The Sin of Agreeing With Her Husband

Sharing Options

The apostle Peter was pretty clear about our duty to submit to our political rulers.

“Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king” (1 Pet. 2:13-17).

In the first place, we should do what he says. In the second place, we should remember that Peter was no hypocrite, and he is the same man who broke out of jail (Acts 12:7-11), and in a fashion that caused the guards to lose their lives, and who disappeared from the book of Acts a wanted man (Acts 12:17).

This is why we compare Scripture with Scripture — not to catch out inconsistencies in God’s Word, but rather to catch the places where we may have jumped to conclusions about what one passage in isolation might mean.

In this fallen world, no human authority should be absolute. No human authority can be absolute, and to make the attempt to treat it as such is disobedience to God. Because our duty is never to disobey God, this means that we sometimes have the duty of disobedience down here. Now God has established three governments among men — that of the church, the civil magistrate, and the family. Each one of them has genuine authority, and in each case the limits of that authority are established by God. This means that we must disobey sometimes in each one of these areas.

In conservative theological circles, the government where we most commonly overlook this is the government of the family. If we teach the headship of the husband (and we do, without apology), and we also teach the submission of the wife (which we also do, again without apology), it is easiest thing in the world for critics of headship and submission to claim that we are saying that men are somehow absolute, and their rule in the home to be unquestioned.

This is far from the truth, and here is an example, taken from the early chapters of Acts.

“But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.

And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband. And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things” (Acts 5:1-11).

Now what was the sin of Sapphira here? Why did she lose her life? The sin she committed here, in Peter’s words, was the sin of agreeing with her husband. And when she came in to speak with Peter, not knowing her husband was dead, her moral duty at that point was to expose her husband by confessing the sin.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
114 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
SarahS
SarahS
10 years ago

It’s a start.  Far better to teach and model mutual submission, and not be so busy ‘not apologizing’ that you fail to understand why ” it is easiest thing in the world for critics of headship and submission to claim that we are saying that men are somehow absolute, and their rule in the home to be unquestioned.”  It’s easy because it’s what is consistently and uniformly implied.  

Peter Jones
10 years ago

Sarahs, where is it said or implied by those of us who preach submission and headship that the husband has absolute authority? Every sermon I have ever heard or book I have ever read on the subject clearly defines a husband’s headship within the bounds of Scripture, which means that the husband’s authority only goes so far. When he commands what the Bible forbids or forbids what the Bible commands he can be disobeyed. Pastor Wilson’s blog post is an example of the normal teaching I get from conservative Christian preachers on this subject. I will admit that there are… Read more »

SarahS
SarahS
10 years ago

It’s precisely by these bounds of ‘what the Bible forbids/commands’ that the noose is tightened, especially for a woman who truly wants to do right, to obey Scripture.  She is left w/ the clear impression that a crime must be ordered before she can disobey.  Scripture itself is used, and often misinterpreted or misapplied, to enforce the submission.  In MANY headship teachings that I’ve heard, heavy responsiblity is always laid on the woman to endure as much abuse as possible before every considering ‘coming out from under his authority’ to exercise her own judgment.  We’re talking mainstream teachers here.  Does… Read more »

Bryan Hangartner
Bryan Hangartner
10 years ago

SarahS, could you please provide some links to blog posts/sermon audio/video wherein Mark Driscoll, John Piper, and/or Douglas Wilson preach the following: 1. A genuine crime must be ordered [by the husband] before she [the wife] can disobey. 2. A wife must endure all possible abuse before appealing to other authorities (church or state). 3. The husband is entitled to ignore the emotional and/or physical health of his children and his wife cannot do anything about it without her husband’s approval. 4. The wife has no recourse when her husband uses his veto powers in an excessive and heavy-handed manner. 5. All appeals by the wife… Read more »

SarahS
SarahS
10 years ago

Perfect example:  domestic discipline.  Some patriarchal husbands have their wives so duped that they have convinced them it’s not only the wife’s duty to submit to this, but the husband’s spiritual duty to administer it.  And we don’t see this either commanded or forbidden in scripture….if anything, there is scripture that would tend to back it up taken out of context (as such practicers of manipulation are expert at).  In a healthy marriage, this issue of submission/headship isn’t so much as a blip on the radar, b/c each is mutually submitting to one another.  Which leads me to believe it… Read more »

SarahS
SarahS
10 years ago

Bryan:  I’ll by happy to work on that.  Not a problem.

SarahS
SarahS
10 years ago

The easiest, most prominent example and the one that comes to mind first is John Piper here:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OkUPc2NLrM  Dead wrong, dangerous advice.  Even Piper has trouble explaining what he means, has to go through all sorts of convoluted gyrations to try to legitimize it.  If men’s egos are truly this fragile, we got issues.  

Peter Jones
10 years ago

SarahS, in our church if a wife thought her husband was setting a course that would lead to the physical, emotional, or spiritual destruction of her family she should go to the elders who would then confront her husband and discipline him. We explicitly teach this at our church and have had it occur in at least a couple of cases.  I am not exactly sure what you mean by “domestic discipline.”   Could you clarify that phrase? Finally, I agree with Bryan’s question. Please give us places where these men teach what you claim they are teaching. I agree… Read more »

Jane Dunsworth
Jane Dunsworth
10 years ago

So John Piper is wrong that people being sinned against have a responsibility to respond properly in faith and obedience within that situation? That’s really all he’s saying. He’s not in any way sanctioning the abuse nor putting any restrictions on the abused person as far as seeking redress. Or if I am not misunderstanding you, what in particular is your objection to what particular thing that Piper said?

SarahS
SarahS
10 years ago

I don’t know if you have time for this, and this may not even be the best example, but right off the top:  here is Driscoll giving lipservice to all the right ideas.  Women are smart, husbands don’t have absolute authority, blahblah.  But then he turns around, and brings a trinitarian doctrinal approach into the question of headship and submission.  What kind of submission did Jesus have towards the Father?  Total, absolute submission.  The complete rendering of his own will in favor of the Father’s. I will give to Driscoll that he makes 2 statements: call the cops if your… Read more »

Arwen B
Arwen B
10 years ago

Full disclosure: I did not watch those youtube videos because I don’t care what Driscoll has to say on any subject. That said, are you saying that for a man to publicly state that a woman should be expected to exercise wisdom and care in selecting (or accepting) a husband is to infantilize the woman?

SarahS
SarahS
10 years ago

Peter: domestic discipline means spanking your wife.  Jane: ain’t nobody got time for that.  If the clip alone isn’t enough to give you a good case of nauseous stomach, nothing I can say is going to change that.   Onwards: Doug Phillips, that one is easy.  Here are some links you may follow. http://biblicalpersonhood.wordpress.com/2013/11/03/public-notice-douglas-phillips-is-not-gods-wounded-soldier-and-we-are-not-shooting-our-wounded/   I especially like the one about child protective services.  Since you are here on Wilson’s blog I leave that to you to investigate, I believe his comments on marital rape are a good place to start.  You and I may disagree on what he *means* by his… Read more »

bethyada
10 years ago

The problem is more than a patriarchal vs egalitarian approach, it is that the positions are not understood. For example, Doug hasn’t shifted, he has explained what he means. I see similar in the anti-government crowd. One argues for submission to government and the response is all sorts of situations where one should not obey the government. It is as if the only options are totalitarianism and anarchy. // We do not need to choose between husbands are demigods with the power of life and death over their wife and children versus emasculated egalitarianism.

SarahS
SarahS
10 years ago

There were quite a few remarks he also made on a husband’s micromanaging of his wife’s time that reek of abuse of power.  Any husband that would speak to his wife in that… demeaning and condescending manner, shouldn’t be anywhere near a position of authority and power.  It can be found in the post, ‘Not Where She Should Be.’ Next up, RCJr.  and the NCFIC.  “Abhorrent perspectives on all things from protecting moms who have ectopic pregnancies, women not being encouraged to participate in the political process, kinists beliefs recognized as acceptable, redefining the Trinity so as to place all… Read more »

Jonathan James
Jonathan James
10 years ago

So so far, Sarah, we have three examples (including Doug), of complementarians claiming that submission is not absolute.  How is this helping your point?  Why to you continue to insist that complementarians are saying something when they go out of their way to say the very opposite?  The title of this post is “The Sin of Agreeing with her Husband,” for goodness sake!

SarahS
SarahS
10 years ago

I agree w/ you bethyada, only I say, ‘it isn’t a choice between abusive patriarchy and patriarchy “lite”.(OR emasculated whatever).  A healthy, egalitarian, very Biblical marriage, mutually submissive marriage is also an option.  

SarahS
SarahS
10 years ago

My point is that after saying the ‘opposite’ they go on to totally deconstruct that.  It’s called gaslighting and it’s a manipulative and dysfunctional practice.  

Seth B.
Seth B.
10 years ago

Arwen B: But but… I like Driscoll. =(

Seth B.
Seth B.
10 years ago

8-(

BJ
BJ
10 years ago

The case for the headship of the husband is so crystal clear in scripture as to be a moot argument. The question is not whether it is biblical, but whether we are going to believe it and follow it. All those pastors who teach patriarchy are trying to do is lay out the areas in which the husband’s authority is to be followed and where it is to be disobeyed. The video above from John Piper was a clear example of how to deal with the problem of disobedient husbands. The video from Driscoll does the same thing. The issue… Read more »

Arwen B
Arwen B
10 years ago

@Seth B: I know you do, honey. And I don’t hold that against you. ^_^
@SarahS: I think most people here would prefer that you quote something that “RCJr” himself said as proof of your objections, you know, to let his own words condemn him, rather than quoting a different blogger’s analysis.
May we understand from your vehemence that you have been in the position of the wronged wife whose elders dismissed her complaint, or are you using the wronged wives as virtual meat-shields?

Bryan Hangartner
Bryan Hangartner
10 years ago

<p>SarahS, thanks for taking the time to provide material for discussion.</p> <p>However, I now realize I may have been too clever by half in leaving out Douglas Phillips in my request for information; as you said, he is “easy” to accuse of overbearing patriarchalism in a despotic sense. Even so, the one link which you provided regarding Phillips is overwhelmingly links to yet other opinion blog posts regarding his teachings and is very scarce providing genuine evidence. The one link which actually quoted Phillips was this one:</p> http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=12978 <p>. . . and even that one was uncited and provided no… Read more »

bethyada
10 years ago

As well as the issue of extreme analysis I mentioned, a further issue is misunderstanding thru assumption. A example from the comments is conflating commands to sin with suffering under abuse. While both are important issues they are particularly distinct. The Christian is commanded always to refuse to sin at the behest of another’s command. This is what Doug is addressing. The question of when to leave an abusive situation, while important, is a different issue. To take it out of the realm of family briefly, I am to refuse to sin if my boss tells me to. Though as… Read more »

Biblical Marriage
10 years ago

BJ, you hit the nail on the head! Are we going to obey the Bible, even if we don’t like what it says and even it sounds abusive at times? Yes! It’s the Bible! Don’t try to manipulate God by disagreeing with the correct interpretations of scripture!

Bryan Hangartner
Bryan Hangartner
10 years ago

(First I would like to apologize to the moderator for submitting an improperly formatted and  very long comment, and an additional apology in advance in case of another formatting screw-up)<br><br> SarahS, thanks for taking the time to provide material for discussion.<br><br> However, I now realize I may have been too clever by half in leaving out Douglas Phillips in my request for information; as you said, he is “easy” to accuse of overbearing patriarchalism in a despotic sense. Even so, the one link which you provided regarding Phillips is overwhelmingly links to yet other opinion blog posts regarding his teachings and… Read more »

Seth B.
Seth B.
10 years ago

Biblical marriage: your sarcasm is well noted but you actually stated the case well.

katecho
katecho
10 years ago

Perhaps SarahS could approach this topic from the other direction, giving some practical examples of what Scriptural wifely submission could and should look like today.  These should be examples where there is meaningful submission, not just token submission.   For instance, (assuming no other motivations or manipulations) what if a husband listens to his wife’s input and then decides that she should wear a head covering at Sunday worship, even though the wife is unconvinced?  Should she submit on that issue?  Refuse?  Take it to the elders?  What if the elders don’t side with her?   Agreeing that there are… Read more »

SarahS
SarahS
10 years ago

Arwen, the link I left regarding Sproul contains links quoting him.  You are free to disregard the analysis.  It was just easier.  BJ:  In earlier times it was stated that ‘the case for slavery from Scripture was crystal clear,etc etc.”  Anyone can state something is crystal clear and the next person can come along and make a case scripturally for an opposing view.  I’m one of those that doesn’t see the crystal clarity of it.  Any example I would give of what ‘wifely submission should look like” would be exactly the same as what ‘husbandly submission’ should look like.  It… Read more »

katecho
katecho
10 years ago

That answers that.
                                                                                                                                                                                 
Now I’m curious what SarahS’s submission to the elders of the church might look like.  Or submission to the civil authority.
                                                                                                                                                                                 
Since we are all interchangeable here, I’ll pay my taxes this year, but next year the government gets to pay me.

Jane Dunsworth
Jane Dunsworth
10 years ago

Okay, I’m beyond help because I don’t see how a pastor recommending that a wife maintain a godly spirit in the face of abuse while involving the church when abuse actually occurs is nauseous. I guess I’ll just have to  live with that.

Jane Dunsworth
Jane Dunsworth
10 years ago

Wait.
Did katecho just create paragraph breaks without fancy workarounds?
Can I do it, too?

Jane Dunsworth
Jane Dunsworth
10 years ago

Nope.

Andrew Lohr
10 years ago

Catherine Marshall somewhere wrote of four married women who agreed (1) None of our husbands are fit to lead, but (2) the Bible says we should let them.  So they did, and lo and behold, their marriages improved wonderfully.   And Bill Gothard told the story of a man who was running his business into the ground.  His wife took over and saved it.  So he had lots of money to run off with the floozy who had been distracting him from the business.

SarahS
SarahS
10 years ago

*sigh*  I’m not even close to vehement yet.  But I’ll admit I’m angry.  I’m so tired of this crap.  Are we going to obey the Bible, even if we don’t like what it says and even it sounds abusive at times? Yes! It’s the Bible! Don’t try to manipulate God by disagreeing with the correct interpretations of scripture, ….    No.  If it sounds abusive, assume that it actually IS abusive and go about figuring out where you went wrong in your interpretation, and BTW?  Who is defining the ‘correct interpretation’ here?   The position I’ve been in, which is… Read more »

SarahS
SarahS
10 years ago

Let’s go back to the disingenuous, “it is easiest thing in the world for critics of headship and submission to claim that we are saying that men are somehow absolute, and their rule in the home to be unquestioned.”  Well, it would be pretty durn easy for me to assume that even after just a cursory reading of one single blog post by one single patriarchy proponent.  That one I mentioned before, ‘Not Where She Should Be’.  Nowhere in this post is the woman assumed to be equal in any way. She is treated, spoken to, and ‘managed’ or discipled… Read more »

SarahS
SarahS
10 years ago

No, I’m not done.  Where is the woman who has her weight, television viewing habits, sexual enthusiasm, and housecleaning monitored and critiqued, and made into a spiritual issue of submission, ever supposed to find the wherewithal, the moral CAJONES, to suddenly stand up to hubs and decide that a given issue is “excessive and heavy-handed”???  And oh yeah, more than likely HE is the one forming her opinions on what is biblically commanded or forbidden, b/c he’s, you know, her SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY.  What a crapped up system.  Now I’m done. 

Kyle Bryant
Kyle Bryant
10 years ago

So, when the Bible says that the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is head of the Church, what does that mean? Anything?

JohnM
JohnM
10 years ago

SarahS, I know I’m asking after you answered so much and then said you were done – sorry – but do you reject the notion of  the headship of the husband categorically? It looks like you do. I’m not going to try to persuade you, but just wondering, if patriarchy is wrong per se, what difference do all your examples and scenarios make?  I mean it would be wrong even if in practical effect it wasn’t as bad as all that, right? Or am I misreading you? 

BJ
BJ
10 years ago

Biblical Marriage, I usually disregard sarcasm (the refuge of those without a good case), but in your case, I’ll respond (in kind, of course). This issue of headship is anything but abusive. I am wondering if you read the above blog, which stated that women should not follow their husbands if abusive. Our Lord is not abusive, and He is the ultimate authority, not the husband. However, because our Lord is the ultimate authority, we must obey his commands, which includes the submission of wives to their husbands. Take it or leave it, but your issue is with Him and… Read more »

BJ
BJ
10 years ago

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:”Table Normal”; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:””; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} SarahS, Since you said you don’t see the crystal clarity of biblical headship in scripture, here you go: “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” I Corinthians 11:3. “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to… Read more »

Moor
Moor
10 years ago

I have, at times, wondered if my inherent pragmatism in moments like this isn’t an attempt to have my cake and eat it too, but I find myself thinking: in practice, both egalitarian and the complimentarian households are served best when the husband lives a godly life and the elders of the church stand ready to defend marriages and support the abused.

Rick Davis
10 years ago

In the situation of a man who starts his own house church (where he is the pastor, elder, priest, pope and deacon board all wrapped up into one) you have problems totally unrelated to patriarchy. Doug has written again and again about the sort of guy who wants his wife and children to submit to him, but is not willing to submit himself to authority. None of it is good, by the way.

Jane Dunsworth
Jane Dunsworth
10 years ago

Well, Sarah, there’s no “blog post” I can pick out just now about what the wife can do if her husband’s lack of leadership is causing problems, though I’m fairly sure there are multiple examples out there in the archives of this blog, and your “Oh, right, there is none” is possibly dishonest because it sounds like you really mean “I don’t believe it’s there so I’ll simply deny it exists.” But I CAN point you to an entire blog written by Doug’s wife, adult daughters, and daughter-in-law that deals with issues like that repeatedly and regularly. It’s called Femina… Read more »

Gianni
Gianni
10 years ago

No, Jane, it’s still just smoke and mirrors. Mmm…

Normal
0

21

false
false
false

FI
X-NONE
X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
line-height:107%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}

  Let’s see.

Gianni
Gianni
10 years ago

Wow! Well, then if this doesn’t work…
                                                                                                                                                                                  …then Satan is clearly involved.

Gianni
Gianni
10 years ago

All right!

Tammy
Tammy
10 years ago

I believe a woman should have an attitude of always submitt to her husband in any given situation.  Then relying on God for the outcome.     The situation with Ananias and Sapphira isn’t that she submitted to her husband it’s that she agreed with him. There’s a difference.  There is nothing in the bible that says we have to agree with our husbands only submitt to them.  I can submitt to my husband even though I don’t agree with him.   If my husband wants me to do something bad then I can humbly come to him, like Daniel… Read more »

SarahS
SarahS
10 years ago

JohnM, I’m a sucker for asking nicely.  As I think I did already say, the headship passage(s) certainly indicate there’s a doctrinal component inherent to the issue, I’m saying not that Paul was wrong, but that we are wrong about Paul.  I appreciate this view from John Goldingay and others: “The passage [Ephesians 5:21-33] makes it absolutely clear that a biblical doctrine of headship exists, and it makes it clear what that doctrine is. Men have the unquestionable right and responsibility to let themselves be crucified for women, and women must submit to them in the sense of letting them do that. It… Read more »

Cindy
Cindy
10 years ago

I really don’t see what the issue is here. The main point of the article is to use scripture to interpret scripture and to not take verses out of context. If the man is submitting to Christ, then his behavior will reflect that and there should be no problem with his headship in the family with wife and children submitting “as to Christ”. If there is any type of abuse of power, whether verbal or physical, and whether subtle or flagrant, then the man is no longer submitting to Christ. Of course we are human and sinful so we make… Read more »

Authur
10 years ago

BJ said: “Male headship…Now, these verses are not ambiguous. They are crystal clear. ” [new paragraph, supposed to be] Are you sure? Methinks, the meaning that was crystal clear in the first century is not the one you think. The Greek word we translate as “head” (“kephale”) is a word meaning the body part above the neck. In English, it also has the idiomatic meaning leader/ ruler. Many say that in first century Greek – the language Paul wrote Ephesians and Corinthians in – the word never meant ruler/ leader, and even the one scholar who still argue it means… Read more »