Conversations at Midnight #5: I'll Never Submit to a Man

I will never submit to a man, was the angry response of a young lady in the New Testament Survey class. I guess we'll all remain single, agreed the rest of the women. The young men shifted uncomfortably in their chairs, embarrassed. The clueless professor was stunned. What was transpiring among the young men and women on campus?

I experienced the same apprehension when faced with my wedding vows. Would I forever be at the beck and call of my husband? Sure, I adored him, but did that obligate me to surrender myself and perpetually cater to his whims?

I remember the conversation I had with God that day. Jesus, am I to be Larry’s slave? I sensed the Lord respond with one simple word: partner. Later, when it came time to meet with the minister who performed our ceremony, at his suggestion, we replaced the phrase love, honour and obey with love, honour and cherish.

Not raised in a religious home, Larry had no hang-ups with who got to be the boss; he simply wanted a best friend to share life with. Other brides have not been so fortunate. I remember reading a book by a well-known author and preacher who insisted that in all the wedding ceremonies he performed, the wife would vow to obey her husband, or he would not marry them. Another pastor insisted a wife had no happier place in life than to be in the place of submission. I wondered what type of weed he was on?

Where did these concepts originate? One need look no further than the writings of the Apostles Peter and Paul. Both authors gave similar instructions, using similar wording, as if they had consulted together.

Because we are studying Peter's world, we will start with his teaching. But before we do so, let's define the terms first: obey and submit. These two paltry words have browbeaten women and excused violence against them for centuries. Did Peter intend for others to use or interpret his words that way?

The professor and author/preacher both missed important nuances in scripture. Obedience and submission in 1 Peter are not about coercion, losing one’s autonomy, or obeying a specific list of instructions. Quite the opposite, they turned the Roman idea of marriage on its head!

Let's begin by examining these two words within the wider context of their usage throughout his letter. In chapter 1:1 and 2, Peter addressed his greetings to those chosen to be obedient. The word obedient here is hypakouō, which is closely akin to the Hebrew word shama found in Deuteronomy 6:4, meaning to listen and respond, as in the NIV, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One. It combines two roots: hypo means under; akouo means hear or listen. It can mean to listen from under authority or to place oneself under what is heard. English does not have a single word that fully captures hypakouō, so translators sometimes use answer, as in the CSB version of Acts 12:13, He knocked at the door of the outer gate and a servant named Rhoda came to answer. In the NIV of Romans 10: 16, it has been translated as believed, accepted, welcomed, hearkened, heed and obeyed as in: But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. Other times they choose, obey, as seen multiple times in this epistle. In Peter’s letter, the word obey means listen and respond appropriately.

He also uses obedient, in verse 14. The CSB translates: As obedient children, do not be conformed to the desires of your former ignorance. Although this is not a bad translation choice, Professor Lionel Windsor of Moore College in Sydney, Australia, would argue that translations such as the American Standard Version may be more accurate. The ASV reads, As children of obedience. Why is this a big deal? Children of obedience reminds us of how we came to faith, by listening and responding to the message of the Gospel. Our willingness to respond birthed us into a new identity. 

In Peter 3:6 the verb form of hypakouō is used, hypēkousen which is translated as obeyed as in the The Amplified Bible: just as Sarah obeyed Abraham [following him and having regard for him...) The stronger word is used here because Sarah habitually responded to Abraham in this way.

What about submit, the word that gave the college professor and his students so much grief? In 1 Peter, the word for submit, or be subject to, is hupotasso, a masculine form the author used when speaking to the greater congregation. When addressing wives, he used a feminine form, hupotassomenai. 

Hupo, in Greek, means under; tasso means to arrange, to put into order, or set in place. The military used the word hupotasso to arrange troops under a commander. Within an organization, it referred to coming into order within the structure. People applied it differently based on the context. The form used regarding wives is hupotassomenai. This middle voice suggests active participation. However, it is not active participation in a military, political, or organizational structure. The author uses it for a familial relationship. Rather than calling a woman to obey orders or get into troop formation, it is an invitation for her to take a seat at the table of her marriage in an ongoing relational posture of cooperation. Having a seat at the table wasn't a guarantee for Roman or Greek women, who were ruled by their husbands and fathers, potentially placing them in a state of perpetual victimhood.

Imagine a dance where partners gracefully yield, avoiding foot-crushing missteps. Now think of multiple notes in a symphony, with different instruments playing different parts. This week I had the privilege of facilitating a piano festival. We had several duets and trios. The pianists' synchronized playing and careful listening produced fantastic, winning results.

Hypotassomenai within the context of marriage is about women choosing to align and cooperate with their husbands in order to support the integrity of the marriage and achieve harmony. This choice could permanently move women out of the victim's swamp.

Cooperation. Sharing seats at the table. Active participation. Harmony. Isn't this how personal relationships are supposed to work? Could Peter have been inviting wives into more than just compliance, but into a partnership?

This would have challenged first-century culture. Augustan marriage laws existed to provide legitimate heirs for the nobility and citizens for the empire. As stated previously, fathers and husbands ruled women. Only after the birth of three children could free-born women become eligible for ius trium liberorum, (the right of three children). This could grant her release from a male guardian in certain legal matters, like inheriting and owning property, managing money, and handling business on her own. Meanwhile, the enslaved women had little hope of ever getting out from under another's thumb, be it husband or master. Unless they became Christians. In that environment, they too could become partners in the Gospel as co-heirs with the other believers.

The first-century world had its own ordered roles for families, as discovered in numerous Household Orders of Conduct that were adhered to throughout Rome and its provinces. This is also part of the next conversation. For now, though, it seems safe to assume that Peter was not calling Christian women to be enslaved to the stringent Household Orders of Conduct so prevalent of the day. He was inviting them into a new model; an Order of Conduct radically different from the Roman and Greek. Peter’s instructions for listening and yielding would not be like a one-way phone conversation; it would travel in both directions.

Before we move on, may I suggest you read the letter of 1 Peter this week and substitute the word obey and obedience with attentively listening and responding appropriately and the words submit, submitting, and be subject to, with cooperate and come into alignment with. See how the letter now reads and let me know your thoughts. The intent is to preserve the original text's meaning while wrestling with words difficult to translate and interpret.

Next week, join me as we dive directly into the very controversial passage that started this discussion, found in 1 Peter 3. I'd love to hear your feedback!