Baptists (and others)-- Wives submit to husbands? Wives and husbands equal partners?

[tall73]

And put it in a broader context where this is not meant to be a relationship where he controls, and she obeys. But rather one of mutual love and service.

a. It is a relationship of mutual love and service.

b. It also is a relationship where wives submit to husbands

c. And Sarah is said to have obeyed, and to be an example.

1 Peter 3:5-6 5 For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror. (NKJV)​

​

Please explain what Peter meant by Sarah obeyed Abraham.

​

 

[tall73]

Hi there

Hope you are well.

Howdy, I hope you are well too!

Great, I see you started the thread elsewhere and made it specific.

I would still group the texts you cited under the following elements.

1. Creation
2. Rebellion/(Fall)
3. Redemption/Rescue
4. Consummation

So I'll respond in that manner.

I have not responded to your posts yet because it seems you are developing them over time. However, I am reading them.

 

[Paidiske]

a. It is a relationship of mutual love and service.

b. It also is a relationship where wives submit to husbands

I see these two options as incompatible. Submission/control is not loving. It is abusive.

Please explain what Peter meant by Sarah obeyed Abraham.

It's interesting, because I went looking for the exact occasion that Peter was referencing, and it's not in Genesis, it's in the apocrypha. There is no place in Scripture where Sarah calls Abraham "lord." Sarah wasn't always all that obedient, so I am thinking that he was drawing on apocryphal stories which gave a general view of Sarah as the founding mother of Israel in a patriarchal society, to make a rhetorical point.

 

[Rose_bud]

Howdy, I hope you are well too!

Yes, I am thank you.

I have not responded to your posts yet because it seems you are developing them over time. However, I am reading them.

I am yes, however you are also free to comment on what is already posted.

 

[tall73]

It's interesting, because I went looking for the exact occasion that Peter was referencing, and it's not in Genesis, it's in the apocrypha. There is no place in Scripture where Sarah calls Abraham "lord." Sarah wasn't always all that obedient, so I am thinking that he was drawing on apocryphal stories which gave a general view of Sarah as the founding mother of Israel in a patriarchal society, to make a rhetorical point.

It was posted multiple times. Technically she calls him "my lord" which does include "lord".

Genesis 18:12 . 12 Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, “After I have grown old, shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?” (NKJV)​

 

[Paidiske]

It was posted multiple times. Technically she calls him "my lord" which does include "lord".

Genesis 18:12 . 12 Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, “After I have grown old, shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?” (NKJV)​

It's a shame I don't read Hebrew, because the reason I didn't find it is that the translation I normally use simply says "my husband" in that verse. Which makes me wonder whether - as we see later with Baal (husband/owner/master/lord) - these were somewhat interchangeable terms, and we might be freighting it too heavily.

 

[tall73]

all73 said:

a. It is a relationship of mutual love and service.

b. It also is a relationship where wives submit to husbands

I see these two options as incompatible. Submission/control is not loving. It is abusive.

Submission is not the same as control.

And submission cannot be abusive even in your own explanation, because you see all called to it! And this is true. All are called to it.

1 Peter 5:5-7​

5 Likewise you younger people, submit yourselves to your elders. Yes, all of you be submissive to one another, and be clothed with humility, for​

“God resists the proud,​

But gives grace to the humble.”​

6 Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time, 7 casting all your care upon Him, for He cares for you. (NKJV)​

​

All are to humble themselves, and be submissive to one another. Yet this does not erase God ordained leadership, which is why it is still mentioned in the texts.

It is not abuse to submit to Christ. And the text tells us the church does.

It is not abuse for wives to submit to husbands. And multiple texts say to do such.

It is not abuse to submit to authorities in the church:

Hebrews 13:17 17 Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you. (NKJV)​

​

 

[Paidiske]

Submission is not the same as control.

If it's one-sided, they're two sides of the same coin.

If she must submit, then by default, he is controlling.

And submission cannot be abusive even in your own explanation, because you see all called to it!

Mutual submission is a completely different thing. It's not "he decides, and she obeys." It's "we work together to agree."

Yet this does not erase God ordained leadership,

Leadership doesn't mean making decisions for others, or telling them what to do, and having them submit and obey. At least, healthy leadership doesn't mean that.

It is not abuse for wives to submit to husbands.

It is abuse to set up a dynamic where husbands control, and wives submit, and we tell them this is what God requires of them.

It is not abuse to submit to authorities in the church:

It is abuse when church authorities seek to control those in the church.

 

[Hazelelponi]

You are only looking at one verse, and not the whole Scriptural witness.

I would argue that it does. A husband is not God; not omnipotent, not perfect, not the creator of the universe and the governor of everything that exists. He does not know every part of his wife's being and does not love her prefectly. A human being's relationship with God is completely different from a relationship with a fellow human being.

And submitting to husbands, in a one-sided way, even when he is loving, is inherently denying the wife her dignity and agency. It is denying her the full scope of her humanity, the full exercise of her gifts and wisdom. And it makes her vulnerable to every single time he is less than utterly perfect (which is pretty much always, because he's human).

Honestly, I think that's the point. To learn more about Christ.

He was in the heavens with God, came down from those heavens to do the most important thing ever, and the one thing humans couldn't do, in order to save us.

So He is spit upon at every turn, ending with torture and death.

Yet He submitted... Subjecting Himself to authority over Him, He who is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.. subject to the rule of deaf and blind men.

In subjecting ourselves to the various authorities God has placed over us, we drink out of the same cup Christ did.

Subjecting ourselves to human authority is a requirement for society to be well ordered and functioning, and not everyone is perfect. If we are under the authority of an individual who abuses that same authority we also drink out of the same cup Christ did.

And Christ said to take up our cross and follow Him.

That means subjecting ourselves to His authority, and He has determined what authorities will and will not be over us and how we should order ourselves.

 

[tall73]

It's a shame I don't read Hebrew, because the reason I didn't find it is that the translation I normally use simply says "my husband" in that verse. Which makes me wonder whether - as we see later with Baal (husband/owner/master/lord) - these were somewhat interchangeable terms, and we might be freighting it too heavily.

You don't have to read Hebrews to look up the usage for the particular word. It does have various meanings within its lexical range. Of course, context is key with any word with varied meaning.

I think since he attached it to submission and obedience, Peter didn't intend to say that Sarah called her husband, "husband".

Besides, you already said he was being selective to serve an "agenda", and as a "rhetorical" device. How would that work if she was just calling her husband "husband"?

I'd say that it's a fairly selective appropriation of the legacy of the holy women of old, to further a particular agenda.

I am thinking that he was drawing on apocryphal stories which gave a general view of Sarah as the founding mother of Israel in a patriarchal society, to make a rhetorical point.

 

[Paidiske]

Besides, you already said he was being selective to serve an "agenda", and as a "rhetorical" device. How would that work if she was just calling her husband "husband"?

What Sarah meant, and what Peter thought or suggested that Sarah meant, might be two very different things.

At the end of the day, all of this is petty semantics. What exactly Sarah meant, or Peter thought Sarah meant, or we think Peter meant, none of that can justify abusive dynamics in marriage. Which means one-sided submission by wives to the control of husbands is simply not admissible within the horizon of a Christian vision of marriage.

 

[tall73]

If she must submit, then by default, he is controlling.

The husbands in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, Bithynia, and Crete didn't give the direction to submit. Who did?

Mutual submission is a completely different thing. It's not "he decides, and she obeys." It's "we work together to agree."

Mutual service and submission are not at odds with leadership.

John 13:12-17​

12 So when He had washed their feet, taken His garments, and sat down again, He said to them, “Do you know what I have done to you? 13 You call Me Teacher and Lord, and you say well, for so I am. 14 If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. 15 For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you. 16 Most assuredly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him. 17 If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them. (NKJV)​

Jesus served, and set an example of service. He also is Lord and Master, and Teacher. And we submit to Him.

 

[tall73]

What Sarah meant, and what Peter thought or suggested that Sarah meant, might be two very different things.

If you are saying that Peter was relying on his own understanding of Sarah when writing this inspired letter, and he may have been describing things other than they were, to tailor his message to an agenda, then I am back to having to undertand more of your view of inspiration.

At the end of the day, all of this is petty semantics. What exactly Sarah meant, or Peter thought Sarah meant, or we think Peter meant, none of that can justify abusive dynamics in marriage.

No, I don't think it is petty semantics. And I don't think Peter was just guessing.

Nor do I think he was advocating for abuse. But he did say:

1 Peter 3:5-6 5 For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror. (NKJV)​

 

[tall73]

tall73 said:​

It is not abuse to submit to authorities in the church:​

​

Hebrews 13:17 17 Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you. (NKJV)​

It is abuse when church authorities seek to control those in the church.

Is that what you think the text above says?

Peter had authority as an apostile. But just as Christ served, he did as well:

1 Peter 5:1-4 1 The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: 2 Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; 3 nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock; 4 and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away. (NKJV)​

​

These texts are both describing the relationship between overseers and the flock. Neither of them is describing abuse. Both of them are beautiful.

And submission can still be a part of that.

 

[Paidiske]

The husbands in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, Bithynia, and Crete didn't give the direction to submit. Who did?

Irrelevant. It is still a problem to make this into a dynamic of one-sided submission and control.

Mutual service and submission are not at odds with leadership.

Again, this is not about leadership. That is a completely different thing.

If you are saying that Peter was relying on his own understanding of Sarah when writing this inspired letter, and he may have been describing things other than they were, to tailor his message to an agenda, then I am back to having to undertand more of your view of inspiration.

Inspiration doesn't preclude the human authors of Scripture drawing on earlier material in ways which serve their particular argument, even though that might not be the same as the original intent of the earlier material, or indeed, even though they may not be entirely accurate in their presentation of history.

Nor do I think he was advocating for abuse.

Neither do I. But I think many Christians today apply his writing in abusive ways.

 

[Paidiske]

Is that what you think the text above says?

I think many people read the above text as giving church leaders licence to control members of their congregation. And we see that in many churches.

Both of them are beautiful.

And submission can still be a part of that.

Not in the kind of dynamic where one person controls and the other is told that God requires them to obey. That is never beautiful. It is abuse.

 

[tall73]

I think many people read the above text as giving church leaders licence to control members of their congregation. And we see that in many churches.

Could you please describe what the point of that passage was to its audience, without making any reference to modern abuses?

Please explain what you think it means.

Hebrews 13:17 17 Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you. (NKJV)

 

[Paidiske]

Could you please describe what the point of that passage was to its audience, without making any reference to modern abuses?

I would argue that it is broadly about church unity, and holding together to sound teaching (rather than the "strange teachings" of verse 9). I would look at the force of peitheste and upeikete here as being better rended as "be pursuaded by your leaders, and be moulded by them... ". I do not take it as an injunction to absolute obedience.

 

[Tigran1245]

But in a one-sided submission model, they can only have the stake or input their husband allows. And if that's none, well, that's just how it is.

But saying to women they must submit "in everything," is inherently coercive. Every single instruction, demand, wish or or mildest suggestion then carries the force of divine command behind it.

Women must submit in everything, when «everything» is not contrary to the Law of God.

But telling wives that God expects one-sided submission from them is setting up a controlling dynamic. If she must submit, that means he is, by default, controlling.

That's not a description of Christian love, from where I'm standing.

But since we know that dynamics of control are abusive, then this must be a false understanding of God's will.

I cannot agree. It doesn't matter how loving he is, if she is required to submit, and he is, therefore, in control, that is abuse.

Why do you think that submission and control are abusive and can not be connected with Christian love? If you report to your bishop and you are his subordinate, does that mean that your bishop is abusing you?

 

[Paidiske]

Why do you think that submission and control are abusive and can not be connected with Christian love?

To control another person, to coerce them into doing something they would not freely choose, or to prevent them from doing something they would choose, is abuse. That is the essence of abuse. It is the very opposite of love.

If you report to your bishop and you are his subordinate, does that mean that your bishop is abusing you?

My relationship with my bishop only gives him very limited authority. He can give me direction, within certain parameters, about how to do my job; but he can't control anything outside of that. And I am free, should I choose, to leave this position at any time. I am not locked into it for life with a divine command that I must obey my bishop in every single thing, or displease God.