Subordination of wives in 1 Peter 3:1-7: an exegetical study

Introduction

The verb ὑποτάσσω (‘subordinate’) occupies a prominent place in the paranesis of 1

Peter. In particular, it dominates the author’s instruction for Christian conduct in the
political and domestic spheres, including his directions to Christian wives and
husbands (3:1-7). Its use thereby illuminates his understanding of the relationship
between the divine and social orders and the status of patriarchy within them.

This paper is a brief exegetical study of the meaning of ὑποτάσσω in 1 Peter 3:1-7.
The first section provides a basic definition of the term with reference to the Greco-
Roman concept of τάξις, the stratified ordering of nature and society. The next part
identifies the historical and literary contexts of the passage and their implications for
its rhetorical purpose. An exegesis is then provided of the two uses of ὑποτάσσω in
3:1 and 5. The final section of the paper draws some tentative and provisional
conclusions regarding the author’s understanding of the social and divine orders in
general, and of patriarchy in particular, as revealed by these verses.

Definition

BDAG defines ὑποτάσσω in the active voice as ‘to cause to be in a submissive

relationship, to subject, to subordinate’. Its passive form means ‘to become subject’
or ‘to subject oneself, be subordinated, obey’.1 John Elliott points out that the verb is
related to the noun τάξις, which means ‘order’, and argues that it presupposes the
concept of a hierarchical natural and social order comprising relationships between
superiors and inferiors:

The societies of the Greco-Roman period were greatly concerned with the
establishment and maintenance of ‘order’ (taxis) in all areas of public and private life
as a replication of an ordered universe (kosmos)… Superordination and subordination
involved the acting out of statuses and roles determined by one’s assigned place in the

1
BDAG, 1042; italics original. The second passive sense has a middle force.
 stratified social order… When the verb hypotassō and the noun hypotagē are used in
ethical contexts, they denote recognition of and respect for authority and order, which
involve submission, deference to, subjection to, and obedience to superiors, namely
God and humans in positions of recognized authority.2

According to Elliott, the use of ὑποτάσσω in 1 Peter reflects this understanding of a

structured society in which everyone has their own station, and in which these
stations hold together and sustain the community’s life. On this view, the author is
calling his readers to subordinate themselves to their superiors within the established
authority structures of the household and the state. Although the precise relationship
in the author’s mind between this social order and the divinely ordered nature of
things (divine order) is open to debate, the concept and structures of Greco-Roman
τάξις appear to be fundamental to his exhortation.3

In this context, the verb ὑποτάσσω is most naturally understood as one-sided,

involving recognition, deference and obedience towards those in supposedly
superior positions, a submission of oneself to their judgment and will. This
conclusion is further supported by the restriction of the term by the author to those in
the traditionally inferior positions, including wives.

Historical and literary contexts

In a historical context where women were seen as inherently deficient in comparison

with men, wives were expected to be subordinate to their husbands. They were
treated as socially inferior in society and the home, normally required to follow the
religion of the head of the household, and not supposed to have friends

2
J.H. Elliott, 1 Peter (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000), 486-87. It is for this reason that
Elliott favours the English translation of ὑποτάσσω as ‘subordinate’, a word that conveys the notion of
order. Allan Barr’s rejection of this translation on the grounds that it presupposes organisation (A.
Barr, ‘Submission Ethic in the First Epistle of Peter,’ HQ 2:3 [1962]: 29) is thereby undermined; it is
precisely for this reason that ‘subordinate’ should be used.
3
BDAG, 1042; NIDNTTE 4, 462; Elliott, 1 Peter, 487; L. Goppelt, A Commentary on 1 Peter, ed. F.
Hahn, trans. J.E. Alsup (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1993), 183-84; J.B.
Green, 1 Peter (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2007), 70-71; J.W. Thompson,
‘“Be Submissive to your Masters”: A Study of 1 Peter 2:18-25,’ RQ 9 (1966): 69.
independently of their husbands.4 These social conventions gave husbands
considerable power to intimidate their wives.

The Christian conversion of wives with pagan husbands could therefore cause
conflict within their households. They would refuse any longer to acknowledge the
gods of the family cult, and would also become part of the Christian community,
which was evidently mistrusted and whose message a husband might well reject
with contempt.5 Some unbelieving husbands might bully their wives to turn them
from their new faith. The household was also seen as the foundation of society, and
a religious group that failed to respect its normative relationships was regarded as
immoral and potentially seditious. The loyalty of Christians to the social order was
thus called into question, and the stability of the Christian community threatened, by
the conversion of wives.6

The verses of 1 Peter addressed to wives and husbands are part of a short code7
(2:13 – 3:12) for Christian conduct in the civil and domestic realms. Such codes
originated in Greco-Roman culture, and set out the appropriate status, roles and
relationships of different groups within the οἶκος (‘household’) and πόλις (city-state).
The codes were designed to maintain order and harmony in these two spheres, and
conformity to them was regarded as a mark of good citizenship. 8

4
P.J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter: A Commentary on First Peter (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996),
206-7; Green, 1 Peter, 92; K.H. Jobes, 1 Peter (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), 185-86,
203; R. Feldmeier, The First Letter of Peter: A Commentary on the Greek Text, trans. P.H. Davids
(Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008), 178.
5
D.A. deSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods & Ministry Formation
(Downers Grove, IL: IVP and Leicester: Apollos, 2004), 855-56; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 208; Goppelt, 1
Peter, 219; F.W. Beare, The First Epistle of Peter: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes
(Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1961), 127; B.J. Bauman-Martin, ‘Women on the Edge: New Perspectives on
Women in the Petrine Haustafeln,’ JBL 123 (2004): 265-67, 270-72.
6
D.L. Balch, Let Wives be Submissive: The Domestic Code in 1 Peter (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press,
1981), 118-19; Elliott, 1 Peter, 558-59; P.H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 115-16; J.R. Michaels, 1 Peter (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1988),
157; Jobes, 1 Peter, 179, 202-3; Bauman-Martin, ‘Women,’ 264-65, 267-68; P.H. Davids, ‘A Silent
Witness in Marriage: 1 Peter 3:1-7,’ in Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without
Hierarchy, ed. R.W. Pierce and R.M. Groothuis (Downers Grove and Leicester: IVP and Apollos,
2004), 226.
7
The word ‘code’ should not be taken to imply a fixed form. John Elliott has argued that there was ‘a
long-standing Greco-Roman tradition of instruction concerning appropriate behavior relevant to the
two major domains of ancient society: the civil sphere (polis) and the related domestic sphere (oikos)’
(Elliott, 1 Peter, 505), and that individual collections of teaching are particular expressions of this
flexible tradition (Elliott, 1 Peter, 506-10).
8
D.L. Balch, ‘Hellenization/Acculturation in 1 Peter,’ in Perspectives on 1 Peter, ed. C.H. Talbert
(Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1986), 81-82; J.H. Elliott, ‘1 Peter, Its Situation and
These historical and literary contexts suggest that one purpose of 3:1-7 is to counter
the intimidation and change the attitude of hostile husbands and other outsiders. By
being subordinate to their husbands, Christian wives can avoid unnecessary charges
and answer those who accuse them of being socially and politically disruptive. By
‘doing good’ in this way the community will silence their critics (2:15), and submissive
wives may even win their husbands to the faith (3:1-2).9 These verses thus offer a
strategy for deflecting anti-Christian antagonism10 and promoting the church’s
mission.

However, the instruction to wives to be subordinate to their husbands is not

necessarily a purely or even mainly pragmatic device for the purpose of community
self-preservation and growth.11 It may also reflect what the author regards as a
universal ethic governing the relationship of married couples, requiring from the
wives (and husbands) not a merely contingent accommodation to the social order,
but rather a necessary conformity to the divine order that will also have beneficial
social effects. This issue cannot be decided simply by reference to the context and
form of the text; it depends also, and more importantly, on the interpretation of its
content.

Strategy: A Discussion with David Balch,’ in Perspectives on 1 Peter, ed. C.H. Talbert (Eugene, OR:
Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1986), 62-63; Green, 1 Peter, 70-71.
9
Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 208; Jobes, 1 Peter, 204; J.W. Aageson, ‘Slaves, Wives and the Complexities
of Interpretation,’ in A Feminist Companion to the Catholic Epistles, ed. A-J Levine and M.M. Robbins
(London and New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 42.
10
G. Forster, Ethics in the Letters of Peter and Jude (Cambridge: Grove Books, 2007), 22-23;
Feldmeier, First Letter, 152-57; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 179; S.R. Bechtler, Following in His Steps:
Suffering, Community and Christology in 1 Peter (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1998), 188-89.
However, there is no evidence from the letter that Christian wives were pursuing an expanded role,
within the church or outside it, on the basis of their Christian faith (Balch, Wives, 106-7). The claims of
Jennifer Bird (J.G. Bird, Abuse, Power and Fearful Obedience: Reconsidering 1 Peter's Commands to
Wives [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2013]) that ‘the author is pulling in the reigns [sic] on active, powerful
and influential wives/women’ (136) and ‘the women have been vocal and influential’ (137), while not
impossible, do not follow from the instructions given to the wives.
11
Contra A.G. Padgett, As Christ Submits to the Church: A Biblical Understanding of Leadership and
Mutual Submission (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 81-82.
Exegesis

3:1ff.
The opening word of the new section, Ὁμοίως (‘Likewise’), links it to the previous
one. Like 2:18-25, the instructions to wives in 3:1-6 are a further application of the
general command to subordination in 2:13. This conclusion is reinforced by the use
of an imperatival participle, ὑποτασσόμεναι (‘be subordinate’).12 The phrase αἱ
γυναῖκες (‘you wives’) is a nominative used as a vocative, possibly emphasising the
unusual direct address to wives in a household code. This assumes that the author
regards them as fully human, rational, and capable of independent moral judgment
and behaviour, in just the same way as the husbands. 13 The object of the imperative,
τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν (‘to your own husbands’), makes clear that wives (rather than
women generally) are in view. They are to subordinate themselves to their own
husbands, recognising the husbands’ (supposedly) superior status and showing
them deference and obedience.14

The implication of καὶ εἴ τινες ἀπειθοῦσιν τῷ λόγῳ (‘even if some disobey the word’)
is that some of the women were married to pagans, while the reference to the latter’s
disobeying the word suggests that they had rejected and perhaps actively opposed
the gospel of Christ. The instruction to wives to be subordinate to their husbands
therefore furthers one aim of the civic and household code: silencing the ignorance
of the foolish by doing good in the eyes of society and encouraging the conversion of
their unbelieving husbands (ἵνα … κερδηθήσονται; ‘in order that … they may be
gained’).15

12
Achtemeier (1 Peter, 209) prefers to see this as an instrumental participle; there is no real
difference in meaning.
13
Green, 1 Peter, 80; Elliott, 1 Peter, 513; Davids, First Epistle, 105, 116; Jobes, 1 Peter, 185;
Goppelt, 1 Peter, 193, 219.
14
Michaels, 1 Peter, 157, 167; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 209; Elliott, 1 Peter, 553-54.
15
Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 209-10; Michaels, 1 Peter, 157; Elliott, 1 Peter, 557-58; Green, 1 Peter, 94-95;
Balch, Wives, 99; W.J. Webb, Slaves, Women and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of
Cultural Analysis (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 106-7; Jobes, 1 Peter, 204; A.B.
Spencer, ‘Peter’s Pedagogical Method in 1 Peter 3:6.’ BBR 10 (2000): 109, 111; J. Punt, ‘Subverting
Sarah in the New Testament: Galatians 4 and 1 Peter 3,’ in Early Christian Literature and
Intertextuality: Exegetical Studies, vol. 2, ed. C.A. Evans and H.D. Zacharias (London and New York:
T&T Clark, 2009), 164.
The disobedient husbands may be won over διὰ τῆς τῶν γυναικῶν ἀναστροφῆς
(‘through the conduct of the wives’). Good conduct by the wives in everyday
domestic life will relieve the husbands’ fear of disruption in the home. This conduct is
also to be ἄνευ λόγου (‘without a word’): the wives’ words in support of the gospel
might be more provocative than helpful in a context where husbands (and wider
society) regard their silence as virtuous. But in the following verse it is further defined
in terms of purity motivated by fear, suggesting that the author envisages a close
correlation between what society (at its best) regards as good and the will of God.
Purity is indeed an answer to actual or potential charges of immorality, but it is also
proper before God; and the fear is probably fear of God, which should prompt the
wives to appropriate subordination. 16

This appeal implies that the required subordination of wives is not absolute; where
God’s requirements conflict with those of the husband, the former must take priority.
However, it is notable that the author never states this principle explicitly, suggesting
that he believes there will be few instances where subordination is inappropriate. 17

In verses 3-4 the author further expounds the nature of good conduct in terms of a
contrast between perishable external adornment and imperishable inward character.
The outward braiding of hair and wearing of ornaments and clothing are to be
rejected in favour of a gentle and peaceable spirit. Once more, this lifestyle is
virtuous according to both Greco-Roman and Christian moral standards: it will be

16
Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 210; Michaels, 1 Peter, 157-58; Elliott, 1 Peter, 558-59; Green, 1 Peter, 95-
96; Beare, First Epistle, 128; Balch, Wives, 99-101; Jobes, 1 Peter, 204; Feldmeier, First Letter, 178-
80; L.R. Donelson, I and II Peter and Jude: A Commentary (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox
Press, 2010), 89. Many commentators suggest that in 1 Peter only God is the appropriate object of
φόβος (except in the LXX citation in 3:14); see for example Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 188; Elliott, 1 Peter,
500; Davids, First Epistle, 104.
17
He does not even say that the wives should not worship their household’s gods, and Warren Carter
does not allow even this exception to the principle of subordination (W. Carter, ‘Going All the Way?
Honoring the Emperor and Sacrificing Wives and Slaves in 1 Peter 2:13 – 3:6,’ in A Feminist
Companion to the Catholic Epistles, ed. A-J Levine and M.M. Robbins [London and New York: T&T
Clark, 2004], 23-30). But there is good reason to think that this prohibition is taken for granted; see
D.G. Horrell, ‘Between Conformity and Resistance: Beyond the Balch-Elliott Debate towards a
Postcolonial Reading of 1 Peter,’ in Becoming Christian: Essays on 1 Peter and the Making of
Christian Identity (London and New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013) for a critique of Carter’s
interpretation.
effective in appeasing husbands and answering societal slanders, but also it is
explicitly said to be very precious before God.18

3:5ff.
The author again uses the participial form of ὑποτάσσω to define the conduct he is
prescribing. He justifies his previous call for inward adornment by appealing to αἱ
ἅγιαι γυναῖκες αἱ ἐλπίζουσαι εἰς θεὸν (‘the holy women who hoped in God’). This is a
reference to OT women, perhaps especially or exclusively the matriarchs from
Genesis, who are ancient and authoritative examples for the conduct of Christian
wives.19 These women used to decorate themselves internally by subordinating
themselves to their own husbands.20 The Christian wives’ inner disposition of
gentleness and quietness is to be expressed in the same way.21

The particular OT woman used by the author as an example of subordination is

Sarah (v.6), wife of Abraham the patriarch.22 She is said to have obeyed her
husband by calling him ‘lord’.23 The present participle καλοῦσα (‘calling’) may
indicate a habitual address, but any specific reference is most likely to Genesis
18:12.24 For the author, Sarah’s use of κύριος (‘lord’) implies her submission to

18
Balch, Wives, 101-2; Davids, ‘Witness,’ 229-31; Spencer, ‘Method,’ 111-12. Bird (Abuse, 137)
suggests that the instructions regarding clothing and adornment are designed to differentiate the
women from leadership figures in priesthood and nation who would dress in elaborate attire. But there
are no references to such figures in the text, or any evidence that fine clothing was associated with
leadership within the Christian community.
19
Elliott, 1 Peter, 568; Michaels, 1 Peter, 164.
20
In this instance the participle is certainly adverbial, and it could be one of means (indicating how the
action was done) or one of result (denoting the outcome of the action) (D.B. Wallace, Greek Grammar
beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
1996], 627-30, 637-39).
21
Michaels, 1 Peter, 163-64; J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude
(London: A. & C. Black Limited, 1969), 130; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 213-14; Feldmeier, First Letter, 181-
82; Donelson, Commentary, 92. Beare (First Epistle, 130) suggests that for the readers the OT
women replaced the Greek and Roman heroes whom they would previously have taken as examples.
22
Balch, appealing to Philo, points out that Sarah was also supposed to be the first woman proselyte
and to have led Abraham to know God (Balch, Wives, 105). Punt’s view (‘Sarah,’ 165-66) that Sarah
is an example of marriage to an abusive husband seems unlikely to be that of 1 Peter in the absence
of explicit indications in the text.
23
The participle here is taken as an adverbial participle of means. The (or one) way in which Sarah
expressed her obedient subordination to Abraham was by calling him ‘lord’.
24
Because this verse does not show Sarah obviously in subordination to Abraham (she is referring to
him rather than addressing him, and is laughing at the LORD’s promise of a son), some scholars have
looked for an alternative LXX reference. For example, Aida Besançon Spencer (‘Method,’ 112-19) has
proposed Genesis 12:11-20, drawing various analogies between the story of the couple’s stay in
Egypt and the position of the Christian wives in 1 Peter. She suggests that the author uses Sarah as
an example of Christ-like vicarious suffering, who chooses to save her husband’s life. Although this is
an ingenious and attractive proposal (which is also propounded in a slightly different form by Green, 1
Abraham’s authority, and emphasises the peace and harmony that he is seeking to
promote within the readers’ households.25 While 3:6 may thus present Sarah as ‘an
ideal Hellenistic wife’ whose virtue is to be imitated by Christian wives,26 her status
as the mother of God’s people implies that she is also the trans-cultural archetype for
godly women.

Through their conversion, the Christian wives have become the daughters of Sarah
within the people of God. But they must demonstrate and maintain that relationship
by continuing to do good (ἀγαθοποιοῦσαι)27 and not to fear intimidation by hostile
husbands. Thus once more the author enjoins them to conduct that both God and
society approve; by subordinating themselves as God requires they can hope to
defuse any hostility in the home. But in case they do not,28 he also warns them
against being intimidated by their husbands, presumably into compromising or
abandoning their faith under the pressure of disapproval. 29

The command for subordination in 3:1 is not addressed only to wives with pagan
husbands, but to Christian wives without distinction. So the brief instruction to
Christian husbands in 3:7 sheds light on what the author regards as the appropriate
context of that subordination within a marriage between Christians. It may be seen
as an outworking of the general precept in 2:17 to honour all people; in their life
together the husband is to recognise the status of his wife and to respect her
accordingly.

Peter, 96-97), any connection between the phrase κύριον αὐτὸν καλοῦσα and Genesis 12 seems too
obscure to be intentional. Others have accepted Genesis 18:12 as the referent, but have interpreted
the text differently; for instance, Lewis Donelson (Commentary, 92) argues that Sarah’s calling
Abraham ‘lord’ may connote her hiding her true self and laughing. This appears an unlikely allusion in
light of 1 Peter’s concern to encourage order and harmony in the household.
25
Balch, Wives, 103-5; Feldmeier, First Letter, 182.
26
Davids, ‘Witness,’ 234; also Punt, ‘Sarah,’ 163-64, drawing on D.I. Sly ‘1 Peter 3:6b in the light of
Philo and Josephus,’ JBL 110/1 (1991): 129.
27
The meaning of this verb is controversial, but it is commonly acknowledged to denote conduct that
conforms to both God’s will and what is socially approved. This dual view is stated explicitly by
Michaels, 1 Peter, 126; Elliott, 1 Peter, 492; and Jobes, 1 Peter, 175-76.
28
This part of the verse is illuminated by the similar but more general idea in 3:13-14: Καὶ τίς ὁ
κακώσων ὑμᾶς ἐὰν τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ζηλωταὶ γένησθε; ἀλλ’ εἰ καὶ πάσχοιτε διὰ δικαιοσύνην, μακάριοι. τὸν
δὲ φόβον αὐτῶν μὴ φοβηθῆτε μηδὲ ταραχθῆτε. By their subordination, the wives will as a rule keep
themselves out of trouble with their unbelieving husbands; in some cases they may not, but then they
are not to be afraid.
29
Goppelt, 1 Peter, 224-25; Beare, First Epistle, 130-31; Donelson, Commentary, 93-94; Balch,
Wives, 105; Davids, ‘Witness,’ 234.
On the one hand, this means acknowledging the wife as an ἀσθενεστέρος σκεῦος
(‘weaker vessel’) and treating her with the appropriate consideration as such. This
may be a reference to the woman’s supposedly weaker nature, or more specifically
to her generally weaker physical body, or merely to her lower social status.30 On the
other hand, it means seeing the wife as sharing with him in God’s gift of life and
giving her the corresponding esteem. His failure to do this will hinder their prayers.
The whole clause, while affirming that husbands too are to respect the social order in
which women have an inferior place, also implies a measure of equality between
husband and wife within the divine order, which will inevitably affect their experience
of super- and subordination.31

Implications

Only cautious and interim conclusions may be drawn regarding the author’s view of
the relationship between the divine and social orders, and of patriarchy, solely from
his use of ὑποτάσσω in 3:1-7. The following comments are therefore no more than
an agenda for further enquiry.

On the one hand, the current ordering of social relationships is never explicitly said
here (or elsewhere in 1 Peter) to be ordained by God. Perhaps the author’s
awareness of the social order’s imperfections, evidenced by the sufferings of his
readers, prevented him from identifying it too closely with the divine order. But in
practice this means only that subordination is not meant to be absolute, as shown in
the appeal here to purity and fear of God as primary motivations for it.32

On the other hand, the idea that 1 Peter presents social relationships as entirely
contingent may not give sufficient weight to the degree of coincidence presumed
here between the demands of society and the requirements of God. This is seen in

30
Elliott, 1 Peter, 2000, 576-78; Kelly, Commentary, 133; Green, 1 Peter, 100.
31
Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 217-18; Davids, ‘Witness,’ 237-38; Punt, ‘Sarah,’ 163; Forster, Ethics, 22; E.
Kamlah, ‘Ὑποτάσσεσθαι in den Neutestamentlichen “Haustafeln”,’ in Verborum Veritas: Festschrift für
Gustar Stählin zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. O. Böcher and K. Haacker (Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1970),
242-43.
32
Jobes, 1 Peter, 181; Donelson, Commentary, 89; Davids, ‘Witness,’ 228; contra TDNT 43.
the use of ἀγαθοποιέω (‘do good’), in the commendation for wives of qualities such
as purity and gentleness that are pleasing to God and society (3:2,4), and in the
author’s apparent assumption that subordination to husbands will rarely be
inappropriate. Thus even if for 1 Peter the social order is not ordained by God and
identical with the divine order, it could still be largely approved by God and reflective
of the divine order.

It is widely acknowledged that the subordination of wives in 1 Peter has both an

apologetic and a missionary purpose. Respect for the superior position of husbands
is clearly intended to reduce hostility to wives and the whole Christian community,
within the home and society generally; this process may extend even to the
husbands’ conversion. It is possible therefore to see the call to wifely subordination
as purely pragmatic.33

But arguably such a view fails to take sufficient account of evidence that the author
regards subordination of wives to husbands as appropriate not only within the social
order, but also within the divine order. The explicit statement that a wife’s gentle and
quiet spirit is very precious before God (3:4), and the appeal to the example of OT
women, specifically Sarah (3:5-6), can both be taken to imply divine endorsement of
some form of patriarchy; so also, though more doubtfully, can the description of the
woman as an ἀσθενεστέρος σκεῦος (‘weaker vessel’; 3:7a). Certainly there are also
features that point to equality: the direct address to wives in the same form as to
husbands (3:1), and the call to Christian husbands to honour their wives as co-heirs
of life (3:7b). But this equality at least appears to co-exist alongside a continuing
subordination of wives to husbands that is not merely a prudential concession to
current social realities, but also something expected by God.

It may therefore be best to take the calls to subordination in 3:1-7 as a modification

rather than a subversion of the patriarchal ordering of the Greco-Roman household.
The changes are significant: subordination is not absolute; it is shaped by Christian
norms; it is balanced by an element of equality; and it is motivated partly by

33
See for example Padgett, Christ Submits, 82-84.
apologetic and missionary concerns.34 But these seem not to amount to a rejection
of the established order, or even its reduction to a purely contingent human construct
to be respected only for pragmatic reasons. The partial grounding of subordination in
divine as well as social norms may reflect the author’s view of a social order that,
while not sanctified by God, is nonetheless generally approved by God.

34
See Elliott, 1 Peter, 552, 556-57 and Punt, ‘Sarah,’ 159-60, 163-64, 173.
Bibliography

Aageson, J.W. ‘Slaves, Wives and the Complexities of Interpretation.’ In A Feminist

Companion to the Catholic Epistles, edited by A-J Levine and M.M. Robbins,
34-49. London and New York: T&T Clark, 2004.
Achtemeier, P.J. 1 Peter: A Commentary on First Peter. Hermeneia. Minneapolis,
MN: Fortress Press, 1996.
Balch, D.L. ‘Hellenization/Acculturation in 1 Peter.’ In Perspectives on 1 Peter,
NABPRSSS 9, edited by C.H. Talbert, 79-101. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock
Publishers, 1986.
Balch, D.L. Let Wives be Submissive: The Domestic Code in 1 Peter. SBLMS 26.
Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1981.
Barr, A. ‘Submission Ethic in the First Epistle of Peter.’ HQ 2:3 (1962): 27-33.
Bauman-Martin, B.J. ‘Women on the Edge: New Perspectives on Women in the
Petrine Haustafeln.’ JBL 123 (2004): 253-79.
BDAG (see Abbreviations).
Beare, F.W. The First Epistle of Peter: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes.
2nd ed. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1961.
Bechtler, S.R. Following in His Steps: Suffering, Community and Christology in 1
Peter. SBLDS 162. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1998.
Bird, J.G. Abuse, Power and Fearful Obedience: Reconsidering 1 Peter's
Commands to Wives. LNTS 442. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2013.
Carter, W. (2004) ‘Going All the Way? Honoring the Emperor and Sacrificing Wives
and Slaves in 1 Peter 2:13 – 3:6.’ In A Feminist Companion to the Catholic
Epistles, edited by A-J Levine and M.M. Robbins, 14-33. London and New York:
T&T Clark, 2004.
Davids, P.H. ‘A Silent Witness in Marriage: 1 Peter 3:1-7.’ In Discovering Biblical
Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy, edited by R.W. Pierce and R.M.
Groothuis, 224-38. Downers Grove and Leicester: IVP and Apollos, 2004.
Davids, P.H. The First Epistle of Peter. NICNT. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990.
deSilva, D.A. An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods & Ministry
Formation. Downers Grove, IL: IVP and Leicester: Apollos, 2004.
Donelson, L.R. I and II Peter and Jude: A Commentary. NTL. Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox Press, 2010.
Elliott, J.H. 1 Peter. AYB 37B. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000.
Elliott, J.H. ‘1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy: A Discussion with David Balch.’ In
Perspectives on 1 Peter, NABPRSSS 9, edited by C.H. Talbert, 61-78. Eugene,
OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1986.
Feldmeier, R. The First Letter of Peter: A Commentary on the Greek Text.
Translated by P.H. Davids. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008.
Forster, G. Ethics in the Letters of Peter and Jude. GES E144. Cambridge: Grove
Books, 2007.
Goppelt, L. A Commentary on 1 Peter. Edited by F. Hahn. Translated and
augmented by J.E. Alsup. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1993. (Originally published 1978).
Green, J.B. 1 Peter. THNTC. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
2007.
Horrell, D.G. ‘Between Conformity and Resistance: Beyond the Balch-Elliott Debate
towards a Postcolonial Reading of 1 Peter.’ In Becoming Christian: Essays on 1
Peter and the Making of Christian Identity, LNTS 394, 211-38. London and New
York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013.
Jobes, K.H. 1 Peter. BECNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005.
Kamlah, E. ‘Ὑποτάσσεσθαι in den Neutestamentlichen “Haustafeln”.’ In Verborum
Veritas: Festschrift für Gustar Stählin zum 70. Geburtstag, edited by O. Böcher
and K. Haacker, 237-43. Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1970.
Kelly, J.N.D. A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude. BNTC. London: A.
& C. Black Limited, 1969.
Michaels, J.R. 1 Peter. WBC 49. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1988.
NIDNTTE (see Abbreviations).
Padgett, A.G. As Christ Submits to the Church: A Biblical Understanding of
Leadership and Mutual Submission. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011.
Punt, J. ‘Subverting Sarah in the New Testament: Galatians 4 and 1 Peter 3.’ In
Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality: Exegetical Studies, LNTS 392, vol.
2, edited by C.A. Evans and H.D. Zacharias, 155-74. London and New York:
T&T Clark, 2009.
Sly, D.I. ‘1 Peter 3:6b in the light of Philo and Josephus.’ JBL 110/1 (1991): 126-29.
Spencer, A.B. ‘Peter’s Pedagogical Method in 1 Peter 3:6.’ BBR 10 (2000): 107-19.
TDNT (see Abbreviations).
Thompson, J.W. ‘“Be Submissive to your Masters”: A Study of 1 Peter 2:18-25.’ RQ
9 (1966): 66-78.
Wallace, D.B. Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New
Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996.
Webb, W.J. Slaves, Women and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of
Cultural Analysis. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001.
Abbreviations

General

LXX Septuagint
OT Old Testament

Books, journals and series

BBR Bulletin of Biblical Research

BDAG Danker, F.W., ed. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago and London: The
University of Chicago Press, 2000.
BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
BNTC Black’s New Testament Commentaries
GES Grove Ethics Series
HQ Hartford Quarterly
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
LNTS Library of New Testament Studies
NABPRSSS National Association of Baptist Professors of Religion Special Studies
Series
NICNT The New International Commentary on the New Testament
NIDNTTE Silva, M., ed. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology
and Exegesis, 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014.
NTL The New Testament Library
RQ Restoration Quarterly
SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series
SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series
TDNT Kittel, G. and Friedrich, G., eds. Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament. 10 vols. Translated by G.W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964-84.
THNTC The Two Horizons New Testament Commentary
WBC Word Biblical Commentary