Looking at the quote, I do not see the topic as the author saying it is just for a man to beat his wife. He seems to be saying a Christian wife should be willing to endure an unjust beating from a husband disobedient to the word.
Slaves could suffer domestic violence, rither for doing wrong or for righteousness sake(e.g. praying or sharing their faith with the master's children.) Suffering domestic violence for righteousness sake in this case was acceotable before God.
Slaves had no legal recourse, though it is possible, in Jewish communities, which had some autonomy to manage their own legal matters under Roman law, that they could appeal to synagogue elders. Torah awarded freedom for a lost ete or tooth but did not forbid beating disobedient slaves.
If a wife has some legal recourse and a place to go, should she endure physical abuse out of a desire to submit to Christ by submitting to her husband? Is it commendable before God to do so. I have seen posters elsewhere blame wives who endured in such situations, who said rhey were not glorifying Fod. Having heard testimonies of Christian women who endured abuse who won their husbands fir Christ and experienced the change in their husbands. We should also be careful not to pronounce judgments on abused women who stay. There are women who live in countries with no legal or social recourse.
I do not know of any passage that addresses the topic of husbands beating their wives. Paul tells husbands are told to love their own flesh. A man does not hate his own flesh but nourishes it. Geberally, sane men do not beat themselves.
If a wife has a husband who is a danger to her, should she get away? The Bible says wives should submit to their own husbands. David had someone who he was obligated to submit to who was trying to kill him, and David fled to save his life.
I see a hypersensitivity to 'abuse' in some curcles. WHO has a eesearch variable that includes 'withold funds' as an intimate partner variable along with violence and thrwats of violence. Not giving your wife cash, quoting Bible verses about submission, and wye rolling are abusive behaviors according to some models. And if a husband and wife keep arguing and making up, tgat can ve seen as part of an abusive pattern. Domestic Violence centers in the US are often run by feminists and may have literature that comes from that perspective. Some of the literature promotes the idea of 'once an abuser, always an abuser". The philosophy lacks grace. And some models for the way abusers are come from extrapolating the patterns of one case, someone who could have been a sociopath, on all cases. Sone of the literature lacjs grace and is inconsistent with a Biblical worldview.
There are abusers who are psychopaths who fit tge mold of a bad guy husband in a Lifetime movie. Some DV households, maybe 30 or 40+% are cases of women who hit men. These are probably vastly under reported. But if he hits her back once or bruises her while restraining ger, the man risks being arrested if she xalls tge police. Some abuser hit once. Some get abusive only while drunk or on drugs. People are complicated.
There are some pastors who echo ideas they have heard who give an abused spouse permission to divorce and remarry. Scriptute does not. Paul wrote 'but and if she depart let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband.'
A woman reading DV literature that a husband who witholds cash, quotes verses about submission, tells her she needs to lose weight, who reads part of the abusive pattern is to argue and make up again could find literature to justify the idea that she is abused, even if her argumentativeness were the root of the problem. Then she hears a pastor say if she is abused to divorce. It is an extreme example but it could happen. Pastors should be aware that 'abuse' can refer to much more than violence. A lot of marriages get past abusive behavior, heal and survive.
Many couples have inflicted verbal abuse, especially if you have a low bar for your definition of it. My wife and I haven't yelled curse words at each other, called each other 'stupid' or names like that, but each of us has said things that hurt the other. It us fairly common in marriage. If you are thinking back for examples of 'verbal abuse' you could probably find them, especially if you keep a record of wrongs.
Regarding cultural background to II Peter, my understanding is that Jewish culture and Talmudic literature (written after the first century but supposed to capture past traditions). I came across a falsely so called 'rabbi' (a title rightly reserved for Messiah) who kived in an Islamic era who advised it for certain infractions and an earlier reference advising it if a qifd cursed her in-laws. Cursing one's own parents was a death penalty crime.
There is a cultural myth that the origin of the phrase 'rule if thumb' men could beat their wives legally with a stick thinner than their thumb. In US colonial history at least, Puritans outlawed wife beating. I can think of a couple of documenrs justifying wife beating from the middle ages, but mt impression is not that, in general, Christians have endorsed it historically, so I would not automatically believe the claims of feminists trying to paint Christian history this way or those trying to justify wife beating from history.
Slaves could suffer domestic violence, rither for doing wrong or for righteousness sake(e.g. praying or sharing their faith with the master's children.) Suffering domestic violence for righteousness sake in this case was acceotable before God.
Slaves had no legal recourse, though it is possible, in Jewish communities, which had some autonomy to manage their own legal matters under Roman law, that they could appeal to synagogue elders. Torah awarded freedom for a lost ete or tooth but did not forbid beating disobedient slaves.
If a wife has some legal recourse and a place to go, should she endure physical abuse out of a desire to submit to Christ by submitting to her husband? Is it commendable before God to do so. I have seen posters elsewhere blame wives who endured in such situations, who said rhey were not glorifying Fod. Having heard testimonies of Christian women who endured abuse who won their husbands fir Christ and experienced the change in their husbands. We should also be careful not to pronounce judgments on abused women who stay. There are women who live in countries with no legal or social recourse.
I do not know of any passage that addresses the topic of husbands beating their wives. Paul tells husbands are told to love their own flesh. A man does not hate his own flesh but nourishes it. Geberally, sane men do not beat themselves.
If a wife has a husband who is a danger to her, should she get away? The Bible says wives should submit to their own husbands. David had someone who he was obligated to submit to who was trying to kill him, and David fled to save his life.
I see a hypersensitivity to 'abuse' in some curcles. WHO has a eesearch variable that includes 'withold funds' as an intimate partner variable along with violence and thrwats of violence. Not giving your wife cash, quoting Bible verses about submission, and wye rolling are abusive behaviors according to some models. And if a husband and wife keep arguing and making up, tgat can ve seen as part of an abusive pattern. Domestic Violence centers in the US are often run by feminists and may have literature that comes from that perspective. Some of the literature promotes the idea of 'once an abuser, always an abuser". The philosophy lacks grace. And some models for the way abusers are come from extrapolating the patterns of one case, someone who could have been a sociopath, on all cases. Sone of the literature lacjs grace and is inconsistent with a Biblical worldview.
There are abusers who are psychopaths who fit tge mold of a bad guy husband in a Lifetime movie. Some DV households, maybe 30 or 40+% are cases of women who hit men. These are probably vastly under reported. But if he hits her back once or bruises her while restraining ger, the man risks being arrested if she xalls tge police. Some abuser hit once. Some get abusive only while drunk or on drugs. People are complicated.
There are some pastors who echo ideas they have heard who give an abused spouse permission to divorce and remarry. Scriptute does not. Paul wrote 'but and if she depart let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband.'
A woman reading DV literature that a husband who witholds cash, quotes verses about submission, tells her she needs to lose weight, who reads part of the abusive pattern is to argue and make up again could find literature to justify the idea that she is abused, even if her argumentativeness were the root of the problem. Then she hears a pastor say if she is abused to divorce. It is an extreme example but it could happen. Pastors should be aware that 'abuse' can refer to much more than violence. A lot of marriages get past abusive behavior, heal and survive.
Many couples have inflicted verbal abuse, especially if you have a low bar for your definition of it. My wife and I haven't yelled curse words at each other, called each other 'stupid' or names like that, but each of us has said things that hurt the other. It us fairly common in marriage. If you are thinking back for examples of 'verbal abuse' you could probably find them, especially if you keep a record of wrongs.
Regarding cultural background to II Peter, my understanding is that Jewish culture and Talmudic literature (written after the first century but supposed to capture past traditions). I came across a falsely so called 'rabbi' (a title rightly reserved for Messiah) who kived in an Islamic era who advised it for certain infractions and an earlier reference advising it if a qifd cursed her in-laws. Cursing one's own parents was a death penalty crime.
There is a cultural myth that the origin of the phrase 'rule if thumb' men could beat their wives legally with a stick thinner than their thumb. In US colonial history at least, Puritans outlawed wife beating. I can think of a couple of documenrs justifying wife beating from the middle ages, but mt impression is not that, in general, Christians have endorsed it historically, so I would not automatically believe the claims of feminists trying to paint Christian history this way or those trying to justify wife beating from history.
-
1
- Show all
