1 Peter 3.1-7 - Clarifications regarding the words ‘submission’ and ‘weaker’

Introduction: the issues at stake

It was a great privilege to have James Barnet with us last Sunday and for him to preach so well for us from 1 Peter 3.1-7. However, by his own admission, he said he was going to ‘park’ the controversial words of ‘submission’ and ‘weaker’ that Peter uses. Since male-female equality is such an important value in our culture today, and these words on first hearing seem so derogatory and negative, we thought that it would be good to clarify what these words mean and briefly outline our understanding and practice at Mosaic.

Please note that this will only be a brief outline of the issues so please do come and chat to us if you would like to discuss things further. We are very aware that for many girls this can be a very sensitive issue so we want to provide plenty of opportunity for discussion.

So what can we say?

(1) The controversy depends on your cultural viewpoint

The context within which Peter writes is a patriarchal culture (1st century Asia Minor – see 1 Peter 1.1) so these words would not have been controversial to those listening then. It was common practice that women would submit to men and be seen as weaker (in fact, they would have been seen as inferior in value – hence why baby girls were often thrown out a birth by the Romans). Although these words seems controversial to us today, they would not have been controversial to them. The context might well have been similar to Afghanistan today (we are not saying this is good, but it was Peter’s world).

In fact, Peter’s hearer would have found what he said quite controversial because he gives the women so much dignity, worth and value. Firstly, by encouraging them in their decision to stand firm in their faith even though their husbands had not become Christians (vs1). This was radical and very counter-cultural as women would never have acted independently from their husbands, especially when it came to religion. However Peter underlines that primarily a women’s first allegiance is to Christ and then their husband. Secondly, he refers to women as heirs with their husbands ‘of the gracious gift of life’ (vs7) giving them totally equal status and value before God. Both these would have been very counter-cultural and subversive in the culture that Peter writes.

Why is all this important? For two reasons; firstly we must always remember that we come scripture with our own cultural ‘lens’ and viewpoint and we must not make the mistake of changing the meaning of scripture to fit our cultural sensibilities. Ultimately we must let ourselves and our culture be challenged by God’s word (just as Peter was challenging his). Secondly because Peter was writing in a specific context and answering specific questions (much as we are trying to do now) to understand the passage, and the seemingly harsh words, we must ‘get inside their world as see it from their point of view.’ When we do both of these things we realize that (a) the words submission and weaker were not controversial and (b) the controversy would have been in the exact opposite direction as it is today.

(2) The ‘big idea’ of the passage: to win over the husbands

One of the most important principles for interpreting scripture is to get the ‘big idea’ (what was the authors intent?) – to separate the wood from the trees so to speak. If we miss the big idea and the overall purpose of the passage, we’ll misunderstand the detail.

So what is the purpose of the passage? Well according to Peter it is so that husbands may be ‘won over’ (vs1). How should a Christian wife live and act when she is married to a non-Christian husband (presumably they had got married and then she had been converted but he hadn’t)? She is to live and to act in such a way that ‘wins him over’ – that makes the gospel credible and attractive (see Titus 2.10). It seems that the women were acting independently of their husbands and in an inappropriate way. The mention of hair-braiding, fine clothes and jewelry which made them outwardly very attractive (vs3) would have been sexually alluring and would not have honored their husbands, and was certainly not reverent and pure (vs2). This would be the same today if a wife today went out wearing sexually provocative clothes to grab the attention of other men. This was not only totally inappropriate, but it would have been seen as defiant of a husband’s headship and undermined the gospel. So how should wives live and act? In a way that communicates respect and honour for their husbands and supports their headship. In a way that ‘win’s them over’ to Christ not in a way that turns them off their wives ‘new found religion.’

Now that we have those two important points in place, let’s move on to the controversial words submission, headship and weaker.

(3) The controversial words: submission and weaker

Let’s start with the word weaker as this is easy to clear up. Peter does not explain in what way that wives are weaker but his readers obviously knew, without batting an eye-lid, what he was talking about. However they understood it, his desire was that husbands should not abuse their ‘stronger’ position – they are to treat their wives with respect and as equals before God (vs7). To abuse their strength is to go against everything Christ taught (Mark 10.43-45). If they do abuse their strength it will hinder their prayers (i.e have a dramatically detrimental affect on their personal relationship with God). I see three possible options

(a) Physically weaker. This would be the most obvious reading of the text. Most husbands are physically stronger than their wives and they are not to abuse this.

(b) Socially and economically weaker. Women in those days would not have any status or voice in society and on the whole would not have earned a wage. As I have said, the culture saw them as inferior, something Peter undermines. Peter does not want Christian husbands to abuse the status that their culture gives them but not their wives. They are to respect them as equals.

(c) Intellectually weaker. On the whole women would not have been as well educated as men, something that men could easily abuse and lead to a lack of respect for their wives. This is not the way amongst Christian husbands.

Whatever the sense Peter has in mind when he uses the word ‘weaker’ (and maybe it is a combination of them) the point is that in some respect the husband is stronger and needs to recognize this fact in his life with his wife, so that he does not exploit this disparity in strength, instead he is to treat her as an equal – as a ‘fellow heir of the grace of life.’ Husbands are to serve and respect their wives, not to exert their strength. As with all those in a position of power in the bible, people must use their strength to serve not to assert (Philippians 2.5-11 and John 13 being the prime examples of this).

What about the world Submission? We live in a time that generally despises authority and being ‘under authority’ so naturally many of us get hot under the collar when we hear that we must submit. However we must understand what the word means in it’s biblical context. Firstly, notice how Peter starts with the phrase “in the same way’ (vs1). In the same way as what? Well if you look back into chapter 2, in the same way as Christ (chapter 2.23-25)! To submit is to follow the example of Christ who submitted both to God’s will and to the unjust rulers who killed him (he did not retaliate). To submit is to follow Christ. And this helps us understand that submission is not a term of weakness but strength. It was due to his incredible strength and courage that he was able to go to the cross and submit himself to God and the authorities. In fact, the wives are told to ‘not give way to fear’ (vs6) so submission in no way means they are not exert greater strength in the face of danger.

So submission isn’t a sign of weakness and inferiority but a sign of strength, confidence and godliness. Jesus is the model of what a submitted person looks like. He is not a doormat, he was an example of life lived to the full. The Greek word for submission here is ‘Hupotasso’ and means to ‘stand up under’. To stand is very important (not lie down and be walked over). But it’s to stand up ‘under’- which suggests the wife is supporting the husband from underneath. Just as the architecture of a bridge has to strong to support the road that goes over the top so a wife will help, support and strengthen her husband in many ways. A wife hopefully will not fight for the control of the marriage, although she will challenge her husband - sometimes very strongly.

This brings us on to the idea of headship – Peter sees husbands as the head of the marriage. What does this mean? Well John Stott suggests that maybe a maybe a more helpful word today instead of headship (which can imply authority in a negative way) is the word responsibility, as headship is to do with care rather than control. The purpose of husband being the head is to produce beauty in the wife. As we have already said, headship (or responsibility) is really about service and taking the initiative to see that your marriage flourishes (in this case, the husband must not abuse his strength but respect his wife). Again, just as we define submission by Christ’s example so we define headship by his example (Ephesians 5.21-24) – he takes the initiative to lay his life down to make his bride (the church) beautiful. So, as is often thought, the husband’s headship does not mean he necessarily gets the final say in a disagreement – he necessarily lays down his life for his wife, which may mean giving up his preference/choice!

Finally, headship and submission, in no way mean that women are inferior to men since Christ submitted to his father but was equal with his father (John 5.18 & 5.30). There is differentiation in role but equality in essence. Different roles in marriage do not mean difference in value and worth. Our value and worth come from being made equally in God’s image and being equal in our standing before him (Galatians 3.28). However our different roles reveal how we are made in the image of our triune God. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equal in value and worth yet have different roles.

As may already be evident, this picture of marriage as men and women being equal in value but having complementary roles is very different from societies view on marriage. As Christians we see marriage as more than a relationship between a man and a woman and context for family but a picture of Christ and the church which enables us to understand the character of God more fully (Ephesians 5.21-32). At the heart of Christian marriage is self-sacrificial love, the giving up of oneself on behalf of the other. We often have a very ‘me-centered’ approach to marriage which is totally contrary to Jesus’ idea of marriage.

Conclusion: Let the conversation continue

As stated in the introduction, this is only a ‘starter for 10’ regarding the issues that Peter raises. However we hope what we have written brings some clarity, particularly regarding what Peter means (and what he does not mean) when he uses the words ‘submission’ and ‘weaker.’ However we appreciate that many of you may still feel dissatisfied, maybe even angry or hurt, so we want to provide plenty of space for the ‘conversation to continue.’

If you have any further questions or would like to talk through the issues then please do come and talk to us. You can either approach your Mission Group Leader or you would be welcome to chat with Matt Hatch, Steve Vaughan, Keith Nicols, Hannah Pearson, Hannah O’Shea, Pip Hatch or Leanne Vaughan. So please do come and approach us.

We can also suggest further reading if you would like to investigate further. A great place to start is John Stott’s Issue’s facing Christians today, chapter 12: Women, Men and God.

God bless
Steve Vaughan and Hannah Pearson