Book Review: 
Me? Obey Him?

Elizabeth Rice Handford

(Murfreesboro: Sword of the Lord, 1972)

This Review is by Doug Heck of Tulsa, Oklahoma. Various points are taken in order as presented, with comments to evaluate Biblically the ethical teachings of the book.

The book, ⁽¹⁾ Without providing a complete review, the following observations are made.

A. Making the disobedience of Adam a sacrificial act for his wife. Me? Obey Him? (i.e., MOH) states on pp. 16-17...

How fraught with meaning is that picture of the first Adam, eating of the forbidden fruit for the sake of his beloved wife, knowing he ate of death! He foreshadows the second Adam, Christ, who knew no sin, but was made sin for us, so we could have salvation. (2 Cor. 5:21)

Unfortunately, Elizabeth makes Adams' wicked act of rebellion into a noble sacrificial deed. This wasn't an act of male sacrifice for one's wife but a deliberate willful transgression of the law of God. Disobedience to the specific Word of God for the sake of one's mate is sin. Rather, the Lord commanded...

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.⁽²⁾

Elizabeth even uses the example of Adam as a prefigure of the sacrifice Jesus Christ made, in becoming sin for us. Nowhere in the 27 mentionings of Adam in the Bible is his disobedience for his wife even commended, let alone likened to the sacrifice Christ made to become sin for us. His act was called a

God pronounced the curse upon Adam because of his wicked choice in listening to his wife to eat the forbidden fruit...

And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field. (cf. Gen. 3:17-18)

It is interesting that MOH does condemn Abraham's example of following Sarah's suggestion to mate with Hagar. (cf. pg. 18) Why was Adam's transgression made into a noble sacrifice for her wife but Abraham's transgression condemned in MOH?

B. Zipporah's leadership in rejecting Moses' bloody religion, resulting in: the threat of her husband's life and her not being allowed to be involved in the Exodus. (pp. 18-20)

This reads into the text, as the Exodus account does not define the motive of Zipporah's statement,

Although MOH makes a major point out of Zipporah being this is not mentioned in the Bible. In Exodus 18:1ff. it mentions she was

C. God makes the husband the savior of his wife's body. (pp. 20-22) Unfortunately, MOH connects the masculine pronoun to the wrong noun, implying that the husband is the savior of the wife's body. The KJV allows for that implication but does not demand it. ⁽³⁾ Other English translations correct the misunderstanding. For example...

For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. (NASB)

For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. (NIV)

The pronoun

D. The wife does not have to choose between two conflicting authorities. (pp. 25ff.) Making a choice between

1.) the example of Peter and John who challenged the authority of the Jewish Sanhedrin, when it violated God's command. The Lord commanded them to preach and the Jewish council commanded them not to preach.

But that it spread no further among the people, let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name. And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard. So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding nothing how they might punish them, because of the people: for all men glorified God for that which was done. (cf. Acts 4:17-21)

MOH claims the Sanhedrin released them because "they had not broken any laws, civil or religious"(p.27) but that is not true! They released them

2.) the example of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego who challenged the authority of Nebuchadnezzar. This is a clear example of conflicting authority: God told them not to worship an image and Nebuchadnezzar told them to worship his image.

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, answered and said to the king, "O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not [i.e., if God doesn't deliver us and we burn up in the flames], be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up. Then was Nebuchadnezzar full of fury, and the form of his visage was changed against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego: therefore he spake, and commanded that they should heat the furnace one seven times more than it was wont to be heated." (cf. Dan. 3:16-20)

It is true that God provided a miracle in delivering the three men but not so they could obey both commands. The command of Nebuchadnezzar was that they worship his image, which they refused to do! And they recognized that they should not obey this command from their earthly authority even if it meant their death. ⁽⁴⁾

E. If the husband commands the wife to disobey God's direct command. (pp. 31ff.) We agree that God would not "give two commands impossible to keep," but no one is really arguing that position. The Biblical ethics involved is the principle that when one authority commands something different from another authority, the greater authority is to be obeyed and the lesser authority is to be rejected.

The book gives several examples: forbidden church attendance and denial of giving to the Lord's work. Both are commanded in Scripture but if the husband does not allow for either, then the responsible wife can obey her husband, waiting patiently on God.

We agree with this general illustration. If the husband has made a specific command to the wife not to attend a particular church, she should not attend. But she could still look for another church to attend or a smaller group such as a Bible study. If he forbids fellowship with other Christians altogether, then her proper response would be to humbly appeal to her husband about her commitment to the Lord and her desire to obey her husband. ⁽⁵⁾ But she may need to eventually, attend church against her husbands command. The greater authority is the issue.

MOH asks two questions when confronted with a question about a conflicting commands between husband and wife: 1.) has she wholeheartedly been submissive to her husband? and 2.) if so, has the husband ever asked such a thing? The book goes on to claim:

...when a woman takes God at His Word, submits to her husband without reservation, fears God and loves Him, then God takes upon Himself the responsibility to see a woman does not have to sin! (p. 38)

If sin means to disobey her husband, we would disagree as this is not promised in the Bible. The book's example of a man wanting his wife to abort her child, illustrates the obvious ethical conflict in commands. And the wife disobeyed her husband and put off the abortion until God changed his mind. Is MOH trying to suggest this will always happen? Would the book recommend the wife have an abortion if the husband did not change his mind? Would this be her sin or her husbands? Both. ⁽⁶⁾

Another example the book gives is Abigail's intervention to David, sparing Nabal's life. The author ignores the obvious meaning that Abigail disobeyed the wishes of her husband and even claims...

There is no evidence she disobeyed Nabal. He was so drunk he didn't know what he was doing. And she reported to him what she had done as soon as he was sober enough to understand it. (p. 40)

This isn't true. When Nabal challenged the authority of David by denying him provisions, he was sober and knew exactly what he was doing! Only later that evening did he become drunk. Even granting MOH's slip of the chronology of the historical event, is the author claiming that a wife shouldn't consider obeying her husband when he is drunk, because he doesn't know what he is saying? No, Abigail really did disobey and dishonor her husband but recognized the greater authority of God's anointed king David and the danger that Nabal's foolish act presented to him and their house.

The book never answers the question, except by claiming that God will provide a necessary deliverance of a temporary conflicting authorities. But still, even if it is only temporary it is still a conflicting authorities!

F. The example of Sarah and Abraham. (pp. 43ff.) The book claims that Sarah called Abraham ⁽⁷⁾ This is

G. Wives should not express their opinion unless asked by their husbands. (p. 61) We fail to understand the basis for this comment and perhaps the statement itself goes too far. The book explains...

Certainly you get to express an opinion - if you are asked. And if you are a submissive, loving wife, your opinion will be asked. Because he asked for it, he will value it more highly and consider it more objectively. Opinions constantly expressed, when unsought, have a tendency to sound like criticism, and most of us don't enjoy criticism...Actually, in a wholesome, working husband-wife relationship, there will be a free flow of ideas and suggestions, some good-natured banter. A wife can tell her husband her reasons openly, frankly, and resort to tears only when really necessary. (p. 62)

In Elizabeth Handford's letter on March 18, she gives a better balance to husband and wife relationships:

Incidentally, I do not believe that a woman is to express an opinion only if she is asked. The context of that statement was in connection with a woman who has too often expressed an opinion, who is now putting herself back under her husband's authority...

The teaching presented in MOH and defined further in the March 18 letter, seems a balanced Biblical approach. It is proper for a wife to share, express her opinion and appeal to her husband, while keeping her quiet and submissive calling. Every husband and wife should work out the particulars here, until they are comfortable with a relationship of sharing.

1. Perhaps more recent works such as the following, provide a more thorough dealing of the role of a godly wife. cf. John Piper and Wayne Grudem, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A response to Evangelical Feminism (Crossway Books, 1991); James B. Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective (Zondervan, 1981).

2. Luke 14:26-27. This does not demand a hatred for our relatives but an allegiance to the Lord that supersedes all other relationships.

3. The view that the husband is the savior of the body instead of Christ, was held by Bucer, Bullinger, Musceulus, Erasmus, Grotius, Beza, Meier, and de Wette. Modern representatives of this view are lacking as it does not follow grammatically, with the exception of M. Lloyd-Jones. Those view Christ as the emphatic Savior of the body are: John Calvin, William Hendriksen, T. K. Abbott, Kenneth Wuest, R. C. H. Lenski, A. T. Robertson, Henry Alford, Andrew Lincloln, John Eadie, John MacArthur, Jr.

4. The ethical issue of conflicting authorities is illustrated, between government authority and God's authority. cf. Exod. 1:17; 1 Sam. 22:17; 1 Kings 14:16; 22:14; 2 Chron. 26:16-20; Dan. 3:16-20; 6:4-24; Matt. 14:3-5; Acts 4:17-22; 5:27-29. The proper response when this happens is, to obey God rather than men.

5. For example: if a practicing Muslim wife is converted to Christ, she would be forbidden by her husband from attending or gathering with Christians. Her humble appeal may not be received but eventually she would need to disobey her husband in preference to God as the greater authority. This ethical difficulty was faced by many in the early church, who disobeyed Jewish husbands to serve Jesus Christ. cf. Matt. 10:21-22, 34-39; Luke 14:26-27, etc.

6. A Biblical example of conflicting commands related to childbirth is the Hebrew midwives. "And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him...But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive." (cf. Exod. 1:16-17) Their disobedience to the earthly king and their obedience to God, resulted in the reward: "And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that He gave them families." (vs. 21)

7. Connecting issues makes nonsense out of the obvious. For example, Abraham is the great example of a man who walked by faith (cf. Rom. 4) but that doesn't mean when we think of Abraham's faith we connect it with Abraham's lack of faith in Genesis 16. Abraham walked by faith but not at that time! Noah, was a just man and perfect in his generations...who walked with God. cf. Gen. 6:9. But we are not to connect this statement with his getting drunk in Genesis 9; David was a man after God's own heart, but not in the matter of Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite; the Apostle Peter was a rock but denied the Lord three times, etc. Sarah generally is a quiet submissive woman, well illustrated in Genesis 18 but her compromise lie, was not commended by God or Peter in 1 Peter 3.