Why Peter Would NOT Want a Wife Today to Call Her Husband "Lord"

In Peter’s instruction to wives with disobedient husbands, Sarah, one of the godly woman of old who hoped in God, is singled out as modeling virtue. Her “adornment,” as was true of that of the other holy women, manifested itself in submission to her husband. And according to Peter, in her submission Sarah goes so far as to call Abraham “lord.”But strangely, the only time the Old Testament describes Sarah calling Abraham “lord” is in the context of an off-hand comment she makes in response to the revelation that she will become pregnant by him when they are quite old (Gen. 18:12). She scoffs and asks if she will have pleasure, and then seems further amused at the double impossibility, saying, “my lord being old also.”To contemporary male and female Western ears, the thought of a woman calling her husband “lord” seems absurd. But another text in Genesis helps readers see how people in Sarah’s day used the word. When the visitors appeared to Abraham, he himself used the term as form of polite address. Genesis 18:1–3 says this:“The LORD appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground. He said, “If I have found favor in your eyes, my lord, do not pass your servant by.”Abraham is speaking to a stranger of whom he is asking a request. His use of “lord” is not an indication of a power differential, but of respect.Some scholars consider it strange that Peter would point to a moment when Sarah scoffed at God’s word as an example of submission. And they look to another option that may shed light on Peter’s meaning. In an extracanonical Jewish document, The Testament of Abraham, roughly contemporary with Peter’s letter, Sarah frequently addresses Abraham as “lord.” In this narrative, she is depicted as the ideal Hellenistic wife, and her speech reveals an honoring heart.The Testament of Abrahamis a pseudepigraphic text of the Old Testament. Likely composed in the first or second century AD, the work is of Jewish origin and usually considered part of the apocryphal literature. Its text deals with Abraham’s reluctance to die and the events that led to his departure from earth.There are two versions of the same story in circulation, and in both Sarah refers to Abraham as “lord.” In the first, she does so five times; in the second, she does so only once. But in both cases, the scene takes place after a visitor has arrived and everyone, including Abraham, Sarah, and Isaac, has gone to sleep. Isaac has a dream that Abraham will die and he runs in to embrace his father. The sound of Abraham and Isaac weeping in each other’s arms awakens Sarah. So she runs to them. The text of version one says this:And Sarah said with weeping, my lord Abraham, what is this that you weep? Tell me, my lord, has this brother that has been entertained by us this day brought you tidings of Lot, your brother's son, that he is dead?[2]The visitor explains to her what is happening. And the text continues…Then Sarah, hearing the excellence of the conversation of the chief-captain, straightway knew that it was an angel of the Lord that spoke. Sarah therefore signified to Abraham to come out toward the door, and said to him, my lord Abraham, do you know who this man is?Abraham said, I know not.Sarah said, “You know, my lord, the three men from heaven that were entertained by us in our tent beside the oak of Mamre, when you killed the kid without blemish, and set a table before them. . . Do you not know, my lord Abraham, that by promise they gave to us Isaac as the fruit of the womb? Of these three holy men, this is one.[3]Version two tells the same story with somewhat different wording. Nevertheless, the meaning is the same. Sarah’s one reference to Abraham as “lord” occurs when she runs into the bed chamber and asks her husband, “My lord Abraham, why is this weeping? Has the stranger told you of your brother's son Lot that he is dead?’”Both in Abraham’s use of the phrase in Genesis, and in Sarah’s use of it in a document roughly contemporary with Peter, the meaning is the same. That is, “my lord” is a term of respect and even endearment. In neither case does it carry the same sense that a wife calling her husband “my lord” today would have—which would suggest that she is his servant and he is her master.There is great debate about Peter’s universalizing of submission by the reference to a wife calling her husband “lord.” How, one wonders, are today’s readers to apply these words? All interpreters are, to some degree, playing the “culture” card in order to live out the spirit of the text. No matter what scholars believe regarding how much culture should play a role in contemporary application of 1 Peter, all who hold to inerrancy seem to agree that today’s wife is not only not obligated to call her husband “lord,” but also that doing so would violate Peter’s goal of enhancing one’s gospel witness. Indeed, doing so today would repel most people from the faith. Peter is not saying women should shut up and be slaves to their husbands, saying “yes, master” to them. Rather, he’s using Sarah’s wise behavior to illustrate his point: respect for unbelievers, especially husbands, is winsome (3:1).Peter encourages his readers by saying, “You have become her [Sarah’s] children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear (v. 6, NASB). One possible reason Peter’s suffering readers should look to Sarah is that at least twice in her life she suffered injustice at the hands of a disobedient husband. He told her to lie. And then he himself told both Pharaoh (Gen. 12:19) and later the king of Gerar (20:2) the lies he wanted her to tell. In both cases, Abraham attempted to pass her off as his sister rather than his wife so that no harm would come to him. Sarah was taken into pharaoh’s palace (12:15) and presumably had relations with him. The king of Gerar similarly took her (20:1). In both cases God intervened supernaturally on Sarah’s behalf and gave her the grace afterward to speak of her husband with respect and endearment, saying, “my lord.”Writing in a context in which women could not call a hotline or flee to a local shelter if her husband threatened or abused her, Peter wants wives to do their best both to keep from endangering themselves and to gain the husband’s respect while remaining loyal to Christ. Doing so would require great wisdom and courage. Perhaps this is why Peter urges such wives not to be “frightened by any fear.” Peter wants wives to be courageous as they win their husbands through their silent witness.All this is not to say a woman today should endure abuse. Peter is not describing the ideal, but an extremely un-ideal situation in which wives had few options. Sarah similarly had few options; Western women today have many more—and we should counsel abused women to use them.Both the men and women in Peter’s readership are suffering and have logical reason to be truly afraid. They have zero social power; the danger is real. And in crafting his instruction to wives, Peter assumes that, like men, women are made to be courageous. He believes they are capable of fearing God more than humans, even in the face of intense persecution and extreme injustice. He points to a long history of godly women to make his case. And he is certainly well aware that believing wives’ loyalty to Christ over their husbands may lead to more suffering. These women are not to be frightened, however, but place their hope in God, trusting that he will vindicate them, if not in the present world, then in the next.Next time, why he calls wives “weaker vessels” . . . .[1]Testament of Abraham, version one. Translated by W.A. Craigie. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 9. Edited by Allan Menzies. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1896.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1007.htm>.[2]Ibid, version 2.

Peter to Wives: Put Off, Put On, Watch This

My Engage post for the week:Instead of telling first-century wives to submit because they are inferior, as many believed at the time, Peter urges them to be submissive for a very different reason—so that their husbands might find true life (1 Peter 3:1). Peter encourages these wives to be subversive (keep worshiping Christ—which hubby may not like) in a cloak of respect (submit to your husband) so as to achieve a good end. Here is his rationale:In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. And let not your adornment be merely external—braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands. Thus Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear (1 Peter 3:1–6, NAS).In Peter’s day, a wife was considered property, could not speak for herself in a court of law, and (of key significance here) was expected to worship the same god or gods as the householder.A number of Peter’s readers have husbands whom he describes as “disobedient to the word.” Doubtless, some of these wives in his readership are from households where Hecate or Apollo are worshiped, and great harm could come to these women if they spoke in a cocky way about Zeus or trash-talked Leto, false as these gods are. Even Paul when speaking of Artemis in Ephesus, was described as not blaspheming the goddess (Acts 19:37).Instead, in such a world, the wise believing wife is told she should show her fear of God by remaining quiet about her faith, while also remaining fiercely loyal to Christ (a radical idea) “without being frightened by any fear” (1 Pet. 3:6). Notice Peter does not tell wives to stop worshiping Christ and obey by worshipping their husbands' gods, which is what one would expect a good Roman family man to say. We must read between the lines to see how clever (indeed, subversive) he is in his advice to submit. It’s what he doesn’t say that makes it so interesting. He's telling wives to submit to husbands, but he's expecting these wives to keep worshiping Christ, whom the "disobedient" householder would object to her worshiping. But she is to keep quiet about it and actively seek to change his loyalty to his god with her own character.The writer of these words is not a man out to put down women; he is looking out for wives’ interests while working within existing structures and having as his first priority the advancement of the gospel that equalizes.The word translated “reverent” in this passage is not actually an adjective, but is the object of a prepositional phrase “in fear.” A wooden translation would be “as they observe your pure conduct in fear.” And the fear or respect is actually not directed toward the husband here. In Peter’s usage, such fear is always directed toward God—not in a terrified way, but in a reverent one. The point here, then, is not actually that the wives should be reverent toward their husbands, but rather that these women should live purely “in the fear of God” as part of their silent witness.Peter goes on to use the image of adornment three times within the short space of three verses to make his case. One reference is to the wives’ external signs of status (3:3). One is to their internal character (v. 4). And one is to the adornment of the past holy women of God (v. 5).Put off externals. Peter begins his argument by saying, “Let not your adornment be external” (v. 3). Many translations have added “merely external,” which suggests that these wives could have some external adornment. Other translators have rendered the text as saying, “Let not your adornment be external only.” But the modifiers “merely” and “only” are not in the original.After telling wives not to adorn themselves externally, Peter immediately specifies the sorts of external adornments he means: braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on apparel. And Peter’s readers understand he is not telling wives to be plain.To understand his meaning when it comes to braids, jewelry, and dresses, we must bear in mind that the honorable Greco-Roman wife wore the signs of her social status on her person. Many think the apostle’s earlier reference to “pure and reverent conduct” (v. 2) suggest he is concerned primarily with sexually provocative dress. But while dressing suggestively would be inappropriate, Peter appears to have more of a class than a moral concern in mind when mentioning braids, jewelry, and apparel.In the first century, every single piece of gold, diamond, and pearl was real. And wearing her external status was the opposite of what Peter envisioned for reverent wives. Usually letters like Peter’s were addressed only the people with social power—the householders. But in his epistle he directly addresses wives and slaves. (Radical! Elevating!) And the same person who elevated those with less social power by addressing them directly wanted godly wives to dress in a manner devoid of anything that would suggest superiority.Put on internals. Instead, Peter urges the wife in his audience to adorn themselves with something far more precious—something that is of great value to God—a gentle and quiet spirit. By coupling “gentle” with “quiet” Peter intensifies the virtue. And his hope is that the wife’s virtue will reveal a different value system to her husband and others in her sphere of influence.The spirit Peter envisions is not something the wife takes on and off as she would gold or apparel. Rather, it is permanent ornamentation, thus imperishable. Back in chapter 1, verse 7, he wrote that gold was “passing away”; in 1:18, he described gold and silver as “perishable.” And these references that appear only a few chapters earlier inform how he wants readers to understand his use of “imperishable” in this passage as applied to the wife’s virtue. The gentle and quiet spirit is the only kind of beauty that a woman can put on that will never be taken from her. It will not wrinkle or sag with age. Humans consider gold precious. The God who will one day pave the streets of his city with it considers something else far more precious—character.The “gentle and quiet” language has at times been mistaken both as a criticism of extroverted women, and also as a source of pride for introverts and/or husbands married to them. Yet by describing the godly woman as having a “gentle, quiet spirit,” Peter is not saying extroverted women have less godly personalities than introverted women. Nor is he saying that women with spiritual gifts that involve speaking should stop exercising these gifts and remain silent. The gentle, quiet “spirit” here is not a personality type; it’s a virtue. And “putting on” such a virtue, especially in the face of injustice, is an equal-opportunity option.The quietness Peter has in view is also not absolute silence. Rather, it is a refraining from speaking “words” the wife might think it wise to say to win her husband (3:1). Peter’s instruction in many ways takes the pressure off her to craft the most winsome argument that will lead her husband to conversion. Her silent spirit allows the Holy Spirit to do his work. This wife's hope must not be in herself, but in God.Watch this. Peter returns to the adornment image to give a rationale for this counsel about wives’ internal apparel. He writes,“For in this way [that is, internally] in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands. Thus Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him ‘lord’ . . . (3:5–6).Once again the word “adorn” has appeared, and in this context it is a continuing action on the part of holy women. These matriarchs of the faith hoped in God—the very thing Peter wants all his readers to do. His readers can draw hope from the fact that someone ahead of them in the race has faced the same challenges and finished well.

Is Peter Insulting Women? Part 2

Weeks ago I wrote part one of this series, exploringthe question of whether the apostle Peter was a misogynist.Here's the second and final installment: 

In the apostle Peter’s first epistlehe writes some words that can trip up the twenty-first-century reader. Both hisinstruction to wives and to husbands can make us say, “Whoa! What?” Aftertelling wives to have gentle, quiet spirits, Peter adds an example: “Sarahobeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you dowhat is right without being frightened by any fear (1 Pet. 3:1–6). He goes on to tell the husbandsto live with their wives “according to knowledge” because—and here’s thekicker—she is the “weaker vessel” (v. 7).

Are today’s wives to call theirhusbands “master”? Are women “less” than men? Is that what the Bible teaches?

No way.

First, by describing the godly womanas having a “gentle, quiet spirit,” Peter was not saying extroverted womentrump introverted women. Nor was he saying that women with gifts of teachingand exhortation go against their feminine nature in exercising these gifts. A“spirit” here is not a personality type; it’s an attitude. So having a gentle,quiet spirit is an equal-opportunity option. Every woman has the opportunity todemonstrate a rock solid trust in God.

As for “calling him lord,” noticethat in writing of Sarah and Abraham, Peter does not issue a command for wivesto call their husbands, “lord” or “master” likeBarbara Eden’s character in the old sit-com “I Dream of Jeannie.”  Ifanything, doing so today would repel people from the faith. Even men. A studyof 50,000 married couples has revealed that both husband and wife are morehappy when both of them feel the freedom to speak up. In situations where onlythe husband isdominant, both husband and wife express less satisfaction.

The whole point of Peter’sinstruction was to win them (3:1).  So he is not sayingwomen should shut up and be slaves to their husbands, or say “yes, master” tothem—which in this day would repel rather than draw. Rather, he’s using Sarah’swise behavior to illustrate his point about being respectful. In extracanonicalJewish writings roughly contemporary with Peter’s letter, Sarah frequentlyaddressed Abraham as “lord.” And such speech revealed an honoring heart.

As for what it means to be a “weakervessel,” Paul uses the word "vessel" elsewhere to refer to thephysical body. Nevertheless, one commentator, who explains verse 7 erroneously,expresses what many fear this verse means: The implication of the fall is thatby virtue of her being deceived by Satan, a woman is more easilydeceived. 

When I read such statements, I thinkof an experiment that researchers Dr. Russell Clark and Dr. Elaine Hatfieldconducted at Florida State University in 1978 and 1982. Psychology studentshelped these experts conduct research in which a person of average attractivenesswould approach someone of the opposite sex on campus and proposition him orher. The results: seventy-five percent of guys said yes, and if they said no,they usually offered a reason such as, “I’m married.” But not one single womanaccepted the offer of a male. In fact, most told the guy in no uncertain termsto get lost.  A multitude of theories have been put forth to explain thesemen’s and women’s choices, but it certainly seems to contradict the theory thatwomen are more easily deceived than men—especially because the word “deceived,”as we are using it here, has connotations of being more vulnerable to sin.

Paul makes plain in his second letterto the Corinthians that all humans, not just women, are subject to deception asEve was. Addressing the entire church, he wrote, “But I am afraid that just asthe serpentdeceived Eve by his treachery, your minds may be led astray from asincere and pure devotion to Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3). Both general and special revelation indicate that deceptionwhere temptation is concerned is not limited to women.

So what does it mean? Probably“weaker” simply means…weaker! Females on average have always had less musclemass than men. This is less apparent to those of us living in a society inwhich we never hoist bags of grain, yank on mules’ bits, or cultivate our owngardens. But everyone in Peter’s audience would have been much more consciousof this differential than we are. Add to this the fact that childbirth was thenumber one cause of death for wives. Peter’s audience would have been quiteaware of females’ physical strength relative to men’s.

In addition to physical weakness, andthe risk of exploitation that accompanies it, women also had less social power.Note that Peter reminded husbands that their wives were their spiritual equals.Those who read in Peter’s “weaker vessel” description a reference to women as“lesser” see the opposite of his meaning here. Peter is elevating women. In hisless-often-quoted but essential conclusion, he tells husbands to “show them (wives)honor as fellow heirs of the grace of life. In this way nothing will hinderyour prayers.” The instruction to the husbands is to view their beloveds not asdeficient creatures, but as a co-heirs.

That “heir” language, focused as itis on inheritance, would have sounded radical to those in a world that limitedwomen’s ability to inherit and own property. In Christ, not only is the wifegranted an equal inheritance with her husband, but his treatment of herinfluences how their impartial judge hears his prayers.

Peter’s picture, when lived out,then, is of a family structure in which the man and woman grant each otherhonor and respect. She respects him, he honors her: two sides of the same coin.And their interaction foreshadows a future they will share as joint-heirs,equals, when Christ reigns on earth. 

“Thy kingdom come, thy will be done….” 

Is Peter Insulting Women? (Part 1)

My Tapestry post for the week:

Primary tabs

Was the apostle Peter a misogynist? In response to this question one writer said, “99% of people in his culture were—so sure.” If we take Peter’s words at face value, we might think so. In his first epistle he writes some instruction that can trip up the twenty-first-century reader. After telling slaves how to deal with unjust masters, he adds this word to the wives:

In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. And let not your adornment be merely external—braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands. Thus Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear (1 Peter 3:1–6).

It seems like Peter believes wives should be seen, not heard. And he seems to teach they should wear fashions as appealing as gunny sacks. And what’s that stuff about calling him “lord”?

To understand Peter’s meaning, as well as apply his instruction to our lives, we must imagine our way back to first-century life in the Roman Empire.

The Householder’s World

In Peter’s day a wife was considered property, could not speak for herself in a court of law, and was expected to worship the same god(s) as the householder. The paterfamilias was a bit like Thomas Jefferson at Monticello or Lord Grantham at Downton Abbey—only with the latter owning slaves instead of employing servants.  

Recall that servants lived with their masters as part of one household. And back then, the householder’s god ruled. We get a glimmer of this when we read about the conversion of Lydia of Philippi. When she believed, she and “her household were baptized” (Acts 16:15). A similar situation occurs with the Philippian jailer and his household (v. 34). The paterfamilias—usually male, though clearly not always—chose the household god. And this god was usually honored daily in the home.  

So imagine a wife in that context believing in Christ and no longer able, in good conscience, to worship her husband’s god. Peter describes the husband in question as “disobedient to the word”—that is, an unbeliever. Imagine what could happen if his wife got cocky and trash-talked Apollo or Hecate. Even Paul when speaking of Artemis in Ephesus did not “blaspheme the goddess” (19:37). No, the wise believer would earn respect by remaining quiet about it while also being loyal to Jesus “without being frightened by any fear” (1 Pet. 3:6).

Inner Adornment

As for adornment, to understand Peter’s meaning when it comes to braids, jewelry, and dresses, it helps to bear in mind that the honorable upper-class wife wore the signs of her social status on her person. In contemporary settings when we hear exhortations for women to be “modest,” we tend to think only of sexual modesty. But Peter probably had class in mind when mentioning braids, jewelry, and dresses.

In his day, every diamond and pearl was real. This reality is foreign to those of us for whom an enormous clear gem is probably cubic zirconia and a fat pearl might be fake. Back then, a wife wore her signs of status for all to see.

A woman whose hair was covered with braids made the class statement that she had time for leisure and the budget to pay someone to pamper her. Indeed, gold and braids and pearls were signs of wealth, so that by her very adornment such a wife announced her social status. And wearing her status was the opposite of what Paul elsewhere said he wanted Christian wives to do when the church gathered. Over in that apostle’s first epistle to Timothy (2:9–10), we read that Paul told wives their dress should be “with modesty and self-control. Their adornment must not be with braided hair and gold or pearls or expensive clothing, but with good deeds, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God” (2:9–10).

Notice the contrast between Paul’s and Peter’s advice? Paul told wives not to adorn themselves with braided hair and gold or pearls or expensive clothes. Their dress was to be devoid of anything that might pose a threat to unity.

But Peter seems to assume that the wife in question would have no choice but to wear such emblems of class. Thus he stresses that the women in such situations were to adorn themselves in a way that was not “external only.” Indeed, unlike Paul’s audience where both husband and wife were told to be “filled with the Spirit,” Peter’s reader might be married to a “disobedient” man. If so, she was to add something to her wardrobe—the internal apparel of a gentle, quiet spirit that is so pleasing in the sight of God.

And she was to be courageous in her silent witness. Recall that Peter was writing in a context in which a woman could not call a hotline that would guarantee shelter if her husband threatened or hurt her. She had to do her best both to keep from setting him off and to gain his respect while retaining her loyalty to Christ. Doing so would require great courage. Perhaps this is why Peter urges her not to be “frightened by any fear.”

(Next time we’ll talk about what it means that woman is the “weaker vessel.” Stay tuned!)