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.
Commentary on First Peter (102)
1 PETER 3:7
Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.
Peter now turns to address the Christian husbands. Commentators wonder about the significance of the brevity of his instruction to husbands, especially compared to the ample attention that he gives to wives. Some suggest that perhaps there are significantly fewer Christian men among his readers, but this inference is unnecessary and seems to be mere speculation. What we can say for sure is that it takes fewer words for Peter to get his point across to the husbands. Once he has said enough, there is no reason to write more about it.
But if we must find a reason that carries some relevance to the context, we might mention the different social positions of the men and women. It is quite possible for the wives to come under suspicion and suffer mistreatment from non-Christian husbands who are unsympathetic toward their wives' new religion. Therefore, detailed instructions and encouragement are appropriate.
But it is unlikely that the women could inflict any suffering upon their husbands, and thus the men only needed to be told to treat their wives with understanding. Also, there are other passages that discuss the roles and duties of husbands in greater detail. As Christians who possess the entire New Testament canon, we must heed those portions of Scripture as well.
The phrase "in the same way" is translated from a word that means "likewise." It can mean several things. Here it cannot mean that husbands are to submit to authority "in the same way," since the verse does not deal with submission to authority, but to how they are to use their authority. So, here the phrase appears to be a connective that introduces the next item of discussion. In any case, the topic is doubtless related to the previous verses concerning the wives' submission, and to the larger context of submission to authority.
The NIV tells the husband to be "considerate." This overly interpretive translation captures part of the meaning but also loses most of it. Preferable options include "according to knowledge" (KJV) and "with understanding" (NKJV). Peter does not specify exactly what the husbands are to know or understand, but from the immediate and general context, it is likely that he is referring to knowledge of the command of God and understanding of the nature of women, and their own wives in particular.
Husbands are to gain a firm grasp of God's command concerning their roles and duties in marriage, and they are to become experts when it comes to their wives – that is, their personalities, beliefs, needs, desires, talents, strengths, weaknesses, and vulnerabilities. Then, they must make constructive use of this knowledge as they dwell with their wives.
God's command in this area is very clear, and the analogy in Ephesians 5 is nothing less than graphic (v. 25-33). When it comes to understanding their wives, as the husbands live with them day by day, it is not difficult to learn the most intimate details about them if they will just pay attention. Other than to live with their wives with understanding, they must also "treat them with respect." Although the translation is not wrong, it does seem too weak. A stronger translation like "bestowing honor" should be favored.
Commentary on First Peter (101)
For many Christians, their favorite portion of any discussion on submission to authority is the one that defines the exceptions. In other words, whenever the Bible commands obedience, they wish to know, "But when may we disobey?"
The correct answer, of course, is that a wife may disobey her husband whenever he commands something that is sinful. For example, if the husband commands the wife to commit adultery, or to worship a false god, then the wife will have no choice but to disobey. This sounds straightforward, but additional comments are needed to prevent abuse. This is because wives often take it upon themselves to call something sinful when it is only contrary to their personal preference or standard.
Once a farming couple was taking a truckload of newly harvested wheat to the market for sale. The details of this story are hazy to me, but it seems that there are government regulations limiting the moisture on each unit of crops. The reason for the law is that water adds to the weight of the product, and the wetter something is, the less of the product the buyers are getting for the price. So the purpose of the law is to prevent fraud.
In this instance, the wife thought that the wheat was too wet, and she urged her husband not to sell it in such a condition. The husband, however, informed her that the amount of moisture on the wheat was well within the limits specified by the government, and therefore he sold the wheat against his wife's protest. Now the wife felt that her husband had committed fraud, and she could not help feeling that she had participated in a dishonest transaction herself. She complained to her pastor, who was wise enough to inquire about the details of the case without assuming the worst of the husband right away. He then informed the woman that she was in fact the one at fault.
The husband had done nothing that was against either divine law or human law, and yet the wife felt that what he did was immoral, and worse, he made her a part of it. The truth is that she had no respect for either the Lord or her husband, but she was evaluating the husband's action by her private standard and subjective judgment. In effect, she had made herself the head over her husband, and even defied the Lord in the process. She was not more honest than her husband – she was just more self-righteous.
Therefore, when we acknowledge that there are exceptions to obeying the husband, we are probably not saying enough. Are the wives able to distinguish actual immorality from personal distaste? Or are they going to regard as an exception anything that they do not like, anything that runs contrary to their own hang-ups?
Business decisions cover one area in which wives may disagree when in fact they just want to take control of the situation. Another area is sexual inhibitions. Here many wives have frustrated their husbands for no good reason, labeling certain activities as perverse and immoral when they can offer no biblical reason for their opposition. Their aversion probably comes from their personal hang-ups, perhaps inherited from their family and church traditions. Unbelieving husbands then blame the Christian faith for draining the joy and excitement out of their marriage, when the real culprit is their wives' scriptural ignorance and self-righteous attitude.
These are just examples – wives illegitimately defy their husbands in every area of life. The church should affirm the place for exceptions, but also help the women define them, so that preference does not become law, and personal inhibitions do not become divine prohibitions. In any case, it is time that Christians respond to God's command with a "Yes, Lord" rather than the tiresome "Yes, but" that has become the spiritual reflex of many believers.
Commentary on First Peter (100)
Without excusing unbelief, women who fail to comply with Peter's instructions constitute one of the greatest hindrances against the conversion of men. Their rebellious nature and overbearing "piety" intensify their husbands' aversion to all things Christian. Pastors should rebuke these women in the most urgent spirit and the harshest terms possible. Do not spare those who resist. The church should let the unbelieving husbands understand that the behavior of these women do not represent the Christian faith. Pastors should humiliate these wives in preaching and strip them of all spiritual credibility so that the husbands can examine for themselves the gospel of Christ, and its true wisdom and power.
The pastoral dimension of our topic demands significant attention. The church has been either so influenced or intimidated by feminist ideologies that it often tiptoes around the subject. Now it is so afraid to appear sexist or chauvinistic that even those who affirm the biblical teaching find the need to dilute, soften, and qualify the divine command so much that it loses its force on the people. But the biblical command amounts to saying, "Wives, obey your husbands. And that means you must do what they tell you – yes, all the time and in everything, just as the church submits to Christ."
Other than in preaching and in official theological statements, there are other important ways by which the church may reaffirm the biblical teaching of male headship in the home. Specifically, the church must not only tell wives to submit, but it should also act like it expects them to do so. And not only must the church tell the wives to regard their husbands as their heads, but it should also act like it regards them as the heads of the wives as well.
In practice, this might mean that the church should not ask the wives to make major decisions without going through their husbands. In my own ministry and personal life, as much as possible, I see to it that I either do not communicate with a woman without her husband's knowledge or permission, or I see to it that he knows about it afterward. This can be impossible or extremely inconvenient in some cases (e.g. when speaking to a female storekeeper), but I am referring to encounters that involve personal conversations, and especially those of significant length and content. The husbands should know about these.
Indeed, sometimes circumstances prevent me from observing the proper protocol, but there is no excuse when it is easy, which is often the case. If I tell a woman to regard her husband as her head, then I should also regard her husband as her head. Jesus was most likely not just trying to expose the woman when he said to her, "Go, call your husband and come back" (John 4:16). Another application of this is that I must never allow a woman to speak ill of her husband or to dishonor him in any way, even in counseling.
If a person is dealing with an institution with an authority structure, such as a family or a church, then there are protocols to be observed. People are unaccustomed to thinking this way about the family. However, imagine a person who disagrees with how something is being done in a church, but instead of speaking to the leadership, he goes directly to the people and tries to convince them without the knowledge or permission of the church leaders.
With our society's emphasis on independence and freedom, I suppose that many Christians would find nothing wrong even with this example. But make no mistake about it: such a person who bypasses the chain of authority in the attempt to wield direct influence over the people is a troublemaker and trespasser. Even if the changes he desires are beneficial, it is not up to him to bypass the leadership. As it is, he is as the snake in Eden who sneaks pass Adam so that he could speak with Eve directly, and so that he could corrupt the institution from the bottom up. Regardless of his motive or ability, we should be suspicious of someone who disregards authority and protocol. The same applies to the family.
Commentary on First Peter (99)
As for Sarah, she provides a perfect example in the context of our passage, so that Peter's wisdom is once again evident. Sarah is one of the most significant figures in biblical history, but even more relevant than that, she was known for her outward beauty, even when she was old. In fact, she was so beautiful that it became a problem for Abraham, who thought that even kings (who had many concubines) would kill him so that they could have her. Thus in appealing to Sarah's case, right away it is ruled out that the pursuit of inner beauty is just an excuse to take the attention away from a person's frightful appearance.
No, Sarah was outwardly attractive, but what made her beautiful in the true and enduring sense? How about these other holy women of the past? Why were they approved and praised, and mentioned as examples for Christian wives to follow? Peter writes, "They were submissive to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master" (v. 5-6).
There is something else that we can say about them, something that the wise apostle does not fail to consider. One may point out that, for women to so totally submit to their husbands, and for them to adopt a gentle and quiet spirit, might also make them vulnerable before abusive husbands and an unkind world. If they do not fight for their personal rights, who would fight for them? If they do not strive for survival, who would preserve them? This concern fits right into our context where Christians must live as strangers in a hostile world, where governments might persecute them without cause, where masters might unjustly punish their servants, and where men might view their wives' new religion with suspicion.
So here is another reason why Sarah's example is so relevant to the instruction that he gives to Christian women. God's calling to Abraham required him to leave his established way of life and to set out as a pilgrim for a land that he had never known. Of course Sarah had to follow. Surely the discomfort and uncertainty could prove oppressive even to a man, let alone a woman whose husband was called by God in such an unusual manner. We must also add to this the troubles incited by Abraham's own errors, which affected Sarah in very personal ways, and at times even threatened her purity and safety.
But Sarah, and these other holy women of the past, did not maintain an attitude of submission by relying solely on their husbands' spirituality or resourcefulness. Rather, they knew to "put their hope in God." Of course their husbands were not perfect and sinless, and still less were they omniscient and omnipotent. They succumbed to temptations and made errors in judgment. They were not able to foresee future events, options, and dangers, nor were they able to control or prevent any of them.
However, the one who was pleased with their gentle and quiet spirit was also the one who could see them through their troubles. It is a mistake for women to obey the God who commands submission to the husbands, but at the same time depend solely on the husbands to make things turn out right. These holy women serve as excellent examples for women because, just as they obeyed the one who commanded their submission, they also trusted in him, so that their obedience would bear good fruit. The spiritual "daughters" (v. 6) of Sarah are those who "do what is right," so that they practice submission, and who "do not give way to fear" (whether under threat from their husbands or from the unbelieving world), so that they place their trust in God.
Commentary on First Peter (98)
Thus, Peter says, "Your beauty should not come from outward adornment," and he continues, "Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight" (v. 4).
The "inner self" is literally "the hidden person of the heart" (NASB), and refers to the incorporeal and invisible part of a person. Some theologians assert that Scripture teaches a "holistic" view of man that does not make a sharp distinction between the incorporeal and the corporeal, the soul and the body, or mind and matter. They say that man is not "a ghost in a machine."
However, the very opposite is true. To employ their somewhat pejorative expression, the Bible's view of man is precisely that he is a ghost in a machine, and that the "ghost" is the essential part of the self that can survive and maintain its identity outside of the "machine." Our passage is only one of many examples (Romans 7:22-23; 2 Corinthians 4:16; Ephesians 3:16; James 2:26). The motive of the holistic view is perhaps to maintain the basic goodness of all creation and the importance of the physical. But one can acknowledge this point without denying the sharp distinction that Scripture makes between the soul and the body.
Whereas outward beauty is temporary, inward beauty is unfading. A noun must be supplied by the reader since none accompanies the adjective "unfading," which means imperishable or incorruptible. Judging by the context, "unfading beauty" is acceptable (also see NASB, NEB, RSV). This unfading beauty is the quality of "a gentle and quiet spirit." This is the direct opposite of the multitudes of Christian women who consider themselves spiritual, but are at the same time boisterous, manipulative, and self-righteous. Some Christian subcultures in fact encourage this type of personalities.
Even unbelieving husbands should consider "a gentle and quiet spirit" refreshing and attractive. But reprobates are unmoved by godliness. Following Peter's instruction does not guarantee a husband's conversion, although it can be one way that God uses to reach a man's heart with the gospel. Still, women should remember that a gentle and quiet spirit "is of great worth in God's sight," and ultimately it is he whom they seek to please. This also reminds us that the call to submission and gentleness is not a merely pragmatic command. It is what God requires from all women of all generations, regardless of its effectiveness for winning over their husbands to the faith.
To illustrate and reinforce his point, Peter then urges the wives to pursue inner beauty by following the examples of holy women of the past. Notice that although he proceeds to cite Sarah as a specific case, he begins by referring to "holy women" in general. Therefore, Christian wives are not to follow only Sarah, but all the women in Scripture who exhibit a life of faith and submission, and a gentle and quiet spirit.
Commentary on First Peter (97)
In two previous passages, Peter first begins with the instruction to submit to the government (2:13-14) and to the masters (2:18), and then he proceeds to explain the purpose or principle underlying the instruction that he has just given (2:15, 19). Christians submit to the government, "For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men." And slaves submit to their masters, even the harsh and unreasonable ones, "For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God."
Likewise, in our passage, after instructing the wives to submit to their own husbands, Peter proceeds to specify the purpose for mentioning it. That is, if any of the husbands do not believe the gospel, they might be won over by the behavior of their wives. Now he continues, in verses 3 to 6, to explain the principle underlying his instruction: "For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful" (v. 5). "The way" that he is referring to in this verse, and by which these women made themselves beautiful, is the pursuit of inner beauty (v. 4).
Outward beauty is characterized by "outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes" (v. 3). Peter is probably applying a common Christian teaching, as a very similar instruction appears in 1 Timothy 2:9-10: "I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God." There Paul speaks to the proper behavior of women in the church in general, whereas Peter speaks to women in the context of marriage, or wives in particular. But notice the similarity in theme, as well as the same three categories of outward adornment: expensive coiffures, jewelry, and clothes.
Wealthy women in Peter's day tend to devote an inordinate amount of time and money on beautifying themselves. Those interested in the details should consult the relevant sources on ancient practices. In any case, the point is that women, especially Christian women, should not focus on outward beauty.
However, contrary to some who go to the extreme with this teaching, the Bible does not say that one should pay no attention at all to his or her appearance. Neither is Scripture altogether neutral about outward appearance. It often takes time to acknowledge a woman's physical beauty, and it is referred to as a blessing in Job (42:15). Nevertheless, it should not receive too much of our attention. The danger is to elevate it to something that it is not. Indeed, outward beauty does not indicate spiritual superiority, and God looks at the heart (1 Samuel 16:7).
Women should be characterized by modesty, decency, and propriety (1 Timothy 2:9). And consistent with the teaching in our passage from Peter, as much as possible and appropriate, they should select the type and amount of outward adornment that will please their husbands.
Commentary on First Peter (96)
On the other hand, we cannot say the same thing about a moral example alone, although many people falsely believe that one may win others to Christ without giving priority to a verbal message filled with relevant information. The common misconception that one may be a witness for Christ primarily through his holy lifestyle does not originate from a careful exegetical study of Scripture, but it reflects the infiltration of non-Christian philosophies in the church.
What about our passage, and verses 1 and 2 in particular? Does it not say that the husbands who "do not believe the word, may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives"? Yes, but won over to what? To Hinduism? To Mormonism? Eventually, the wives or others must preach the message to the husbands. This either comes at the beginning, to be reinforced and made attractive by the godly pattern of living that the wives then demonstrate, or it comes after their life of submission and reverence has gained the attention of the husbands. That these husbands are said to be those who "do not believe the word" probably presupposes that they have already heard it and rejected the initial attempt at converting them.
Since the word has already been preached to them, this means that the husbands are fully aware that the "purity and reverence" of their wives are exhibited as Christians. Unless the word of God is preached to them, it would be impossible for the husbands to associate the good behavior of their wives to the Christian faith. Peter is indeed saying that godly behavior may sometimes be instrumental in conversion, but he presupposes the necessity of a verbal message. The reverent conduct of the wives is only the means by which God may use to cause some of the elect husbands to reconsider and then accept "the word" that they must believe to be saved.
Whether the preaching of the gospel comes before or after, it is without doubt the key in conversion, and not the godly example. In fact, whether it comes before or after the godly example, the husband could still reject the message. A number of verses later, Peter will say, "They think it strange that you do not plunge with them into the same flood of dissipation, and they heap abuse on you" (1 Peter 4:4). So godly behavior does not automatically convict and convert. Some people might just "think it strange." Without an explanation, people would not even know what it means, why a believer behaves as he does, or what has caused the change in him. On the other hand, a husband could believe the message in spite of her wife's ungodly or hypocritical life. So the principle is a command for the wife, and not an excuse for the husband.
Commentary on First Peter (95)
Jesus even tells his disciples to obey the message of the hypocrites: "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach" (Matthew 23:2-3). Truth is truth. God condemns hypocrisy – we do not deny that. But just because the one who preaches it does not live up to it does not excuse the one who hears it from believing it and obeying it.
Many unbelievers and apostates claim that they have rejected or discarded the Christian faith because of all the hypocrites that they see. Those preachers who exalt godly example over verbal presentation provide the excuse to perpetuate this kind of thinking, but what they should do is to oppose it. The truth is that only stupid people never believe hypocrites. They fail to make the simple distinction between what people say and what people do. As a result of their irrational thinking, and perhaps also moral arrogance, they refuse to examine what a person says to determine whether it is true. Instead, they conclude that a person who does not live up to what he says must also be saying the wrong things. Jesus is not so foolish – he makes the distinction very clear and teaches his disciples to do the same.
If no one else believes the truth, you believe the truth! If no one else lives for the truth, you live for the truth! Have some spiritual spine and moral courage. Never use other people's failure as your excuse. The coward's way out is to say, "He is a hypocrite, so he is not credible and his message must be false. He does not practice what he preaches, so I will not, either. He is a hypocrite, therefore I will remain a consistent and thoroughgoing sinner."
This was one of the things that I wondered about when I was little. I marveled at how "Christian" hypocrites could cause others to stumble. Of course the hypocrites were wrong, and Scripture even states that they were wrong in causing others to stumble. I understood that. But I also thought that those who stumbled for this reason must have been incredibly stupid people, and that their faith was never genuine in the first place. The message is true even if there are hypocrites. In fact, our message itself tells you that there would be hypocrites. So how stupid can a person be, to stumble over hypocrites? Thus both the hypocrites and those who stumble over them are culpable. They have no excuse.
Therefore, rather than allowing all the blame to fall upon the Christians, even the hypocritical ones, we must expose the fact that unbelievers are stupid for reasoning the way they do. The sinner is never exempt from believing and obeying the gospel message, since in rejecting it he sins by defying God's word – the hypocrisy of those who claim to be Christians (whether these are real Christians or not) is logically irrelevant. The preaching of the gospel alone provides a sufficient basis for faith, and the hearer is responsible for accepting it. It is often effective as well – there are those who, having been regenerated by God, perceive that the gospel is true despite the evil behavior of some professing Christians, and who then come readily to repentance and faith in Christ.
Commentary on First Peter (94)
Our passage is often used by preachers to denigrate the preaching of the word of God. This is done not only by the anti-intellectual types, but even those who are widely known as champions of biblical preaching, when it comes to this and similar passages, would suddenly exalt holy example above preaching. Some of them would even quote the irrational anti-Christian slogan, "Actions speak louder than words," when the fact is that actions never speak at all. Rather, actions must be explained by words, but it is never necessary for words to be accompanied by actions in order to demonstrate their meaning, truth, and coherence.
We should make clear what we mean here. We do not deny that Scripture commands us to believe and obey the word of God. It requires us to both preach it to others and demonstrate its message and power before them in our lives. It condemns as hypocrites those who preach but do not practice what they preach. Let us keep in mind that we affirm all of this in what follows.
Problems arise when we make our example more important than our preaching, or to make the effectiveness of the proclamation of the word of God dependent on its demonstration. It is common for Christian preachers and writers to insist that our lifestyle is the most eloquent sermon, the most powerful apologetic, or something to that effect. Some goes as far as to say that, "No one will believe you if your life does not match your message."
However, the Bible teaches none of these false ideas. It affirms that a godly example is important, but it never says that it is more important or more effective than the verbal message, nor is the message impotent without our godly example. The Bible requires our godly example as a moral necessity, meaning that we are morally required to practice what we affirm and preach. But it never presents our godly example as an intellectual or practical necessity. In other words, it never says that our ministry to others will be totally ineffective if we were hypocrites, or if we fail to practice what we preach. Still less does it permit sinners to ignore the gospel just because it is delivered to them by hypocrites.
Let us examine several relevant passages. These do not exhaust the list of relevant passages, but after looking at them, it will become evident how the others have been distorted as well.
Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 9:27, "No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize." He never says that his ministry would become ineffective if he fails to subdue his body, only that he himself would be "disqualified" before the Lord.
Related to this is the so-called "love chapter," which in fact mainly concerns the spiritual gifts. It says, "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing" (1 Corinthians 13:1-3). He never says that the spiritual gifts would fail if believers exercise them without love, but he says that those who exercise the gifts without love would gain nothing. The person could still "fathom all mysteries and all knowledge," and the mountains are still moved.
Then, consider all the instances in Scripture where the people believed the gospel upon hearing it. They never had the chance to observe the lives of the disciples. How can anyone claim that the preaching is ineffective unless it is backed up by a godly life? No, Paul says that some people even preach Christ out of "selfish ambition" and to "stir up trouble for him" (Philippians 1:17). He does not say that the message would be ineffective, but he rejoices that Christ is being preached (v. 18). The gospel carries great power even if preached by a overtly wicked man. He shall reap fire and brimstone, but the Spirit can still use his words to convert multitudes without having a godly example to show them.
Commentary on First Peter (93)
Some wives try to be less obvious, but they are just as irritating. Their husbands, being respectful of their faith or at least curious about it, might sometimes attend church with them. But whenever the preacher says something that the wives think their husbands need to hear, they would turn their heads and stare at them to see if they are exhibiting the desired reaction to the sermon.
Whenever a woman does that while I am preaching, there is the temptation for me to change the topic or take the husbands' side, just so I could give these poor men several minutes of rest from their wives. One can only imagine what happens at home. I have had women contact me to see if I would include statements in my sermons that they thought their husbands needed to hear. In other words, after all the manipulation that they performed at home, they tried to make me their mouthpiece so that their husbands would get the same thing at church also. Of course I rebuked them.
Some women think that because they are Christians, they know better than their husbands about everything, and they are always more correct than their husbands on every occasion, so that they disobey them. These are the same people who think that the Bible's command is to "respect" the husband instead of to obey him. But there is no real respect there at all. Now, of course Christians are intellectually and morally superior, but that is only if they truly believe and behave like Christians! Otherwise, they are just annoying hypocrites.
A husband might think, "My wife is bossy and self-righteous enough as it is. If I were to convert and admit that she has been right about the Christian faith all along, why, this is only going to get worse! I am just going to get even more of this. I am already in hell as it is!" He might think that the Christian faith has taken away his wife, and if this is what Christianity is all about, then he would have nothing to do with it. But what Christian wives should do, instead, is to give their husbands a small taste of heaven. Constant nagging and manipulation must not be part of their repertoire.
Christian wives present one of the greatest obstacles to the conversion of their husbands. They drive these men away from the faith precisely because of the irritating behaviors that they exhibit when flaunting their piety and the infuriating tactics that they use when drawing attention to their religion. Therefore, if you are one of these women, the best advice that I can give for facilitating your husband's conversion is to SHUT YOUR MOUTH. Stop making the Christian faith appear as unintelligent and repulsive as you are.
Yes, upon your conversion, find an opportunity to present the Christian faith to your husband, and explain to him what Christ means to you. But if he rejects your initial witness for the gospel, then do not nag him, and do not manipulate him. Do not drop hints here and there. Do not play sermon tapes and make him overhear them. Although I would not condone it, it is a wonder that he does not slap you across the face. You certainly deserve it. Just shut your mouth, and be quiet and submissive. You have already preached the gospel to him, now show him its power by your transformed attitude and behavior.
Peter's general instruction for his readers is, "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). For wives in particular, he emphasizes the importance of an inner beauty that is exhibited in submission, obedience, purity, and reverence. It could be that their good behavior would counteract the misconceptions that their husbands have about the Christian faith. By their behavior, the wives could show their husbands that the Christian faith has made them better wives, not rebellious and subversive troublemakers.