No wires crossed. I agree its an instruction to wives. I'm not claiming otherwise. Regardless of who it is directed to Peter clearly says that Sarah called her husband lord. The point I am trying to convey is that apparently Sarah recognized her husband's lordship position. So my claim about the husband being her lord is reinforced by both Sarah and Peter.
"Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more,
Or close up the wall with our English dead."
- Henry V
The first observation is that whether the word is lord in the olde English or sir today or sire yesterday or whatever Hebrew word Sarah actually used, that term is a term of deference and respect that is used widely, and does not always 'prove' or even suggest that the person being deferred to is one's Lord and Master. Kevin's already pointed this out complete with a scripture example that makes this obvious, but I need to repeat it here. Consider: Are you the only man your wife refers to as sir? Do other women and men refer to you as sir in other contexts? You, sir, are reading too much into the text.
The problem is that you don't get to just make up the takeaway. (This is a recurring problem in this thread.) Here's the point Peter actually makes: Sarah's obedience and deference to her husband provide a useful example to other women of how they should obey and defer to their husbands. Here's the point you're trying to make: Sarah referred to Abraham as lord once and that proves that all husbands are lords over and are to rule over their wives. Do you see any problem here? I choose to internalize and implement Peter's application of Sarah's example, and I invite you to do the same.
Further, look at the parallelism in the actual husband/wife teaching. Here's what Peter
didn't say: "Wives submit to your husbands, and obey them and respect them the way Sarah did. Husbands, take special note of the fact that Sarah referred to her husband as lord (or sire, or sir, or something in Hebrew), because this proves you are to rule your wife." Here's what Peter
did say (paraphrased a bit): "Wives submit to your husbands, and obey them and respect them the way Sarah did. Husbands, know your wives well, honor them and take their weaknesses into account, because they're your co-heirs (or partners) in the grace of life, or else your prayer life is gonna suck." Unsurprisingly, this pretty much exactly tracks the express parallel teaching of Paul: "Wives submit to your husbands; husbands, love and care for your wives, because you're one with them—they are your own flesh."
Don't know what else to tell you, brother. You appear to have a deep need to have these passages support the things you think they imply. My suggestion is to simply take them at face value and apply them as written. You asked me above to call you on this, and I will: This conversation is eerily similar to many of the monogamy/polygamy conversations I've had. Why rely on inferences and assumptions instead of the plain text?
[Reminder, just in case: Nothing I've said should be taken as a criticism of how you and your wife manage your relationship (or your 'dance', as Keith would say), about which I actually know very little. We are just a couple of guys talking in general terms about how to apply scripture to our lives. That's all.]
