No, you have misunderstood. The notion of equality in feminism is a left-over from the Christian worldview. Their view of equality is not Christian. It has been perverted by the various movements I mentioned. The Bible teaches equality with a difference. Non Christians have no ultimate epistemic grounds for making a difference. Their view of equality ends up being unisex.
Sons of Patriarchy
- Thread starter Guido's Brother
- Start date
- Status
No, you have misunderstood. The notion of equality in feminism is a left-over from the Christian worldview. Their view of equality is not Christian. It has been perverted by the various movements I mentioned. The Bible teaches equality with a difference. Non Christians have no ultimate epistemic grounds for making a difference. Their view of equality ends up being unisex.
CasualWestminsterEnjoyer
Puritan Board Senior
If they provide independent eyewitness testimony speaking to the allegations and corroborating the details, then sure.
But do you except the premise, then, that it's not right to spread allegations which are not corroborated in this manner?
TheBoringBaptist
Puritan Board Freshman
Is patriarchy bad?
Whose definition of it?
Heb. 1:1, "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets."
Rom. 9:5, "Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."
TheBoringBaptist
Puritan Board Freshman
Hmmm... Good point. I found this definition from the dictionary:
"a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line."
This definition I got from the AI that Google has been using. I don't know how accurate it is though:
According to the Bible, "patriarchy" refers to a social structure where the father holds primary authority within the family and community, essentially meaning "rule by the father," with the key figures in the Bible's narrative, known as "patriarchs" like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, serving as the foundation for this system; this often translates to men having greater leadership roles in society and the household.
Key points about biblical patriarchy:
- Male leadership:
The Bible portrays men as the heads of families and communities, responsible for decision-making and leadership positions.
- Patriarchal figures:
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are considered the primary "patriarchs" whose lineage is central to the biblical narrative.
- Interpretation debate:
While many interpretations see the Bible as supporting a patriarchal structure, some scholars argue for a more nuanced understanding of women's roles and agency within the biblical text.
Now I guess I might rephase my question to what is patriarchy according to the Bible?
Whose interpretation of the Bible?
For myself, I am content with the traditional interpretation and acknowledge male headship as a divine principle, 1 Cor. 11:3. In fact, from the passages I previously quoted it is apparent that the structure of divine revelation is essentially patriarchal in this sense. The attempt to cast patriarchy as a general construct in a negative light will have a negative impact on how divine revelation is viewed and interpreted.
TheBoringBaptist
Puritan Board Freshman
??? I don't understand this. How do I answer this? Isn't there proper hermeneutics that we use when reading and studying biblical texts or am I wrong? (I'm usually wrong 99.9% of the time, so I'm always willing to learn)
In the context of this thread, where there is an inherent hermeneutical tension between parties, and where "gender studies" experts have been called in as witnesses, it would be simplistic to ask what the Bible teaches as if there are not multiple interpretations of biblical texts. As far as gender studies goes, "proper hermeneutics" would be seen in terms of a hierarchy of power.
But yes, I agree with you, there is a hermeneutical approach which should yield one interpretation of the Bible, and that will be in favour of traditional views of male headship.
TheBoringBaptist
Puritan Board Freshman
Ah yes. I forgot about the gender studies folks. Forgive me. It is quite interesting the different definitions of patriarchy I've found:
"a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line."
"men holding women as property rather than persons" "Patriarchy is sin, and it’s being undone in Jesus." https://juniaproject.com/the-bible-and-the-undoing-of-patriarchy/
"The concept of Biblical Patriarchy centers around the principle of “rule by the father,” endorsing the divine mandate for men to lead families, churches, and communities. " https://relearn.org/biblical-patriarchy-vs-complementarianism-a-quick-look-at-their-distinctions/#:~:text=The concept of Biblical Patriarchy,civil governance and social life.
"
Patriarchy is defined as “a state or stage of social development characterized by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family in both domestic and religious functions, the legal dependence of wife, or wives, and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line” (Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language 2nd Ed. unabridged).
Patriarchy is the nearly universal social system by which men dominate women and other men." https://godswordtowomen.org/patriarchyriss.htm
God's Word to Women website have some interesting assertions as well: "The Bible shows patriarchy to be a result of the Fall, not God’s original design for marriage and family." and "While patriarchy leads to polygamy and other abuses, the Biblical pattern is marriage between one man and one woman."
"The words, patriarch, patriarchal, and patriarchy seem confusing to all of us. Abraham is called a patriarch in church, which means that he lived to be the ultimate great-grandfather, a good thing. But increasingly in our culture, patriarchy refers to an abusive, unjust system of government in which men hold all the power, The rising generation is being taught that when the Bible makes distinctions between gender roles, it reflects the sinful patriarchy of an unenlightened, old-fashioned cultural system that abused women and children."
Responding to the Argument that the Bible Teaches Patriarchy | Forging Bonds
www.forgingbonds.org
" Patriarchy means “father rule” and is rooted in the nature of God’s created order. It means that men are the head of the home, church, and society. We see this reflected in the federal headship of Adam, patriarchal nature of the covenantal promises, the fifth commandment, and many other places in many other ways." https://thetransformedwife.com/clearly-defining-christian-patriarchy/
"But we still have a key question answer: What does patriarchy mean? To give a more specific example, what does Peter mean in Acts 2:29 when he speaks about “the patriarch David”? The “arche” part of the word clearly means “rule,” not “source” (as some have suggested) in this context. The point is that David ruled Israel, and as a king he was a type and shadow of the Messiah. (In that section of Peter's sermon, the rule of Jesus is clearly the main theme.) Men are patriarchs in their households because they are the highest human authority in the home; each man is a David in his own household. This not to say that no one else has authority; there is a matriarchy corresponding to the patriarchy, but the authority of the wife/mother is not identical to that of her husband. Rather, just as the church (the bride of Christ) has real authority, but remains in subjection to Christ, so it is with the wife/mother in relation to the husband/father." https://pastor.trinity-pres.net/blo...on-patriarchy-reclaiming-biblical-terminology
What does “patriarchy” mean?
“Patriarchy” comes from the Greek words for “rule” and “father.” It usually means that the father had absolute control of families or clans. By extension, it also indicates male control of an entire society, with women excluded from community positions. The idea of patriarchy, as applied to the Hebrew Bible, is derived from social-science concepts. Anthropologists (e.g., Lewis Henry Morgan) began using the term in the nineteenth century. Drawing mainly on official legal texts from ancient Greece and Rome, they asserted that the father in classical societies was all powerful, controlling everything and everyone in his household. Influenced by these anthropological theories, biblical scholars began applying them to ancient Israel. They proclaimed that Israelite fathers had absolutely authority over their households. By the mid-twentieth century, drawing upon social science ideas about sociopolitical systems (e.g., Max Weber), scholars assumed that Israelite society as a whole was controlled by men." https://open.bibleodyssey.com/articles/patriarchy-and-the-hebrew-bible/
This conversation really is interesting to me? I do wonder why different people define patriarchy differently than others? Why are some so hostile towards it? Is it because the abuse that has come from the hand of men towards women and children? Even so, does that mean that patriarchy itself is bad?
I wonder how some gender studies "experts" would think/feel if we decided to move into a matriarchy? Would they think that would be better for society? Specifically the professing Christian gender studies experts.
We have to be careful because there are Christians who take up the term and their ideas are akin to a Christian taliban. Christianity has done much to liberate women from very oppressive views of womanhood. And moving into the modern world there are social realities which come to bear on the lives of women which were not so obvious in the past. The idea of picking up the past and imposing it on the present is not wise. We need to interpret the Bible in its own light and apply the Bible prudently in our own situation.
TheBoringBaptist
Puritan Board Freshman
Thank you for clarifying. I imagine you are saying that Christians have the epistemic grounds for our differences in the equally ultimate unity and diversity of God himself. Is this your point? Are you saying that individualism, existentialism, nihilism, and deconstructionism have in common monadic conceptions of God, reality, or the universe which are antithetical to God's true nature as one (essence) and many (three persons)?
I listened to the second part of the series which is “Apostle to the Patriarchs” where Peter Bell delves into Douglas Wilson’s past to explain how he came to be what he is. Most of the time was taken up with an interview with Nick Geier, a Unitarian professor of philosophy from the local university who is disappointed with the progress of Douglas Wilson, one of his brightest students. This professor believes that the Hebrews worshipped a variety of gods in their early history, and Yahweh was the preeminent one among Israel’s various gods. He rejects the Reformers’ teaching on God being all-powerful and the cause of all things. He does not get on well with Wilson now. I think I can see why. He sees Wilson’s thinking as being controlled by his father and/or Steve Wilkins, as if Wilson was not capable of independent thought. Geier speaks well of Wilson’s humanity in caring for his ailing father, and also for taking responsibility for plagiarism that was not really his fault. However he sees him as intellectually dishonest when writing about slavery because he misconstrued the nature of slavery in the US, disagreeing with the consensus of experts in the field. I do not know much about US history so I do not know where the truth lies on this issue.
Peter Bell said he thought there was a connection between Wilson and Mark Driscoll, but it sounded a little tenuous. He does not see common Calvinistic views as being the connection. It is their common commitment to Patriarchy that is the bond. He did not provide any evidence for this conclusion.
I was still hoping to hear some theological analysis of Wilson’s views and practices but not this time.
As one YouTube commenter said:-
I'm sorry! I'm a Bible believing born again Christian and I was hoping to get a Christian perspective concerning Doug Wilson. I thought this might be a good source but it seems to me to be a very secular look at Doug Wilson! I am a US Citizen living in the Philippines and our church recently hooked up with CREC. I was hoping to get more insight into Mr. Wilson's cultish activities from a biblical perspective not a secular view! Sorry but I am quite disappointed!
I share his disappointment.
Peter Bell said he thought there was a connection between Wilson and Mark Driscoll, but it sounded a little tenuous. He does not see common Calvinistic views as being the connection. It is their common commitment to Patriarchy that is the bond. He did not provide any evidence for this conclusion.
I was still hoping to hear some theological analysis of Wilson’s views and practices but not this time.
As one YouTube commenter said:-
I'm sorry! I'm a Bible believing born again Christian and I was hoping to get a Christian perspective concerning Doug Wilson. I thought this might be a good source but it seems to me to be a very secular look at Doug Wilson! I am a US Citizen living in the Philippines and our church recently hooked up with CREC. I was hoping to get more insight into Mr. Wilson's cultish activities from a biblical perspective not a secular view! Sorry but I am quite disappointed!
I share his disappointment.
There is no Hebrew word for patriarch. The word in Hebrew is simply "father." "Rule" is read into the term. The Greek word arche most commonly means "first," "beginning," or "source." In the New Testament, the Greek word for patriarch is used four times. Three of those times are found in the sermons of Peter and Stephen in a rendering of Israel's history referring to David (2:29), Jacob (7:8), and the ten brothers of Joseph who attempted to take his life (7:9). As far as I understand, there is no ethical mandate to conform to ANE cultural notions of patriarchy either in the Mosaic law or the epistles. Simply stated, I believe there is no command to rule over our neighbor, whether she is our wife or another relative. Doug Wilson's view of patriarchy is rooted in heretical notions of God. He has written an entire book tying patriarchy to the trinity. For Wilson, God the Father is the patriarch of the trinity. Wilson says that God the Father alone is pure masculinity and authority because he is not said to submit to the other two persons. For Wilson, the first person of trinity=unadulterated masculinity=undiluted authority. Wilson implies that the Son as the Second Adam is feminine in his work of redemption because he obeyed his Father. For him, the essence of femininity is obedience. Wilson extends to his followers the model of patriarch patterned after the Father as Wilson understands him. He has fallen into tritheism and subordinationism. This is what stands behind the authority and power he peddles to young men (For Glory and a Covering, 39-46).
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 6112
Guest
Peter Bell sure picks some strange friends.
D
Deleted member 6112
Guest
"One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)" - I Tim 3:4-5
"For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body." - Eph 5:23
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." - I Cor 11:3
"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: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement." - I Peter 3:5-6
The plain teaching of the New Testament is that a man has a responsibility to rule his house well. This includes his wife, of whom he is the head. For her part, she is to be in subjection to him, imitating Sara's reverence and obedience, who called her husband lord.
Do I understand you to think that a man is called to keep his wife in subjection with all gravity, being that she is part of his household?
Ploutos
Puritan Board Graduate
What do you think the quoted Scripture passages are saying?
2Sam.23:3 "The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God."
Wives and children are different, a note of distinction Rev.Winzer already invoked in the thread. The subjection due of a wife is not the very same as subjection due of a child; but being a "subject" set under sovereign authority is not inherently unjust. Lesser authorities are honored within governmental structure, even as they give superior authority it's due. And the superior authority has duties toward all subjects, if in manners different .
Sara (1Pet.3:5f) subjected herself to the head of the house; Abraham ruled that house. Sara, his wife, was his regent, and should have been accorded all the honor due her. Abraham would have been remiss (as David wrote and God inspired) to not-rule in regard to his wife; though it is equally true Abraham should have treated his wife always appropriately; which he did not, as the Scriptures attest.
D
Deleted member 6112
Guest
All I did was summarize the clear teaching of Scripture. I never said anything about the husband "keeping his wife in subjection." She is certainly to be in subjection, though, and in shepherding and ruling her well, her husband is to exercise patience, love, and gentleness, honoring her as the weaker vessel.
"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." - I Peter 3:7.
Are you married? These are excellent questions to ask your husband to lead you through, as your main tutor in the things of the Lord.
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." - I Cor 14:34-35
Last edited by a moderator:
I would love to hear your answer to my question before I comment if that is alright by you.
Ploutos
Puritan Board Graduate
Husbands are called to be heads of their households and wives are called to obey their husbands. Where a husband gives a clearly unbiblical command (stop attending church, or stop raising the children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, for instance), the wife is to obey God rather than her husband.
Your turn.
I think that nowhere in Scripture are husbands called to rule their wives. Your case rests heavily, if not exclusively, on the word head, which has multiple meanings in the Greek. We must reckon with the fact that husbands ruling wives is nowhere commanded in the OT. It is not in part of the second tablet of the law, nor the Sermon on the Mount. The law can be summarized in love your neighbor as yourself, and so I think it is worth asking, "Would I like to be ruled over by mere man?" Would you like your neighbor to keep you in subjection? Perhaps we should take notice that Paul exhorts the woman to submit, not the man to rule over her. In the place where Paul could have inserted, "Husbands rule your wives," he instead speaks of self-denying love. Perhaps we fail to take notice that Paul appeals to her will, to offer her submission to him as unto Christ. This, in fact, is how Christ walked on earth as he moved toward Jerusalem where he would lay down his life for his bride. He did not coerce her. It was not cattle-drive. He shepherded his flock not by force, but by healing their diseases and binding their wounds and inviting them to come to him. We should notice that the husband is never said to have authority (exousia) over the wife. The only time authority is mentioned with reference to marriage is in 1 Cor. 7:4, where wives are given the same authority over their husbands. Quite to the contrary, the husband is called to lay down his life for his wife in the manner of Christ, which means considering himself of no reputation and taking the form of a servant (Phil 2:5-8). In this way, the humility of Christ is on display in the Christian husband for the world to see so that they may be provoked to wonder at the condescending love of Christ in his people. The woman is called to submit to her husband out of reverence for Christ and fear of God alone. Whether husband or someone else, the woman is called to fear no one but God (Matthew 10:26-28), which means that she is not to fear coercion by her husband or violence from him. A believing wife submitting to an unbelieving husband out of reverence to God is meant to provoke amazement and wonder from him, which proclaims her reverent fear of the *Lord* and the power of the gospel. Perhaps it is worth saying that submitting to a husband is not the same as submitting to abuse. Gender and marriage are didactic and point to Christ's love for his bride, which is never coercive. It is disconcerting that some speak about plain meaning and yet insert the husband's rule over his wife in 1 Tim. 3:5, when the verse explicitly excludes the wife from the type of enforcement imagined.
TheBoringBaptist
Puritan Board Freshman
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible
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;
Chapter 3
Wherein the apostle describes the duties of husbands and wives one to another, beginning with the duty of the wife (v. 1-7). He exhorts Christians to unity, love, compassion, peace, and patience under sufferings; to oppose the slanders of their enemies, not by returning evil for evil, or railing for railing, but by blessing; by a ready account of their faith and hope, and by keeping a good conscience (v. 8–17). To encourage them to this, he proposes the example of Christ, who suffered, the just for the unjust, but yet punished the old world for their disobedience, and saved the few who were faithful in the days of Noah (v. 18 to the end).
Verses 1-7
The apostle having treated of the duties of subjects to their sovereigns, and of servants to their masters, proceeds to explain the duty of husbands and wives.
I. Lest the Christian matrons should imagine that their conversion to Christ, and their interest in all Christian privileges, exempted them from subjection to their pagan or Jewish husbands, the apostle here tells them,
1. In what the duty of wives consists.
(1.) In subjection, or an affectionate submission to the will, and obedience to the just authority, of their own husbands, which obliging conduct would be the most likely way to win those disobedient and unbelieving husbands who had rejected the word, or who attended to no other evidence of the truth of it than what they saw in the prudent, peaceable, and exemplary conversation of their wives. Learn, [1.] Every distinct relation has its particular duties, which ministers ought to preach, and the people ought to understand. [2.] A cheerful subjection, and a loving, reverential respect, are duties which Christian women owe their husbands, whether they be good or bad; these were due from Eve to Adam before the fall, and are still required, though much more difficult now than they were before, Gen. 3:16; 1 Tim. 2:11. [3.] Though the design of the word of the gospel is to win and gain souls to Christ Jesus, yet there are many so obstinate that they will not be won by the word. [4.] There is nothing more powerful, next to the word of God, to win people, than a good conversation, and the careful discharge of relative duties. [5.] Irreligion and infidelity do not dissolve the bonds, nor dispense with the duties, of civil relations; the wife must discharge her duty to her own husband, though he obey not the word.
(2.) In fear, or reverence to their husbands, Eph. 5:33.
(3.) In a chaste conversation, which their unbelieving husbands would accurately observe and attend to. [1.] Evil men are strict observers of the conversation of the professors of religion; their curiosity, envy, and jealousy, make them watch narrowly the ways and lives of good people. [2.] A chaste conversation, attended with due and proper respect to every one, is an excellent means to win them to the faith of the gospel and obedience to the word.
(4.) In preferring the ornaments of the mind to those of the body. [1.] He lays down a rule in regard to the dress of religious women, v. 3. Here are three sorts of ornaments forbidden: plaiting of hair, which was commonly used in those times by lewd women; wearing of gold, or ornaments made of gold, was practised by Rebecca, and Esther, and other religious women, but afterwards became the attire chiefly of harlots and wicked people; putting on of apparel, which is not absolutely forbidden, but only too much nicety and costliness in it. Learn, First, Religious people should take care that all their external behaviour be answerable to their profession of Christianity: They must be holy in all manner of conversation. Secondly, The outward adorning of the body is very often sensual and excessive; for instance, when it is immoderate, and above your degree and station in the world, when you are proud of it and puffed up with it, when you dress with design to allure and tempt others, when your apparel is too rich, curious, or superfluous, when your fashions are fantastical, imitating the levity and vanity of the worst people, and when they are immodest and wanton. The attire of a harlot can never become a chaste Christian matron. [2.] Instead of the outward adorning of the body, he directs Christian wives to put on much more excellent and beautiful ornaments, v. 4. Here note, First, The part to be adorned: The hidden man of the heart; that is, the soul; the hidden, the inner man. Take care to adorn and beautify your souls rather than your bodies. Secondly, The ornament prescribed. It must, in general, be something not corruptible, that beautifies the soul, that is, the graces and virtues of God’s Holy Spirit. The ornaments of the body are destroyed by the moth, and perish in the using; but the grace of God, the longer we wear it, the brighter and better it is. More especially, the finest ornament of Christian women is a meek and quiet spirit, a tractable easy temper of mind, void of passion, pride, and immoderate anger, discovering itself in a quiet obliging behaviour towards their husbands and families. If the husband be harsh, and averse to religion (which was the case of these good wives to whom the apostle gives this direction), there is no way so likely to win him as a prudent meek behaviour. At least, a quiet spirit will make a good woman easy to herself, which, being visible to others, becomes an amiable ornament to a person in the eyes of the world. Thirdly, The excellency of it. Meekness and calmness of spirit are, in the sight of God, of great price-amiable in the sight of men, and precious in the sight of God. Learn, 1. A true Christian’s chief care lies in the right ordering and commanding of his own spirit. Where the hypocrite’s work ends, there the true Christian’s work begins. 2. The endowments of the inner man are the chief ornaments of a Christian; but especially a composed, calm, and quiet spirit, renders either man or woman beautiful and lovely.
2. The duties of Christian wives being in their nature difficult, the apostle enforces them by the example, (1.) Of the holy women of old, who trusted in God, v. 5. "You can pretend nothing of excuse from the weakness of your sex, but what they might. They lived in old time, and had less knowledge to inform them and fewer examples to encourage them; yet in all ages they practised this duty; they were holy women, and therefore their example is obligatory; they trusted in God, and yet did not neglect their duty to man: the duties imposed upon you, of a quiet spirit and of subjection to your own husbands, are not new, but what have ever been practised by the greatest and best women in the world." (2.) Of Sara, who obeyed her husband, and followed him when he went from Ur of the Chaldeans, not knowing whither he went, and called him lord, thereby showing him reverence and acknowledging his superiority over her; and all this though she was declared a princess by God from heaven, by the change of her name, "Whose daughters you are if you imitate her in faith and good works, and do not, through fear of your husbands, either quit the truth you profess or neglect your duty to them, but readily perform it, without either fear or force, out of conscience towards God and sense of duty to them." Learn, [1.] God takes exact notice, and keeps an exact record, of the actions of all men and women in the world. [2.] The subjection of wives to their husbands is a duty which has been practised universally by holy women in all ages. [3.] The greatest honour of any man or woman lies in a humble and faithful deportment of themselves in the relation or condition in which Providence has placed them. [4.] God takes notice of the good that is in his servants, to their honour and benefit, but covers a multitude of failings; Sara’s infidelity and derision are overlooked, when her virtues are celebrated. [5.] Christians ought to do their duty to one another, not out of fear, nor from force, but from a willing mind, and in obedience to the command of God. Wives should be in subjection to their churlish husbands, not from dread and amazement, but from a desire to do well and to please God.
II. The husband’s duty to the wife comes next to be considered.
1. The particulars are, (1.) Cohabitation, which forbids unnecessary separation, and implies a mutual communication of goods and persons one to another, with delight and concord. (2.) Dwelling with the wife according to knowledge; not according to lust, as brutes; nor according to passion, as devils; but according to knowledge, as wise and sober men, who know the word of God and their own duty. (3.) Giving honour to the wife—giving due respect to her, and maintaining her authority, protecting her person, supporting her credit, delighting in her conversation, affording her a handsome maintenance, and placing a due trust and confidence in her.
2. The reasons are, Because she is the weaker vessel by nature and constitution, and so ought to be defended: but then the wife is, in other and higher respects, equal to her husband; they are heirs together of the grace of life, of all the blessings of this life and another, and therefore should live peaceably and quietly one with another, and, if they do not, their prayers one with another and one for another will be hindered, so that often "you will not pray at all, or, if you do, you will pray with a discomposed ruffled mind, and so without success." Learn, (1.) The weakness of the female sex is no just reason either for separation or contempt, but on the contrary it is a reason for honour and respect: Giving honour to the wife as unto the weaker vessel. (2.) There is an honour due to all who are heirs of the grace of life. (3.) All married people should take care to behave themselves so lovingly and peaceably one to another that they may not by their broils hinder the success of their prayers.
1 Peter 3:8
Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:
Verses 8-15
The apostle here passes from special to more general exhortations.
I. He teaches us how Christians and friends should treat one another. He advises Christians to be all of one mind, to be unanimous in the belief of the same faith, and the practice of the same duties of religion; and, whereas the Christians at that time were many of them in a suffering condition, he charges them to have compassion one of another, to love as brethren, to pity those who were in distress, and to be courteous to all. Hence learn, 1. Christians should endeavour to be all of one mind in the great points of faith, in real affection, and in Christian practice; they should be like-minded one to another, according to Christ Jesus (Rom. 15:5), not according to man’s pleasure, but God’s word. 2. Though Christians cannot be exactly of the same mind, yet they should have compassion one for another, and love as brethren; they ought not to persecute or hate one another, but love one another with more than common affection; they should love as brethren. 3. Christianity requires pity to the distressed, and civility to all. He must be a flagrant sinner, or a vile apostate, who is not a proper object of civil courtesy, 1 Co. 5:11; 2 Jn. 10:11.
II. He instructs us how to behave towards enemies. The apostle knew that Christians would be hated and evil-entreated of all men for Christ’s sake; therefore,
1. He warns them not to return evil for evil, nor railing for railing; but, on the contrary, "when they rail at you, do you bless them; when they give you evil words, do you give them good ones; for Christ has both by his word and example called you to bless those that curse you, and has settled a blessing on you as your everlasting inheritance, though you were unworthy." To bear evils patiently, and to bless your enemies, is the way to obtain this blessing of God. Learn, (1.) To render evil for evil, or railing for railing, is a sinful unchristian practice; the magistrate may punish evil-doers, and private men may seek a legal remedy when they are wronged; but private revenge by duelling, scolding, or secret mischief, is forbidden Prov. 20:22; Lu. 6:27; Rom. 12:17; 1 Th. 5:15. To rail is to revile another in bitter, fierce, and reproachful terms; but for ministers to rebuke sharply, and to preach earnestly against the sins of the times, is not railing; all the prophets and apostles practised it, Isa. 56:10; Zep. 3:3; Acts 20:29. (2.) The laws of Christ oblige us to return blessing for railing. Mt. 5:44, "Love your enemies, bless those that curse you, do good to those that hate you, and pray for those that persecute you. You must not justify them in their sin, but you must do for your enemies all that justice requires or charity commands." We must pity, pray for, and love those who rail at us. (3.) A Christian’s calling, as it invests him with glorious privileges, so it obliges him to difficult duties. (4.) All the true servants of God shall infallibly inherit a blessing; they have it already in a great degree, but the full possession of it is reserved to another state and world.
2. He gives an excellent prescription for a comfortable happy life in this quarrelsome ill-natured world (v. 10): it is quoted from Ps. 34:12–14. "If you earnestly desire that your life should be long, and your days peaceable and prosperous, keep your tongue from reviling, evil-speaking, and slandering, and your lips from lying, deceit, and dissimulation. Avoid doing any real damage or hurt to your neighbour, but be ever ready to do good, and to overcome evil with good; seek peace with all men, and pursue it, though it retire from you. This will be the best way to dispose people to speak well of you, and live peaceably with you." Learn, (1.) Good people under the Old and new Testament were obliged to the same moral duties; to refrain the tongue from evil, and the lips from guile, was a duty in David’s time as well as now. (2.) It is lawful to consider temporal advantages as motives and encouragements to religion. (3.) The practice of religion, particularly the right government of the tongue, is the best way to make this life comfortable and prosperous; a sincere, inoffensive, discreet tongue, is a singular means to pass us peaceably and comfortably through the world. (4.) The avoiding of evil, and doing of good, is the way to contentment and happiness both here and hereafter. (5.) It is the duty of Christians not only to embrace peace when it is offered, but to seek and pursue it when it is denied: peace with societies, as well as peace with particular persons, in opposition to division and contention, is what is here intended.
3. He shows that Christians need not fear that such patient inoffensive behaviour as is prescribed will invite and encourage the cruelty of their enemies, for God will thereby be engaged on their side: For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous (v. 12); he takes special notice of them, exercises a providential constant government over them, and bears a special respect and affection to them. His ears are open to their prayers; so that if any injuries be offered to them they have this remedy, they may complain of it to their heavenly Father, whose ears are always attentive to the prayers of his servants in their distresses, and who will certainly aid them against their unrighteous enemies. But the face of the Lord is against those that do evil; his anger, and displeasure, and revenge, will pursue them; for he is more an enemy to wicked persecutors than men are. Observe, (1.) We must not in all cases adhere to the express words of scripture, but study the sense and meaning of them, otherwise we shall be led into blasphemous errors and absurdities: we must not imagine that God hath eyes, and ears, and face, though these are the express words of the scripture. (2.) God hath a special care and paternal affection towards all his righteous people. (3.) God doth always hear the prayers of the faithful, Jn. 4:31; 1 Jn. 5:14; Heb. 4:16. (4.) Though God is infinitely good, yet he abhors impenitent sinners, and will pour out his wrath upon those that do evil. He will do himself right, and do all the world justice; and his goodness is no obstruction to his doing so.
4. This patient humble behaviour of Christians is further recommended and urged from two considerations:—(1.) This will be the best and surest way to prevent suffering; for who is he that will harm you? v. 13. This, I suppose, is spoken of Christians in an ordinary condition, not in the heat of persecution. "Ordinarily, there will be but few so diabolical and impious as to harm those who live so innocently and usefully as you do."(2.) This is the way to improve sufferings. "If you be followers of that which is good, and yet suffer, this is suffering for righteousness; sake (v. 14), and will be your glory and your happiness, as it entitles you to the blessing promised by Christ" (Mt. 5:10); therefore, [1.] "You need not be afraid of any thing they can do to strike you with terror, neither be much troubled nor concerned about the rage or force of your enemies." Learn, First, to follow always that which is good is the best course we can take to keep out of harm’s way. Secondly, To suffer for righteousness sake is the honour and happiness of a Christian; to suffer for the cause of truth, a good conscience, or any part of a Christian’s duty, is a great honour; the delight of it is greater than the torment, the honour more than the disgrace, and the gain much greater than the loss. Thirdly, Christians have no reason to be afraid of the threats or rage of any of their enemies. "Your enemies are God’s enemies, his face is against them, his power is above them, they are the objects of his curse, and can do nothing to you but by his permission; therefore trouble not yourselves about them." [2.] Instead of terrifying yourselves with the fear of men, be sure to sanctify the Lord God in your hearts (v. 15); let him be your fear, and let him be your dread, Isa. 8:12, 13. Fear not those that can only kill the body, but fear him that can destroy body and soul, Lu. 12:4, 5. We sanctify the Lord God in our hearts when we with sincerity and fervency adore him, when our thoughts of him are awful and reverend, when we rely upon his power, trust to his faithfulness, submit to his wisdom, imitate his holiness, and give him the glory due to his most illustrious perfections. We sanctify God before others when our deportment is such as invites and encourages others to glorify and honour him; both are required, Lev. 10:3. "When this principle is laid deeply into your hearts, the next thing, as to men, is to be always ready, that is, able and willing, to give an answer, or make an apology or defence, of the faith you profess, and that to every man that asketh a reason of your hope, what sort of hope you have, or which you suffer such hardships in the world." Learn, First, An awful sense of the divine perfections is the best antidote against the fear of sufferings; did we fear God more, we should certainly fear men less. Secondly, The hope and faith of a Christian are defensible against all the world. There may be a good reason given for religion; it is not a fancy but a rational scheme revealed from heaven, suited to all the necessities of miserable sinners, and centering entirely in the glory of God through Jesus Christ. Thirdly, Every Christian is bound to answer and apologize for the hope that is in him. Christians should have a reason ready for their Christianity, that it may appear they are not actuated either by folly or fancy. This defence may be necessary more than once or twice, so that Christians should be always prepared to make it, either to the magistrate, if he demand it, or to any inquisitive Christian, who desires to know it for his information or improvement. Fourthly, These confessions of our faith ought to be made with meekness and fear; apologies for our religion ought to be made with modesty and meekness, in the fear of God, with jealousy over ourselves, and reverence to our superiors.
1 Peter 3:16
Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.
Verses 16-17
The confession of a Christian’s faith cannot credibly be supported but by the two means here specified—a good conscience and a good conversation. conscience is good when it does its office well, when it is kept pure and uncorrupt, and clear from guilt; then it will justify you, though men accuse you. A good conversation in Christ is a holy life, according to the doctrine and example of Christ. "Look well to your conscience, and to your conversation; and then, though men speak evil of you, and falsely accuse you as evil-doers, you will clear yourselves, and bring them to shame. Perhaps you may think it hard to suffer for well-doing, for keeping a good conscience and a good conversation; but be not discouraged, for it is better for you, though worse for your enemies, that you suffer for well-doing than for evil-doing." Learn, 1. The most conscientious persons cannot escape the censures and slanders of evil men; they will speak evil of them, as of evil-doers, and charge them with crimes which their very souls abhor: Christ and his apostles were so used. 2. A good conscience and a good conversation are the best means to secure a good name; these give a solid reputation and a lasting one. 3. False accusation generally turns to the accuser’s shame, by discovering at last the accuser’s indiscretion, injustice, falsehood, and uncharitableness. 4. It is sometimes the will of God that good people should suffer for well-doing, for their honesty and for their faith. 5. As well-doing sometimes exposes a good man to suffering, so evil-doing will not exempt an evil man from it. The apostle supposes here that a man may suffer for both. If the sufferings of good people for well-doing be so severe, what will the sufferings of wicked people be for evil-doing? It is a sad condition which that person is in upon whom sin and suffering meet together at the same time; sin makes sufferings to be extreme, unprofitable, comfortless, and destructive.
1 Peter 3:18
For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
Verses 18-20
Here, I. The example of Christ is proposed as an argument for patience under sufferings, the strength of which will be discerned if we consider the several points contained in the words; observe therefore, 1. Jesus Christ himself was not exempted from sufferings in this life, though he had no guilt of his own and could have declined all suffering if he had pleased. 2. The reason or meritorious cause of Christ’s suffering was the sins of men: Christ suffered for sins. The sufferings of Christ were a true and proper punishment; this punishment was suffered to expiate and to make an atonement for sin; and it extends to all sin. 3. In the case of our Lord’s suffering, it was the just that suffered for the unjust; he substituted himself in our room and stead, and bore our iniquities. He that knew no sin suffered instead of those that knew no righteousness. 4. The merit and perfection of Christ’s sacrifice were such that for him to suffer once was enough. The legal sacrifices were repeated from day to day, and from year to year; but the sacrifice of Christ, once offered, purgeth away sin, Heb. 7:27; 9:26, 28; 10:10, 12, 14. 5. The blessed end or design of our Lord’s sufferings was to bring us to God, to reconcile us to God, to give us access to the Father, to render us and our services acceptable, and to bring us to eternal glory, Eph. 2:13, 18; 3:12; Heb. 10:21, 22. 6. The issue and event of Christ’s suffering, as to himself, were these, he was put to death in his human nature, but he was quickened and raised again by the Spirit. Now, if Christ was not exempted from sufferings, why should Christians expect it? If he suffered, to expiate sins, why should not we be content when our sufferings are only for trial and correction, but not for expiation? If he, though perfectly just, why should not we, who are all criminals? If he once suffered, and then entered into glory, shall not we be patient under trouble, since it will be but a little time and we shall follow him to glory? If he suffered, to bring us to God, shall not we submit to difficulties, since they are of so much use to quicken us in our return to God, and in the performance of our duty to him?
II. The apostle passes from the example of Christ to that of the old world, and sets before the Jews, to whom he wrote, the different event of those who believed and obeyed Christ preaching by Noah, from those that continued disobedient and unbelieving, intimating to the Jews that they were under a like sentence. God would not wait much longer upon them. They had now an offer of mercy; those that accepted of it should be saved, but those who rejected Christ and the gospel should be as certainly destroyed as ever the disobedient in the times of Noah were.
1. For the explication of this we may notice, (1.) The preacher—Christ Jesus, who has interested himself in the affairs of the church and of the world ever since he was first promised to Adam, Gen. 3:15. He went, not by a local motion, but by special operation, as God is frequently said to move, Gen. 11:5; Hos. 5:15; Mic. 1:3. He went and preached, by his Spirit striving with them, and inspiring and enabling Enoch and Noah to plead with them, and preach righteousness to them, as 2 Pt. 2:5. (2.) The hearers. Because they were dead and disembodied when the apostle speaks of them, therefore he properly calls them spirits now in prison; not that they were in prison when Christ preached to them, as the vulgar Latin translation and the popish expositors pretend. (3.) The sin of these people: They were disobedient, that is, rebellious, unpersuadable, and unbelieving, as the word signifies; this their sin is aggravated from the patience and long-suffering of God (which once waited upon them for 120 years together), while Noah was preparing the ark, and by that, as well as by his preaching, giving them fair warning of what was coming upon them. (4.) The event of all: Their bodies were drowned, and their spirits cast into hell, which is called a prison (Mt. 5:25; 2 Pt. 2:4, 5); but Noah and his family, who believed and were obedient, were saved in the ark.
2. From the whole we learn that, (1.) God takes exact notice of all the means and advantages that people in all ages have had for the salvation of their souls; it is put to the account of the old world that Christ offered them his help, sent his Spirit, gave them fair warning by Noah, and waited a long time for their amendment. (2.) Though the patience of God wait long upon sinners, yet it will expire at last; it is beneath the majesty of the great God always to wait upon man in vain. (3.) The spirits of disobedient sinners, as soon as they are out of their bodies, are committed to the prison of hell, whence there is no redemption. (4.) The way of the most is neither the best, the wisest, nor the safest way to follow: better to follow the eight in the ark than the eight millions drowned by the flood and damned to hell.
1 Peter 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Verses 21-22
Noah’s salvation in the ark upon the water prefigured the salvation of all good Christians in the church by baptism; that temporal salvation by the ark was a type, the antitype whereunto is the eternal salvation of believers by baptism, to prevent mistakes about which the apostle,
I. Declares what he means by saving baptism; not the outward ceremony of washing with water, which, in itself, does no more than put away the filth of the flesh, but it is that baptism wherein there is a faithful answer or restipulation of a resolved good conscience, engaging to believe in, and be entirely devoted to, God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, renouncing at the same time the flesh, the world, and the devil. The baptismal covenant, made and kept, will certainly save us. Washing is the visible sign; this is the thing signified.
II. The apostle shows that the efficacy of baptism to salvation depends not upon the work done, but upon the resurrection of Christ, which supposes his death, and is the foundation of our faith and hope, to which we are rendered conformable by dying to sin, and rising again to holiness and newness of life. Learn, 1. the sacrament of baptism, rightly received, is a means and a pledge of salvation. Baptism now saveth us. God is pleased to convey his blessings to us in and by his ordinances, Acts 2:38; 22:16. 2. The external participation of baptism will save no man without an answerable good conscience and conversation. There must be the answer of a good conscience towards God.—Obj. Infants cannot make such an answer, and therefore ought not to be baptized.—Answer, the true circumcision was that of the heart and of the spirit (Rom. 2:29), which children were no more capable of then than our infants are capable of making this answer now; yet they were allowed circumcision at eight days old. The infants of the Christian church therefore may be admitted to the ordinance with as much reason as the infants of the Jewish, unless they are barred from it by some express prohibition of Christ.
III. The apostle, having mentioned the death and resurrection of Christ, proceeds to speak of his ascension, and sitting at the right hand of the Father, as a subject fit to be considered by these believers for their comfort in their suffering condition, v. 22. If the advancement of Christ was so glorious after his deep humiliation, let not his followers despair, but expect that after these short distresses they shall be advanced to transcendent joy and glory. Learn, 1. Jesus Christ, after he had finished his labours and his sufferings upon earth, ascended triumphantly into heaven, of which see Acts 1:9–11; Mk. 16:19. He went to heaven to receive his own acquired crown and glory (Jn. 17:5), to finish that part of his mediatorial work which could not be done on earth, and make intercession for his people, to demonstrate the fulness of his satisfaction, to take possession of heaven for his people, to prepare mansions for them, and to send down the Comforter, which was to be the first-fruits of his intercession, Jn. 16:7. 2. Upon his ascension into heaven, Christ is enthroned at the right hand of the Father. His being said to sit there imports absolute rest and cessation from all further troubles and sufferings, and an advancement to the highest personal dignity and sovereign power. 3. Angels, authorities, and powers, are all made subject to Christ Jesus: all power in heaven and earth, to command, to give law, issue orders, and pronounce a final sentence, is committed to Jesus, God—man, which his enemies will find to their everlasting sorrow and confusion, but his servants to their eternal joy and satisfaction.
Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible by Matthew Henry [1706]
I asked whether you thought that a husband was to keep his wife in subjection. How would my husband know what you are thinking?
TheBoringBaptist
Puritan Board Freshman
Calvin's Commentaries
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;
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;
1. Similiter mulieres subjectae sint propriis maritis; ut etiam siqui sunt increduli sermoni, per uxorum conversationem absque sermone lucrifiant;
2. While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
2. Considerantes puram (vel, castam) vestram in timore conversationem;
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;
3. Quarum ornatus sit non externus, in plicatura capillorum et circumpositione auri, aut palliorum amictu;
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.
4. Sed interior cordis homo, qui in incorruptione situs est placidi et quieti spiritus, qui spiritus coram Deo pretiosus est (vel, quod est coram Deo pretiosum.)
He proceeds now to another instance of subjection, and bids wives to be subject to their husbands. And as those seemed to have some pretense for shaking off the yoke, who were united to unbelieving men, he expressly reminds them of their duty, and brings forward a particular reason why they ought the more carefully to obey, even that they might by their probity allure their husbands to the faith. But if wives ought to obey ungodly husbands, with much more promptness ought they to obey, who have believing husbands.
But it may seem strange that Peter should say, that a husband might be gained to the Lord without the word; for why is it said, that "faith cometh by hearing?" Romans 10:17. To this I reply, that Peter's words are not to be so understood as though a holy life alone could lead the unbelieving to Christ, but that it softens and pacifies their minds, so that they might have less dislike to religion; for as bad examples create offenses, so good ones afford no small help. Then Peter shews that wives by a holy and pious life could do so much as to prepare their husbands, without speaking to them on religion, to embrace the faith of Christ.
2 While they behold For minds, however alienated from the true faith, are subdued, when they see the good conduct of believers; for as they understood not the doctrine of Christ, they form an estimate of it by our life. It cannot, then, be but that they will commend Christianity, which teaches purity and fear.
3 Whose adorning The other part of the exhortation is, that wives are to adorn themselves sparingly and modestly: for we know that they are in this respect much more curious and ambitious than they ought to be. Then Peter does not without cause seek to correct in them this vanity. And though he reproves generally sumptuous or costly adorning, yet he points out some things in particular, -- that they were not artificially to curl or wreath their hair, as it was usually done by crisping-pins, or otherwise to form it according to the fashion; nor were they to set gold around their head: for these are the things in which excesses especially appear.
It may be now asked, whether the Apostle wholly condemns the use of gold in adorning the body. Were any one to urge these words, it may be said, that he prohibits precious garments no less than gold; for he immediately adds, the putting on of apparel, or, of clothes. But it would be an immoderate strictness wholly to forbid neatness and elegance in clothing. If the material is said to be too sumptuous, the Lord has created it; and we know that skill in art has proceeded from him. Then Peter did not intend to condemn every sort of ornament, but the evil of vanity, to which women are subject. Two things are to be regarded in clothing, usefulness and decency; and what decency requires is moderation and modesty. Were, then, a woman to go forth with her hair wantonly curled and decked, and make an extravagant display, her vanity could not be excused. They who object and say, that to clothe one's-self in this or that manner is an indifferent thing, in which all are free to do as they please, may be easily confuted; for excessive elegance and superfluous display, in short, all excesses, arise from a corrupted mind. Besides, ambition, pride, affectation of display, and all things of this kind, are not indifferent things. Therefore they whose minds are purified from all vanity, will duly order all things, so as not to exceed moderation.
4 But let it be the hidden, man of the heart The contrast here ought to be carefully observed. Cato said, that they who are anxiously engaged in adorning the body, neglect the adorning of the mind: so Peter, in order to restrain this desire in women, introduces a remedy, that they are to devote themselves to the cultivation of their minds. The word heart, no doubt means the whole soul. He at the same time shews in what consists the spiritual adorning of women, even in the incorruptness of a meek and quiet spirit "Incorruptness," as I think, is set in opposition to things which fade and vanish away, things which serve to adorn the body. Therefore the version of Erasmus departs from the real meaning. In short, Peter means that the ornament of the soul is not like a fading flower, nor consists in vanishing splendor, but is incorruptible. By mentioning quiet and a tranquil spirit, he marks out what especially belongs to women; for nothing becomes them more than a placid and a sedate temper of mind. [36] For we know how outrageous a being is an imperious and a self-willed woman. And further, nothing is more fitted to correct the vanity of which Peter speaks than a placid quietness of spirit.
What follows, that it is in the sight of God of great price, may be referred to the whole previous sentence as well as to the word spirit; the meaning indeed will remain the same. For why do women take so much care to adorn themselves, except that they may turn the eyes of men on themselves? But Peter, on the contrary, bids them to be more anxious for what is before God of a great price.
Footnotes:
[36] The best construction is to regard "adorning," or ornament, as understood after "incorruptible:" "But the hidden man of the heart, clothed in (or with) the incorruptible adorning of a mild and quiet spirit." "Mild" or meek, not given to passion or wrath, patient, not proud nor arrogant; quiet, peaceable, not garrulous, not turbulent, nor given to strife and contention. -- Ed.
1 Peter 3:2
While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
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;
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.
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:
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:
5. Sic enim aliquando et sanctae mulieres quae sperabant in Deum, ornabant seipsas, subjectae propriis maritis:
6. Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
6. Quemadmodum et Sara obediebat Abrahae, dominum ipsum appellans, cujus filiae estis factae, si benefeceritis, et non terreamini ullo pavore.
He sets before them the example of pious women, who sought for spiritual adorning rather than outward meretricious ornaments. But he mentions Sarah above all others, who, having been the mother of all the faithful, is especially worthy of honor and imitation on the part of her sex. Moreover, he returns again to subjection, and confirms it by the example of Sarah, who, according to the words of Moses, called her husband Lord. (Genesis 18:12.) God, indeed, does not regard such titles; and it may sometimes be, that one especially petulant and disobedient should use such a word with her tongue; but Peter means, that Sarah usually spoke thus, because she knew that a command had been given her by the Lord, to be subject to her husband. Peter adds, that they who imitated her fidelity would be her daughters, that is, reckoned among the faithful.
6 And are not afraid The weakness of the sex causes women to be suspicious and timid, and therefore morose; for they fear lest by their subjection, they should be more reproachfully treated. It was this that Peter seems to have had in view in forbidding them to be disturbed by any fear, as though he had said, "Willingly submit to the authority of your husbands, nor let fear prevent your obedience, as though your condition would be worse, were you to obey." The words may be more general, "Let them not raise up commotions at home." For as they are liable to be frightened, they often make much of a little thing, and thus disturb themselves and the family. Others think that the timidity of women, which is contrary to faith, is generally reproved, as though Peter exhorted them to perform the duties of their calling with a courageous and intrepid spirit. However, the first explanation is what I prefer, though the last does not differ much from it. [37]
Footnotes:
[37] The words are, "Whose daughters ye become, when ye do well and fear no terror." Terror here stands for what terrifies. The paraphrase of Macknight seems to give the real and simple meaning of the passage, "Whose daughters ye Christian women have become, by behaving well towards your husbands, and not being frightened to actions contrary to your religion through fear of displeasing them."
1 Peter 3:6
Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
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.
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.
7. Viri similiter cohabitent secundum scientiam, tanquam infirmiori vasi, muliebri impertientes honorem, tanquam etiam cohaeredes gratiae vitae (vel, multiplicis gratiae et vitae,) ne preces vestrae interrumpantur.
7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them. From husbands he requires prudence; for dominion over their wives is not given them, except on this condition, that they exercise authority prudently. Then let husbands remember that they need prudence to do rightly their duty. And doubtless many foolish things must be endured by them, many unpleasant things must be borne with; and they must at the same time beware lest their indulgence should foster folly. Hence the admonition of Peter is not in vain, that the husbands ought to cohabit with them as with a weaker vessel. Part of the prudence which he mentions, is, that the husbands honor their wives. For nothing destroys the friendship of life more than contempt; nor can we really love any but those whom we esteem; for love must be connected with respect.
Moreover, he employs a twofold argument, in order to persuade husbands to treat their wives honourably and kindly. The first is derived from the weakness of the sex; the other, from the honor with which God favors them. These things seem indeed to be in a manner contrary, -- that honor ought to be given to wives, because they are weak, and because they excel; but these things well agree together where love exists. It is evident, that God is despised in his gifts, except we honor those on whom he has conferred any excellency. But when we consider that we are members of the same body, we learn to bear with one another, and mutually to cover our infirmities. This is what Paul means when he says that greater honor is given to the weaker members, (1 Corinthians 12:23
even because we are more careful in protecting them from shame. Then Peter does not without reason command that women should be cared for, and that they should be honored with a kind treatment, because they are weak. And then as we more easily forgive children, when they offend through inexperience of age; so the weakness of the female sex ought to make us not to be too rigid and severe towards our wives.
The word vessel, as it is well known, means in Scripture any sort of instrument.
Being heirs together (or co-heirs) of the grace of life Some copies have "of manifold grace;" others, instead of "life," have the word "living." Some read "co-heirs" in the dative case, which makes no difference in the sense. A conjunction is put by others between manifold grace and life; which reading is the most suitable. [38] For since the Lord is pleased to bestow in common on husbands and wives the same graces, he invites them to seek an equality in them; and we know that those graces are manifold in which wives are partakers with their husbands. For some belong to the present life, and some to God's spiritual kingdom. He afterwards adds, that they are co-heirs also of life, which is the chief thing. And though some are strangers to the hope of salvation, yet as it is offered by the Lord to them no less than to their husbands, it is a sufficient honor to the sex.
That your prayers be not hindered For God cannot be rightly called upon, unless our minds be calm and peaceable. Among strifes and contentions there is no place for prayer. Peter indeed addresses the husband and the wife, when he bids them to be at peace one with another, so that they might with one mind pray to God. But we may hence gather a general doctrine -- that no one ought to come to God except he is united to his brethren. Then as this reason ought to restrain all domestic quarrels and strifes, in order that each one of the family may pray to God; so in common life it ought to be as it were a bridle to check all contentions. For we are more than insane, if we knowingly and wilfully close up the way to God's presence by prayer, since this is the only asylum of our salvation.
Some give this explanation, that an intercourse with the wife ought to be sparing and temperate, lest too much indulgence in this respect should prevent attention to prayer, according to that saying of Paul,
"Defraud not one another, unless by consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer." (1 Corinthians 7:5.)
But the doctrine of Peter extends wider: and then Paul does not mean that prayers are interrupted by mutual cohabitation. Therefore the explanation which I have given ought to be retained.
Footnotes:
[38] The received text is the most approved, and there is no different reading of any importance. -- Ed.
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;
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;
1. Similiter mulieres subjectae sint propriis maritis; ut etiam siqui sunt increduli sermoni, per uxorum conversationem absque sermone lucrifiant;
2. While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
2. Considerantes puram (vel, castam) vestram in timore conversationem;
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;
3. Quarum ornatus sit non externus, in plicatura capillorum et circumpositione auri, aut palliorum amictu;
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.
4. Sed interior cordis homo, qui in incorruptione situs est placidi et quieti spiritus, qui spiritus coram Deo pretiosus est (vel, quod est coram Deo pretiosum.)
He proceeds now to another instance of subjection, and bids wives to be subject to their husbands. And as those seemed to have some pretense for shaking off the yoke, who were united to unbelieving men, he expressly reminds them of their duty, and brings forward a particular reason why they ought the more carefully to obey, even that they might by their probity allure their husbands to the faith. But if wives ought to obey ungodly husbands, with much more promptness ought they to obey, who have believing husbands.
But it may seem strange that Peter should say, that a husband might be gained to the Lord without the word; for why is it said, that "faith cometh by hearing?" Romans 10:17. To this I reply, that Peter's words are not to be so understood as though a holy life alone could lead the unbelieving to Christ, but that it softens and pacifies their minds, so that they might have less dislike to religion; for as bad examples create offenses, so good ones afford no small help. Then Peter shews that wives by a holy and pious life could do so much as to prepare their husbands, without speaking to them on religion, to embrace the faith of Christ.
2 While they behold For minds, however alienated from the true faith, are subdued, when they see the good conduct of believers; for as they understood not the doctrine of Christ, they form an estimate of it by our life. It cannot, then, be but that they will commend Christianity, which teaches purity and fear.
3 Whose adorning The other part of the exhortation is, that wives are to adorn themselves sparingly and modestly: for we know that they are in this respect much more curious and ambitious than they ought to be. Then Peter does not without cause seek to correct in them this vanity. And though he reproves generally sumptuous or costly adorning, yet he points out some things in particular, -- that they were not artificially to curl or wreath their hair, as it was usually done by crisping-pins, or otherwise to form it according to the fashion; nor were they to set gold around their head: for these are the things in which excesses especially appear.
It may be now asked, whether the Apostle wholly condemns the use of gold in adorning the body. Were any one to urge these words, it may be said, that he prohibits precious garments no less than gold; for he immediately adds, the putting on of apparel, or, of clothes. But it would be an immoderate strictness wholly to forbid neatness and elegance in clothing. If the material is said to be too sumptuous, the Lord has created it; and we know that skill in art has proceeded from him. Then Peter did not intend to condemn every sort of ornament, but the evil of vanity, to which women are subject. Two things are to be regarded in clothing, usefulness and decency; and what decency requires is moderation and modesty. Were, then, a woman to go forth with her hair wantonly curled and decked, and make an extravagant display, her vanity could not be excused. They who object and say, that to clothe one's-self in this or that manner is an indifferent thing, in which all are free to do as they please, may be easily confuted; for excessive elegance and superfluous display, in short, all excesses, arise from a corrupted mind. Besides, ambition, pride, affectation of display, and all things of this kind, are not indifferent things. Therefore they whose minds are purified from all vanity, will duly order all things, so as not to exceed moderation.
4 But let it be the hidden, man of the heart The contrast here ought to be carefully observed. Cato said, that they who are anxiously engaged in adorning the body, neglect the adorning of the mind: so Peter, in order to restrain this desire in women, introduces a remedy, that they are to devote themselves to the cultivation of their minds. The word heart, no doubt means the whole soul. He at the same time shews in what consists the spiritual adorning of women, even in the incorruptness of a meek and quiet spirit "Incorruptness," as I think, is set in opposition to things which fade and vanish away, things which serve to adorn the body. Therefore the version of Erasmus departs from the real meaning. In short, Peter means that the ornament of the soul is not like a fading flower, nor consists in vanishing splendor, but is incorruptible. By mentioning quiet and a tranquil spirit, he marks out what especially belongs to women; for nothing becomes them more than a placid and a sedate temper of mind. [36] For we know how outrageous a being is an imperious and a self-willed woman. And further, nothing is more fitted to correct the vanity of which Peter speaks than a placid quietness of spirit.
What follows, that it is in the sight of God of great price, may be referred to the whole previous sentence as well as to the word spirit; the meaning indeed will remain the same. For why do women take so much care to adorn themselves, except that they may turn the eyes of men on themselves? But Peter, on the contrary, bids them to be more anxious for what is before God of a great price.
Footnotes:
[36] The best construction is to regard "adorning," or ornament, as understood after "incorruptible:" "But the hidden man of the heart, clothed in (or with) the incorruptible adorning of a mild and quiet spirit." "Mild" or meek, not given to passion or wrath, patient, not proud nor arrogant; quiet, peaceable, not garrulous, not turbulent, nor given to strife and contention. -- Ed.
1 Peter 3:2
While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
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;
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.
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:
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:
5. Sic enim aliquando et sanctae mulieres quae sperabant in Deum, ornabant seipsas, subjectae propriis maritis:
6. Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
6. Quemadmodum et Sara obediebat Abrahae, dominum ipsum appellans, cujus filiae estis factae, si benefeceritis, et non terreamini ullo pavore.
He sets before them the example of pious women, who sought for spiritual adorning rather than outward meretricious ornaments. But he mentions Sarah above all others, who, having been the mother of all the faithful, is especially worthy of honor and imitation on the part of her sex. Moreover, he returns again to subjection, and confirms it by the example of Sarah, who, according to the words of Moses, called her husband Lord. (Genesis 18:12.) God, indeed, does not regard such titles; and it may sometimes be, that one especially petulant and disobedient should use such a word with her tongue; but Peter means, that Sarah usually spoke thus, because she knew that a command had been given her by the Lord, to be subject to her husband. Peter adds, that they who imitated her fidelity would be her daughters, that is, reckoned among the faithful.
6 And are not afraid The weakness of the sex causes women to be suspicious and timid, and therefore morose; for they fear lest by their subjection, they should be more reproachfully treated. It was this that Peter seems to have had in view in forbidding them to be disturbed by any fear, as though he had said, "Willingly submit to the authority of your husbands, nor let fear prevent your obedience, as though your condition would be worse, were you to obey." The words may be more general, "Let them not raise up commotions at home." For as they are liable to be frightened, they often make much of a little thing, and thus disturb themselves and the family. Others think that the timidity of women, which is contrary to faith, is generally reproved, as though Peter exhorted them to perform the duties of their calling with a courageous and intrepid spirit. However, the first explanation is what I prefer, though the last does not differ much from it. [37]
Footnotes:
[37] The words are, "Whose daughters ye become, when ye do well and fear no terror." Terror here stands for what terrifies. The paraphrase of Macknight seems to give the real and simple meaning of the passage, "Whose daughters ye Christian women have become, by behaving well towards your husbands, and not being frightened to actions contrary to your religion through fear of displeasing them."
1 Peter 3:6
Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
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.
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.
7. Viri similiter cohabitent secundum scientiam, tanquam infirmiori vasi, muliebri impertientes honorem, tanquam etiam cohaeredes gratiae vitae (vel, multiplicis gratiae et vitae,) ne preces vestrae interrumpantur.
7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them. From husbands he requires prudence; for dominion over their wives is not given them, except on this condition, that they exercise authority prudently. Then let husbands remember that they need prudence to do rightly their duty. And doubtless many foolish things must be endured by them, many unpleasant things must be borne with; and they must at the same time beware lest their indulgence should foster folly. Hence the admonition of Peter is not in vain, that the husbands ought to cohabit with them as with a weaker vessel. Part of the prudence which he mentions, is, that the husbands honor their wives. For nothing destroys the friendship of life more than contempt; nor can we really love any but those whom we esteem; for love must be connected with respect.
Moreover, he employs a twofold argument, in order to persuade husbands to treat their wives honourably and kindly. The first is derived from the weakness of the sex; the other, from the honor with which God favors them. These things seem indeed to be in a manner contrary, -- that honor ought to be given to wives, because they are weak, and because they excel; but these things well agree together where love exists. It is evident, that God is despised in his gifts, except we honor those on whom he has conferred any excellency. But when we consider that we are members of the same body, we learn to bear with one another, and mutually to cover our infirmities. This is what Paul means when he says that greater honor is given to the weaker members, (1 Corinthians 12:23
even because we are more careful in protecting them from shame. Then Peter does not without reason command that women should be cared for, and that they should be honored with a kind treatment, because they are weak. And then as we more easily forgive children, when they offend through inexperience of age; so the weakness of the female sex ought to make us not to be too rigid and severe towards our wives.The word vessel, as it is well known, means in Scripture any sort of instrument.
Being heirs together (or co-heirs) of the grace of life Some copies have "of manifold grace;" others, instead of "life," have the word "living." Some read "co-heirs" in the dative case, which makes no difference in the sense. A conjunction is put by others between manifold grace and life; which reading is the most suitable. [38] For since the Lord is pleased to bestow in common on husbands and wives the same graces, he invites them to seek an equality in them; and we know that those graces are manifold in which wives are partakers with their husbands. For some belong to the present life, and some to God's spiritual kingdom. He afterwards adds, that they are co-heirs also of life, which is the chief thing. And though some are strangers to the hope of salvation, yet as it is offered by the Lord to them no less than to their husbands, it is a sufficient honor to the sex.
That your prayers be not hindered For God cannot be rightly called upon, unless our minds be calm and peaceable. Among strifes and contentions there is no place for prayer. Peter indeed addresses the husband and the wife, when he bids them to be at peace one with another, so that they might with one mind pray to God. But we may hence gather a general doctrine -- that no one ought to come to God except he is united to his brethren. Then as this reason ought to restrain all domestic quarrels and strifes, in order that each one of the family may pray to God; so in common life it ought to be as it were a bridle to check all contentions. For we are more than insane, if we knowingly and wilfully close up the way to God's presence by prayer, since this is the only asylum of our salvation.
Some give this explanation, that an intercourse with the wife ought to be sparing and temperate, lest too much indulgence in this respect should prevent attention to prayer, according to that saying of Paul,
"Defraud not one another, unless by consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer." (1 Corinthians 7:5.)
But the doctrine of Peter extends wider: and then Paul does not mean that prayers are interrupted by mutual cohabitation. Therefore the explanation which I have given ought to be retained.
Footnotes:
[38] The received text is the most approved, and there is no different reading of any importance. -- Ed.
More on the Patriarchy series:
When Vice Broke the Dam – Abuse in the CRC
This was Peter Bell interviewing Sara Stankorb, a writer for VICE magazine. She attended church when she was young, but left. She wrote a book about abuse victims, including some from the CREC. This was a rambling interview. Again, there was no analysis of the teaching and practices of the CREC. It did, however, demonstrate the world view of Sara Stankorb. She sees any church that teaches submission to elders, pastors, husbands as a church that creates an environment that encourages the abuse of women. So she did not point to a specific teaching of the CREC that promoted abuse. It is the atmosphere, the environment, that is the problem in her view. She said “Federal Husband” by Wilson was a bad book because it made the husband responsible for everything that happened in the family. This causes husbands to think that by controlling their family they are pleasing God, but really they are creating a toxic environment. As a result men will inevitably seek to be predatory. The environment causes vulnerable women to trust their fathers, their husbands, their pastors and teachers. In the church women were told to cover up and feel responsible if they dressed provocatively. They follow the leader, like people follow Donald Trump. The leaders tell their followers that the criticism of their teaching and practices is part of a wider culture war, which is why the mindless followers downplay the abuse cases and do not realise that they are the manifestation of a deeper and fundamental problem within the churches. She was asked why the CREC is worse than the Roman Catholic Church, SBC, and other churches. She said it is because Wilson is a public figure and reputational loss is more important to him than caring for abuse victims, and the churches have created a repressive ecosystem/community that is difficult to break free from. So all all churches that teach, “Wives submit to your husbands” and “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they will give account” are oppressive, but the CREC is worse because of this . She did not directly quote and attack these verses, but maybe she does not know that these verses exist.
As far as I am concerned this interview was of no value. Why does Peter Bell think these unbelievers with no Bible knowledge are a source of useful analysis? Why listen to someone who condemns others but can't come up with specifics?
I am still going to tell my daughters to dress modestly.
When Vice Broke the Dam – Abuse in the CRC
This was Peter Bell interviewing Sara Stankorb, a writer for VICE magazine. She attended church when she was young, but left. She wrote a book about abuse victims, including some from the CREC. This was a rambling interview. Again, there was no analysis of the teaching and practices of the CREC. It did, however, demonstrate the world view of Sara Stankorb. She sees any church that teaches submission to elders, pastors, husbands as a church that creates an environment that encourages the abuse of women. So she did not point to a specific teaching of the CREC that promoted abuse. It is the atmosphere, the environment, that is the problem in her view. She said “Federal Husband” by Wilson was a bad book because it made the husband responsible for everything that happened in the family. This causes husbands to think that by controlling their family they are pleasing God, but really they are creating a toxic environment. As a result men will inevitably seek to be predatory. The environment causes vulnerable women to trust their fathers, their husbands, their pastors and teachers. In the church women were told to cover up and feel responsible if they dressed provocatively. They follow the leader, like people follow Donald Trump. The leaders tell their followers that the criticism of their teaching and practices is part of a wider culture war, which is why the mindless followers downplay the abuse cases and do not realise that they are the manifestation of a deeper and fundamental problem within the churches. She was asked why the CREC is worse than the Roman Catholic Church, SBC, and other churches. She said it is because Wilson is a public figure and reputational loss is more important to him than caring for abuse victims, and the churches have created a repressive ecosystem/community that is difficult to break free from. So all all churches that teach, “Wives submit to your husbands” and “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they will give account” are oppressive, but the CREC is worse because of this . She did not directly quote and attack these verses, but maybe she does not know that these verses exist.
As far as I am concerned this interview was of no value. Why does Peter Bell think these unbelievers with no Bible knowledge are a source of useful analysis? Why listen to someone who condemns others but can't come up with specifics?
I am still going to tell my daughters to dress modestly.
Unfortunately, I think that any benefit Peter Bell’s work on this podcast could bring to your families and churches will be totally lost if you are unwilling to consider whether your views of authority and power over your neighbor align with the triune God you claim to know and the self-attesting Christ of Scripture. This podcast seems to me to be an opportunity for self-evaluation for Reformed church leaders and members. It spurs us to ask ourselves what we have missed that has led to the flourishing of abuse among us. It is an invitation to look at the Pharisee in all of us who demands the mint and cumin from our neighbor while ignoring the weightier requirements of the law, like loving justice, showing mercy, and walking humbly with our God.
Ploutos
Puritan Board Graduate
You haven't actually addressed the cited passages. You can argue over the meaning of the word "head" all you want, but the word "head" does not to my knowledge appear in either English or Greek in 1 Peter 3.
"Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands."
"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."
"Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord."
So, should a wife be in subjection to her husband?
The word "head" does not appear in Ephesians 5:24.
"Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing."
Again, do you believe that a wife should be in subjection to her husband?
I absolutely believe the church needs to do some soul searching with respect to why abuse occurs at the rates that it does and, beyond that, why cover-up and/or refusal to grant to the civil magistrate what is their jurisdiction is so often the response. I had hoped the SoP would be a vehicle for that. However, I’ve found it sloppy, disjointed, and unhelpful.
As a general rejoinder leaving aside the husband/wife relationship, the granting of authority to one human over another is not somehow inherently unloving. Having authority is not inherently unloving. The authority (exousia, though exousia is not the only Greek word that conveys authority, it is the one in use in Romans 13:1) of the civil magistrate is a demonstration of this reality. It is an authority appointed by God to reward the good and punish the evil and one we are required to submit to lest we resist God Himself. Authority over neighbor isn’t the problem, it is the use of authority that determines its morality or immorality. It is important not to swing the pendulum too far the other way.
ETA: The way in which the civil magistrate loves neighbor is by right use of authority for the good of their neighbor as God’s ministers for good. So, yes, authority can be loving.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
