Introduction
“… dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life …” 1 Peter 3:7 NKJV.
“… live with your wives in an understanding way, as with a weaker partner, showing them honor as coheirs of the grace of life … 1 Peter 3:7 CSB.
I have previously written an article about 1 Peter 3:7, the Bible verse that includes the phrase “a weaker vessel.” (See here.) Since writing this article, however, I’ve come across a few references in Greek papyri where women are called “weak” (asthenēs). In these papyri, women use the adjective for themselves hoping to elicit pity, or hoping to ingratiate themselves, while seeking justice from men. A.L. Connolly comments on several of these legal petitions and notes that appealing to a woman’s frailty (asthenēs) “had become commonplace in the rhetoric of petitions.”[1]
So what did Peter mean when he told husbands that their wives or womenfolk are a “weaker vessel”?
Social Weakness
Peter calls women “weaker vessels”[2] because he wanted men, not necessarily to pity them, but to be more understanding with them. Ancient women were, with some exceptions, disadvantaged economically, legally, and politically. They had less power and fewer rights in society than men. Peter wanted men to be considerate of the more vulnerable situation of women so that they would take care not to exploit them.
People in positions of privilege are often not fully aware of the disadvantages of those in weaker positions.
In 1 Corinthians 1:27b, Paul used the Greek word asthenēs to mean weakness in society: “God chose the weak of this world to shame the strong.” The context of social weakness is given clearly in the preceding verse, 1 Corinthians 1:26, where Paul wrote that not many of the Corinthian Christians were (1) wise according to the flesh: they did not have the wisdom that came with an advanced education; (2) not many were mighty: they did not have social clout or influence; (3) not many were well-born: they did not come from elite families with the social advantages of wealth, a name, and powerful connections.[3]
Peter may have had in mind the social disadvantages that ancient women faced when he used the words “weaker vessel.”
Physical Weakness
However, asthenēs is used many times in the New Testament to mean weak, sick and infirm. Did Peter have physical weakness in mind?[4] Interestingly, Paul, who readily admitted to his own weakness, used the word asthenēs many times to refer to physical weakness.
Paul used the comparative form of asthenēs (= “weaker“) in 1 Corinthians 12:22 where he wrote, “the members of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable.” Peter likewise uses the comparative form of asthenēs (“weaker“) in 1 Peter 3:7.
Physical weakness is not a disadvantage in the body of Christ, and it need not be a disadvantage in marriage.
“Giving Honour”
Neither Peter nor Paul use the word “weaker” to insult or diminish people. They do the opposite. Like the women seeking justice, Peter uses the word “weaker” for its rhetorical effect, and he juxtaposes the phrase “weaker vessel” with the phrase “giving honour.”
Peter used the same Greek noun (timē) that he previously did in 1 Peter 1:7 when he said that the Christians’ faithfulness is more valuable than gold and will result in “praise, glory and honour (timē) when Jesus Christ is revealed.” He also used timē in 1 Peter 2:7 when he referred to Jesus as an honoured stone even though unbelievers rejected it.
The main sense of timē is “to honour” and “hold in high regard,” but it can also mean “precious” and “valuable.” However, there is no intrinsic sense of fragility in the word. Furthermore, Peter used the related verb timaō twice in 1 Peter 2:17 where he said, “Honour everyone … honour the emperor.”
Peter wanted men to hold women in high regard.
Mutuality as Coheirs
It was not unusual to hear women being called “weak” or “weaker” in the first century.[5] On the other hand, some may have been surprised to hear Peter tell men to honour women. But Peter explains why men should honour women: because men and women are co-heirs of “God’s gift of new life” (1 Pet. 3:7 NLT).
There is nothing patronising about Peter’s words in 1 Peter 3:7. Peter wanted men to regard women with honour, to recognise women as coheirs, and not consider them or treat them as inferiors despite physical limitations or social vulnerabilities.
Being co-heirs is a strong basis for mutuality and equality in the church and in marriage.
Conclusion
I’m not bothered that Peter called wives “weaker” considering it was part of the rhetoric of petitions. Moreover, I’m delighted that he appealed to men to treat women wives with honour and with understanding, and to acknowledge them as co-heirs. It seems Peter was advocating for justice in male-female relationships including, or especially, marriage.
Footnotes
[1] “30. ‘The Weaker Sex'”, G.H.R. Horsley with A.L. Connolly, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity: A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri in 1979, Volume 4 (The Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, Macquarie University, 1987), 131–133, 132.
Postscript (July 16 2021): I recently read a letter written by a woman seeking justice when someone took her donkey without permission. She ends her letter by pointing out she is a widow. No doubt she added this information to encourage action from the recipient of her letter. Petition to Zenon from Senkhons about a Donkey, PMichZen 29 (docketed 13–21 July 256 BCE)
[2] Edwin A. Blum briefly discusses the meaning of “vessel” (skeuos). (This Greek word was probably pronounced “skevos” in the first century.)
The exact metaphorical meaning of vessel (skeuos) is disputed. In Greek usage, it is a common term for the body as the container of the soul. A Hebrew equivalent of this term was used in rabbinic teaching for “wife” or “sexual partner.” This uncertainty of interpretation applies to 1 Thessalonians 4:4 as well as to 1 Peter 3:7.
Edwin A. Blum, “1 Peter,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 12, Frank E. Gaebelein (ed) (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 238.
1 Peter 3:7 and 1 Thessalonians 4:4 both contain the word “vessel” (skeuos) and “honour” (timē). There are two ways of understanding “vessel” in 1 Thessalonians 4:4, but both involve abstaining from sexual immorality (cf. 1 Pet. 2:11):
1. Each person should “acquire their own vessel,” as in, their own marital partner (cf. 1 Cor 7:2). Christians are to treat their “vessels” with “holiness and honour.” They are not to behave like the gentile pagans, nor are they to take advantage of their brothers and sisters sexually.
2. Each person should “control their own vessel,” as in, his or her own body and its sexual urges.
The Greek verb ktaomai, used in 1 Thessalonians 4:4, can mean “acquire” or “control” depending on the context.
“Vessel” (skeuos) also occurs in 2 Corinthians 4:7. In 2 Corinthians 4:6-7, Paul uses the imagery of earthenware vessels used for storing valuables to describe himself and other ministers who; while limited by an earthly human body (cf. Gen. 3:7), they are empowered by “the light of the knowledge of God’s glory in the face of Jesus Christ.”
2 Corinthians 4:7 (as well as 1 Pet. 3:7 and 1 Thess. 4:4) is cited in definition II of skeuos in Liddel, Scott and Jones’ lexicon (LSJ), the most exhaustive lexicon of ancient Greek.
II. τὸ σκεῦος the body, as the vessel of the soul, a metaphor clearly expressed in 2 Cor. 4:7 ἔχομεν δὲ τὸν θησαυρὸν τοῦτον ἐν ὀστρακίνοις σκεύεσιν, cf. 1 Thess. 4:4; 1 Pet. 3:7. (Source: Perseus)
The same Greek word skeuos occurs in still more verses in the New Testament where it refers to people.
~ It is used in Acts 9:15 where the Lord says that Paul is his chosen vessel.
~ It is used metaphorically in 2 Timothy 2:20-21 where it speaks positively about people as honourable and sanctified vessels.
~ In one of the hardest passages in Paul’s letters, the word is used three times when speaking metaphorically about people as vessels destined for wrath and destruction and for mercy and glory (Rom. 9:20-24).
While skeuos can refer to a vessel, a utensil, and various other inanimate objects, Burton Scott Easton notes that “the word ‘vessel’ has passed into Christian theology as signifying simply a human being.” (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)
[3] These socially disadvantaged Corinthians were the ones who God selected. He used them to shame the wise, the powerful (ischyros), and the ones “belonging” to society. Read 1 Corinthians 1:18–30. It’s a remarkable passage of scripture.
Paul uses “weak” again in 1 Corinthians 9:22f where he says he became weak, that is, he identified with the weak, in order to win them over for the gospel. Like Paul, the author of 1 Clement used the word “weak” (asthenēs) for socially vulnerable people and “strong” (ischyros) for socially advantaged people (1 Clement 38:2).
[4] The entry on asthenēs in the LSJ Greek-English Lexicon is here. It gives the primary meanings as “without strength” and “weak,” and it lists other kinds of weaknesses, not just physical or bodily weakness.
[5] Note that Peter does not say that women are “weak.” Rather, his meaning is that wives are “weak-er” than their husbands.
© Margaret Mowczko 2015
All Rights Reserved
You can support my work for as little as $3 USD a month at Patreon.
Become a Patron!
Postscript: January 18, 2022
The Grammar of 1 Peter 3:7: Are men the weaker vessel?
Twice in the past month, I’ve heard someone suggest that Peter was really saying the men, not women, are the weaker vessel. However, this is a grammatical impossibility in the Greek of 1 Peter 3:7. Let me explain.
The Greek words for “the men/ husbands” (οἱ ἄνδρες) are vocative masculine plural (or perhaps nominative masculine plural). “The men” are the subject of the sentence, and any articles, pronouns, adjectives or participles belonging to or describing “the men/ husbands” would need to grammatically “agree” and be nominative masculine plural. Thus we have the nominative masculine plural participles for “living together” (συνοικοῦντες) and “bestowing [honour]” (ἀπονέμοντες).
If Peter had wanted to say that the men were like, or as, (ὡς) weaker vessels, he would have used nominative masculine plural words for “weaker vessel.” But he didn’t.
The Greek words in the phrase “to/ with a weaker vessel” (ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει) are dative neuter singular.[1] The words for “to/ with the womenfolk” (τῷ γυναικείῳ) are also dative neuter singular.[2] These singular neuter dative words grammatically “agree” and indicate that “as to/ with a weaker vessel” and “to/ with the womenfolk” refer to the same group of people.
The law of grammatical agreement is basic grammar and is typically learnt in the first few weeks of learning Greek. The “agreement” in 1 Peter 3:7 is reasonably straightforward. “As with a weaker vessel” (ὡς ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει: dative neuter singular) cannot describe “the men” (οἱ ἄνδρες: vocative masculine plural) in an equative sense.
One thing that is unclear is where to place “to/ with the womenfolk” in translations of the sentence.
Some English translations connect weaker vessel with men being considerate of women.
“live with your wives in an understanding way, as with a weaker partner” CSB
“treat your wives with consideration as the weaker partners” NET
Others connect weaker vessel with men giving honour to women.
“giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel” NKJV
“treat them with respect as the weaker partner” NIV
Still others connect weaker vessel with women being coheirs with men.
“though the weaker vessel, they are joint heirs of the gracious gift of life” NRSV
“She may be weaker than you are, but she is your equal partner in God’s gift of new life.” NLT
I prefer the approach of the CSB and NET.
Considering the continuing theme of submission (which I’ve written about here), 1 Peter 3:7 might be translated or paraphrased as: “The men, likewise [being submissive], live together with your womenfolk recognising they are like a weaker vessel, giving honour to them as also co-heirs[3] of the gracious gift of life …”
I could say more, but I’ve tried to keep this explanation as brief and as comprehensible as possible.
Notes to Postscript
[1] Neuter nouns and substantives can function as collective nouns, which is the case in 1 Peter 3:7. Dative nouns, etc, have a sense that is usually expressed in English with words such as “to,” “for,” “in,” “with,” etc.
[2] The usual Greek noun for “woman, wife” is not used in 1 Peter 3:7. I have chosen to translate the adjective (that occurs only here in the New Testament) as a substantive, as “womenfolk.” However, the phrase ὡς ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει τῷ γυναικείῳ may mean “to/ with a weaker vessel in respect to the female condition/ situation.”
[3] The dative plural word συνκληρονόμοις (“joint-heirs, co-participants”) has the same form whether masculine, feminine, or neuter.
Image credit
Woman and man riding on a bike, photographed by Nubia Navarro. Image via Pexels #386024
Explore more
Submission and Respect from Wives in 1 Peter 3:1–6
Submission and Respect from Husbands in 1 Peter 3:7–8
All my articles on 1 Peter 3:1–7 are here.
Fear or Respect in Christian Marriage?
Equality and Unity in Ministry in 1 Corinthians 12
Are Men Physically Superior to Women?
Protecting the Weaker Sex
14 thoughts on “What does “weaker vessel” mean in 1 Peter 3:7?”
A good argument can be made that Peter’s reference to honoring the wives is financial in nature, ordering Christian men to share the household finances and give the wife rule over “the Housekeeping,” which was a custom that extended form the early church through the 20th century. His reminder that she is the weaker vessel is actually a way of calling her “hobbled,” that is, in that society, though she is a co-heir, she has been made helpless financially (something not true across the board in the ancient world). In rural formerly Greek cultures, wives were servants who ate in the kitchen with the children while the man of the house dined in the front room with any guests. The man ran the cupboard and often procured the best for himself. Peter may very well have been ending that practice, admonishing Christian men to take up the Aristotelian and Jewish practice of entrusting the Housekeeping funds to the wife and running the home as a joint venture (co-heirs in Jesus Christ).
Peter’s references are financial in nature, including the concept of “honoring,” which at that time was often used in the sense of “compensation” for a role a person held or a meritorious service they had provided. But also, the reference to beign co-heirs is financial in nature, and even the word for “weaker vessel,” that she has been “hobbled” could be used in a commercial sense: ie, she is unable to provide for herself, unable to earn a living.
Peter had no concept of “Gender justice” and the idea of a man “submitting” to his wife would have struck him as unlikely, even in situations where a man did what his wife wanted him to do. Peter’s view of leadership in the household doesn’t even equate to ours. He would have viewed the masculine role as being bound up in the happiness of the wife and her happy condition. But he would have viewed that as a necessity of good patriarchy, not as gender equality. You can’t just shoehorn a 21st century concept onto the ancient world.
Our concept of patriarchy is NOT the concept of patriarchy in the ancient world, where the man of the house was expected to know the needs of every member of the household and weave the household together into a harmonious and happy unity. The macho, authoritarian masculinity currently embraced by right wing Christianity today would be just as foreign and repulsive to Peter as it is to normal people today, but he still wouldn’t comprehend “Gender Justice” or “Gender Equality.”
Thanks for leaving this comment, Jeri.
The first century Greco-Roman world is so foreign to modern westerners. I completely agree that “You can’t just shoehorn a 21st century concept onto the ancient world.”
“Gender Justice” is a phrase I rarely use; this post might be the first occasion where I use it. It is a pun based on the use of “weak” by women seeking justice. Nevertheless, I believe Paul and Peter wanted to see more equality among all people in the churches.
I imagine that the Christian husbands would’ve been astounded at being instructed to honor their wives. But imagine the even greater astonishment of those unbelievers in the surrounding culture when they witnessed a Christian man honoring his wife, treating her with respect and not as property. That would have been a tremendous witness to the world. (Though, of course, many might’ve despised the man for such behavior.)
Not all women were without honour in the first-century Roman world, but it was more often given to men.
The social code of honour-shame (where men were honoured and women preserved male honour through discreet behaviour) was entrenched in their culture, so the more egalitarian behaviours of the very early Christians, which included bestowing honour on women, may sometimes have been seen as a threat with the potential of destabilising society.
The household codes were written in the later letters to temper some of the egalitarian behaviours but not to extinguish egalitarianism as the ideal and goal.
I like what Philip Towner has to say on this.
“On the one hand, the already-not yet nature of salvation dictates the ideal of equality within the various social relationships is indeed the goal towards which the community must press. . . . Realization of Salvation’s promises [of a ‘new man’ where gender is largely irrelevant] involves a process that is sometimes agonizingly slow. On the other hand, progress towards this realization must, because of the priority of mission, be tempered by the ability of society to accept the changes in the social equilibrium that the equality tradition implies. Thus on this understanding the house code encourages respectability and requires the church to touch base constantly with the world about it.”
Towner, The Goal of Our Instruction: The Structure of Theology and Ethics in the Pastoral Epistles (Sheffield Academic Press, 1989) 211.
Gender justice in marriage must be a welcome aspect of the gospel of freedom and grace for wives who have been oppressed and marginalized by husbands.
And you would know about the health and freedom justice can bring, since justice is your vocation. 🙂
Someone asked me to comment on this video.
It makes claims similar to what I’ve addressed in a postscript above.
I found the video long-winded, but I’ll make brief comments about some of the claims made in the video.
~ The speaker’s claim that the husband is the weaker vessel in 1 Peter 3:7 is incorrect.
She mentions that she’s taken 5 semesters of Greek, but in the very first semester we learn about grammatical agreement. Grammatical agreement is a basic law. According to this law “weaker vessel” cannot refer to “the men” in 1 Peter 3:7. It is simply impossible.
The Greek for “the men/ husbands” (Οἱ ἄνδρες) is vocative masculine plural (or perhaps nominative). The men are the *subject* of the sentence and any articles, nouns, adjectives or participles describing “the men/ husbands” or their actions would need to grammatically “agree” and be nominative masculine plural too. Thus we have the nominative masculine plural participles for “living together” (συνοικοῦντες) and “bestowing” (ἀπονέμοντες).
The Greek for “weaker vessel” (ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει) is not nominative, masculine or plural; it is dative neuter and singular, as are the words for “to the woman/ women folk” (τῷ γυναικείῳ). These singular neuter dative words grammatically “agree” and belong together.
This is basic Greek grammar. The grammar of “agreement” is not at all tricky in 1 Peter 3:7. It is simple and straightforward.
~ Her comment about the passive participle having the sense “being made or forced to be in subjection” is also incorrect. It’s just plain wrong.
Furthermore, the form of the “submit” participle used in 1 Peter 3:6 can have either a middle or passive voice. (Both middle and passive voices have the same form in present participles.)
If it’s middle, the phrase means “submitting themselves to their own husbands.” (I think it’s middle.)
If it’s passive, it means “being submissive to their own husbands.” There is usually no extra sense or nuance of being forced.
What is also important is the immediate context. Peter says that this is how the holy women of old behaved, and he thinks it’s a good example for the Christian women in Asia Minor who were suffering. Peter wants the women in Asia to copy the behaviour of the holy women of old. They couldn’t make the decision to copy behaviour if they were being forced and had no choice.
I’ve written more about 1 Peter 3:6 here.
https://margmowczko.com/submission-respect-1-peter-3_1-6/
~ Obeying parents, both mother and father, was the norm in the ancient world for respectable people. Several pagan authors writing to men tell them to obey their parents, both mother and father. Of course, Jesus would honour and obey his mother. The speaker is exaggerating the lower status of women in Jesus’ time.
The Bible teaches that we are to honour and obey both parents.
https://margmowczko.com/leading-together-in-the-home/
Paul taught this too. Grown children were expected to obey their parents.
https://margmowczko.com/the-household-codes-and-male-slaves-with-female-masters/
~ I disagree that Eve did not know the command of the forbidden fruit.
https://margmowczko.com/eves-statement-to-the-serpent/
~ Practices of rabbinical scribes copying Hebrew texts have nothing to do with copying New Testament books and letters. And I think the speaker makes too much of the fact that most Greek texts and translations start a new section at Ephesians 5:22. Just because most texts start a new section at verse 22 doesn’t mean we immediately ignore verse 21.
I’ve written about this here https://margmowczko.com/grammar-ephesians-521-and-22/
~ Jerome wrote in Latin, not in Greek. He did not add a sigma (a Greek letter) to Junia’s name. Jerome took Junia to be a woman. I have some info on this here.
https://margmowczko.com/junias-junia-julia-romans-167/
Also, the speaker is exaggerating the misogyny of Jerome. He was a man of his time and did have some low views of women, but he loved and valued women such as Paula and Marcella.
In this letter to a woman named Principia, Jerome does not sound at all like a misogynist.
https://epistolae.ctl.columbia.edu/letter/425.html
Pretty much the only thing I agree with in the video is that we are to read verses in context. And I agree that Peter was also telling husbands to be submissive. I’ve written about this here.
https://margmowczko.com/submission-respect-1-peter-3_7-8/
Because of the several misleading statements, it may be best to remove the link to the video.
We just read I Peter 3 in its entirety to see if the question asked in v13 was rhetorical. We went to the CEV to gain a better understanding of the chapter. We then came to the Internet to find out why the writer had referred to the women as the “weaker vessel”.
We were quickly reminded that society has always given men more rights than women and how females & also widows (w/no male heirs & even those w/male family members) were treated when it came to finances & certain jobs. We were also quickly reminded how God gave the female the responsibility of carrying life, which requires much strength even after delivery. For most families, the female is usually the backbone for it; she has to nurture all in some fashion & pour into everyone, especially mentally; as we know, our minds are important & powerful.
Back to the scripture – The KJV reads, “AS UNTO the weaker vessel” @v7, which suggests the wife is NOT necessarily weaker but to treat her as if & honor as if, all while remembering they’re = co heirs & also joint heirs w/Christ. Additionally @ the opening of said chapter, the writer paints the husband AS weaker in that he will follow the wife if she moves naturally, quietly, gently & beautifully in her heart as she does God’s Will. #Powerful
One of the commenters on this page pointed out the “er” in weaker, & either the same or another commenter reminded us that while a par(s) of the ‘body’ may APPEAR weakER, it is still necessary for the whole to function properly/effectively & efficiently. Furthermore, we have strengths & weaknesses in different areas; that’s why it’s good & smart to collaborate sometimes & work as a Team w/a shared goal(s).
We have a newfound perspective & love for this chapter – Gr8ful 4 Wisdom, Revelation & Understanding…
Excellent points, Sam. 🙂
[…] The parts that seem to be weaker are necessary and indispensable (1 Cor. 12:22).
The parts that seem to be less honourable we should invest with greater honour (1 Cor. 12:23a). […]
[…] In 1 Peter 3:7, Peter asks men to be understanding and considerate of women.[6] And, using the analogy or metaphor of a “weaker vessel,”[7] he makes the point that women are weaker than men. Women were disadvantaged in Greco-Roman society. They had fewer privileges and rights than men. Women are also, usually, physically weaker than men. Peter wanted husbands to acknowledge and be considerate of the more vulnerable situation of their wives so that they would take care not to exploit them, either intentionally or inadvertently. Many times, people in positions of privilege are not fully aware of the disadvantages of those in weaker positions. Instead of exploitation, Peter wanted husbands to treat their wives with respect. (I look more closely at Peter’s phrase “weaker vessel,” here.) […]
If I may, I share here an article I wrote about the expression “the weaker vessel”, applied to women/wives, with a contextualized interpretation of it: https://vidaemabundancia.blogspot.com/2024/03/o-vaso-mais-fraco.html (The article is in portuguese, but you may activate the automatic translation at the right top menu.)
Thank you, Ruben.
Someone asked me to comment on this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jwb36Zdoaqs
I found the video long-winded, but I’ll make brief comments about some of the claims made in the video.
~ The speaker’s claim that the husband is the weaker vessel in 1 Peter 3:7 is incorrect.
She mentions that she’s taken 5 semesters of Greek, but in the very first semester we learn about grammatical agreement. Grammatical agreement is a basic law. According to this law “weaker vessel” cannot refer to “the men” in 1 Peter 3:7. It is simply impossible.
The Greek for “the men/ husbands” (Οἱ ἄνδρες) is vocative masculine plural (or perhaps nominative). The men are the *subject* of the sentence and any articles, nouns, adjectives or participles describing “the men/ husbands” or their actions would need to grammatically “agree” and be nominative masculine plural too. Thus we have the nominative masculine plural participles for “living together” (συνοικοῦντες) and “bestowing” (ἀπονέμοντες).
The Greek for “weaker vessel” (ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει) is not nominative, masculine or plural; it is dative neuter and singular, as are the words for “to the woman/ women folk” (τῷ γυναικείῳ). These singular neuter dative words grammatically “agree” and belong together.
This is basic Greek grammar. The grammar of “agreement” is not at all tricky in 1 Peter 3:7. It is simple and straightforward.
~ Her comment about the passive participle having the sense “being made or forced to be in subjection” is also incorrect.
Furthermore, the form of the “submit” participle used in 1 Peter 3:6 can have either a middle or passive voice. (Both middle and passive voices have the same form in present participles.)
If it’s middle, the phrase means “submitting themselves to their own husbands.” (I think it’s middle.)
If it’s passive, it means “being submissive to their own husbands.” There is usually no extra sense or nuance of being forced.
What is also important is the immediate context. Peter says that this is how the holy women of old behaved, and he thinks it’s a good example for the Christian women in Asia Minor who were suffering. Peter wants the women in Asia to copy the behaviour of the holy women of old. They couldn’t make the decision to copy behaviour if they were being forced and had no choice.
I’ve written more about 1 Peter 3:6 here.
https://margmowczko.com/submission-respect-1-peter-3_1-6/
~ Obeying parents, both mother and father, was the norm in the ancient world for respectable people. Several pagan authors writing to men tell them to obey their parents, both mother and father. Of course, Jesus would honour and obey his mother. The speaker is exaggerating the lower status of women in Jesus’ time.
The Bible teaches that we are to honour and obey both parents.
https://margmowczko.com/leading-together-in-the-home/
Paul taught this too. Grown children were expected to obey their parents.
https://margmowczko.com/the-household-codes-and-male-slaves-with-female-masters/
~ I disagree that Eve did not know the command of the forbidden fruit.
https://margmowczko.com/eves-statement-to-the-serpent/
~ Practices of rabbinical scribes copying Hebrew texts have nothing to do with copying New Testament books and letters. And I think the speaker makes too much of the fact that most Greek texts and translations start a new section at Ephesians 5:22. Just because most texts start a new section at verse 22 doesn’t mean we immediately ignore verse 21. Verse 21 pivots between what has gone before (Eph. 5:1ff) and what follows (Eph. 5:22ff)
I’ve written about this here https://margmowczko.com/grammar-ephesians-521-and-22/
~ Jerome wrote in Latin, not in Greek. He did not add a sigma, a Greek letter, to Junia’s name. Jerome took Junia to be a woman. I have some info on this here.
https://margmowczko.com/junias-junia-julia-romans-167/
Also, the speaker is exaggerating the misogyny of Jerome. He was a man of his time and did have some low views of women, but he loved and valued women such as Paula and Marcella.
In this letter to a woman named Principia, Jerome does not sound at all like a misogynist.
https://epistolae.ctl.columbia.edu/letter/425.html
Pretty much the only thing I agree with in the video is that we are to read verses in context. And I agree that Peter was also telling husbands to be submissive. I’ve written about this here.
https://margmowczko.com/submission-respect-1-peter-3_7-8/