Weeks ago I wrote part one of this series, exploringthe question of whether the apostle Peter was a misogynist.Here's the second and final installment: 

In the apostle Peter’s first epistlehe writes some words that can trip up the twenty-first-century reader. Both hisinstruction to wives and to husbands can make us say, “Whoa! What?” Aftertelling wives to have gentle, quiet spirits, Peter adds an example: “Sarahobeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you dowhat is right without being frightened by any fear (1 Pet. 3:1–6). He goes on to tell the husbandsto live with their wives “according to knowledge” because—and here’s thekicker—she is the “weaker vessel” (v. 7).

Are today’s wives to call theirhusbands “master”? Are women “less” than men? Is that what the Bible teaches?

No way.

First, by describing the godly womanas having a “gentle, quiet spirit,” Peter was not saying extroverted womentrump introverted women. Nor was he saying that women with gifts of teachingand exhortation go against their feminine nature in exercising these gifts. A“spirit” here is not a personality type; it’s an attitude. So having a gentle,quiet spirit is an equal-opportunity option. Every woman has the opportunity todemonstrate a rock solid trust in God.

As for “calling him lord,” noticethat in writing of Sarah and Abraham, Peter does not issue a command for wivesto call their husbands, “lord” or “master”  likeBarbara Eden’s character in the old sit-com “I Dream of Jeannie.”  Ifanything, doing so today would repel people from the faith. Even men. A studyof 50,000 married couples has revealed that both husband and wife are morehappy when both of them feel the freedom to speak up. In situations where onlythe husband isdominant, both husband and wife express less satisfaction.

The whole point of Peter’sinstruction was to  win them (3:1).  So he is not sayingwomen should shut up and be slaves to their husbands, or say “yes, master” tothem—which in this day would repel rather than draw. Rather, he’s using Sarah’swise behavior to illustrate his point about being respectful. In extracanonicalJewish writings roughly contemporary with Peter’s letter, Sarah frequentlyaddressed Abraham as “lord.” And such speech revealed an honoring heart.

As for what it means to be a “weakervessel,” Paul uses the word "vessel" elsewhere to refer to thephysical body. Nevertheless, one commentator, who explains verse 7 erroneously,expresses what many fear this verse means: The implication of the fall is thatby virtue of her being deceived by Satan, a woman is more easilydeceived. 

When I read such statements, I thinkof an experiment that researchers Dr. Russell Clark and Dr. Elaine Hatfieldconducted at Florida State University in 1978 and 1982. Psychology studentshelped these experts conduct research in which a person of average attractivenesswould approach someone of the opposite sex on campus and proposition him orher. The results: seventy-five percent of guys said yes, and if they said no,they usually offered a reason such as, “I’m married.” But not one single womanaccepted the offer of a male. In fact, most told the guy in no uncertain termsto get lost.  A multitude of theories have been put forth to explain thesemen’s and women’s choices, but it certainly seems to contradict the theory thatwomen are more easily deceived than men—especially because the word “deceived,”as we are using it here, has connotations of being more vulnerable to  sin.

Paul makes plain in his second letterto the Corinthians that all humans, not just women, are subject to deception asEve was. Addressing the entire church, he wrote, “But I am afraid that just asthe serpentdeceived Eve by his treachery, your minds may be led astray from asincere and pure devotion to Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3). Both general and special revelation indicate that deceptionwhere temptation is concerned is not limited to women.

So what does it mean? Probably“weaker” simply means…weaker! Females on average have always had less musclemass than men. This is less apparent to those of us living in a society inwhich we never hoist bags of grain, yank on mules’ bits, or cultivate our owngardens. But everyone in Peter’s audience would have been much more consciousof this differential than we are. Add to this the fact that childbirth was thenumber one cause of death for wives. Peter’s audience would have been quiteaware of females’ physical strength relative to men’s.

In addition to physical weakness, andthe risk of exploitation that accompanies it, women also had less social power.Note that Peter reminded husbands that their wives were their spiritual  equals.Those who read in Peter’s “weaker vessel” description a reference to women as“lesser” see the opposite of his meaning here. Peter is elevating women. In hisless-often-quoted but essential conclusion, he tells husbands to “show them (wives)honor as fellow heirs of the grace of life. In this way nothing will hinderyour prayers.” The instruction to the husbands is to view their beloveds not asdeficient creatures, but as a co-heirs.

That “heir” language, focused as itis on inheritance, would have sounded radical to those in a world that limitedwomen’s ability to inherit and own property. In Christ, not only is the wifegranted an equal inheritance with her husband, but his treatment of herinfluences how their impartial judge hears his prayers.

Peter’s picture, when lived out,then, is of a family structure in which the man and woman grant each otherhonor and respect. She respects him, he honors her: two sides of the same coin.And their interaction foreshadows a future they will share as joint-heirs,equals, when Christ reigns on earth. 

“Thy kingdom come, thy will be done….”