Paula

Just a couple observations…

I think we really need to emphasize 3:1 since it gives the reason for a wife’s submission: to win over unbelieving husbands. This is not directed to Christian men at all! I also bristle at the translation of hagnen as “chaste” instead of “pure”. The English word “chaste” is, curiously enough, only ever used for women in our translations, implying sexual purity. But the Greek word means inward purity, as it would for any man. Peter is not enjoining the wife’s sexual purity, as this was expected and demanded in society. How would being “chaste” be a way to win over a husband who already expected it from any pagan wife? Peter adds the importance of inner qualities of character, which truly were unexpected of women in that culture.

As for verse 5, I’m not convinced that it’s in the past tense. The tense is aorist, which only denotes a point in time not necessarily in the past. The other verbs are in the present tense. I understand it as “For this is how holy women rely on God, outfitting themselves with support for their own husbands…”

Regarding Sarah calling Abraham ‘lord’, she only ever used it in derision, in Gen. 18:12, where she thought to herself, “After I am worn out and my lord is old, will I now have this pleasure?” In Gen. 16:5 she clearly stood up to Abraham and called God as a witness between the two of them. And we can’t forget that Abraham had tried on two occasions to pass her off as his sister (Gen. 12:12-13, 20:2). So what is Peter saying? That Christian women are like Sarah when they do what is right and do not give in to fear. Sarah clearly had no fear of Abraham, social norms notwithstanding.

So overall, I see the emphasis not on subservience but on inner strength, on depth of character.