Example Set By Sarah, The Husbands Respect For His Wife
1 Peter 3:5-7 · Bob Eckel · Jun 7, 2020
1 & 2 Peter (2020-21), No. 20
Holly Hills Bible Church
https://www.hollyhillsbiblechurch.org/teaching/messages/4926191922601

Transcribed from the recording by SermonAudio, so expect the occasional misheard word.

We'll come back to Proverbs 31 in the closing parts of today's lesson. I don't have it in front of me. No, I'm just teasing you, Roy. It's good. You're a step ahead, always. It's good. So holy women who trusted in God. So the trust was an active process. According to the verse, we can read kind of between the lines a little bit. Whereas they were adorned, it's really a verb, it's not the adornment that they were adorned, is in the imperfect tense, which implies this was a continuing setting apart of these women from the usual ways that women would behave as wives to an unsaved or a saved husband. So the idea is this just isn't one occasion. They're going out to a local ball here and they're carrying themselves an incorruptible beauty of gentle and quiet spirit. But nevertheless, this activity I sense throughout their lives. What was so holy about them?

It says the women who trusted God being submissive to their husbands and they're described as holy women who were carrying this out. Well, that's kind of mentioned in the previous segment here, and I'm going to turn to Weist. So the phrase, holy women should not be interpreted as referring to some particular and unique class of Old Testament individual with a special halo about her head. These women concerning whom the apostle is speaking were just ordinary sinners saved by grace. I think this is so incredibly important. The word holy, as we often look at the term sanctification, is the translation of a Greek word, which means literally set apart ones.

So this is a life, this woman's living by faith that sets her apart as one who incorporates an incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit. So this is a life. It's not working harder or trying harder at something. It's a life that's dependent. on the great grace God offers us the carpet and to walk on it by faith. Other thoughts about how holy women were described? Set apart. All right, let's go ahead. Here are some examples. New Testament. So I go dot, dot, dot, because the verse before leads into her.

She's well reported for good works. If she's brought up children, if she's lodged strangers, if she's washed the saints feet, If she has relieved the afflicted, if she's diligently followed every good work. Titus has a nice section on this. Older women likewise, that they be recurrent in their behavior, not slanders, not giving too much wine, teachers of good things, that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, and to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands. I bolded that simply because in context, that's what we're talking about. Notice that the word of God may not be blasphemed. Wow. High calling, huh? Really a high calling.

How many such women were there? Can you think of others in the Old Testament or even in the New Testament? Anybody? Other women who were set apart and perceived as holy in terms of everything we know about them? How about Ruth? Is that Esther? Esther could be mentioned a little different situation with Esther, but yes.

OK. I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. Rahab. Rahab. OK, good. That's New Testament. Right. Referring to Rahab. OK. Old Testament, but it's about rehab in the Old Testament. Dorcas. His mom and grandma. How about gospel account people or acts people? Lydia? Lydia. And Dorcas. Okay, Dorcas.

Good. About Timothy's mother and grandmother. Yeah, that's what I was just thinking. Good. There's a woman named Tabitha. Does anybody remember? Oh, yes. Dorcas. That was Dorcas. Yeah. All right. Good. Well, I don't have the list out there for you. I wanted to make you think and we've heard a little bit of thinking going on here. All right. Let's go ahead then.

Being submissive or in subjection to their own husbands. I don't know. It seems like in subjection to is a little bit different in terms of interpretation than being submissive. I don't know what your thoughts are about that. Anybody want to compare those two terms?

You could write a commentary on that. We'll look for that to be published. Where will that go, Roy? I wonder if submission would be something that she's doing and subjection would be maybe something like applying herself to an outward standard like this is what should be done kind of thing. So are you putting both of those in the active tensa? That's something she should be doing, right?

Yeah. Okay. Mm-hmm. Any other thoughts on the differences? All right, let's go ahead. Again, this submission or subjection is in the passive tense. Well, being submissive in the passive tense. Well, let's let's turn to some following verses where the verb tense is present, active and imperative. That means she is, in fact, carrying out this behavior. and wills to be doing this behavior, and it's factual. Why the differences? Let's look at a couple of verses.

Ephesians 5.22, we alluded to this last week. Roger and I put them down this week. Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands as to the Lord. And then in Colossians, wives, submit to your own husbands as is fitting in the Lord. So these are active tense verbs. Why is it in Peter a passive action to be submissive?

Well, I was thinking that maybe it's focused on her. Roger, you're just a little muffled. I'm not sure. Actually, this is kind of a new setup here that Bill got me here today. So, let's see. I just thought it would be that she's trusting the Lord, she's by faith, walking with the Lord, and subjection is a natural consequence of that action, as is a holy life.

Do you think that there's a difference on the ground of grace we walk on today versus the law of the Old Testament in terms of this responsibility? Well, Peter's writing, obviously he's writing under grace too. His epistle is a grace-based epistle, right?

One of the things that helps me understand it, Bob, is that the passive voice here is, this is the work of God in us, living his life through us, in respect to the wife, to her unbelieving husband, or believing either one. Okay, so how do you really relate to the distinction between the verb tense and Peter versus that in Ephesians and Colossians. What are your thoughts about that? My thought on that is that one is dealing with unbelievers primarily here versus believers in the other two. OK, so the wife with an unbelieving husband, it's really God in her that must be accepting to that situation and also working in her to continue to be weak or quiet and gentle spirit, right? Right. But so the wives in Ephesians and Colossians that Paul's addressing really, this is their responsibility. And again, I don't think Paul would doubt that this is spirit led behavior, right? This is not something that, you know, the flesh does.

So it's an interesting thing just to think about a little bit in terms of how these various epistles differ in the use of the verb tense. So were you saying that it would be more difficult to be submissive and in subjection to an unbeliever? Well, that's an interesting thought. I think that fits to some extent. Yes, I think it is more difficult. I know my wife put up with me for a year before I came to the Lord. In a culture Peter was writing to, if we have an unbelieving Roman or Greek, they literally could put their wives to death. Yes. All right, good. Whatever, and Roy to turn to what you were alluding to before. Proverbs 31, 10, 11. We could read the entire book of Proverbs 31.

We're not going to, but who can find a virtuous wife? For her worth is far above rubies. The heart of her husband safely trusts her. So he will have no lack of gain. I mean, you could interpret that from a very kind of male self-serving manner, but his gain relates to how she trusts him. But nevertheless, I think that the verse says a lot about her worth is far above Robie's in terms of this gentle and quiet spirit. All right, Proverbs 31, 30, charm is deceitful and beauty is passing, but a woman who fears the Lord shall she be praised. OK, so anyway, again, we could read the entire book. It's worth reading. I think it's really puts the woman on a pedestal that she deserves to be in. And the woman who fears the Lord certainly is one we all should praise.

Let's go on to verse six then. We have the example of Sarah here. So as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him Lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror. So Sarah here being the epitome of the provisal for what a wife should be in terms of relating to her husband. And keep in mind, it's before the cross.

So this is good old Old Testament Genesis truth. So we need to accept it from where we get it. Now, the soft and cited example of submission, I think, is this one, and it's mentioned multiple times throughout scripture, mostly in Paul's epistles, but also here in Peter. He says, the word obeyed is in the constative aorist Greek, which speaks of an action going on over a long period of time, looking at it in one single panoramic view.

So the way we interpret this is is Sarah, this just wasn't on one occasion, but this was a behavior that she ultimately participated in for probably decades and decades. And of course, they lived through old years. So presumably this is an example that we should all pay attention to. So, dear wives, do you consider yourselves daughters of Sarah that you are or became?

Are you doing good and not afraid of any terror? How are you women doing out there? I don't expect anyone to volunteer to tell me how you're doing. Anyway, it's a question I think women who are wives need to address and answer in terms of their own lives and relationships. What's doing good? The world's view is even doing good is right. We don't want the world's view of doing good because often it's motivated by wrong kinds of behavior.

But 1 Peter 2.15, something we studied months ago, for this is the will of God that by doing good, you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men.

And Alfred suggests an interpretation of this difficult expression. As long as the believing wives are doing good, they need not be afraid with any sudden terror of the account which their unbelieving husbands may exact from them. Here, Alfred really interprets this passage as relating more to the unbelieving husbands. A question comes up for me to ask all of you. Is this directed to only unsaved husbands, and what about believing husbands? What are your thoughts here?

So I think doing good, we could describe just in terms of that gentle and quiet spirit, that atmosphere of respect and subjection. And, you know, it's a Christlike life led by the wife. So let's assume that doing good is not just simply a bunch of good deeds.

Although, remember, we go back here in the passages of First Timothy 5.10 and Titus 2.3.5, it gives examples of what these good things may be, so keep those in mind. But we're talking about a walk that is considered to be good. So back to the issue.

Was this corrected to women who were married to only unsaved husbands, or what about believing husbands? So you wives, on this Sunday morning here, you're married for the most part, if not those who are married, are married to believing husbands. Does he ever fall short of what your expectations are? Yes.

Not in this household. Who said that? Andrew. Everybody's going to admit who said that, right? No, I think this is broadly applicable. Honey, you never fall short. Oh, honey, thank you so much. Is that a paid announcement? I've never heard this before. This is being recorded. Honey, I'll give you the name of my attorney after we're done here. Can I have the name of yours, too?

No, actually, you said an untruth. So anyway, let's reflect on the trials that Peter has and will so frequently mention going forward. You know, Peter's epistles, particularly the first is really trials and tribulations based. So let's go to 220. For what credit?

Is it if when you're beaten for your faults, you take it patiently, but when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God? Or if that's not applicable to you, why is it when your husbands fall short? And of course, we husbands need to put on that life too. And really when we suffer, when we've done no wrong and we take it patiently, that's commendable before God. Wow, that's a high calling. And that's certainly an act of faith that we all need to bathe ourselves in.

Second Corinthians 4.16, therefore, we did not lose heart, even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day. But what a privilege it is to grow by faith through these experiences we have.

If you go on to verses 17 and 18, which I don't have quoted here, for our light affliction is but for a moment, which worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory. While we look not at the things that are seen, but the things that are not seen. For the things that are seen are temporal, but the things that are not seen are eternal. So I think we can all put that into our marriage relationships where our partner, our wife or husband falls short. And this is a high calling to really have that pathway of grace by which our faith inactivates our life. So very, very important.

Hey, husband, how recently has your wife called you Lord? Roger, Bonnie, do you want to speak to this here? I can say she probably has never called me Lord. Not recently. Well, let's put that into your conversation now, Bonnie. This is the application for you today. Sue Ellen, how are you doing with this? Marion. Anyway, so this is good. Calling your husband Lord. All right. The Greek word translated Lord is curious, a word used in various ways.

And actually, if you look at some of the interpretations of Kyrios, it really relates to God himself. But clearly, your husbands are not gods. So don't use that Greek interpretation. for this term to be applied to your husbands. Sarah used it as a wifely courtesy to her husband and I think a recognition of his authority over her in terms of the biblical principle of God in terms of the relationship of wife to husband and husband to man. Macaulay, Sarah is introduced as an example because she called Abraham Lord, a term that Macaulay thinks indicated his leadership and headship.

And you know, guys, we fall far short of this at times. But, you know, that's that's the mindset. We're not lords in terms of gods, but we are to take a spiritual leadership and show spiritual headship in the way we relate to our wives and children and the world around us. So.

Big colleague. Genesis 18, 12 takes us back to the Genesis record, therefore, Sarah laughed within herself, saying, after I have grown old, shall I have pleasure? My Lord being old also, of course, you know, the Lord accused her of laughing. She denied it. Anyway, all that aside. But then we see maybe a little bit more detail on this in Romans in verses nine, seven through nine.

Nor are they all children because of the seed of Abraham, but in Isaac your seed shall be called. That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as the seed, for this is the word of promise.

At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son. So that's kind of the promissory note of what Sarah was responsible to, to being obedient to God's will to ultimately bear a son at late age, presumably years after menopause. So this seems like one of those Old Testament miracles that people take for granted, but certainly is something that we can turn to, to know that God's plan is perfect going forward. Any other thoughts about Sarah here? Well, one of the things that comes to my mind in the biblical account of Sarah and Abraham is going to Egypt and obeying him in telling the Pharaoh that I'm his sister.

And she was. But at the same time, there was a deceit involved in that. And God had to intervene. And he shut the womb of Pharaoh's wives and Pharaoh noticed it and said, what's going on here to Abraham? And God worked in spite of that husband leading his wife in not a biblical way, but with lies actually. Well, often the path to God's righteousness is through our error.

Isn't that correct here for Sarah? Right. But she did the right thing. But, you know, participated in the sin and got a handmaid in the process that caused problems later on. Well, you know, Roy, it reminds me of something that is really so critically important is the truth always wins no matter what it is. Right. I mean. Yeah. God is sovereign over all of that.

And we think that sometimes, you know, not telling the full truth is really to our protection or benefit, but it rarely is, and usually it's not. Right, right. I guess my question is, how could she do the right thing if it was sin? It was an obedience to him, but it was not an obedience to God. I was just going to say, so this is Abraham's lack of spiritual leadership, right? Right. Exactly.

But, you know, both are examples of the Old Testament truth of living by faith, right? I mean, you know, but it shows the human nature of all of us. Keep in mind, we're crucified with Christ. Nevertheless, we live and the life we live is now Christ for me to live as Christ and die as Cain. But we all have that old nature that still exists there. So we're called to a higher level by that life in Christ we have.

And, you know, in the Old Testament, they didn't have that same relationship that we have today. But yet faith was still what carried them forward. So here's an example of failure of faith and also responsive to faith. Any other thoughts about Sarah here?

All right. Husbands, likewise, well, we're getting around to husbands here. We've got six verses dealt with the women, the wives, but now all of the husbands get a nod here too. Likewise, dwell with them with understanding, meaning to the wife, giving honor to the wife as to the weaker vessel and as being heirs together of the grace of life that your prayers may not be hindered. Wow. Talk about a stacked verse here. Let's dissect it.

First, Constable says, and I'd like this, why did Peter write more about the conduct of women versus one through six than of men? And Constable goes on to say he evidently did so because his concern was for Christian wives who were married to pagan husbands. But I think, you know, this theme comes up again. Was this only for wives married to pagan husbands?

I don't think so. But the first part clearly was in terms of her A quiet, gentle spirit being a pathway by which her husband might come to the Lord. But I think the applicability of the verses we're reading today could be applied to women married to saved men too.

Okay. One thing might be mentioned here is the balance between the texts of Paul and the texts of Peter and that balance being because it's the Holy Spirit breathing out these words and giving us insight into his perspective of these things. Right. And that certainly does differ some from the Old Testament to the New, right? Absolutely. And Paul hardly mentions a wife at all. Peter dwells a lot on it, which gives a balance to the entire picture of our relationship of a husband and wife. Right.

And I find that kind of interesting because Peter was married, but Paul was not at least. What's everybody's opinion whether Paul was married or not? I think there's a divided opinion. I don't see any sound evidence that he was. I don't believe he was.

So maybe that's why Paul's emphasizing the role of the husband because his knowledge is from the male responsibilities. But anyway, it's all God-given, so we have to accept it for what it is. But it is neat to see, as Royce mentioned, the balance between Peter and Paul here in addressing the marital relationship. All right, let's go ahead then.

But here, isn't the text devoted to believing husbands? The is shouldn't be there. Isn't the text devoted to believing husbands? I think it could and likely is here because we don't ask an unsaved man to be self-righteous in carrying out these activities because they don't have any firm basis on the truth of the word of God.

Husbands likewise dwell with them, their wives, with understanding. Understanding here is the Greek term gnosis or knowledge. So if you look at that term, we kind of refer to it a lot. There says it's moral wisdom, such as seen in right living and in contact with others. So another interpretation would be wisely. So Gnosis is experiential and it really relates to a atmosphere surrounding morality and right living. Well, I have a comment about the previous thing that you had talked about, and that is that it applies to the believer.

But since this is God's general will for people in general, I think, Even though the unbeliever doesn't know it, because he's not in the scriptures, would he still be held accountable for this kind of thing? Accountable by whom? But you mean in terms of just a marital relationship or accountable by God? By God. Yeah.

You know, that takes us off on a rabbit trail, Kathy. I mean, it really relates to people who are not saved, who have rejected the calling of the Holy Spirit, what the ultimate outcome is for their unsaved life in terms of various degrees of punishment going forward at the Great White Throne. I don't want to get on that trail now because I just don't understand it totally myself. Certainly the consequences of our sin are very different depending on where that sin occurs and under what circumstances. I think that's a good question to ask, but it's a tough one for me to definitively answer.

Anybody else want to take that one on? One of the things that we might look at in verse 7 is the ending here. Your prayers would be speaking to a believing man. Right. Not necessarily an unbelieving man. Although an unbeliever could pray and they would be hindered. You're going to get into that so I won't. Right.

But I think this is really applicable to the same husband. I think that fits in context best in terms of the relationship of the marital vow that one has, one with the other, husband with wife and wife with husband. Giving honor, the term can be precious, calling your wife precious is giving her honor, as to the weaker vessel. So the question comes up here, how should we interpret our wives as the weaker vessel? Well, Is it spiritual? Is it physical? Is it emotional or sickly? And what kind of weakness are we talking about here? What are people's thoughts?

Well, first of all, maybe we should look at what are vessels. So 2 Corinthians 4, 7, we have this treasure in earthen vessels. that the excellency of that power may be of God and not of us. So we are earthly vessels. And Paul says it again in 1 Thessalonians, that each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor. Of course, Vessel is one of those terms in the Greek that could be interpreted as something that holds, you know, a non-living item that holds something in its vessel, etc. It could be a boat or anything else. But here, obviously, the application is to each one of us. So what are your thoughts?

What's the woman or the wife being a weaker vessel indicate? Bob, would it? Would it relate at all to Eve and her being, you know, kind of tricked by the serpent? I mean, I don't know. I'm throwing that out as the weaker vessel. I think the consequences of the Adam and Eve scenario were different for both men and women.

There's no question about that. I don't see any commentators coming up with that as an explanation but it's an interesting thought. Thanks honey. I hesitate to say this but I've got a perspective from Genesis that Eve was created to be the help meat for Adam to complete him. There was no other created creature found And so God created her to do that.

OK, so would that make her the weaker vessel? And if so, in what capacity, Roy? No, no, no. I'm just saying that she had capacities that were needed by us men. And those capacities are emotional. And the outreach of a woman is much more sensitive to the impressions and thinking of others around us than I am. Man, if I didn't have my wife, I wouldn't detect hardly anything. So, Gail, you want to speak to this? I don't want to say a word. You know, as this happened in the real world over the last week, whenever people say something, it's criticized by many.

So anyway, we're not going to be critical of that Roy, but so you're kind of leaning towards maybe emotional, but you know, Constable, like many other commentators say this, obviously in many marriages, the wife is a stronger person emotionally, mentally, spiritually, morally, socially, and or physically.

Nevertheless, physically, the wife is usually weaker than the husband. That's Constable's view. I think most people who address this topic consider it physical weakness. Leave it for what it is. What I like about Constable is that in many marriages, the wife carries the stick. Sheís stronger in many of these ways than her husband. You could say there are two things there.

One is the man is not spiritually mature and providing that leadership and headship in the marriage that he needs to do. Really, I think Paul puts the pressure on the husband. to really be acting out in a way that that leadership and headship should be shown. Alternatively, maybe she doesn't have that quiet and gentle spirit and feels the necessity for taking charge over things that the spiritual husband should be. Anyway, that's an opinion only. But I like Constable's note here in that he does indicate what's occurring in many marriages, I think. Well, we've got Ephesians. teaching us the relationship is like the relationship of Christ in the church.

Right. We're going to get there too. Royce, this is good. Oh, I didn't mean to. I'm sorry. Royce, if so spiritually, you know, ahead of us, he's doing a great job here. Whatever. It's as being heirs together to the grace of life. I mean, that's that's oneness, isn't it? This is so incredibly important.

Man and wife are made one in Christ Jesus. If my love for Margaret relates to Christ's love for the church, I've got a big task ahead of me, but boy, that's something that's cemented in heaven. It's really something that is a spiritual leadership position that I must, by faith, live unto. We fall short so often, women, wives, and you get disappointed in us, but that's really what we're called to. We're amped together of the grace of life.

Yes? I just want to go back to the previous slide. I just had another thought about the weaker vessel. I guess my take is that The wife, yes, she's weaker physically, but there's an aspect which, and it's not proper today, that the women, because they are more feeling and more caring, can be hurt more deeply.

And that they need their husband to protect them. And that's part of what's implied here. The husband's job, the believing husband's job in protecting his wife. And I think that can be kind of missed in this weaker vessel thing. Because she is feeling and she completes him that but she can be hurt very deeply. And the husband, the husband needs to understand that.

So that's my little contribution to that discussion. Roger, I think that's good. I think that's very good. But I don't hear any women responding to this, to any of this. I think the difference there is the husband has a bigger responsibility than the wife for protection and everything else. It doesn't mean she's necessarily weaker, but he's got a greater responsibility, I think, than she does. Okay. Or sensitive, much more sensitive. I don't know if you heard that. She's much more sensitive. Yes. All right.

I'm not sure we've done this justice, but nevertheless, the word of God says that she's the weaker vessel. And I think that's something that we can interpret in many ways. But I think if men are being spiritual leaders, then that's not something we need to think about or worry about. But I like everything that's been shared here. Good thoughts.

So to Ephesians, 25 to 27, husbands love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for her, that he might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that he might present her to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or anything, but that she should be holy and without blemish.

Again, tremendous responsibility. So this idea, you know, you could paraphrase scripture and said men's responsibility is a true Christ love. for his husband or his wife. But ultimately, the woman's responsibility is more this concept that Roger brought up for the title last week. Respect is a different concept. Love is not her responsibility, although we hope that our wives love us as husbands who try to accomplish God's word in our lives.

All right. Romans 8, 17, and if children than heirs, we're talking about it being joint heirs and heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with him, that we may also be glorified together. So, you know, again, all of the church are joint heirs with Christ, but Maybe the one we have with our wives or wives with their husbands is even in some way different. I don't think so. But we're all joined as being joined heirs to the throne.

So this is great. Notice the outcome and sometimes a difficult one to interpret. Your purse may not be hindered. What do you make of that, everyone? So this is to men now that, you know, if we're not living up to our responsibilities to our wives, that our prayers, you know, may not be hindered. Well, it seems like he's saying they can be hindered. Well, they can be if we're not living up right. But the text says we need to have that relationship so our prayers not be hindered. Right. So.

One of the verses that comes to mind is that if we consider sin in our lives, the Lord will not hear us, and that is sometimes applied here to this. I think the Lord is always listening, however, but this verse is actually from another perspective, that it is our prayers that are being hindered, not listening, so that we would not pray as much, that we would pray in error, that we would, you know, we'd go to God and say, you gave me this wife, Lord, why? That kind of thing, versus being thankful, being dependent and trustworthy of the Lord. Did anybody read None but the Hungry Heart this morning? Let me just read a little bit of this, and I hadn't intended to do this until this issue came up with this terminus of verse 7. I quote 1 John 4, 16.

We have known and believed the love that God hath to us. The Spirit convicts us of sins that we may be convinced of God's cleansing. We do not deserve to be forgiven, but the Lord Jesus deserves to be trusted. We find the greatest difficulty often in bringing our sorrow to God. How can I do so? Some may be saying, as my sorrow is the fruit of my sin, how can I take it to God? If it was suffering for righteousness sake, then I would, but I'm suffering for my sin. And can I, in the integrity of my heart towards God, take my sorrows to him knowing I deserve them?

And the answer is yes, the Lord Jesus has been to God about them. This, then, is the ground on which I can go. There has been perfect atonement for all of my sins. Christ has been judged for them. Will God judge us both? No, I go to Him on the ground of atonement, and God can justify me and all my sorrow, because Christ's work has been done so perfectly.

The guilt which the throne detects, the altar removes. If in the light of the throne one object is seen, namely ruined, guilty, undone self, then in the light of the altar one object is seen, namely a full, precious, all-sufficient Christ. The remedy reaches to the full extent of the ruin, and the same light that reveals the one reveals the other likewise. This gives settled repose to the conscience. God himself has provided a remedy for all ruin which the light of his throne was revealed. Quote 1 John 1 7, a verse we know well, if we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another and the blood of Jesus, his son, cleanses us from all sin.

So as we finish today's lesson, you know, why is be not hindered in the passive tense? Well, I think it perhaps to our falling short. And that's really why I read this today from today's None but the Hungry Heart. Ephesians 4 30 and do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God by whom you were sealed from the day of redemption. So I think Our prayers may be hindered because that fellowship is falling short of our sin when we, in fact, are overly occupied by our falling short. But remember what I read today from None But the Hungry Heart. It fits perfectly here. So men, our relationship with our wives, in fact, when it falls short, our prayers may be hindered simply because that fellowship has been transiently lost, but in fact can be regained immediately by confession and moving on. Anyway, I think Peter's now done with this marital relationship, and I think next week we're going to continue.

Who's teaching next week, Roger? It's Andrew. OK, Andrew, a message from the mountains next week. It's going to be hard to write a message. He's going to have a trumpet from the mountains today. All right, good. Well, any further conclusive thoughts about today's lesson?

I think the calling for both of us in the marital relationship is a high one. Again, our living by faith has allowed us to be more complete on a day-to-day basis. Let's close in prayer. Father, these are big challenges for the married couples and those who, in fact, are part of this Sunday School class who are not married. The lessons are still there in terms of what you have to say about the marital relationship. And we pray that the Spirit would lead us in this right conduct as wives and husbands, that our marriage would be stronger, and that God would be glorified in everything we say and do. So we're thankful for the lesson we've had. We look forward to the gathering that follows and the message to be presented. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen.