Peter begins the third chapter of his first letter with the words:

“Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands.”
1 Pet 3:1, NIV

“Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.”
1 Pet 3:1, King James Version

“Likewise wives (may do it by) being subject to their own husbands.”
1 Pet 3:1, Concordant Literal New Testament

Of course, it is never enough to lift a verse out of its context like this and then “prove” something with it. That is not how it works, because every statement was made exclusively in its own context and should acquire its meaning precisely there for the recipients of the letter and its first listeners. Here is the distinction: in biblical times a patriarchy largely prevailed. Referring to it is a matter of cultural conditioning. To understand a patriarchy as a divine ordinance for all times, however, is a wild and perhaps even dubious interpretation. It would be a truly patriarchal interpretation if all women in general were to subordinate themselves somehow to all men. That is expressly not what this is about.

The challenge today lies here: can we read biblical texts in their own context without declaring the context of that time to be divine and binding forever? There are characteristics of the text and statements of a particular period that are important for understanding. The way a message is conveyed, however, is not the message itself.

Example
Imagery in the Bible should not be taken literally. In Matthew 13:31, for instance, the kingdom of heaven is not really a mustard seed. The famous “I am” sayings of Jesus in the Gospel of John (I am the bread of life, the door, and so on) are metaphors.

More on imagery in the following article:

One could, however, also think of other things which are not imagery, yet were commonplace for the listeners. References to these things were “normal” back then, just as they no longer are today.

References
The Bible speaks of slaves, sacrificial meat or subordination. They are mentioned because they fit the time. They belong to the text because the text made sense in the world of that day. That by no means implies, however, that we should confuse the packaging with the content, or that we would have to shape the present day according to the old pattern.

The first thing to notice is that this is about marriages, since wives were to subordinate themselves to their own husbands. So it is not about a separation of the sexes or a general ranking, but about a specific situation. Whoever is not married is not addressed by this, neither then nor now. It concerns a marital situation. That is sober, but still not the whole story.

What is not meant here, either, is a present-day situation. If you know the terms, this is likewise not about contemporary phenomena such as the “Manosphere”, “Blue Pill and Red Pill” or other such things. That, too, is not up for discussion here. Expressly, it is also not about whether women can hold leading roles in the community. That is not a topic here. One should carefully distinguish:

• What does it say here, and what is not mentioned with a single word?
• What did the first listeners understand in their world, and where does that differ from today?

It is common to relate everything in the New Testament to the present day, and Christians often think it is all about them. I would doubt that. Peter was entrusted with the Gospel of the circumcision, just as Paul was with the Gospel of the uncircumcision (Gal 2:7-9). These are not different directions of proclamation in which the message stays the same; two different Gospels are explicitly spoken of here. When a Gospel is designated as “of the circumcision” or “of the uncircumcision”, that is not a direction but describes the content. In the genitive, the “of” marks characteristics and belonging.

Paul repeatedly speaks of “my Gospel” and even mentions that his Gospel was formerly hidden (Rom 16:25). So one cannot suppose that Paul says the same as Jesus in the Gospels. That is not the case. Nevertheless, the apostle testifies in his letter to the Galatians that he received his Gospel directly from Jesus Christ (Gal 1:11-12). Against this, the idea that there is only one Gospel and one message in the New Testament is no more than an interpretation with a long tradition. I do not think, however, that this tradition can be traced back in the Bible. There, differences apply which were mutually acknowledged (Gal 2:7-9), even when some things seemed unclear (2 Pet 3:15-16).

Peter, then, with the twelve apostles, addressed Israel. This is also what we find in 1 Peter. He expressly addresses the “chosen emigrants in the dispersion” (1 Pet 1:1). These are Jews in the Diaspora, a clearly defined target group. They are believers from Israel who believe in Jesus as Messiah. They build on the teaching of the twelve apostles, just as these build on the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels. That is the only context that makes sense here.

Likewise, Peter writes of the “salvation of souls”. After this salvation “the prophets already sought and searched earnestly” (1 Pet 1:9-10). The soul is not the “highest” part of a human being here, nor an immortal spark of our identity. Nothing like that can be found anywhere in the Bible. Jesus even recommends losing the soul to save it (Matt 16:25; Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24). Humans once became “living souls” (Gen 2:7), and these became mortal, not immortal. Soul stands for perception and everything that shapes us as human beings in this life. James, speaking to the twelve tribes in the dispersion (Jas 1:1), says that the soul is “saved from death” (Jas 5:20). That is also how Peter sounds when he speaks about the salvation of the soul. Not to die, but to take part in the coming kingdom “heart and soul”, as people say today, is the real wealth. To share in the life of the coming age (Mark 10:30) is “eternal” life. That does the soul good and is the fulfillment of the messianic expectation, which one experiences, so to speak, in one’s own body.

This defines the target group. Peter addresses this particular group with the words, “But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation (Exod 19:6), a people for His acquisition” (1 Pet 2:9). It would be the fulfillment of Old Testament promises to Israel. I am aware that these verses are often applied to the community of today. I think, however, that the context clearly speaks only of Israel. Likewise, Peter says that the recipients are “among the Gentiles” (1 Pet 2:12). That applies especially to Israel in the Diaspora.

All this now determines the introduction to the words in 1 Peter 3:1. What is meant there, then, is a community from Israel, in expectation of a messianic fulfillment of early promises. Today’s community “from all Gentile nations” seems nowhere visible. The references to Abraham, Moses and other typical figures from Israel’s history make no sense for non-Jews, who never had these traditions and writings.

Subordination is an important principle and understanding of the world from the time of the New Testament. One can see it as an effect of a patriarchy. That would even be understandable, because it was the usual shaping of society in the world of the Bible. The idea of a subordination of the woman to the man is also transferred to the image of God. God is a man, is He not? He determines everything in this world (Eph 1:11). Understandably, some sense a threat in this and promptly speak of God as a woman. The point I do not like about that is this: Scripture is altered. Even if the whole Bible spoke of patriarchal conditions, that would still be the way the Bible speaks.

If one wants to view this differently through an ideology, that only works by imposing this idea on top of the Bible. The text itself is then disregarded or deliberately altered. That does not seem helpful to me if the text is supposed to have a voice of its own. Neither patriarchy nor matriarchy, neither feminism nor any other culture or ideology is taught in the Bible as God-given. It is about something else.

The simplest explanation is this: the texts reflect about the time. Patriarchy is nowhere a topic, even if it was present. If one reads the texts attentively, mechanisms are indeed mentioned, but not taught specifically as a goal. So also in this passage:

• Mechanism
  The wives subordinate themselves to their own husbands.
• Goal
  So that these husbands are won without words.

It is about the goal, not the mechanism. In saying so I do not devalue the mechanism in the text, for doubtless it was pragmatic in that time. Rather, the point is why Peter prescribed this. What this “being won” may mean would need further investigation. The distinction between mechanism and goal or purpose is nevertheless helpful for an assessment of the text. Understanding the text by no means implies that one has to see it the same way. Understanding develops step by step. If you want to imagine it differently, the question arises how would you achieve the same goal as Peter today? What would you do, and what would be your attitude?

Peter makes no general statement about men and women in general but refers to one quite specific situation, that of marriage. Within a partnership he describes it thus: “Likewise also the wives, they subordinate themselves to their own husbands” (1 Pet 3:1). To their own husbands: no other or arbitrary men, no sons and nobody else. Respect towards one’s own husband is important. Note this: that is still far from a patriarchy.

To subordinate (Gk hupotasso) and subordination (Gk hupotage) are part of the understanding of the world. Jesus, for instance, subordinated himself to his own parents (Luke 2:51). Subordination does not mean oppression, however. It is about a voluntary subordination, as in the case of Jesus. People can subordinate themselves as a personal decision. That is not “ducking because otherwise one is punished”, but a decision made of one’s own free will.

Servility is likewise not meant here. The community subordinates itself to Christ (Eph 5:24). In a marriage, husband and wife subordinate themselves to one another, writes Paul (Eph 5:21). That speaks precisely against a patriarchy. In marriage above all there should be no one-sided subordination. Every attitude arises from mutual respect and comes from both sides. Paul’s concern is clear so far.

Subordination is deeply anchored in the New Testament. Paul, for example, mentions it in relation to God’s final goal, when he writes:

“The last enemy to be abolished is death. For He subordinated all to Him: under His feet. When He then says, ‘All has subordinated itself!’, it is evident that God is excepted, who subordinated the All to Him. But when the All is subordinated to Him (God), then the Son Himself will also be subordinated to the One who subordinated the All to Him, so that God may be all in all.”
1 Cor 15:26-28

Subordination, as Paul describes it here, is a means to an end. The ultimate purpose is that God can be all in all and not just something in a few. Even the Son of God subordinates himself to God so that this goal can be reached. So this is not “with a knife at the throat”, as is often interpreted regarding unbelievers.

After the work is done, as can be read above, the Son hands the kingdom over to the Father (1 Cor 15:24). Christ will therefore not rule forever, but only until he can hand everything over to the Father. He himself subordinates himself to the Father because the “God all in all” applies, according to Paul, expressly to the Son as well.

According to Paul this is the view of the world, the goal towards which everything is heading. Subordination serves this purpose. Subordination also always seems to speak of hierarchy, a word that is heavily loaded. In the light of God’s final goal, however, this concept acquires a more positive colour. Subordination is defined by the goal or acquires this meaning on the way there. So it is not about the abuse of a patriarchal society, but about a picture with which the apostles describe both an everyday reality and a pointer to God’s goal.

If a hierarchy were maintained, “God all in all” could never come about. Subordination applies only up to that point, because God fills and fulfills the whole structure. God remains, but it likewise holds that He becomes all in all. When God becomes all in all, that is the full fulfilment of divine closeness, salvation and justification, and mutual reconciliation for all.

The question, then, is whether subordination has a goal and which one that is. Is it a rigid and lifeless requirement or a means to an end? And which end is meant?

How does it stand, then, with this statement of Peter’s? The first word in the sentence is telling: “likewise”. With this word his statement appears as one among several. Apparently he is trying to explain something and then mentions various scenarios in which this holds true.

A few verses earlier Peter said:

“For to this you were called, … so that you should follow His footsteps.”
1 Pet 2:21

The calling of believers should be shaped after the example of Christ. There then follows a list of various things in which Christ has left a pattern:

• He committed no sin.
• No deceit was found in his mouth.
• He was insulted but did not do the same in return (“eye for an eye”)
• He suffered but did not threaten and handed everything over to God.
• He himself carried our sins in his body up to the cross so that we might part from sins and live for righteousness.

Those are strong statements. Peter then points out, “For you were strays, like sheep, but now you have turned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls” (1 Pet 2:25). Immediately after this it now says:

“Likewise the wives.”
1 Pet 3:1

And somewhat further on:

“The husbands in the same way.”
1 Pet 3:7

In summary: the example of Christ was to be put into practice by men and women in everyday life. For Peter, “subordination” was an issue with the wives, but not as a doctrine, rather as an understandable course of action, “so that, even if some (own husbands) are rebellious against the word, they may be won without words through the conduct of the wives” (1 Pet 3:1). The male part reads: “live together according to knowledge as those who accord honour to the female, weaker vessel as co-lot-holders of the manifold grace of life, so that your prayers are not hindered” (1 Pet 1:7).

No one-sided patriarchal dressing-down, then, but both as “co-lot-holders of the manifold grace of life”. Equal worth and no false subordination. Way of life and attitude of faith as an expression of knowledge. In this, each esteems the other as a partaker of the same grace.

Does that make sense?