Cheryl Schatz

Paula #1,
I disagree that the only reason for the wife’s submission is to win over an unsaved husband. 1 Peter 3:1 starts with literally “in like manner” linking it to what has previously been said. I think that the real problem here is not with submission but with what submission means. I had not really intended to go into the issue of marriage, but it seems like this is the direction I am being pulled and so I will submit. I will definitely have to do a post about what submission is and what it isn’t. We have too many wrong ideas about submission that taint the whole point of Christian submission. The whole reality is that submission is to be a Christian lifestyle which is really what Peter brings up. Submission isn’t “attached” to women. It is “attached” to Christ and Christianity. However because there are so many wrong teachings on what submission is, many people bristle when the word is even mentioned because the picture they have is of a doormat on one side and a domineering male on the other. There is nothing further from the truth. The Christian concept of submission has been maligned, misrepresented and buried under a mountain of half-truths. I believe that once we truly understand the biblical concept of submission, it will help us to lay aside our prejudices. More on that later.

Back to 1 Peter 3:1. While the submission is given with the purpose or goal of winning the husband, the complete context of 1 Peter shows that all of us are to be in service to others.

You are certainly right in that the word translated “chaste” is better translated as “pure”. About this word the Theological dictionary of the New Testament says:

It originally signifies “that which awakens religious awe.”

And the Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testament says:

of persons, as characterized by moral purity pure, free from sin (1T 5.22); as being without intent to do wrong in a matter innocent, blameless

I love the “without intent to do wrong in a matter” because the whole point of submission is to do what is beneficial for another person. (More on that later).

You said:

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…”

I agree. The verbs are in the present tense so the “holy women” are those who are presently hoping in God. I also like your use of the term “support” for this is a key to what submission entails.

I disagree with this:

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?”

While Sarah was laughing to herself, I do not believe that the term “lord” was used in derision. I believe that it was used in the way she was in a habit of referring to Abraham. In other words she had great respect for Abraham as a man of God and as her husband and partner.

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.

This is true although I think you have missed the fact that Peter shows that Sarah spoke of Abraham with respect. I do not believe that Peter is insisting that wives call their husbands “lord” but I do believe that Peter is referring to this as Sarah’s way of honoring her husband.

I also believe that husbands flourish under their wive’s respect and even more so when she gives him public respect. We all need respect, but men seem to have a special need perhaps because they have a tender ego.

Recently I saw a wife give her husband public disrespect and I saw the clear look of pain on his face. She was just trying to be funny, but she put him down in front of about 40 people. Her husband made a reply and I can’t remember exactly what he said but it was something about having the ability to ignore what she said. How much better it would have been had she publicly held her husband up to honor. Everyone else was honoring her husband and so she felt that she could dishonor him and lift herself up. But honestly, I saw it as dishonoring both of them – him for what she said and her for the mere fact that she displayed a disrespectful attitude in public. Had she honored her husband in public, he would have felt a greater love for her for what she did for him. That is my opinion, but I do think that scripture backs me up on that as well.

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

This is where I think so many go wrong in equating submission with subservience. Subservience is by definition to mean excessively submissive and acting in a subordinate capacity. I do not believe this is the biblical meaning of submission.