The Exhortation to the Husbands and Its Significance in the Conversation About the Household Codes: 1 Peter 3:7

Download a PDF version of this article.

Much scholarly discussion by conservative and liberal theologians focuses on 1 Pet 3:1–6. The submission of wives to their husbands, the exhortation’s descriptive or prescriptive nature,¹ whether Sarah addressed Abraham as “Lord” and obeyed him,² the extent of the obedience or submission of wives to their husbands,³ the abuse that this passage has fostered throughout church history,⁴ the function of the participles,⁵ the silent witnessing of the wives,⁶ whether wives are supposed to teach,⁷ and how to live with an unbelieving husband⁸—all these topics have generated discussions and even heated debates.

However, these important conversations seem to neglect the equally crucial following verse: “Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers” (1 Pet 3:7; NIV). If it is picked up at all, the discussion of this verse is usually confined to the meaning of the “weaker partner” or “weaker vessel.”⁹ As such, this article will show the responsibility of Christian husbands concerning their wives and investigate whether in this text Peter accommodates the Greco-Roman culture to promulgate the oppression of wives. The passage will be analyzed in its social/historical, theological, and literary contexts. This will be followed by a lexical analysis of 1 Pet 3:7. Finally, we consider the theological implications of the passage.

The Social/Historical, Literary, and Theological Contexts of 1 Peter 3:7

In this section, we use the “hermeneutical triad” of social/historical, literary, and theological contexts as an interpretive framework to understand 1 Pet 3:7.¹⁰

As regards the social/historical context, there is a consensus among scholars that in the Greco-Roman society, women were considered to be weak and inferior.¹¹ Wives were not independent, even in choosing their beliefs. The oft-quoted statement of Plutarch in his Advice to Bride and Groom demonstrates this reality:

A wife ought not to make friends of her own, but to enjoy her husband’s friends in common with him. The gods are the first and most important friends. Therefore, it is becoming for a wife to worship and to know only the gods that her husband believes in, and to shut the door tight upon all strange rituals and outlandish superstition. For with no god do stealthy and secret rites performed by a woman find any favor.¹²                

The subordination of wives to their husbands with regard to the worship of the Roman gods had political grounds: It curtailed any kind of sedition.¹³ The husband had a state-sanctioned and socially acceptable authority over his wife, children, and slaves as the paterfamilias. For instance, David G. Horrell hints that wives who renounced their husbands’ religion could face “criticism and physical abuse” from their husbands¹⁴ or could “face the charge of atheism.”¹⁵

With respect to literary context, 1 Pet 3:7 is located in a larger segment (1 Pet 2:11–3:12) where Peter exhorts his addressees to live godly lives among their unbelieving, hostile neighbors. This section of 1 Peter provides the “household codes” (from German, Haustafeln). The whole Haustafeln hinges on the present, active, imperative verb parakaleō (“urge, exhort, encourage”) that opens the passage in 2:11. Some even suggest that 1 Peter’s ethics wholly depend on parakaleō.¹⁶ For Peter, Christians’ ethical living as strangers and exiles in the midst of their neighbors is the heart of his argument.¹⁷

1 Peter 3:7 is followed by exhortations directed toward the entire Christian community (“all of you”) residing among unbelieving, hostile Gentiles (3:8–12). Peter urges believers to display love and unity among themselves (3:8), followed by a recurrent theme of the epistle: enduring injustice and avoiding any kind of retaliation (3:9–12). Non-retaliation is expected to be accompanied by “courageous witness in the midst of opposition.”¹⁸ In summary, 1 Pet 3:7 is located in the extensive ethical section of the epistle (2:11–3:12).

The command to Christian husbands, though brief,¹⁹ is part of the Haustafeln. By obeying the command, husbands imitate the holiness of God (1:13–16) and maintain an effective Christian witness for the glory of God (2:12). As concerns the theological context, in 1 Pet 3:7, husbands are urged to treat their Christian wives with honor, as coheirs of God’s blessings. Such a call to be different from the surrounding culture, because of the Christian allegiance to, and identity in, the holy God is a major theological theme throughout the epistle. In other words, unique Christian identity is the result of God’s mercy (1 Pet 1:3, 2:10).²⁰ As such, they ought to showcase their newfound identity as God’s people through an exemplary lifestyle.

The identity of Christians and their relation to the popular culture of Peter’s time has attracted a heated debate between David L. Balch and John H. Elliott.²¹ On the one hand, Balch argues that Peter encourages the “acculturation of [Christians] to the Roman society” for apologetic reasons.²² On the other hand, Elliott proposes that Peter is promoting a significant break or alienation from the society as a sect.²³ Elliott’s proof for the sectarian and countercultural attitude of 1 Peter is the theme of suffering. Elliott writes: “Conflict presents an opportunity and a reason for clarification and reaffirmation of those features of the group which make it distinctive, superior and motivated by a common ‘cause’.”²⁴ However, in a later writing, Elliott accedes to Balch’s criticism that some sort of conformity existed between the Greco-Roman culture and 1 Peter.²⁵ Miroslav Volf suggests a middle ground between Balch and Elliott in his essay titled “Soft Difference.”²⁶ Volf finds “a strange tension in 1 Peter between the stress on difference and attempts at acculturation.”²⁷ In other words, 1 Peter’s theology of ethics simultaneously confirms some aspects of the Greco-Roman culture and confronts/corrects any behavior or action contrary to the Christian identity.²⁸ Difference and distance from the popular culture is vital for witness to the larger culture in which Christians reside as strangers.²⁹

In conclusion, Christians are expected to live a godly, exemplary life that is different from their surrounding culture. At the same time, they are to respect the law of the land by subjecting themselves to it so long as it does not contradict with their calling to be holy as God is holy. It is in this wider theological context of 1 Peter that we need to understand the command to the husbands in 3:7.

Lexical Analysis

In this section, four notable words (“live with,” “weaker,” “vessel,” and “prevent”) that are vital for the text under study are analyzed in light of the Septuagint and the wider NT context. The meaning and usage of these words will be used to clarify the confusion and misunderstanding surrounding the Haustafeln in general but particularly the exhortation to the husbands in 1 Peter.

“Live With” (sunoikeō)

Peter commands the husbands using a participle (sunoikountes) with the force of an imperative³⁰ when he addresses them. Lexicons define it both as  “to live with”³¹ and “to conduct oneself in relation to the person with whom one lives.”³²

The term, which occurs only once in the NT, appears in the Septuagint fourteen times.³³ The corresponding Hebrew term usually means “to take a wife” or “to marry.”³⁴ Is the term referring merely to the sexual relations of husband and wife, or does it include marital life in general? Or is it only about husbands engaging in conversation with their wives?³⁵ The term sunoikeō is indeed concerned with the general marital life, including sexual relations between husband and wife. It refers to “both its social and sexual aspects.”³⁶ Edmund Clowney is on point to note that the term should not be “limited to sexual intimacy, but it has particular reference to it.”³⁷ J. N. D. Kelly rightly observes that, although the verb accents the sexual relations of husband and wife, it does not exclude the general and mundane relations between husband and wife.³⁸

Husbands are exhorted to live with their wives with consideration or knowledge (“according to knowledge,” kata gnōsin) that their wives are weaker than themselves but also that they are “coheirs of the grace of life.”³⁹ J. Ramsey Michaels comments that “‘living with a woman’ is not a mere physical function but something a man must know how to do.”⁴⁰ Others have suggested that husbands should live with their wives with the knowledge of God.⁴¹

“Weaker” (asthenesterō)

What does Peter mean when he exhorts husbands that they should consider their wives as “weaker”? The proposed meanings of the term by scholars abound. The term is a comparative adjective employed here to describe the noun “vessel” (skeuei). It is usually understood by scholars to refer to the physical weakness of women in comparison to men.⁴²

John C. Nugent, on the other hand, observes that “weaker vessel” does not have a definite article even though most English versions render the clause as if it had one: “the weaker vessel” or “the weaker partner.” He proposes that “the most natural rendering of this phrase without the definite article would be ‘as with a weaker vessel.’”⁴³ Nugent’s rendering thus avoids the question whether women are “the weaker vessel.”

Peter Davids and others point out that Peter does not state what the weakness of the wives entails.⁴⁴ Nicholas Bott accedes that “the weaker vessel” refers to the physical limitations of the wives, but he goes further and narrows what “weaker” expresses. Peter uses Sarah as his reference point for the wives addressed in the Haustafeln: “. . . like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord” (3:6). The intertextual link is with Gen 18:12: “So Sarah laughed to herself as she thought, ‘After I am worn out and my lord is old, will I now have this pleasure [of bearing a child]?'” Bott insists that the term “weaker vessel” here “opens the possibility of understanding a woman’s physical frailty in a much more restricted, biological sense—reproduction; specifically, the inherent limits of female fertility due to the loss of fertility with age.”⁴⁵ However, by his own admission, Bott avers that this “more restricted understanding of [weaker vessel] may at first appear problematic, since it is unlikely that all women that 1 Peter addresses were (or are) childless.”⁴⁶ The more likely interpretation  is that 1 Peter refers to Sarah’s exemplary lifestyle as an obedient and respectful wife. This is not about her barrenness.

Moreover, Bott overlooks that it is not only Sarah who is in view in the Haustafeln. Peter mentions more women—though not by name—as exemplary wives (“for in this manner formerly the holy wives,” 1 Pet 3:5). Michaels comments that “the holy wives” possibly refer to Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel and Leah.⁴⁷ Therefore, “weaker” should be understood as referring to the “comparative [physical] weakness” of the wives to their husbands.⁴⁸

“Vessel” (skeuos)

Scholars have understood “vessel” in various ways. Michaels believes it means “a person” and renders it as “somebody.”⁴⁹ The standard New Testament Greek lexicon understands the term to refer to “woman” here in 1 Peter.⁵⁰ Mark Dubis takes it to mean “both men and women.”⁵¹ Greg Forbes prefers “the human body.”⁵² Sandra Glahn thinks the term “vessel” has “sexual connotations”;⁵³ Bott and Campbell—by gleaning from rabbinic literature and 1 Thess 4:4—also note that the term refers to sexual organs or intercourse.⁵⁴ Nugent argues that of the twenty-two occurrences of “vessel,” “only three of them refer to people”; as such the term should be understood to mean “an instrument or container.”⁵⁵

“Vessel” is used in the NT in various ways: property or equipment (Matt 12:29; Mark 3:27; Luke 17:31; Heb 9:21), a vessel or container (Luke 8:16; John 19:29; 2 Tim 2:20), a human body (Rom 9:22; 2 Cor 4:7), a human being as an instrument (Acts 9:15), and one’s own wife (1Thess 4:4).⁵⁶ Dubis is correct that though “vessel” here refers to the wives, the comparative adjective “weaker” should be considered in determining the exact meaning of the term. Hence, “vessel” should be understood to refer both to the husbands and the wives but highlighting the wives’ weakness compared to their husbands.⁵⁷

“Prevent, Thwart” (enkoptō)

Though this word is a vital term in the exhortation to the husbands, it has not attracted much attention compared to “weaker vessel.” The term appears five times in the NT. In Acts 24:4, when Tertullus presents an accusation before Felix, he asks to be heard so as not to burden (enkoptō) Felix further. Paul mentions that he was “prevented” from visiting the Christians in Rome (Rom 15:22). Paul inquires what “prevented” the Christians in Galatia from holding the truth of the gospel (Gal 5:7). Paul is “prevented” from traveling to Thessalonica and visiting the believers there (1 Thess 2:18).

The term also appears in the Septuagint. In Job 19:2 it has the sense of “tormenting,” whereas in Isa 43:23 it means “to burden.” In 1 Peter 3:7, however, “burdening” or “tormenting” does not fit the context. Here in 1 Peter, God thwarting the prayers of insensitive, inconsiderate husbands who are mistreating their wives best expresses the meaning.

Theological Synthesis

Many have asserted that this passage propagates the inequality of women by colluding with the Greco-Roman system. But does Peter perpetuate inequality and abuse in his epistle? Is 1 Pet 3:7 lax compared to the exhortation given to Christian wives? We will now turn to these issues.

Brevity Does Not Indicate Insignificance

Almost every scholar points out the brevity of this text to the exhortations given to the slaves (1 Pet 2:18–25) and wives (1 Pet 3:1–6).⁵⁸ However, brevity does not mean the text lacks the weight of the previous verses. It is because of brevity, it seems, that some consider 1 Pet 3:7 to be an “afterthought rather than part of the larger structure.”⁵⁹ As an example, Horrell writes, “The majority of the instruction is thus directed towards slaves and wives, that is, to the ‘weaker’ social groups within the household structure, specifically those most likely to endure abuse and suffering.”⁶⁰

However, the terseness of the text should not be taken as minimizing the significance of the exhortation to the husbands. It is not merely an afterthought. Paul, for instance, laying out a similar household code in Eph 5, gives a succinct command to the wives by saying, “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord” (Eph 5:22; NIV), yet he devotes the subsequent eleven verses to exhorting the husbands to love their wives. Does this mean Paul shows favoritism by burdening the husbands and giving little attention to the wives? Not at all.

The Matter of Collusion

Did Peter collude with the Greco-Roman culture of his day? Some scholars believe either that Peter completely colluded with the Greco-Roman system or that he did not challenge the culture enough.⁶¹

The argument for the collusion or lack of equal challenge to the husbands is based on the assumption that in the process of conversion to Christianity, Greco-Roman men retained more power and that, compared to slaves and wives, Christian husbands suffered less. Such assumptions are largely (but not totally) wrong. The epistle indicates that the suffering of Christian slaves, wives, and husbands is not given in degrees. Peter does not mention that Christian slaves and wives suffer more than Christian husbands do. In fact, Craig Keener points out that “husbands had more to lose socially from conversion to an unpopular minority religion,” compared to the wives; thus “Christianity spread faster among wives than husbands.”⁶²

Peter indeed critiques the Greco-Roman culture when he urges husbands to live with their wives not only with the knowledge that they are “weaker” (though not weak), but also by “showing honor” to their wives. Steven Bechtler indicates the uniqueness of Peter’s command “to bestow honor on” the wives in the Greco-Roman context.⁶³ He adds that, “from the standpoint of social-scientific analysis of honor and shame, the notion of a husband’s bestowal of honor on his wife is striking.”⁶⁴ Though Peter maintains order in the household, he does not promulgate inferiority between the groups of the household. He exhorts believers to “honor everyone” (1 Pet 2:17a). He also commands Christians to “honor the emperor” (1 Pet 2:17). This “honor” language is applied to the wives. In other words, Christian husbands who are commanded to honor the emperor are at the same time expected to honor their wives. D. Edmond Hiebert notes that “Peter [is demanding] that the wife should be accepted as fully worthy of respect and loving esteem.”⁶⁵

Such demand goes contrary to the broader culture’s understanding of women as inferior. Thus, Peter is urging husbands to reflect a different attitude towards their wives, as opposed to the norm in the Greco-Roman context. Another element that indicates the uniqueness of Peter’s exhortation vis-á-vis the broader culture is that Christian husbands are to live in consideration of, and also to bestow respect upon, their wives because the wives are their coheirs. Both Christian husbands and wives are going to “share the same destiny—an eternal inheritance in God’s Kingdom.”⁶⁶

Husbands and wives are equal before God, and there is no distinction or hierarchy in their participation in God’s inheritance.⁶⁷ They “are bound together in the bundle of life.”⁶⁸ By reminding Christian husbands that their wives are coheirs of God’s gracious inheritance, Peter challenges the custom of the day. Karen Jobes observes that “Peter directly addresses the general Greco-Roman attitude of the inferiority of women by pointing out that the female also is a co-heir of grace and is therefore not excluded from the same privileges of grace enjoyed by the male.”⁶⁹

Carl Gross understands the wives in 1 Pet 3:7 to be non-Christians. He argues that the text should be understood to mean that husbands should honor their wives as those who are heirs of eternal life.⁷⁰  Similarly, Nugent suggests that the wives in view are unbelievers and husbands are supposed to “treat their unbelieving wives with special care [like a weaker vessel].”⁷¹ Though the argument for the unbelieving wives is not conclusive, Gross’s and Nugent’s proposals give no hint that Peter colluded with the Greco-Roman culture or perpetuated the inferiority of women as propounded by the non-Christian setting. To the contrary, both Gross and Nugent demonstrate that husbands are expected to take care of and honor their wives. In so doing, the Christian husbands demonstrate that the Greco-Roman “values [are] . . . incompatible with the values of Christians.”⁷² This ethical incompatibility will indeed result in the suffering and persecution of Christians. The new identity ought to be demonstrated by changed behavior and value systems: in this case, respecting, honoring, and caring for wives.

Warning to Christian Husbands

The glaring oversight in scholarly discussions of the Haustafeln is failure to recognize the importance of Peter’s caution. Failure to honour the wife is a hindrance to prayer. Peter’s use of “prevent, thwart” signifies that Christian husbands who fail to heed the exhortation and instead abuse their wives are in danger of their prayers being thwarted by God. This is a severe caution, indeed.

Some scholars, such as Jennifer Bird, do not think this exhortation and warning makes much of a difference. In her view, the brief passage still favors the abusive patriarchal system.⁷³ Bird does not see any ethical difference between the Christian household and the broader culture’s practices. However, evidence for a divine being thwarting husbands’ prayers because of their mistreatment of their wives is unheard of in the Greco-Roman culture. The warning appears to be unique to the NT as well. Husbands are warned that God does not hear those who do not live with their wives with care. God blocks the prayers of abusive Christian husbands, for his ears are only open to those who are righteous (cf. 1 Pet 3:12). The relationship of Christian husbands with their wives determines whether the husbands’ prayers are effective or not. This stern warning to Christian husbands contradicts the claim that Peter is colluding with the culture at large.

Conclusion

We started with pointing out that 1 Pet 3:7 has received minimal attention, and the conversation on the Haustafeln is generally concentrated on the exhortation to the wives (1 Pet 3:1–6). As a result, the text is considered separate from its preceding verses or not as potent as the exhortations given to the slaves or the wives. In response to these assumptions, this study demonstrates that 1 Pet 3:7 is a part of the entire Haustafeln with equal, perhaps more, weight than the foregoing commands given to the Christian slaves and wives.

The claim that Peter has not challenged the Greco-Roman culture’s worldview regarding the lower view of women is proven wrong based on textual, lexical, and theological evidence. Though Peter affirms order and hierarchy in the household, he does not completely subscribe to the Greco-Roman value system. In fact, 1 Peter illustrates that the reason Christians suffer is because they have a different value system and identity that does not fit with the expectations and ethics of the broader culture. Those who also misread and employ the Haustafeln in Peter to carry out any kind of verbal or physical abuse against their wives do not have any warrant whatsoever to subjugate their wives to any kind of violence. To the contrary, Christian husbands are charged with a serious responsibility: to care for and honor their wives, at the severe risk of their prayers being hindered.

Notes

1. Wayne Grudem, “Wives Like Sarah, and the Husbands Who Honor Them: 1 Peter 3:1–7,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Crossway, 2006) 194–208.
2. Michal Beth Dinkler, “Sarah’s Submission: Peter’s Analogy in 1 Peter 3:5–6,” Priscilla Papers 21/3 (2007) 9–15; Mark Kiley, “Like Sara: The Tale of Terror Behind 1 Peter 3:6,” JBL 106/4 (1987) 689–92; Aída Besançon Spencer, “Peter’s Pedagogical Method in 1 Peter 3:6,” BBR 10/1 (2000) 107–19; James R. Slaughter, “Sarah as a Model for Christian Wives (1 Pet 3:5–6),” BSac 153 (1996) 357–65; Sandra L. Glahn, “Weaker Vessels and Calling Husbands ‘Lord’: Was Peter Insulting Wives?,” BSac 174 (2017) 60–76; Jeremy Punt, “Subverting Sarah in the New Testament: Galatians 4 and 1 Peter 3,” Scripture 96 (2007) 453–68; Dorothy I. Sly, “1 Peter 3:6b in the Light of Philo and Josephus,” JBL 110 (1991) 126–29.
3. James R. Slaughter, “Submission of Wives (1 Pet 3:1a) in the Context of Peter,” BSac 153 (1996) 63–74; idem., “Winning Unbelieving Husbands to Christ (1 Pet 3:lb–4),” BSac 153 (1996) 199–211.
4. Betsy J. Bauman-Martin, “Women on the Edge: New Perspectives on Women in the Petrine Haustafeln,” JBL 123/2 (204) 253–79; Caryn Reeder, “1 Peter 3:1–6: Biblical Authority and Battered Wives,” BBR 25/4 (2015) 519–39; Jennifer G. Bird, Abuse, Power and Fearful Obedience: Reconsidering 1 Peter’s Commands to Wives, LNTS 442 (T&T Clark, 2011); David L. Balch, “Early Christian Criticism of Patriarchal Authority: 1 Peter 2:11–3:12,” USQR 39 (1984) 161–73.
5. Greg Forbes, “Children of Sarah: Interpreting 1 Peter 3:6b,” BBR 15/1 (2005) 105–9; Jacques Schlosser, “1 Pierre 3, 5b–6” Bib 64 (1983) 409–10.
6. Jeannine K. Brown, “Silent Wives, Verbal Believers: Ethical and Hermeneutical Considerations in 1 Peter 3:1–6 and Its Context,” W&W 24/4 (2004) 395–403.
7. Ed Christian, “Women, Teaching, Authority, Silence: 1 Timothy 2:8–15 Explained by 1 Peter 3:1–6,” JATS 10/1–2 (1999) 285–90.
8. William F. Cook, “When Only One Spouse Believes: Hope for Christian Women in Mixed Marriages,” The Journal of Discipleship & Family Ministry 2/2 (2012) 14–20; David G. Horrell, “Fear, Hope, and Doing Good: Wives as a Paradigm of Mission in 1 Peter,” EstBíb LXXIII (2015) 409–29.
9. Nicholas T. Bott, “Sarah as the ‘Weaker Vessel’: Genesis 18 and 20 in 1 Peter’s Instructions to Husbands in 1 Peter 3:7,” TJ 36 (2015) 243–59; Glahn, “Weaker Vessels,” 60–76; John C. Nugent, “The ‘Weaker Sex’ or a Weak Translation? Strengthening Our Interpretation of 1 Peter 3:7,” Priscilla Papers 32/3 (2018) 8–11. How to live with unbelieving wives is also provided by Carl D. Gross, “Are the Wives of 1 Peter 3:7 Christians?,” JSNT 35 (1989) 89–96. See esp. James R. Slaughter, “Peter’s Instructions to Husbands in 1 Peter 3:7,” in Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands: Biblical and Leadership Studies in Honor of Donald K. Campbell, ed. Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck (Baker, 1994) 175–85.
10. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Richard D. Patterson, Invitation to Biblical Interpretation: Exploring the Hermeneutical Triad of History, Literature, and Theology (Kregel, 2011) 23.
11. Steven Richard Bechtler, Following in His Steps: Suffering, Community, and Christology in 1 Peter, SBL 162 (Scholars, 1998) 175; Craig Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, 2nd ed. (IVP Academic, 2014), 693; Barth L. Campbell, Honor, Shame, and Rhetoric of 1 Peter, SBL 160 (Scholars, 1998) 164; J. Ramsey Michaels, 1 Peter, WBC 49 (Word, 1988) 169; Peter H. Davids, “A Silent Witness in Marriage: 1 Peter 3:1–7,” in Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy, eds. Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis (IVP Academic, 2004) 237 (reprinted as ch. 12 in the 3rd 2021 ed.); Bauman-Martin, “Women on the Edge,” 275; Herbert Schneider, “Has God Ordained the Subordination of Wives to Husbands?,” Landas 17/1 (2003) 97; J. W. C. Wand quoted in Slaughter, “Submission of Wives,” 70.
12. Plutarch quoted in Donald Senior, “The Conduct of Christians in the World (1 Peter 2:11–3:12),” RevEx 79 (1982) 434.
13. John E. Stambaugh and David L. Balch, The New Testament and Its Social Environment (Westminster, 1986) 123–24.
14. Horrell, “Fear, Hope, and Doing Good,” 417.
15. Dinkler, “Sarah’s Submission,” 9.
16. Greg Forbes, 1 Peter, EGGNT (B&H Academic, 2014) 73.
17. Karen H. Jobes, 1 Peter, BECNT (Baker Academic, 2005) 167.
18. Senior, “The Conduct of Christians,” 437.
19. Senior, “The Conduct of Christians,” 435.
20. Jo de Waal Dryden, Theology and Ethics in 1 Peter: Paraenetic Strategies for Christian Character Formation, WUNT 2/209 (Mohr Siebeck, 2006) 119.
21. Sean M. Christensen, “The Balch/Elliott Debate and the Hermeneutics of the Household Code,” TJ 37 (2016) 173–93; Joel B. Green, 1 Peter (Eerdmans, 2007) 280–81.
22. David L. Balch, Let Wives Be Submissive: The Domestic Code in 1 Peter, SBL 26 (Scholars, 1981) 92.
23. John H. Elliott, A Home for the Homeless: A Sociological Exegesis of 1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy (Fortress, 1981) 113.
24. Elliott, A Home for the Homeless, 116.
25. Bechtler, Following, 12–13.
26. Miroslav Volf, “Soft Difference: Theological Reflections on the Relation between Church and Culture in 1 Peter,” ExAud 10 (1994) 15–30; Horrell comes to the same conclusion as Volf and takes a via media between Balch and Elliott. He labels his mediating position as “polite resistance”; David G. Horrell, Becoming Christian: Essays on 1 Peter and the Making of Christian Identity, LNTS 394 (T&T Clark, 2013) 211–38. Jeannine Brown also notes the existence of both conformity and subversive elements in 1 Peter rather than an either/or attitude towards the Greco-Roman culture; Brown, “Silent Wives,” 399–403.
27. Volf, “Soft Difference,” 21.
28. Volf, “Soft Difference,” 23.
29. Volf, “Soft Difference,” 24.
30. Wallace identifies such participles as “Independent Verbal Participles,” where participles function as imperatives. See Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Zondervan, 1996) 650–51. For history of the debate on imperatival participles in 1 Peter, see Forbes, 1 Peter, 6–7.
31. BDAG 974.
32. L&N 505.
33. Gen 20:3; Deut 22:13; 24:1; 25:5; 1 Esd 8:67; 9:7, 36; Wis. 7:28; Sir 25:8, 16; 42:9,10; Isa 62:5; and 2 Macc 1:14.
34. Dubis, 1 Peter, 93.
35. Contra Paul J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, Hermeneia (Augsburg Fortress, 1996) 217, who notes that all the females in the household, not only the wives, could be in view. I believe the term here refers to exclusively to the wives.
36. Michaels, 1 Peter 168.
37. Edmund Clowney, The Message of 1 Peter (IVP Academic, 2021) 133–34.
38. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude (Baker, 1969) 132.
39. Elliott, 1 Peter, 575.
40. Michaels, 1 Peter, 168.
41. The ὡς-clauses provide what kind of knowledge is needed in living with their wives. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 218; Clowney, 1 Peter, 134.
42. Elliott, 1 Peter, 577–78; Glahn, “Weaker Vessels,” 74.
43. Nugent, “The ‘Weaker Sex’,” 10.
44. Davids, “A Silent Witness,” 237; Grudem, “Wives,” 206.
45. Bott, “Sarah,” 253.
46. Bott, “Sarah,” 254.
47. Michaels, 1 Peter 164.
48. de Waal Dryden, Theology and Ethics in 1 Peter, 159. Sicily Mbura Muriithi, “1 Peter,” in Africa Bible Commentary: A One-Volume Commentary Written by 70 African Scholars, ed. Tokunboh Adeyemo (Zondervan, 2006) 1543–50, here 1521, opines that the weakness here “may be reflecting a physical reality of [Peter’s] time when many women died in pregnancy and childbirth.” However, Peter does not clearly mention maternal death during childbirth in 1 Pet 3:7.
49. Michaels, 1 Peter, 169.
50. BDAG 928.
51. Mark Dubis, 1 Peter: A Handbook on the Greek Text (Baylor University Press, 2010) 94.
52. Forbes, 1 Peter, 103–4.
53. Glahn, “Weaker Vessels,” 74.
54. Bott, “Sarah,” 253; Campbell, Honor, Shame, 163.
55. Nugent, “The ‘Weaker Sex’,” 10.
56. BDAG 927–28.
57. Dubis, 1 Peter, 94.
58. Cf. Wayne Grudem, 1 Peter (IVP, 1988) 142; Norbert Brox, Der Erste Petrusbrief, EKK XXI (Zurich: Benzinger/Neukirchener, 1979) 147; Martin Vahrenhorst, Der Erste Brief des Petrus (Kohlhammer, 2015) 139.
59. Davids, “A Silent Witness,” 237.
60. Horrell, “Fear, Hope, and Doing Good,” 412.
61. Bird, Abuse of Power, 86–109.
62. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, 715.
63. Bechtler, Following, 175.
64. Bechtler, Following, 175.
65. Edmond Hiebert, 1 Peter (Moody, 1992) 207.
66. Thomas Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude (Holman, 2020) 161.
67. Glahn, “Weaker Vessels,” 75.
68. Hiebert, 1 Peter, 207.
69. Jobes, 1 Peter, 207.
70. Gross, “Are the Wives of 1 Peter 3:7 Christians?,” 90–91.
71. Nugent, “The ‘Weaker Sex’,” 10.
72. Volf, “Soft Difference,” 25.
73. Bird, Abuse, Power, 99.