click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
1 Peter 3.7 and Wife Abuse
by Dan WallaceNovember 16th, 2008
Be First to Comment
A friend wrote to me recently, asking why I haven’t written anything about wife abuse on Parchment & Pen. She urged me to do it because, according to her, complementarianism is rich soil in which to grow this kind of wickedness (she’s an egalitarian). Now, I could dispute the merits of that viewpoint, but I’ll pass. Instead, I want to take a pro-active position on what the Bible says about how a husband should treat his wife. I’ll talk about the do’s and don’t’s.
But to begin with, I should mention a curiosity in the history of English Bibles. In 1537, John Rogers published, under the pen name, Thomas Matthew, the Matthew’s Bible. He essentially combined the Old Testament of Miles Coverdale with the New Testament of William Tyndale. Besides blatant plagiarism, Rogers also added about 2000 notes to his Bible, many of which were controversial. Far and away, the most controversial note was found at 1 Peter 3.7: “If [the wife] be not obedient and healpfull unto [her husband, he should] endeavoureth to beate the feare of God into her…”! This Bible soon earned the moniker, “The Wife-Beater’s Bible.” I suppose a silver lining in this story is that the fact that this label was so quickly given to the Matthew’s Bible shows us that our ancestors also thought that this little comment was inappropriate. Thank God that note didn’t make it into the King James Bible!
Now if someone could read 1 Peter 3.7 five hundred years ago to mean that he had the right and the obligation to beat his wife if she disobeyed, then certainly some corrective instruction needs to be given.
The first thing to note is that 1 Peter 3.7 ruins the flow of the argument. Beginning in 2.13, Peter had been discussing the person who functioned in the subordinate role in relation to a non-Christian superior. He speaks about obedience to the government—both the king and those he commissions, submission (of slaves) to one’s master, and submission of wives to their husbands. In each instance, non-Christian superiors are in view. But then, at the end of the discourse, Peter turns to Christian husbands. Why does he do this? He didn’t address Christian governors or Christian slave-owners. Why now address Christian husbands? There were Christian slave-owners and even some in government. Why not address them?
As I said, addressing the husbands ruins the argument flow. The reason that Peter does this, it seems, is because Christian husbands especially were not grasping what it meant to be a Christian husband. They needed his advice more than others in superior roles. So he wrecked the literary flow to address a serious problem in the church.
And what does Peter tell them? To beat them into submission? NO!! He says that husbands must treat their wives with profound consideration, with the recognition that in God’s eyes both were equal recipients of his grace. I take it that this means that husbands will be held accountable before God for how they have treated their wives in this life. Matthew’s Bible is as far from the mark of the meaning of this text as anything could be.
OK, some specifics. What does it look like for a complementarian husband to treat his wife properly? (I’m speaking of complementarian husbands here because I don’t want to get into debates over whether egalitarianism or complementarianism is biblical. For sake of argument, let’s just assume that complementarianism is biblical. The reason that this should not be hard to do is that, as my egalitarian friend said, complementarianism is a breeding ground for wife abuse. So, if that’s so, no complementarian husband can look at this blog post and say, ‘Well, he’s an egalitarian, so I don’t need to listen to him.’ Fair enough? Good. Let’s go.)
- It does NOT mean that he EVER has the right to physically hurt her in any way. Anyone who reads 1 Peter 3.7 that way has got serious issues and needs to get counseling. And my advice to wives who are caught in a marriage like that is this: RUN! Get out before it gets worse. The first time your husband strikes you, take the kids and leave. I’m not saying get a divorce. That may be necessary. But I am saying show some self-dignity. If your husband won’t treat you with the respect you deserve, this doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t! And the longer you wait, the harder it will get.
- It does NOT mean that he has the right to bully his wife, verbally abuse her, bark orders at her like he’s Archie Bunker, belittle her, or treat her with any less respect than he would his most-respected friend. Husbands, your wife is not your doormat. She is not your slave. She is not there to serve your every whim. She is there to partner with you in the gospel so that the sum of the two of you working together is greater than what either of you could do apart. Peter gives a profound warning in this verse: Husbands who treat their wives right will not have their prayers hindered. In other words, if you mistreat your wives, you have no guarantee that God will answer your prayers. Husbands, if you’re having a multitude of difficulties in life—difficulties at work, difficulties with your children, difficulties with your relationships, difficulties with finances, difficulties with health, difficulties with sexual temptation (the list is endless)—maybe you should look at how you are treating your wife. Maybe God’s not answering your prayers because you’re not honoring her.
- It does NOT mean that he has the right to ask his wife to do anything that is illegal or immoral. And when husbands do this under the guise that their wives have to obey them, the wives need to stand up against such nonsense and challenge their husbands to be more godly. Wives, a complementarian viewpoint on the role of husbands and wives does NOT mean that you should obey your husband when he asks you to do anything illegal or immoral.
- It DOES mean that you are to treat your wives with the same respect that you treat yourself—assuming you do treat yourself with respect.
- It DOES mean that you are to love your wife as Christ loved the church. How did he do it? With self-sacrifice, with placing her needs above your own, with gently guiding her and your family in the ways of peace and righteousness.
- It DOES mean that before your children you two present a united front. The worst kind of parenting is that which the children can easily manipulate by pitting parent against parent. These little monsters are smart; you have to be smarter! Husbands, support your wife’s call in front of the children. NEVER contradict her when she lays down the law for the kids. You do that and you’ve just robbed your wife of any respect and honor that she could have before the kids. This goes for the wife, too. My wife and I have four boys. And they would always try to appeal to one parent after the other one already said no. They’d get smart and wait for a few hours, then spring the request on the second parent (usually me) who did not know that they already got turned down by the first parent (usually Pati). But we got smart too: We asked if they already talked to the other parent. Of course, we didn’t just take their word for it. (Children are totally depraved sinners, too.) We’d call the other parent. And never ever did the second parent say yes when the first one said no. I can’t stress how vital this is. You cross that line and you’ve just damaged the authority that your spouse MUST have with the kids.
- It DOES mean that you trust your wife. Read Proverbs 31 sometime (soon!), and see if your wife is living up to her potential. Ask her what she wants to get out of life. Ask her if she feels unfulfilled. Ask her if she feels threatened by you, or if she is scared by you. Ask her if she feels that you love her, if she feels that you put her needs before your own. Ask her if she thinks you’re a good husband and, if not, what you can do about it. I’m serious. But if you ask her, do NOT then turn the tables and tell her what you think of her as a wife. And don’t use her honesty with you as a weapon against her. If you’re really a complementarian husband, then you should also believe that men are designed to be initiators and wives are designed to be responders. (Not in everything and not in every way, my egalitarian friends; please, let this one go! See caution below.) If you’ve got a list of complaints about your wife, then guess what? You can do something about it by being a better husband, by taking the initiative to truly love your wife. You may be surprised by what you discover.
I’ve only touched the surface of some issues. I haven’t touched on alcohol (but here’s an obvious tip: If drinking tends to make you violent, abstain. Period.) I haven’t touched on pornography or unfaithfulness or a host of other issues. There are many reasons why husbands beat their wives. All of them are bad reasons, wrong reasons, utterly sinful reasons.
OK, enough for now. I’m interested to see where this dialog will go. But please don’t make it your own soapbox on why this view or that view is right. A couple of blog posts ago, that happened and now we’ve got a runaway blog on our hands. 150 comments and still counting! Let’s deal with what constitutes wife abuse and what does not, what a good marriage looks like and what it does not look like. If you get too far off course, either Michael or I will comment. This is too important an issue to get sidetracked.
Your turn.
Similar Posts:
- What Complementarianism is Really all About
- Fourth Most Popular Post of 2010: What Complementarianism is All About
- A Review of the NIV 2011: Part 3 of 4
- "Let's Make Mommy Happy" or Martin Luther on Zoloft
- First Night in Romania
Loading ...
156 Comments
Like or Dislike:
0
They don’t have to share sleeping quarters with their commanding officer.
They have comrades in misery.
They are protected by bylaws and safely regulations.
They get leave.
They get to retire.
Like or Dislike:
0
correction to comment #36:
I wrote “But what I don’t see in complementarianism is any kind of model that requires of the husband/father that he be the protector and provider for the family.”
What I meant was “But what I don’t see in egalitarianism is any kind of model that requires of the husband/father that he be the protector and provider for the family.”
Like or Dislike:
0
Sue, You have said: “authority OVER is a terrible evil”
How do you feel about God’s authority over you?
Do you feel the need to submit to Him in all things?
Like or Dislike:
0
susan–
you asked my why i engage here, as an agnostic. do you have a blog somewhere? i’ll be happy to think out loud with you about it.
scott
Like or Dislike:
0
What I meant was “But what I don’t see in egalitarianism is any kind of model that requires of the husband/father that he be the protector and provider for the family.”
Being the protector and provider was never assigned uniquely to men in the scripture. Phoebe as prostatis was named a protector. Ruth, Lydia, Nympha, and many other women were clearly the providers. The woman of Proverbs 31 is a provider.
The reason that egalitarians do not exclude women from being protectors and providers is simply because the scriptures do not exclude women from being protectors and providers. This would take a terrible toll on society if women did not take equal responsibility for their families. I would suggest chaos would ensue if women were not also protectors and providers.
Thanks for the question, Susan, but I would never compare the role of God and the role of a husband. It would not enter my head to do so.
Like or Dislike:
1
CMP–Your answer (#28) to my questions (#26) focused entirely on decision making. The only decision making difference in complementarian and egalitarians that I see is that the final decision of how a family should go (if they cannot agree) is left up to who it impacts the most. In a perfect world little is “wrong” with either point of view but we do not live in a perfect world. What I was trying to get at in my question was how do we teach the complementarian position better? How do we hold men accountable for putting this doctrin into practice correctly? My experience is that Church leadership is too timid to confront men from the Church when woman come to them for help. Instead the women are reminded that divovce is a sin and they need to submit to their husbands as to the Lord. Some are even told to their black eyes that it can’t be all that bad. They need to think about the pressure their husband is under. Granted those cases are rare but seem even more rare because the women involved are too intimidated, embarrassed, or depressed to report their abuse. As for neglect being more a problem of a egalitarian position I do not accept that as true. I have watched a friend go without needed shoes so that her husband could have a new suit. I have seen a family live on potatoes so the husband can get fast food every day at lunch instead of be embarrassed by bringing a sack lunch to work. And yes, I understand that these are not examples of how true complimentarianism is supposed to look but the behavior was defended with arguements of “But the husband is the head of the home”. In the Church women ARE taught much more frequently to obey in love then husbands are taught to sacrifice in love. We are reminded that Eve was decieved but rarely told Adam was standing right next to her and said and did nothing.
Like or Dislike:
0
Sue: “But authority OVER is a terrible evil…”
A shorter synopsis of the spirit behind and in egalitarianism I have not read.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dan you said: “But what I don’t see in egalitarianism is any kind of model that requires of the husband/father that he be the protector and provider for the family.”
Sole provider/protector? You are correct. The expectation is that those responsibilities are shared. As Sue has pointed out, many woman are in those roles by default (50% divorce rate). I do not believe either doctrine is to blame. Applying them selfishly is the biggest problem.
Like or Dislike:
0
Sue, I honestly wasn’t trying to draw that parallel…. not assuming that you would compare the role of the husband to the role of God. I can see where you might have thought that that’s what I was getting at.
I mean, if you can step outside of this whole discussion about husbands and wives, and answer the question only considering your relationship with God. How then would you answer my questions?
How do you feel about God’s authority over you?
Do you feel the need to submit to Him in all things?
Please believe me when I say that I do not have some subversive motive for asking (in fact, I probably can relate to the pain of your life more than you might guess). I’m not trying to trap you with my questions. I won’t USE your honest answers against you…. hopefully no one else would either. I realize that these are deeply introspective questions.
Like or Dislike:
0
“Thanks for the question, Susan, but I would never compare the role of God and the role of a husband. It would not enter my head to do so.”
Why not? Do you not see scriptural commandment for submission as submitting to God?
Consider what Paul says in relation to human government in
Romans 13:1-2
vs. 1Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority expect for God, and those which exist are established by God.
vs.2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
Now you may be saying that’s different because its talking about government. But the same principles are applicable to God’s requirements to any earthly head.
Consider these passages:
I Corinthians 11:3 – But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of every woman, and God is the head of Christ.
You see the order? the ultimate submission is to God
Col 3:18 – Wives be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
Again, submission to Christ who submits to God
Eph 5:21-24 – And be subject to one another in the fear of Christ (see here is the result of that). Wives be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.
So you see, I believe these passage point to that fact that ultimate submission is to God. And if there is a problem with a submission to godly ordained authority, then that equates to a lack of submission to God.
Like or Dislike:
0
o We are called as women to affirm and encourage men as they seek to express godly masculinity, and to honor and support God-ordained male leadership in the home and in the church. (Mark 9:35; 10:42–45; Gen. 2:18; 1 Pet. 5:1–4; 1 Cor. 14:34; 1 Tim. 2:12–3:7)
o When we respond humbly to male leadership in our homes and churches, we demonstrate a noble submission to authority that reflects Christ’s submission to God His Father. (Eph. 5:22–33; 1 Cor. 11:3)
Excerpted from True Woman Manifesto.
Read it all.
Like or Dislike:
0
Scott, No blog ….but you can catch me at Facebook or Theologica. My name is Susan Stribich. Will that work?
Like or Dislike:
0
Susan,
Do you feel the need to submit to Him in all things?
We live in vain if we do not submit to God. But my view of God’s action in our life is not the same as Dr. Wallace’s. He writes,
if you mistreat your wives, you have no guarantee that God will answer your prayers. Husbands, if you’re having a multitude of difficulties in life—difficulties at work, difficulties with your children, difficulties with your relationships, difficulties with finances, difficulties with health, difficulties with sexual temptation (the list is endless)—maybe you should look at how you are treating your wife. Maybe God’s not answering your prayers because you’re not honoring her.
I appreciate the spirit in which this was written but I feel he would not teach that God will, of necessity, fulfill our prayers if we live a blameless life. So, it is not our submission to God that is in question, but the action of God’s sovereignty in our lives that many people hold varied opinions on.
Lisa,
You write,
Now you may be saying that’s different because its talking about government. But the same principles are applicable to God’s requirements to any earthly head.
I have a complex answer with two avenues of thought for myself. Forgive me for boring you but I have been castigated first for not answering questions and then for going on too long.
It is one of the most visible consequences of Christianity through history that society has moved in the direction of valorizing the individual and creating equitable laws and mores. In the area of reflection, Augustine’s Confessions became the first full autobiography and opened the door for the expression of the inner soul in narrative form. This is an important gift that Christianity made to western civilization.
In terms of government, as the Roman church centralized its influence in the late Middle Ages, pressure for freedom built up and various so called heretical movements attempted to break away. After some time, Luther and Calvin were successful in establishing new beliefs about the church. The two important points were this.
1) The church as the one body of Christ is an invisible entity and is not one united earthly institution.
2) Authority within the church is authority on behalf of and not authority over.
On these two principles, Christians were able to separate from Rome. From that time on the concept grew that
- there is no earthly spiritual institution which is obligatory, you can dissent, move from one church to another or in any way distance yourself from a spiritual organization.
- authority is from the people who appoint officers to act on their behalf, only God has authority over
These things clearly applied first to the spiritual realm, to the church. However, the Peasant War happened at the same time. Why should the peasants be asked to do some impossible thing by a callous hierarchy?
The end result, after several centuries, was the establishment of a government which we all must be subject to, which is also government by the people, for the people. The people, as a collective, are in a relationship of reciprocal responsibility with the government. There is no person in government who cannot be sent down.
These historical developments are the product of Christianity. Within the Quakers, the Salvation Army, the Pentecostal churches, with mission organizations here and elsewhere, in service and mission oriented Christianity this concept of authority on behalf of, and for the purpose of fulfilling a task for God, was maintained. Women were treated as equals. The first missionary to Turkey in the 16th century was a young woman Quaker who had been in the US and was stripped and beaten in the market place by the Christian municipal government. She packed her bags and went to take her testimony to the Sultan of Turkey and was successful in her mission to witness to God there. She found him more ready to listen.
More later.
Like or Dislike:
0
Sue, again I would ask: How do you feel about God’s authority over you?
Do you believe that He has full authority over you?
And again, lay aside this current topic (husband/wife issues). In all other areas of scripture, do you believe that you are to submit to God’s directives and commands in scripture?
What you have called “Dan Wallace’s view of God’s action in our life” is simply, GOD’S word.
Dan was expounding on what God said in 1Peter 3:7 The verse is making the statement that if husbands don’t treat their wives with honor and consideration, their prayers might be (or, are) hindered. So, God is essentially saying ‘don’t come to me in petition if you are not treating your wife properly, and expect that I will respond to your prayers,’
As you point out, that doesn’t mean that God will answer all of our prayers to our liking because we are obedient. The text doesn’t say that.
The 1 Peter text definitely DOES teach that there are consequences for the husband who does not submit to God in the proper treatment of his wife.
Do you read scripture as God’s word?
This text is not addressing God’s sovereignty. It is a statement about the consequence of not submitting to God in the proper treatment of your wife. Sowing and reaping.
You say, ‘I appreciate the spirit in which this was written, BUT…’
Is that how you approach God’s word? Dan was expounding on God’s word.
He was saying: ‘husbands, if it seems that nothing is going right in your life, and God doesn’t seem to be hearing you….. maybe you need to assess whether you are treating your wife properly’. Maybe your prayers are bouncing off the ceiling for a reason…. reason being disobedience to God.
Like or Dislike:
0
Susan,
Dan wrote,
“if you’re having a multitude of difficulties in life— difficulties with finances, … maybe you should look at how you are treating your wife. … A man should always look at how he is treating his wife.”
As I said,
I appreciate the spirit in which this was written ….
I do not want to argue over how prayers impact on one’s finances or heath. I will refer you to the blog owners who previously wrote,
“Join Michael Patton and Lindsey Price as they discuss reason #4 on the Top Ten Reasons NOT to be a Christian series.
#3 If I become a Christian, God will make me healthy and wealthy.
During this lesson, Lindsey and I draw from the Bible and personal experience concluding that the health-wealth Gospel is not only a different Gospel, but it represents a different God.”
So, I do not believe that financial difficulties are in any way affected by how a man treats his wife. I simply do not think that wealthy men treat their wives better than poor men. If Dan wishes to expand on this statement of his that is his prerogative.
What interests me much more, with respect to the question about authority is this,
At ETS this week the doctrinal statement is up for discussion. However, one of the statements, which I believe will remain the same is this.
2. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.
So, how can the ESV Study Bible say that the father plans, directs and sends, and the son is subject to his authority and obedient to his will. … And this is how human relationships should be modeled.
Is the son equal in power/authority to God or less than? How does ETS handle this?
When I say that authority over is an evil, curiously I am only repeating what has been confronted over and over again throughout history. First, the “one” church on earth, then the divine right of kings, then slave owners, and colonial powers. But Christian men have faithfully brought about a form of democracy, and self-government, and have laid a basis for equitable employment practices. The workplace continues but slavery is not legal. Marriage should continue but women should not be treated as creatures of lower status under the authority of their husbands.
Like or Dislike:
0
Sue,
You’re proving how badly you misrepresent people and neglect to read everything apart from what you want to. Nowhere did Dr. Wallace say what you say he did (you obviously don’t know Dr. Wallace if you think he’s a health/wealth guy). That’s why Dr. Wallace prefaced his statement with “MAYBE” and did not describe it as an absolute. Financial difficulties may not be a result of treating your wife bad, but they very well may be.
Listen Sue, I’m not a complementarian, and even I get really tired of your vitriol and misrepresentations. You criticize in places that don’t even need it and you miss the point all together. You go places with an agenda. You don’t go to seek truth and dialog honestly with others, but you go to put them down and try to prove them wrong at all costs. I understand you may have been hurt in your past by a very bad complementarian or something, but don’t take it out on the rest of the guys who believe in a more complementarian position. Chances are, the doctrine isn’t what creates the abuse, it’s the sin and evil in the man’s heart. The doctrine, then, just becomes ammunition for him.
Like or Dislike:
0
Love your neighbor as yourself.
I don’t think it’s complicated.
Like or Dislike:
0
Neighbors are different but equal.
Like or Dislike:
0
#66 Luke.
I don’t recall ever agreeing with Luke, but if even Luke makes those observations about you Sue, then it’s GOT to be pretty bad.
Like or Dislike:
0
Luke,
I think you missed what I said,
I do not want to argue over how prayers impact on one’s finances or heath. I will refer you to the blog owners who previously wrote,
I was referring Susan back to Dr. Wallace, who is one of the blog owners. Isn’t that clear. I refer a discussion of Dr. Wallace’s statement back to Dr. Wallace. That is appropriate. Somehow, my oblique reference to Dr. Wallace was misunderstood. I suppose I was using a little irony, but I did not mean to use it against him. The issue was peripheral.
I don’t want to debate this and it I said quite clearly that I would leave it to Dr. Wallace to expand on this. Somehow, I was asked more than once to comment on God’s authority and I should have declined.
That’s it.
And yes, I am quite aware that there are some who are not complementarians who don’t want to confront this. I understand.
However, I do agree with what you have said,
“Chances are, the doctrine isn’t what creates the abuse, it’s the sin and evil in the man’s heart. The doctrine, then, just becomes ammunition for him.”
That is why I quoted Lundy Bancroft. The doctrine becomes ammunition. The conclusion is not to give men so much ammunition. This is why I recommended Lundy Bancroft’s book. Because he points out that these beliefs are ammunition.
I think we agree intellectually but it is true that many do not want women’s issues to come between people of different convictions. I understand.
Like or Dislike:
0
TUAD,
I won’t bother quoting what others say about you. And I think I would miss you if you stopped being the one person who quotes me the most faithfully.
Cheers Brother! I wish you well.
Like or Dislike:
0
I think it’s interesting that there are comments and questions about Sue’s willingness to submit to the authority of God and questions of whether she does or doesn’t consider Scripture to be God’s word–even a little character assassination; but, no one is really addressing the issues she is raising. Hmmmm….maybe it’s easier to just attack the person rather than deal with the problems at hand. Hey, that sounds a lot like wife abuse!
Like or Dislike:
0
ttm, you read my mind.
Like or Dislike:
0
‘vs.2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of
God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
Now you may be saying that’s different because its talking about government
But the same principles are applicable to God’s requirements to any earthly
head.
Consider these passages:
I Corinthians 11:3 – But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of every woman, and God is the head of Christ.
You see the order? the ultimate submission is to God’
The order Paul wrote is, Christ – man – God. God is on the bottom (last), not
the top (first).
How many earthly heads do you think there are? Man is the only earthly head,
and Paul placed him in the middle, of Christ and God.
Like or Dislike:
0
I have to say that one of the most shocking things to me has been that some people have tried to call into question my education. For example, someone said that I gained my knowledge from surfing the internet.
The fact is that the papyri databases which Dan Wallace referenced in his Junia article are almost all on the internet. As is almost all the evidence for authentein. What is so amazing is that the evidence that authentein means “to have authority” has not surfaced, either on the internet or off. I think the method of using electronic searches is misunderstood.
Like or Dislike:
0
‘vs.2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of
God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon
themselves.’
There is no place for kephale in the passage.
Like or Dislike:
0
Therefore there cannot be a kephale-authority-opposition-condemnation, link.
Like or Dislike:
0
Sue, you respond to me in post#65:
“I don’t want to argue over how prayers impact one’s finances or health.” and then you go on to discuss the health and wealth gospel (?)…..(?) ..
Are you accusing someone of attempting to make that argument????
Is that honestly supposed to be a response to what I said to you??
Interesting.
Are you trying to twist my words, or are you attempting to make it look like I said something I didn’t say? Or is this illogic?
I don’t get it.
I find it interesting that you still have not answered my simple straightforward questions:
Do you believe that God has full authority over you? Yes or no?
Do you believe that you are to submit to God’s commandments and directives in scripture? Yes or no?
It seems that your arguments are almost always from history, never from the Bible.
Like or Dislike:
0
ttm and Kathy, The questions I ask of Sue are entirely sincere. I am trying to figure out what she really believes.
Like or Dislike:
0
Susan,
I am sorry to say that I have lost the thread of your questions. I do feel as though your are trying to lead up to something. Here is what you first asked me.
How do you feel about God’s authority over you?
Do you feel the need to submit to Him in all things?
But then you asked,
Do you believe that you are to submit to God’s commandments and directives in scripture? Yes or no?
Clearly, when I answered your first question I did not answer your second.
So, I took it that you were asking how I feel about God’s authority over me. I accept God’s authority. It is to me coequivalent with his power. It is absolute and I live in it.
Next, do I submit to Him in all things?
As anyone does, who has someone that they love who suffers, I wrestle with God.
Third, Do i believe that you are to submit to God’s commandments and directives in scripture? Yes or no?
I do. With this explanation. Every single person who responds to scripture, responds to an interpretation of scripture. So do I.
In practical terms, I provide for my children and attend a church with an all male clergy. I don’t do anything at all in my life that a complementarian women would not do. Okay, I took apart the pipes under my bathroom sink once – but that’s it!
The problem is that I am committed to the truth. I read the authentein study, and the Junia study and the kephale study. The pastor of my former church told me to read them. I don’t know what to do about it.
The evidence just does not justify the conclusions.
For example, in the kephale study, there are only two citations where a person is called the kephale of his own people, as a leader. One is Jephthah in the LXX. Jephthah is not a favoured character in Judaism. I doubt this was the model. Jephthah was an exception as a tribal leader in many ways.
The other is in the Shepherd of Hermas, a second century document written in Rome. This is considered to be influenced by Latin and is clearly not evidence for Paul’s use of kephale.
The church fathers considered the meaning of kephale in depth. Chrysostom in his homily of 1 Corinthians wrote some interesting things about kehpale. He was emphatic that it was not the role of ruler over governed. Cyril of Alexandria thought that it was to have the same nature as. He thought that Christ became the kephale of man when he came to earth. So, Christ shares his nature with man, man with woman and God with Christ.
I don’t know the answer to these things. But I do know very clearly that what we now are taught is not the historical interpretation of the church.
Another huge divergence is that some church fathers thought that woman was put under male authority by the fall. This is also what egalitarians believe. So, in fact, in terms of the interpretation of many passages, egalitarians are more faithful to the traditional interpretations than others. In the Vulgate, Gen. 3:16 says just that. “you shall be under the power of your husband and he will dominate you.” This is the curse.
I honestly believe that women were restricted not by scripture but by tradition, just as slaves were. I believe that the overwhelming command of God and Christ consistent through the entire scriptures, is that we must each love our next one as ourselves. This is Christ’s clear command and the clear and most consistent directive in scripture. I do not think that Christ could have made this more clear. I believe that men and women are to love each other as we love ourselves.
Like or Dislike:
0
Kathy,
The point of my comment is that submission is at the heart of authentic Christianity. God does require it in reference to earthly heads and that point will get lost very quickly, as it has in thread, if we start dissecting it to focus non-essential details and try to justify how we shouldn’t submit.
I think it’s interesting that commands for us to submit are generally preceded by a description of what allows us to do that and why we should. Consider our submission passages in context
I Peter 3 in relation to I Peter 2:21-25
Eph 5:22-23 in relation to vs. 18-21
Romans 13:1-2 in relation to Romans 12
Also consider Phil 2:8
“Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross”.
You see, Jesus gave up His rights for us. He submitted to lowering himself and endured torture and ridicule so we could have a right to be with God. But we want to make much of our own so-called rights.
So again, the point of my earlier comment is that WHEN we submit to whatever earthly head Scriptures commands us to it is unto the Lord and really submitting to Him rather than trying to make much of our rights.
Like or Dislike:
0
Since Lisa brings up the issue of “our rights,” how do the complementarian and egalitarian perspectives differ, if at all, when it comes to “rights”?
In my experience, people in complementarian marriages always seem to be fussing over who has which/more rights and who’s trying to usurp rights while those in egalitarian marriages seem to celebrate the rights of each partner without too much of a tussle. Just by virtue of being a structure based on rights/authority to decide/power, complementarian marriages appear to create unneccesary problems. And doesn’t God desire harmony in our homes? And to extend it further, in our churches?
If a complementarian husband is truly Christlike wouldn’t he give up his “right to authority” once and for all? Why is it that complementarians apply this “they ought to willingly giving up concern for their rights” concept to egalitarian women instead of to complementarian men?
Like or Dislike:
0
Amen ttm! #72 and #82
I have notice that while Sue has not once questioned someone motivation or character as rational for the point of view that person expounds others have not hesitated to call Sue’s motives and character into question.
Lisa and Susan, you both have shared enough of your own situations for us to know that you have suffered through what I personally would call abusive situations. You had your reasons for the choices you made. I am not fit to judge whether or not they were wise reasons or correct choices. I think we can all agree that your spouses were not living out what a true complimentarian or true egalitarian would expect of them. Your defense of CMP and Dr. Wallace as men and scolars is enthusiastic to say the least. Had either of these men mentored your spouses perhaps your lives would not have included quite so much suffering. That said, the vehemence with which you defend your positions is every bit as strong as Sue’s and mine. Perhaps we all need to take a deep breath.
Like or Dislike:
0
I would like the focus to remain on some of the very good advice that Dan gave.
And my advice to wives who are caught in a marriage like that is this: RUN! Get out before it gets worse. The first time your husband strikes you, take the kids and leave. I’m not saying get a divorce. That may be necessary. But I am saying show some self-dignity. If your husband won’t treat you with the respect you deserve, this doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t! And the longer you wait, the harder it will get.
This is a healthy piece of writing. Another commenter wrote,
It fairly obvious to point towards physical abuse because it’s easily identifiable. But I think verbal abuse is just the same, just not quite as obvious. My mother had to deal with verbal abuse for a long time throughout my parents’ marriage and I almost think she stayed with him just for me and my brother’s sake, which, in my opinion, is a rather poor reason because we were exposed to the abuse sometimes.
I appreciate both of these paragraphs and I wish that I had been exposed to Christians writing things like this when I was younger. I think a lot of people, women, and sometimes men, remain in their marriage beyond its due date by these standards.
I think complementarians can deal with this issue if they talk more about the safety and dignity of those involved in a marriage, including the children.
Submission, according to Clement, writing not long after Paul, is an attitude that the strong have to the weak and the weak to the strong. It is a reciprocal attitude of one to another, each from their own place. And this is modeled in Phil 2, for both men and women.
Like or Dislike:
0
Two real life examples of a wife abusing her husband.
1. Wife leaves working husband and two small children for no other expressed reason by her than that she does not want to have anything to do with any of them anymore.
She makes about $60,000.00 a year in her career. Her child-support obligation will be about 1,500.00 per month.
2. Wife and mother of four has repeated clandestine affairs with various men. She is an educated woman and has work experience amounting to about 6 months as a waitress during college, but during the marriage stayed home to care for the children. All four children are the husband’s biologically. They both attended church untill she filed for divorce.
This woman left the home, rented another house, furnished it, and asked the court for $3,000.00 per month alimony (not child support)! All of this was done illegally.
She then, again illegally, bought a house with her father’s co-signature and demanded that the husband support the children living in it.
During the first three years of the separation and divorce this woman did not work, but went to the local university to attain another degree (again against the law). She is now self-sustaining making about $65,000.00 a year, while her ex-husband continues to pay child-support (not alimony) of about $2,000.00 per month.
I could cite other instances – even far more gruesome than these.
There is a reason why a man is the head of the family. St Paul is not a pratting fool.
Vladimir
Like or Dislike:
0
Let me give you one scenario of how a marriage relationship works from the financial perspective.
Husband and wife sit down together and discuss finances; their respective incomes, their income to debt ratio; their agreed upon amount for savings, etc.
Husband gives wife latitude to spend their money for the household expenses, i.e., food, cleaning supplies and necessities. There is an established and maintained separate account for this. The husband does not need to see it. She has her own account for this and is required to budget the designated funds for the entire month or week. She must make ends meet. She clips coupons and goes to sales. She goes not shop at needless-markup!
Husband goes to work everyday and brings home the bacon.
They have both already agreed that they would not spend money senselessly, so they only eat out once a week and the husband takes his lunch with him to work. The spend money only on necessities.
After about two years the couple has saved about $18,000.00 in their savings account!
Such a plan had a beginning. It was when they both sat down together and discussed the issue together. Both agreed to the plan. The result is a shared effort.
This is an complementarian household.
Vladimir
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] Dan Wallace has published a great article: 1 Peter 3.7 and Wife Abuse. [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
Sue, thanks for answering. I really wasn’t leading up to anything with my questions. I was only trying to get more of a feel for where you are coming from…i.e. how you relate to God, and how you view scripture. Even though you have provided answers it is of course impossible for me to know the condition of your heart before God. Only He knows that.
If I take your answers at face value….. in answer to “How do you feel about God’s authority over you? You said that you accept it, he is all powerful…. you live in it. What I hear in that, is that you are resigned to it, but it is not exactly something which you joyfully embrace. You recognize that He has some say in your life, but perhaps there is some distance in your relationship with him ?
When I asked if you submit to Him in all things, you said that you wrestle with God (especially because there is someone in your life who suffers). And, I would add, that YOU have suffered much. Suffering with no end in sight does tend to test our faith, and cause us to question God. We wonder when we will see His mercy, and why He seems not to see or hear.
When I asked if you believe that we are to submit to God’s commands and directives in scripture, you say that you do, but qualify that by saying that everyone interprets scripture differently, and responds accordingly. So you don’t see scripture as being particularly clear and strait-forward? Do you suspect that scripture is mistranslated in many areas, outside of the aforementioned discussion? Do you consider scripture to be 100% God’s word?
I’m trying to make sure that I am ‘hearing’ you correctly.
I have no negative agenda. Truthfully, I’m sure that we could have a long talk about what it is to live in a painful marriage….. one in which you are often treated as if you are worthless. If you are committed to remaining in the marriage, as I have been, there are times when life becomes lonely survival (and maybe that’s a ‘good’ day).
You go on to say: “The problem is I’m committed to the truth”
I don’t ever see being committed to the truth as a problem…. as long as we are defining the truth as God’s word, and humbly seeking to understand His meaning. Sometimes I have to stop, and get down on my knees before God, and ask Him to help me to be fully submitted to Him….. it isn’t always my natural inclination. And, just so you know, I am not talking about the E vs. C debate when I say this (so please don’t take offense). On that note, personally, I really don’t care that much about the E vs. C thing. That is why I don’t really jump into the fray.
At our church that has not been a big issue. It has not been a big issue for me. On the church front, I was asked by some men who rotate turn in teaching an Adult SS class, if I would consider teaching. When I asked my pastor, he said that he didn’t have a problem with that, as long as my teaching was in line with his teaching. I declined, but who knows…. maybe some day? Our church is complimenterian— but not to the extreme.
When our pastor last addressed the subject of the submission of the wife, his emphasis was definitely on mutual submission. He strongly warned husbands that they were NOT to use this passage a a license to lord it over their wife. I’ve heard him make these sorts of statements often. He knows the problems which exist….. and Sue, I will say that the REAL PROBLEM is SIN….. not the comlimenterian possition. If husbands live with their wives in peaceful, loving, self-sacrificial unity, wives do not feel the least bit dominated nor cheated by their position of leadership. It really amounts to the husband bearing the greater responsibility before God. Frankly, I think that your husband is a real jerk for constantly throwing scriptural verbiage at you to accuse you, when He is treating you in a way which God disdains.
Like or Dislike:
0
I just now dawned on me, although this association is not new to me, that if one considers the advice St Paul gives to Philemon and how he should conduct himself toward Onesimos, one can gain valuable insight into how relationships as Christians should be conducted.
Dr Wallace noted the continuity in being submissive to others in various capacities in 1 Peter.
Vladimir
Like or Dislike:
0
Even though you have provided answers it is of course impossible for me to know the condition of your heart before God. Only He knows that.
Let’s move beyond the interogation of my soul. I don’t think it is in any way appropriate.
So you don’t see scripture as being particularly clear and strait-forward? Do you suspect that scripture is mistranslated in many areas, outside of the aforementioned discussion? Do you consider scripture to be 100% God’s word?
This is a major issue. I do see that there is significant divergence between translations. This is one reason for my interest in the little known Reformation Bibles.
If you are committed to remaining in the marriage, as I have been, there are times when life becomes lonely survival (and maybe that’s a ‘good’ day).
And if some were to live that way for their entire life, the question becomes whether that was honouring God, or was it was simply damaging to everyone involved, as some here suggest.
Vladimir,
Your example of a good marriage transcends egal and comp. Thank you. It’s great.
Your examples of abusive women are timely. Yes, women do behave like that sometimes.
But let me summarize.
“Some women behave badly. There is a reason why a man is the head of the family. St Paul is not a pratting fool.”
“Some men behave badly. There is no reason why a man is the head of the family. St Paul is a pratting fool.”
I don’t mean to offend. Please understand that I am playing with the logic. How would you now redefine your reasons why man is the head of the family. ( A term found in the Bible, only with reference to the wife in 1 Tim. 5:14.)
Like or Dislike:
0
Sue,
But let me summarize.
“Some women behave badly. There is a reason why a man is the head of the family. St Paul is not a pratting fool.”
“Some men behave badly. There is no reason why a man is the head of the family. St Paul is a pratting fool.”
I don’t mean to offend. Please understand that I am playing with the logic. How would you now redefine your reasons why man is the head of the family. ( A term found in the Bible, only with reference to the wife in 1 Tim. 5:14.)”
Compare 1 Corinthians 1:18-22.
Re: 1 Tim 5:14
14βουλομαι ουν νεωτερας γαμειν τεκνογονειν οικοδεσποτειν μηδεμιαν αφορμην διδοναι τω αντικειμενω λοιδοριας χαριν
I thought we already observed eleswhere that the complementarian position, which is based on the Bible, recognizes the complementary nature of the diversity of areas and capacities for mutual labor and benefit within the family nucleus as well as the Church herself?
BTW, I think Susan can help you iron (pun intended) things out and be a real asset to you in coming to grips with various issues on various levels.
Vladimir
Like or Dislike:
0
Sue,
BTW and for the record – I can iron too – and that quite well.
Vladimir
Like or Dislike:
0
Valdimir,
If some men behave badly, why should men be the head of the family?
And does the Bible ever say that the husband is the head of the family? Certainly it says the wife is the leader within her domain. So, in this sense we see a shared leadership in the family.
Like or Dislike:
0
Sue,
My father raised three boys. And yes, boys we were! He used to read the Bible to us. Sometimes he would give advise.
“If you think your tough, there is always one tougher; and if you think your smart, there is always one smarter.”
My impudent remark was, “I haven’t meet Him yet.” (i.e., God). But in reality I had. It was my Dad. He was the authority figure over me which God and instituted and ordained and blessed when He designed marriage and its fruits. It is a serious thing. Remember the fifth commandment.
As a father, I have raised my children from the Christian perspective. It’s funny. I gave them the choice of which Bible version they preferred to read. They all ended up choosing of their own volition the NIV. Dad reads various non English versions. (Can’t very well have them going around adressing others with ye, thee, thy, and thou; although I understand we’ens and you’ens is acceptable in western Tennessee and ya’ll in the South). Do you think national television will unit the English language or is it too youth culture biased? Yo!
Vladimir
Like or Dislike:
0
Sue, I suppose this sort of ‘interrogation’ would be entirely inappropriate if there was anything malicious in my motives. I think that Vladimir understands my heart more than you do. You may choose not to believe me when I say this but, I actually care about you. I tend to feel compassion for others who have suffered as I have. I would not mind if someone asked me the questions I have asked you.
You didn’t answer one question: Do you believe that the Bible is 100% God’s word? This is a valid question to ask of any commenter, for any thread posted here. Some who comment here definitely don’t believe that the Bible is 100% God’s word, and they freely admit it.
I think that it is a bad practice to find something in scripture which you have a hard time with, and then search to find a translation or person in church history who sees it otherwise and then decide that they got it right… even if main stream translations and conservative scholars don’t agree with those conclusions. You are standing on thin ice if you follow that methodology. Thin-ice misinterpretation can be very hazardous to your spiritual health….. and possibly to your very salvation.
This methodology also reflects a lack of submission to God…. a lack of humility before Him. “God opposes to the proud, but he gives grace to the humble.” James 4:6 I fear God enough to know that I don’t want to be found lacking humility before Him. It is a very bad thing to have God opposing you. All of this to say, I think that the best way to read God’s word is in prayerful submission to it…. even to the parts which at first might seem unpalatable. Usually I find that if I see something is scripture which I have a hard time with it is because I am not understanding it from God’s perspective, but rather from my own limited perspective.
Also, If we truly understand the Bible to be ‘God breathed’…..’living and active…powerful’, then we will make it our PRIMARY source of spiritual learning. Not other books, or commentaries, or church history, nor past church leaders. Knowing scripture really well is the ONLY way a person can become truly spiritually discerning…. able to recognize false ideas. The majority of our time and attention should be given to studying the Bible when we are seeking to know the truth.
I’ve been reading your comments for days, and it seems that you almost always refer to past church fathers, examples from history, other writers and theologians (who are often in the minority among conservative scholars)…. other sources. One gets the impression, that you decide what you want the text to be saying, and then search until you find someone or something which confirms your thoughts. That is not a God honoring approach to scripture. It is not humble submission before God. If you hear some warning in my words, then I would say that you are beginning to understand me.
Oh, and BTW, comlementarians don’t have a problem with women working outside of the home (except for a few radicals)…. and I think that most complementarian men would be happy if their wives could handle the household plumbing problems …. way to go!
In fact, Dan Wallace’s wife has a job.
Vladimir, I’m impressed that you iron well. I gave up on that a long time ago. If it isn’t knit, or can’t drip dry reasonably well, I don’t buy it. You’re a better woman than I !
Like or Dislike:
0
Sue,
“If some men behave badly, why should men be the head of the family?
And does the Bible ever say that the husband is the head of the family? Certainly it says the wife is the leader within her domain. So, in this sense we see a shared leadership in the family.”
We have addressed these issues already. Yes, it explicitly does. And yes, the two shall become one flesh.
Your logic amazes me. You say:
“If some men behave badly, why should men be the head of the family?
This is like saying, “If a man’s origins are from the water-mellon patch should he be President of the US?”
I know the analogy is not perfect, but after promising change during his campaign and then on election night burst the American audiences hopes with, “Change will not happen overnight; it may not happen in a year or two or even in MY FIRST TERM…”
So, is Obama bad because he is black or bad because he is male?
Vladimir
Like or Dislike:
0
Susan,
“You’re a better woman than I !
Ha Ha! – I better not be.
Vladimir
Like or Dislike:
0
Susan–To put it bluntly, I found your psychoanalysis of Sue’s answers to be offensive.
I suggest as ttm did back in comment #72 that you stick to addressing the issues she raised.
I also wouldn’t mind someone bothering to suggest how the Church should confront the misapplication and resulting abuse of the complementarian position. How do we protect women from such abuse rather than guilt them into taking more of it?
Like or Dislike:
0
Excerpts from Wife abuse: evangelical feminists’ useful lie…:
“Feminists who use suffering wives as a tool to attack father-rule avoid the inconvenient fact that the violence and victims literature fails to corroborate their world view. Rather, it contradicts them and demonstrates that, once more, social revolutionaries have found a useful lie.
Evangelical feminist dogma that patriarchy leads to spouse abuse is denied time after time in scholarly studies. After analyzing a number of studies of domestic violence, Canadian psychologist Donald G. Dutton of the University of British Columbia concluded, “no direct relationship exists between patriarchy and wife assault,” and that feminists will have to find another explanation of wife abuse. (footnote 6) He wrote “…patriarchy does not elicit violence against women in any direct fashion.”
Finally, who is willing to speak up for God? It is He Who has decreed, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.”( footnote 10) To lay the blame for domestic abuse at the door of patriarchy, then, is to slander the Lord of Hosts.”
Like or Dislike:
0
Minnowspeaks,
“…I also wouldn’t mind someone bothering to suggest how the Church should confront the misapplication and resulting abuse of the complementarian position. How do we protect women from such abuse rather than guilt them into taking more of it?”
In America, a violent rape happens every two minutes. Most are unreported. The civil penalty for this crime is 25 years in the federal pen.
Generally speaking, the nature of the abuse can be either verbal or physical, and it takes on many forms. The origin of evil is man’s own heart (regenerate or not) or an external suggestion from the Devil.
This last fact is something the Devil himself wants the people of God to forget, i.e., that he is real.
I think the problem lies primarly with a lack of proper Biblical instruction and a lack of “aptness” on the part of the instructor/teacher to develope and unveil the content of the biblical revelation. Instead, a quick citation and a look that assumes you “got it” suffices.
For example, the wife of an alcoholic is too ashamed and wishes to keep up good appearances that everything is ok. But, instead of believing that the Bible is the truth and that there is real hope and real solutions, the Church has forgotten its former manner of life and has become entertainment driven. There is no time to think, reflect, hash out issues, pray, see God act! No, it is only assumed He will. Everything will be ok. Really?
We are not robots – we are children of God.
Vladimir
More Comments:
« Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »