1 Peter 3 Does Not Conflict With Egalitarianism

Read only Jude, and it might seem like the punishment that befell Sodom and Gomorrah is a pale shadow of potentially eternal torture in flames of Gehenna, but read 2 Peter 2, which is structured almost identically to Jude at times, and it is clear that it is the way the inhabitants of these cities were reduced to ashes that foreshadows the real fate of the wicked in hell.  Of course, it still would not logically follow from the phrase eternal fire that anything, much less everything, thrown into the fire would also last forever, so it is not as if Jude could only be referencing eternal conscious torment even if that was the only verse on hell in the entire Bible.  However, 2 Peter 2:6 clarifies Jude.

Similarly, read only Numbers 30, and it might seem as if the Bible prescribes different moral obligations for vows to men and women.  These are situational case laws that would apply to either gender, not that it would follow by necessity that the strict wording of Numbers 30 would contradict this.  Nevertheless, Deuteronomy 23:21-23 (and other Biblical teachings in the Old Testament [1]) reveals that of course anyone, male or female and married or unmarried, is supposed to honor the vows they make to God.  Numbers 30's case laws and the obligations described therein would thus have to apply to both genders.  Men are not supposed to bear any greater weight of making vows to God than women and women are not incapable of making vows without interference from their parents or husbands.

Something much like this is the case with 1 Peter 3:1-6.  A set of commands is given to a particular audience, in this case women, to be submissive to husbands (3:1, 5-6).  It would still not logically follow that if this submission in marriage is good, that it would not be morally binding for men too.  If submission and inward beauty (3:3-4) are morally good, in fact, and men can pursue and have both as well as is the case, then these qualities would be no less good or obligatory for men than for women (Genesis 1:26-27).  Still, Ephesians 5 already addressed submissiveness, including that in marriage, and yet right before it tells wives to submit to husbands (which would be one side of mutual submission anyway and thus does not exclude it), it tells Christians as a whole to submit to each other (5:21).

This instruction of Ephesians 5:21 would already encompass all Christian husbands and wives, though of course no one should submit in abusive circumstances or to any irrational or sinful request, and divorce is permitted in the former cases (Exodus 21:9-11, 26-27, Deuteronomy 24:1-4, and so on) and the later would entail a contradiction if one was morally obligated to submit to doing something immoral as long as one's spouse demands it.  Alone, 1 Peter 3 might once again seem to teach something that the Bible very blatantly does not put forth, but with Ephesians 5, it is as clear as it can be that this is not so.  Husbands and wives are to submit to each other just as husbands and wives are to love each other.

Also, the phrase "In the same way," used in reference to husbands towards wives immediately after the aforementioned verses (1 Peter 3:7), would not be valid unless there was a parallel even within 1 Peter 3 concerning the moral expectations for women and men.  Husbands are told to respect their wives in the same way as the women addressed, who were just told to submit to their husbands--so much for the complementarian concept that the Bible agrees with men specifically needing/deserving respect and women specifically needing/deserving love!  Mutual submission is the Biblical teaching regarding marriage (Ephesians 5:21, 1 Corinthians 7:2-5).  There is no obligation taught in the Bible that both men and woman are capable of doing which is ever only assigned to one gender or the other.