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

[tall73]

tall73 said:​

But it is not just in that context. As was noted, in addition to the various indications of headship in the creation account, fall, and related NT texts which refer to that, spelled out at length in another post, you also have to address that Adam was held responsible, though both sinned.​

​

He confronted Adam first, though Eve sinned first. The curse regarding death was given to him, regarding all humanity. And the NT text confirms that he was the one responsible for sin and death coming into the world, though both Adam and Eve sinned:​

​

Romans 5:12-21 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)​

​

18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.​

​

20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, 21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (NKJV)​

​

​

Sin and death entered through one man--Adam. He was the one indicated to be at fault, because he was the head.​

​

Where Adam brought death, Christ brought grace, righteousness, and eternal life.​

​

Theological recapitulation. His point was fundamentally about Christ; that Christ is able to put right what is wrong with humanity and the cosmos.

Of course his point was fundamentally about Christ, and that was stated plainly in the text, and my summary of it.

Where Adam brought death, Christ brought grace, righteousness, and eternal life.​

​

​

Christ restored what Adam lost. All things are reconciled in Him. But the text still says that the one man, Adam, was the one who brought that condition on the world:

Romans 5:12-21 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)​

​

18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.​

​

20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, 21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (NKJV)​

​

 

[ValeriyK2022]

I think that Paul reflected on the story in a way that he thought would be pastorally helpful in his own social context.

But do you fail to recognise some forms of abuse, or the harm done by some forms of controlling behaviour?

Do you even acknowledge that people, with reference to headship, excuse and argue for marital rape, excuse and argue for physical beating as "discipline," excuse threats and intimidation, excuse and argue for financial control, social control and isolation, use religious arguments to attempt to control what she wears, what she does, where she goes, who she sees, what media she can access, and so on? Encourage men to deliberately marry young women whose life experience is small, isolate them, prevent them from being educated, so that they can more easily keep them "submissive"? Tell women to stay in abusive relationships?

You might say, "but that's not what I mean by headship," but every time you argue for headship, you argue for wifely submission, you argue for a husband's right to make decisions and control, those are the arguments you bolster. That's the stream of thinking you legitimise.

Maybe you really haven't seen it. Maybe your experience of headship is only in the nice, everyone-is-happy, occasionally-we-need-a-tiebreaker-and-we-all-agree-I-use-it-sparingly-and-wisely, sort. But that's not what headship is, out there in the wider Christian landscape. Maybe browse a website or two like this and see where headship ends up when it's not questioned: Biblical Gender Roles

I am not saying that what God ordains is abuse. I am saying that when we see abusive forms of behaviour, and people excuse them as God-ordained, they have misunderstood what God ordains.

In your humble opinion.

That's not what I said. I am not arguing against authority. I am arguing against control. I do not agree that participating in a society according to its laws fits the mould of the kind of control that I am arguing against as abusive.

What you are describing is no longer a Christian marriage. Of course, there can be any kind of violation of the commandments. But it can go both ways. And wives can do the same. They cannot physically, but can mentally inflict injuries that take longer to heal than physical ones. They can limit and take away the resources necessary for good deeds. Women, just like men, can break agreements. When it was profitable or pleasant for one of the members of the marriage to promise, he promised, or she promised and they agreed. One side is trying with all its might to fulfill its part of the obligations, and the other can answer - you force me, you control me, I want to do only what I want. Can only men do this? Then what does the question of leadership in the family have to do with it? The question of primacy is raised where both spouses want to fulfill the will of God, and not their own will.

Probably, in order to determine who is actually abusing and who is being cunning in a marriage, pretending to be a Christian, pretending to do the will of God, and not their own, an independent authoritative arbiter is needed for this.

 

[tall73]

Tall73 said:​

​

You have broken the simile. You turn the second part of the simile into its opposite:​

​

Ephesians 5:24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.​

​

vs​

​

Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be equal partners to their husbands in everything. ​

I have put the simile in a wider canonical context.

• You claim to have done so. But your interpretation breaks the simile.
• And since you have made a strategic decision not to discuss certain arguments in the text, we have seen none of this reconciling carried through to the various arguments made in the text, and have seen plenty of reason to think that you cannot reconcile it. Up is not down. Wet is not dry. Submitting to a head is not equal partnership.
• You assert your view is correct. You assert your view reconciles with the whole Scripture. You claim your view is all perfectly based on Scripture--but you won't show it here, because you claim we will only be convinced by secular views on abuse instead of Scripture, and so you won't even present your view.
• You stated you look at it in a creation context. But you haven't discussed those texts in depth either, or addressed the arguments made.
• You say you look at it in the context of mutual submission. But we already noted that Christ, being God, submitted to His parents. He yielded, even though he had greater authority.
• Children in general submit to parents. But parents can yield in many ways their will to that of the child, and still be parents, and still be in authority
• The members of the body yield to overseers. Yet overseers can yield to the body.
• We are all called to look to the interests of others, to not insist on our own way continually, to serve one another, to yield to one another. However, that happens even in the context of unequal roles. There is submitting to one another, even in the context of unequal authority.

So what is the context you are appealing to? Now you even say the creation accounts, the NT text, etc. are all completely interpreted through the lens of patriarchy, so that all of them wind up saying the opposite of what you think they mean--but they still mean what you think they do, because of secular principles.

There is no reason for us to accept that, when Scripture is given to us by God to instruct us. The Old Testament, the New Testament, etc. agree on headship. And you won't even address their arguments. So I cannot entertain your view. Because I am not at liberty to set aside Scripture based on secular reasoning.

 

[ValeriyK2022]

tall73 said:​

But it is not just in that context. As was noted, in addition to the various indications of headship in the creation account, fall, and related NT texts which refer to that, spelled out at length in another post, you also have to address that Adam was held responsible, though both sinned.​

​

He confronted Adam first, though Eve sinned first. The curse regarding death was given to him, regarding all humanity. And the NT text confirms that he was the one responsible for sin and death coming into the world, though both Adam and Eve sinned:​

​

Romans 5:12-21 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)​

​

18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.​

​

20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, 21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (NKJV)​

​

​

Sin and death entered through one man--Adam. He was the one indicated to be at fault, because he was the head.​

​

Where Adam brought death, Christ brought grace, righteousness, and eternal life.​

​

Of course his point was fundamentally about Christ, and that was stated plainly in the text, and my summary of it.

Where Adam brought death, Christ brought grace, righteousness, and eternal life.​

​

​

Christ restored what Adam lost. All things are reconciled in Him. But the text still says that the one man, Adam, was the one who brought that condition on the world:

Romans 5:12-21 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)​

​

18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.​

​

20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, 21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (NKJV)​

​

That's about Adam and Eve. If Eve had shown humility, she would not have made the decision herself. She would say to herself: Adam is older than me, I’ll consult him. And perhaps Adam, if Eve had turned to him with such words that she needed wise advice, reasoning about this issue, he would have come to the conclusion that one cannot disobey God, even if it seems to the eyes and mind that the fruit is good. But Eve, out of her conceit, decided not to consult anyone.
Adam obeyed her. But did Adam have to obey Eve? Adam was obliged not only to disobey her proposal, but also to keep Eve herself from committing suicide. To the point that he used physical force: that would have been the lesser evil. After all, he would not have sinned, and then he could have asked God to forgive Eve.

 

[tall73]

@Paidiske

And before you object again to the use of the word "you", I am using it because it is you that has argued these things in the thread, not someone else. You are responsible for your words, not the words of every other egalitarian. I am responsible for my words, not those of every other complementarian.

I am responding to what you have said was your strategy, your reasoning, as you have spelled it out in the thread.

It is not accusatory, but a use of the second person singular pronoun to clarify that I am speaking with you, and these are the things you have said in that conversation.

 

[ValeriyK2022]

And before you object again to the use of the world "you", I am using it because it is you that has argued these things in the thread, not someone else. You are responsible for your words, not every other egalitarian. I am responsible for my words, not those of every other complementarian.

I am responding to what you have said was your strategy, your reasoning, as you have spelled it out in the thread.

Who is this message addressed to?

 

[tall73]

That's about Adam and Eve.

It says through one man, Adam. Both sinned. But Adam was responsible.

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world​

​

Adam can mean man, but in this case the one man is singled out to be Adam.

The one man Adam is responsible for death and sin entering the world. And the one Man Jesus Christ redeemed what Adam lost:

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.​

​

​

If Eve had shown humility, she would not have made the decision herself. She would say to herself: Adam is older than me, I’ll consult him. And perhaps Adam, if Eve had turned to him with such words that she needed wise advice, reasoning about this issue, he would have come to the conclusion that one cannot disobey God, even if it seems to the eyes and mind that the fruit is good. But Eve, out of her conceit, decided not to consult anyone.
Adam obeyed her. But did Adam have to obey Eve? Adam was obliged not only to disobey her proposal, but also to keep Eve herself from committing suicide. To the point that he used physical force: that would have been the lesser evil. After all, he would not have sinned, and then he could have asked God to forgive Eve.

You seem to be agreeing that it was Adam's responsibility. He was head, and he was held accountable. Sin and death came into the world because of him.

 

[tall73]

Who is this message addressed to?

Sorry, I now clarified with the @ symbol.

It is addressed to Paidiske. She objected to me using the the second person singular pronoun earlier in the thread, because she alleged it was accusatory.

I am not accusing her. I am recounting her various allegations, statements, considerations, and what she has stated she is willing, or not willing, to discuss.

She has, if you note, used "we" statements to try to be softer. Or I at least assume that is part of why, since she says using "you" is accusatory. That is fine if she wishes to do so. I will still use the word "you". I am pointing out that I am not accusing. I am recounting her statements.

However, she has also used "we" to say that people are responsible for the wrong interpretations and actions of others.

I reject this. I am looking at what she has said, not what various egalitarians say.

Just as I am responsible for what I say, but I am not responsible for what every other person who speaks of headship says.

She says "we" are responsible for all the abuse that comes out of unstable people's twisting of Scripture to allow them to beat their wives, etc. because we support headship.

She has to, because she has stated her strategy is to point to effects of abuse, and secular principles to try to get people to reconsider.

But I am not promoting beating a wife, etc. or anything of the sort, so I reject her smearing me with this corporate accountability for things I have not said.

She is the one posting, and I am looking at her statements. So I am addressing her with the word "you" , because I am speaking to her.

 

[tall73]

Who is this message addressed to?

I also updated my explanation. I forget you are using translation, which adds another layer of difficulty. So I clarified and elaborated on some of the sentences.

 

[Paidiske]

I don’t even understand what the child has to do with it.

The hypothetical posed to me was, if a mother was abusing a child, it would be correct for the father to command her to stop. I pointed out that that goes both ways; it would be right for any parent, or indeed anyone, to intervene to prevent such abuse.

If there are no authorities for her, but she is the highest authority for herself, then will she really fulfill the will of God or will she fulfill her will, following her passions?

I am not claiming that there are no authorities for her. What I am trying to do, is point out that these texts are often used to spiritually abuse wives.

Control is not always a bad thing. If a wife sees that her husband is starting to drink a lot or secretly use drugs, then controlling his behavior can save both the husband and the family. In the same way, if a husband sees that his wife is secretly doing something that displeases God, then control can save both the wife and the husband. Control within reasonable limits is needed. There cannot be complete permissiveness in marriage. Because family members in marriage are responsible for each other.

And if your argument stopped there - that we can intervene to prevent harm, and that this was completely equal - I'd have little problem with it. I don't think that's what you're arguing for, though.

Control is not abuse.

Yeah, it is. It's what pretty much all forms of abuse boil down to; sexual control, physical control, emotional control, financial control, social control, spiritual control. The common factor is control.

What you are describing is no longer a Christian marriage.

But it is a headship marriage. And it is what many Christians argue for as what Scripture puts forward. I have seen it, and heard it, and pastorally cleaned up the mess left in its wake. This is where headship doctrine ends up.

• You claim to have done so. But your interpretation breaks the simile.

It recognises that the simile only goes so far before it breaks down. Because a simile is, in the end, the comparison of two unlike things.

have seen plenty of reason to think that you cannot reconcile it.

So I cannot entertain your view. Because I am not at liberty to set aside Scripture based on secular reasoning.

I'm not asking you to set aside Scripture. The furthest thing from it. I am putting forward a view that is profoundly Scriptural.

What I see you saying here is, I don't care about the actual harm done by these views. That's irrelevant to any meaningful hermeneutic.

And that's a position for which I have absolutely no respect.

 

[ValeriyK2022]

It says through one man, Adam. Both sinned. But Adam was responsible.

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world​

​

Adam can mean man, but in this case the one man is singled out to be Adam.

The one man Adam is responsible for death and sin entering the world. And the one Man Jesus Christ redeemed what Adam lost:

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.​

​

​

You seem to be agreeing that it was Adam's responsibility. He was head, and he was held accountable. Sin and death came into the world because of him.

If Eve had done this secretly or responded to Adam’s remark with rudeness, then there would have been no responsibility. Eva has gone crazy and does what she wants.

But he didn’t even say a word to her that she couldn’t do that, so he bears responsibility. Besides the fact that he did not try to keep Eve from sin, he joined her in her sin. Therefore, he was responsible for both.

 

[Sabertooth]

I acknowledge the duties[?] prescribed in Ephesians 5, but I have trouble with how they are often implemented.
A God-honoring husband will look at vv. 25-29 and say,

"With the Holy Spirit's help and enlightenment, this is what I will do."​

A God-honoring wife will say the same things about vv. 22-24.

A spiritually dysfunctional husband says,

"How am I ever supposed to get my insubordinate wife to comply with vv. 22-24...!?"​

A spiritually dysfunctional wife speaks similarly of trying to get her "tyrant" husband to comply with vv. 25-29.

If we obey God's prescription for ourselves, we will be blessed (whether or not our spouses do, too).
If they, too, will to pursue obedience --to God, not to us-- our marriages will be doubly blessed, but

1. we cannot make that decision for them &
2. God may not correct their perceived faults in the order that we would prefer,
3. nor ours in the order that they would prefer.

Christianity is convergent. As we get closer to Jesus, we also get closer to each other.

 

[ValeriyK2022]

Sorry, I now clarified with the @ symbol.

It is addressed to Paidiske. She objected to me using the the second person singular pronoun earlier in the thread, because she alleged it was accusatory.

I am not accusing her. I am recounting her various allegations, statements, considerations, and what she has stated she is willing, or not willing, to discuss.

She has, if you note, used "we" statements to try to be softer. Or I at least assume that is part of why, since she says using "you" is accusatory. That is fine if she wishes to do so. I will still use the word "you". I am pointing out that I am not accusing. I am recounting her statements.

However, she has also used "we" to say that people are responsible for the wrong interpretations and actions of others.

I reject this. I am looking at what she has said, not what various egalitarians say.

Just as I am responsible for what I say, but I am not responsible for what every other person who speaks of headship says.

She says "we" are responsible for all the abuse that comes out of unstable people's twisting of Scripture to allow them to beat their wives, etc. because we support headship.

She has to, because she has stated her strategy is to point to effects of abuse, and secular principles to try to get people to reconsider.

But I am not promoting beating a wife, etc. or anything of the sort, so I reject her smearing me with this corporate accountability for things I have not said.

She is the one posting, and I am looking at her statements. So I am addressing her with the word "you" , because I am speaking to her.

It's clear. One priest in a sermon said that we suffer because we are paying for our sins, because we smoke, drink, fornicate, etc. His Christian asks: father, why did you say “we”, because you don’t drink vodka, don’t smoke and don’t commit fornication? He replied that he used “we” and not “you” so as not to accidentally offend anyone.

What she describes is no longer a Christian marriage, but a sham. That is, there is already a competition going on over who is better off in marriage: husband or wife. But it is said that love does not seek its own. This is not a normal situation. The problem is that there are so many abnormal situations, and there are so few correct relationships in marriage, that abnormal, pathological relationships are already becoming the norm. I know some non-believing families in the early 80s in the USSR. They could not be Christian due to the persecution of Christianity. But modern Christians are far from them in terms of caring for each other, reliability, and sincerity. Secularization came to the church, and with it all the vices of the world. It is a pity that even in church marriages people begin to seek their own, compete, be cunning and even abuse.

You write as it should normally be written. And she writes about how to adapt to the pathological relationships that often develop. Here already begins what the apostle was talking about: I have pity on the married, because they will have fleshly sorrows. For a long time I could not understand what it was. And this is the case when one wants to build a relationship according to the commandments of God, and the other wants to get more pleasure . Both men and women, and both parties at the same time, can do this.

 

[tall73]

I'm not asking you to set aside Scripture. The furthest thing from it. I am putting forward a view that is profoundly Scriptural.

You are not putting your whole view forward, and you have said you are not for strategy reasons.

You say you relate it to all of Scripture, but have plainly said you won't address certain arguments in scripture here.

The topic of the thread is what the Scriptures say. The topic is not what approach Paidiske employs at home, but will not share the results of here.

Discuss what the Scriptures say, or go start your own thread.

You have been given ample time to discuss your secular notions of abuse, in a thread not on that topic.

What I see you saying here is, I don't care about the actual harm done by these views. That's irrelevant to any meaningful hermeneutic.

You see very poorly. And you certainly have not seen me say any such thing.

And that's a position for which I have absolutely no respect.

A strawman position of the your own making.

 

[Paidiske]

And you certainly have not seen me say any such thing.

I saw you dismiss real harm to real people as "secular reasoning" which could not be entertained. But by all means, do let me know how you take into account the actual harm done by these views, in forming your hermeneutic.

 

[Sabertooth]

A spiritually dysfunctional husband says,
"How am I ever supposed to get my insubordinate wife to comply with vv. 22-24...!?"

And I have been that tyrant!
God showed me its logical conclusion,
even if I was absolutely right about a thing and
I could thoroughly succeed in making her comply with it,
I would be making her into MY image rather than letting Jesus make her into His...

 

[ValeriyK2022]

I saw you dismiss real harm to real people as "secular reasoning" which could not be entertained. But by all means, do let me know how you take into account the actual harm done by these views, in forming your hermeneutic.

Regarding control, I wrote that it can be useful in dangerous cases: the danger of becoming involved in drug addiction, alcoholism or other addictions.

But there are also opposite cases. It happens that wives control their husbands so much that they cool cold water so as not to get scalded. One Russian priest said that some Christian wives complain that their husbands are becoming an alcoholic. He asks how much alcohol and how often he drinks. The wife answers: 1-2 times a week, 200 grams of wine or a bottle of beer. The priest answers: in such a situation, all Orthodox clergy are alcoholics, including him. So wives can also be tyrants at home.

Of course, overly captious control is abnormal and it perverts all that is good for which it is intended.

 

[Sabertooth]

I should say that I believe there are times when Abigail must act in opposition to Nabal (or Daniel must oppose Nebuchadnezzar, etc.) but those exceptions should be determined by the Holy Spirit, not a (male or female) heart with a rebellious predisposition.

Sapphira was not obligated to lie for her husband, either.

 

[atpollard]

I am confused by this topic.

• If a wife wishes to "do as she pleases and not answer to any man", then why not just remain single? Then there is no HUSBAND to be required to submit to.
• If a man simply desires a female that he can order to cook and clean, he could hire a housekeeper.
• If this is really about sexual control and domination, then go to a bar or brothel (you are already deep into non-Christian behavior, so what are you really PLAYING at Christianity for)?

God calls for HUSBANDS to be for their wives what CHRIST is for the Church.
God calls for WIVES to be to their husbands what the CHURCH is to Christ.

If you want to obey God, then obey God and do it.
If you don't want to obey God, then don't obey God ... but then what do you care how much you are disobeying God by.
Are there "little sins" that God sweeps under the rug and "big sins" that God applies the Blood of the Lamb to cover?

 

[ValeriyK2022]

I should say that I believe there are times when Abigail must act in opposition to Nabal (or Daniel must oppose Nebuchadnezzar, etc.) but those exceptions should be determined by the Holy Spirit, not a (male or female) heart with a rebellious predisposition.

Sapphira was not obligated to lie for her husband, either.

I agree that there are exceptions. But exceptions only confirm the rules.

For example, in Orthodoxy the primacy of the husband is not even disputed. That is, ortodox women can make excuses for why they do not adhere to this, but none of the ortodox women have yet challenging this. And recently I read a book by a ortodox priest whose advice was considered so useful that they published a book of his advice to their wards. And in one letter, a Christian complains to him that he has many questions, but there is no one to ask (this was during the time of persecution of Christianity in USSR, when even the Gospel was predominantly only in the possession of priests, other books were also rare, the nearest church with a priest could be for hundreds of kilometers). And so he advises him to ask his wife everything. It would seem that everything is reversed: the wife should ask her husband about everything. But they had such a situation that he came to Christianity as an adult, and her grandmother taught her from childhood. And according to this priest, he is an elementary school student, and she is a college student.

If a husband deceives and lets down those who trusted him, shows hypocrisy and hardness of heart (so that it is impossible to tell him that he is now sinning), then he, of course, is not even trying to get closer to the image of Jesus. Christ, who cared for the church and was obedient to God.

So there can be any number of exceptions. But exceptions only confirm the rule.