Commentary on First Peter (112)
Following "in which" is the word kai, which means "and" or "also." This introduces something else (other than being "made alive in spirit") that Christ did in the sphere of the spirit – namely, "he went and preached to the spirits in prison." And here is the crux of the problem for interpreters.
Who are these "spirits in prison"? Those who favor the first interpretation assert that the word "spirits" must refer to either angels or demons. However, biblical usage does not in fact support this; rather, the meaning is determined by the context.
Peter indicates in verse 20 that he is referring to those "who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built." Again, those who favor the first interpretation say that these were fallen angels, and some cite Genesis 6:1-4 as support. In this view, the fallen angels married human women and mated with them to produce offspring. However, Jesus said that angels do not marry (Matthew 22:30), and to put it mildly, it is not at all certain if it is even possible for angels to have sexual intercourse with humans and produce children. Instead, those verses can very well be talking about intermarriages between the godly and the ungodly.
On the other hand, Genesis 6:5-7 indicates that it was the wickedness of men that God witnessed ("The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become"), and it was mankind that he then set out to destroy ("I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth"), that is, with the exception of Noah and his family. Therefore, it is best to understand the "spirits in prison" as referring to the wicked men that lived at the time of Noah.
Now, 2 Peter 2:4 says, "God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment." And Noah is mentioned in verse 5. So the passage is sometimes used to support the theory that the "spirits in prison" were fallen angels. However, once we read the entire passage, it becomes clear that it proves exactly the opposite:
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men… (2 Peter 2:4-7)
Notice that the four verses focus on different persons and events. Verse 4 refers to fallen angels who were sent to "gloomy dungeons." It has no direct relation to verse 5, which refers to Noah in connection with "ungodly people," and not fallen angels. Verse 6 refers to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in connection with "the ungodly." Then, although verse 7 refers to a related event, the focus is no longer on Sodom and Gomorrah, but on Lot in relation to the "lawless men" of those cities.
Therefore, there is no reason to connect the fallen angels in verse 4 to the time of Noah in verse 5. Rather, the verse is talking about the angels that fell even before the fall of Adam, if not before his creation. As for verse 5, it explicitly indicates that the flood was sent to destroy "ungodly people," that Noah was "a preacher of righteousness," and that the preaching was done in that generation. This lends strong support to the second interpretation of 1 Peter 3:19, that the "spirits in prison" were ungodly humans, and that Christ in spirit had preached through Noah.
As for why these spirits are said to be "in prison," it is because Peter is referring to them from the current point of view – these ungodly men of the past are now in prison. It is not uncommon for us to speak this way. For example, I could say, "I warned these prisoners not to rob the bank." But this does not mean that I warned them after they had already robbed the bank and become prisoners. It is understood, and the context of the conversation could make it even more clear, that I warned them before they robbed the bank, but they did not listen, and now they are in prison. So it is appropriate to call these people prisoners even though they were not in prison when I warned them, since they are now prisoners indeed.
Likewise, the ungodly men who disobeyed in Noah's time are, as the NASB reads, "now in prison." A similar expression will appear in 4:6, where it refers to "those who are now dead." This also explains why Peter refers to them as "spirits," for these ungodly men have longed perished. As for the idea that Christ preached through Noah "in spirit," this is not foreign at all to biblical thinking, and the interpretation is especially appropriate here given 1:11.
Thus the second interpretation of verses 19 and 20 appears exegetically superior, that is, Christ preached through Noah to the ungodly men in the days before the Flood. It also serves the context very well. Like Noah, Christians are preachers of righteousness – speaking by the Spirit of Christ – in the midst of an ungodly population that oppose and mock the faith. By their words and their lives, believers bear witness to the judgment that is to come and the salvation that is found in Jesus Christ alone. Verse 20 adds that in Noah's day, "only a few people, eight in all, were saved," assuring believers that, even though they may be in the minority, they will be preserved and vindicated.
Commentary on First Peter (111)
1 PETER 3:18-22
For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also – not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand – with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.
This is said to be the most difficult passage in the letter, and one of the most difficult in the New Testament. Entire books have been written to deal with the language, theology, sources, and controversies related to the ideas contained in it.
As we come to this passage, we must decide on what kind of treatment we are to give it in terms of level and depth. Given the type of commentary that this is intended to be, we will not mention all the interpretations that have been suggested by scholars and consider the arguments in support of each. Such a procedure, while profitable, must be reserved for a more specialized study.
Instead, as we examine the passage, we will interact with only two major interpretations and the basic arguments for them. These are also the only two plausible positions. There are variations of these two interpretations, but the differences are not so significant as to warrant separate treatment in an elementary commentary such as this.
As for the other options that are more different, they are in fact quite contrary to the context and content of the passage, as well as against the general and consistent teachings of Scripture on the relevant topics. Therefore, any ordinary reader should be able to see through their flaws after some careful reflection. In any case, the exposition that follows will at least indirectly eliminate many false and impossible interpretations associated with the passage.
According to the first interpretation, these verses say that Christ went into hell, hades, or some place in the spirit realm, and declared his victory to those who were held there as prisoners. The details may differ among those who favor this view. Some believe that this occurred between Christ's death and resurrection, while others believe that it happened after he was raised. Some think that those held in prison were human spirits, but others think that they were fallen angels.
Then, in the second interpretation, Peter is saying that Christ preached by his Spirit through Noah to those who eventually perished in the flood, and who are now "in prison."
The latter part of verse 18 reads in the NIV, "He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit." The Greek does not distinguish between "spirit" and "Spirit," so this translation is one option. However, after stating "put to death in the body," some scholars argue that Peter could hardly expect his readers to have such a different understanding of the parallel portion of the sentence, written in the same grammatical structure. The RSV appears more natural and accurate: "being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit."
The contrast is thus between "death in the flesh" and "alive in the spirit." However, this translation in turn lends itself to a dangerous misunderstanding, that Christ was killed in the body but raised only in the spirit, so that there was no physical resurrection. But this misunderstanding is excluded for at least three reasons.
First, the rest of the New Testament insists that the death and resurrection of Christ were physical. His body was killed, and the same body was raised, albeit in an enhanced form. And second, Christ's spirit was never dead previous to the crucifixion, and it was never killed in any sense that required its resurrection. In other words, if the resurrection was not physical, then he would not have needed any resurrection in the first place.
Then, third, both flesh and spirit in fact lack the definite article, so that the verse literally reads, "put to death in flesh but made alive in spirit." Thus the verse is not referring to two parts of Christ – his body and his soul – but it makes a contrast between the human sphere of life and the "spirit" sphere of life.
This in turn influences our understanding of verse 19. Given what we understand about verse 18, rather than beginning verse 19 with the translation "through whom" (NIV), it is perhaps better to say, "in which," that is, in the realm of the spirit. The meaning is "in this sphere" or even "under this influence." Contrary to some, it does not have to mean "in the resurrection body" or "in the resurrected state."
Commentary on First Peter (110)
The point that we need to make is that this context restricts the words, "But do this with gentleness and respect." The statement has been used to prescribe the proper attitudes, mannerisms, and even the vocabularies that Christians are to use when answering challenges from all kinds of unbelievers. Thus the verse has been reduced to something like, "Always be ready to do apologetics, but do it nicely."
However, such an interpretation of the verse would condemn the prophets, the apostles, and even the Lord himself, as there are times when they conducted themselves with anything other than "gentleness and respect" toward the unbelievers, at least as these words are now understood. Rather, they called the disobedient and unbelieving such things as whores, dogs, pigs, foxes, snakes, fools (or morons), hypocrites, wicked men, blind men, dead men, brutes, rubbish, dung, and so on. And do we need to repeat all the negative remarks that Peter himself has made about the unbelievers in this very letter that we are studying?
On the other hand, the prophets and apostles usually answered authority figures with gentleness, doubtless "for the Lord's sake" (1 Peter 2:13) and acknowledging the fact that "there is no authority except that which God has established" (Romans 13:1). In one instance, Paul answered his interrogator with some of the harshest words possible, even with a curse, but he softened once he discovered that he was speaking to the high priest:
Paul looked straight at the Sanhedrin and said, "My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day." At this the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near Paul to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him, "God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!"
Those who were standing near Paul said, "You dare to insult God's high priest?" Paul replied, "Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written: 'Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people.'" (Acts 23:1-5)
Thus the strong tendency among apologists and interpreters to universalize 1 Peter 3:15 and condemn those who do not adhere to their standard of "gentleness and respect" is unbiblical (since it removes the words from their context, and distorts and misapplies them) and irreverent (for it indirectly criticizes the prophets, the apostles, and even the Lord).
And I say that they use their standard of "gentleness and respect" because, whether in context or out of context, they do not use Scripture itself to define these words, but the non-Christian notion of social propriety. The result is that the unbelievers are controlling how Christians must deal with them. This in turn takes away the sting that is part and parcel of a biblical defense of the faith. It is not that we must be constantly harsh and insulting – that is not the point at all – but we must remain free to display the variety and intensity of expression as prescribed and exhibited by the relevant biblical commands and examples, and as necessitated by our encounters with different types of unbelievers.
In any case, Christians should no longer allow teachers of apologetics to get away with the misuse of 1 Peter 3:15.
Our rational defense is to be accompanied by "good behavior" (v. 16). Again, the gospel message is a sufficient basis for faith, and makes the unbelievers culpable. And although some sinners might be convicted by our good behavior and thus become "ashamed of their slander," many of them might not respond this way.
In fact, our good behavior might sometimes infuriate them, harden their hearts and incite greater persecution (4:4). But we do what is right no matter what, "keeping a clear conscience," which sinners cannot see. Yet if the unbelievers persist in their persecution, how should we think? Peter writes, "It is better, if it is God's will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil" (v. 17).
Commentary on First Peter (109)
1 PETER 3:13-17
Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. "Do not fear what they fear; do not be frightened." But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. It is better, if it is God's will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil.
From 3:13 all the way to 4:19, Peter provides an extended exhortation to those Christians who would suffer various kinds and levels of persecution at the hands of unbelievers. We understand that he has unbelievers in mind because verse 15 mentions the need to answer for the gospel hope itself from those who "harm" (v. 13) the Christians. Now Peter is no longer focusing on specific relationships (2:13-3:8), but he paints the big picture and gives us broad principles, all the while keeping in mind the suffering of Christ as our example (3:18, 4:1, 13).
Verse 13 is a rhetorical question. The implied answer could be that no one would ever harm a person who is eager to do good, but this is prevented by the theme of this letter as well as the first part of verse 14, which says, "But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed." The idea is that, overall, it is unlikely for a person to receive punishment for doing good. We are not referring to possibility, but likelihood. Indeed, most government officials and other people with power do not enforce a systematic persecution of upright individuals. But even righteous men can suffer if they displease those with the authority to cause harm. Peter says that they are blessed for enduring unjust suffering.
The second part of verse 14 says, "Do not fear what they fear; do not be frightened." The NIV assumes that this is a quotation from Isaiah 8:12, but the translation does not seem to fit Peter's context, although it fits Isaiah's. The construction does not require such a translation here, and although Peter borrows the expressions from Isaiah, there is nothing to imply a rigid quotation. Thus the alternate reading of "Do not fear their threats," provided in NIV's margin, is preferable. The NASB reads, "And do not fear their intimidation." See also the NKJV, RSV, and ESV.
After this, Peter continues to say, "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord" (v. 15). To "not fear" the unbelievers' threats is not a purely negative attitude, nor does it put us in neutral. Rather, the positive counterpart to "do not fear" is to sanctify Christ in our hearts, to reverence him inwardly, to look to him confidently, so that we will never be shaken. The more we know Christ, and the more he fills our hearts, the less we will have to fear from men.
The rest of verse 15 is frequently cited as a foundational verse for the practice of Christian apologetics, the defense of the faith: "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect." The word translated "answer" (NIV, KJV) or "defense" (NASB, NKJV) is apologia, from which we derived the English word "apologetics." This is to be given in response to the demand for a "reason" (logos), which suggests that the answer or defense would come in the form of a rational argument or discourse. Since the topic concerns "the hope that you have," we understand that Peter is referring to an answer or defense that is both rational and biblical, or Christian.
Commentators suggest that by now Peter has broadened the context to include all kinds of unbelievers. Although some of the previous passages deal with our response to public officials and other human authorities, our verse says to Christians, "Always be prepared" to answer "everyone who asks." But this is awfully careless. Everyone should know that "everyone" almost never means everyone! That is, seemingly universal terms like "all" and "every" often occur within contexts that restrict their meanings, so that "all" means all that is within the defined boundaries, and "every" means every one that is within the specified restrictions.
With this in mind, the previous passages, at least from 2:13 to 3:6, all deal with submission to human authorities. But lest anyone should say that 3:8-12 has severed the continuity, our verse is itself enclosed by other verses that refer to those who have the power to "harm" (3:13) Christians, the potential to make threats and incite fear (3:14b), and cause them to "suffer" (3:14a and 17). The text continues to say that Christ "died" (3:18) for the unrighteous, that he was "put to death" (3:18), and that he "suffered in his body" (4:1). The "everyone" is no ordinary fellow.
Commentary on First Peter (108)
To "[be] humble" is not only to reflect the character of our Lord, but it is also a practical necessity for a church under persecution. Most of those who are prideful really have little to be proud about, and of course no one can boast about himself before the Lord. But humility is not blind self-abasement. It is honest, and does not deny a person's virtues and abilities, even relative to that of others. However, it is so honest, and it sees so clearly, that it understands not only a person's relation to other people, but also his relation to God and his grace. Thus he acknowledges God's transcendence and superiority, and relative to God, his own creatureliness and undeserving condition. The Greeks considered humility a sign of weakness, but the truth is that the lack of humility is a sign of ignorance.
However, humility cannot be attained and explained solely by honest self-assessment, for Christ understood that he was able, perfect, and sinless in every way, and yet he was the very example of humility. Therefore, like other Christian virtues, humility is deliberate. One is not compelled to be humble, and one does not become humble by accident. Christ acknowledged that he was Teacher and Lord to his disciples, but he stooped to serve them, even to wash their feet (John 13:13-14). And this explains how we can remain humble before others even when we know that, by God's grace, we are genuinely superior to them in some respects. Humility is not an acknowledgement of inferiority, although it can include this when it reflects reality. But in its higher expression, it is the deliberate act of stooping in one's attitudes and actions in order to serve others according to the will of God.
Our modern corporate world considers it healthy to always compete and compare, but this attitude can prove destructive to the Christian community. Yet one can often find it in the contexts of Christian discipleship and ministry. To the extent that we are concerned about becoming better and bigger than our brothers, and exhibiting our superiority before men, we are no longer serving God, but self. A humble man has a true assessment of himself, but there is also the spiritual strength to practice deliberate abasement and service before others.
Humility often works itself out in very practical situations. For instance, Paul tells his readers, "Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position" (Romans 12:16). A man who is rich, powerful, or educated is certainly superior to one who is not at least in these ways. A humble man does not flaunt these things, and he does not use his credentials to belittle or subjugate others. Rather, he associates with his brothers and sisters as equals in Christ, using his talents and resources to promote their welfare.
Then, Peter continues in verse 9, "Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing." Because the verse begins by telling Christians how they should respond to evil and insult, some commentators assume that he is now referring to how they should deal with outsiders, or unbelievers.
This naïve interpretation is puzzling. Perhaps these commentators attend churches that are far better than those that we have seen, and so they think that Christians do not suffer evil and insult from other believers. But even then, the New Testament contains more than a few warnings against jealousy, deception, and infighting among church members (1 Corinthians 1:11, 3:3, 6:6-8; 2 Corinthians 12:20; Galatians 5:15, 26; Ephesians 4:25, 31-32; Colossians 3:8-10; 1 Thessalonians 5:14-15; James 4:1). Thus even if Peter is referring to outsiders, his instruction must also apply to conflict among believers.
Some of the cruelest treatments and scathing insults that a believer will receive will come from his Christian brothers and sisters. Sometimes the ministers are the favorite targets, but even when they are not, they will always get their share of criticisms and accusations. And sometimes ministers steal from one another, or plot to destroy one another. God's work is the greatest joy, but young ministers would do well to put aside romantic ideas of ministry life. It can often be a thankless job, and their greatest enemies will often be other professing Christians. But as Paul says, "If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ" (Galatians 1:10). So we fix our gaze on the Lord and move forward with determination.
When assailed by evil and insult, believers are not to respond with more of the same, but with blessing instead. To imitate the Lord in such a manner pleases the Father. Moreover, it serves to counteract the unbelievers' false accusations against our faith (2:12). It promotes peace within the Christian community. It is the stronger brother who could absorb the evil and the insult, and return a blessing instead. An immature and hotheaded believer would act on his indignation and perpetuate the hostility.
Along with this instruction, Peter adds an incentive, as he continues in verse 9, "…because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing." That is, Christians are called to act in the way specified in verses 8 and 9, so that they may "inherit a blessing" from God.
Although the verb "inherit" is often used in connection with the Christians' heavenly inheritance (1:4), context must dictate the meaning, and the emphasis here is temporal blessing. Verses 10-12 refer to those who would "see good days," and that the Lord has his eyes on the righteous, being "attentive to their prayer." These verses are taken from Psalm 34:12-16, where the context also relates to God's attentiveness, deliverance, and protection in this life.
Taken from the Psalm, these verses exhibit clear parallelisms, making them almost self-explanatory. Thus to "love life" refers to the desire to "see good days" (v. 10). The "evil" that one must "keep his tongue from" is "deceitful speech" (v. 10), although other kinds are not excluded, of course. To "turn from evil and do good," in this context, is to "seek peace and pursue it" (v. 11). For the Lord to have his "eyes" on the righteous, among other things, means that he would be "attentive to their prayer" (v. 12). The other side of this is that "the face of the Lord is against those who do evil" (v. 12).
Commentary on First Peter (107)
1 PETER 3:8-12
Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble. Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. For, "Whoever would love life and see good days must keep his tongue from evil and his lips from deceitful speech. He must turn from evil and do good; he must seek peace and pursue it. For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and his ears are attentive to their prayer, but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil."
Peter is wrapping up the large section that we have been studying (2:13-3:7). He has been instructing his Christian readers to submit to government officials, masters, and husbands, many of which are probably unbelievers who are unsympathetic to their faith, and who might unjustly inflict hardship upon them. The general approach that Christians should take toward these authority figures is stated earlier: "Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us" (2:12).
Now Peter comes to the final item on this list for this section. He has been telling his readers how to face outsiders, but it is also important for them to learn how to treat one another. And on this, he writes, "Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble." The statement is directed toward believers, since Peter speaks to "all of you" and tells them to "love as brothers."
To "live in harmony" is literally to "be of one mind" (NKJV) or to "be like-minded" (HCSB). The NIV gives the correct meaning of the word. The NASB is similar and reads "be harmonious." The RSV says, "have unity in spirit," but the meaning is the same. Although the New Testament stresses unity between brothers and sisters in Christ, it appears to be an uncommon trait among Christians today. Happy is the man who finds it among his community of brothers.
For those facing persecution for their faith, such as Peter's readers, it is not only a virtue and a duty to maintain unity, but it would also give them some practical advantage. That said, it is for this advantage that some choose to suppress even essential doctrinal differences in order to put up an united front before the world.
But once they suppress these essential differences, there can be no genuine and permanent unity, since they in fact differ on the most essential things. Unless they abandon their beliefs, these differences will seep through the cracks and generate conflict and distrust. Then, sooner or later, they might even erupt into full scale infighting and division.
On the other hand, if they do abandon their beliefs for a superficial unity, then this unity becomes worthless altogether. They no longer promote God's program in the world, so that they no longer carry an offense against the world, and there is no longer anything for which the world would persecute them. Thus there is really no point in maintaining a superficial united front. In addition, if the unity produced involves a suppression of doctrinal differences, it in fact falls short of the kind of oneness that Scripture requires.
To "be sympathetic" is to share in other people's joys and sorrows, and to identify with them in their condition. As Paul teaches in Romans 12:15, "Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn," and in 1 Corinthians 12:26, "If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it." The context of the verse from 1 Corinthians provides the basis for this sympathy – all believers belong to the same Body of Christ.
The command, therefore, is not just an encouragement to identify with other believers in our imagination. Rather, it is a call to let our attitudes reflect the reality that we are one people in Christ. In a real sense, what happens to one or some of us happens to all of us. Thus it is unbiblical for a Christian to be concerned only about himself, and what happens to himself. More improper still is it to gloat over another Christian's suffering, or to envy another's blessing or deliverance.
To "love as brothers" is to maintain a self-giving affection toward other Christians. Of course, it refers to both male and female disciples. Grudem thinks that the NIV obscures the emphasis of loving fellow believers, and seems to prefer the RSV's "love of the brethren." However, I am unconvinced that the NIV's rendering, also shared by the KJV and NKJV, indeed presents such a problem. His criticism seems more relevant to the ESV's "have…brotherly love" and even more so to the NASB's "be…brotherly." But even these translations are not wrong, especially the ESV.
There is to be a special love among Christians. In heaven, the bond between believers shall be much more intense than the affection that exists between natural relatives on earth. Such a bond is seldom evident in the church today, and this can only mean that we are failing to regard other believers as family here on earth.
Yet Scripture never refers to this brotherly love as something that resides only in especially holy and mature saints. It ought to be the ordinary sign of discipleship. As Jesus states, "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another" (John 13:35). John puts it both positively and negatively, and writes, "We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death" (1 John 3:14). The person who has no love for Christians is himself not a Christian at all.
Now, we partake of the bread and wine of the covenant, and rejoices that God has come to dine with men. We argue over the spiritual presence of Christ in the sacraments, and make fine distinctions to preserve the orthodox view. But have we neglected the fact that, when we eat the bread and drink the wine with one another, we reaffirm not only our fellowship with Christ but also to one another, and that we are as blood brothers in him? And when we sin against one another, when we sin against the brotherhood, we also sin against the blood of the covenant by which we are joined.
To "be compassionate" is to have a "tender heart" (RSV, also see NKJV and NLT) toward others. The NASB has "kindhearted," which is also correct. KJV's "be pitiful" is now archaic, although to be compassionate certainly includes the idea of showing "pity" as we understand the word today. However, the word is in fact too rich for a simple English translation to satisfy. Hillyer thinks that translations referring to a "tender" or "kind" heart are too passive, and "pitiful" is condescending. He favors the NIV as the closest possible English translation, although I am not convinced that these other translations are so bad.
In any case, the word literally refers to the bowels, the intestines, or the "gut," if you will. It depicts strong feelings in the inner parts. Thus the KJV refers to "bowels of compassion" in 1 John 3:17. There the NKJV and NASB say "heart," and the NIV has "pity." Christians should have this attitude toward all people, even their enemies, but the emphasis here is how believers should treat one another. So, to paraphrase, Peter says that believers are to have "gut-wrenching compassion and sympathy" for one another, and one that moves them to action (1 John 3:17-18).
Commentary on First Peter (106)
But still, it is common to object, "I have no problem obeying a loving husband, but what if I married a man who does not follow the example of Christ?" These women are liars. The truth is that they will not obey their husbands even if they are as holy and loving as Christ himself. This is because the command to obey their husbands comes from Christ in the first place! So in suggesting reasons to dismiss the command to obey, they have already disobeyed Christ. Thus the problem is not their husbands, but their sinful resistance to authority.
Remember that Peter's instruction to the wives (3:1-6) is written precisely to prepare them on facing hostility and mistreatment from their husbands. He does not say to be submissive only when the husbands treat them with understanding and with honor. Rather, he writes to wives whose husbands might be unbelievers altogether, so that there is no telling how they might treat these women. Christian wives must submit even to these men. They are to "put their hope in God," "do what is right," and "do not give way to fear."
Make no mistake: the husbands could abuse their authority, and indeed many of them do. But if the proper use of authority is the precondition for obedience, then 3:1-6 would be meaningless and unnecessary. In fact, this would defeat the purpose of 2:13-25 as well, and also much of Peter's letter. Those women who say that they will be obedient as long as their husbands are "reasonable" completely miss the point, and in this they sin against the Lord just as much as their uncaring and abusive husbands.
When Peter pressed Jesus about another disciple, the Lord replied, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me" (John 21:22). Although it is true that the husband's behavior carries tremendous consequences for the wife's welfare, the same principle applies. The command to obey the husband comes directly from God, and it is to God that the wife must give account. So we say to the wife, "If the husband sins, what is that to you?" As Paul writes, "To his own master he stands or falls" (Romans 14:4). But you must follow the Lord.
Nevertheless, we acknowledge that unloving, unfaithful, and abusive husbands are rampant in our society, and even in our churches. One reason for this is that church leaders have not been insistent enough on teaching and enforcing the biblical commands in this area.
Now, if we take a harsh tone with rebellious and overbearing women, we offer a still stronger rebuke toward husbands who do not cherish their wives. We think that they are not men, but ignorant and savage beasts. They must repent, turn from their sins against the Lord and their wives, and follow Christ's example.
In addition, what we have just said about the women also applies to the men. That is, they are to love their wives even as Christ loves his church and gave himself for her, whether or not these wives follow the biblical command to submit and obey. Yes, a woman without a gentle and quiet spirit can be so intolerable that she could drive a man to utter despair, and sometimes even to suicide. Some would rather perish than to bear her nonsense any longer. But this is also where sacrifice comes in. Christian love is not mere animal affection, but it mirrors God's self-giving attitude toward his elect sinners.
Just as women should look to God for preservation when dealing their unloving husbands, the husbands can find strength from the Spirit and inspiration from the love of Christ when dealing with their rebellious wives. And perhaps by their strong leadership and unfailing love, the husbands will even win over some of these women to the way of the Lord.
Commentary on First Peter (105)
If Sarah is the model for Christian wives, Jesus Christ himself is the model for Christian husbands, in the way that he sacrificed for the church and cares for her (Ephesians 5:25-33). Earlier we mentioned that the command for wives to "submit" to their husbands cannot mean that they should simply "yield their rights." This is because in such a context, in which they are told to obey their husbands in everything, they have no rights to yield in the first place. It is not as if wives can have their own way whenever they wish, only that they should surrender to their husbands instead. By God's command, they have no such authority, so that there are no such rights for them to surrender. Rather, the command for them to submit refers to humble attitude and obedient behavior.
But when we turn to the husbands, they do possess rights that they may either exercise or surrender. From Ephesians 5, we understand that husbands must love their wives as Christ loves the church, and we deduce from the passage that this love translates into two broad guiding principles – namely, following Christ's example, it should be spiritual in focus (v. 26-27) and sacrificial in practice (v. 25).
Just as the wife's attitude toward the husband is characterized by submission and obedience, the attitude of the husband toward his wife is characterized by sacrifice. This means that, as far as it is biblical and possible, and as far as it advances God's program in the home, he should constantly yield his rights for the benefit, comfort, and security of his wife.
This applies to all areas of life, from the mundane items to critical situations. Sometimes he might have to offer her his coat and endure the cold himself. When funds are limited, he will have to forgo his own gratification so that his wife may purchase what she needs and wants. He might have to be "the bad guy" to protect her from a controlling mother-in-law. These may seem like insignificant things, but they are what daily life consists of.
Then, there are the emergency situations. The husband must be willing to sacrifice his life for his wife without hesitation. Now, of course the devoted wife would also sacrifice herself for her husband. And here is where his authority could prove useful – he must order her to save herself, and she must obey. This might sound too dramatic, but it is in fact unrealistic to suppose such a situation will never arise. Moreover, if the biblical teaching is that the husband must love his wife in the same way that Christ loves the church in his sacrifice, then until a husband considers this point, he has yet to make the kind of commitment to his wife that is required by a biblical conception of marriage.
However, this does not mean that the husbands should always allow their wives to have their way. When it comes to matters of personal comfort and security, the husbands may sacrifice his rights for their wives, but spiritual concerns must take priority, so that if the wives are disobedient, then for the sake of their sanctification, the husbands must stand firm and teach their wives biblical submission. The trouble is that many husbands are selfish when they should yield their rights to the wives in love, and they are lenient when they should remain firm against the wives' sinful tendencies. In demonstrating sacrificial love, the husbands should never hand over the headship of the family to the wives.
Ephesians 5 does not only teach that the husbands should be sacrificial in their love, but that their love should also be spiritual in focus, just as Christ purifies his church through the word of God. So when it comes to the major decisions in the home, and especially those that may affect the spiritual condition of its members, the husband must take the lead. Here is one area in which the husbands must assume leadership and wield authority without compromise.
A husband must exercise constant authority and oversight concerning the general direction that the family takes. As the head of the home, he could consult with his wife and other family members, but the final decision and responsibility rest with him. By now it should become evident that although the husband's authority in the home is second only to the Lord, there is little room for self-serving decisions. He is to use this authority to serve, protect, and direct his wife and family, often to his own hurt, and he must give an account for his decisions. Therefore, let every man exercise his authority with soberness and godly fear. And in light of this, women should not dare complain that they must obey their husbands.
Commentary on First Peter (104)
Sometimes preachers use certain passages to flatter women. For example, it is often said that the disciples who remained with Christ at his crucifixion and who first visited his tomb were women. It would seem, then, that women tend to possess greater spiritual courage and devotion. But the assertion cannot be proved in this manner. This is because women were so disrespected at the time that they were not regarded as threats or people of any significance. This is not to belittle them in any way, but we cannot say that they possessed superior spirituality over men just because of what they did, since they were not in as much danger as the male disciples.
My point is that we cannot assume comprehensive equality just because the idea is fashionable, especially when Peter says that one gender is "weaker" in some sense.
Now, based on a general reading of Scripture, it seems that at least Peter could be referring to bodily strength. That is, in general but not in every case, the husband tends to be physically stronger than his wife. This also fits the context quite well. A physically weaker wife is in danger of her unbelieving husband's abuse. But rather than giving way to fear, she should put her hope in God, following the examples of the holy women of the past (3:1-6).
The context also strongly suggests that Peter might be referring to social inferiority as well. Because of the woman's position – imposed not only by culture, but also by God's command – she is much more vulnerable to mistreatment, not only by her husband, but also by society in general. With this understanding in mind, and if there is any other way in which the wife is weaker, the husband should accommodate her, protect her, and honor her according to her needs.
Second, husbands are to treat their wives with understanding and honor because they are "heirs with you of the gracious gift of life." In other words, although they may be weaker in some sense, they are completely equal to men where it really counts. They are joint heirs in eternal life and the blessings of heaven. They are not hindered by or inferior to their husbands in any way when it comes to growth in knowledge, faith, love, courage, and the various spiritual gifts. They have direct access to God through Jesus Christ without the need for mediation by their husbands. And it is to God to whom they will give their final account.
Nevertheless, it is important to mention again, this changes nothing when it comes to the roles of husbands and wives in marriage. The husband is still the head of the wife, who must obey him in everything as she obeys the Lord himself. We have already observed the connection to Galatians 3:28. And there, Paul also affirms that Christian women are "heirs according to the promise" (v. 29). On this point, there is no difference between male and female.
Third, Peter tells the husbands to live with the wives according to knowledge, bestowing honor upon them, "so that nothing will hinder your prayers." This will sound strange to those who conceive of their faith as a strictly individual business. Although the Scripture acknowledges a private aspect of religion, it also affirms a communal dimension of faith. But even considered as an individual, the husband can hardly expect God to hear him while he mistreats his wife or harbors hostility toward her, whom God tells him to love and cherish even to the point of death (Ephesians 5:25). By the same token, no woman should suppose that she is spiritual or that she has the ear of God when she resents her husband, or if she is not entirely submissive and obedient toward him.
Commentary on First Peter (103)
The verse includes three reasons for living with the wives with understanding and for bestowing them with honor.
First, the wife is "the weaker partner." Several common reactions are fatal to correct interpretation. Some people are simply offended by this. Among them, those who affirm biblical inerrancy become confused, and those who do not just choose to disagree with the verse. Then, some people attribute this to the culturally accepted belief of the day. Still others dilute the verse to a point that it completely loses its significance in this context. But Peter offers it as a reason to treat the wife with understanding and honor. Apparently, one of the things that the husband should understand is that his wife is "weaker."
Peter does not specify in what sense the wife is the weaker partner. Spiritual inferiority is ruled out by the next phrase, since he writes that Christian wives are "heirs with you of the gracious gift of life." This is the very point that Paul makes in Galatians 3:28. Remember that this – that is, spiritual equality in Christ – and nothing else is in view both in this verse and in Galatians. Peter has just stated that the wives are to submit to their husbands, so that when he mentions their spiritual equality here, we are not to think that he suddenly contradicts himself. Husbands and wives are spiritual equals, but husbands have the authority in the home.
Commentators rush to deny that Peter is referring to intellectual inferiority. My opinion is that women are not intellectually inferior. Or more precisely, I have not come across any persuasive argument or evidence showing that women are inherently less capable than men in learning and thinking. However, to suppose without reason that Peter does not have this mind is to beg the question. Not many commentators even attempt to justify their exclusion of intellectual inferiority from the meaning of "weaker" in this verse, and those who do invariably fail to convince.
It might not be what Peter means, but we cannot discard the possibility just because we think it would be insulting to women. Our interest is not to put down women in any way, although it is healthy to crush the gender pride that women have built up over the years – not that men should have any such pride. So what if the Bible calls you weaker in some way? Would you rather renounce the Scripture than to be humbled?
That said, there might be biblical reasons to exclude certain kinds of inferiority from consideration. We have already mentioned that Christian women are spiritual equals with Christian men. Since the spiritual is inseparably connected with the moral, we may assume that Peter is not referring to spiritual or moral weakness. Then, Proverbs 31 states that women can possess excellent character (v. 10), skill (v. 13), economic sense (v. 16-18), strength (v. 17), compassion (v. 20), and wisdom (v. 26). However, although it says that all these qualities might be found in women, verse 10 implies that there are not many who possess them (but neither does it say that the percentage is lower than that of men). So Proverbs 31 alone cannot overturn the possibility that women are in general "weaker" in any or all of these areas, that is, except for the spiritual and the moral, which we have legitimately excluded.