# 1 Samuel 25: Does Abigail act as a godly woman/wife?



## Romans922

I'm wondering what you guys think of Abigail in 1 Samuel 25.

In how she reacts to the situation and goes to David (somewhat behind Nabal's back)...do you believe she acted in a godly manner? As a woman, as a wife? Was she not submissive to her husband in her actions or did she do the right thing to do all in her 'power' to preserve life? What do you guys think?


----------



## Theognome

I wrote about this passage a few months ago in another thread. Here's the bulk of it-



Theognome said:


> Abigail is a woman who truly demonstrates fierce submission. She disobeyed her husband, insulted him and declared another man as her lord. Doesn’t that sound submissive?
> 
> Well, it was. Not only was she submitting to the Lord, but in all of the actions described above, she was submitting to her husband Nabal. Woman was made for man in Genesis 2 as a helper- and Nabal had his perfect helper- a woman who was not only beautiful but also possessed the wisdom that he plaintively lacked. He may have been a fool, but that doesn’t mean Nabal was stupid. He was smart in his spouse choosing.
> 
> Now let’s look at the actions of Abigail more closely. First, she defied her husbands orders… or did she? He did not want to support David, but she knew that not only had David’s men earned his favor, but that his life was in danger because of his decision not to support them. Thus, using her gifts, she submitted to her husband by preserving him through his folly. She literally saved his life, and through this submitted to his continued headship.
> 
> Second, she gave a speech in which she tells David that her hubby is a fool. Was she insulting him? No, she was explaining that a leopard can’t change its spots. Being a fiercely submissive wife, she showed David that she loved, understood and respected her husband so much that she was willing to sacrifice herself on David’s chopping block for him. Don’t forget that she was accepting Nabal’s folly as her own, for he was her head- and therefore she was as much an offense as he was to David.
> 
> Finally, she calls David her lord. Of course she did, for after she made plain the nature of her husband, she made the profession that he failed to make- that David was the anointed king of Israel being pursued by a madman. The text strongly implies that Nabal supported Saul- indeed, you could say ‘voted’ for him. Yet Abigail cast her vote for David behind her husband’s back. This is perfectly reasonable within the realm of fierce submission, for it relates to the second point of her actions. David was the chosen one of the Lord, and so she was ‘covering’ the folly of her husband by serving his interests in the Lord. This is not unlike Ruth’s actions on the threshing floor with Boaz in principle, and is again submitting to the preservation of her covenant head.
> 
> Admittedly, Abigail’s situation was extreme in that her husband was an ungodly man, but this did not stop her from being fiercely submissive to him. How much more so can a fiercely submissive woman support in union a man who loves the Lord?



Theognome


----------



## Caroline

'fiercely submissive'. I'll have to remember that term. "I'm not opposing you darling. I'm being fiercely submissive because you are a fool." 

Yep, works for me.


----------



## TimV

In any other woman I'd suspect she was just getting back at the guy, but Scripture goes out of the way to say she had discernment. I agree with Bill that she was doing the best that she could under the circumstances, and if deep in her heart she cared more for her servants (who would have been killed) than for her husband, she still did her duty.

I've often thought that some emotional sparks must have flown between the two; David the hero-rebel and Abigail beautiful and wise. After all, after the guy died the next you hear of her is going up to Jerusalem to marry David. But still duty and obligation were stronger, and nothing happens until the guy dies. Then she gets kidnapped, and it goes on. What a subject for a really good historical novel, or movie for that matter.


----------



## Romans922

Good thoughts so far...


----------



## Caroline

I'm sorry, but this thread does appear rather odd to me. 

Do Reformed people consider submission to be the highest commandment of God that trumps everything else? Because, if so, I'm really in the wrong place.

What kind of twisting, winding trail do we have to go down to come up with the conclusion that God demands total submission all the time, regardless of what those in authority are doing? Sure, as a general practice, people should submit to those in authority over them. But the Bible praises many who stood up to ungodly authority and did the right thing. Think the midwives refusing to obey the Pharaoh's order, or Jonathan helping David against the orders of his father/king, or Esther defying the law to appear before her husband/king without being summoned, or the apostles continuing to preach even when ordered to stop, or ... I could go on and on.

I think Abigail did what she did because it was the right thing to do. I think she called her husband a fool because he was. The Bible gives as an overall guideline that women should submit to their husbands. It never says that there are no exceptions or that women are obligated to support their husbands in doing sinful/dangerous/wildly insane stuff that is likely to get people killed.

There is a term for a society that demands abject, mindless obedience no matter what. It's called a 'cult'. For the rest of the world, I can't imagine how this story is a problem at all.

Question: God tells us to submit to the leaders at our church. But if the pastor and elders at your church (or for those of you who are pastors and elders, whoever you answer to) had the lovely idea of setting the church on fire with everyone inside, would you be required to submit to them? Would you have to run through hoops in your mind to figure out whether disobeying them somehow benefited them in such a way as to still be considered 'submission'? Or would you just say, "A leader behaving this badly really shouldn't be in charge anymore" and take matters into your own hands?

This was, in effect, what Nabal was doing (setting the place on fire with everybody inside, I mean). Abigail and the servants had a little common sense about them.


----------



## ChariotsofFire

Caroline said:


> I'm sorry, but this thread does appear rather odd to me.
> 
> Do Reformed people consider submission to be the highest commandment of God that trumps everything else? Because, if so, I'm really in the wrong place.
> 
> What kind of twisting, winding trail do we have to go down to come up with the conclusion that God demands total submission all the time, regardless of what those in authority are doing? Sure, as a general practice, people should submit to those in authority over them. But the Bible praises many who stood up to ungodly authority and did the right thing. Think the midwives refusing to obey the Pharaoh's order, or Jonathan helping David against the orders of his father/king, or Esther defying the law to appear before her husband/king without being summoned, or the apostles continuing to preach even when ordered to stop, or ... I could go on and on.
> 
> I think Abigail did what she did because it was the right thing to do. I think she called her husband a fool because he was. The Bible gives as an overall guideline that women should submit to their husbands. It never says that there are no exceptions or that women are obligated to support their husbands in doing sinful/dangerous/wildly insane stuff that is likely to get people killed.
> 
> There is a term for a society that demands abject, mindless obedience no matter what. It's called a 'cult'. For the rest of the world, I can't imagine how this story is a problem at all.
> 
> Question: God tells us to submit to the leaders at our church. But if the pastor and elders at your church (or for those of you who are pastors and elders, whoever you answer to) had the lovely idea of setting the church on fire with everyone inside, would you be required to submit to them? Would you have to run through hoops in your mind to figure out whether disobeying them somehow benefited them in such a way as to still be considered 'submission'? Or would you just say, "A leader behaving this badly really shouldn't be in charge anymore" and take matters into your own hands?
> 
> This was, in effect, what Nabal was doing (setting the place on fire with everybody inside, I mean). Abigail and the servants had a little common sense about them.



We are required to obey those in authority over us in the church, home, and state, but only if what they require us to do is in accordance with the Word of God.

Acts 5:28-30 
28saying, "We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man’s blood upon us." 29But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men. 30 The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree.


----------



## TimV

> There is a term for a society that demands abject, mindless obedience no matter what. It's called a 'cult'. For the rest of the world, I can't imagine how this story is a problem at all.





> Do Reformed people consider submission to be the highest commandment of God that trumps everything else? Because, if so, I'm really in the wrong place.



If after reading this thread you have come to the conclusion that a Pastor in good standing and who was asked to partake in the PCA's GA really thinks that a woman should mindlessly submit to her husband in all things, and that this view is prevalent on this board, perhaps you are right, and not in the right place, and in the right church.

On the other hand, perhaps you've just not read too much on the PB, and your opinion will change after thoughtfully reading, say, 10 threads or so.


----------



## Knoxienne

Caroline said:


> 'fiercely submissive'. I'll have to remember that term. "I'm not opposing you darling. I'm being fiercely submissive because you are a fool."
> 
> Yep, works for me.



It's what I like to call *PMS*ubmission.


----------



## py3ak

I think it's quite clear that Abigail is a godly wife. She has a submissive attitude in general, as can be seen even from her reporting what she did to Nabal. He was her husband and she treated him as such and accorded him the authority of that position, even though he was a fool. At the same time, she was a woman of wisdom, and capable of taking matters into her own hands to prevent disaster.

Anyone who wants to use her to defend a lack of submission ought to be sure that they have as much wisdom as Abigail did, and that they take into account her loyalty to her husband. And anyone who wants to argue that submission is mindless needs to take into account her clear and definite actions against her husband's abundantly manifested will (because even if he hadn't expressly told her not to give food to David there was no doubt as to what his answer would have been had she asked).

Of course another lesson from that passage is that when men won't discerningly listen to their wives, they can force them into taking action behind their backs, and come to richly deserve the title of fool.


----------



## Romans922

Caroline said:


> I'm sorry, but this thread does appear rather odd to me.
> 
> Do Reformed people consider submission to be the highest commandment of God that trumps everything else? Because, if so, I'm really in the wrong place.



No, they don't. It is part of the fifth commandment, honor your father and mother.



Caroline said:


> What kind of twisting, winding trail do we have to go down to come up with the conclusion that God demands total submission all the time, regardless of what those in authority are doing? Sure, as a general practice, people should submit to those in authority over them. But the Bible praises many who stood up to ungodly authority and did the right thing. Think the midwives refusing to obey the Pharaoh's order, or Jonathan helping David against the orders of his father/king, or Esther defying the law to appear before her husband/king without being summoned, or the apostles continuing to preach even when ordered to stop, or ... I could go on and on.



God doesn't demand total submission all the time, although he does demand it. "Wives submit to your husbands as unto the Lord."



Caroline said:


> I think Abigail did what she did because it was the right thing to do. I think she called her husband a fool because he was. The Bible gives as an overall guideline that women should submit to their husbands. It never says that there are no exceptions or that women are obligated to support their husbands in doing sinful/dangerous/wildly insane stuff that is likely to get people killed.



Right, but a wife's responsibility, especially in her mind for her first thought (while being discerning) is 'I need to submit to my husband.' Just like a husband's first thought should be 'I need to love my wife.' The wife shouldn't be looking for reasons why she shouldn't submit, nor the husband looking for reasons why he shouldn't love.



Caroline said:


> Question: God tells us to submit to the leaders at our church. But if the pastor and elders at your church (or for those of you who are pastors and elders, whoever you answer to) had the lovely idea of setting the church on fire with everyone inside, would you be required to submit to them? Would you have to run through hoops in your mind to figure out whether disobeying them somehow benefited them in such a way as to still be considered 'submission'? Or would you just say, "A leader behaving this badly really shouldn't be in charge anymore" and take matters into your own hands?
> 
> This was, in effect, what Nabal was doing (setting the place on fire with everybody inside, I mean). Abigail and the servants had a little common sense about them.



Although you are correct, I think you are maybe assuming much in this post, which was not the intention at all in the OP.

I was seeking aide as I am preaching on this tomorrow. I wanted to make sure I was right in my assessment.


----------



## Caroline

I'm sorry folks. The post was hastily written in a moment of rather serious depression and frustration in my attempt to understand Reformed churches. I'll go back and read when I'm calmer and I'll probably have even more cause to apologize. I thought I HAD calmed down when I went to post, and obviously, I hadn't.

Unfortunately, 'submission' is a trigger word for me. I think anyone who has ever been involved in the UPCI (or better yet, Hallelujah Prayer Center) would know why. It's one of those experiences where, when you get out, you end up wondering how in the world people talked you into doing that much crazy and sinful stuff ... they just kept saying 'submit! God honors submission, don't rebel against God'... And how do I know I've got it right this time? I mean, I thought I was right, and I thought I was just doing what God wanted me to do, and ... I dunno. 

Anyway, I won't go on about it anymore. Sorry to have disrupted the thread. Mods can delete if they want.

Pray for me, please.


----------



## AThornquist

Caroline said:


> Unfortunately, 'submission' is a trigger word for me. I think anyone who has ever been involved in the UPCI (or better yet, Hallelujah Prayer Center) would know why. It's one of those experiences where, when you get out, you end up wondering how in the world people talked you into doing that much crazy and sinful stuff ... they just kept saying 'submit! God honors submission, don't rebel against God'... And how do I know I've got it right this time? I mean, I thought I was right, and I thought I was just doing what God wanted me to do, and ... I dunno.



Submission abused is a horrendous thing, Caroline, and I'm so sorry you found that out first hand. I hope and pray that you continue to grow and have a grasp on _biblical_ submission which is truly a beautiful thing.


----------



## Romans922

Theognome said:


> I wrote about this passage a few months ago in another thread. Here's the bulk of it-
> 
> 
> 
> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abigail is a woman who truly demonstrates fierce submission. She disobeyed her husband, insulted him and declared another man as her lord. Doesn’t that sound submissive?
> 
> Well, it was. Not only was she submitting to the Lord, but in all of the actions described above, she was submitting to her husband Nabal. Woman was made for man in Genesis 2 as a helper- and Nabal had his perfect helper- a woman who was not only beautiful but also possessed the wisdom that he plaintively lacked. He may have been a fool, but that doesn’t mean Nabal was stupid. He was smart in his spouse choosing.
> 
> Now let’s look at the actions of Abigail more closely. First, she defied her husbands orders… or did she? He did not want to support David, but she knew that not only had David’s men earned his favor, but that his life was in danger because of his decision not to support them. Thus, using her gifts, she submitted to her husband by preserving him through his folly. She literally saved his life, and through this submitted to his continued headship.
> 
> Second, she gave a speech in which she tells David that her hubby is a fool. Was she insulting him? No, she was explaining that a leopard can’t change its spots. Being a fiercely submissive wife, she showed David that she loved, understood and respected her husband so much that she was willing to sacrifice herself on David’s chopping block for him. Don’t forget that she was accepting Nabal’s folly as her own, for he was her head- and therefore she was as much an offense as he was to David.
> 
> Finally, she calls David her lord. Of course she did, for after she made plain the nature of her husband, she made the profession that he failed to make- that David was the anointed king of Israel being pursued by a madman. The text strongly implies that Nabal supported Saul- indeed, you could say ‘voted’ for him. Yet Abigail cast her vote for David behind her husband’s back. This is perfectly reasonable within the realm of fierce submission, for it relates to the second point of her actions. David was the chosen one of the Lord, and so she was ‘covering’ the folly of her husband by serving his interests in the Lord. This is not unlike Ruth’s actions on the threshing floor with Boaz in principle, and is again submitting to the preservation of her covenant head.
> 
> Admittedly, Abigail’s situation was extreme in that her husband was an ungodly man, but this did not stop her from being fiercely submissive to him. How much more so can a fiercely submissive woman support in union a man who loves the Lord?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theognome
Click to expand...



What would you mean specifically or how would you describe, "fierce submission"?


----------



## py3ak

Caroline said:


> I'm sorry folks. The post was hastily written in a moment of rather serious depression and frustration in my attempt to understand Reformed churches. I'll go back and read when I'm calmer and I'll probably have even more cause to apologize. I thought I HAD calmed down when I went to post, and obviously, I hadn't.
> 
> Unfortunately, 'submission' is a trigger word for me. I think anyone who has ever been involved in the UPCI (or better yet, Hallelujah Prayer Center) would know why. It's one of those experiences where, when you get out, you end up wondering how in the world people talked you into doing that much crazy and sinful stuff ... they just kept saying 'submit! God honors submission, don't rebel against God'... And how do I know I've got it right this time? I mean, I thought I was right, and I thought I was just doing what God wanted me to do, and ... I dunno.
> 
> Anyway, I won't go on about it anymore. Sorry to have disrupted the thread. Mods can delete if they want.
> 
> Pray for me, please.



Caroline, I can understand where you are coming from. False teaching is dangerous to us directly when we believe it, and indirectly when we reject it so vehemently that instead of recognizing that they are abusing a concept, we think that the concept itself is wrong. That some denied the humanity of Christ, can't lead us to downplay or ignore His deity, and vice versa. 

But as to distinguishing between the use and abuse of a concept, there is no doubt that it can be difficult. It is helpful to me to think in terms of radical sanity. The Bible's demands are always radical: there are no silly compromises, there is no way to render merely _token_ obedience to what God requires; but at the same time, God's commands are always sane - it's OK to pluck grain from a field that doesn't belong to you (even on the Sabbath!) as long as you are just snacking, not collecting. The commands are _radical_; but they are suited to our human condition, as well.


----------



## Nomad

Don't sweat it Caroline. I think everyone can see where you're coming from.


----------



## Leslie

What ever happened to sola scriptura? The scriptures commend Abagail. Therefore the story of what she did should impact our understanding of submission. We are not in a position to pass judgment on her because of our Reformed traditional understanding of the fifth commandment. Scripture should trump tradition, not the other way around.


----------



## Theognome

Romans922 said:


> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wrote about this passage a few months ago in another thread. Here's the bulk of it-
> 
> 
> 
> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abigail is a woman who truly demonstrates fierce submission. She disobeyed her husband, insulted him and declared another man as her lord. Doesn’t that sound submissive?
> 
> Well, it was. Not only was she submitting to the Lord, but in all of the actions described above, she was submitting to her husband Nabal. Woman was made for man in Genesis 2 as a helper- and Nabal had his perfect helper- a woman who was not only beautiful but also possessed the wisdom that he plaintively lacked. He may have been a fool, but that doesn’t mean Nabal was stupid. He was smart in his spouse choosing.
> 
> Now let’s look at the actions of Abigail more closely. First, she defied her husbands orders… or did she? He did not want to support David, but she knew that not only had David’s men earned his favor, but that his life was in danger because of his decision not to support them. Thus, using her gifts, she submitted to her husband by preserving him through his folly. She literally saved his life, and through this submitted to his continued headship.
> 
> Second, she gave a speech in which she tells David that her hubby is a fool. Was she insulting him? No, she was explaining that a leopard can’t change its spots. Being a fiercely submissive wife, she showed David that she loved, understood and respected her husband so much that she was willing to sacrifice herself on David’s chopping block for him. Don’t forget that she was accepting Nabal’s folly as her own, for he was her head- and therefore she was as much an offense as he was to David.
> 
> Finally, she calls David her lord. Of course she did, for after she made plain the nature of her husband, she made the profession that he failed to make- that David was the anointed king of Israel being pursued by a madman. The text strongly implies that Nabal supported Saul- indeed, you could say ‘voted’ for him. Yet Abigail cast her vote for David behind her husband’s back. This is perfectly reasonable within the realm of fierce submission, for it relates to the second point of her actions. David was the chosen one of the Lord, and so she was ‘covering’ the folly of her husband by serving his interests in the Lord. This is not unlike Ruth’s actions on the threshing floor with Boaz in principle, and is again submitting to the preservation of her covenant head.
> 
> Admittedly, Abigail’s situation was extreme in that her husband was an ungodly man, but this did not stop her from being fiercely submissive to him. How much more so can a fiercely submissive woman support in union a man who loves the Lord?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theognome
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What would you mean specifically or how would you describe, "fierce submission"?
Click to expand...


Submission in the face of plenty of pragmatic reasons not to. Or, to put it another way, a fiercely submissive wife will, within biblical guidance, submit to her husband even when such husband is being foolish. She assumes, though submission, a mantle of leadership.

Theognome


----------



## SueS

Caroline said:


> I'm sorry folks. The post was hastily written in a moment of rather serious depression and frustration in my attempt to understand Reformed churches. I'll go back and read when I'm calmer and I'll probably have even more cause to apologize. I thought I HAD calmed down when I went to post, and obviously, I hadn't.
> 
> Unfortunately, 'submission' is a trigger word for me. I think anyone who has ever been involved in the UPCI (or better yet, Hallelujah Prayer Center) would know why. It's one of those experiences where, when you get out, you end up wondering how in the world people talked you into doing that much crazy and sinful stuff ... they just kept saying 'submit! God honors submission, don't rebel against God'... And how do I know I've got it right this time? I mean, I thought I was right, and I thought I was just doing what God wanted me to do, and ... I dunno.
> 
> Anyway, I won't go on about it anymore. Sorry to have disrupted the thread. Mods can delete if they want.
> 
> Pray for me, please.





Caroline, I came out of a similar situation and totally understand how there are triggers that can really set you off emotionally. I've been out of my former train wreck for almost three years and am still sensitive to those triggers. It takes time to heal, but believe me, you WILL heal and your hurt will turn to compassion for those left behind who are still trapped in a legalistic, authoritarian system. Just focus on the mercy of the Lord Who brought you out of all that and let Him do the necessary work in your spirit.

Blessings!!


----------



## Montanablue

To add to the chorus... Caroline, I also completely understand where you are coming from. I grew up in a fundamentalist church where submitting was touted above everything else. Questioning authority, even if it was done respectfully and out of a real interest to learn, was not tolerated. It takes a while, but it does get better! Sue's advice is excellent.


----------



## SueS

Since I left my former church I've become aware of how widespread the spiritual abuse of authoritarian churches is, whether in established denominations or independent churches influenced by the New Apostolic Reformation, shepherding, or covering/authority theology. Many, many Christians are presently caught up in legalistic, man-centred bondage and those who have escaped can only be described as walking wounded, a condition that can take years to fully heal.

What is disturbing is that the heresies coming from the likes of Warren, Osteen, the "blab it and grab it" folks, and the emergent crowd are the ones that get all the attention from the guys on WHI and various discernment ministries while spiritual abuse continues to fly under the radar. Why is this so? I honestly don't understand it.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Abigail is an excellent example for any wife. This is one of my favorite stories of the whole Old Testament. Thanks for the reminder Romans922.


----------



## SueS

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Abigail is an excellent example for any wife. This is one of my favorite stories of the whole Old Testament. Thanks for the reminder Romans922.






Just out of curiosity, are you a member of the Shriver Greys unit?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

SueS said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abigail is an excellent example for any wife. This is one of my favorite stories of the whole Old Testament. Thanks for the reminder Romans922.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just out of curiosity, are you a member of the Shriver Greys unit?
Click to expand...


Nope. West Virginia Re-Enactors Association, specifically the 25th Virginia Inf. Co. B.


----------



## SueS

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> SueS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abigail is an excellent example for any wife. This is one of my favorite stories of the whole Old Testament. Thanks for the reminder Romans922.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just out of curiosity, are you a member of the Shriver Greys unit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. West Virginia Re-Enactors Association, specifically the 25th Virginia Inf. Co. B.
Click to expand...




Cool!

When we were hsing Sarah we had several representatives from the Greys give a program for our group. The son of one of our members belonged to that unit - he started as a water boy at age 12 and I think is still active. He was also one of the extras in Gods and Generals - and was in the scene where Jackson addresses his troups - we were able to see him for about 2 seconds!


----------



## Philip

Abigail absolutely acted as a godly wife here. I pray that when (Lord willing) I am married, that God will give me a wife like Abigail who is willing to call me out on sin in my life. A wife is supposed to help--and it's not helpful to remain silent when there is sin/foolishness in my actions. I know I won't like it, but I'll thank her for it (and brag to everyone that God gave me a woman who fears the Lord more than me).


----------



## Rogerant

*Acted as a Godly woman/wife?*

If we are correctly exegeting in the O.T. in the context of it's historical redemptive Christo-centric focus, we must keep in mind that the story is not about the godliness or morals of David, Abigail or Nabal. Many a preacher would like to identify the "heroes of the faith" as being the centerpiece of christian conduct. But they are not, Christ is. They are only heroes of the faith because God loved them, just as He loved Jacob, when he was still Jacob, not after he became Israel. Abibail submitted herself to her lord, David, the one who had been anointed King by Samual and God. In it's historical redemptive Christo-centric context, David is the "Type" of the true "Lord", Jesus Christ. Abigail therefore, was acting as any wife who is married to a non believer, recognizing that David as being the "type" of her true representative head. Nabal, which means "fool" in Hebrew, was a term for someone who did not believe in God. Now when the man is the head of the woman in 1 Corinthians 11:4-12 it is speaking about being the representative head of the family. The one who is to represent the spriritual leadership in the family. Since Nabal was not a believer, Christ alone is her spiritural leader or head. Christ's headship rules over her responsibility to submit herself to a nonbelieving husbands spiritual headship. 
The position of headship is one of leadership, not manager. Although it was announced to Eve that the consequences of her sin in the garden would result in pain in childbearing and the curse of her husband "ruling over her", and all women after her. It no where commands the husband to "rule over" his wife. But he is commanded to "love his wife, as Christ loved the Church and laid down His life for her". Another consequence of Eve's sin was that the womans "desire shall be to thy husband" In other words, the woman would look to her husband to provide all of her wants and needs, rather than to God as the provider. When a woman looks to her husband to provide for these necessities, she is cursed as the husband is a sinner and is incapable of providing everything that she expects from God. The result is that she loses faith in her husband to meet these needs and must take things into her own hands by "ruling over her own husband".

Now were Abigail actions meant to "rule over her husband" No.
Were her actions meant to undermine his spiritual headship? No.

In Exodus 4:24-26 Zipporah intercedes on Moses' behalf and took a sharp stone and circumcised Moses' son. Because God had set out to kill Moses for not providing his son the sign and seal of the covenant. In 1 Sam 25 Abigail intercedes on her husbands behalf to turn aside David's wrath.

And now your sermon should identfy these two acts as a foreshadowing of Christ interceding upon our behalf, by offering himself up as a sacrifice to turn aside God's wrath upon us for breaking the covenant.

The focus of this story is the foreshadowing of the active and passibe obedience of Christ. Not Abigails. 

That should be the focus of every sermon. How all of these stories point to what Christ has done for us. All of the prophets and heros of the faith, were sinner just like us. Saved by grace and grace imputed.

As Jesus said, no one is good, only our Father in heaven. We should never look to the hero's of the faith as good moral characters, outside of the grace of God. Christ is the centrepiece of the good moral character, period.

Just my humble opinion


----------



## Romans922

Rogerant,

Would you say you are in favor of exclusively Redemptive-Historical Preaching?


----------



## Rogerant

*Historical Redemptive*

An unashamed Yes!


----------



## Romans922

Rogerant said:


> An unashamed Yes!



Well then, as a PURITAN lover,  I would have to step back so I don't pick a fight  and probably so I don't


----------

