Commentary on First Peter (90)

Then, there is the claim that "the word 'obey' does not appear in Scripture with respect to wives, though it does with respect to children (6:1) and slaves (6:5)." However, we have just noted that the word "submit" already implies obedience, both in itself and in this context. Also, in the context of Ephesians 5 and 6, because it is used to maintain an analogy to Christ and the church, it in fact carries a much stronger force than the obedience required from children and slaves.

But we can offer a more direct answer – the claim that Scripture never applies the word "obey" to wives is outright false.

Again, the commentary states, "the word 'obey' does not appear in Scripture with respect to wives."^* Now, the word translated "submit" in Ephesians 5:22 is hypotasso, and the word translated "obey" in 6:1 and 6:5 is hypakouo. Thus the commentary is asserting that the word hypakouo is never used of wives in the Bible.

However, Scripture uses hypakouo (obey) when it speaks about Sarah in the very passage that we are now studying: "For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive [hypotasso] to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed [hypakouo] Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear" (1 Peter 3:5-6).

Sarah was the wife of Abraham, and Peter writes that she obeyed (hypakouo) her husband. It cannot be said that Peter is only applying the word to Sarah, and not to wives in general. This is because the reason he mentions Sarah in the first place is to call all wives to imitate her example, and this means that we must equally apply hypakouo (obey) to all wives.

Moreover, in this passage, Peter either equates hypotasso (submit) to hypakouo (obey), or he at least assumes that hypotasso (submit) implies hypakouo (obey). This is because he writes, "They were submissive [hypotasso] to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed [hypakouo] Abraham and called him her master." That is, they were submissive, like Sarah, who obeyed. Here submission implies obedience.

Therefore, whether Scripture uses hypakouo or hypotasso (and now we see that it uses both words), it commands the wives to obey their husbands.

*This statement has vanished from the 2002 fully revised edition. However, it retains the assertion that the term does not refer to obedience in this passage. In other words, the assertion remains, but the erroneous reason for the assertion has disappeared. Is this a case of intellectual dishonesty, or does this reflect only an "innocent" editorial decision? I cannot tell.