Since our readership has rapidly expanded over the past few years, and especially during the past few months, we want to take some time this summer to draw attention to earlier articles for those who may have missed them. Today's article was among those from our first few months and was published on Recovering Grace in October of 2011.
This is the second of two re-printed articles examining the biblical character, Abigail. To quickly summarize the first article (found here), Abigail was a hero. Her quick thinking and action saved lives. David praised God for using her to save him and others from needless pain.
From the Pages of Scripture
This article looks at Bill Gothard’s interpretation of the story as presented in Character Sketches (an Institute in Basic Life Principles publication known for its beautiful illustrations). Abigail is presented as villain rather than hero; as well-intentioned but rebellious, causing “grief,” “lasting consequences,” and “ultimate tragedy” (pages 299 – 301).
But is this interpretation consistent with Scripture? Character Sketches makes many assertions about Abigail in an effort to build a case against her. The following paragraphs consider several of those claims:
Abigail disobeyed the Law (Deut 19:15) and Matthew 18:15-17: She was wrong to accept the “bad report” of a lone shepherd (p. 301).
However, both of these passages are being wrested from context. Deuteronomy 19:15 prescribes a process for legal claims, one person against another. Matthew 18 concerns personal offenses in the church. Neither passage applies to Abigail. An eye-witness had urgently warned Abigail that there was an immediate threat to life and limb. Her actions were not a legal dispute between her and Nabal. They were an attempt to save her husband’s life while appealing to David’s better judgement in the light of God’s future plans for him. It is absurd to claim that these verses judge against Abigail. Why is there a need to wrest verses out of context in an attempt to judge Abigail for averting an urgent threat?
Abigail is guilty of rebellion, something the Lord hates: Initiative is most often praised in Institute literature as one of 49 Character Qualities, but Abigail’s initiative here is cast in a negative light with the phrases “taking the lead,” “acted independently,” “taking matters into her own hands.” (These are loaded terms for followers of Gothard’s teachings; they imply rebellion.) “We must conclude that, although her motives were sincere, her methods were wrong and displeasing to the Lord who hates rebellion against authority even though that authority be an unwise father or a foolish husband” (p. 301). If the Lord hates rebellion, and if she was rebellious, then the Lord seemingly hated her actions and/or attitudes.
However, her speech of seven verses (1 Sam. 25:24-31) began with her bowing down to the ground. Six times she referred to herself as servant (“handmaid” in the KJV), 10 times she called David “my lord.” Her speech saved the life of Nabal and the lives of all the men in the house. If Abigail were truly in rebellion, perhaps it would have made more sense for her to step aside and let her husband die at the hands of an offended warrior. Regardless, her speech is not one of rebellion, it is one that shows appropriate respect. In reality, Abigail protected her husband without covering for him or enabling him (a feat that any spouse of an alcoholic will report is difficult).
“Hate” and “rebellion” are strong words. The reader will look in vain in 1 Samuel 25 for them–they are not there. Why the need to import these strong words into the interpretation of Abigail’s story when there is nothing to suggest them in the Scriptural context?
Abigail set David up to commit adultery and murder: “She robbed [David] of the necessary caution that could have prevented” him from later “killing another woman’s husband in order to cover up his sin with her” (p. 299). This is how her “independent action caused permanent grief” and “ultimate tragedy.”
However, Scripture makes no link, either express or implied, between Abigail’s wise appeal here and David’s sin years later with killing Bathsheba’s husband after he became king. It seems that in Gothard’s economy, for David to kill everyone in Nabal’s house would be an excusable failure, but for Abigail to appeal against it was a horrible sin. Why the need to blame a wife for a husband’s sin?
Abigail suffered consequences: “After her husband died, Abigail became [David’s] wife. He removed her from a comfortable home to the hardship of a fugitive’s life” (p. 299).
However, Scripture shows Abigail “quickly” joining David. Nothing in the story indicates that Abigail’s home life with her cruel husband was comfortable.
“Fugitive” is a curious name for the rightful king of Israel. David was temporarily on the run to save his life from the abusive and murderous Saul, but as Abigail had predicted, he was soon the king (and she a queen). That Abigail was temporarily taken hostage (not in the current context but in a separate story) does not make a statement against her. She was taken hostage and David rescued her. This is in contrast to her first husband who put her in harms’ way and she had to rescue him. The story in Scripture ends with both Abigail and David being in improved stations in life. Why the need to twist the satisfying conclusion into something negative?
Abigail later admitted remorse: Character Sketches claims that later in life, Abigail changed her son’s name to Daniel, which is said to mean “God has judged me.” It also claims that her son should have been king but instead lived and died in obscurity (giving the impression that this is somehow God’s judgement for these events).
However, Scripture’s entire record for Abigail’s son consists of two verses:
2 Sam. 3:3–And his second, Chileab, of Abigail the wife of Nabal the Carmelite;
1 Chron. 3:1–…the second Daniel, of Abigail the Carmelitess…
Where is the evidence? There is a positive connotation in Genesis 30:6 where Rachel declared that God had judged positively in her favor and given her a son whom she named Dan. The name Daniel means “God is my judge.” The famous Daniel whom God saved from the lion’s den received justice and favor from God. Scripture does not fill in any details about when the son was given which name, or if perhaps he was known by both names. The supposed evidence of Abigail’s remorse is entirely speculation. Why the need to invent details and claim that they are Scriptural?
“It was true that Abigail was successful in her scheme but there may have been a better method.” (p. 301)
However, this faint praise does away with David’s words and ignores that God’s hand was at work behind the scenes, using Abigail:
“Praise be to the LORD, the God of Israel, who has sent you today to meet me. May you be blessed for your good judgment and for keeping me from bloodshed this day and from avenging myself with my own hands. Otherwise, as surely as the LORD, the God of Israel lives, who has kept me from harming you, if you had not come quickly to meet me, not one male belonging to Nabal would have been left alive by daybreak.” (1 Sam 25:32-34)
Why the need to ignore David’s praise of both Abigail and God?
Conclusion
Thirty years ago, a concerned reviewer wrote an article in which he attempted to be as fair as possible to Bill Gothard’s teachings. But he concluded with a caution that Gothard had an “an almost fascistic view of power” (Bockelman, 1974). That Scripture would smile on Abigail is an unwelcome challenge to Gothard’s view of power. To mitigate this threat, Gothard re-interpreted Abigail’s story in a unique and negative way that is inconsistent with both Jewish and Christian tradition.
The overarching problem with Gothard’s interpretation of this story is that it ignores authorial intent* and manufactures a meaning inconsistent with the text. This passage clashes with Gothard’s extreme and dangerous emphasis on submission to all authority at any cost. He did not find the clear reading of this passage to his taste, so he twisted it to create his own “bad report” against Abigail and a not-so-subtle threat to survivors of abuse everywhere that their own actions would be “hated” by the Lord, should they take initiative. The lack of submission that this interpretation reveals is not Abigail’s, it is Bill Gothard’s. Gothard is unwilling to submit himself to this passage. Instead, he is attempting to force Scripture to submit to him.
References:
Bockelman, W. (1974). Pros and cons of Bill Gothard. Christian Century, 91(32), 877-880. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts. (1976). Character Sketches from the pages of Scripture, illustrated in the world of nature. Oak Brook, Ill.: The Institute.
*For more about authorial intent, see A Call for Discernment.
Amen! One of the best articles on RG. Would be great to more articles that show BG twisting of the Bible to fit his sick belief system. I wish that the early concerns about what he taught were heeded by more pastors that encouraged their flocks to attend his seminars in the 1970's rise.
These stories in Character Sketches (including the stories of Dinah and Tamar discussed previously) go from disturbing to outright disgusting when we realize that their author was a serial rapist (Steve Gothard). No wonder he twisted them into "blame the women" stories. Appalling!
Oh, wow! What a brilliant observation! Thanks for pointing that out!
I am not sure between Bill and Steve who actually wrote them. I am sure Steve wrote with Bill approval and Bill did have every opportunity to change the teaching through the years considering this junk was incorporated in the ATI program. Likewise Bill himself has kinda shown himself to be a serial pervert. One has to wonder how he doesn't know at age 80 that touching teenage girls that he surrounded himself with is immoral and wrong and inappropriate. Especially considering his courtship teaching. Furthermore, one wonders what kind of home these two were raised in considering their problems with basic Christian morality and how they fell far from it.
Bill knows that his actions are inappropriate. He spent years teaching guys like me that it was inappropriate to do things that weren't even wrong at all. I spent 11 years in the ATI program (1994-2005). 2005 was the last year that our family was involved in the program. At that point, my dad felt God leading him to get our family out. I haven't sat under Bill's teaching since I took my one and only Basic Seminar at age 16.
All that to say that it was only a few months ago that I realized that it is okay to like a girl and verbalize that liking, without being really serious and believing that "this is the one for sure". And yes, I am 25--and still single. That's how long it took for me to detox from that idea--wherever I got it from. It just was kind of part and parcel of the culture I grew up in. I never even went to Headquarters or any ATI program besides Knoxville and regional conferences.
Thank you, Recovering Grace, for blowing the lid on this minister of Satan and exposing his sin to the light.
I might add that it seems I read somewhere that Steve specifically wrote the Scripture write-ups in Character Sketches. However, it does not excuse Bill in any way. He chose to keep on selling Character Sketches, despite the "character" who wrote them. And, of course, we know that he was aiding and abetting Steve's vile actions.
Good for you Joel. Interest in the opposite sex is normal God given desires and the basis of marriage and even basic friendship.
@Joel Horst: Good for you and Godspeed to your ongoing healing and detox. We share basically the same timeline in ATI - '95 to '05 for me. So many ATI notions were implemented and enforced in our home, I didn't need to spend months or years at a "training center." My house was one! Peace be to you.
Matthew, VERY WELL DONE. That last sentence just lights me on fire.
Thank you for writing this. For a long time I had a hard time reconciling Gothard's version of this story with what other Christian teachers said about it. This really helped me understand and appreciate the intended meaning of the story!
[…] Read A Tale of Two Abigails: Part one, and part two. […]
Wow, I always thought Abigail was wrong to go against her husband's desire...I guess because of how Bill Gothard taught the story. It sounds bold to me to imply that she was right. I read through these two articles and it seems to me in my small mind as I try to reconcile the differences in the interpretation of this story that how you view God affects how you see this story. You have to believe God is gracious and more concerned with the heart than the law to interpret it in such a positive way. But what is God really like? If Bill Gothard says God is one way and you say God is another way, and you both back it with Scripture, then how does anyone know which one is right?
"You have to believe God is gracious and more concerned with the heart than the law to interpret it in such a positive way. But what is God really like?" -- But is that a true statement? I believe the story itself is quite clear as to the human author's intention of how Abigail should be seen.
If you are feeling some doubt or some internal questions about it, I would challenge you to start looking through commentaries to see what they say - the more scholarly the commentary the better. Look at both Jewish and Christian ones. Bible Encyclopedias as well. See if you can find specific places in the Scriptural text, this specific text, that support one view or the other. Your own internal questions may be the best motivation possible in the search for truth.
See if you can find a Jewish commentary that suggests that Abigail was in the wrong to save her husband's life like she did. They may mention that she seemed a little eager to be David's eventual wife, but that's a separate and comparatively minor concern to the overall judgement that she is the wise woman and Nabal is the foolish man in the story. But don't take my word for it - go look it up! :-)
Here's a possibility - you may find that the text itself seems to say something different than your internal feelings tell you, and that your internal feelings are in line with what Gothard said (I have experienced this all too often myself). The implications of a moment like that are potentially quite powerful.
(It's late and I'm typing quickly - I mean to challenge you but I do not mean to be disrespectful or insensitive in any way, so if I'm being either, please forgive me!)
In addition to what Matthew recommends, consider that "the law" may not require blind obedience and acquiescence of wives with their husbands' evil purposes and deeds. Too many have read "submit" as "obey" but children and slaves are told to obey, wives never. Genesis 1 and 2 lays out a co-regency of male and female, not a hierarchy. The "rule" of the husband so common in humanity is a curse in Genesis 3. But Jesus has broken the curse. Wives are told to submit in the epistles for two clear reasons: 1) evangelization of lost husbands and a lost culture that gave husbands civil control over wives; 2) submitting to LOVE ("as unto Christ"). (Wives can resist their husbands' love.)
Abigail broke no law by saving her husband and family from David's rage. She in fact put herself between her family and danger. She resisted nothing good or loving in her husband. She did not ask David to "take her away from that bad man". She asked David to spare him. (She could have merely hidden and let David kill him!)
I do not think the Bible approves of David marrying her. But she did nothing against the law in acting without her husband's permission. The Proverbs 31 woman appear to do much independently. The law protected women, it did not enslave them.
Tagging along with the Proverbs 31 reference: I submit that Abigail was a "Proverbs 31 woman."
I am tracking with you. I am almost there. I see the wisdom of Abigail. But then I hear Bill Gothard's teaching on submission from these verses in I Peter. A passage he quotes often in reference to submission. I will shorten them to be brief, "slaves submit yourselves to your masters...for it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering...to this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example,....wives, in the same way be submissive." I Peter 2:18- 3:1. And it makes me think Abigail was wrong to take matters into her own hands. After she tells her husband what she has done, he dies. I would have thought it was my fault he died since I had gone against him. Maybe God would have intervened in a different way. Is there another way to view these verses?
S, I think there is a VERY different way to view these verses - and that it is the correct way!
First, though, I will say regarding Abigail... I was JUST in a Bible study that covered this story this past week, among folks who never read a Gothard Character Sketch. The natural unbiased interpretation of everyone in the group (about 20 mature Christians) was that Scripture was commending Abigail for her godly wisdom, that Nabal was a jerk and a fool, and that his death was a beautiful example of God allowing natural consequences to punish sin. (Of course we don't know for sure, but the symptoms described sound like an alcoholic losing his temper and having a heart attack or stroke.)Abigail showed courage and integrity in telling Nabal what she had done - and wisdom in waiting until he was sober to do so! She could not have in any way predicted his stroke, and was not to blame for it. God set her free from her miserable marriage by allowing Nabal to receive his just punishment, without letting Abigail be guilty for blood on her hands, as she might have felt if she had not tried to save her husband.
Now, on the I Peter verses... first of all, you left a lot out when you quoted it. Look at the whole context of the passage. He's talking about slaves and wives bearing up under unjust suffering in order to show Christ's love to the world. He compares it to what Christ suffered. Here's the key part: THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT OUR AUTHORITIES HAVE ANY RIGHT TO MAKE US SUFFER. Paul's letters have quite a lot to say to the masters of slaves about treating them well (and, in the case of Philemon/ Onesimus, a plea to set them free). Also, compare I Corinthians 7:21, where Paul tells Christian slaves to gain their freedom if they are able to do so. Going back to I Peter 3, in verse 7 Peter turns and tells husbands to treat their wives with consideration and respect.
Collectively, the verses in I Peter say that we are to be commended if we evaluate the situation, decide that we can be a good witness for Christ by remaining in it, and bear up under suffering and unjust treatment. NOWHERE does it say that we are sinning, or to be condemned, if we decide that remaining in the situation is NOT the right thing to do.
Even Jesus did not submit Himself to suffering indefinitely. He allowed the authorities to put Him to death, because that was why He came to earth in the first place. But after His resurrection, He did not feel the need to turn himself back in and let them go on torturing Him! His suffering served a purpose, and then it was done.
Again, as I said above, Paul told slaves to gain their freedom if they possibly could. In Abigail's particular situation, it wasn't even a matter of her trying to leave her husband or avoid punishment for herself. She was trying to do what was best for him, which is the essence of love.
Continuing on in I Peter 3, look at verses 13 through 17:
Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? 14 But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened.” 15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. 17 For it is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil.
These verses are directed at everyone, men and women. They tell us something very important: sometimes authorities will threaten us or punish us for doing good things, and we should DO THOSE GOOD THINGS ANYWAY! We are told to do them gently and respectfully, not in a spirit of rebellion or malice, but we are still to FOLLOW OUR OWN CONSCIENCE AND DO WHAT WE KNOW TO BE RIGHT. This is *exactly* what Abigail did.
Does that help?
You here Gothard's teaching from I Peter. That really has no connection here. It is one thing to bare up under suffering, it is another to be killed which was about to happen to them. Stepping forward to save their lives from a rash anger of David is commendable. Submission is never meant that one cannot think on their own, act on one's own and even step forward if needed. Gothard twisted submission into something it is not which is wives are basically robots of their husbands and father's if single. He also twisted this by stating that since Abigail stepped forward and prevented murder, David never learned about guilt and that caused him to later kill Uriah (well cause his death by order). That connection is about as bogus as it gets.
S,
I think there's a very common misconception in the modern-day church, especially in circles like IBLP, that it's selfish to have one's needs met. Much of this has to do with the poor interpretive handling of versus that talk about suffering, but what many forget is that the Bible was written to people with the assumption that they would want to take care of themselves. And that is nothing to be ashamed about. A commandment like "love your neighbor as yourself" assumes that you will "love" yourself to begin with - not in the self-centered sense, but in the need-fulfilling sense. You would then be in a more capable position of meeting others' needs as a result. It's what some describe as the oxygen mask principle: whenever you're on an airplane, the flight attendants always tell you to put on your mask first in case of cabin pressure change, and only then should you help others around you. You would not be able to help others well if you haven't taken care of you first.
Some good thoughts being shared here!
S, I identify with your impulse to go to 1 Peter and judge Abigail as bad based on that. I had the same impulse earlier in the process of leaving Gothardism behind.
I see at least two fatal flaws with that line of reasoning, though. (The line of reasoning that 1 Peter condemns Abigail). First, it's not good Bible study to jump straight to Peter in order to interpret Abigail, and second, that's not a good interpretation of Peter, either.
The rest of this comment is about the first one. I'll post the second issue in a following comment.
First point: it's not good Bible study to jump straight to Peter's words about Christian marriage to judge Abigail's story that happened thousands of years previous, among Hebrew followers of Moses' Law. The New Testament was written thousands of years later, after Abigail's story, and Peter was writing to the Christian church, not the Hebrew people who were under Moses' Law. Different time, different people. To apply 1 Peter directly back onto Abigail is not good Bible interpretation. Abigail's story existed for a long time for Hebrews to read and think about. It would be misleading for her story to seem positive about her and then later the New Testament says, "nope! gotcha! She was actually wrong."
Also, jumping over to Peter short-circuits the question of what 1 Samuel says about Abigail. Of course the big picture in 1 and 2 Samuel is centered around David and is part of God's redemptive story through David's line. But as far as the story itself focuses on Abigail, it makes her the "good guy," David was someone who benefited from her wisdom and fear of the Lord, and Nabal was a fool. In the background of the story Saul is also being a fool.
I claim that the story itself praises Abigail and does not condemn her. The old preacher saying is that a text without a context is a pretext: regardless of what conclusion you come to about Abigail, a good conclusion is one you can support from the text in 1 Samuel and its surrounding context.
"It would be misleading for her story to seem positive about her and then later the New Testament says, "nope! gotcha! She was actually wrong."
Good point, MatthewS, thanks! My parents read us the Character Sketches growing up; they included the Abigail reading but told us Gothard's interpretation of her was incorrect. I hadn't thought much about the New Testament connection until this useful discussion.
If I put down the Gothard grid, I can see what you all are saying: that Abigail was good and even heroic. I have not found any commentaries that say otherwise. The part where Nabal dies after Abigail tells him what she had done always bothered me, but now I am realizing that usually when a person dies quickly in the OT like Nabal did, it is usually a judgement on the person who died ...not the one left living! Abigail is exonerated.
And I would just like to say that in order to make these huge paradigm shifts from Gothardism to Truth, one must go against his/her own trained internal sense of right and wrong. It feels like a betrayal. It is like waking up one day and finding out that your parents and friends were actually spies for another country and you never knew. Now you question everything you were ever told and you have to reevaluate what you believe and decide where your loyalties lie. To switch feels like betrayal. It is not an easy process!
Yes, that is exactly how it feels. You think you're violating your God-given conscience, thus God, when really you're just 'violating' someone else's ideas while following God out of the mire. It's utterly terrifying.
S, dear, if the only end result of this website was to help you along the way in your 'shift from Gothardism to truth', it was totally worth it. Blessings as you walk in this light!
Thank you, S, 'Megan', and P.L. for this discussion. I'm trying to get a handle on "becoming free" of some non-Gothardite stuff that behaves much like Gothardism, and boy, do I identify with the comment that "in order to make these huge paradigm shifts from Gothardism to Truth, one must go against his/her own trained internal sense of right and wrong. It feels like a betrayal. ... Now you question everything you were ever told and you have to reevaluate what you believe and decide where your loyalties lie. To switch feels like betrayal. It is not an easy process!".
I especially appreciate your commment, 'Megan', that "Yes, that is exactly how it feels. You think you're violating your God-given conscience, thus God, when really you're just 'violating' someone else's ideas while following God out of the mire. It's utterly terrifying."
Thank you for sharing. You folks have given me a lot to think about.
S and Becoming Free, what you say about betrayal, or what feels like betrayal, was who I was about 12 years ago. It gets better, but I remember feeling just guilty for saying what I thought. Gothard's teaching pitting the mind against the spirit keeps people in bondage, as does his teaching on Abigail, and authority in general, also what he teaches on an independent spirit. I hope you both have a supportive group of believers who encourage your search for truth. It sure feels wretched to be judged as a bad person for pursuing truth. If you know it is truth and a relationship with Christ you are after, ignore those who misjudge your motives, if at all possible.
"Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, to the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen."
Changing paradigms feels like falling. But you won't, because there is one who can keep you from falling. So no fear!
Thank you very much, LynnCD. I appreciate your feedback that it gets better over time, especially with a supportive group of believers. I do have that in my life - I just need to believe THEM and see their positive feedback as TRUTH and the old negative thought patterns in my head as bogus and something to be discarded. Thank you also for your comment, P.L. - Jesus is able to keep me from falling. :-)
The second issue is: what about Peter?
Isn't it interesting how we have this instinct to seamlessly blend the instructions to slaves and to wives, as if they were one and the same?
The resulting sense of that interpretation would be something like this: "Wives, you are slaves to your husbands, and as your masters, your husbands are going to beat you. Your job is to always have a good attitude and make sure it is always undeserved. This makes you a good example of Christ's love to your family."
Some well-meaning people even outside of Gothardism seem to think Peter was saying something like that. But is that consistent with what Peter himself says about marriage and with the rest of the New Testament?
A thousand times no!
1 Peter 3 can certainly be a challenging passage. What was Peter saying, and what was he not saying?
For the moment, I will link here: https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2012/07/the-subtle-power-of-spiritual-abuse-chapter-8-revictimizing-victims/
Thanks, Matthew. In my own study of "submission" I've come to two conclusions: 1) It does not mean "obey". The rule of the husband is a curse in Genesis 3, not normative from God's design in Genesis 1-2. Jesus pointed back to Genesis 2 so I see him delivering us from the curse and calling us to restored spousal communion which images the restored communion between God and mankind wrought by Christ's work. "I no longer call you servants, but friends."
2) Both the law and the NT protect women from enslavement in marriage. In I Cor. 7:15, Paul says the believer left by an unbelieving spouse is not "enslaved". This is too often translated "bound" and it becomes confused with a different word used of widows (in I Cor. 7 and Rom 7) declaring that they are not legally bound an may remarry. (For the one left by an unbelieving spouse, it has nothing to do with remarriage which Paul does not expressly authorize as he does with widows in I Cor. 7.) The word in verse 15 directly relates to this enslavement concept. A child of God is NOT enslaved by marriage.
Searching for meaning of this word "bondage" or "enslavement" in I Cor. 7:15, I found surprisingly that the law is explicit about this: Exodus 21:11 speaks of a woman "sold" to a man for the purpose of marriage. If she is not provided with ALL the rights and privileges of marriage "she is to go free". Verse 10 clarifies that this is especially true in a polygamous setting: a first wife must retain ALL her rights.
Similarly, In Deut. 21:10-14, a woman taken captive in war with marriage as the intention was to go free under the law "if you are not pleased with her". (The next passage also discusses polygamy providing that the oldest son of an "unloved wife" must receive the full inheritance of the oldest.)
In both Exodus and Deuteronomy, the woman is to go without compensation or ransom. In contrast to the cultural practices of those days, and the misrepresentations of the Law, God prohibited the Israelites from treating wives as slaves or chattel.
That I Peter (discussing "human authority" meaning the civil order of that day) teaches submission for evangelistic purposes does not refute what is to be taught and upheld as marital norms within the church. And Colossians' "submit...as is fitting in the Lord" or Ephesians "as unto Christ" call forth the "fit"ness of Eve in Genesis 2 (shared dominion over creation, complementary but not hierarchical relationship) and sacrificial demands of the husband's imitation of Christ. Submit to LOVE is not a description of slavery. Submit to legal authority to maintain a good witness in society is exemplified by Augustine's mother who won her husband (and son) to Christ. (Confessions) Winning the unbelieving husband is the goal of both I Cor. 7 and I Peter. But neither book calls a woman freed by Christ to enslavement.
"You are not enslaved".
Last night I asked God to help me see the true meaning of this passage because I still wasn't getting it. I still saw the submit to abuse rule. Then I read this verse, "Therefore, since Christ suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves with the same mind...that he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh *for the lusts of men*, but for the will of God." I Peter 4:1-2 And I got it, I got what you all were saying all along. I Peter 2- 3 is talking about suffering for doing what is right and good. It is about enduring persecution. It is not talking about staying silent so someone can use you wrongly. That is protecting evil. That is not standing up for what is good. God does not want me to submit to the lusts of men because that is evil. I am ashamed now at what I have allowed and who I have become because of what I believed. But it is also a huge relief to find God saying this to me!
Yes, yes and amen!!! So glad you had a 'lightbulb' moment!
That's wonderful, S!
Amen. :-) We can write volumes and volumes of rebuttal, but it is totally right and appropriate that your "aha" moment comes straight from the Word of God under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. :-)
I'm so happy for you. Wish I could chat with you as you're working all this stuff through.
Praise Jesus, I am weeping with joy reading this, S!
well said, S!
Keep at it - the journey is just beginning.
Peter also talks about doing what is right without fear. I think sometimes doing what is right means telling the truth. Sometimes simply telling the truth about a situation takes a lot of courage. (I think it takes prudence, too sometimes, knowing who and how and when to tell.) I also would say that no teaching about submission trumps Matthew 18. All believers have permission from Scripture to speak the truth to someone who is hurting them.
As to feeling ashamed - I don't know your situation. Please give yourself credit for the courage it shows when you face reality and are willing to adjust old thought patterns. That is not easy. God is the God of new life. May He lead you into places where you feel honored and treasured, not ashamed. I don't want to read too much into that statement but if you happen to be in a situation now where you need help, I do hope you will be able to reach out and get any help that is needed.
S, not having any other way to contact you, I will say that if you would like to email me at miriam 711 [at] hotmail dot com, you'd be more than welcome to. :-)
(Moderators, if it's not ok to put email addresses on here, please feel free to delete this. Thanks.)
This is late in coming,maybe the wrong place,but Matthew's article is awesome,and in ministering freedom has hit the nail on the head.There is an unnatural emphasis Gothard puts on passivity,based on having gained certain assumed authority,{not from God},to vaunt being spiritual by being passive.To so many,it was not known that ulterior motives were being carried out with not revealing Steve Gothard's sexual misconduct,nor his own for some 40 years.Myriads of disgusting abuse was swept under the smokescreen of "I will make a covenant never to speak out against one in authority".His methodologies included Watchman Nee's "Spiritual Authority",where Ham's punishment was from"not looking away from Noah's sin".We are supposed to look away from the sin and misconduct of one in authority.Always.And then Watchman Nee liked to go to villages and find who was esteemed to have authority and submit,no holds barred.Lock stock and barrel.We must do the same.The shepherding movement from the 70'sfull of heretical teachings from Derek Prince,Bob Mumford,Charles Simpson,which prompted a book,"Damaged Desciples"[Ron Rhoads].Matthew's point about being a servant and using authority to serve conveniently overlooked.False,fallen and pagan authority was for the most part unchallenged.A "rebellious woman" was let out a vehicle in a desolate Iowa highway and forced to walk in zero weather for over ten miles for criticizing authority.People tried to stop this movement.An author by the name of Edwards wrote a book "A Tale of Three Kings" well done trying to stop the excesses.Then came your website which effectively provided hope.Please can it not be said that in the encapsulazation of any poor soul's life that was formerly exploited,that they lived a life of "submission."Instead they served the Servant who served and saved them.
Thank you ALL for your explanations and encouragement. Each of your thoughtful comments ended up chipping away at my apparently false foundation and giving me much to continue thinking about. It helped that so many people challenged me. It helped that this website doesn't just have one article but loads of articles and stories and discussions for me to work through. The posts on the book about spiritual abuse also shed light on my skewed understanding of authority. Spiritual abuse seemed like such a contrived term. I was so blind, I didn't get it, even when I read it. But now I am starting to. Thank you.
S, I agree with your understanding of I Peter. Two books that I have found to be extremely helpful are The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse, and Healing Spiritual Abuse. The first book identifies and defines this abuse, and while it explains issues and speaks of a proper biblical understanding of terms such as authority and grace, it also has a counseling perspective, where people can emotionally relate to to the many examples they discuss. The second book delves more into the Scriptures and is a little less "relational" (for want of a better term). I consider these two books to be complementary companion books.
One idea that has helped me came from Don Veinot when speaking on Doug Phillips, but it applies to Gothard as well, and that is their views on authority are unbiblical because they are like what Jesus warned AGAINST in the gospels. That the heathen or Gentiles love to lord it over people, but it must not be so of believers, that the greatest must be the servant of all. When a teacher emphasizes authority so much, and demands submission in so much of their teaching, and/or practice, then that teaching is at the least unbalanced, and at worst, heathen.