From: Over 50 Interpreters Explain First Peter Return to Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2018
List of All Sources
Quoted At End of File
CHAPTER 3:1-12
3:1 Translations
WEB: In
the same way, wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; so that, even if
any don't obey the Word, they may be won by the behavior of their wives without
a word;
Young’s: In
like manner, the wives, be ye subject to your own husbands, that even if
certain are disobedient to the word, through the conversation of the wives,
without the word, they may be won,
Conte (RC): Similarly also, wives should be
subject to their husbands, so that, even if some do
not believe the Word, they may benefit without the
Word, through the behavior of these wives,
3:1 Likewise, ye wives. The sequence of thought is every way
suggestive. The Apostle passes from the
all but universal relation of the master and the slave as one element of social
life, to the other, yet more universal, and involving
from the Roman point of view almost as great a subordination, of husband and
wife. Here also it was his object to
impress on men and women, especially on the latter, the thought that the
doctrine of Christ was no element of disorder.
The stress which he lays on their duties may be fairly taken as
indicating the prominence of women among the converts to the new faith. Of that prominence we have sufficient
evidence in the narrative of the Acts (Acts
For thought: an intensified degree of submission than
what might otherwise be required—due to the societal situation believers Peter
was addressing found themselves within? Third division of second prudential
rule: subordination conjugal. Here,
again, the form in the original is participial, joining this injunction on to 1
Peter
be in subjection. Treat
them as the rightful head of the family. [14]
Of course no wife need feel compelled to act contrary to conscience or duty; of course no personal inferiority is implied; of course there are sacred rights which none should dare invade; yet upon Christian wives there ever rests the obligation of patient submission to their husbands. [7]
to your own husbands. This admonition was especially important when the husband was a heathen and the wife a Christian. In this case the wife might more easily be persuaded that it was right for her to refuse obedience to her husband, and, at least mentally, associate herself with some other man, perhaps some office-bearer in the church. [6]
In depth: The
significance of the “subjection” being to “your own husband:” Far too often the pivotal “own” is omitted in the exegesis of this and
similar texts. The command is for Mrs. X
to be “in subjection” to her husband, Mr. X. The text does not make the claim or demand
that she be subject to all husbands, much less all males. Female “subjection” is for the good order and
success of the couple’s own marriage. It
is never—New Testament speaking—designed to make the gender of women
subject to the gender that is male.
If something else were intended in texts such as this, something broader
than husband-wife language would be used. [rw]
One of the odder
comments I came across in preparing this compilation was the following
objection to translating “own” in the verse, while then explicitly giving the
very reason it was needed, to avoid the kind of situation we just mentioned [rw]: The “own”
is not needed and is misleading; the Greek word idios, which “own” translates, is inserted because without it the phrase
might have been taken to mean “be in subjection to men.” Peter, it will be remembered, was a married
man. [45]
Another effort to expand a husband-wife obligation into a
male gender-female gender obligation: Here,
as also in at least two other passages where the same charge is given, viz.
Ephesians 5:22, Titus 2:5 (in Ephesians 5:24, and Colossians 3:18, the reading
of the Received Text is insufficiently supported), the strong pronominal
adjective which usually means “own” or “proper” is inserted before
“husbands.” There is, however, no such
contrast intended, as some interpreters (Steiger,
etc.) imagine, between those to whom these women were united in marriage and
others. The fact that in the decadence
of the language the adjective lost much of its original force, makes it
doubtful how much emphasis can be allowed it here. It may point, however, to the nature of the marriage
relation, the legal claims, the peculiar and exclusive union which it involved,
as furnishing a reason for submission (see Ellicott on Ephesians
that, if any obey
not the word. The Scriptures and the
preaching of the gospel. [14]
The
words that follow indicate the frequency of the cases in which the wife only
was a convert. The Greek text runs as
though, in some cases at least, it might be expected that husband and wife
would both have been converted together.
The Greek verb for “obey not” implies, as in 1 Peter 2:7, Acts 14:2,
Hebrews 3:18, Hebrews 11:31, a positive antagonism rather than the mere absence
of belief and obedience. [38]
they also may
without the word be won. The Greek for “word” has no article, and
the probable meaning is not “without the open preaching of the word of Christ,”
but rather, “without speech, without a word [being uttered].”
The silent preaching of conduct is what the Apostle relied on as a more
effective instrument of conversion than any argument or debate. [38]
Even though they had rejected the gospel they might
“be gained” without preaching, as they read sermons without words, written in
the eloquent language of pure conduct and respectful demeanor. [7]
As it would be strange indeed (in view of Romans
10:14-17) to find an apostle contemplating the possibility of a conversion to
Christ without the instrumentality of the Gospel, it is necessary to suppose
that there is a kind of play upon the words here, the same term being used (by
a figure of speech known to grammarians as antanaclasis)
with different meanings. So Bengel briefly explains the term word as meaning “in
the first instance the Gospel, in the second, talk.” The Syriac Version
here renders it “without trouble.” [51]
be won. Or
gained, viz. to Christ and his church:
the same metaphor Paul useth, 1 Corinthians
9:19-21; Philippians 3:8. [28]
In the verb “be won,” literally, be
gained over, we have the same word as that used by Paul in 1 Corinthians
by the
conversation [conduct, NKJV] of the wives. The word conversation, in the Scriptures,
is never confined, as it is now with us, to oral discourse, but denotes conduct
in general. It includes indeed
“conversation” as the word is now used, but it embraces also much
more--including everything that we do.
The meaning here is, that the habitual deportment of the wife was to be
such as to show the reality and power of religion; to show that it had such
influence on her temper, her words, her whole deportment, as to demonstrate
that it was from God. [31]
In depth: The practical need for the matter to be dealt with when dealing with a Greco-Roman context [45]. Classical writers often speak of Greek and Roman women as given to embrace Judaism and other Eastern religions. Thus many women were converted to Christianity while their husbands remained pagan, and perhaps, in some instances, Jews. With the Greeks and Romans, as with the Jews, religious observances formed a considerable part of the routine of family life; so that the presence of Christians and non-Christians in the same family might be most embarrassing. A Christian could hardly live the ordinary domestic life of a heathen household without seeming to countenance idolatry. In a Jewish family the difficulty would be less; Jewish observances might be unnecessary, but they were not wrong.
3:2 Translations
WEB: seeing
your pure behavior in fear
Young’s: having
beheld your pure behaviour in fear,
Conte (RC): as they consider with fear your
chaste behavior.
3:2 While they behold
your chaste conversation [conduct, NKJV]. Which their unbelieving
husbands would accurately observe and attend to. Evil men are strict observers of the
conversation of the professors of religion; their curiosity, envy, and
jealousy, make them watch narrowly the ways and lives of good people. [5]
The behavior is
styled chaste, not in the limited sense of the English adjective, but as
covering purity, modesty, and whatever makes wifely conduct not only correct
but winsome. [51]
coupled with fear [respectful behavior, NASB]. What is
meant is not exactly “the fear of God,” but rather a sensitive respect for the
husband and the married relation, the chastity or purity of behavior is
exhibited as associated necessarily with the dutiful spirit that recoils from
everything inconsistent with the woman’s and the wife’s position. [51]
3:3 Translations
WEB: Let
your beauty be not just the outward adorning of braiding the hair, and of
wearing jewels of gold, or of putting on fine clothing;
Young’s: whose adorning -- let it not be that which is outward, of
plaiting of hair, and of putting around of things of gold, or of putting on of
garments,
Conte (RC): For you, there should be no
unnecessary adornment of the hair, or surrounding
with gold, or the wearing of ornate
clothing.
3:3 Whose adorning. The passage shows that the Asiatic
Christians were not all of the poorer classes.
The wealth of the Ephesian Christians about
this time may be gathered from 1 Timothy 2:9, and of
the Laodiceans from Revelation 3:17. The advice is not intended directly as a
corrective of vanity. Peter is not
bidding them beware of love of dress, although (as Bengel
points out) the three words of “plaiting,” “wearing” (literally, putting round
oneself), and “putting on,” are intended to convey the notion of elaborate
processes in which time is wasted. But
the main thought is, How are the husbands to be
attracted? Not, says Peter, by any
external prettiness of adornment, but by inward graces. [46]
let it not be. Merely or principally anything external. [14]
that outward adorning of plaiting [arranging,
NKJV] the hair. Only here in New
Testament. Compare 1 Timothy 2:9. The
Roman women of the day were addicted to ridiculous extravagance in the
adornment of the hair. Juvenal (Satire,
vi.) satirized these customs. He says:
“The attendants will vote on the dressing of the hair as if a question of
reputation or of life were at stake, so
great is the trouble she takes in quest of beauty; with so many tiers
does she load, with so many continuous stories does she build up on high her
head. She is tall as Andromache
in front, behind she is shorter. You
would think her another person.” The
hair was dyed, and secured with costly pins and with nets of gold thread. False hair and blond wigs were worn. [2]
This was a warning against
the extravagant fashions in hair-dressing and decoration with costly jewels,
prevailing among the Greeks and Romans at that period; also a reminder that the
true adornment is from within. [1]
and of wearing of
gold. It cannot be supposed that all wearing of
gold about the person is wrong, for there is nothing evil in gold itself. The meaning is, that
such ornaments should not be sought; that Christians should be in no way
distinguished for them; that they should not engross the time and attention;
that Christians should so dress as to show that their minds are occupied with
nobler objects. If it should be said
that this expression teaches that it is wrong to wear gold at all, it may be
replied that on the same principle it would follow that the next clause teaches
that it is wrong to put on apparel at all.
[31]
or of putting on
of apparel. [The Greek term for “putting on” found] only
here in New Testament. Female
extravagance in dress in the days of the empire reached an alarming pitch. [2]
The fineness and fashion of the garments of women had
at this time reached an almost unparalleled extravagance. The filmy half-transparent tissue of the Coan loom, the dyed garments of
The arts themselves had gone to unheard of excess, as
we learn from literature, coins, and sculpture, among the heathen ladies of the
Empire. Pliny the elder speaks of having
seen Nero’s mother dressed in a robe of gold tissue, and Lollia
Paulina in apparel covered with pearls and emeralds
costing fifty millions of sesterces (Hist. Nat. xxxiii. 19, ix. 35, 36). [51]
In depth: To what extent were these attire instructions intended to be requirements versus broad, general guidelines [38]? The question may be asked, Are the Apostle’s words prohibitive as well as hortatory? Is it wrong for Christian women now to plait their hair, or to wear gold ornaments or pearls? The answer to that question must be left mainly to the individual conscience. “Let every one be fully persuaded in her own mind.”
As some help to a decision, however, it may be noted (1) that the language is not that of formal prohibition, but of a comparative estimate of the value of the two kinds of adornment;
(2) that in regard to the third form of ornamentation, seeing that some clothes must be worn, the words cannot have a merely prohibitive force; and
(3) that in the possible, if not common, case of the husband giving such ornaments and wishing his wife to wear them, the “meek and quiet spirit” which the Apostle recommends would naturally show itself in complying with his requests rather than in an obstinate and froward refusal.
On the whole then, as a rule bearing upon daily life,
we may say that while the words do not condemn the use of jewelry, or attention
to the color and the form of dress, within the limits of simplicity and
economy, they tend to minimize that form of personal adornment, and bid women
trust not to them, but to moral qualities, as elements of attraction.
3:4 Translations
WEB: but
in the hidden person of the heart, in the incorruptible adornment of a gentle
and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God very precious.
Young’s: but --
the hidden man of the heart, in the incorruptible thing of the meek and quiet
spirit, which is, before God, of great price,
Conte (RC): Instead, you should be a hidden
person of the heart, with the incorruptibility of a
quiet and a meek spirit, rich in
the sight of God.
3:4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart. The
phrase is identical in meaning with the “inward man” of Romans
The term “man” is
used much as we use the I, the self, the
personality. It is described as
“hidden,” in antithesis to those exterior, material adornments which are meant
to catch the eye. And it is defined as
“of the heart,” as found in the heart, or identified with it. Clement [of
in that which is not
corruptible. Which will not wear out
like dress and jewels and is never out of fashion. [45]
What is not
corrupted? The [extended] phrase literally runs,
“in the imperishable of the meek and quiet spirit;” the adjective
meaning not “without stain,” or “uncorrupted,” as Grotius,
Luther, Erasmus, take it, but in accordance with 1 Peter 1:7, simply
“permanent” in opposition to the transitory and decaying. This is construed, therefore, in several
ways; either [1] as = in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of
a meek and quiet spirit (so A.V., but with a certain strain upon the Greek); or
[2] = in the incorruptible apparel of a meek and quiet spirit (so R.V.,
with Hofmann, Alford, etc.); or [3] = in the imperishableness of a meek
and quiet spirit,—i.e. in what cannot perish, namely, a meek and quiet
spirit. This last is most in harmony
with the previous contrast (in 1 Peter 1:7) between proved faith which is to be
found unto praise at Christ’s coming, and gold that perisheth. So the Rhemish gives
“in the incorruptibility of a quiet and a modest spirit.” [51]
even the ornament [beauty, NKJV] of a meek
[gentle, NKJV] and quiet spirit. [This
description] has been well explained as “the spirit which neither worries other
people nor allows itself to be worried;” a suitable spirit for a woman “in
subjection” (verse 1). [45]
even the ornament [beauty, NKJV] of a meek
[gentle, NKJV]. It is
the invisible internal character that is pivotal in Peter’s mind. In one sense it can never be visibly “seen;”
in another sense, its behavioral “fall out” is inevitable and can’t
avoid being seen. [rw]
“Meek” (praus), “mild,” “gentle,” used in the LXX for a word which came to be synonymous with “faithful worshipper of Jehovah;” elsewhere in the N.T. only three times—twice of Christ (Matthew 11:29, 21:5), and once in the Beatitude, “Blessed are the meek” (Matthew 5:5). The corresponding quality, “meekness,” is frequently commended by Paul. [45]
The quality of meekness implies more than
gentleness. In the old Greek ethics it
amounts only to mildness, in the sense of the opposite of roughness and
violence (Plato, Rep. 558A, etc.), or in that of the subsidence of anger
(Herod., 1 Peter
and quiet spirit. So far
as we can distinguish, where it is almost impossible to separate, “meekness,”
the absence of self-assertion, and “quietness,” the calm tranquility, [the
first is the cause and the latter] the effect.
[38]
The quality of quietness expresses a
tranquility or peaceableness (the adjective is the
same as the “peaceable” of 1 Timothy 2:2, its only
other New Testament occurrence) which has its deep source within. [51]
which is in the sight of God of great price [very precious, NKJV]. Dress could only appeal to men, character would commend them to God. But, as the Apostle is specially dealing with their relation to their husbands, he may also have in mind that showy dress is a bid for general admiration, while the graces of speech and conduct which spring from a “meek and quiet spirit” would be most obvious in family life. [45]
The antecedent to “which” has been variously
taken. Is it “the meek and quiet
spirit?” Is it “the imperishableness of
the meek and quiet spirit?” Or is it
“the hidden man of the heart exhibiting itself in such a spirit?” Each has something to be said for it, but the
last seems nearest to the truth. Such a
possession will be not only attractive to the husband for the time, but has a
permanent value as being esteemed by God.
[46]
which is in the
sight of God. In the
sight of our fellow mortals these things may be of little concern and of no
priority; with God it is the opposite, of great concern and with a high
priority. [rw]
The estimate which is put upon such a spirit by Him
who has said of Himself that He “seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the
outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the
heart” (1 Samuel 16:7), should be a further recommendation of it to these
women. [51]
of great price
[very precious, NKJV]. The same
epithet is used to describe the array as costly (1 Timothy 2:9), and the
spikenard as very precious (Mark 14:3).
It is another, with a similar sense, which occurs in 1 Peter 1:7, and is
used to describe the pearl (Matthew
A small fortune will be spent on expensive
wrist watches, computerized “toys,” designer clothes, and “prestige”
autos. Yet the kind of thing that is
counted as of value in God’s sight is the inner development of the soul. All that costs us is effort. It makes redemption available for those of
all economic stratas and not just of a limited
percentage of the human species. Yet how
often it is neglected because we can’t use it to impress the jaundiced souls of
others! [rw]
3:5 Translations
WEB: For
this is how the holy women before, who hoped in God also adorned themselves,
being in subjection to their own husbands:
Young’s: for
thus once also the holy women who did hope on God, were adorning themselves,
being subject to their own husbands,
Conte (RC): For in this way, in past times also,
holy women adorned themselves, hoping in God,
being subject to their own
husbands.
3:5 For after this manner. These instructions are not without precedent. They are not imposing some new criteria that has never been made before. [rw]
in the old time. The allusion here is particularly to
the times of the patriarchs. [31]
the holy women
also. Scarcely, as often
explained, the women of ancient
These women are called ‘holy’ here (as the prophets
are also designated, 2 Peter
who trusted in God. Greek,
“Who hoped in God;” that is, who were truly pious. They were characterized by simple trust or
hope in God, rather than by a fondness for external adorning. [31]
Their eye turned Godward,
not earthward; their life drew its inspiration not from the present, but from
the future; their expectation looked to the performance of God’s promises, not
to what things as they were could yield.
[51]
adorned themselves. The ancients were held up as role
models. And not just the males like
Moses and David. Their pious examples
are as relevant to women as those of males are to that gender. [rw]
being in subjection
[submissive, NKJV] unto their own husbands. Not
rebellious. Not putting the household
into chaos and making each other’s life a misery. [rw]
their own husbands. The Scriptures never teach that women are
subject to the male gender in general—only that the wife is
subject to her own husband. (Note that specification “own,” found also in the teaching of the
apostle Paul on the subject: Ephesians
5:22, 24.) It reflects the
“hierarchy” of power within a household or family rather than laying down a
rule of the relationship of one gender to another.
Even the
Pauline command to “keep silent in the churches” only implies that it is the male
responsibility to take leadership in the assembly rather than the female; hence
it is neither right nor proper for him to pass on that obligation to his
wife. In the division of marital
responsibilities it is the husband who has that role of public religious
leadership. And even in that regard,
wives are told to “ask their own husbands” at home (1 Corinthians
3:6 Translations
WEB: as
Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose children you now are, if you do
well, and are not put in fear by any terror.
Young’s: as
Sarah was obedient to Abraham, calling him 'sir,' of whom ye did become
daughters, doing good, and not fearing any terror.
Conte (RC): For so Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling
him lord. You are her daughters, well-behaved and
unafraid of any disturbance.
3:6 Even as Sara. The only occasions on which she asserts that
independence are the two expulsions of Hagar.
In the New Testament she appears but seldom, once as an example of faith
(Hebrews 11:11), twice where she is entirely secondary to Abraham (Romans 5:19;
Romans 9:9), and here in the character which Tennyson depicts in his Isabel: ‘A courage to endure and to obey—A hate of gossip, parlance, and of sway, / Crowned
Isabel, through all her placid life. / The queen of
marriage,—a most perfect wife.” [51]
obeyed Abraham. The
tense which Peter uses would seem to imply a reference to some special instance
of obedience, but, as the history of Genesis supplies no such instance in act,
we are left to infer that he saw in her use of “my lord,” in speaking of her
husband (Genesis 18:12), a representative utterance that implied a sense of
habitual subordination. It seems strange
to refer to literature like that of the sixth satire of Juvenal in illustration
of an Epistle of Peter, but there can be no clearer evidence that the general
corruption of the Empire had extended itself to the life of home, and that over
and above the prevalence of adultery and divorce, the wives of Rome, and we may
believe also, of the cities that followed in the wake of Rome, had well-nigh
thrown aside all sense of the reverence which the Apostle looked on as
essential. [38]
calling him lord. A
definite example of the general fact just alleged. Peter seems rather to have argued from what
every one would feel must have been the case than from explicit records. Sara’s usual subjection is clearly seen in
the one instance to which Peter refers (Genesis
It was probably inferred from this instance [Genesis
18:12], by the apostle, and not without reason, that Sarah habitually used this
respectful appellation, acknowledging by it that he was her superior, and that
he had a right to rule in his own house.
The word lord has the elementary idea of ruling, and this is the sense
here--that she acknowledged that he had a right to direct the affairs of his
household, and that it was her duty to be in subjection to him as the head of
the family. Among the Romans, it was
quite common for wives to use the appellation lord (dominus),
when speaking of their husbands. The
same custom also prevailed among the Greeks.
This passage does not prove that the term lord should be the particular
appellation by which Christian wives should address their husbands now, but it
proves that there should be the same respect and deference which was implied by
its use in patriarchal times. The
welfare of society, and the happiness of individuals, are
not diminished by showing proper respect for all classes of persons in
the various relations of life. [31]
whose daughters ye
are. If the words were addressed to women who were
converts from heathenism, we might see in the words a suggestive parallel to
those of Paul, that Abraham was the father of “all them that believe though
they be not circumcised” (Romans
as long as ye do
well. That is, you will be worthy to be regarded as
her daughters, if you manifest the same spirit that she did. [31]
and are not afraid.
Obedience and submission, however, do not mean anxious fear, or
continual dread, or cowering terror; these are not attractive conduct. [7]
This also
carries the weight that the husband should not dream—for one minute—that he has
any right to terrorize his wife.
“Chickens come home to roost”--and that one will as well! [rw]
with any amazement
[terror, NKJV]. [This] means, literally, if ye do well
without fear of any threatening. A most important supplement.
The apostle sets this restriction to the subjection of
wives, that in doing well, they must never suffer themselves to be
intimidated, even by the threats of their husbands. [6]
The word for
“amazement” does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, but the cognate verb
is found in Luke 21:9, 24:37. The noun
itself meets us in the LXX of Proverbs 3:25.
It implies the crouching, shuddering fear of one who is overwhelmed with
terror. [38]
Compare Proverbs
In depth: “Even as Sara obeyed Abraham”—citing her as the desired standard of obedience or simply as a historical example of such obedience [51]? Why is Sarah introduced in this connection? Possibly as the standard by which the holy women of old measured their wifely submission. Taking “as” in the sense of “according as” (with Schott), we should have in this sentence a new stroke added to the preceding description; and the point would be, that not only did these holy women of olden time submit themselves to their own husbands, but they regulated the measure of their wifely obedience by no lower standard than the noble example of Sarah.
Most interpreters (Huther, Alford, Bengel, Schott, etc.) retain for the “as” the sense of “as for instance,” and take Sarah to be introduced here simply as an eminent example of what characterized the holy women of the sacred history generally. It is plain, however, that she is named here not merely as one instance out of many, however brilliant an instance, but as the ancestress of the Israel of God. As Abraham is the father of all the faithful, so Sarah is the mother of all believing women, and the fact that their common mother made herself so obedient to her own husband is argument enough with her daughters in the kingdom of God new, as it was with her daughters in the kingdom of God then.
The completeness and constancy of Sarah’s obedience
are implied whether we read the “obeyed” as an imperfect or as the historical
past; for the authorities differ. The
latter reading (see similar instances in John 17:4; Galatians 4:8) indeed gives
even greater force to the idea of completeness designating the whole course of
Sarah’s wifely conduct by the quality which belonged to it as a finished whole.
3:7 Translations
WEB: You husbands, in the same way,
live with your wives according to knowledge, giving honor to the woman, as to
the weaker vessel, as being also joint heirs of the grace of life; that your
prayers may not be hindered.
Young’s: The
husbands, in like manner, dwelling with them, according to knowledge, as to a
weaker vessel -- to the wife -- imparting honour, as
also being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers be not
hindered.
Conte (RC): Similarly, you husbands should live
with them in accord with knowledge, bestowing
honor on the female as the weaker vessel and as
co-heirs of the life of grace, so that your prayers
may not be hindered.
3:7 Likewise [In the same way, NASB, NIV] . “In like manner:” With the same loyal recognition of all
just claims. The spirit which made the
wife “meek and quiet” would make the husband kind and attentive. [45]
ye husbands. This
verse is not another application of
This is evidently introduced in order to guard
against any abuse of the advice given to wives, and to bring out the idea that
the marriage relation is one of mutual affection. [50]
This implies on the side of the husbands that they
are to dwell with their wives.
Should a Christian husband be wedded to a heathen wife, he is not
to consider himself freed on that account from the claims of family and
conjugal life. [51]
dwell with them according to knowledge [with understanding, NKJV]. Knowledge of the nature and duties of the marriage relation. [14]
This is probably to be taken adverbially in the sense
of “with insight,” that is, with understanding of what belongs to the relation
of husband and wife. [16]
This does not mean
according to their knowledge of the Gospel (Grotius,
etc.); neither is it exactly = according to the Christian recognition of the
wife’s relation to the husband (Scott, etc.).
It means reasonably, intelligently, i.e. with a just recognition
and wise consideration of what the ordinance itself is, and what the relative
positions of husband and wife are. “One
cannot now prescribe rules,” says Luther; “God brings it home to every man
himself that he must act toward his wife agreeably to reason, according as
may be best adapted to each wife.”
So the poet Thomson describes the husband, “Who, with superior dignity,
with reason, / And manly tenderness, will ever love her; / Not first a kneeling
slave, and then a tyrant.” [51]
dwell with. The word
for “dwell together” (not found elsewhere) is clearly intended to cover all the
relations of married life. [38]
giving honour unto the wife. The word for “giving,” not found elsewhere in
the New Testament, implies an equitable apportionment. [38]
Doddridge, Clarke, and some others, suppose that the
word honor here refers to maintenance or support; and that the command is, that the husband is to provide for his wife so that she may
not want. But it seems to me that the
word is to be understood here in its more usual signification, and that it
inculcates a higher duty than that of merely providing for the temporal needs
of the wife, and strikes at a deeper evil than a mere neglect of meeting her
temporal necessities. The reasons
assigned for doing this seem to imply it.
[31]
From husbands he requires prudence; for dominion over
their wives is not given them, except on this condition, that they exercise
authority prudently. Part of the
prudence which he mentions, is, that the husbands honor their wives. For nothing destroys the friendship of life
more than contempt; nor can we really love any but
those whom we esteem; for love must be connected with respect. [35]
as unto the
weaker vessel. Man is a weak vessel, and easily damaged; woman is a “weaker” one.
Her mental or moral strength is not referred to. [39]
In the term “vessel,” which finds a parallel in 1
Thessalonians 4:4, we have the thought that all, men and women alike, are
“instruments” which God has made for His service (compare 2 Timothy
2:20-21). The husband is bound to think
of himself in that light. He must
recognize himself as the stronger vessel of the two, and therefore, because noblesse oblige, he must render due honor to the weaker,
seeking to strengthen and purify and elevate it. [38]
Illustration: Glasses are to be tenderly handled; a small
knock soon breaks them. So here. Wilt not
thou for the honor of marriage cast away thy harshness, roughness, cruelty to a
consort? [29]
and as being heirs
together of the grace of life. An additional and higher
reason for honor to the wife. We prefer the pointing of Tischendorf
and Alford, which gives the rendering: Dwell according to knowledge with the
wife as with the weaker vessel, giving honor as to those who are (not only
your wives, but) also fellow heirs (with you) of the grace of
life. Thus reading, the apostle
enjoins (1.) Considerateness for the wife, because of her
comparative physical weakness; and, (2.) Honor for her because she is an
heir with her husband to the gift of life.
[39]
Husband and wife were fellow Christians, redeemed by
the same ransom, living by the same grace, looking forward to the same
inheritance, therefore the wife was obviously worthy of all honor. Some ancient manuscripts read “manifold grace
of life;” in
that your prayers
be not hindered. Some MSS give a stronger form of the verb,
“that your prayers be not cut off (or, stopped).” The words clearly include, though they do not
dwell on them, the special hindrances to prayer referred to in 1 Corinthians
7:3-5.
[38]
The spirit which makes a man harsh and over-bearing
towards the weak would hinder his fellowship with God, and might disturb the
wife’s faith. Similar admonitions to
husbands are found in Ephesians 5:25; Colossians 3:19. [45]
Roos: “There is no room for prayer that may be
answered while the husband despises and tyrannizes his wife and where a
marriage is marred by discord.” [50]
Family prayers under consideration? It is fairly implied here that it was supposed there would be
united or family prayer. The apostle is
speaking of “dwelling with the wife,” and of the right manner of treating her;
and it is plainly supposed that united prayer would be one thing that would characterize
their living together. He does not
direct that there should be prayer. He
seems to take it for granted that there would be; and it may be remarked, that
where there is true religion in right exercise, there is prayer as a matter of
course. [31]
Where there
was no reciprocated respect, each recognizing the high vocation of the other,
there could be no union of heart and soul in prayer. Where the husband thought of the wife only as
ministering to his comfort or his pleasures, as one whom he might, as both
Jewish and Roman law permitted, repudiate at will, there could be no
recognition of the fact that she shared his highest hopes. [38]
It should also be noted
that if a husband’s ill thought out actions toward the spouse can hinder his
prayers, there is every reason to assume that a wife’s improper
attitudes and actions will do the same so far as her prayers. [rw]
3:8 Translations
WEB: Finally,
be all like-minded, compassionate, loving as brothers, tenderhearted,
courteous,
Young’s: And
finally, being all of one mind, having fellow-feeling, loving as brethren,
compassionate, courteous,
Conte (RC): And finally, may you all be of one
mind: compassionate, loving brotherhood, merciful,
meek, humble,
3:8 Finally, be ye all. The
previous paragraphs have dealt with special classes—slaves, wives, husbands;
the summary addresses all these, and those of other classes as well. [45]
It is, says an old
Greek interpreter, as if the apostle had written, “Why should I give particular
directions? I say simply to all.” [51]
of one mind. One in sentiment, of “one accord.” [7]
To be unanimous in the belief of the same faith, and the practice of the same duties of religion. [5]
Or: That is, let there be unity of aim and
purpose. [50]
The
word used here (ὁμόφρων homophrōn) does not elsewhere occur in the New Testament. It means, of the same mind; like-minded; and
the object is to secure harmony in their views and feelings. [31]
having compassion one
of another. Like “sympathy” in English, it denotes more
frequently fellow-feeling in sorrow than in joy. [44]
Revised Version margin, “Greek, sympathetic;” only here in the New Testament. The corresponding verb is used in Hebrews 4:15, “We have not a high priest that cannot be touched-with-the-feeling-of our infirmities.” “Compassionate” [in English] suggests that the person who feels compassion is in a superior position, and the Greek does not imply this, so that “sympathetic” (“entering into each other’s feelings,” “feeling for and with one another”) is better. [45]
“Of one mind” suggests mental attitude; “having compassion” normally
involves, at least in part, verbal and other outward behavior. True Christianity always involves both
aspects of our nature. [rw]
love as brethren. That is,
as belonging to the one family of Christian believers. [7]
be pitiful [tenderhearted, NKJV]. In
classical Greek it means “strong-hearted, but as its proper meaning is
“goodhearted,” it embraces both senses, and the one quality by no means
excludes the other. [44]
be courteous. To all. Courtesy is
such a behavior toward equals and inferiors as shows respect mixed with
love. [15]
Kind, affable, humane, in opposition
to sourness and moroseness: the same
word is used, Acts 27:3. [28]
The MSS present two
readings, one of which, “courteous” or better, perhaps, friendly,
is a fair rendering, and the other a word not found elsewhere, but meaning
“lowly” or “humble,” and corresponding to the noun “humility” in Acts 20:19;
Philippians 2:3; 1 Peter 5:5. [38]
3:9 Translations
WEB: not
rendering evil for evil, or insult for insult; but instead blessing; knowing
that to this were you called, that you may inherit a blessing.
Young’s: not
giving back evil for evil, or railing for railing, and on the contrary,
blessing, having known that to this ye were called, that a blessing ye may
inherit;
Conte (RC): not repaying evil with evil, nor
slander with slander, but, to the contrary, repaying
with blessings. For to this you have been called, so
that you may possess the
inheritance of a blessing.
3:9 Not rendering evil
for evil.
We may probably see in the words a verbal reproduction of the
precept of Romans
or railing for railing [reviling for reviling, NKJV]. Abusive language. [14]
Probably now he is thinking solely of relation to the
adverse world. Among the Christians
surely there would be no “evil” or “railing” to provoke a retort! “Evil,” in act; “railing,”
in word. [46] In
light of James’ emphasis on the easy abuse of the tongue among
Christians—towards each other--I fear this underestimates the ease of our
stumbling in relation to fellow believers as well. [rw]
but contrariwise
blessing. Kind language, suited to do good. [14]
Cf. 1 Corinthians 4:12-13, “Being reviled, we
bless; being persecuted, we endure; being defamed, we entreat.” Cf. also Luke’s version of the Sermon on the
Mount,
Though
the word is chosen as the exact opposite of the bad language used against the
Christians, “blessing” may perhaps involve the opposite of unkind action as
well. It is used for the conferring of
benefits: (1) spiritual, in Acts 3:26;
Galatians 3:8; (2) material, in 2 Corinthians 9:5. (Compare 2 Kings 5:15; Joel 2:14; Haggai
2:19.) [46]
knowing that ye are
thereunto called. This is your calling--your business in
life, to do good, and to do good for evil, and to implore God‘s blessing even
on your worst enemies. And this is not
only your duty, but your interest; for in so doing you shall obtain God‘s
blessing, even life for evermore. [18]
The duty which was
formerly enjoined on slaves by an appeal to Christ’s example (1 Peter 2:23), is
now repeated as a duty applicable to all Christians, and as involved in the
Divine call which first makes us Christians.
That call, too, is again expressed as a definite event of the past,
carrying with it once for all, and from the very beginning of the Christian life,
all that Peter would now pledge us to. [51]
that ye should
inherit a blessing. It is not without significance that this
is given as the reason for not retaliating.
God blesses, therefore we should bless. He forgives us, and therefore we
should forgive others. Vindictiveness,
in any form, whether in word or act, is at variance with the conditions on
which that inheritance is offered and involves therefore its certain
forfeiture. [38]
Weymouth: For
"He who wishes to be well-satisfied with life and see happy days-- let him
restrain his tongue from evil, and his lips from deceitful words;
WEB: For,
"He who would love life, and see good days, let him keep his tongue from
evil, and his lips from speaking deceit.
Young’s: for
'he who is willing to love life, and to see good days, let him guard his tongue
from evil, and his lips -- not to speak guile;
Conte (RC): For whoever wants to love life and
to see good days should restrain his tongue from evil,
and his lips, so that they utter no
deceit.
It implies that there is some positive desire to live; some active wish that life should be prolonged. This whole passage 1 Peter 3:10-12 is taken, with some slight variations, from Psalm 34:12-16. It is implied here that it is right to love life, and to desire many days. The desire is referred to without any expression of disapprobation, and the way is shown by which length of days may be secured. Life is a blessing; a precious gift of God. [31]
The
phrase “love life” means more than “to be fain to have life,” or “to show love
for life” (de Wette), or even “to be in earnest as to
the love of life” (Wiesinger). It is to be taken in the simple sense of
loving life for its good as opposed to hating it for its emptiness and
vexations (Lillie), in the slightly modified sense of cherishing life,
or in the secondary sense (which the verb has also in the Classics) of being pleased
with life. [51]
and see good days. The term
“see” has also the intensive force of experiencing or knowing personally
what a thing is, which it often has in the Old Testament. e.g.
Psalms 27:13, etc. [51]
Although “loving life” and having “good days” requires a certain
financial level, it does not require profound wealth. That elusive sense of “doing all right” can
have its guts torn out if one is living in ongoing—and needless—conflicts with
others. [rw]
let him refrain
his tongue from evil. One of the sure ways of not “seeing
good days”—and making your life and that of others a living misery—is to allow
uncontrolled bile to pour out of your tongue.
Another is to do outright evil to others (verse 11). You not only make other peoples’ lives
miserable, you ultimately turn your own life into a storm of discontent as
well. [rw]
and his lips that
they speak no guile [deceit, NKJV]. Nothing deceitful or
adapted to do injury. [14]
Nothing that will
lead others astray. [31]
WEB: Let
him turn away from evil, and do good. Let him seek
peace, and pursue it.
Young’s: let
him turn aside from evil, and do good, let him seek peace and pursue it;
Conte (RC): Let him turn away from evil, and do
good. Let him seek peace, and
pursue it.
The
idea is that of turning away from something which comes in one’s way. See specially Proverbs 4:15. To this avoidance of evil is added the duty
of active goodness, as these two things are coupled elsewhere in the Psalms
(Psalms 37:27), in the burden of prophetic exhortation (Isaiah
and do good. In any and every way; by endeavoring to promote the happiness of
all. [31]
let him seek
peace, and ensue [pursue, NKJV] it. Follow it; that is, practice it. The meaning is, that a peaceful spirit will
contribute to length of days: (1) A
peaceful spirit--a calm, serene, and equal temper of mind--is favorable to
health, avoiding those corroding and distracting passions which do so much to
wear out the physical energies of the frame; and (2) such a spirit will
preserve us from those contentions and strifes to
which so many owe their death. [31]
“As much as in you lieth,” says
seek peace. Not only with God and his
own conscience, but with his neighbors, which is here
especially meant. [28]
This
indicates that the irreproachable goodness in view is still that of those who
are under peculiar temptation to the opposite. Those who suffer from slander or other kinds
of wrong are not to imagine themselves exempt from these great laws of
Christian duty. All the more are they
called to guard against every form of evil, to resist the inclination to take
their case into their own hand. They are to meet evil by doing positive good,
and cultivating all that makes for peace.
[51]
WEB: For
the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and his ears open to their prayer;
but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil."
Young’s: because
the eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and His ears -- to their
supplication, and the face of the Lord is upon those doing evil;'
Conte (RC): For the eyes of the Lord are upon the
just, and his ears are with their prayers, but the
countenance of the Lord is upon
those who do evil.
[Because of this]
they may be sure that his promises will be kept; and, also, that when he lays
down conditions, he will see that they are fulfilled. [45]
The sense that the
Lord’s eyes are over you is a sufficient reason for self-restraint under
provocation: especially, perhaps, when
we see that by “the Lord” Peter understands Jesus Christ. That this is the case is clear from his use
of the same Psalm in 1 Peter 2:3. If
Christ, the model of meekness under persecution (1 Peter
For. It may be noted that the “for” is added
by the Apostle to emphasize the sequence of thought. There is no conjunction either in the Hebrew
or the LXX [of Psalms 34:12-16 that he is quoting]. [38]
Peter is quoting Psalms 34 as a christocentric one? It is instructive now to turn and see the circumstances in which this Psalm was composed. The moment was one of David’s extremest peril among an infuriated heathen population. The danger and dread he was in are shown in Psalms 56. Yet nothing can be brighter and more serene than Psalms 34. He had obtained life and days; and it was all through confidence in God on the one hand, and inoffensive self-submission on the other.
Had he used violence—“shown spirit,” as we say—like
the “young lions,” he would have come worse off. It seems to be for this cause that Peter
deemed the Psalm so appropriate to his readers, misjudged and suspiciously
watched (Psalms 56:5-6) by unbelievers, who only waited the opportunity to shed
their blood (Psalms 56:1-2). But the
striking change is that, whereas David’s trust in Jehovah was a trust simply in
the Eternal Being without distinction of Persons, Peter bids the Hebrews of
Asia read that Psalm into an act of faith in Jesus. We shall see the same thing in 1 Peter 3:15,
as we saw it in 1 Peter 2:3. The force
of the change will be felt by any one who reads through that Psalm,
substituting (like the
and his ears are open unto their prayers. Rather,
are towards their prayer—i.e., directed towards it. [46]
He listens to them rather than ignores them. [rw]
but the face of
the Lord. His anger, or indignation; face being
here taken not for God’s favor, (as many times it is), but in the contrary
sense, as Leviticus
is against them that
do evil.
Peter fails to add what the Psalmist appends here, “to cut
off the remembrance of them from the earth.”
[51]
Technical note: The two prepositions “over
the righteous” and “against them that do evil” express,
perhaps, the thought of the original, but as the Greek preposition is the same
in both cases, they are open to the charge of being an interpolated
refinement. The eyes of God are upon both the good and the evil. It lies in the nature of the case that the
result is protective or punitive according to the character of each. [38]
However: The
preposition, also, is the same here as in the former clause, and should be
translated simply “upon,” not “against.”
The different meaning which God’s sleepless observance must have to the
evil is left as self-understood, and obtains thereby an intenser force. It
is enough for the righteous to know that God’s eye is upon the evil, and the
knowledge of this adds to their own sense of security in the midst of
enemies. [51]
BOOKS/COMMENTARIES
UTILIZED IN THIS STUDY:
1 [Anonymous]. Teacher’s Testament/Nelson’s Explanatory
Testament
Thomas
Nelson & Sons;
2 Marvin
R. Vincent, D.D. Word
Studies in the New Testament.
Charles
Scribner’s Sons;
3 Robert
Young. Commentary
on the Holy Bible. A. Fullarton & Co;
4 Daniel
Whitby, D.D. and Moses Lowman. A Critical Commentary and
Paraphrase
on the New Testament. Carey Hart,
5 Matthew
Henry. Vol. IV: Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible.
6 Rev. Dr
C. G. Barth. The Bible Manual.
1865
7 Charles
R. Erdman. The
General Epistles.
Press, 1918.
8 Joh. Ed. Huther, Th. D., Critical
and Exegetical Handbook to the
General
Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude
[Meyer’s Commentary
on the New Testament].
9 Professor
Bernhard Weiss, D.D. A
Commentary of the New Testament Vol. IV.
10 Charles
Simeon, M.A. Horae
Homileticae Vol. XX.
and Ball, 1833.
11 Rev. S.
T. Bloomfield, M.A. Recensio
Symoptica Annotations Sacrae
[
12 George
Leo Haydock. Haydock’s Catholic Family Bible and Commentary
UTS,
13 Howard
Crosby, D.D. New
Testament, With Brief Explanatory Notes. New
14 Anonymous [Justin
Edwards]. The New
Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
This edition has more notes, but Edwards’ name is
attached to a shorter
edition of the
same material at UTS,
15 John
Wesley, M.A. Explanatory Notes upon
the New Testament.
16 Orello Cone, D.D. International Handbooks to the N.T. Vol. 3:
The Epistles. New York:
G. P. Putnam’s Sons / Knickerbocker Press,
1901.
17 Philip
Doddridge, D.D. The Family Expositor
(Paraphrase and Version of
the New
Testament [American edition]).
Amherst, Ms.: J. S. & C.
Adams,
and L. Boltwood;
18 Adam
Clarke, LL.D., F.S.A., etc.
The New Testament of our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ Vol. VI.
19 Donald
Fraser, M.A., D.D. Synoptical
Lectures of the Books of Holy Scripture Vol.
II.
20 Rev.
Robert Jamieson, D.D. Rev. A. R. Fausset, A.M. Rev. David Brown D.D. A
Commentary, Critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments Vol. II The S. S. Scranton Company
21 Martin
Luther. The Epistles of St. Peter and
St. Jude Preached and
Explained (
Gillett.
22 Barton
W. Johnson. People’s New Testament. Internet Edition. 1891.
23 Arno Gaebelein. Annotated Bible. Internet Edition. 1920s.
24 John R. Dummelow. Dummelow’s Commentary on the Bible. Internet Edition. 1909.
25 Robert Hawker. Poor Man’s Commentary. Internet Edition. 1828.
26 Johann
A. Bengel. Gnomon of the New
Testament. Internet Edition. 1742.
27 Alexander
MacLaren. Exposition of the Holy Scriptures. Internet Edition.
18--.
28 Matthew
Poole. English
Annotations on the Holy Bible.
Internet Edition.
1685.
29 John Trapp. Complete Commentary. Internet Edition.
Written 1600s;
1865-1868 edition.
30 Joseph Sutcliffe. Commentary on the Old
and New Testaments. Internet
Edition. 1835.
31 Albert Barnes. Notes on the New
Testament. Internet Edition. 1870.
32 James Gray. Concise Bible Commentary. Internet Edition. 1897-1910.
33 F. B. Meyer. Thru The Bible
(Commentary). Internet Edition. 1914 edition.
34 John and Jacob Abbott. Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament. Internet
Edition. 1878.
35 John Calvin. Commentaries. Internet Edition. Written in 1500s. Printing:
1840-1857.
36 William R. Nicoll,
editor. Expositor’s Greek Testament. Internet
Edition.1897-1910.
37
38
E. M. Plumptre. Internet Edition. 1890.
39 D. D. Whedon. Commentary on the New Testament;
volume 5: Titus to
Revelation. Internet Edition.
40 Ariel A. Livermore. The Epistles to the Hebrews, the Epistles
of James,
Peter, John, and Jude and the Revelation of John the Divine[:] Commentary
and Essays. Internet Edition.
1881.
41 M[ichael] F.
Sadler. The General Epistles of SS.
James, Peter, John, and
Jude. Second
Edition.
42 Robert S. Hunt. The Epistle to the
Hebrews and the General Epistles.
In
the Cottage Commentary series.
43 A. T. Robertson. New Testament Interpretation (Matthew to
Revelation):
Notes on
Lectures. Taken
stenographically. Revised Edition by William
M.
Fouts and Alice M. Fouts.
44 William G. Humphry. A Commentary on the Revised Version of the
New
Testament.
45 W. H. Bennett. The General Epistles: James, Peter, John and Jude. In the
Century Bible series.
46 A. J. Mason. “First Epistle of Peter” in Ellicott’s New
Testament
Commentary for English
Readers. Internet Edition. 1884.
47 Joseph Benson. Commentary on the Old
and New Testaments. Internet
Edition. 1811-1815.
48 William B. Godbey. Commentary on the New
Testament. Internet Edition.
1896-1900.
49 James Nisbett,
editor. Church
Pulpit Commentary. Internet Edition. 1876.
[Note: this is not “The Pulpit
Commentary.”]
50 Revere F. Weidner. Annotations on the General Epistles of
James, Peter,
John,
and Jude. In the Lutheran
Commentary series.
Literature Company, 1897.
51 Schaff’s
Popular Commentary on the New Testament.
Internet
Edition.
1879-1890.