Wives Respect Your Husbands

All right, so our text today is 1 Peter 3, 1 through 4, and the title that Roger gave me was Wives Respect Your Husbands. We may raise that title a little bit going forward. So, Roger, don't be on the defensive now. Anyway, the title is good, and I think we're going to look at a very exciting part of Scripture.

And Roger, I didn't look for—how many verses next week? Did we do five and six? Five through seven next week. Next week is Sarah's example. This week is wives respect for husbands. Then we have 5-7, Sarah's example. And then 8-12, living in harmony. Yeah, well, you know, the husbands get mentioned at 7. Anyway, that's what I was unclear of.

So we're directing the attention today that Peter has through the Word of God to wives. So the first verse and second verse I combined because there's a period after both. Wives likewise Be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear." Boy, is that a stacked verse or two, isn't it? So Peter clearly focuses address on women whose husbands are not believers.

So that's kind of to set the stage for the next few verses. We're talking about the belief of the wife and how that impacts her day-to-day existence for their husband that ultimately may lead him to salvation. So, David, so I quote him, this is quite a revolutionary attitude for that culture. The idea that ultimately in Roman times or the times of the scripture was written, ultimately this may have not been overly accepted by the people who may have been reading it.

So wives may say, why likewise? Is that meaning equally or in the same manner? What's likewise really referred to? What do you think here? I'm going to give you a couple of options. Does this relate to kind of the submission to government, the kings, servants to masters, etc., that we covered in 1 Peter 2, 13 through 20? Or, in fact, does likewise relate to his Christ submitted to his Father, 1 Peter 2, 21 through 25. What do you think? I go with B. That's what they were just talking about. Yeah, I agree.

But there clearly is a transition from the initial potential application of how we have, you know, we as believers submit the government and masters, etc. But, you know, the higher calling is clearly the submission of Lord Jesus Christ to his father's will, right? And that's really more consistent with the exchange life that both men and women, wives and husbands or single people have, right? As Christ submitted to his father is kind of the submission that ultimately a wife should be to her husband. Now, the submission, that's going to be a topic of interesting discussion this morning. So we'll see what follows here. I'm not going to tell you what's going to follow because you've got to stay in the class. So hang with me here. Comment? Somebody got a comment? No, I was just I just know. Don't be bashful.

All right, let's go on. A very important question here. What does it mean to be submissive, be in subjection or respect? Well, I'm going to challenge this a little bit. So let's let's continue. What do you think? What's it mean to be submissive? Well, sometimes, depending on the word, the original word, it can mean to listen under, to line up under, that kind of idea. All right. Other thoughts? Line up under. OK.

It also has the idea of supportive, be in support of, in addition to be listening under. I mean, I think the term submissive is pejorative, isn't it? Particularly when it's interpreted non-scripturally. That's a big word. What's that mean? Yeah. Pejorative means, you know, creating anger.

You know, it's really a term that is not well received. And I think even maybe in the liberal church where scripture is kind of useful when it applies or when it doesn't apply, it's not very useful. I mean, submissive is a term that I think many, many women and men ultimately would object to. So let's keep that in mind as we pursue this. Interestingly enough, be submissive is in the passive tense.

So I guess the question that comes up then, does that make the wife a doormat? No. And you know, we've, you know, I remember, with Sharon, my first wife and I, there was a friend, a wife of one of my colleagues at the university who came to the Lord and Sharon was part of that conversion that ultimately then was really kind of walked all over by her husband who was an unsaved man, as far as I know, still unsaved. So ultimately, we kind of thought about her as maybe being walked all over us is really ultimately very, very dependent in a wrong sense on her husband's that we tried. I mean, I think Sharon mostly tried to counsel her in that regard.

But so my question is, how far does not being a doormat go? So we're going to get into that here in a second. Doesn't this relate to if it's assuming that these wives are believers, And so it's sort of like you always say, honey, when, you know, somebody says they're doing this or that and you say, so how are you doing in that?

You know, well, you can't do that unless the Lord is working through you. So I think it's not being a doormat. If it's passive, it's the Lord has to work through you in that, in that whole area, because, you know, I'm not going to be submissive. you know, in that way. That's clear. But the Lord can change hearts and can allow you to, just like you love people or you love your neighbor or whatever, you're not doing that in your own self. You have to do it in Christ.

Well, I think what Margaret has said, and I'll try to paraphrase it, you know, You wives all have different personalities. All women have different personalities. Personalities are not wrong. They're just who we are. I think the issue is what kind of leadership are we expecting here from the husband? We're expecting spiritual leadership. We'll come to that in subsequent verses next week.

Nevertheless, this husband is unsaved. He doesn't have a clue what's going on here. He doesn't relate to this this challenging verse in scripture from a spiritual perspective. So if, in fact, he's unsaved and believes that this verse applies to his own marriage, he's going to make demands that go beyond reason. They're going to be unacceptable and spiritually unsounded.

So it's kind of conditional, but it's not really anything that we should venture too far from scripture. No, this is what the Lord had designed from the beginning. We don't need to ask why. This is God's principle. And what was that principle? Genesis 3.16, quite early in scripture. So the woman, this is after the sin in 3.15, in terms of the prophecy of what would follow.

The woman, he said, I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception. In pain, you shall bring forth children. And boy, I don't know of any woman who's delivered children having that pain. And your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you. Now, your desire shall be for your husband.

Ultimately, I think God had in mind the oneness in Christ that the Christian marriage represents. So your desire shall be your husband. And I think a healthy Christian marriage, you know, Margaret and I are only great companions. We love one another and we're bonded in the Lord Jesus Christ.

And so as the Lord works through me as her husband, I have Paul short, I'm sure many times, honey, but he shall rule over you. In other words, my ruling over her is spiritual, being spiritually mature and showing wisdom in that new nature that God's given me. Any thoughts about that comment, guys? Dallas?

Bob, in Genesis 3.16, I've always thought the last part of that You know, some people say, what's the sexual desire for your husband? I think it's more, no, no, no, that's no, it's I, I think it is. I think he agreed to her, you know, her sinful nature with my cause to want to rule over us and to be better than she is.

But, but scripture says that she's to be submissive. I like the things in Colossians and, um, In Ephesians, in the Lord, they'll put that little caveat in there. It's, you know, be submissive in the Lord, obey in the Lord. So you're doing it for the Lord, but, you know, the outward side that a person can't see is that you're being submissive.

And maybe we could add this thought that when we read the scripture about our relationships, we're getting God's perspective on it. Right. Well, you know, in, in, in biblical times, in New Testament times, the church age in which we live, that's a oneness in Christ Jesus.

Is it not our marriage? I mean, we could go back to Ephesians five. I didn't want to distract our study here too much. Cause there's a lot of meat here that I think we can discuss in context without going into Ephesians and Colossians, but Roger, it's good. You brought it up because I think there it's in the Lord, right? So, all right, let's continue. And we men have failed our spiritual responsibilities here.

I think, you know, I think ultimately, you know, I'll never remember, never forget and remember quite well that, and I'll come back to this in a little bit, after I came to the Lord, after a year of seeing my wife's life change, you know, ultimately, you know, I went months trying to get into the word and try to understand it and interpret it and everything. and Sharon kind of confronted me. She said, Bob, you now are the spiritual leader of this home. I want you to be praying with the kids at bedtime. I want you to be reading more Bible stories. In other words, there was a kind of responsibility that I felt was of the Lord that I needed to step forward to.

I think a lot of this lack of submission, however we interpret that term, relates to the failure that we men husbands really fail at. Anyway, we'll just leave it at that. The Greek term is hypotasso. Submission and arrange under, as Roy alluded to, are the best translations. And I actually turned to kind of Greek, you know, just not the Bible helps, et cetera. I turned to other sources of information.

And respect is not there under any kind of literal interpretations of the word. Arrange under is a little less, sorry, Roy, pejorative. In other words, it makes you angry. I mean, I think submission sounds like it's really an ugly term for women, particularly, you know, who don't feel that they really need to be put into an atmosphere of submission. But arranging others under seems to take on a much more godly perspective, doesn't it?

Yeah, I agree, Bob. I like the examples like Ephesians and Colossians where you think of the military example where if you're a private and the lieutenant says do this or do that, you line up under him because he's the head. In the case where your husband's an unbeliever, it's a lot more challenging, a lot harder to see that you should be doing that, but God says you should, so you agree with him. One of the things, I don't know if you're going to get to it, Bob, is that in the Roman culture... Right, right. Are you going to go there? Yeah, I will, but go ahead, Roy, please. Well, I was just thinking of that.

Here's a believing wife and an unbelieving husband. In Peter's view here, we use in the same way there to relate to their husbands as the preceding examples and the subsequent example of Sarah to Abraham in a culture where she was expected to take her husband's religion It wasn't insignificant that she was facing in that culture. It's quite a contrast. But as I think, you know, the term submissive, I think, unfortunately, men in a Christian marriage, by the way, here we're talking about an unsaved husband here.

Okay. So we got to remember that that's what we're talking about. But I think in many kind of very, very fundamental churches, boy, I think men put a lot of pressure on women to submit to his desires, which may not be perfectly, uh, holy and pure. So there's no command here. There's no command to the man. Correct. Yeah.

Any other thoughts about that? A range under, I think, is a more comfortable term that's less likely to cause harm and make a woman feel that she and her husband are one in Christ. I really think submission, again, is a term that's been kind of misused and misinterpreted. But anyway, respect we could relate to that, but again, I couldn't find any direct translation to the English that said respect was the right word. Roger, that's not a criticism, but I think when we teach Ephesians and Colossians, we put this in a position. Ultimately, a woman has never been charged to love her husband.

It's to arrange gender or work. Or respect her husband. Yeah, exactly. Respect. I wonder if maybe we're missing one point that is rather significant here, and that is the wife is to support in that submitting under. And that means to enforce respect, not just in perhaps a deportment level, but her thinking, because She has a relationship to the Lord. She respects her husband as her leader, even if he's an unbeliever and submits to that, maybe not in word, but in conduct.

Okay. And Roy, I'm going to build on that in a second. So thank you for bringing that up. Gordon Dutile, this word may denote either voluntary or forced behavior, but not any sense of inferiority. Macaulay, it's a positive response to designated authority. I think that really relates to the spiritual leadership of the husband.

And by the way, how can that really exist in a non-believing husband? Well, I would say that as a non-believer, there are a lot of self-righteous men out there who may be doing kind of the right thing without really that godly direction in his decision-making. Any thoughts about that? Yeah, it does seem like you come across, and we have friends that that where the husband's not a believer and the wife is, but the guy's a really good, you know, by the world, he's a really good guy, he's a good father, he spends time with the kids, he's a good man, he just doesn't know Christ, and that's, you know, it's the wife, but actually the scripture gives us the formula, it gives us the method the wife is supposed to pursue in that case. Well, that's the rest of the verse. Exactly.

Titus 2.5, discreet, chaste, homemaker's good, obedient to their own husbands that the word of God may not be blasphemed. So that's a really a positive response to designated authority and designated as simply marriage, right? Again, we're talking about an unsaved husband, but the wife's behavior is what we're turning to now that may bring her husband to the Lord. Constable, this is an interesting topic, Roy, and this is what I was thinking you were leading into before. Should a Christian wife submit to her husband even if he directs her to sin?

Some evangelicals answer yes and appeal to Ephesians 5.24 for support.

Somebody want to pull Ephesians 5.24 to read that right now while I'm finishing this?

Some evangelicals answer yes and appeal to Ephesians 5.24. Others say no but argue that submission should extend to everything, pas, is the Greek term, except sin.

Anybody have Ephesians 5.24? I can read it here.

Therefore, as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. OK, let's counteract that. I think that ultimately, if the husband would direct her to sin, that this is not biblical. And I'm going to turn to Colossians 325, another section in scripture that relates to this.

But he who does wrong will be repaid for what he has done. And there's no partiality. So for a husband to lead his wife to sin so that she could be submissive is absolutely wrong. And to interpret 524 to say that her husband should direct her to sin is absolutely incorrect.

But Ephesians is dealing with a Christian couple. It's a different perspective. I don't think that Paul is addressing a relationship of husband and wife where one is an unbeliever, but believers. Right. Well, I'm simply quoting what Constable raised here as an issue. So I thought it maybe was an important point to teach on this morning that ultimately this is not being a responsive woman submitting to her husband. Well, it is Christ's life being lived out of us, and he's not going to violate his life.

I mean, he's just not going to do that. He could, but it would be more likely for an unsaved husband. Nevertheless, I don't think that this really in any way is interpreted as if a woman has a demanding husband and he directs her to sin that she should respond to that leadership or lack thereof. Well, if he's directing her to sin and she chooses to go along with that, isn't she putting her husband above God?

Well, that's true. And I think, again, there's impartiality here. Sin is sin, right? And the cross is sufficient. So, Roy, your point about a believing husband has a very different application than it does to an unsaved man, for sure. But even a believer could ask his wife to do a sin. Got to be careful there. Yeah, we could, unfortunately. We still have a sin nature, right? Right. All right, let's continue.

Even if some do not obey the word, now we're talking about the husbands. If in the Greek is a first class condition of which basically refers to a fulfilled condition. You know, if some do not obey the word, well, if they don't, they didn't obey the word. So for husbands, what does it mean to not obey the word? What word are we talking about here? The word in the Greek is logos. What word is that?

Oh, it seems like it would be the word of God, but it seems a little strange that a non-believer, what regard would he have for God's word? That's right. and I was there once upon a time. The word is Jesus Christ himself? I think this would be more the written word, the written word of God, more than the Lord himself. But of course, none of those can be broadly applied to either. Or it could be taken as the revelation that God has of himself.

He is the eternal word. He's a communicator. Right. And if we think of the three C's again, creation, conscience, and then Christ, ultimately Christ is what saves. But even the even the unsaved man lives in a atmosphere of conscience as to what's right and wrong. That definition may be difficult for them to define at times, but nevertheless, that is the second C word of leading us to Christ. The obedience here may also be focusing on his belief, his trust in the truth. I mean, it's not so much an obedience of doing as it is believing that leads to doing.

Well, remember, it's not what we do, it's who we are. And once we know who we are, then what we do should be evident of that, right? Who we are. So it's not who, it's not what, it's who. and who directs our life so that what occurs ultimately represents who we are.

So this is present active indicative. That means these, you know, us guys who are unsaved with a saved woman, we're doing this. I mean, even though we may have thought we were obeying the word in terms of our conscience, ultimately, we're not in a position to defend that in terms of the cross. And I think it's appropriate here, Bob, maybe to mention that this is present active. The submission is passive. That is something that happens. So it might be a sort of a contrast there. Well, it relates back to the the doormat concept for the woman, right? In other words, that he could walk all over her if he wanted to.

So we still obey not is is the translation of a word which speaks of a state of unbelieving disobedience. The word means literally in its verb form, not allow oneself to be persuaded. So in other words, this is a little stronger interpretation than simply living a self-righteous life. This would, according to Weiss, this would really be a state of unbelieving disobedience. And that would mean something that might be a little bit more outward and a little bit more injurious.

I was one of these people. I saw Sharon, her life changed. This is a woman I've known since age 14 and dated, then through high school and college and got married and started having kids. Ultimately, we were struggling raising children. Sharon came to the Lord through the Women's Bible Study Fellowship.

Ultimately, I watched a woman change. Sure, she's not perfect. She was, before God, perfect and complete. For me, everything wasn't perfect, but I saw a woman who was very different. Ultimately, her life made me get into the Word of God to realize ultimately how far short I was falling. So I think these verses really apply to me personally because I experienced this through a very godly woman as she was growing in grace.

They, without a word, meaning the woman doesn't need to speak anymore about the gospel. That doesn't mean she doesn't have to, but ultimately it's the conduct of her life that really is impacting. May be one passive subjunctive. That means maybe it's going to happen. Maybe it's not going to happen.

But here we're talking about her husband gaining or acquiring something very special. And that's his salvation. I was thinking that this this is really great instruction for the woman who desires that her husband come to the Lord. You know, the natural response is, you know, get with the program. But God says you don't close your mouth. And let your life show him what he needs to do. And you're a wonderful example of that, Bob.

But I gather Sharon didn't browbeat you. No, she didn't and that was what was so neat because as her life continued to inform me about what a changed life could look like, I increasingly became interested as to why and how. So I started getting into the word and I actually got saved a year later to a Bill Gothard seminar. I would not recommend Bill Gothard for many people. I agree. I know what you're saying.

Other than seeing Sharon change, I had never heard a personal gospel presented to me. I grew up in a mainline church and it was all social messaging. By the way, women who are not married, I think these verses can relate to you and the way you carry yourself too in terms of men you may be dating, etc. This is intended for wives, but yet I think the way women carry themselves can ultimately be a pathway to bring that right guy, if you're interested or not, to a more reasonable and important relationship. So is this pounding the gospel home or living the new life in Christ Jesus?

And I think effectively the last minute in terms of the questions and comments, I think we've answered that one pretty directly. If not, what does this look like? And I think I explained this personally in terms of how I was impacted by a woman who was changing in front of me.

When they observe your chaste conduct, what's chaste conduct? Not sinful, obviously. It has the idea of purity. Yes, purity. I think, Roy, you hit on it well because I'm going to go there in the next verse, but let's stop here. I found a very interesting definition. I think this was, I'm not sure what the source was, I don't think this was interlinear, but ultimately chase means to excite reference.

I mean, in a sense that you could interpret that in multiple ways, but then if we go to scripture, First Timothy 4.12, let no man despise thy youth, but be thou an example of the believers in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.

So I think conversation is the life, clarity is the transparency of that life, and purity is its holy and uplifting and righteous positional truth applied to her condition or for guys to our condition. It's a holy life, not by self-righteousness, but a life led by the Spirit and the new creation. Peter told us in the first chapter, but as he who called you is holy, you also need to be holy in all your conduct. It's a holy life, and how to define it, what the metrics are, I don't think we need to worry about. We know what the Christ life is by the power of the Spirit working in each and every one of us.

I thought about it a little bit. From the wife's perspective, she's thinking of God's perspective. She's reacting to what he loves and the purity in her life he respects. That's coming out in this passage. And that adornment, we're getting into that, but that adornment that he loves is what she's exhibiting.

Roy's always a couple of verses ahead of us, but this is... Oh, I'm sorry. No, I'm just teasing. We got to have comic relief here, you know. I'm kind of a Shakespearean fan, but anyway, that's good. But we are going to move into that very soon. Isn't it interesting to interpret Chase as to excite reverence? He said irreverence. Does he mean reverence? You mean reverence, right? Yeah, my bad. That was confusing as well. Correct that in your handout, everybody. There we go. We okay with that? There you go. What do you think the fear is here? Fear of punishment? What's this fear? Well, it relates to reverence, which I misspelled above.

Colossians or 2 Corinthians 7, having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. That's the reverence that ultimately I think the term chaste refers to.

And to think that God looks at a woman and says, wow, when he sees his own characteristics. That's something. OK, as we go into verses three and four, women, I want you to put your vanity aside now. So let's let's look at the verses and see how we can interpret them.

Do not let your adornment be merely outward, arranging the hair, wearing gold or putting on fine apparel. Rather, let it be the hidden person of the heart. with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God." Depending on how legal you are and how restricted you are in your fundamental theology, we could interpret this in a thousand ways. Letís look at this. Do not let your adornment be merely outward, arranging your hair, wearing gold, etc., and thatís including fine apparel.

This is an imperative verb. By the way, this isnít something you can say, ìMaybe, letís see.î I think how should women, wives particularly, thatís to whom this is being addressed, or even women in general, interpret this, or how should men interpret this?

Well, I was going to say, Margaret always, when I started dating her after, uh, you know, Sharon got home with a view of the Lord and, you know, she, you know, always looked nice and dressed nice. And, and she said, well, women dress for men. They are meant for women. They don't dress for men. So anyway, smarten up with you, Bob, whether that's true or not, I'm going to let her defend herself. Margaret, you want to defend yourself? She's left us. Who knows what she's doing.

No, I'll say that, you know, truly men never notice fashion. They don't. I mean, they're oblivious to most of that. And honestly, when women go out and they're buying the newest fashion, it is absolutely not to impress men because they don't even notice. It's more to impress the other women that they're associated with. I think we can just talk privately a little later, okay?

No, it's the case. It just is. It seems that, at least in my thinking, that this would be where your focus is, your emphasis. Right. So if your emphasis is on the external and not as much on your internal spiritual life, then that would be putting things kind of skewed backwards. Thank you. You've really, I think, appropriately interpreted this. Other thoughts here?

One of the things that we might want to keep in mind is Peter's addressing the Roman world, the Roman Greek world, where women would adorn their hair in like a like a lattice, actually. And they were expected to be like a trophy wife. That was the culture that they were in. That was what they expected of them. And the husband not necessarily would honor them in any other fashion than, look at my wife. Isn't she a wonderful thing? Isn't she supportive of me? And their adornment was part of that in that culture. Right, right. I'm also going to get to that in a second, but thank you. Oh, so the interesting. Yeah. No, you're fine. That's great.

So the interesting Greek term for adornment is cosmos. What else do you think of when you think of cosmos? The world. The world. Here, the term means an ornament or a decoration. And that's where the word cosmetics came from, by the way. But don't you find the other meaning of this term interesting in context? I mean, I think it's kind of interesting, but the interpretation here is an ornament or a decoration, not the world system. What appeals to the world system or the flesh is often quite different from that which appeals to the Lord.

I think we can all agree on that. So overly adorning a woman ultimately could be interpreted as a very worldly scenario. Blading of the hair, an elaborate gathering of the hair into knots, which was particularly common for Roman women of that time and presumably of Greek women too. I think that culturally was a very, very acceptable thing for them to do. We know the kind of cosmos or world system they lived in despite the cosmos ornaments or decoration that women were about in those days. What the word of God forbids the Christian woman is a conspicuous, extravagant, intricate artificiality in the manner of wearing the hair.

So how's that for a sentence? Conspicuous, extravagant, intricate artificiality. Boy, how about that? Wearing gold, the act of putting around. The concept here is not gold earrings or a gold necklace, but gold everywhere on the arms and wrists and ankles, etc. We're talking about an over adornment of items of gold and putting on fine apparel that's outward clothing.

The question that comes up here, where's the law here? And if there's no law, what's the alternative? So we've talked around that. What are your thoughts here? You know, the Bible doesn't say, gee, red dresses are prohibitive, but green ones are very nice. And, you know, earrings are fine, but a necklace is not. I mean, where are we going with this? What do you think?

So, Bob, isn't the contrast coming up here to kind of define what we're talking about, the inward versus the outward person? Because four is going to tell us where we should focus. So it You have to judge, you know, each woman has to judge, make a judgment call there, so to speak.

That's right. But ultimately, if she's walking in the Lord, she's got to be comfortable with her dress as being appropriate, not being necessarily attracting men for wrong reasons. I think there's something there that I think a woman needs to consider the more she dresses. I notice the word merely, and that makes me think that it's not to say that dressing appropriately and dressing nice is wrong, but the emphasis is to be on the inward character. Good. Thanks, Patty.

And I think 1 Timothy 2 points this out in like manner also that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel with proprietary and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but which is improper for women professing godliness with good work. So anyway, I think that could differ from woman to woman. And I think ultimately it's the inner woman, not her clothing or her adornments that really bring attention to the Lord. Rather, let it be, and Roger alluded to this, the hidden person of the heart with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit.

Psalms 90, Lord, my God, you are very great. You are clothed with honor and majesty who covered yourself with light as with a garment. who stretch out the heavens like a curtain. Isn't that interesting in terms of going back to Old Testament truth about the Lord being clothed with honor and majesty? I think it really does apply to today's dress for women.

This is incorruptible by position and represents the exchange line. So it's the inner woman, ultimately, that reflects on how she dresses and how she looks in terms of carrying herself in the new nature by the power of spirit in her adornment and clothing. Hey Bob? Yes?

One thing here that you haven't mentioned and maybe you will, how has the church taken this passage? You mentioned, is there law here? There are several groups that have taken this very legalistically. distorting it to the point of women wearing black only and, you know, and their adornment, they have no cosmetics, no organization, and obedience to this in their perspective. I think that's wrong here, because that's, that's not the focus.

I'm going to ask Margaret to share briefly an experience she succumbed to really when we were, I think we were married at that point, huh? Yeah. Yeah, I think we were. I remember going to pick up Clark at... I can't remember if it was a music lesson. Seems to me it was a music lesson. Maybe piano. I played a lot of music. Maybe, yeah. I think it might have been.

But anyway, it was at South Sheridan Baptist Church. And so when I got there, I had on pants. I was told by and so I went into the building to find Clark and so of course someone approached me and said you're you can't be here with these pants on it and they were pretty stern with me and said you know if you come back here you you better be have an appropriate dress on I mean it was just really interesting and I kind of said you know oh whatever you know I I didn't I wasn't disrespectful but I wasn't very I wasn't into their law. So after that, when I would go pick up Clark, I would wait outside in the car. I was not wearing a dress to go to South Sheridan. Thanks for sharing that. I'm sure Clark doesn't remember that.

That would be making the mistake that what is on the outside It is your spirituality, you know. Don't look at me because I'm wearing a dress rather than a fan, you know. So yeah, the same kind of, the other side of the coin maybe. And also the side where you're going to a banquet, then it is appropriate for a woman to dress up, isn't it? Because that honors your husband. There's that aspect as well.

Well, and I think it relates to the world system we live in. There's an appropriate dress for many occasions and some people don't follow that very well. I mean, you go to the symphony and there's been a historic dress that's appropriate for the symphony, but now people come in cutoffs and jeans and sandals, right? So, I mean, that's their choice, but that's not godly or ungodly.

It's just kind of what the world system's expecting. But anyway, let's turn back to the believer in Romans 12, 1 and 2. It says, I beseech you, therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, which I think relates to this passage to some extent. Holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. And do not be conformed to the world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what's good and acceptable and the perfect will of God. What's a gentle or meek and quiet spirit? This is the way A wife should carry herself in the setting of an unsaved husband or even with a saved husband. What's a meek and quiet spirit? Does that mean no talking at all? Does that mean she's a doormat? No, I don't think so.

I think the best way to think about this is for the Lord Jesus Christ himself. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I'm a gentle and lowly in heart. and you will find rest for your souls. Boy, that, I mean, the new nature is that meek and quiet and gentle spirit. So I think that's the best we can do with what that looks like. Would it be kind of like the opposite of arrogance, you know, that kind of thing? I think that would be one way to interpret it for sure.

I mean, isn't it interesting that scripture never gives you a legally-based description of this? Scripture doesn't tell us about red dresses versus green or slacks or shorts or anything else. It asks the woman to walk in a godly and holy manner, not being conformed to the world. That doesn't mean she can't buy something in its most recent fashion. Again, there's no law here. It's the inner spirit and the walk. and purity and holiness that I think the woman's being called to.

I think some of it speaks to balance too. Where's your heart versus what your pocketbook is doing and what you're trying to show off to other people. It's different for every person, but I think there's a balance there and what is your motive and what are you trying to accomplish?

Right. Adornment is not what the Lord is going to use to draw your husband to himself. It's that quiet inner spirit. That it's that's what God uses to draw the husband. Well spoken. Thank you. So we're done here almost. Why is this so very precious in the sight of the Lord? Our woman carries herself. with an unsaved or even a saved husband, or even a woman who's not married. I think, you know, the same, I mean, the circumstances are different in context. We're talking about a woman married to an unsaved guy. But why is this so very precious? Because the price that was paid was precious. First Corinthians 6, 24, you were bought at a price. therefore glorify God in your body.

I couldn't think of a better way to close this in terms of what is the message of scripture going forth here. Any thoughts? One of the things too, even from Christian couples, I think there is a tremendous lesson to be learned here. I learned from Gail many things in the relationship of a walk with the Lord that is honoring to him because of her walk and how the Lord worked in her heart. I saw the hand of God in her and I said, wow. And I recognized that from God's perspective through the word, don't get me wrong, but to see it in action in a person between believers, between unmarried people even, You know, when you see a lady walking with the Lord, whether she's your wife or not, you respect that work of God in them, as well as in men, don't get me wrong. But a husband-wife relationship is so intimate that it's like the church in regards to Christ. That same parallelism is there. Anyway, I appreciate what God has done through Gail for me, not just for herself. I think many of us on this call feel the same way about their wives, including Sharon and Margaret, my dear woman in my life now.

Other thoughts in closing? Okay, Roger. I know what you guys are talking about. Oh, okay. What? I have no idea about any of this. You never know when, right? Takes the man in my life, you know. Maybe that's a prayer request. Never mind. Okay. All right. So let's close in prayer then.

We thank you, Father. Thank you for this time, Father. Thank you for your word. Thank you for the clarity and just the practicality of your word, Father. Thank you that That a wife can show who you are to someone who does not know you. Father, we thank you for that testimony that she can have. In Christ's name. Amen.