IN THE SAME WAY YOU WIVES: Homoios (ai) gunaikes:   (Ge 3:16; Esther 1:16-20; Ro 7:2; 1Co 11:3; 14:34; Ep 5:22-24,33; Col 3:18; 1Ti 2:11,12; Titus 2:3-6)

In the same way (3668) (homoios from hómoios = like, resembling) means similarly: likewise, of equal degree or manner and denoting perfect agreement. In context Peter appears to refer to the previous calls to submission - so just as all Christians should submit to the governing authorities (see note 1 Peter 2:13), as slaves should submit to their masters (see note 1 Peter 2:18), and as Christ gave us His perfect example of willing and complete submission (see notes 1 Peter 2:21; 22; 23; 24; 25), Peter says in the same way wives are to submit to their own husbands.

BE (let it be your habit) SUBMISSIVE TO YOUR OWN HUSBANDS: hupotassomenai (PPPFPN) tois idiois andrasin:

Be submissive (5293) (hupotasso= hupo = under + tasso = arrange in an orderly manner) (Click word study of hupotasso) (Click the 6 uses of hupotasso in 1Peter) in the passive voice (as in this verse) means to submit oneself, to subordinate oneself, to obey, to place oneself under, to put oneself under orders, to align oneself under the authority of another. Hupotasso in this present use has in view the maintenance of God’s willed order, not personal inferiority of any kind. This word may denote either voluntary or forced behavior, but not any sense of inferiority.

Hupotasso was used as military term to describe soldiers submitting to their superior or slaves submitting to their masters. The word has primarily the idea of giving up one’s own right or will. It meant to arrange [as for example troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader. Submission then is not so much to a person per se as to the position of rank that is established to ensure order rather than chaos.  The buck private in the army may be a "better person" than the five-star general, but he is still a buck private. Slaves in the average Roman household in fact were "better people" in many ways when compared to their masters, yet they still had to be under authority to ensure order in the household. In non-military use hupotasso described "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden". 

"Hupotasso" is not a spineless submission but, as one writer has eloquently described it, a "voluntary selflessness."

Constable paraphrasing material from the Family Life Conference writes that...

Submission involves at least four things. First, it begins with an attitude of entrusting oneself to God (see notes 1 Peter 2:23; 24; 25). The focus of our life must be on Jesus Christ. Second, submission requires respectful behavior (see notes 1 Peter 3:1; 3:2). Nagging is not respectful behavior. Third, submission involves the development of a godly character (see notes 1 Peter 3:3; 3:4; 3:5). Fourth, submission includes doing what is right (see note 1 Peter 3:6). It does not include violating other Scriptural principles. Submission is imperative for oneness in marriage. (Expository Notes)

Keep the historical context in mind reference to pagan husbands should be understood against the social background in which a wife was expected to accept the customs and religious rites of her husband.

Submission for Paul and Peter is a voluntary submission based on one’s own recognition of God’s order. It is the submission which is based on the death of pride on one hand and the desire to serve on the other. Ideally it is the submission not of fear but of perfect love. Christ Himself is the perfect example (see notes 1 Peter 2:21; 22; 23; 24; 25) of a servant Who submitted without reservation to His Father's perfect will (see notes Philippians 2:5; 2:6; 2:7;2:8). Thus there is nothing degrading about submitting to authority and accepting God’s ordained order that alone ensures the proper functioning of the marriage bond between a husband and wife.

The present tense of the verb hupotasso calls for a attitude (make it a continual practice) of willingness to be under the order established by God. For women this does not come naturally (nor does it come naturally for men because of our fallen nature) because of sin entering the perfect environment in Genesis 3.

As a result of Eve's usurpation of Adam's headship, part of the consequence of her sin was that her desire would be for her husband (Genesis 3:16). Genesis 3:16 could be interpreted as a passionate yearning or longing for one's husband but the difficulty with that interpretation is fourfold:

(1) The statement by God is clearly given in the context of judgment for sin.

(2) The root word (shuwq Strong's # 7783) for "desire" (teshuwqah: Strong's #8669) according to Strong's Hebrew lexicon means to "overflow" and (from another source) the Arabic root means "to control", either definition lending itself to the interpretation that Eve's desire would be to rule over Adam.

(3) The Greek translation (Septuagint) for "desire" is the verb apostrepho can mean to turn away from or abandon a former relationship or association which certainly does not picture the woman longing for the man.

(4) The closest contextual use of the same Hebrew word is (Gen 4:7) where God tells Cain that sin's "desire" is to rule over him but that he must master it. Clearly the meaning of desire here conveys a negative meaning of sin desiring to rule over, dominate and control Cain.

The newly published conservative, evangelical Net Bible translates Genesis 3:16 this way

"To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your labor pains; with pain you will give birth to children. You will want to control your husband, but he will dominate you."

The majority of evangelical, conservative commentaries on Ge 3:16 definitely favor the interpretation that Eve would have latent within her fallen nature, her flesh, the desire to rule over, dominate and be independent of her husband. If one accepts this interpretation of (Gen 4:7) as reasonable, it would certainly explain why even the most devout, godly and "dead to self" wife would still have a tendency to chaff at God's call for her to submit to her husband. In a class I led on "Marriage without Regrets" one meek, mild, godly young woman raised her hand and confessed how during the preceding week's homework on submission she had experienced a feeling of resentment rising up from deep within and how this feeling surprised her. If one understands the "root cause" of this fleshly reaction from a study of (Gen 4:7), it at least helps one be aware of where the resistance might originate from.

Constable notes that the reason Peter calls for wives to be submissive is ...

that God has so ordered the human race that we must all observe His structure of authority so that peace and order may prevail. (Constable's Expository Notes on the Bible)

Own (2398) (idios) means belonging to oneself and not to another, one’s own, peculiar. It denotes "ownership".

Husbands (435) (aner) means man, an adult male person. Aner is used to speak of men in various relations and circumstances where the context determines the proper meaning, as in this verse clearly referring to husbands.

Peter does not require women to be subordinate to men in general but to their husbands as a function of order within the home. A wife is to accept her place in the family under the leadership of her husband whom God has placed as head in the home.

Plutarch writing in a secular connotation said that wives were to subordinate themselves and the man is to exercise control

"as the soul controls the body, by entering into her feelings and being knit to her through goodwill."

Rienecker in the Linguistic Key to the NT adds that

"submission of wives to their husbands should be viewed in the light of the society of that day especially in the light of the wild activities of women in the worship of Dionysus and Isis". He goes on to add that Plutarch wrote that wives were to subordinate themselves, and the man was to exercise control "as the soul controls the body, by entering into her feelings and being knit to her through goodwill".

In every sphere of ancient civilization, women had no rights at all. Under Jewish law a woman was a thing; she was owned by her husband in exactly the same way as he owned his sheep and his goats; on no account could she leave him, although he could dismiss her at any moment. For a wife to change her religion while her husband did not was unthinkable. In Greek civilization the duty of the woman was "to remain indoors and to be obedient to her husband." It was the sign of a good woman that she must see as little, hear as little and ask as little as possible. She had no kind of independent existence and no kind of mind of her own, and her husband could divorce her almost at caprice, so long as he returned her dowry.

Under Roman law a woman had no rights. In law she remained forever a child. When she was under her father she was under the patria potestas, the father's power, which gave the father the right even of life and death over her; and when she married she passed equally into the power of her husband. She was entirely subject to her husband and completely at his mercy.

The Roman Cato wrote:

"If you were to catch your wife in an act of infidelity, you can kill her with impunity without a trial."

What a contrast with Christianity which commands husbands to love their wives unconditionally!

Roman matrons were prohibited from drinking wine, and Egnatius beat his wife to death when he found her doing so.

Sulpicius Gallus dismissed his wife because she had once appeared in the streets without a veil.

Antistius Vetus divorced his wife because he saw her secretly speaking to a freed woman in public.

Publius Sempronius Sophus divorced his wife because once she went to the public games.

The whole attitude of ancient civilization was that no woman could dare take any decision for herself. What, then, must have been the problems of the wife who became a Christian while her husband remained faithful to the ancestral gods? It is almost impossible for us to realize what life must have been for the wife who was brave enough to become a Christian.

><> ><> ><>

Today in the Word - A magazine for Christian leaders published a cartoon that showed a pastor peering out anxiously from inside a World-War-II-style bunker, which was behind the pulpit. The well-protected pastor announced, “My text for today is 1 Peter 3:1-7.”

Today, it’s very socially and politically incorrect to suggest that marriage is built on a wife’s loving submission and respect and a husband’s loving tenderness and consideration. We shouldn’t be surprised that the world labels this concept outmoded, even dangerous. As the magazine cartoon suggests, Christians often seem just as reluctant to stand by what the Bible teaches. However, Peter lets us know that couples need these qualities for the success of their relationship. Moreover, this issue affects how God relates to us.

Tommy Nelson, puts it on the line for married believers. “If your relationship to God does not show itself in being a tender husband and a responsive and respectful wife, then it is not penetrating the most essential area of your life.”

This requires serious reflection. Our reading indicates how essential the relationship between a wife and husband is. Much of a woman’s sense of self is tied to the way she presents herself, both outwardly and inwardly. The Bible has been accused of trying to shut away women at home in a subservient role, but that distorts Peter’s message. Accepting her husband’s leadership is not a statement of a wife’s inferiority. Both partners are equally valuable before God.

Peter’s caution against a woman investing her wealth and worth in her physical appearance to the detriment of her spirit reflects the same principle Jesus taught on several occasions. That is, believers cannot afford to invest their resources in things on earth to the neglect of eternal issues (Matt. 6:19-21; Luke 12:21).

TODAY ALONG THE WAY -You may recall the blast of media criticism that erupted in 1998 when a major Christian group dared to state that a wife should “lovingly submit” to her husband”  (Copyright Moody Bible Institute. Used by permission. All rights reserved)

><> ><> ><>

SO THAT EVEN IF ANY OF THEM ARE DISOBEDIENT TO THE WORD: hina kai ei tines apeithousin (3PPAI) to logo: (1 Peter 1:22; 4:17; Ro 6:17; 10:16; 2 Th 1:8; Heb 5:9; 11:8)

The word “if” represents a fulfilled condition. The "if" in this passage introduces a first class conditional clause which assumes the reality of the condition...specifically that the husbands of some of the woman reading the letter were in fact unsaved and disobedient to the word.

Disobedient (544) (apeitheo from "a" = negating what follows, without + peithes = obedient) literally describes one who refuses to be persuaded and who disbelieves willfully and perversely.  They are unpersuaded and express an obstinate rejection to the will of God.

Apeitheo is an attitude (present tense) of unbelief which involves deliberate disobedience and conscious resistance to authority. There were disobedient husbands then just as there are today. The present tense indicates that this is their lifestyle, the way the carry on their life is in continual disobedience against God! To be sure, we all disobey from time to time. That is not what Peter is referring to here. Instead he is describing the individual with an unregenerate heart who habitually, continually disobeys (as a lifestyle) what he or she knows to be the truth.

The word (3056) (lógos from légō = to speak intelligently source of English "logic, logical") (Click for in depth discussion of lógos) means something said and describes a communication whereby the mind finds expression in words.

The Christian wife is exhorted to be in subjection to her unsaved husband, in order that he might won without a word, not "the Word" (the gospel), be won by the behavior of the wife. Keep in mind the social context of Paul's time, in which a wife was expected to accept the customs and religious rites of her husband.

THEY MAY BE WON WITHOUT A WORD BY THE BEHAVIOR OF THEIR WIVES: dia tes ton gunaikon anastrophes aneu logou kerdethesontai, (3PFPI): (1 Co 7:16; Col 4:5) (Won: Pr 11:30; 18:19; Mt 18:15; 1Co 9:19-22; Ja 5:19,20)

Spurgeon writes  -

Could any men be won to Christ without the Word? Yes, it was even so in the apostle’s day. When they refused to attend the little Christian meetings that were being held, and so could not hear what was there said, yet, at home, they saw the change that the gospel of Christ had wrought in their wives, and they said, “She is quite different from what she used to be. Certainly, she is a far better wife than any heathen woman is; there must be something in the religion which can make such a change as that.” In this way, without the Word, many of them were won to Christ by the godly conversation of their wives. (1 Peter 3 Commentary)

Won (2770) (kerdaino from kerdos = gain or profit, interest on money) was originally a term of commerce referring to financial gain or profit and meant to acquire by effort or investment. Kerdaino in the present context is applied figuratively of gaining or winning someone over to one's side, in this case to the side of Christ.

Behavior (391) (anastrophe from anastrépho = to turn up, to move about <> aná = again, back + strépho = turn) literally means "a turning about" and in the NT refers to how one conducts one's life, with a focus on overt daily behavior. It refers to how we live or conduct ourselves.

Note that Peter does not advise the wife to leave her heathen husband (1Cor 7:13-16). Peter does not tell her to insist that there is no difference between slave and freeman, Gentile and Jew, male and female (Col 3:11), but that all are the same in the presence of the Christ whom she has come to know. Peter wants the Christian women to win their husbands by a life of reverence and purity expressed in a submissive attitude that honors him as the head of the home. It is the character and conduct of the wife that will win the lost husband—not arguments, but such attitudes as submission, understanding, love, kindness, patience. These qualities are not manufactured; they are the fruit of the Spirit that come when we are submitted to Christ .

The New Living Translation has a very nice paraphrase of this verse

In the same way, you wives must accept the authority of your husbands, even those who refuse to accept the Good News. Your godly lives will speak to them better than any words. They will be won over

Without a word does not however mean “without the Word of God”. There is no definite article before the second use of the word word No one has ever been won to the Lord Jesus apart from the Word of God because salvation comes through the Word. Jesus clearly explained one has to hear the "word" before he or she can "believe" the word, declaring

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life." (Jn 5:24).

There is a play on the word logos. The wives are to remain silent—without a word—so that the husbands disobedient to “the word” may be converted!

What without a word really means is in essence “without talk, without a lot of speaking.” How true it is that Christian wives who preach at their husbands often only drive them farther away from the truth. Peter was not forbidding speaking to unsaved husbands about the Lord or sharing Scripture if the husband would be receptive. His point was that a godly wife’s conduct is going to be more influential than anything she may say.

John MacArthur adds...

So how do you win an unsaved partner? By living an exemplary Christian life. Just that simple, just that simple. Whether you are in the government, seeing yourself as a citizen. On the job as an employee. In the home as a marriage partner. The role is always the same, you submit to God's ordained pattern for that social relationship, and you live it out to the maximum to please God. And God will honor you as a testimony wherever you are. (1 Peter 3:1-7)

Peter is exhorting these wives who have given the gospel to their husbands time after time, to stop talking about it lest they start nagging, and instead, live the gospel before them. If the husband is so obstinate as to refuse to listen to her, well then, the next best thing is to keep quiet and let the gospel speak through a Christ like life. He may refuse to listen to her words, but he cannot but see the Lord Jesus in her life.

An excellent example of such a godly wife (and mother) was Monica, the mother of Augustine. God used Monica’s witness and prayers to win both her son and her husband to Christ, though her husband was not converted until shortly before his death. Augustine wrote in Confessions,

“She served him as her lord; and did her diligence to win him unto Thee... preaching Thee unto him by her conversation [behavior]; by which Thou ornamentest her, making her reverently amiable unto her husband.”

In the context of Peter's exhortation, it is interesting to contrast that of pagan writer Plutarch (AD50-120) who said that “it is becoming for a wife to worship and know only the gods that her husband believes in, and to shut the front door tight upon all queer rituals and outlandish superstitions.”

Spurgeon...

A husband was a very loose, depraved man of the world, but he had a wife who for many years bore with his ridicule and unkindness, praying for him night and day. One night, being at a drunken feast with a number of his companions, he boasted that his wife would do anything he wished; she was as submissive as a lamb. "Now," he said, "she has gone to bed hours ago, but if I take you all to my house at once, she will get up and entertain you and make no com­plaint." The matter ended in a bet, and away they went.

In a few minutes she was up and remarked that she was glad that she had two chickens ready, and if they would wait she would soon have a supper spread for them. The table was spread, and she took her place at it, acting the part of hostess with cheerfulness. One of the company exclaimed, "Madam, I am at a loss to under-stand how it is you receive us so cheerfully, for being a religious person you cannot approve of our conduct."

Her reply was, "I and my husband were both formerly un­converted, but by the grace of God I am now a believer in the Lord Jesus. I have daily prayed for my husband and done all I can to bring him to a better mind. But as I see no change in him, I fear he will be lost forever. And I have made up my mind to make him as happy as I can while he is here."

They went away, and her hus­band said, "Do you really think I shall be unhappy forever?"

AS THEY (closely & intently) OBSERVE: epopteusantes (AAPMPN): (1Pet 3:16; 1:15; 2:12; Php 1:27; 3:20; 1Ti 4:12; 2Pe 3:11) 

Observe