I want to offer thoughts on some of the more heated passages in the New Testament – those dealing with marital ordering and relationships. There are a few passages, each tied to specific language, that I want to process through. This is largely my thinking and my processing, although I’ll cite sources as appropriate.
I also want to acknowledge out the gate that these passages have weirdly been applied to male/female relationships or distinctives, for reason that I don’t fully understand. Perhaps cultural, perhaps assumptive, and perhaps translational (the NT Greek word for ‘wife’ can also be translated ‘woman’), nevertheless, these are marriage passages and should be treated as such. These passages pertain to a sacred, divinely appointed, and unique relationship; they do not speak at all to male/female relationships. Any extrapolation or extension of these principles is inappropriate.
I want to focus on a few specific passages, and seek to sketch an understanding of the concepts associated. As I have considered these passages, I do not they cohesively paint a picture of a singular marriage ethic; the concepts within these passages are not all interchangeable, although they certainly seem to be at first blush. I want to look at the passages in situ, both textually and culturally – to the best of my ability – and clarify my own understanding.
1 Peter 3:1-6
The first passage is 1 Peter 3:1-6, which commands wives to “be subject” to their husbands. I do not think this exact prescription applies today, although the concept is rich and should be eagerly pursued.
In context, Peter is applying his rich theology from 1 Peter 2:11-12, where he urges his readers – as “sojourners and exiles” – to live in such a way that unbelieving Gentiles would see their conduct and ultimately “glorify God.” He then turns this thesis towards three practical applications: governmental authority, slave/master authority, and marital authority.
In each of these cultural contexts, Peter urges his readers to “be subject” – ultimately for the sake of converting the unbeliever. But what’s important to note is that Paul never questions the validity or righteousness of the social construct he’s addressing; rather, he simply acknowledges it and then says, “in light of this context, here’s how you should conduct yourself.” In these passages, Peter is not calling Christians to be cultural warriors – rather, he’s allowing culture, and speaking to how Christian exiles should live despite culture.
This is seen most obviously in the second context – slaves and masters. This is clearly an unrighteous context, and yet Peter never decries it. It isn’t his purpose to challenge culture – it’s his purpose to encourage believers in how to live despite the unrighteous context. Peter’s lack of rejection shouldn’t be seen as an assention – it’s simply an acknowledgment. And anyone with a Christian ethic will easily see how Peter’s commendations fit within that ethic. “For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps” (1 Peter 2:21).
In the same way, I believe Peter’s commendations to wives acknowledges a first-century societal construct; one of a subjugated wife – and encourages a wife to win her husband within that construct. To put it another way, Peter might have said, “Be subject. I say this as a concession, not as a law.” He’s challenging the liberated Christian wife who might justly say, “I am now subject only to Christ, and will reject the cultural subjugation of my husband!” Righteous social warrior she might be; Christ calls her to more.
That might feel subjective and assumptive, but I think it’s deeply contextual. Peter’s cause in this passage is to challenge believers how to live as exiles, and he was brutal and transparent in 2:13-17, and 2:18-25. He has brokered no quarter, nor given believers any excuse for acting unlike Christ in the social situations they find themselves, no matter how wrong. Peter’s concern is simply not cultural righteousness – it’s individual Christian righteousness. And in the midst of it, first century wives were to be graciously subject to their husbands, just as slaves were to be subject to their masters who might beat them, and citizens were to be subject to their emperor who might burn them alive. They don’t do this because the context is just or prescriptive – they do this because Christ is greater than any of these things.
And so in light of this context, I don’t feel the command is prescriptive to modern marital relationships; the culture is different. The concept remains in force; within culture, seek to win souls to Christ. If a woman is married to an unbelieving husband, she should seek to win him to Jesus by displaying Christ-like characteristics in her conduct and behavior, but there is not a biblical mandate that she inherently be subject.
Colossians 3:18
Paul tells wives to “submit to your husbands.” Transparently, the Greek word translated ‘submit’ in this Pauline context is the same as that translated “be subject” in the Petrine one above. But it’s usage in this simple, basic familial ethic
Ephesians 5:22-24
1 Corinthians 11:3
[this article is a work in progress, and will be periodically updated]