The Household Code

1 Peter 3: 1-12

Repeating from last week, a household code was common in the first century world, not only in Hebrew, but in Greek and Roman writings dating back to Plato and Aristotle. The most frequent example is from Ephesians 5:22ff and the similar one in Colossians. I find it interesting that these two cities are in the same general region that Peter is writing to, all in modern Turkey. Ephesians adds children to the code, but also includes slaves.

The discussion also brings back the need toput ourselves into the mindset of the first century and ask whether we should consider this as the equivalent of women's cutting their hair or more like stealing, an eternal command.

First, hardly anyone in that ancient world would disagree with the command for wives “to be subject to” their husbands. The Ephesian command for husbands to love their wives was far more radical. One scholar I read maintains that no pagan author ever suggested that as a requirement. Marriages were arranged by parents, not the participants. This has continued in most societies through history and in many, even most countries today. In effect, women always belonged to someone, first to their fathers, then to their husbands. A divorced woman had no protector and often was forced into prostitution or slavery unless a brother or some male stood up for her. The extremes of Shariah that seem deplorable to us are much too close to ancient Hebrew practice for our comfort.

There is a popular present-day notion, a “chain of command” or “God's chain of command.” This concept sees the husband as responsible to God, the wife to her husband, and the children to their parents. I first heard this in the 50's from a layman, Chester Swor, a popular speaker and sometimes lay evangelist. He may or may not have originated the chain of command, but it lost something for me when I found this 40-50 year old was single and lived with his mother. Very responsible Christian pastors, however, believe and teach this. My problem may be more semantic than real. My experience from the viewpoint of seeing many homes as pastor is that marriage usually goes best when the husband is the clear leader of his household, and the wife looks up to him.

Now let's go back to Ephesians 5:22-23 which actually is one sentence. Literally it reads: Submit yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ, wives to your husbands as unto the Lord. Wives to your husbands is a phrase, linked to the verb at the beginning of the sentence. In other words, it's a sub-category of submission to all. That's two verses, by the way. The charge to the husband is eight verses. They are to love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it! Now that is radical even today. No wife treated that way is going to believe herself mistreated.

The most prevalent marriage vows have been for the woman to “love, honor, and obey,” although the latter term often disappears in today's world. When I got married in 1959, I researched marriage ceremonies, using various clergy manuals of different denominations. Vivian and I ended up mostly making a revised version of the traditional vows in modern language. I figured few even knew what a “troth” was, much less how to “plight” it, as in “I plight thee my troth.” (It means I pledge thee my faith.) We also omitted the obedience vow, since I didn't want to make my wife lie on her wedding day, nor did I want to be complicit.

Now Peter uses a different motivation – witnessing. He sees Christian women as winning their husbands to the faith by their behavior. Note especially here, Peter does not want to start a women's lib movement or culture war. Fighting over culture shifts the focus from Christ to laws and customs. Even in our day arguing over ethics can close minds to the Gospel.

Next he speaks of a woman's beauty. “Your beauty must reside, not in outward adornment...but in the inmost centre of your being, with its imperishable ornament, a gentle quiet spirit which is of high value in the sight of God.” 1 Peter 3:3-4 NEB. I like the fact that somewhere along the way they added a thought question to the Miss America contest. I hate the fact that they seem to want a sound bite, brief answer, rather than a discussion. The question purports to say we want a beauty queen with some intelligence and knowledge of world affairs. But in practice, not so much.

V 7 – Note Peter says likewise. A feature of all the Biblical household codes is the covenants are reciprocal, each family member has a part. The slave is called to obey the master, and the master is called to treat the slave fairly. The wife is to be subject to the husband, and the husband is commanded to love his wife as Jesus loved the church! Children are to obey their parents, but the parents are not to abuse the child. In the home, Christ calls us to abandon power games and each share life with the appropriate roles. Don't miss this truth as perhaps the most important takeaway from the chapter.

Some also get hung up on Peter's calling wives “the weaker vessels.” Again I point you to the first century culture. They did not have two women passing the training course to become SEALS. Very few women had any education and society generally expect women to bear, raise, and care for children.(And yet the last chapter of Proverbs paints a picture of the ideal wife that we often read at funerals of elderly women. But that “virtuous woman” is something else! She's a business woman, a craftsman, a wife who loves her husband and is loved by him. Hardly a stay-at-home helpless kind of gal!

The culture thought of the woman as weaker. Consider the reality before modern medical care and birth control. Women were often pregnant and more likely to die in childbirth than today. Indeed, far more children died than today. So women indeed were likely to be weak longer from multiple pregnancies, little pre-natal care, birth traumas, and the natural recovery period after birth. A good husband indeed needed to be more caring and involved in helping his wife.

Notice also Peter says “you share together in the grace of God which gives you life.” Spiritual equals. “Then your prayers will not be hindered.” Whoa! Does he mean the husband's prayers or both of the couple? If the husband is intended, if her dishonors his wife, he will have difficulty talking with God. More likely, I think, coming right after sharing the grace of God, scripture is telling us that marital discord messes up our spiritual path. Disharmony on earth means disharmony with God!