American Journal of Biblical Theology

It is probably fair to say that the structure and integrity of the nuclear family is under tremendous attack in today’s society. The “Father Knows Best” image of the family seems to be archaic by today’s cultural standards. The nuclear family, one with a father and mother, who together raise their children, is becoming increasingly rare. Single-parent homes are so common that it is becoming the norm in many communities, in itself redefining the concept of the nuclear family. Currently 40% of births take place without the advantage of a married mother. Recently the acceptance of legalized civil marriages of single-gender pairs has become a badge of tolerance. It almost seems like the family is becoming obsolete, and if not in this generation, it may fully become so in the 21st century. What is causing the degeneration of the family structure in our society?

1 Peter 3:1. Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

Three major NT passages on the family: Eph 5:21-6:4, Col. 3:18-21, and 1 Peter 3:1-12. Discussions on slaves are also household guidelines since slaves were of the household.

Consider the vast cultural differences of the day and ours. Women were considered the possession of the man. Note how much higher Peter and Paul held women than others of their day.

Peter uses the same word "submissive" as in servants relating to masters[1] and citizens relating to the state.[2] Submission is not spineless groveling. Rather, it is a voluntary selflessness which sets aside pride for a desire to serve. It is not a submission of fear, but a submission of love. Note, the Greek IDIOSIS, idiosis, refers to submission to own husband only. Not to other husbands or men in general. Peter also addressed marriages to unsaved husbands. What method is the wife to use in witnessing to an unsaved spouse? Note that nagging is not recommended!

The word BEHAVIOR is the same as used in 2:12 for good conduct. He spells out this conduct as reverent and chaste. Peter appealed for behavior among Christian wives which reverenced God, not for conduct which was based upon fear of their husbands.

To be chaste is to be pure, without any mixture of taintedness. It was a word that referred to an attribute of deity. It came to refer to moral uprightness and integrity.

1 Peter 3:3. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

The Roman ladies of the time wore no hats. Fashion was defined by elaborate adornment of the hair and clothing. The word for OUTWARD ADORNMENT comes from the Greek word COSMOS, which in their day referred to the world, or worldly. It is the same word from which we get the word cosmetics. Does this verse give a legalistic argument abolishing braided hair, jewelry and fine clothes? This verse identifies that beauty does not come from adornment but from the integrity of the internal spirit of the individual. Adornment is a sham and cover-up that can never take the place of a humble and gentle godly spirit.

It states that outward adornment should not be the basis for beauty. However, lavish adornment can overpower the appearance of the actual individual, making a statement which is not consistent with the spirit of the wearer. How should a Christian woman approach the wearing of cosmetics, jewelry and fine clothes? The wearing of cosmetics is much like most things in life: it is to be done in moderation and in good taste.

1 Peter 3:4. But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

Peters appeal calls, not for sterling silver, but sterling character. The inner-self refers to the true person which may be kept hidden under a mask of false disguises. Compare the beauty of a well-adorned frown with an unadorned impulsive ear-to-ear smile. What does the latter example show that the former does not?

Peter urged Christian wives to adorn themselves with the imperishable jewel of a gentle and quiet spirit. For Peter, Christian beauty was a matter of modesty, not makeup. Peter wrote that such traits were PRECIOUS in God's sight. The term translated PRECIOUS was an old Greek word which carried the idea of value. It is used only two other times in the new testament.[3]

1 Peter 3:5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

Peter's example of a Godly woman was Sarah. She was obedient and respectful of her husband.[4]

1 Peter 3:6. Even as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

Note that women are not to fear their husbands. This refers to spineless cowering. Peter urged Christian women to hold fast to their faith, even under provocation of their husbands.[5]

1 Peter 3:7. Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

First, Peter's first implication (and final in this verse) alludes to the equality of responsibility of both partners. The "likewise" refers to the command to wives in 3:1. Second, the phrase "as you live with your wives" is in the imperative, and refers to domestic association. It could be rendered, "as you will keep on living with your wives". This is an instruction to encourage the permanence of marriage.

Weaker partner: "partner" could be rendered "vessel", or "utensil", basically referring to something which is to be used of God. In their culture, the woman was profoundly handicapped in her ability to influence society for Christ. The Greek word rendered "weaker" literally means "with lesser physical strength", or "lesser ability to accomplish the task". This has nothing to do with physical or spiritual weakness, but rather she served from a weaker position, subject to cultural limitations the male did not then experience. This gave the husband an additional responsibility to respect her in a way their culture would not. He is to be considerate of her, and allow her room to serve God, since they are partners in the ministry, joint heirs of salvation.

Note that Peter implies that if this respect, consideration, and marital partnership is not supported by the husband, his fellowship with God is adversely affected. When the relationship in the home is not in order, it is difficult to maintain a proper relationship with God. On the other hand, when the husband's relationship with God is in order, he will also respect, consider, and work beside his wife in the ministry.

1 Peter 3:8. Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:

This verse is probably intended for all in the Christian community rather than just the Husband and Wife in the Christian home, though its message is certainly applicable to the home life as well. The summary of Christian virtues applied not only to interpersonal relationships within marriage but also to interpersonal contact throughout the church and community.

Peter enumerated five imperatives concerning the Christian Response to one another. Describe each one:

1 Peter 3:9 Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.

Peter spells out a sixth characteristic of the Christian response, and in more detail. Ray Sommers: "To return evil for good is animal-like, to return evil for evil is human-like, to return good for evil is God-like."

Such a pattern of returning good for evil was inconsistent with the culture of the day. Even the Jews defended their right to repay evil with equal evil. Today's Judaism repays evil with amplified evil. If Christians were to follow the teachings of Jesus, Paul and Peter concerning this, they would stand out in their society. Peter shows that he believes that when Christians act this graceful manner they will BE a blessing to others, and RECEIVE a blessing as a result.

1 Peter 3:10 For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile:

Peter concluded this passage with a quote from Psalm 34. It is a poem, and has a positive thrust. What defines the "Good Life"? It is an attitude of spirit, not an attitude of geography, of personality, not possessions, of love not power)

First, we see we are to keep our conversation (speech) clean. Two negatives are described here: "evil speech" and "deceitful speech". Evil speech is that which seeks to injure, hurt, or destroy such as an evil repayment for a perceived injustice. Evil speech serves to hurt others. Deceitful speech has a similar purpose but is more subtle and conniving. Deceitful speech is misleading and misdirecting, producing the same results as evil speech without accepting the responsibility for the message. What are the opposites of these? 1) Speech that is good, edifying, and constructive blesses others when it is based upon agape love. 2) Godly speech is always honest and yet tactful; its predominant characteristic is integrity.

1 Peter 3:11. Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it.

Second, Christians should shun all manner of evil, whether it be produced of ourselves, or others. Christians are continually bombarded with the evils of this world, both in our home and outside of it. What are some of the evils which we can shun? The statement to do good is an imperative. It implies action, not just attitude.

Third, we are to seek peace, and be peacemakers. Certainly we are not to produce or contribute to turmoil.

1 Peter 3:12. For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.

To use the concept of the Lord's face was to refer to the divine presence. Peter and the psalmist saw God relating to his people either with mercy or with judgment, depending on their dominant lifestyle.

[1] 1 Peter 2:18.

[2] 1 Peter 2:13.

[3] (Poluteles) Mark 14:3, 1 Tim 2:9.

[4] Genesis 18:12

[5] c.f. Proverbs 3:25.