# Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord



## a mere housewife

I started wondering about this because of another thread where it seems Abraham demands food after the manner of Fred Flinstone  (though as a child, I had the impression that Fred was rather kept in line by Wilma than _vice versa_). The only occasion where I recall Scripture recording that Sarah calls Abraham 'lord' is when they are visited by God in Mamre; and Sarah laughs in her tent. Is the obedience referred to in this verse then more specifically that of this occasion -- where Abraham tells her to make food and she is obviously in the habit of offering no protest? Or is the obedience inclusive of how submissive she was when he asked her to lie or tell half the truth on various occasions (and if so, how does that part of her submission square with 'as long as ye do well')?


----------



## Michael

My wife and I were studying this passage a couple months ago.

Here is something interesting. In Peter's first epistle he devotes a portion to husbands and wives. When dealing with the wife and her role as the submissive partner in marriage he speaks of the way Sarah called Abraham "lord". But as you mention in your post, the context is perplexing, if not altogether strange. Why would Peter, in dealing with the subject of submission, refer to a passage of Scripture where Sarah laughs and expresses disbelief? Certainly there were other texts available to support his teaching.

Perhaps a great deal can be learned from the casual nature by which Sarah mentions her "lord". She was not exalting him to another. She was not appealing to him for favor. She simply calls him "lord" without pretense (even if it is while laughing to herself). And in doing so she reveals that her disposition is that of a most natural submission. 

Just a thought...


----------



## a mere housewife

> Perhaps a great deal can be learned from the casual nature by which Sarah mentions her "lord". She was not exalting him to another. She was not appealing to him for favor. She simply calls him "lord" without pretense (even if it is while laughing to herself). And in doing so she reveals that her disposition is that of a most natural submission.



That's very good to think about, Mr. Turner, thank you very much. I also found it very encouraging because it seems that even in the midst of Sara's obvious failings, God counted her areas of obedience for more, if it's possible to speak in such terms. I know this is only possible in Christ, but it being possible at all is -- well, I'm of a rather tearful disposition in winter so perhaps not surprisingly, it brings me to tears .


----------



## Christusregnat

Another note is how charitably the Holy Spirit speaks of this holy woman; rather than pointing out her obvious failings in context, He chooses the shining grace to emphasize. Something very difficult for us to do with the saints.


----------



## a mere housewife

Christusregnat said:


> Another note is how charitably the Holy Spirit speaks of this holy woman; rather than pointing out her obvious failings in context, He chooses the shining grace to emphasize. Something very difficult for us to do with the saints.



Yes, exactly: it's perplexing to think how far we should follow Sara's example of submitting to Abraham even in disobedience, but what is very clear is that even though Scripture faithfully records both their failings, God only speaks about them and commends them to us in glowing terms, without finding it necessary to explain away anything: it seems, taking it for granted that we will be doing the same.

-----Added 12/6/2009 at 10:59:21 EST-----

(just a ps to that last, to make it clear that I am not asking about this because my own husband has asked me to lie about being his wife or any such thing


----------



## Mushroom

> (just a ps to that last, to make it clear that I am not asking about this because my own husband has asked me to lie about being his wife or any such thing


Whew! Glad to have that cleared up, Heidi! 

We just finished a couple's study in SS concerning a husband's love and a wife's respect, and my answer to just about every question therein was that "Sarah called Abraham lord." It went over very well.... er, well, it went over, anyway.


----------



## TaylorWest

Some pastors have pointed out that part of the context for Sarah's comments are the fact that she 'said' these things to herself, in the presence of no one else. In other words, this was the disposition of her heart.

Most people who are in a subordinate position will 'go along to get along', but their hearts are far from it. Sarah is exemplary because she obeys in secret.


----------



## Michael

a mere housewife said:


> I also found it very encouraging because it seems that even in the midst of Sara's obvious failings, God counted her areas of obedience for more, if it's possible to speak in such terms. I know this is only possible in Christ, but it being possible at all is -- well, I'm of a rather tearful disposition in winter so perhaps not surprisingly, it brings me to tears .


Amen.

It is very touching, and I'm sure even more so in ways that men cannot understand. I do know that I find myself very humbled by the submissiveness of Godly women, obviously my own wife being foremost, and dually exhorted to examine my own character as a husband.


----------



## newcreature

Thank you, Mr. Turner, for those charitable words. As we both know my own struggles with submission and the disposition of the heart at times.

-----Added 12/6/2009 at 04:02:55 EST-----



a mere housewife said:


> Yes, exactly: it's perplexing to think how far we should follow Sara's example of submitting to Abraham even in disobedience, but what is very clear is that even though Scripture faithfully records both their failings, God only speaks about them and commends them to us in glowing terms, without finding it necessary to explain away anything: it seems, taking it for granted that we will be doing the same.


Just a muse here... but I know that in 1 Peter, we are told to be submissive in all things to our husbands, however, the Bible makes it clear that a wife is in no way obligated to follow her husband in wrong-doing, but rather to pray for him.

Because Sarah, in the disposition of her own heart, was so submissive to her husband, then was she not willing to do whatever he requested of her? If my husband is my spiritual leader, and I am submissive to him in all things, then perhaps that is pleasing to God. Perhaps Sarah was willing to go along with the lie because she never questioned Abraham's motive. Rather, even in disbelief, she followed wherever he lead because her heart was submissive to him in all things.


----------



## a mere housewife

Angela, I didn't realise you were married to 'Mr. Turner'  -- how very appropriate (you two seem to suit each other; and I mean that in the nicest way).

I very much appreciate the responses about Sara's heart being referenced, not just outward behaviour. 



> We just finished a couple's study in SS concerning a husband's love and a wife's respect, and my answer to just about every question therein was that "Sarah called Abraham lord."



But did Abraham buy her stainless steel nesting trash cans with pedals that made the lids open for their anniversary? That is the question.


----------



## py3ak

And did Sara promptly get Abraham an apple and some quesadillas?


----------



## a mere housewife

Oh. Sara did. (it's one of the more modern translations)


----------



## Mindaboo

> But did Abraham buy her stainless steel nesting trash cans with pedals that made the lids open for their anniversary? That is the question.





HAHAHA! You are too funny!


----------



## a mere housewife

newcreature said:


> Because Sarah, in the disposition of her own heart, was so submissive to her husband, then was she not willing to do whatever he requested of her? If my husband is my spiritual leader, and I am submissive to him in all things, then perhaps that is pleasing to God. Perhaps Sarah was willing to go along with the lie because she never questioned Abraham's motive. Rather, even in disbelief, she followed wherever he lead because her heart was submissive to him in all things.



Then for a woman, do you think it is better to 'err on the side of' submission, in a matter where there is any doubt? (I am not sure the same would apply to men in their relations and business.)


----------



## Christusregnat

a mere housewife said:


> Then for a woman, do you think it is better to 'err on the side of' submission, in a matter where there is any doubt? (I am not sure the same would apply to men in their relations and business.)



Heidi,

I think a woman, in indifferent matters, ought to defer to her husband's judgment, if he asserts such. However, if a woman has a qualm in her conscience, she is duty bound to ensure that she is not sinning. This does not require a rebellious spirit, but may be done by appeal, and by request for a reason of the said command. If subjects may do this with their rulers, why should a wife be granted any less right to keep an undefiled conscience. If her conscience is erring, her husband ought to correct her; if her conscience is directed by Scripture, she should remonstrate or disobey. But, it seems only right to allow that a woman may respectfully inquire into the reasons of a given command.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## a mere housewife

Christusregnat said:


> Heidi,
> 
> I think a woman, in indifferent matters, ought to defer to her husband's judgment, if he asserts such. However, if a woman has a qualm in her conscience, she is duty bound to ensure that she is not sinning. This does not require a rebellious spirit, but may be done by appeal, and by request for a reason of the said command. If subjects may do this with their rulers, why should a wife be granted any less right to keep an undefiled conscience. If her conscience is erring, her husband ought to correct her; if her conscience is directed by Scripture, she should remonstrate or disobey. But, it seems only right to allow that a woman may respectfully inquire into the reasons of a given command.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Adam



Adam, thank you. However surely, 'remonstrating' would bother her conscience, too? I am wondering about how much a woman's conscience should be informed by her duty to submit.

For instance I know women whose unsaved husbands frequently will not allow them to go to church.


----------



## Christusregnat

a mere housewife said:


> Adam, thank you. However surely, 'remonstrating' would bother her conscience, too?
> 
> For instance I know women whose unsaved husbands frequently will not allow them to go to church.



Heidi,

You are welcome. Remonstrating simply means bringing up a grievance; it does not (as I'm using it) imply any tone of voice, or demanding behavior. It is a form of petition for redress of grievances. Sarah remonstrated with Abraham with regard to Hagar, and she was justified and right in doing so. 

If a man refuses to allow his wife to comply with God's law, he must be disobeyed as a tyrant, not a husband; this includes refusing her the duty of attendance on public worship.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Michael

a mere housewife said:


> For instance I know women whose unsaved husbands frequently will not allow them to go to church.


She should obey God first. If this causes problems with the ungodly husband, one or more possibilities might ensue:

- He may get over it, let her practice her religion and continue in his hardness of heart.

- It may incite a certain amount of persecution. In which case, if it is physical she should leave (some that I know would suggest the men of the church come over with some 2x4's to encourage his repentance  ). If it is emotional, she should count her trials as an opportunity to stand firm in Christ.

- Another possibility, and obviously the most desired, would be her faith and character serving as a witness of the Holy Spirit and moving his heart to repentance.

Regardless, God should be served first. Even where a wife is submissive to a godly husband in error, it should be with the mind of serving God first.


----------



## a mere housewife

Adam -- I was not thinking so much of a tone of voice. If you'll forgive me, you're thinking so much like a man here ; and I am glad that you do, and that men can be like this in the world because it is their place for instance to fight doctrinal controversies and oppressive governments, to stand up and protect the rest of us and not to be afraid: women are not supposed to fight for truth and their families in the same way but to be taught silently and to follow and to be defended -- occupying this place becomes more important in our sanctification than being right in many things: these things are not so straightforward for us. With Sara who obeyed her husband even in his failures, whose obedience to him is never cautioned against but simply commended, God's charity to His people is the overwhelming lesson; but I am never sure if there is a further comfort to those who simply don't know where lines fall always and choose to submit; or if there is some other way to make lines clearer than they seem.


----------



## TimV

In the case of a husband refusing to join a church, I found out last year after lots of research and asking the smart people here and in my denomination that said refusal is a grounds for divorce. How much more a husband not allowing his wife to join a church.


----------



## Christusregnat

a mere housewife said:


> whose obedience to him is never cautioned against but simply commended,



By the same token, Sarah's remonstrating with Abraham is commended, and God with a voice from heaven confirms her remonstrating with Abe, and demands that he do what his wife said (since she was in the right). I think I understand what you are getting at (the value of a meek and quiet spirit), but I do believe that there are times for a meek and quiet spirit to remonstrate with a husband, or drive a stake through a tyrants head  (NOT giving advice of how to deal with Ruben).

Cheers,


----------



## Michael

TimV said:


> In the case of a husband refusing to join a church, I found out last year after lots of research and asking the smart people here and in my denomination that said refusal is a grounds for divorce.



I must admit Tim that I have not heard this argument before. At first glance the suggestion seems directly opposed to scripture. However, my curiosity is peaked and I'm interested in hearing the reasoning behind it. If you have links to threads where this has already been discussed, I'd like to have a look.


----------



## a mere housewife

Michael Turner said:


> She should obey God first.



I wholly agree. It's more a matter of whether submitting to her husband 'as to the Lord' is the real obedience God requires of her in the situation.

Adam's example with Sara 'remonstrating with Abe' is very helpful, and I'll think more about it. So Adam failing remonstration, you advise locating a hammer and tent peg and pinning Batman's wings to the floor?

(In all seriousness, I do hope it is obvious that a public board is the last place I would seek advice about my good husband


----------



## a mere housewife

It occurred to me also that Sarah was defending Isaac at that point, where God told Abraham to basically -- do what she told him to? I know it's of redemptive historical significance, but it seems there is very good warrant for a submissive wife to stand up for the welfare of her children. That is helpful, thank you.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Peter exhorts Christian women that they submit to their husbands who “do not obey the word,” seeking to win them not by verbal arguments but by a meek and quiet demeanor (1 Pet. 3:1-5). In this context, Peter appeals to Sarah as an example to follow, who “obeyed Abraham, calling him Lord.” Then the Apostle adds, “And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening” (v. 6). It is possible that Peter was thinking of the frightening situations into which Abram placed Sarai when _he disobeyed God’s word_. This would see to refer to Abraham's ruse in Egypt and later in Gerar.


----------



## timmopussycat

Christusregnat said:


> a mere housewife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then for a woman, do you think it is better to 'err on the side of' submission, in a matter where there is any doubt? (I am not sure the same would apply to men in their relations and business.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heidi,
> 
> I think a woman, in indifferent matters, ought to defer to her husband's judgment, if he asserts such. However, if a woman has a qualm in her conscience, she is duty bound to ensure that she is not sinning. This does not require a rebellious spirit, but may be done by appeal, and by request for a reason of the said command. If subjects may do this with their rulers, why should a wife be granted any less right to keep an undefiled conscience. If her conscience is erring, her husband ought to correct her; if her conscience is directed by Scripture, she should remonstrate or disobey. But, it seems only right to allow that a woman may respectfully inquire into the reasons of a given command.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Adam
Click to expand...


Amen and amen. Two of the best gifts God ever gave me were the Orchid Lady's devastatingly accurate intuition (proven generally accurate over and over again!) and abundance of practical wisdom.
I thank God that I was able to recognize these gifts even before we were married. After marriage, I encouraged her to make sure I know the reasoning by which she comes to understandings of matters when they differ from my own.


----------



## kjat32

We debated this exact thing in bible study last winter. The example came up of a local couple, which I will relate to see what your viewpoints are.
Both professing Christianity, attending church (with kids) until husband becomes Christadelphian (I think, could be another cult). Wife struggles with submission in church/religion decision/spiritual headship, etc, eventually goes with "submission" and attends church with him, eventually converting herself and theoretically the children.

Was she right?

I personally think she should have said no, even if he threatened divorce, because I am a Christian first, wife second; perhaps this lady didn't have such a strong belief to begin with (I don't know her personally, another brought up the situation). Saying that we should submit even when our husband is telling us to sin (ie Sarah lying to Pharoah) is really walking a fine line, the above example being only an extreme version.

What do y'all think?

And Praise God my dear hubby has in no way ever made this personal. 

-----Added 12/21/2009 at 09:45:26 EST-----

And one thing I always notice about the Sarai/Pharoah story is the basic assumption Pharoah has been having sex with her; so Abe asked her to commit adultery as well, and she presumably went along with it. 
Is it just me or does that seem WRONG???


----------



## Contra_Mundum

No one should sin at the instigation of another, even if that person is "in authority." The classic text is Acts 5:29, "We must obey God rather than men." We must be willing to suffer, to lose our rights, to be bound and imprisoned, to "lose" in this life, in order to gain the next.

As for Sarah/Abraham, he sinned in seeking to persuade her to go along with his lie. Her situation/responsibility is perhaps a bit obscure for us to determine, given the difference in culture. She could have been waiting for the Lord to rescue her, determined not to sin further than she had in going along with the lie (half-truth). How she responded in that situation is not so much the focus of that incident.

The text seems clear enough to me: that though she was taken to Pharaoh's harem, and he plied Abraham with gifts that he might give her to him, she nevertheless was not violated by him.

The reason that Pharaoh's "stable" was turned barren during that time was eventually revealed to him. And so, he shamefacedly and hot with resentment dismissed both Abraham and his wife to go. In other words, God blessed Abraham despite his sins and faithless behavior. And Abraham left Egypt even more wealthy than he came, but divinely rebuked by the mouth of an idolater.


----------



## TimV

> And one thing I always notice about the Sarai/Pharoah story is the basic assumption Pharoah has been having sex with her; so Abe asked her to commit adultery as well, and she presumably went along with it.
> Is it just me or does that seem WRONG???



It's assumed that because of our modern notion of casual sex. There is no question at all that Sara didn't sleep with either Pharaoh or Abimelech.



> Gen 20:3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night and said to him, "Behold, you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is a man's wife."
> Gen 20:4 Now Abimelech had not approached her. So he said, "Lord, will you kill an innocent people?
> Gen 20:5 Did he not himself say to me, 'She is my sister'? And she herself said, 'He is my brother.' In the integrity of my heart and the innocence of my hands I have done this."
> Gen 20:6 Then God said to him in the dream, "Yes, I know that you have done this in the integrity of your heart, and it was I who kept you from sinning against me. Therefore I did not let you touch her.



And PS I agree with you about your friend. She should not have obeyed her husband and joined a cult, and even kept her kids out of it even if it meant divorce.


----------



## kjat32

"Gen 12:15 And when the princes of Pharaoh saw her, they praised her to Pharaoh. And the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house. And for her sake he dealt well with Abram; and he had sheep, oxen, male donkeys, male servants, female servants, female donkeys, and camels. But the LORD afflicted Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai, Abram's wife. So Pharaoh called Abram and said, "What is this you have done to me? Why did you not tell me that she was your wife? Why did you say, 'She is my sister,' so that I took her for my wife? Now then, here is your wife; take her, and go." 

It is very clear that Abimelech doesn't have sex with Sarah, as you quote. But looking at the verses above (ESV) I would not call it clear that Pharaoh didn't have sex with Sarai. All it says is that she was in his house and he gave gifts to Abe. Since the later account is so very explicit and this one is not, it does give the impression that she was taken as wife. It is possible that Pharaoh had not yet taken her since we see in Esther a preparation period could have been normal; but I don't think you can say authoritatively that Pharaoh did NOT have sex with her. Also, by asking her to go along with it, Abe is definitely asking her to have sex with Pharaoh - if he wants it.

Thanks for the replies. If the lady in my example had been my friend, I can tell you I would have been very blunt about what I think is right - maybe a reason I only have a few good woman friends.  She was a friend of a friends' and I got the impression he didn't feel free to so advise her but he may not have been that close to her either. She was in our church and I am very surprised that there wasn't an intervention in any case. It does seem as if our church leadership has become very timid..but that's another thread.

Katherine


----------



## a mere housewife

Just to add to Katherine's post that those verses in the KJV read:

15The princes also of Pharaoh saw her, and commended her before Pharaoh: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house. 
16And he entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and oxen, and he asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and camels. 
17And the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife. 
18And Pharaoh called Abram and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife? 
19Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so *I might have taken her to me to wife*: now therefore behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way. 


Which seems clearer. Why is there this difference?


----------



## TimV

Point taken, Katherine!!

But still, it would be interesting to see a commentary that insisted she was sleeping with the king. I think a better parallel would be found in Ester, where she was put into the king's seraglio. Interpreting Scripture with Scripture, Sarah would have been guilty of adultery in the first case, and that was taken so seriously that it's (in my opinion) beyond belief that there was no mention of punishment involved on her part.


----------

