Preface

I PETER 3:1-6

Translation by Marshall H. Lewis

1Likewise, O wives, subordinate yourselves to your own husbands so that if any are disobeying the Word, they may be gained without a word through the conduct of the wives, 2having viewed your pure conduct in fear.

3Yours must not be the outer adornment of braided hair and of putting around gold or of putting on garments, 4but the inner part of the human heart, in the imperishability of the gentle and tranquil spirit which is precious before God.

5For once the upright women hoping on God also adorned themselves, subordinating themselves to their own husbands 6as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, of whom you became children, doing good and fearing no terror.

THE PETRINE HAUSTAFEL:

A CONTEMPORARY INTERPRETATION

I Peter 3:1-6 is part of the local tradition which is sometimes in tension with the non-local, or great tradition. The local traditions include "two way" theology, as commented upon by Snyder, Kraft and Seitz, early Christian catechisms, as discussed by Selwyn and Carrington, and the motif of the suffering righteous, as commented upon by Crosson. Local traditions also include the Haustafeln, of which the present text is an example. Types of local traditions are not necessarily exclusive; I Peter includes a Haustafel and an early Christian catechism, most probably used during a baptismal sermon. Elements of two-way theology may also be present. Haustafeln may be divided into church order regulations (I Timothy 2:8-15; 6:1-2 and Titus 2:1-10 as well as I Clement 1:3; 21:6-9 among others), a type of wisdom found in Didache 4:9-11 and Barnabbas 19:5-7, and station codes proper. The earliest and best examples of Christian station codes are found in Ephesians 5:21-6:9, Colossians 3:18-4:1 and I Peter 2:13-3:12. These early Christian station codes typically mention three station pairs: masters and slaves, husbands and wives, parents and children, with the instruction that the latter are to submit to the former. The Haustafel of I Peter mentions only slaves, wives and husbands.

It is tempting in modern theology, with its eye on the grand tradition, to assume that the local tradition has little or nothing meaningful to say to contemporary Christians. It may even be thought an embarrassment that such local thought is part of the Christian canon, placed side by side with surprisingly progressive statements such as "in Christ there is no male or female" found in Galatians 3:28. It is certainly true that we are far removed from the local situation that I Peter was written to address. It may, nevertheless, be instructive to interpret local theology in light of its particular Sitz im Leben. This is supported by increased understanding of these codes since the mid-1970's. D.L. Balch in his monograph, Let Wives Be Submissive, presents a thorough review of the I Peter Haustafel with special emphasis on 3:1-6. He, along with D. Lührmann and K. Thraede, independently rejected earlier hypotheses concerning the origin and function of the Haustafeln. It was not his purpose, however, to attempt a contemporary application as I will endeavor to do. I will begin with some observations concerning my translation of the text, proceed to discuss the sources and functions of the Haustafeln and conclude by applying the text to the contemporary problem of religiously mixed marriages in a way that is consistent with both the text and the grand tradition.

The most recent position is that the Haustafeln derive from Hellenistic discussion "concerning household management" which has its roots in Plato and Aristotle as developed by the Peripatetic and Neo-Pythagorean schools. This hypothesis is developed extensively by Balch. In his monograph, Balch explains that Aristotle used the same three pairs common to the New Testament: masters and slaves, husbands and wives, fathers and children. Aristotle was also interested in authority and submission with respect to these three stations. While this has been known, there has been reluctance to accept this as a source for the Christian Haustafeln on the basis of the limited circulation attained by Aristotle's ideas until the late first century C.E. However, Balch demonstrates that Aristotle was used by Peripatetics, Neo-Pythagoreans and eclectic Stoics with the result that his outline was current and common at the time of I Peter. Furthermore, Dio Chysostom, with a more direct link to Plato, used the Platonic concepts in Bithynia near the likely time of the composition of I Peter. Thus, this Platonic-Aristotelian format is a good candidate as a source for the Haustafeln in general and I Peter in particular.

Rich debate has also taken place concerning the function of the Haustafeln. Dibelius believes that the purpose was parenetic, required when hope for the parousia began to fade. However, Balch points out that this hope has not faded in I Peter, citing 1:6, 13, 17 and 4:5, 7, 13. Crouch discusses the legalistic trends of Deutero-Paul and believes the Haustafeln were written to deal with social unrest resulting from church teachings on the equality of believers. Balch replies, however, that the unrest addressed by the author of I Peter was coming not from within the church, but from slanders outside the church. Unlike I Corinthians, there is no indication in I Peter that wives are attempting to modify their social role. Elliot suggests that the purpose in I Peter is to form a sense of missionary solidarity against the rest of a hostile world which must be converted. Balch notes that second century apologetic was done with missionary intent, but suggests that in I Peter such intent, if present, was limited to the husbands. He points out that the exhortation to slaves was unlikely to have missionary purpose and that Jewish apologetic, similar in form, lacked missionary intent. Finally, Balch concludes that I Peter's code was in response to the charge that Christianity undermined the stability of the Roman household and society.

Balch does this, first of all, by examining criticisms of foreign religions then current. Four religions in particular caused suspicion among the Romans: the cult of Dionysus (Bacchus), the cult of Isis, Judaism and Christianity. Nightly rituals of the Bacchus cult, which included both men and women, were seen as an offense to Roman decency and its followers, especially women, were seen as immoral. Early speculations that this cult incited disobedience among slaves is disputed. The Isis cult was seen as advocating too much autonomy for women, with the fear that it would reverse the "natural" relationship of men ruling women. It also had become involved in the power struggle between Octavian and Antony. Judaism and Christianity, guilty by association with the East, broke tradition by not allowing their adherents to worship the Roman gods. This was most obvious in the cases of Jewish and Christian wives not worshipping the gods of their husbands and Jewish and Christian slaves not worshipping the gods of their masters. Both religions were open to the charge of disturbing the household. When one considers the Platonic notion that the stability of the state depended upon the stability of the house, then the Roman concern over this potential threat becomes understandable.

The notion of wives not worshipping the gods of their husbands was particularly disturbing to the Roman conscience. Thus, Balch argues, just as Josephus and other Hellenistic Jews had written apologies for Judaism, so is the author of I Peter advancing an apology for Christianity. The basic thrust is that Christian women are not immoral (as the followers of Bacchus) and do not upset the basic household structure (as the followers of Isis). On the contrary, they submit to their husbands -- and the traditional expectations of Roman society. Consequently, they are no threat to the stability of the empire and local authorities have no reason to suspect or harass them. This appeal to tradition is very similar to that used by the Jerusalem Christians, who stated in their dialogue with the non-Christian Jews that they were keeping the Torah and the "customs."

There are, however, significant differences between the Christian Haustafeln and those of the Platonic-Aristotelian tradition. Verner (1983) outlined a schema that is uniquely Christian: (a) an address, (b) an imperative mood (which may be expressed by a participle, as in I Peter), (c) an amplification, and (d) a motivating reason to obey. Most notably, the Christian versions were directed to slaves and wives; the Greco-Roman versions were addressed only to the men in power. The underlying assumption is, perhaps, that slaves and women are responsible before God for their own behavior and should not challenge the cultural norms for the sake of Christianity's reputation. Further, women are not taught to fear their husbands in I Peter. This is clear in verse 2 where the conduct of the wife is pure in fear (of God). If this is ambiguous, the author makes it clear in verse 6 that upright women "fear no terror" (of their husbands). Therefore, while indeed the woman was not to break certain cultural norms, it is clear that her primary allegiance must be to God. She must break the cultural norm of worshipping her husband's gods even in the face of her husband's "slander" of her new religion. This was no small matter; Justin Martyr reports one example of a pagan husband who denounced his Christian wife to the authorities.

Unlike Schweizer's view that these codes represent the paganization of Christianity, it is clear that the author of I Peter did not just copy the contemporary ethic, but rather modified it for the current circumstances of his community in reference to some other standard. Other solutions would have been possible. If I Peter had blindly accepted the cultural norm, he might have suggested that wives are to fear their husbands and go ahead and worship the gods of their husbands to keep peace in the household. Roman culture would have been much more satisfied with this and the church, too, could have found biblical support for it in the Old Testament story of Naaman. Here, the prophet Elisha allows Naaman to enter and kneel in the temple of the pagan god Rimmon so that he could provide physical support for his king (II Kings 5:18-19). The church could also have adapted Paul's teaching about meat sacrificed to idols: since idols are not real gods, no harm is done if a wife obeys her husband by worshipping them. This was a real possibility, given I Peter's dependence upon Pauline theology. Therefore, it seems clear that if the Platonic-Aristotelian tradition is represented by a beam of light, then what we have in I Peter is not a reflection of that light, but a refraction of it. What, then, did I Peter use for a prism? I suggest that his prism was the love ethic: love of God and love of neighbor. Love of God is expressed by exclusively "fearing" God and not worshipping other gods; love of neighbor is expressed by submitting to cultural expectations, thus reassuring pagan neighbors that Christians posed no threat to social stability. Although there is danger in imposing this interpretation on the text, it does seem to make sense of the differences between Aristotle and I Peter. The unique message of I Peter is not to submit in religious matters. The corollary, based upon the Golden Rule, is not to try to actively convert the husband because the Christian wife would not welcome the husband trying to convert her.

Bibliography

Balch, D.L., "Household Codes" in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Volume 3. New York: Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1992.

_________ Let Wives Be Submissive: The Domestic Code in I Peter. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981.

Dawood, N.J. (translator), The Koran. New York: Viking Penguin, Inc., 1956, 1974.

Dunn, J.D.G., Unity and Diversity in the New Testament. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1977.

Finday, J.A., A Portrait of Peter. New York: The Abingdon Press, 1935.

Fitzgerald, J., "Haustafeln" in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Volume 3. New York: Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1992.

Glassé, C., The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam. San Francisco: Harper Collins Publishers, 1989.

Hunter, A.M. and Homrighausen, E.G., "The First Epistle of Peter" in The Interpreter's Bible. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1957.

Metzger, B.M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd Edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994.

"Mixed Marriages" in Encyclopaedia Judaica, Volume 12., Jerusalem: Kefer Publishing House, 1972, 1974.

Reicke, B., "The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude" in The Anchor Bible. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1964.

Schroeder, D., "Lists, ethical" in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1976.

United States Catholic Conference., Catechism of the Catholic Church (English translation for the United States). Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist Press, 1994.

Greek Text, Grammars and Reference Consulted

Efird, J.M., A Grammar for New Testament Greek. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1990.

The Greek New Testament, Third Edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1975.

Jay, E.G., New Testament Greek. Cambridge: SPCK, 1958, 1978.

The Joint Association of Classical Teachers, Reading Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978, 1980.

Thayer, J.H., The New Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon. Peabody, Mass., Hendrickson Publishers, 1979, 1981.