Conversations at Midnight: #6 Peter's Thoughts on Quiet Wives and Fashion Highs

Where did the idea originate that women should be quiet and submissive? Many point to a few lines penned by the best-known of Jesus' disciples, Peter, known as The Rock. Which is ironic. Peter was anything but quiet.

This was the fisherman who spoke and then thought. While others hesitated, Peter jumped in. Sometimes he was on the mark. Sometimes he was a sinking ship. Either way, he lived his life out loud, which made him a natural spokesperson. So why did the most vocal apostle hush women into silence?

Like many puzzles in Scripture, the answer may not be what we expect. Peter was writing to a highly structured, deeply patriarchal world. Understanding that changes everything.

A House Church at Night

Somewhere in Rome, a crowded house-church comes to attention. Light from oil lamps flickers across the walls, and the smell of warm bread, figs, and olive oil permeates the courtyard.

Handfuls of believers continue to enter. Some are slaves who slipped away after their tasks were completed; others are merchants after a long day of trade; members of the royal guard stand at ease; even members of Caesar's household have found a spot on a couch or bench. The excitement is palpable. A letter has arrived. It is Peter’s letter! The man for whom crowds would position their sick so that at least his shadow would fall on them. Just as with the Lord Jesus, everyone they brought went home healed!

A voice reads, and the room stills. Women joyfully embrace the message that not only offers forgiveness but recognizes them as co-heirs and co-equals. Many of these have husbands who do not believe. When Peter’s words reach their ears, what will they hear, and what will it mean for them?

Likewise, Wives…

She walks into the meeting at that moment. What came before the likewise, she asks? Two millennia later, we need to ask the same question: What’s the backstory?

Peter acknowledged that life has been different since responding to God’s message. Life is sacred, and we are called to do good, whatever circumstances we find ourselves in. This brings glory to Jesus and aids in spreading his message.

It's not always easy to do good, especially when doing good flies in the face of the surrounding culture. Peter described God as the Father who judges impartially, an important concept as an unjust authority had imprisoned many of them, including the author. This ruler would order the Apostles Peter and Paul to be executed.

Nero had heaped blame upon Christians for the burning of Rome, and as a result, the general populace ostracized them as nuisances or common criminals. Persecution had also broken out in other cities, though it was not yet widespread. To these downtrodden believers, Peter imparted hope and a new identity. The rejected were called chosen; the exiled, a holy nation; the persecuted, God's treasure; the maligned, a royal priesthood; all were living stones being built into a spiritual temple. 

Chapter 2, verse 17, summarizes the general exhortation for Christians to spend their lives doing good: Honour everyone, love the brothers and sisters. Fear God. Honour the emperor. Peter now applies these instructions to specific relationships within the home.

The Key Concept

To fear God means to recognize that His power is greater than the rulers and the world system. The title, Father, encourages us that although God is the Chief Justice of the Highest Court, we can appeal to Him anytime, knowing that we will get not only a just decision, but the best decision. It is Him we need to seek approval from, not the broken world around us.

Postcolonial interpreters believe Peter penned these instructions to prevent believers from going to jail. Given the context, I believe Peter was not only unafraid to suffer, but was preparing the Christians to be brave. He wanted them to act as salt, purifying any system or relationship they were sprinkled into.

Peter then takes the well-known Roman and Greek Household Order of Conducts and flips them on their heads, not addressing the paterfamilias first (head of the family, usually the oldest male or father) as would have been custom, but the slave. He’s hammering the point: the kingdom of God reserves the seat of highest honour for those who humble themselves the lowest, serving like Jesus when he washed the feet of his disciples. This flew in direct opposition to writers like Aristotle in Politics, who addressed members of the household in this order: husbands first, then wives; fathers and children; masters and slaves. The one possessing greater authority always received the first address. The paterfamilias exercised ultimate authority over the entire household.

Be Subject To Your Own Husbands...

These words sound heavy, oppressive. But how were they heard by the original hearers?

Peter is not describing a military, political, or economic relationship, but a familial one. Personal relationships should never involve coercion. When Peter used the Greek word, hupotasso, which is often translated be subject to, was he asking the women to be obedient to her husband's every whim? Or could he have looked one hundred years into the future when the Desert Mothers of the faith would become so disgusted with their culture that they would abandon hearth and home, disconnecting from their communities to live alone while slaves raised their children and tended their husbands?

As we read through Scripture, we see the Lord honouring the roles of wife and mother, exempting them from requirements that would have caused unnecessary hardship for them or their children. (See Isaiah 40:11.. and will gently lead those that are with young.) To me, this suggests ancient women's roles were integral, as important as men's, though different. We will explore this concept more fully when we dive into the Old Testament. In calling women into alignment, he underlined their value as people and acknowledged their important role in the family and in the spreading of the Gospel.

As discussed in conversation #5, hupotasso in a familial relationship was about voluntarily aligning oneself with another. It carried a continual posture of cooperation, listening and responding appropriately. It accepted the invitation to take one's proper seat at a table so that the meal could begin and the discussion commence.

Note that the wife is not being exhorted to align with the paterfamilias, but with her own husband. This syncs with the Creator's instruction in Genesis 2:24: Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. In Rome, a married son often lived with his father, remaining under his rule until the father's death. God's heart was that a husband become bonded to his wife like glue. To do this, he would need to remove himself from his father's household so that she could become his primary focus, not the demands of his parents. God, the Creator, wanted a husband and wife to form one team, learning to rule together, not to be ruled over by another. (See Genesis 1:28.)

In this new order, masters respected slaves as equals; slaves esteemed masters as brothers; wives cooperated with husbands; and husbands loved and honoured their wives.

Pastor Peter did not wish for wives to demand their newfound equality in Christ by leaving or trying to control or gain the upper hand in their marriages. He wanted a woman to be active in her marriage, not as a victim and not as a manipulator, but as a messenger of God's love. This was not something the husband could demand from her; it was her choice.

Incidentally, submission was not just asked of wives. It continues the theme of honour everyone, love the brothers and sisters from 1 Peter 2:24. The author will revisit these ideas in 5:5: all of you, be subject to one another, and be clothed with humility. When each person adopts a humble posture, no one is diminished.

Winning Without Words

Peter continues:

So that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct.

Now the instructions become crisp and clear. In Rome and its provinces, a woman was supposed to worship her husband’s god/gods. To worship another deity could bring dishonour to the family name. Can you feel their tension? Peter is primarily speaking to women whose husbands have not yet accepted the gospel. Reading between the lines, it would seem that more than a few women found themselves in this predicament. Were the husbands skeptical—perhaps annoyed, maybe furious—when she refused to take part in traditional ceremonies? What happened when she no longer worshipped the emperor, burned incense to the ancestors, or bowed down to other gods in their home?

The temptation for her would be: explain; debate; convince. Peter suggested a different path. He imagined the heart of a husband whose argumentative wife now cooperates; who went from disengaged to engaged; uninterested to interested; controlling to supportive; disrespectful to respectful. Her transformation would speak louder than any sermon the apostle could preach or argument she might nag him with. The result would be a husband deeply touched, won over without words.

The Fashion Question

Now Peter turns to something unexpected—high fashion.

Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry or the clothing you wear...

For a pastor concerned with the integrity of the Gospel message, banning clothes made no sense! Why did Peter care what hairstyles the women donned, or how much gold they displayed?

The answer lies in the culture. In the Roman world, one’s fashion announced one’s social status. Hairstyles took hours to construct and sometimes rose like small towers, foreshadowing the beehives of the 1970s, but more elaborate.

An aristocratic woman's attention to beauty stretched far beyond an hour's trip to the hair salon. There is a fun and fascinating read on Ancient Hairstyles in Rome around the reign of Caesar Augustus at: https://unpodipepe.ca/2017/01/31/hairstyling-ancient-roma/. Slaves known as ornatrices would braid, twirl, curl, and twist the hair of the mistress with ancient instruments resembling our curling and flat irons, but heated from ashes or over an open fire. Bone needles and wool thread were used to stitch up braids and buns. Painted bone, hairpins bedecked with jewels, and even hairnets of finely woven gold wire were used to hold the styles. There were even hair extensions for ladies with thinning hair. They spared no expense.

The colouring of hair is not a modern invention, as the ancients experimented with all kinds of dyes from herbs, including ones we commonly use: lemons, turmeric, saffron, and chamomile, to name a few. Baking soda was another ingredient they experimented with. Perhaps less healthy was the application of pigeon poop to help erase greys! To achieve auburn locks, they mixed animal fat with wood ashes and henna from Egypt. Pliny the Elder described applying leeches that had rotted in vinegar and red wine for 40 days to turn hair black, while a paste of crushed earthworms at night helped keep silver at bay.

Jewelry Signals Status

Rings, necklaces, and bracelets were not only decorative. The richer the woman, the more costly and visible the display. Women piled on jewellery as fashion insurance, ensuring they would never be mistaken for members of a lower class. For the nobility, a single or double strand of pearls, in the shape of a collar trimmed with stones, with a pearl border, was popular. It was fashionable to wear sixteen rings, two for each finger, excluding the middle one. Roman women placed as much jewelry on their bodies as they had space for, and this excessive demand was a source of many men's complaints. Like today, the rich wore more intricate and expensive designs, while the less wealthy or enslaved modelled simpler materials and designs.

This dress to flaunt one’s status and avoid being mistaken for a class lower than one’s own was what Peter wanted to correct. The Gospel was the great equalizer, and its followers needed to reflect that, even in the way they dressed themselves. 

This reminds me of a rather jolting event that happened at one of the more expensive hotels in Las Vegas. My late sister-in-law walked in, thinking to kill some time by window shopping. A hostess met her at the door and, after looking her up and down, suggested she should take her business elsewhere as she did not appear to be in the right place. My sister-in-law though dressed casually, was not sloppy. However, her lack of name-brand clothing signalled to the hostess that she did not belong.

If news of this event had reached Peter's ears, I believe he would have applauded Sandy but had words with the hostess. He did not want the flock under his care to intimidate others, or to be intimidated. The Kingdom of God was to be presented as accessible to anyone who would put their faith in Jesus. Fear and intimidation were not a good look for Christian women.

As a side note, many purity movements use this passage to instruct women to cover up. Peter seems to be concerned about a different type of seduction, rooted in pride and greed rather than in a lust for sex. Roman wives were expected to dress in a way that signaled their unavailability, but this does not seem to be what Peter was emphasizing in this passage. For that discussion, it may be better to refer to the Apostle Paul's section of the Bible on head coverings. Stay tuned for that!

Peter was not the only one concerned with leveling the playing field. Paul and the Lord's brother James also addressed social justice issues. In both instances, rich believers were flaunting their wealth and status by pushing themselves to the front of the line during their feasts, gorging themselves at the expense of the hungry. They were observing Communion unworthily, for they were thinking only of themselves, unlike Jesus, who rather than exalt himself, lowered himself for others.

Pause and reflect: If our mentor, Peter, gave a TED Talk today, what might he say to women today regarding beauty and status?

The Beauty That Lasts

Peter shifts the focus:

Let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious.

Does God prefer quiet personalities? The Greek word translated gentle describes strength that is under control. We call it meekness. It is power used wisely and was used to describe a warhorse.

The word translated quiet often means peaceful, settled in place, tranquil or secure. Picture a clear mountain lake. In this context, quiet is not about volume control!

Peter praises the wife who is confident and settled in her seat or placement as an assignment from the Lord. She is not fighting to be on top. Neither is she cowering at the bottom. Like Jesus, her end goal is to bring the Good News to her family and community, bringing pleasure to God's heart.

Think of two people rowing a canoe; they both take their seats and row together without sudden movements lest they capsize. They adjust to one another's pace and directions to achieve forward movement.

Peter suggests the best way to communicate with her husband is to cooperate; be involved; don't argue; let him see the change in you. Tranquility and confidence in a woman are beautiful and will attract a husband like bees to nectar. This beauty won't dim as it is imperishable and unfading. More effective than a vat of Oil of Olay, it will follow you into eternity, increasing in value as you age.

The women of Rome seemed to struggle with the same issues the beauty industry hands us today. The culture demanded that women conceal their age and prize youthfulness. This is not the focus of a follower of Jesus. The word for precious, polytelēs, refers to something that is very costly, luxurious or rare, of great value and highly esteemed. Instead of using this word to describe her outward apparel, the writer applied the word almost poetically to a woman's heart.

Sarah and the Holy Women

For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands...

Who were these holy women? Rebekah, Ruth, Deborah, and Hannah come immediately to mind. They were a group of women who stepped into their futures with faith, imperfect but devoted, choosing trust over fear. How many others can you name?

as Sarah obeyed Abraham...

The word here is not hupotassen, but hypēkousen, which means to hear and respond.

Calling him, lord...

Peter points to the Jewish matriarch, Sarah, as a specific example of a woman who kept her peace through all kinds of storms. He notes how she addressed Abraham, calling him lord. To modern ears, that sounds strange. Repressive even. In ancient speech, it was a polite form of address—something akin to saying sir to a man, or ma'am to a woman.

We see similar language when Rebekah speaks to Abraham’s servant in Genesis:

Drink, my lord. She is not calling him God. Or saying he owns her. She is addressing him politely. Peter’s point is not about titles; it is about attitude.

Courage Without Fear

Peter adds something important:

And you are her children if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.

This is an overarching theme throughout the whole letter. Peter’s instructions to women were another application of the theme of doing good. But what if doing good caused trouble for her? Could her fear of God hold her steady in the face of an angry or belligerent husband?

If she stopped burning incense to the emperor in favour of worshipping Jesus, or abandoned other household rituals, what might the consequences be? Peter was not asking her to hide her faith; quite the contrary, he was asking her to model it before her family, even when it grew uncomfortable. Granted, Peter gave her advice on how to do this in the way most likely to win her husband's heart. But there were no guarantees that his first response might be an angry one.

God never designed women to be cowed by fear. We think of submissive women as quiet, living as doormats with their heads in the sand.

Sarah was not such a woman. Sarah was very brave. If you read her story in Genesis, you’ll discover that God stepped in to protect her many times—even when her husband failed her. Twice other men took her into their harems. First she had to deal with the king of Egypt and then the king of Gerar. She also had to deal with hubby Abraham's refusal to protect her over himself. See an earlier blog post for more on her story.

Sarah could have become bitter. Most of us would have. But even though her husband abandoned her, she did not abandon herself. She remained the woman of honour, confident of her place in God’s design.

What would you have called her husband? Without Peter's encouragement, I would not have addressed him as sir or my lord. I might have called him a jerk and other unmentionables. 

Sarah stayed true to her noble character because she revered God more than she feared the men who apprehended her. She believed God, who made a covenant to make her a mother and give her a son, to protect her. God did not break that covenant. He ran to her rescue again and again, leaving her unscathed, fulfilling his promise.

Peter invites these women with unbelieving husbands to live with that same courage. Knowing God would have the last word, no matter what current consequences they might face for following Jesus. As God was Sarah's defender, so would he defend these precious new believers. He would not abandon them! In fact, God would include them in the designation of the holy women of old, like a member of an elite club! For a woman who may experience misunderstanding and isolation for following Jesus, this would be of great comfort.

Wrapping Up A Few Last Words

In the very next section, he will encourage all believers who may suffer as followers of Christ. He will assure them that though they partake in Christ's sufferings, they will take part in his joy even more as he is revealed. For this reason, they are not to keep silent when asked about the Gospel, but are to be ready with an answer!

Unfortunately, people have quoted this scripture to persuade women to stay in abusive marriages. Remember that submission in relationships is about a voluntary posture of listening, responding, aligning, cooperating with, taking part in, and supporting. Abuse is coercive, a forced subjugation of another person's will. It makes a person a slave to another in the worst possible way. Abuse is sin. Believers are not to cooperate with, align with, take part in, or support sin, be it idol worship, pornography, tax evasion, or violence. As stated previously, Peter encouraged women to be active participants in their marriages, not victims or slaves.

At the risk of being redundant, let me say it again: There is no hint of coercion in the application of hupotasso when applied to a personal relationship. We will revisit the topic of domestic abuse and slavery in more detail when we study the writings of Paul and Moses. Remember that in a very patriarchal world, Peter was calling women up and bringing them forward, not pushing them back down. He encouraged them to be brave, confident, alert, responsive, wise, and unintimidated.

But wait, Peter has more to say. In this new Household Order of Conduct, he finally gets around to the husbands, placing them after the slaves and the wives, in keeping with what Jesus said: the first shall be last and the last shall be first.

We started this conversation with some questions: Where did the idea originate that women should be quiet and submissive; and why did the most vocal apostle hush women into silence? I hope it's clear that Peter got a bad rap. The problem was never with Peter;rather;, it was with words difficult to translate. Stay tuned for the next conversation where we will explore even more jaw-dropping content.