit to him and to respect him, even if he demands
it on the basis of this passage.
“A verse-by-verse look at this
passage may be helpful in clarifying the individual responsibilities of the
husband and wife.
“ . . . submitting to one another
in the fear of God” (Ephesians 5:21, NKJV).
“Though some Bibles which divide
the text into paragraphs begin the section with verse 22, there is strong
evidence that it actually begins with verse 21, where there is a call to mutual
submission. First, the participle translating “submitting” . . . may be taken
as an independent participle functioning as an imperative. Second, the word
translated ‘to be in subjection’ in verse 22 is not in some of the oldest Greek
manuscripts, even though the idea is derived from verse 21. It the section
actually does begin with verse 21, there is a call to mutual submission before
there is a focus on the wife’s duty to submit to her husband. It may seem
strange to think that there would be any circumstance in which the wife would
have authority over her husband, but in the matter of sexual relationships,
Paul wrote, ‘The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the
husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own
body, but the wife does’ (I Corinthians 7:4, NKJV). This is preceded by another
statement of mutual responsibility: ‘Let the husband render to his wife the
affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband’ (I Corinthians
7:3, NKJV). If there is to be abstinence from the sexual relationship even for
a limited period of time, it must be by mutual consent (I Corinthians 7:5). So
whether or not Ephesians 5:21 calls for mutual submission between the husband
and wife, there is a clear call for it in other texts.
“Wives submit to your own
husbands, as to the Lord” (Ephesians 5:22, NKJV).
“Wives are called to submit to
their husbands as to the Lord. As we have seen, it was no surprise for them to
be called to submit to their husbands. This was accepted practice among both
Jews and Gentiles in the first century. But submission took on new significance
in that it was to be done “as to the Lord.” This does not mean that the wife is
to submit to her husband in the same way or as completely and fully as she does
to the Lord. Only the Lord Himself is worthy of the kind of full and complete
submission we give to Him as God. If this verse meant that the wife was to
submit to her husband in the identical manner she submits to the Lord, it would
be a command to commit practical idolatry. Rather, the verse means that the
wife is to view her submission to her husband as service done to the Lord. As
part of her worship and service to God, the wife submits to her husband. The
same idea is expressed in the command to children to “obey their parents in the
Lord” (Ephesians 6:1). This does not mean children are required to obey only
Christian parents; it means they are to obey their parents as part of their
relationship with the Lord.
“This lifts the idea of
submission above that commonly practiced in first century society. There, the
submission of the wife was done to maintain the order of society. In the
church, however, the submission of the wife serves a much higher purpose. As we
shall see in this passage, it reflects submission of the church to Jesus
Christ. . . .
“For the husband is head of the
wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body”
(Ephesians 5:23, NKJV).
“This is one of the references
that declare the husband to be the “head” of the wife. (See also I Corinthians
11:3.) Some quickly assume that “head” (Greek, kephalē) means something like
“boss” or “person in charge” or “leader,” since the English word “head” is used
as a metaphor for these meanings. It is but a short leap from this assumption
to using this verse as justification for male dominance and perhaps even
superiority, with the accompanying idea that women are somehow weaker in
character, spirituality and morals than men.
“But the interpretation of this
verse is complicated by uncertainty as to the meaning of ‘head.’ There is good
reason to think that ‘head’ in some contexts means ‘source’ or ‘origin,’ rather
than ‘chief’ or ‘the person of the highest rank.’ [See the discussion in Gordon
D. Fee, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, The First
Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 502-505 and
Klyne Snodgrass, op.cit., 294-295.] On the other hand, ‘head’ may refer to
‘responsibility for.’
“If we return to the ideal of
Eden, there is no idea prior to the Fall that Adam was Eve’s ‘head’ in the
sense of ‘boss.’ There is, however, a clear indication that he was Eve’s ‘head’
in the sense of being the source or origin from which she was drawn, as well as
in having responsibility for her well being.
“In any event, the subsequent
verses make clear that the husband is not to dominate his wife; he is to love
his wife in a way that mirrors the love of Christ for the church.
“This verse does not mean that
the husband is the head of his wife in every way that Christ is the head of the
church. Nor is the husband his wife’s savior. Rather, Paul’s point is that
Christ is in some way the head of the church—a headship illustrated by His
redemptive work in saving the church. Likewise, the husband is in some way the
head of his wife. It will soon be discovered that he is to exercise his
headship by loving his wife as his own body, nourishing and cherishing her.
“Therefore, just as the church is
subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything”
(Ephesians 5:24, NKJV).
“This verse has also been used to
justify a master-slave relationship between the husband and wife. To those who
take this view, since it is the duty of the church to submit to Christ on every
point, it is also the duty of the wife to submit unquestioningly to her husband
regardless of the nature of his request or command. How this could be
reconciled with I Corinthians 7:4-5, 11, 15 is not explained.
“But no verse of Scripture can be
accurately interpreted in isolation from its context. Without question, the
wife is to be subject to her husband. But the subjection of the church to
Christ is the pattern upon which this subjection is based, and the church is
able to be subject to Christ because of His unconditional, self-sacrificing
love for her.
“When you know that another
person loves you unconditionally and that person is fully committed to
nourishing and cherishing you, it is not difficult at all to trust that person
to the point of submission. Indeed, there is something about such love that
naturally results in submission. There is little need to focus on the
submission; it is a natural, trusting response to love.
“But when it is evident that you
are not loved and that another person does not have your well being at heart,
it is exceedingly difficult to trust that person, to say nothing of submitting.
“Those husbands who love their
wives as Christ loved the church will find little need to remind their wives of
their duty to submit.
“Husbands, love your wives, just
as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her” (Ephesians 5;25,
NKJV).
“In verses 22 and 23, the Greek
adverb hos is translated “as” in the phrases “as to the Lord” and “as also.” In
this verse, a new word is introduced (Greek, kathos) and translated “just as.”
This stronger word means that the husband is to love his wife in the manner
that Christ loved the church. The manner of this love is seen in the fact that
Christ gave Himself for the church.
“It is the responsibility of the
husband to focus, not on his wife’s need to submit to him, but on his need to
love his wife in a self-sacrificing way. If Jesus was willing to actually
surrender His life for the church, a husband must be willing to put his own
priorities aside, even if it involves yielding some perceived ‘rights’ for the
benefit of his wife. . . .
“So husbands ought to love their
own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one
ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does
the church. For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. ‘For
this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,
and the two shall become one flesh.’ This is a great mystery, but I speak
concerning Christ and the church’ (Ephesians 5:28-32).
“Following Christ’s example of
self-sacrificing love for His church, husbands should love their wives as they
do their own bodies. This is because the husband and wife—in a very real
sense—are no longer two (Matthew 19:6), but one flesh.
“To say that a husband should
love his wife as he does his own body may seem strange in Western society with
our romantic view of love as a feeling. Does this mean that the husband has
some particular kind of feeling about his body that he is also to have for his
wife?
“The biblical concept of love has
a dimension that is largely missing from contemporary definitions of love. In
the Hebrew language, love (ahav) is a verb, not a noun. It has to do with what
a person does, not with how a person feels.
“The call for a man to love his
wife as he does his own body is simply a call for him to care for her, to
nourish and cherish her as he does his own body. The intimacy of the husband
and wife in the ‘one flesh’ relationship is seen in the statement, ‘he who loves
his wife loves himself.’ . . .
“There is in these verses great
theological depth as to the relationship between Christ and the church, but as
it relates to human marriage, the point if simple: Men are to demonstrate their
love for their wives by showing as much concern for the well-being of their
wives as they do for their own bodies.
“Nevertheless let each one of you
in particular so love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she
respects her husband” (Ephesians 5:33, NKJV).
“Here is reiterated that a man’s
love for his wife should be the same kind of love he has for himself, that is,
for his own body. A man who loves his wife in this way will never abuse her,
hurt her, take advantage of her, command her to do anything beyond reason, or
fail to provide for any genuine need she has. And his love will not be limited
to a narrow range of concern. Any man who obeys this verse will be deeply
concerned for his wife’s physical, emotional, spiritual and mental well being.
He will make sure he does whatever is needed to assure his wife’s health in all
of these matters.
“This final verse in the house
code that pertains to the wife’s duty to her husband calls on the wife to ‘see
that she respects her husband.’ It should be obvious at this point that if her
husband loves her as he is commanded to do, she will have little trouble
respecting him.
“It may be surprising that
nowhere in the passage is the wife called on to love her husband; her
responsibility is to submit. This seems strange to our Western mind with our
definition of love as emotional currents flowing across our souls. But the
entire passage focuses on the responsibility of the husband to be proactive in
loving his wife. Since wives were already expected—by society at large—to
submit to their husbands, and since this passage emphasizes the man’s
responsibility to love his wife, we must view the chief purpose of this section
of Scripture as dealing with man’s responsibility. And in any healthy marriage,
the man who expresses this kind of love toward his wife will find it richly
reciprocated even though it may not be commanded.”
This is an excerpt from my book
First Peter: Standing Fast in the Grace of God (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame
Press, 1999, reprint 2010).
D. Responsible Conduct in Marriage (3:1-7)
(1)
Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey
not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the
wives; (2) While they behold your chaste conversation, coupled with fear. (3)
Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of
wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; (4) But let it be the hidden man
of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and
quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. (5) For after this
manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned
themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: (6) Even as Sara
obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do
well, and are not afraid with any amazement. (7) Likewise, ye husbands, dwell
with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife as unto the
weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your
prayers be not hindered.
This
section continues Peter's treatment of the house codes, which originated in
2:13. (See the discussion of house codes
in the introductory section to 2:13-17.)
Here, Peter called on believing wives to defer to their unbelieving
husbands, with a view to leading their husbands to faith in Christ. (See the discussion of the Greek hypotassein,
a form of which is translated "be in subjection" here. The word has to do with voluntary deference
as opposed to hypekouein, which is used in 3:6 of Sarah's
"obedience.")
Verse
1. As Christianity swept through the
Roman Empire, it was inevitable that there would be cases where one spouse came
to faith in Christ before the other. It
was expected in Roman society that a woman would take her husband's gods. With the emphasis on male dominance, those
wives who were converted to Christ could easily have been viewed as subversive
as they cast off their husbands' gods.
This would certainly have been counterproductive to the cause of Christ.
So
Peter informed his audience that those women who have embraced Christianity are
still responsible to submit to their husbands who have not. This is the only way these husbands could be
expected to believe. If their wives
became Christians and then overthrew all social conventions, rebelling against
their husbands, few of those men would ever come to Christ, and other men would
make sure their wives were never exposed to the gospel.
The
saved wife was not to try to convince her unsaved husband to place his faith in
Christ by talking him into it so much as by demonstrating genuine Christianity
before him. The word translated
"conversation" (Greek, anastrophes) means "conduct." Peter used the same word in 1:15, 17.
The
word translated "likewise" (Greek, homoios) should be understood as a
simple connective. It does not imply
that the wife's submission to her husband is in the same category or to the
same degree as the slave's submission to his master (2:18). The same word appears in verse 7, where it
is certainly not intended to indicate that the husband's behavior finds its
antecedent in the slave's submission to his master. Although the idea of submission which
originated in 2:13 continues through 3:1, the nature of each individual
relationship must be found in the immediate context of each (2:13-14, 18;
3:1). In the social context of the Roman
world, unqualified submission of a wife to her husband required her to embrace
his gods. Obviously, Peter had a
specific limitation in mind when he called on believing wives to submit to
their unbelieving husbands. He did not
expect believing wives to embrace their husbands' gods. He expected just the opposite.
Peter
did not root his counsel for wives to submit in any perceived inferiority of
women. Instead, he wanted the wives to
submit "because of the influence...they can exert on their non-Christian
husbands." He certainly had
submission in view, but what a powerful submission! His point was not to subjugate women and to
justify masculine domination, which was common in the Roman Empire, but to put
in the hands of believing women their most potent and effective instrument for
influencing their unbelieving husbands: submission. It is not for women alone that submission serves
as a tool of persuasion. Believers in
general may "put to silence the ignorance of foolish men" by
submitting to civil government (2:13-16).
Slaves may influence their masters by submitting to them (2:18-20). Christ redeemed the human race by submitting
to unjust suffering (2:21-25). It is
characteristic of unbelievers to seek to dominate others by the exercise of
authority, but among believers the greatest trait is to serve. (See Matthew 20:25-28.) In the kingdom of God, the position of the
servant is far more influential than the position of the ruler. Christianity is characterized by servant
leadership.
Although
Peter's counsel in 3:1-7 has application to all aspects of the marriage
relationship, it is possible that he, like Paul in I Corinthians 7:2-5, had in
mind specifically the sexual aspects of married life. This is indicated in three ways. First, wives are called on to be submissive
to their "own husbands." Peter
did not have in mind any supposed obligation of women in general to submit to
men in general. He had in view the
specific relationship of a married woman to her husband. One of the responsibilities of married life
is the conjugal relationship. Second,
the reference to Sarah's obedience to Abraham in verse 6 is derived from the
Septuagint translation of Genesis 18:12, which was Sarah's response when she
overheard the angel declare to Abraham that she would bear Abraham a son. Third, the Greek synoikountes, translated
"dwell with them" in verse 7, includes sexual relations between a
husband and wife.
If
Peter did indeed have in mind here the continued conjugal responsibility of a
believing woman to her unbelieving husband, these verses expose the error of
sects throughout church history which have taught that the sexual relationship
is to be avoided in marriage. These
groups, like the American Shakers of the nineteenth century, mistakenly
perceived the sexual relationship in marriage to be a hindrance to
spirituality. This is at least in part
a consequence of viewing human existence in a fragmented way, as the Western
mind set tends to do, rather than in the holistic perspective of Hebrew
thought.
The
word translated "obey not" (Greek, apeithousin) indicates more than
passive disobedience. It is the same
word used in 2:8, and it indicates a strong sense "of active disobedience
to the standards of Scripture and even rebellion against them." The larger context suggests that some of
these unbelieving husbands may have been among the number of those who
slandered believers. (See 2:12, 15;
3:9, 16.) If so, Peter saw the Christian
lifestyle as an instrument powerful enough to defuse this antagonism. Little would be accomplished by any attempt
on the wife's part to persuade her husband of the legitimacy of her faith by
verbal apologetics. But it would be difficult
for an unbelieving husband to deny the legitimacy of a faith which had transformed
his wife's life for the good.
The
word translated "won" (Greek, kerdethesontai) "focuses on the
actual process of conversion, or changing one's attitude...." This is not the only place where Peter
indicates that Christian conduct has such a powerful impact. (See 2:12.)
This
text is one of those which has been abused in societies where it is seen as
normative for men to dominate women. The
abuse of this text has in some cases led to the abuse of women. This is regrettable, and it demonstrates the
dangers of coming to Scripture with preconceived notions which are imposed on
the text.
Peter
made no claim here for female inferiority or male dominance. His purpose is rather to assure believing
women that their unbelieving husbands can be won to the Lord in the same way
all unbelievers may be brought face-to-face with the claims of Christ: This
happens not as a result of arguments, debate or rhetoric, but as a result of
the demonstration of genuine Christianity.
Verse
2. Here Peter described the kind of
conduct by which a believing wife could be influential in bringing her
unbelieving husband to faith in Christ.
The two words used to describe this conduct are "chaste" and
"fear."
The
word translated "chaste" (Greek, hagnen) seems in this context to
have to do with chastity or sexual purity.
Thus one of the things that would be remarkable to an unbelieving
husband in the first century would be that there would never be a question
about his wife's faithfulness to him. It
may be that a man with an unbelieving wife would have to be concerned that she
might betray him with another man. The
fact that a believing wife would never do this was in itself something her
husband would find comforting and attractive.
If, as suggested in the comments on verse 1, this entire passage has to
do with the sacredness of the sexual relationship in marriage, the chastity of
the believing wife contributes to that sacredness.
The
"fear" which should characterize the believing wife is not terror of
her husband. (See comments on 1:17;
2:17-18; 3:14-15.) No wife should live
in terror of her husband. (See comments
on 3:6.) The "fear" in view
here is the fear of God, which has to do with the reverence every believer must
give to Him. This would contrast with
the attitudes of those of the first century who worshipped various pagan
gods. These attitudes might range from
stark terror to mere duty to casual acknowledgement, but they would not be
described as reverence. (See Acts
17:16-23.) A believer is not attempting
to appease a vengeful god or to curry favor with a temperamental deity. Those who believe in the only true God know
something about His character, and they know that their standing with Him is
based on the sufficiency of Christ's atoning work (2:24). Thus their attitude toward Him is one of
deeply reverent respect bathed in love.
For a believing wife to have this kind of attitude toward God would at
least pique the curiosity of her husband.
At best, as it is coupled with her uncompromising loyalty and
faithfulness to her husband, it could bring him to a place of exploring and
finally embracing the Christian faith.
The
word translated "while they behold" (Greek, epopteusantes) is an
aorist active participle, indicating action that is finished. The point is that once unbelieving husbands
have observed the conduct of their believing wives, it is possible for them to
be won to Christ. That an undetermined
period of time may elapse is indicated by the future passive indicative form of
kerdethesontai, translated "may...be won" in verse 1. (See comments on verse 1.) This is not something that happens
quickly. But once unbelieving husbands
have had the opportunity to observe the consistent Christian conduct of their
believing wives, there is a strong possibility they will come to Christ. Though it is not spoken here, the implication
is that a believing wife should not expect her unbelieving husband to
immediately place His faith in Christ simply because she announces that she has
done so or even after a week or a month.
Of course no one can predict how quickly another person will
believe. But the scenario Peter had in
mind is one that would occur over a period of time, a long enough period for
the believing wife to demonstrate faithfulness to her husband and reverence to
God.
Verse
3. Still describing the conduct which
should characterize a believing wife, Peter indicated first what it should not
be. Her "adorning" should not
be outward, as seen in "plaiting the hair," "wearing of
gold," and "putting on of apparel." The NKJV translates the verse, "Do not
let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or
putting on fine apparel."
In
the first century, as at many other times, women's hair "was braided in
elaborate manners, and well-to-do women strove to keep up with the latest
expensive fashions. The gaudy adornments
of women of wealth, meant to draw attention to themselves, were repeatedly
condemned in ancient literature and speeches...." Paul addressed the same issue in I Timothy
2:9-10: "in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest
apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls
or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with
good works" (NKJV).
Ancient
Jewish writings warn of the sexual temptations involved in the kind of
adornments described by Peter and Paul.
Since Peter's concern seems to have to do with encouragement to married
women to demonstrate genuine Christianity by being faithful to their husbands,
he discouraged them from any kind of outward adornment which could be
interpreted as compromising this faithfulness.
In other words, Christian women should not dress in such a way as to
draw the wrong kind of attention to themselves.
Obviously, this does not mean they must be dowdy, but they must dress
modestly, with propriety and moderation.
Some
have thought that Peter intended here to place a complete ban on certain kinds
of hair arrangements or on the wearing of anything gold. But the grammar of the verse will not permit
that meaning, or we must interpret it as also banning the wearing of
clothing. The word "fine" is
supplied by the NKJV translators to describe "apparel," but this has
no basis in the Greek text. The KJV
translation is more literal at this point.
It
may be that the statement "plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold"
is a figure of speech, a hendiadys, "whereby one idea is expressed by two
(or occasionally three) nouns linked by the simple 'and.' The first noun is treated as the main
substantive, with the second (and third) taken adjectivally." The meaning would thus be "gold-braided
hair." The fashionable and
extravagant hairstyles worn by wealthy women in the first century amounted to
"submerging the hair in lavish gold spangles."
The
word "adorning" has to do with "the focus of attention for one's
attractiveness, the thing one uses to make oneself beautiful to
others." The point, as seen in the
next verse, is that believing women are not to focus on external appearance but
on internal character.
Verse
4. Instead of focusing on externals,
believing women should focus on "the hidden person of the heart, with the
incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in
the sight of God" (NKJV). The
reference to the inner person as the "hidden person of the heart" is
a typical Hebraism, further suggesting that the primary recipients of this
letter were Jewish.
Those
things which are used to adorn the outer man (verse 3) are
"corruptible," but the qualities of character described by Peter are
incorruptible. The focus on
incorruptibility is typical for Peter.
(See 1:4, 18, 23.) Although these
character qualities certainly influence one's behavior in the visible, tangible
realm, they are rooted in the invisible, intangible realm of the spirit. Specifically, believing women are to adorn
themselves with "a meek and quiet spirit." The word translated "meek" by the
KJV (Greek, praeos) has to do with gentleness.
The word translated "quiet" (Greek, hesychios) has to do with
tranquility and calmness. In other
words, believing women are not to be loud, abrasive and harsh. This does not imply weakness of character,
but strength. Those with little depth of
character find it easy to be hard and loud.
Gentleness and quietness spring from self control and maturity. (See Proverbs 9:13; 11:22; 12:4; 21:9, 19;
25:24; 27:15; 31:26.) To be gentle means
not to insist on one's own rights, not to be pushy or selfishly assertive and
not to demand one's own way.
In
contrast to the value some human beings tend to place on expensive temporal
adornment (verse 3) which will corrupt and pass away, the incorruptible
adornment of the inner person with gentleness and quietness "is in the
sight of God of great price." God's
value system is in direct opposition to the value system of the world. (See Luke 16:15.) Gentleness and quietness of spirit cannot be
contrived; if these qualities are not genuine, pretense will be exposed under
the pressures of life. Specifically,
they cannot long be pretended under the day-to-day pressures of marriage. Genuine gentleness and quietness spring only
from one's relationship with God which is rooted in deep trust in Him. (See comments on verse 5.)
Verse
5. As an example of the kind of behavior
(described as adornment) he commended to believing wives, Peter referred to
"the holy women" of "former times" (NKJV). These were women who "trusted in
God" and who were "submissive to their own husbands" (NKJV).
In
Jewish thought, the submission of a woman to her husband did not place her in a
position of weakness, but of strength.
"A certain wise woman said to her daughter: 'My child, stand before
your husband and minister to him. If you
will act as his maiden, he will be your slave, and honor you as his
mistress. But if you exalt yourself
against him, he will be your master, and you will become vile in his eyes, like
one of the maidservants.'" This
reflects the significance of the words spoken by God to Eve: "Your desire
shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you" (Genesis
3:16b). In the Hebrew text, the idea
seems to be that the woman would desire to rule her husband, but that he would
rule her. The same idea is expressed in
Genesis 4:7 where God said to Cain concerning the sin lying at his door,
"And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it" (NKJV). Prior to the sin of Adam and Eve, their
relationship had been characterized by equality and mutual respect. Adam was incomplete alone; God made Eve as a
"help" (Hebrew, _ezer) to compensate for the deficiency of Adam's
solitary existence. _ezer indicates a
significant help that is not an option.
The word translated "meet" (Hebrew, k'negdo) means the woman
is a match for man. The word may mean
either "at his side," meaning "fit to associate with" or
"as over against him," meaning "corresponding to him." Adam recognized Eve as bone of his bones and
flesh of his flesh (Genesis 2:23). That
is, he could no more do without her than he could do without his own flesh and
bones. Because of her equality with
Adam, the feminine form of the word "man" is used to describe
Eve. The Hebrew word translated
"man" is 'ish. The word
translated "woman" is the feminine form, 'ishah.
The
sin of Adam and Eve introduced a subtle change into the dynamics of their
relationship. Now there was a tension
which was never intended by God to be characteristic of human
relationships. This tension can be lessened,
however, where a husband loves his wife as Christ loved the church (Ephesians
5:25) and where a wife views here submission to her husband as service rendered
to God (Ephesians 5:22). Just as any
service, or worship, offered to God with a sincere heart has powerful results,
so does this kind of submission of a believing woman to her husband. By her submission, a wife can influence her
husband in significant ways. The most
important decision a man can ever make is the decision to put his trust in Jesus
Christ. If a believing wife's submission
to her husband can be influential in bringing him to make this decision
(3:1-2), how much more influential can she be in lesser decisions?
Even
here, the word translated "subjection" is hypotassomenai, which
indicates deference, as in 2:13, 18; 3:1.
This does not mean that the holy women exercised blind, unthinking
obedience based on inferiority of value or some kind of misguided caste system,
but that they exercised thoughtful, creative submission intended to honor God
and to provide a wholesome influence on their husbands.
Hillyer
points out that the association of married life with holiness is a genuinely
Jewish idea. "As a divine
institution, marriage is viewed in a twofold light. First, as the means intended for the
propagation of the human race. Secondly,
as an ideal state for the promotion of sanctity and purity of life." It seems Paul would have agreed with this
sentiment. He wrote, "Nevertheless,
to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have
her own husband" (I Corinthians 7:2).
The
submission that the "holy women" in Hebrew history gave to their
husbands sprang from their trust in God.
That is, they knew God was personally involved in their lives, even in
their marriages, and they believed He would direct the steps of their
husbands. Where even one spouse trusts
in God, there is a powerful influence for good in the marriage and home. (See I Corinthians 7:12-14.) But where there is no trust in God in the
home and thus no awareness on the part of the husband that he is to mirror
Christ's love for the church in his love for his wife and no awareness on the
part of the wife that she is to submit to her husband as an act of service to
God, the relationship tends to grow increasingly strained.
Verse
6. Now Peter offered a specific example
of a holy woman who portrayed the kind of behavior he commended to believing
wives in the first century. The example
is Sarah, the wife of the great patriarch Abraham.
It
is obvious that Peter's concern was no longer limited to the believing wives of
unbelieving husbands, because Abraham could not be characterized as an
unbeliever. Neither, for that matter,
could the husbands of the "holy women" mentioned in verse 4. In the minds of Jewish readers, these women
would have included not only Sarah, but also Rebekah, Rachel and Leah. On the other hand, the focus at this point
is still on the wives; it does not turn to the husbands until verse 7. Even though Abraham is mentioned, Peter's
concern was not so much for any particular episode in Abraham's life. It certainly would be possible to find
examples where Abraham's behavior was not exemplary. (See, e.g., Genesis 12:13, 19; 20:2, 5.)
This
is the first time in the context of submission that the word hypekouein
(translated "obeyed") appears.
This is a stronger word than the word translated "submit"
(2:13), "be subject" (2:18), "be in subjection" (3:1) and
"being in subjection" (3:5).
"Other NT household codes use [hypekouein] of the obedience of
children to parents (Col 3:20; Eph 6:1) and slaves to masters (Col 3:22; Eph
6:5), but not of wives in relation to husbands.
[Hypekouein] occurs nowhere else in I Peter, but the three instances of
the cognate [hypekoe] (1:2, 14, 22) all refer to Christian conversion or faith
in God, not to social relationships."
Another
element which enters into the dynamic of the relationship between Sarah and
Abraham is the fact that upon occasion he obeyed her. In the Septuagint, the same word here
translated "obeyed" is used to describe how Abraham
"hearkened" to the voice of Sarah when she said to him, "Go
therefore in to my maid, that I may get children for myself through her"
(Genesis 16:2, LXX). The Greek
hypekouein is an accurate translation here of the Hebrew shema_, which is often
translated "hear" (as in Deuteronomy 6:4) with the force of the word
meaning "obey."
The
specific event which Peter apparently had in mind here is recorded in Genesis
18:12. When Sarah, who was inside the
tent, heard the angel tell Abraham, "Thy wife shall have a son"
(Genesis 18:10), she laughed, saying to herself, "After I am waxed old
shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?" Grudem does not think the reference here is
to Genesis 18:12, for he can find no obedience to Abraham mentioned in that
passage and because Sarah is speaking to herself rather than to Abraham. But Peter did not suggest that Sarah was
speaking to Abraham when she called him "lord." The problem of finding the exact episode of
Sarah's obedience may be a result of reading too much into Peter's use of
hypekouein. First, although hypekouein
is a stronger word than hypotassein (which is used of voluntary deference in
2:13, 18; 3:1, 5; 5:5), it may be that Peter's use of it is more stylistic than
substantial. In this case, the meaning
of "obey" is influenced by the prior references to
"deference." But if Peter meant
to emphasize Sarah's obedience the obedience he had in view seems to be defined
by the context in which she referred to Abraham as her "lord." That is, even though she was old and past the
time of childbearing (Genesis 18:11), she submitted to Abraham in the sexual
relationship which resulted in the conception of Isaac. If this is the case, it is once again seen
that the husband's relationship with his wife is not portrayed as that of an
iron-fisted dictator who dominates his wife.
Sarah's obedience was actually submission in which she shared Abraham's
hope for a son. I Corinthians 7:4 makes
it clear that the sexual relationship between a husband and wife is an
expression of mutual submission.
If,
as several points indicate (see comments on verse 1), the underlying theme of
this passage is the sacredness of the sexual relationship in marriage, Sarah's
example is even more significant.
Believing wives were not to use their husbands' lack of faith as an
excuse to abstain from sexual relationships with them. It would not be difficult to image that a
misguided believing woman might think she could apply pressure to her
unbelieving husband by isolating herself from him and depriving him of his
conjugal rights. But if this was the
case, Peter pointed out this was not the way to bring an unbelieving husband to
a place of faith. If Sarah, as an aged
woman with no physical reason to hope their union would be productive, did not
reject Abraham, neither should believing wives in the first century reject their
husbands, even if they were unbelievers.
When
Sarah called Abraham "lord," she used the Hebrew 'adon which, like
all words, is defined by its context.
Although it is often used in the Hebrew Scriptures in reference to the
true God, it is also used in a wide variety of other contexts. When it is used by one human being to address
another, its meaning is often something like the English "sir." It is a title of respect. There is no basis here for any idea that
women must address men as their masters or rulers. Wives are to respect their husbands, but as
Peter pointed out in this verse, they are not to be afraid of them with
"any terror" (NKJV).
Peter
promised the believing women reading his letter that they could be Sarah's
daughters. Just as Jesus explained to
the unbelieving Jews that if they were genuinely the children of Abraham they
would do the works of Abraham (John 8:39), so Peter tied the matter of being
Sarah's daughters together with a certain kind of behavior. This behavior is specifically identified in
this verse as doing "well" and not succumbing to "terror"
(NKJV). Michaels points out that the
"wives to whom Peter is writing have become Sarah's 'children'...through
their faith in Christ expressed in baptism (cf. 3:21)."
Contextually,
to "do well" is defined in this passage as the deference a wife is to
give to her husband. (See also
2:15.) It may seem strange that Peter
would include in the behavior which qualifies believing wives as the daughters
of Abraham that they must not be "afraid with any terror"
(NKJV). But there was always the
possibility that the unbelieving husband may not tolerate his wife's strange
religion "and that consequently her freedom or safety may be jeopardized. Hence the ominous word of 'comfort' with
which Peter's advice to wives concludes...."
Peter's
encouragement not to fear seems to reflect Proverbs 3:25: "Do not be
afraid of sudden terror, Nor of trouble from the wicked when it comes"
(NKJV). The word translated
"amazement" in the KJV and "terror" in the NKJV is ptoein,
which appears in the Septuagint translation of Proverbs 3:25 but nowhere else
in the New Testament. In the first
century, it was always possible that submission to authority could have painful
consequences. Submission to civil government
could result in martyrdom (2:13-14). It
was possible that for a slave to submit to his master could result in cruel and
unjustified suffering (2:18-20). And it
was possible that a wife could be abused by her husband. But believers must not allow fear to control
them. (See 3:14, 17.) They can avoid this by their unswerving focus
on eternity. (See comments on 1:3-9,
13.)
Verse
7. Now Peter turned his attention to the
responsibilities of the husband toward the wife. Although the passage began with instruction
to believing wives as to how to influence unbelieving husbands toward faith in
Christ (verse 1), the focus has now shifted to believing husbands and what they
should do to honor their wives. This
shift began in verse 5, where holy women (e.g., Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel and
Leah) whose husbands could not be characterized as unbelievers are held up as
examples to the wives among Peter's readers, and it developed further in verse
6, where one of the holy women, Sarah, was singled out as a specific example to
believing women. Sarah's husband,
Abraham, could not be characterized as an unbeliever: he is the father of all
who believe. (See Romans 4:11-12.)
The
word "likewise" (Greek, homoios) "functions only to connect
related sections of the household duty code, not to point out any real
analogy." In other words, there is
no idea here of the husband submitting to the wife in the manner of citizens to
civil government (2:13) or slaves to their masters (2:18). But in retrospect, since the same word
(homoios) is used in verse 1, it serves there as a connective also, not to
indicate that the nature of the wives' submission to their husbands is
analogous to the citizen's or the slave's submission. (See comments on verse 1.) The nature of the wives' submission is found
in the immediate context of verse 1 and the following verses, not in the prior
context of citizens and slaves. It would
be wrong to describe the wives' submission to her husband as being of the same
kind or to the same degree as the slave's submission to his master or as the
citizen's submission to civil government.
The relationship between a husband and wife is a completely different
kind of relationship than that found in government-citizen or master-slave
settings. The relationship which best
describes marriage is seen in the relationship between Christ and His
church. (See Ephesians 5:21-33.) This is much more of an intimate, mutually
reciprocal relationship than that which characterizes the government with its
citizens or masters with their slaves.
The
significance of the counsel Peter gave in this verse can be fully appreciated
only in the context of the culture of the first century. Women had few legal rights. As far as Jewish law was concerned, women
were the property of their husbands, right along with his sheep and
cattle. He could divorce her; she could
not leave him. Greek philosophers and
even Jewish teachers declared that women were morally and intellectually weaker
than men. Aristotle's legacy continued
to influence thinkers in the first century, including his idea that women were
by nature inferior to men in every way except sexually. As far as the Roman legal system was
concerned, women were weak and unable to make sound decisions.
The
Greek word translated "dwell with them" (synoikeo) commonly referred
to sexual relations and is used in that sense in the Septuagint. (See Deuteronomy 22:13; 24:1; 25:5.) The point Peter is making is that a Christian
man is not "demanding nor selfish in his sexual and marital relations; he
is instead considerate, sensitive, and serving." (See also I Corinthians 7:3-5; Hebrews
13:4.)
The
man must dwell with his wife "according to knowledge" or "with
understanding" (NKJV). Where a wife
is viewed as a "thing," as in Jewish Law , there is little incentive
to give careful thought as to how to relate to her. Men who view their wives as possessions on
the level of livestock or property will not tend to be sensitive to the need to
develop a meaningful and mutually rewarding relationship. On the other hand, men who view their wives
as individuals uniquely made in the image of God, worthy of honor and sharing
equally in the gift of life will tend to exercise great care in getting to know
their wives as persons. They will want
to learn as much as possible about their wives' ideas, opinions and
values. They will want to come to a
realistic assessment of their wives' gifts and talents so as to be able to help
them explore their interests and to gain the satisfaction of a fulfilling and meaningful
ministry to others.
The
husband is to give honor to his wife "as unto the weaker
vessel." Peter did not declare the
wife to actually be a weaker vessel.
Rather, he used the analogy of a weaker vessel to give the husband a
specific and understandable image to illustrate the manner in which the husband
is to honor his wife. It was commonly
held among unbelievers during the first century that women were morally and
intellectually weaker than men, but Peter gave the idea of "weakness"
new significance. The weakness he had
in view was to be honored, not despised.
It may be that by "weakness," Peter had in mind the
"common early Christian conviction that honor in God's sight belongs to
those who are (or make themselves) 'last,' or 'least,' in the eyes of the
world."
In
any event, Peter did not mean to imply that women are in any sense inferior to
men. The word translated
"honor" (Greek, timen) means "respect" which springs from
value. Respect is typically given only
to those who are considered to be of equal value or in some way superior to the
person who is extending the respect.
This is not the insincere, demeaning flattery sometimes given by one
person to another for personal advantage.
The honor Peter had in mind springs from the husband's careful
assessment of his wife's value.
The
husband is not to take advantage of his wife's submission to oppress her. He is to be considerate of his wife and to
treat her not in a rough and thoughtless manner—as he might a stout, cheap
vessel, but gently and thoughtfully—as he would a fragile, expensive vase.
The
husband and wife are not merely one flesh, they are also to be "heirs
together of the grace [or gift, Greek charitos] of life." That is, they are to develop oneness in all
areas of the life that God has graciously granted them together. That this includes oneness in spirit is seen
in the purpose clause: "that your prayers may not be hindered." The partners in a marriage united not only in
flesh but also in spirit will find their prayers to have new power and
effectiveness, whether the prayer is private or together. Where a husband fails to honor his wife and
neglects to invest whatever time and effort is necessary to gain a thorough
knowledge of her as an individual, his prayers will tend to be
ineffectual. The married couple's
relationship with each other is one of the most important factors in making
their prayers effectual.
No comments:
Post a Comment