1. I completely agree with you on this (though some readers of my Gannah series might not believe me; the societal heirarchies on that fictional planet are purely cultural, not based on Biblical principles). In order to use the scriptures to justify spousal abuse of any sort, the passages must be yanked out of their proper context and twisted to face a backward direction. Marriage is such an achingly beautiful picture of the relationship between Christ and His church, it’s no wonder the devil so delights in attacking it. What the unbelieving world does to marriage is tragic. How much more must it break God’s heart to see the way we, His own people, deface His word and defame His name.

  2. R. L. Copple says:

    Thanks for your thoughts, Yvonne.


  3. Tiribulus says:

    I agree. Pretty much down the line. Any directive that includes the toleration of abuse is absolutely unbiblical. In fact I believe 1 Cor. 7  actually addresses this directly.

    When Paul to commands to submit to one another, the verses that follow define what that means. The only thing I would possibly question is the idea of husbands obeying their wives. I understand what you mean by this, but I wouldn’t character it that way. NOT because it makes me brstle. I promise you it does not. I just don’t think that is the best characterization.

  4. Jill says:

    There isn’t a lot of difference between sacrifice and submission when it comes to marriage. They both imply a giving up of self will. I don’t think the word “obey”really fits for either party because it’s far too simplistic a word and doesn’t necessarily imply thought behind action. Obedience is something that can happen by force or by rote and doesn’t mean the party obeying is being self-sacrificial. That word entirely misses the point, IMO.

    • R. L. Copple says:

      Good point, Jill. Of course, I used obey because that’s the word Paul used, and wanted to emphasize that didn’t just apply to the woman, but equally to the man as well. Of course in the context of what Paul is talking about, it is a willing, sacrificial, loving “obedience” to the needs of each person, not the forced obedience of a ruler upon threat of punishment. That is an interpretation derived by taking that verse out of context.


What do you think?