Thanks Jean. Interesting and insightful treatment of the 1 Samuel account.

I just have two points of clarification when you get to the bit about ‘wise’ wives married to ‘foolish’ men:

1. I take it the 1 Peter text cited should be 3:1-7 (not 1:3-7)?

2. Also when you say that there’s ‘a time when submission to our husband must be laid aside’ I assume you mean in specific situations rather than as a blanket rule for the relationship?

Some further thoughts, Claire.

“Laid aside” was probably unhelpfully ambiguous, now I think about it! Not sure what I should have said - “temporarily laid aside”??

Because, of course, even if I “lay aside” submission in a particular case, I am not really laying it aside at all (not even temporarily!). I am still in a relationship of submission. This means that, even if I disobey a specific command, or choose not to follow my husband’s example, I do it in a gentle and humble way which honours leadership as far as possible, not a defiant and proud way. It also means that I gladly submit to the full extent I’m able to, at this and all other times, unless and until the relationship is unavoidably broken.

The same goes for governments, bosses, teachers - all authority relationships. I give honour and respect as much as I am able to, and the relationship of authority isn’t broken even when I have to go against authority because I’m submittint to the greater authority of God. Authority is a good and healthy thing, even though it can be misused.

Can you think of a better way of putting it then “laid aside” or even “temporarily laid aside”?

Dear Jean,

Thanks for your thoughtful answers - I hope they weren’t really written in the early hours of this morning! Sleep is a beautiful thing.

Perhaps the way to express this is to come at it from a different direction. So that instead of saying what a wife in such a situation stops doing, focus instead on what she is still doing…

So something like this: All submission to earthly authorities including a wife’s submission to her husband is an expression of obedience to Christ. And this Christ-ward dimension is more apparent on those occasions where a husband’s will is at odds with the demands of godliness, as the wife’s faithful obedience to Christ will win out over the will of her husband, and she will chose not to follow her husband into sin (cf. 1 Peter 4:4) – but will rather be faithful to her spiritual husband (Eph. 5:22–24).

Is this a better way forward?

Hi Claire and Marie!

Marie, I think what struck me as I read about Nabal and Abigail is that here was a woman who was right to go against her husband (the Bible praises her for her wisdom rather than condemning her) not because he was leading her into sin, but because he was leading her household to murder and mayhem. So it seems to me that there are times when you would, for example, rightly leave a husband, or protect a child against his will, because he was harming you or your children. As you say, Marie, this is a difficult decision for extreme situations.

Thanks, Claire. I did wake up early, I’m afraid, but because my kids woke me, not because of your question!! But my brain must have been working on it in my sleep…

I see your point: that perhaps it’s best to emphasise our submission to Christ rather than our not-submitting. But I’d be happy to say that there are times when a wife “stops” submitting, on a particular issue and for a time, for the sake of her greater submission to Christ - as long as we make it clear that the relationship of authority doesn’t end, that authority is a good and healthy thing, and that the preference is always to submit whenever possible, because we know that God’s plan for headship and submission is good, that our trusting submission honours God, and that it shows forth the relationship between Christ and the church.

Don’t know if that sheds any further light on it, though! I’ll give it some thought - or maybe my brain will while I’m asleep!

Jean.

Yes, I agree that obedience always points to and testifies to Christ (his rule, his work in us etc). But my point above was that it is more obvious that we are ‘choosing life’ when those around us are ‘choosing death’.

Hope the kids don’t get you up too early!

God bless.

Well written and thought out including this….

“Marie, I think what struck me as I read about Nabal and Abigail is that here was a woman who was right to go against her husband (the Bible praises her for her wisdom rather than condemning her) not because he was leading her into sin, but because he was leading her household to murder and mayhem. So it seems to me that there are times when you would, for example, rightly leave a husband, or protect a child against his will, because he was harming you or your children. As you say, Marie, this is a difficult decision for extreme situations.”

No one in Christ is ever obligated on a fleshly level to yield to what produces mayhem, sin or wounds others.  God’s truths only wound sin and the sinful nature, not people’s hearts, lives, or inner person/soul.

Nabel was likely named “Fool” by his village, as this was normal to be nicknamed by others and have the name stick.  Abigail likely was given to this man (in an agreement to not harm others) as was the custom and so had no choice. There are many things we can put up with according to local cultures.  But we must be aware of where that line ends and needs to end.

I don’t think you need to be fearful that anyone is going to misconstrue your observations about Abigail and Nable as an approval on divorce.  Nable died and by God’s hand.  :^)

The subject of divorce and remarriage is another ball of wax, much more convoluted than this story in history.

Thanks, Teri, good to know no-one was confused.

Online communication can be so imprecise, and I’m always so aware of how what I say can be mis-read or mis-applied!

And I like the spelling “Nable”!