Two points traditionalists like to make when studying the lives of Abraham and Sarah.

1) Sarah's apparent lack of faith and spiritual discretion, compared to Abraham's

2) Sarah's total obedience to Abraham, no matter the cost.

Here are some points the traditionalists often make (I will go through them, chapter by chapter)

1) Genesis 12 - Sarah obeys Abraham when he gives her to Pharaoh, saying that she is his sister. Sarah's obedience to Abraham is ususally commended (Although the traditionalists would say that a modern Christian woman should not be 'this obedient' to her husband ) It is also often pointed out that God never condemned Sarah for her choice to be obedient to Abraham in this instance.

2) Genesis 13 - Abraham makes a decision that God honors - a decision to separate from Lot - and allow Lot to have first choice of the land.

3) Genesis 14 - Abraham makes another great decision - rescues Lot. Cool.

4) Genesis 15 - Abraham makes a choice to believe in God, and it is counted to him for righteousness.

5) Genesis 16 - Sarah demonstrates a regrettable lack of faith in God - by deciding to 'help God out' in keeping His promise. She gives Hagar to Abraham in hopes that she would bear Abraham a son. This decision ultimately results in a disaster.

6) Genesis 16 - Sarah demonstrates a lack of respect for Abraham in blaming HIM for what is actually usually perceived to be HER fault... Hagar's arrogant attitude, resulting from Sarah's decision to give her as a handmaid to Abraham.

7) Genesis 16 - Sarah is also often seen as a cruel woman, for mistreating Hagar.

8) Genesis 17 - God tells Abraham that he will have a son, Abraham laughs. Abraham's laughter is that of joy and faith.

9) Genesis 18 - Now it's Sarah's turn to laugh, her laughter is that of unbelief. She also makes a mistake of lying to the Lord Himself. Usually, not a very spiritual thing to do.

10) Genesis 18 - Abraham pleads for Sodom. His conversation with God becomes an example of an intersession prayer for all believers.

11) Genesis 19 - Abraham gives Sarah to Abimelech. Similar to Genesis 12.

12) Genesis 20 - Another Hagar/Ishamel problem. Once again, Sarah's fault - all a result of Sarah's lack of faith in 5). The 'problem' ends with Hagar being send away.

13) Genesis 21 - Abraham demonstrates faith in God by being willing to sacrifice Isaac.

14) Genesis 23 - Being a faithful and spiritual man, Abraham sends a servant to get a wife for his son from his own people. This becomes a 'type' of the Holy Spirit being sent by the Father to fetch a bride for the Son of God.

15) Genesis 24 - Abraham takes another wife, and concubines. He shows wisdom in sending away the women and their children from Isaac. Also, Abraham is never condemned by God for taking other wives - he remains just as blessed. To coin a rabbinical expression, 'A woman is not entitled to more than one husband, but is not a man entitled to two wives?"

This pretty much ends the traditionalist breakdown of Genesis. This is how I have been always taught it.

I would like to hear any impressions or thoughts that you may have concerning this.

(Oneko)

A lot of the Old Testament is made up of fallible human beings. I was told that oone reason these stories aare in the Bible was so we fallible human beings could identitfy with others who try to follow God and yet don't quite make it.

Complimentarians do nnot look at why Sarah acted the way she did. I think they are quite hard on her. Thee Bible tells us she wanted a baby and did not wait on God. I read this a while backk and thhought how horrible.. She had to haave a baby in order to feel accepted and loved. The sin of not acceepting his wife as an equal was causing this breaking of God's Covenent. As we can see in Genesis, it is a prt of God's coveenant tthat men and women are eeqquial and they treat eachother as such. To summerize Old Testament, that didn't happen and as a result of breaking covenent with God disasters happend.

God sends the Second Adam to "lead us into all truth", wash away our sin, which includes putting our relationships with eachother as well as with God in their proper perspective.

(John)

I agree with you in that the traditionalists are appealing to the Old Testament heavily in attempts to maintain the 'ordering around/obedience' structure of relationship between men and women.

However, the 'Question of Sarah' is not simply an issue of stereotyping/creating archetypes. The kind of commentary offered by traditionalists usually ends with the following generalization:

"The woman may mean well, and be a godly woman, but it is not her place to make decisions. As we have observed, when the man takes charge and makes decisions, God honors it. When the woman takes charge and tries to rule the family, chaos ensues. In order to be in the will of God, we must comply with the order set out by Him: the man must be in charge, and the woman must obey. It is a part of every healthy family."

The entire Old Testament is being interpreted with this kind of attitude. Rebecca is harshly criticised for 'taking initiative' in a decision: and it resulted in Jacob's 'exile'. Ruth becomes just a spare rib walking around, looking for a placement, obviously inadequate to function on her own. Much is made of Deborah's husband Lapidot (what a bad, bad guy, he did not take charge, instead he allowed his wife to be a judge!) And God only used Deborah to shame the men of that time for 'not taking charge' - her leadership is not normative. Consider even a simple statement from Genesis 4:26 Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh. At that time men began to call on the name of the LORD. How much ephasis is placed on the fact that as soon as Seth 'takes charge' of the family, a spiritual revival ensues. Talk about reading between the lines.

Eventually, this kind of thinking leads to generalizations like "Every time a woman is mentioned in the scripture in a general undefined sense, it always carries a connotation of spiritual wickedness." Proof? The woman in the basket.

I guess, the main conclusion presented by this viewpoint is this: Female initiative is bad. Female leadership is bad. Male submission to female initiative and leadership is bad. Female obedience to male leadership is good. Male initiative is good.

(Oneko)

I had the good fortune 25 years ago to get my education at a Christian college that stressed good thinking and good hermeneutics. There was probably what in retrospect we would call an inherent traditionalist thread, given the times. But there was also an openness, which I believe comes whenever good thinking and good hermeneutics are taught as foundational to approaching scripture. So, when I approach these Genesis characters you ask about, three issues immediately come to mind, before even responding to the particular verses:

1. It sounds as if traditionalists would be upholding Sarah as some female archetype. Is this a correct position to take? Personally, I don't think so, even though Sarah may be commendable in many ways.

2. Sarah's character as portrayed by this traditionalist position is seems held out as an incorrigible trait of women, sort of a like painting with a broad brush to include all women now. I think this is a totally unfair handling of the scirpture, and a totally prejudicial understanding of women today.

3. The traditionalis Sarah-as-archetypical-woman has not place under the new covenant that I can find. This leads to the correlary tradtionalist defect of resurrecting retrograde models of relationships, either between persons, or between persons and God. They just are not comfortable leaving the old covenant behind. This tendency creeps in elswhere too.

4. Abraham, though heroic in some ways, was also depiclable in others, yet traditionalists have so lionized him that his own faults are overlooked and unfairly weighed against the faults of Sarah.

Hope this lays a good foundation for the Abe/Sarah issue. If I can get some time later today I will bring some researched material that bears more directly on the scriptures you cited.

God bless.

(Brian)

Sarai agreed to lie to Pharaoh, not because Abram was her boss, but to guard his life, even if it cost her something of her own. This is how desperate they were upon entering Egypt (Ge 12:11-13). Once in Egypt, "the LORD afflicted Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai" -- not because of Abram! (Gen 12:17, NRSV).

It was Sarai's idea to bear children through her maid. Abram submitted to her wishes (Gen 16:2). "Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her slave-girl, and gave her to her husband Abram as a wife" (Gen 16:3). The slave girl was not Abram's just because she was his wife's. Hagar was Sarai's to give. Even after Sarai regretted her decision and blamed Abram for what resulted from it, and even after Hagar had become Abram's wife, "Abram said to Sarai, "Your slave-girl is in your power; do to her as you please" (Gen 16:6). In other words, Abram recognized Sarai's authority and submitted to it.

Since Genesis makes clear by repetition that it is the Lord who opens wombs, it is significant that Hagar gave birth to a son. God also honored Hagar with an angelic visit that included divine promises to her and her offspring (Gen 16:7ff). These promises are repeated only later to Abraham (Gen 17:20).

In Gerar, Abraham and Sarah use the same trick on Abimelech as they did on Pharaoh. Again, God intercedes for Sarah's sake (not Abraham's): "God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, "You are about to die because of the woman whom you have taken; for she is a married woman"" (Gen 20:3). He did not say, "... because of her husband, for she is a married woman." Moses also says "the LORD had closed fast all the wombs of the house of Abimelech because of Sarah, Abraham's wife" (Gen 20:18) -- again, not "because of Abraham," but "because of Sarah"!

When Sarah finally bore Isaac, the birth was as much a fulfillment of promise to Sarah as to Abraham: "The LORD dealt with Sarah as he had said, and the LORD did for Sarah as he had promised" (Gen 21:1).

When Sarah had finally had enough conflict with Hagar, she makes a unilateral decision about the slave. And the slave's emancipation "was very distressing to Abraham" (Gen 21:11). This distress is a very curious thing if in fact Patriarchs are authoritative heads who rule their wives by divine decree. Why be distressed? Why not just override her decision? But not only did Abraham comply with Sarah's wishes, so did God! God commands Abraham to submit to Sarah, saying "Whatever Sarah says to you, do as she tells you" (Gen 21:12). What's more, Sarah commanded, "Cast out this slave woman with her son; for the son of this slave woman shall not inherit along with my son Isaac" (Gen 21:10). Not only was this authoritative for Abraham, but Paul takes her words as a scripturally authoritative command to the church in Galatians 4:30! Therefore, we are all required to submit to Sarah's command.

In the end, Sarah's grave became the first actual piece of Canaan (the promised land) that Abraham bought and possessed (Gen 23). How significant! Again we find a woman got it first!

What a remarkable woman this Sarah was! And what a remarkably egalitarian marriage this "Patriarch" had!

Yes, she obeyed and complied with her husband when he asked difficult things of her -- matters of survival for them both. But she also received the respect of Abraham and of God, who honored her decisions -- even when the decisions were somewhat amiss -- and who treated her wishes as commands that had lasting authority for the elect.

Now do you see why the apostle Peter holds up Sarah and the other holy women of old as examples for women today, and why in 1 Peter 3:6 he says, "You have become her daughters as long as you do what is good and never let fears alarm you"? Sarah even serves as a reminder to husbands today that they are to "pay honor" to their wives (even if their wives seem fragile or weak to them), and that they are to treat their wives as equal partners ("co-heirs") in life, or else have their prayers hindered (1Pe 3:7).

(Dave Leigh)

web page: http://beam.to/DaveLeigh
     e-mail: [email protected]

Dave,

I have some questions...:-)

1) Do you think that Christian women are called to 'obey' their husbands, in some way that husbands are not called to 'obey' their wives?

2) Do you think that there is a difference between the koine words used for 'submit' and 'obey'?

My impression was that 1 Peter was an epistle that dealt primarily with undeserved suffering - and civil authority. I thought that Peter was writing to women whose hsubands' civil authority over them was close to absolute - and they were called to obey them - as we must submit ourselves to every human institution/government. Peter gave the women two great examples to follow: one Jesus, and the other - Sarah.

I never perceived his call to women to obey the way Sarah did, calling her husband 'lord' (connotation of authority) a call to egalitarian relationship. Back in that culture, where the man held all the authority over the woman, it was basically up to him to treat the woman as an equal. The woman had to continute to show submission - as it was her duty, but the husband was supposed not to take advantage of her because of that, and treat her as an equal.

Am I very far off here?

(Oneko)

The only time Sarah called Abraham "Lord" that I know of is when she said (Genesis 18:12) "After I have become old, shall I have pleasure, my Lord being old also."

Sounds like she was referring to having a sexual relationship with her husband again. Perhaps old age had interferred with that. In any case, when she called him "Lord" it appeared as a reference to him much as "sir" might be today.

(Joan)

If Sarah argued with Abraham, blamed him, made decisions and gave him instructions and guidance, and if God backed her up, then what is Peter really saying to women today when he tells wives to imitate Sarah's kind of submission?

(Dave)

Usually the difference between Sarah's submission to Abraham and Abraham's submission to Sarah is seen as follows:

Whatever Abraham ordered, went - he did not need 'backing up' from God to make Sarah obey him.

When Sarah disagreed with Abraham - the bottom line was, "May the LORD judge between you and me."

Application to Christian families that is often made:

Whatever the husband says is the law, and the woman must obey.

The husband is under no obligation to submit to the woman's wishes, unless God confirms it directly to him.

So if the woman wants cooperation from her husband, or even permission to do something, she should be praying that God changes the heart of her husband.

If the man wants cooperation from his wife, he does not have to pray that God changes the heart of his wife - he can just order her to do it, and she must obey.

Do you think that the Old Testament warrants such a viewpoint?

(Oneko)

No, the OT does not warrent that view. The story of Abraham and Sarah makes that very clear. Abraham did not wait for God before complying with Sarah -- if he had, would he have take Hagar as a surrogate mother for his children? He was distressed when she informed him that the slave needed to go. Why be distressed if you can over-rule her decision? He confessed her rights and her authority regarding her slave. Why do this if ultimately you are the master of all?

There is no instance where Abraham presumes to be Sarah's master. There is no place where God treats him as such. To say that God's confirmation of Sarah's decisions proves her lack of authority is to use convoluted logic. It would never be employed if we were speaking of a man.

(Dave)

Re: No

I think I agree with you.

:-)

(Oneko)