Background
We previously discussed the Household Code passages found in Colossians and Ephesians. These passages outline how Greco-Roman Christian households were expected to behave in a manner that honors Christ. We argued that these texts do not prescribe a uniform way for all Christian homes throughout history to operate. If they did, it would imply that every Christian household must own slaves. Instead, these passages illustrate Paul’s efforts to engage with a Gentile issue that even Jesus did not confront in his Jewish context.
The Greco-Roman family consisted of a husband and father who held legally granted absolute power over everyone who lived under his roof. How he handled his home was tied to his public reputation and dignity. Women typically were married off by age 15, generally to much older men. Usually, love had very little to do with the marriage. Indeed, the Greco-Roman man was not required to love his wife. Paul found himself in this cultural context, and the options were few. He could have demonized the practice, as the European missionaries to sub-Sahara Africa did, and required the Christians to do marriages the “Christian way,” whatever that meant. But that move would be somewhat naive, impractical, and even foolish. First, cultural norms do not change overnight; expecting otherwise is embracing inevitable failure. Second, Christians were a minority, accounting for less than 10 % of the Roman empire, and were despised for their culture-inverting beliefs and claims. An Emperor would later actively persecute them. So, Paul seemed to have taken a “slowly but surely” path to winning the Greco-Roman family structure for Jesus. He sowed the seeds and trusted God to enable germination.
Paul’s experience is not unique; he is joined by the author of the First Epistle of Peter, who also faced the challenge of guiding Gentile Christians in their family lives. It is interesting to note that some critical scholars have suggested that 1 Peter might have been written by Paul, considering its similarities to his style. However, for our discussion, we shall assume a Petrine authorship. We are not solely focusing on the text of 1 Peter 2-3 regarding the Household Code. Instead, we aim to explore the Petrine passage and the thoughtful questions it raises, especially in light of our recent blog entries. This exploration helps us understand the complexities and struggles many women faced during that time.
Household Rules in 1 Peter
In chapter 2, the author encourages the Gentile church recipients to “Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation” (1 Peter 2:12 ESV). We see that this church had the burden of being behaviorally cautious, as they were accused of being evil-doers. Indeed, the author appeals to this church to “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good” (1 Peter 2:13-14 ESV). The Church had to navigate the liminal space of being Christian in a somewhat anti-Christian environment. Whatever they did, the author encouraged the people not to provoke the government’s wrath. While they should live as free people, the people should not use their freedom as a cover-up for wrongdoings. They are to fear God and honor the Emperor (2:16-17). Unlike the Pauline passages, 1 Peter 2-3 leans heavily on the suffering of Jesus as the example and motivation for the inferior persons in the family structure. Chapter 3 begins thus:
1 Peter 3:1-6 ESV
[1] Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, [2] when they see your respectful and pure conduct. [3] Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— [4] but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. [5] For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, [6] as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening
Peter does not ask anything unusual of the wives when he tells them to be subject to their husbands. He arguably gives them a God-inflected reason to do what was traditionally required of them. Peter adds a thought to this verse that inspires this writing, “so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives.” That is, some of the wives seem to be maltreated by their husbands, perhaps for being culture-contorting Christians. Peter hopes that the good conduct of the Christian wives may soften the abusive husbands’ hearts. He wants the wives to be attractive and pleasant to their husbands not by sporting expensive jewelry and coiffure but by the internal, Jesus-molded, imperishable beauty of “a gentle and quiet spirit.” This is why Peter leans on the suffering of Christ in this passage. The maltreated Greco-Roman wives did not have many options out of the situation, with the exception, perhaps, of divorce, and that also came with its problems.
In an odd move, Peter sees it fit to cite Sarah as an encouragement to these Greco-Roman wives. Peter says Sarah was “a gentle and quiet spirit” as she “obeyed Abraham, calling him lord.” The choice of Sarah is odd because she is almost the opposite of “a gentle and quiet spirit.” It is true that Sarah once called Abraham “lord,” but not in an obedience context. About twenty-five years after initially promising Abraham a biological child, God appeared again to Abraham. This time, God tells Abraham that the promised child will be born within a year. Sarah overheard this conversation and understandably responded thus, “So Sarah laughed to herself, saying, ‘After I am worn out, and my lord is old, shall I have pleasure?”’ (Genesis 18:12 ESV) So, we see that the recorded context of referring to Abraham as “lord” is insulting. However, perhaps Peter reasons from this singular text that Sarah habitually referred to Abraham as “lord.”
Even so, many problems remain. The picture Genesis paints of Sarah is of a woman controlling her husband. First, about a decade after God had promised that Abraham would father children, Sarah, in effect, ordered Abraham to impregnate Hagar. Abraham did not push back in any way but instead did as Sarah asked (Genesis 16). Shortly after Hagar knew she was pregnant, Sarah grew small in Hagar’s eyes. She viewed her conception as a divine blessing and Sarah’s barrenness as a curse. Whatever old wives tale of conception Sarah tried to act out (Genesis 16:2) did not work. Feeling exposed, Sarah again got Abraham to let her treat the pregnant Hagar harshly. Finally, some thirteen years later, Sarah gave birth to the promised child, Isaac. On the day the boy was weaned, Sarah once more ordered Abraham, “Cast out this slave woman with her son, for the son of this slave woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac” (Genesis 21:10). Even though this request was particularly “very displeasing to Abraham on account of his son,” he did not speak up. Indeed, it is as though Abraham knew what God already knew about Sarah – it would be her way or the highway. Hence, “God said to Abraham, ‘Be not displeased because of the boy and because of your slave woman. Whatever Sarah says to you, do as she tells you'” (Genesis 21:12). Abraham did as Sarah told him, but God cared for Hagar and her son.
Given this portrayal of Sarah, it is at first odd that Peter cites her as an encouraging example for the Gentile women. She seemed like the worst example to use in that context. But if we notice that these women were enduring possible spousal abuse, we can then make sense of Peter’s use of Sarah. Was Sarah ever spousally abused? Yes, indeed – more than once, and we have already covered the stories in detail here. Genesis 12 and 20 feature instances in which Abraham cared more about saving his life than protecting Sarah’s life or sexual integrity. Mark Kiley also sees these passages as holding promise for understanding Peter’s rationale of using Sarah as a good example in this context (1987). Because of Sarah’s beauty and fearing that the men in the foreign lands would kill him so they could have her for their kings, Abraham devised a half-truth to deceive and introduced Sarah as his sister. This was not a decision made under pressure but a premeditated lie he devised early as God called him out of his home country (Genesis 20:13).
Now, for some not easily explainable reasons, the otherwise seemingly vocal and self-serving Sarah acquiesced, playing her role in giving life to Abraham’s lie, even when it comes at the cost of her sexual well-being and even life. It is as though she did not fear the frightening condition of being taken to a foreign king’s palace and bedroom as a married woman (1 Peter 3:6). She willingly subjected herself to spousal abuse, embodying the spirit of resilience that the author of 1 Peter highlights to inspire Gentile women facing similar challenges. In their situation, the hope is that their conduct, fueled by the Holy Spirit, will touch their husbands’ hearts, paving the way for more harmonious domestic lives.
It is worth briefly noticing that the 1 Peter 3 passage touches on the theme of a wife’s beauty, the very attribute of Sarah that Abraham believed would get him killed in Egypt and Gerar. Kiley writes, “it is Sara’s beauty that in part generates the problem of Genesis 12 and 20” (691). This is another strong indication that this portion of Sarah’s story is what Peter assumes when selecting Sarah as an encouraging example. Sarah used her beauty to serve her husband, even if the husband’s choice and reasoning were problematic.
Household Codes are not Binding
In closing, I would like to share a few thoughts. First, if we accept the reading argued here, it reveals a nuanced Jewish reading of Abraham’s story that paints him as a profoundly flawed and imperfect individual. It is crucial to understand that Abraham is not honored in the Hall of Faith due to his moral perfection; instead, he is included in that esteemed company because his actions played a pivotal role in advancing God’s overarching plan for redemption. Abraham’s narrative suggests he is far from an ideal hero to be emulated in every aspect of life. As the analysis above indicates, there are aspects of his character that reveal him to be an abusive spouse, highlighting the darker complexities of his relationships. He also might be an abused spouse, which adds another layer to his story. This intricate portrayal invites us to deeply engage with Abraham’s experiences, recognizing his humanity and struggles rather than idolizing him uncritically.
It is crucial to emphasize that this passage should never be used to encourage any woman to suffer in silence through spousal abuse. We must recognize that many Gentile women in the past had limited options and that divorce may not have been attainable or a suitable choice for them. Today, however, many women around the world do have the opportunity to seek help and make different choices for their well-being. Furthermore, I genuinely believe that all the Household Code passages, Ephesians 5:22 – 6:9, Colossians 3:18 – 4:1, and 1 Peter 2:18 – 3:7, do not apply similarly to many Christian families today. These passages reflect the early Apostles’ efforts to navigate and redeem challenging human circumstances while honoring faith in Jesus. Each Christian home today should aim to operate in a way that is mindful of its unique strengths and abilities. Regardless of how a family functions, its core goal should be to honor God and foster an environment where all members can discover and fulfill their God-given potential. The Household Rule passages are not divinely prescribed instructions on structuring a family.
Finally, in discussions regarding the Household Codes, I frequently encounter a thought-provoking question: “If you assert that these passages are not binding, what framework remains for Christian families?” It is important to recognize that while humans inherently thrive with guidelines and principles, applying the Greco-Roman rules found in these codes to contemporary Christian households can lead to adverse outcomes, including spousal abuse. These historical norms are not what we need today. Instead, we are blessed with two foundational teachings from Jesus that provide a timeless framework for how we can structure our homes effectively and compassionately:
1. Treat others as you would like to be treated. This principle, often referred to as the Golden Rule, emphasizes empathy and respect in all interactions, encouraging us to consider the feelings and perspectives of our family members.
2. Love your family members as you love yourself. This commandment calls for a profound commitment to putting the well-being of our loved ones on par with our own. It invites us to foster a nurturing environment where each person’s value is recognized and cherished.
By embodying these principles daily, we can create a household dynamic that promotes mutual respect and understanding. For instance, this may lead to situations where a husband recognizes the wisdom in his wife’s perspective and chooses to submit to her counsel or where a wife willingly prioritizes her husband’s needs with genuine love and support. Whatever we do, we should endeavor to glorify God in our family dynamics and nurture each member of our family’s unique gifts. In doing so, we establish a loving and supportive environment that reflects the heart of Christ and strengthens the bonds we share.
Work Referenced
Kiley, Mark. “Like Sara: The Tale of Terror behind 1 Peter 3:6.” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 106, no. 4, 1987, pp. 689–92. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3260829. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.
