1 Peter, 3:1-7

This particular passage, 1 Peter 3, 1-7, is a passage that deals with husbands and wives. Two things. Are we okay? Okay, yeah. We would like in the midst of this to avoid any black and blue ribs, you know. Hey, that particularly applies to you. Or I've also had the experience people will say, you know, I sure wish was here. You know, you ever hear that one, you know. So anyway, I guess two things. One is we'll be going into a kind of a section initially.

I don't want to dwell on it a great deal because it's a preparation for the passage. But this point comes up. As we deal with this, suppose you're not in a husband and wife marriage situation. Is this relevant to you? I would say yes. We went over some of these points a year and a half ago when we went through Ephesians 5, the last part of it. It's relevant in several respects, even if a person is not currently in a marriage situation.

One, for some folks it might be a preparation, in which case very important. Nancy and I have done and do and are doing marriage and pre-marriage counseling, and boy, how many times I wish that we'd had a chance to prepare people rather than to do a humpty-dumpty situation.

So preparation, that's one. Another is even in your relationship, no matter married or unmarried, your relationship with other believers, whether they're family members, friends, others in the church, whatever the situation happens to be, there's a situation of encouragement and support. And what do I support? What do I encourage? Being knowledgeable about that is very important. So even in our interaction among each other as believers, this is valuable and important stuff.

Secondly, there is another aspect of this, and that is what Paul reveals in Ephesians 5. The relationship between husband and wife is simply an analog. It is a living illustration of the eternal romance and relationship between Christ and the Church. So, as we learn about these things, we are learning not just about husbands and wives, as valuable as that is, but we are learning about what is the eternal relationship between Christ and the Church, and what does that look like with skin on it.

Alright, let's take a look here. The first page and a half, I've got some contrast between Peter and Paul. I think it's helpful for us to kind of get a sense of who was Peter and who was Paul, especially as we look at 1 Peter and say, you know, what perspective was he coming from?

And some of the things we point out here, they were both Jews, primarily of the Pharisaic influence. The Pharisees were the major influence, and while we tend to think of the Pharisees, pictured especially in the Gospels, as kind of the bad guys, they were the culture heroes, and they were most missionary. Once you start getting away from Jerusalem, and especially away from Israel very far, the Essenes, who were almost an unknown group, and the Sadducees, a lesser known group than the Pharisees, just about disappear in their influence. The Pharisees were the ones who went out and were missionary about their Judaism. Paul and Peter, Paul being in Tarsus in a Gentile land, Peter being in Galilee, some distance north of the area around Jerusalem, the Pharisees were the ones who influenced their upbringing, Pharisaic influence.

They were likely born roughly about the same time. They were familiar with, but not initially from, the area of Jerusalem, each of them had spent significant amount of times there, even though they're not initially from there, appointed and qualified as apostles of the Lord, exhibiting the signs of an apostle.

That's in an end note on the last page, if you want to dig that up perhaps later. They were each given more than one name. Paul was also previously called Saul, right? And here's Peter, he's got three names. Here's Peter, Petros in the Greek, a Greek name. Kephos is actually an Aramaic name, and we pronounce it Sephos, but Kephos in the original language. And Simon is a form of Simeon, which is a Hebrew tribal name. So you've got three different names for this guy, Peter.

Together for a relatively short time, apparently in the area of Jerusalem, Galatians 1, 18 through 214 outlines some of those times of contact, a few weeks from anything that we know. They were both authors of inspired letters with some region of overlap, particularly Galatia, Ephesus, those areas. And they wrote about one another at different points as well. And we'll be taking a look at that as we get into our passages in front of us here. They both wrote about practical living. Neither of them stayed just hypothetical. Neither of them wrote some ethereal letter that didn't connect to anything, right? Both of them talked about practical living and about suffering.

Isn't that something? One of the things in Acts 9 that came forward when Paul was made an apostle, he first was converted, And one of the things that was revealed there is how much he would suffer. Isn't that something? And certainly Peter as well. They both made allusions to Isaiah 53. We looked at it last week with the passage that Brad covered with us. We'll look at Isaiah 53 this morning, continuing to do so by finishing up that passage.

Romans 10.16, which will be covered in the Romans elective some weeks from now. They both had contact with Silas. Silas was the guy that helped Peter write this letter.

And it was also the guy that Paul spent the night in jail with in Philippi. And Mark. Remember John Mark? He was the one that on the very first missionary journey, Barnabas and Paul, Saul, went out and he bailed on him. I'm going home to Mama. He bailed on him, and yet the Lord worked in his heart and changed him and brought him around and grew him up using, it appears, the person part of us. They both had significant contact with the church at Antioch at some point in time.

We have it specifically recorded. particularly with Paul, but Peter briefly in Galatians 2.11, but also recordings outside of scripture said that Peter spent years at the church at Antioch. Okay, so real interesting. Eventually martyred, possibly or even likely in Rome about the mid to late 60s, not long before this letter and 2nd Timothy were written. Excuse me, after. Okay, then we have what was different between them, some contrasts. Right over here is the handout, Marilyn. Okay, right behind you.

Paul was born outside of Israel, Peter inside of Israel, although farther in the north. Paul was raised with a portable skill, which was tent making. All right, making those tents. And scholarly training. Peter simply as a fisherman. Peter was not an ignorant man. He was literate, not highly trained, however, as Paul was. Paul was internationally trained. May have known basically Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Peter, probably not quite as broadly Aramaic and Greek and Hebrew secondarily would have been his primary languages of interest.

They both spent time with the Lord, but Peter before our Lord's ascension, Paul afterwards. Contrast there. Paul is an apostle to the Gentile lands, Peter to the Jews' homeland, and I put in here in parentheses, initially. Why would we just say initially? Was Peter always in Israel? No. He went, as we mentioned earlier, to Antioch, and later on, not certainly, but it appears to Rome.

I would say likely. Paul wrote of the believer's position, then of the believer's condition, mostly using imperatives, conveying the idea of an ought. Peter, however, wrote of the believer's position and condition as more connected and typically in terms of actions. One of the points we've made from early on going through 1 Peter is that Peter likes to write about, and we'll see here this morning, things in action.

You know, when he wrote to the elders, he never wrote them with a title, elder or overseer or anything like that. The word that is translated pastor, he didn't use, he used it for Christ. He did not use it for church leaders as a church leader's title. He told them, get shepherding. Get shepherding. We'll study that in a few weeks here.

Paul wrote with sometimes longer sentences and compound words, but Peter tended, not exclusively, but tended to use simpler and shorter sentences and fewer compound words. Paul wrote repeatedly of the rapture, Peter rarely. Paul had visited at least some of the areas where Peter wrote, but we have no direct record of Peter having been there, even though he seems to have written them at least twice. As we'll see in 2 Peter, he talks about having written them before.

Now, second page here. Peter and Paul, mounds of complementary passages. Peter and Paul both talked about grace. That's one of the things we've seen already in 1 Peter. Knowing it not just hypothetically, but knowing it personally. Why do we see Peter being a person who has learned grace?

Yes, that's right. He had a step in it problem, right? Yes, it's this, get the manual out. How do you pull the foot from your mouth? And so you got this Peter guy, and he is the guy that stepped in. Looking at the Gospels, he actually, in the process of denying the Lord, looked across the courtyard at one point and met eye-to-eye with Jesus in the midst of that.

Can you imagine what that feels like? I never knew him. I do not know it. Again and again. And by the way, one of the things we showed in the prior handout, it appears Peter denied Christ more than three times when you total it all up. More than three. Paul.

Paul wrote, it starts off in Acts chapter 9, Paul breathed out murderous threats. At the end of Acts, he testified himself. He says, whenever I had a chance, I voted for death. His philosophy was the best Christian is a dead Christian before he was saved. How about that? The best Christian is a dead one. That's his idea. Isn't that something?

To have that guy turn around and say, I preached Christ and Christ crucified at whatever cost. Amazing, amazing stuff. Paul wrote about Christ as the believer's life. Peter wrote of things living. Remember, we mentioned repeatedly, and I believe Gene last reminded us, of the things that we have, for example, a living hope. Living, living, living. Why? Peter loves to write about process, things in action. Paul wrote of practical living by making a logical connection between position and condition, where Peter wrote of practical things living as inaction.

Paul wrote repeatedly of the details of our identification with Christ, whereas Peter assumed the outcome of identification with Christ. They also wrote things of a complementary nature. I won't go over all of them here, but will point out the last of those four bullets, which is relevant to what we're touching on this morning. Paul wrote about husband and wife relationships placing most of the focus upon the husband. Peter wrote about the husband and wife relationships placing most of the focus upon the wife. Isn't that interesting? Here's the end of Ephesians 5, the wife is just barely mentioned.

As a matter of fact, our English language translations put in an imperative that in the original Greek is just implied. Isn't that something? Where it says, wives be submissive, it doesn't say that. It is at best implied. Or, wives respect their husband. A lot of the English translations say, must respect. It's not in the original Greek. It's only implied from the imperative given to the husband. Isn't that interesting?

Very light touch on the wife. Peter, in the passage this morning, Six verses for the wife, one for the husband. So Peter writes in a complementary fashion. Boy, it's almost as if the two books were inspired. Okay. Now, we've got these differences. They wrote consistently because of the singular inspiration. From a human standpoint, two authors. From God's standpoint, how many authors? One. Yeah. 1 Peter 3.

The first two verses here, "...in the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands, so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior." And by the way, Peter here addresses something that Paul, at least in the Ephesians 5 passage, does not address. What if the husband doesn't believe? Does that give the wife an out?

Rebellious, you know. No. He says, here's what you do in that case. He covers it. 1 Peter 2.13, Peter had introduced the character of the believer with those in authority. He used, in the same way, two times in this passage.

He's talking about from 1 Peter 2.13, the starting point of dealing with relationships with other people. And so he's continuing on the same kinds of principles apply. Your position in Christ applies, just like it does when dealing with other interpersonal relationships. That's what he's doing here.

He was describing the nature of these interpersonal relationships between the believer and others, whether they're believers or not. And particularly, Peter puts a focus on even those that aren't believers. Peter addressed something here that's unique. How does the believing wife relate to the unbelieving husband?

In the world of the Roman Empire, it was expected that a wife would adhere to the religion or religions of the husband. There was all kinds of variety to pick from. And the Roman Empire, as long as you kind of tipped your hat to, yeah, the emperor is a deity too, they didn't care what religion you picked. How about that? Freedom of religion. Anyone you want, as long as you'll tip a hat to the emperor as well. The wife, for her to become a Christian, was an inclusive belief. Can a believer say, Jesus is Lord? Oh, yeah, but also Zeus?

Doesn't mix, does it? Jesus said, I alone. John 14, 6, Jesus said, I am, which means I being in fact God, am the singular way, the singular truth, and the singular life. No one, and I mean that exclusively, no one comes to the Father except by me. He said that with the most explicit and singular and exclusive words available in the Greek language, prefaced by a statement that he was God. That's pretty exclusive.

So here's this Christian wife in a culture where it's sort of mix and match. And where you must, of course, do exactly whatever the husband does in terms of religion, here's the Christian wife. She becomes a believer, and somehow Zeus and Aphrodite and all the rest just drop out of the scene. And now what? How does she do that? Does she thumb her nose at her husband and say, you know, I've had it with all this junk? That's the challenge.

The wife of the unbelieving husband has some counsel. Peter's counsel, even to the wife of this unbelieving husband, would be to submit to him, placing oneself under the authority of another. Something that you'll notice in both Peter's writing and Paul's writing, you'll see repeated notice, and here's one of them, for the wife to submit to, and that's hupotasso means to place oneself under, the under attach. in submission, but also support. Notice that there is not a statement to the Christian husband, make sure your wife knuckles under.

Is that interesting? A directive to the wife from the Lord, but not a directive to the husband to make sure she does it. Why would that be? Why would there be some directive in here, look husband, you're in charge, you make sure she's under the thumb. Pretty much the natural inclination of humankind.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Hupotasso, under attaching, as Brad has pointed out, isn't just knuckling under. It's also, it is voluntarily being there as a support. That's different from just crumpling, isn't it? I'm going to crumple under pressure. That's not what he's saying. I'm going to be there as a support. We have our common terminology and our modern vernacular. I'm going to be there for you. Peter is saying how the believing wife is to be there for the husband, believe it or not. There is not an instruction for the husband to make sure she knuckles under. You just don't see it. Look at Peter, look at Paul, it's not there.

Now, the unbelief... what's that? Yes, I most certainly am. The Hupotasso is a choice of the woman directed from God, through God's word. It is not a command to the husband to make sure she knuckles under. They just can't find it. But you're correct, it's a choice. And in saying that, you're not saying that you can choose to do this or not, it's okay. Yeah, it's not just simply an open option.

He is saying, you know, you want to look at what God's counsel is, you want to see what is the Holy Spirit going to lead the believing wife to do. Could you say that this is, as you have talked about, Paul's illogical imperative? Okay. Paul would say, based on the believer's position. Okay. that the wife, based on the believer's position and the character of the life of Christ in the wife, will look this way. That's the way Paul would say it. Peter looks at it in action. Because Peter is a guy describing things in action. That's his mindset as he looks at the Christian life lived out.

The unbelieving husband is to be won. And by the way, this is a word that actually means financial gain, profit. The husband is to be won, not by what the wife says directly, but by the gospel spoken by her wife. As it's been said, preach the gospel all the time. If necessary, use words. And that's precisely what Peter is conveying here. Preach the gospel to your husband constantly. Hold back on the words. Okay? Hold back on the words. Let him see something that is humanly inexplicable.

Yes? Craig and Crystal are the perfect example of this. Neither of them were believers when they first got married. Crystal came to the Lord and the changes in her were so dramatic that he couldn't deny what the Lord was doing in her life. Yeah. I've heard multiple accounts of husbands that they're asking the question in their mind, what has gotten into her? Well, I'll tell you, it's not a what, it's a who. But these husbands are saying, man, what's happened to this lady?

It's not always the sequence. But when that's the case, it's amazing that Peter is not kidding around. He is not just guessing or giving you Just some sort of vague might fit, might not kind of counsel here. This is genuinely God's inspired work. And I can testify, having seen it numerous times, it works. There's one other thing I think this helps address.

Suppose you have a husband who is a believer, but is notably in either negligence or rebellion regarding his spiritual responsibility. Does the wife nag him, squeeze him, twist his arm? What he uses here is a word for financial gain. I don't think he's talking about things that happen with the checkbook or the savings account. But what he's looking at is this is a genuine gain. This is not just pretend, foggy, fake. This is a genuine gain for the husband to be won over spiritually. How more profitable could it get? How more profitable could it get than to have him come spiritually to the place where God wants him to be? The next verse is there, 1 Peter 3, 3, and 4.

Your adornment must not be merely external, braiding the hair, wearing gold jewelry, putting on dresses, but let it be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. This word translated adornment is cosmos. We get our English word cosmetics. I don't mean to imply by that, by the way, that Peter is writing about cosmetics specifically. I think it's just a point of interest. But in these verses, Peter was addressing another aspect of the appeal of the wife to the husband. Now, is Peter in this saying, boy, don't you get dressed up. Don't put on anything fancy. Keep it just bare bones simple. All your clothing should be black and flat and, you know, yeah. Certainly, yeah.

Nancy and I went to a wedding some years back. By the way, the marriage didn't work out. But anyway, we went to a wedding some years back where the church practiced extreme simplicity on the part of the woman. And a number of the guests looked a lot more attractive than the bride.

But this is not what Peter is talking about. And I think the New American Standard, among the translations, brings it out well. Must not be merely external. So he's not making rules about don't wear any attractive clothing and don't do anything for your appearance. That is not his purpose. His purpose, however, is to say what's important. what is most important, what is ultimately important. And so what he does here, must not be merely external, braiding the hair, wearing gold jewelry, putting on dresses, but let it be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God.

Yeah, a number of Christian groups, and that's a part of it, you're talking about the Amish, the Mennonites, there are a number of Christian groups that have made rules out of this. Yeah, women are not supposed to wear this and that and they have to, you know, these colors are all that are allowed and all sorts of things. That is not Peter's point. That's not Peter's point. Peter's point, however, is, how tall do you like your hair trellises? In those days, the deal was this, the wives in the Greco-Roman culture, were there to have and to raise kids and manage the household. That was their role.

The husbands were often, not always, but often otherwise occupied. Other than providing money and spending a little bit of time there at home, they had plenty of other things to do. One of the Greeks even said, you know, if we want social interaction, we got barmaids. And even for satisfying their sexual impulses, they had others around for that. of varying types. So the wife was frequently given less than what would be satisfying in terms of personal relationships. But the one thing that was allowed, supported, and encouraged was appearance-wise being a trophy wife.

How about that? Now, the way they did that might be different from what you and I would think, but one of the things they would do, and I just use this as an example, is like we have trellises for flowers. They would have trellises sometimes going like this, and they'd have their hair all wound up around this thing, and it would be pretty wild. Here are some examples of jewelry of the era, different kinds of jewelry, and they would invest quite a bit into this.

Our culture is not all that different. We've got, of course, all sorts of plastic surgery and different operations and procedures that you can have done. Quite a bit can be put on it. Peter is not about making rules about that. He is not simply saying, okay, here's your list of things to do and not do.

He is saying what's valuable, what's important, how does God look at things. That's the bottom line, okay? Isn't the goal of studying God's Word to know, how does God see me? What does God think? That's what He's telling us. How does God see the woman? How does God see the man? What does He consider valuable? What's precious to Him? What looks good?

So, that's what His focus is here. What he looks at is God's sense of what is valuable in a woman, of what is of value in a woman, is a gentle and quiet spirit which is not at all hidden from God. He talks about what is hidden here. It's not at all hidden from God. God sees the heart. And he says, Oh, I love it. It looks good. Exceedingly valuable.

Alright, 1 Peter 3, 5 and 6. In this way, then, former times, the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him Lord. And you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear." What is Peter doing? He is illustrating the respect of the first couple of verses by referring to the lives and the relationship between Sarah and Abraham.

These were the same points that Paul made regarding the wife, and I'll read from Ephesians 5 here, 22-24 and 33. Wives, be subject to your own husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, he himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. Verse 33. Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself. And the wife must see to it that she respects her husband."

So Peter here is picturing the godly wife as adorning herself with character. Really good-looking character, if you will. He also restated that principle from verse 1 there. of the wife submitting, not being made to submit, but of herself submitting, knowing this is what pleases the Lord. This is what the Lord leads to and motivates in a godly wife.

That phrase there, calling him Lord, could just as well be translated calling him Sir. It is an address of respect. That's the intent. Alright, on page four. The end of verse 6 makes clear that the submission of the wife is not based in any way upon the wife's fear. How about that? No fear of the husband, family, friends, neighbors. Now, think about it.

What fears would the wife in those days have? Knowing what we know, what fears would the wife be prone to have? Divorce was easily obtained, yes. From what we know about that time, about one in three marriages ended up in divorce. Yes, she's right. Divorce is easily obtained. Not that difficult. Yes, about one in three. Yeah, yeah. Other thoughts? What else? Yes? I'm getting back to this dress for the ladies. Okay.

I've heard the Church of Christ has a name, a denomination. that really proclaims that no one is better, and just like this is actually wrong. Where do they get that? Well, what they'll do is they'll take a passage like this, and I think take the wrong focus, that suddenly, rather than seeing what's valuable, what does God look at, they end up saying, oh, okay, we've got to make a law. You just missed the point, you know? Yeah, and so unfortunately a number of different Christian denominations, and some of that I'll have to even put the term Christendom, not necessarily even Christian, have gone to the point of having various rules about what you wear, don't wear, and that kind of thing, and that's one of them.

Other things that the wife in that era would be afraid of, fearful of. Yeah, the husband, boy, what's he going to do here? That, I'm trying to think. There are various ways in which, because his obligation was not anything real tight. He unfortunately had lots of latitude. We even have some record where the husbands would kill the wife without any consequence. That varied throughout the culture, but even some record of that. So, yeah, there was some fear there. Other things? What about a rejection of her children? Ah, rejection of the children. Remember, one of the things we've also said, it was legal in the Roman Empire for the husband and father to determine at any age that one or more of the children should die. At any age.

He could leave orders, maybe the wife is pregnant, about to have a baby, and he might say, if it's a girl, kill it. He could say that. And leave it to her to do about that. And that was perfectly legal. Yes? Well, no, this is the pagan culture. Right. However, you may have a believing wife with an unbelieving husband. How about that? So it's still possible for that to take place. You're right.

Certainly for believers, they were not to do that. But it was perfectly legal and socially acceptable. We even have one record where a father killed in front of others a grown son in his 20s and nobody flinched. Nobody even asked questions. There was no police coming or anybody else speaking out. That's his prerogative as a father.

So, I mean, it's pretty wild, you know, compared to anything we would consider. Yes. It's part of cultures that are present right now. Yes. And so it's not an irrelevant thing. Some of the things we've described here may seem appalling to us, but you're correct. They exist in other cultures right now in parts of the world.

You see, there were a number of things that the wife could be fearful of. Maybe even, you know, I'm supposed to be a trophy wife. Maybe I don't measure up as a trophy wife. So there would be a lot of things to be afraid of, but notice what does Peter say?

Respect the husband out of fear? No. Not out of fear. Without being frightened. So here's respect, but not because you're afraid. This isn't a cowering, quivering, dreading wife saying, I'll respect you because I don't want to get crumpled. This is one who does so because it's the Lord's character lived out through her. But not because of and motivated by fear. This is the way I put it here. What Peter was writing about was not a fearful, towering wife submitting out of dread and angst, but a fearlessly godly wife who boldly does what is right in God's sight.

God's looking. That's where I'm looking. God's watching. That's whose eyes I care about. Who sees her as spiritually beautiful. Oh, she's gorgeous from the inside out. A vessel boldly living out the person and character of the risen Lord Jesus Christ by faith. Fearless. Bold. Respect not out of fear, not out of trembling, but fearlessly submitting and respecting because of her beholding the Lord. Okay, last part here.

The husbands, in the same way, Live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman, and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered." Now I've had six verses to the wife, here's the one to the husband. Husbands are to be living, that's the present active participle. Remember we said that Peter has a preference for and a tendency to speak about the way Christians live, not with imperatives, as Paul was more inclined to do, although he doesn't completely stay away from imperatives, he is inclined to speak of the action in progress, and he does so here. Husbands, in the same way, living with your wives, is the way he puts it. Living with your wives in an understanding way. with your wives, one each, in an understanding way, and the word that Peter chose for understanding is gnosis, intimate familiarity, that you understand deeply. Now, what are the things that the believing husband is to understand? Two things.

What does God think? How do we know what God thinks, by the way? Through God's Word, right? We know what God thinks through His Word. So the first question is, what does God think? Isn't that what he just got through telling the wives? Live like you know and care about what God thinks. He's telling the husband the same thing. He says, you need to know, Mr. Husband, you need to know what does God think about this relationship. Do you understand that deeply? Have you taken a close look? at what God's Word says about this relationship. Secondly, the husband is to know the wife deeply in order to apply the truths from God's Word. He needs to know her specifically.

Nancy and I, as we have counseled, we do an interesting game. We'll ask couples, we will say, we would like you, and sometimes we'll give them a week to think about it, we would like you to come back with three things that the other person does that says, I love you.

And what we find is that there's not a blanket across the board answer to that. Some of the things that you would think that they would register in their mind is, that means I love you. It surprises us. And what we find is almost every time there's at least one surprise. Sometimes we're surprised by what they say, but sometimes we find that spouses are surprised. Yeah, spouses are surprised.

Wow, I didn't know that. We did this with one couple, and the wife says, I don't care, bring me flowers, it's like bringing me a piece of cardboard, it doesn't do anything for me. But she said, take care of my kids, and that really gets me excited. You show love to my kids, and woo! So, it's a valuable thing to say, okay, what does God want the husband to do? Love the wife unconditionally.

That's Ephesians 5, right? Now, then to know how would the wife answer what that looks like? How would she answer what that looks like? The husband is matching up the specific application between knowing God's Word and knowing the wife. He's matching up how does this apply? How does it fit? Now, something else to look at here. This is on page 5.

The wife, however, Peter describes as being a weaker vessel. I think there's a key point we want to make here, and that is that when we say weaker, what does that mean? Does that mean most of the wives are going to lose an arm wrestling contest? You know, as Nancy and I counsel with people, with couples, I don't think I've ever heard the husband say, you know, she just needs to start weightlifting because she's not strong enough. Certainly, there may be a tendency towards being not as strong physically in terms of maximum capability, but I don't think that's Peter's point.

One of the things that men oftentimes lose sight of is women are much broader in their sexuality than a man. But it also makes them more vulnerable. What do I mean? Rollercoaster. I'm talking about the hormonal one. It can be pretty scary. The hormonal rollercoaster that from somewhere usually in the early teen years or maybe even before, up on into decades later, the hormonal rollercoaster that women go through is a vulnerability. They are subject to that hormonal rollercoaster. What's it centered around? It's centered around reproduction. and her ability to do that. Everything centered around that. Whether she's going to reproduce or not, or whether she's currently even with that in mind or a prospect, that happens.

There's also this. That's a vulnerability isn't it? Okay, now ask her to sprint. Ask her to lean over and pick up the things on the floor. There is a vulnerability that goes along with, being a woman. That's, I think, what Peter is talking about. Not, can she weight lift this much, or can she win the arm wrestling contest. There is also, towards the end of that cycle, there is a vulnerability built into the character of the woman. And that is part of what Peter's looking at. He's saying, okay, she has a vulnerability. What are you going to do with that as a man? Are you going to belittle her for it? Are you going to take advantage of it in some demeaning way? Or, what's he saying to do? Recognizing that, but what do you do? You show her honor as a joint heir.

Is her position in Christ any different than yours? Nope. Eternally, in terms of her standing before the Lord, is she any less? Nope. There is a vulnerability there, but don't be a spiritual dolt, okay? Because she has the same position in Christ as you do. That's what he's saying.

She is a joint heir. And here's where Peter uses his compound words. He uses the compound words only four times in the New Testament. Paul used it a couple of times. A joint heir. A together heir. With Christ. And so that's, keep this in mind guys. Here's the spiritual perspective. You may look on Don't you ever forget. Show her honor. Because you and she have the same standing before the Lord. The same. Show her honor because of it. And finally, a joint air of the grace of life, so that your prayers not be hindered. Is he making a threat? Guys, if you don't do this, God's not going to listen to you.

Is that what he's saying? No. What he is saying is the guy who doesn't get it spiritually is not going to be having much of a prayer life either. The guy who doesn't get this spiritually isn't even going to know how to pray properly. His spiritual perspective will just not be there. He's not threatening that your prayers will bounce off the floorboards of heaven. But saying instead, the guy who doesn't understand this principle is just not even going to get prayers off the ground. His spiritual life is going to be stunted by nature because he simply doesn't have God's perspective. That's what he's talking about. He not only will not have the heart to pray for the right things, he won't have the heart to pray. Prayers get hung up not because God's crossing His arms and says, I'm not listening. But the prayers just aren't getting there.

All right, thoughts and questions about this passage? We've covered a lot in seven verses. Thoughts, questions, puzzlings? I see Ryan scratching his head. OK. Is that bid $300,000? All right. OK. No. All right. I thought it was three times. OK, $300,000. That's what that is. OK. All right. Other thoughts? Last week, Brian gave us a list of examples from Christ Yes. Right. Yes.

Yeah, one of the things, one of the things that Joanne's bringing up for us here, is that there are a number of places, and Paul does this repeatedly, points to examples, and Peter's not done pointing to examples. We're to use examples to learn from, not as a matter of acting. This isn't just, how good an acting job am I doing? But it's to learn from spiritually.

Oh, that's what that looks like. Oh, that's what it looks like when I'm walking with the Lord. That's what it looks like when I'm trusting Him in this and this and this and this different situation. When he talks about in the same way, the examples are one of the ways that we learn how does Christian life get lived out. So, yeah, that's a good point. Excellent point. Other thoughts? Ponderings? Exasperations? Yes? No? OK. You're either baffled or completely satisfied.

So let's pray. Lord, we thank you as you've given us your precious word. We also see what precious treasures these earthen vessels, Lord, that you've made us to be as believers and given us in relationship with a wife or husband and also just simply in relationships here in our church body. And we pray that we would have the spiritual insight to see and understand that. And we look to you, Lord, in the midst of that. We pray in Jesus' name. Amen.