gengwall

I agree, but believe there is more. Peter’s use of Abraham and Sarah has significance in the type of relationship being addressed. Abraham was behaving badly. If it refers to his prostituting Sarah to avoid harm to himself, as I believe it does, he was behaving abusively. Peter’s point is that Sarah’s “godly attitude” which included voluntary humility, submission, and respectfullness toward Abraham in the midst of his sin was insrtumental in turning him from his sinful, abusive ways. The important point is that the context for Sarah’s “godly attitude” is the marriage relationship and the effect of her “godly attitude” is to stem a pattern of abuse by her husband. This is exactly what complimentarians claim is the purpose for submission “for a season” to abuse. This parallel can’t be ignored, nor can we twist the context of Peter’s teaching into something that it isn’t.

Now, where they fail in their application is the complete lack of recognition of the husbands abuse, and the complete lack of application to the husband of the remainder of the passage. They also fail to take into consideration Paul’s advice on abusive situations and the fact that he does not call for wives to submit to abuse for a second, let alone “a season”. Complimentarians, in essense, don’t recognize the abuse component of the relationship at all. They only recognize an apparent lack of “godly attitude” on the part of the wife. Without addressing the abusive husband and without applying Peter’s corrective action to his sin, they present only half a solution to abusive situations. That is a flawed and demonstrably failed position, not to mention an ungodly one.