I think an important insight here, something that needs to be acknowledged, is it the New Testament was written in a world where wives really were the property of their husbands with almost no independent civil rights. The Greco-Roman world of early Christianity was structured around the systematic oppression of women. The Greek world where Christianity was mostly born was a little bit worse than the Roman world, legally speaking. Some elite Roman women could independently own property and inherit wealth. Greek women were much less likely to be able to do that.
Women passed from the hands of their fathers into the hands of their husbands. That's just how things worked, and nobody questioned it. I mean, if any organized opposition to that system existed, even philosophically, it has not come down to us. Not in the New Testament, and not anywhere else.
Some of Jesus's words could be interpreted to oppose the systemic oppression of women, but interpretation is necessary. He was never explicit. He never said women should be allowed to own property, or women should be allowed to inherit wealth, or women should not be legally the property of their fathers and husbands. If he believed those things were important, it's kind of hard to believe he wouldn't have just said them.
Neither Peter nor Paul were explicit either, though again some of their words could be interpreted (and you have to work at it) as opposing the systemic civil oppression of women.
Clearly, saying that husbands should rape their wives is not something modern Christians tolerate or find tolerable. But many modern Christians still preach that women are to be subject to their husbands. From a "sola scriptura" perspective, they have the New Testament on their side. Unfortunately, they know it. Even historical-critical analysis of the New Testament tells them they're right. After all, if Jesus and the apostles didn't oppose women being subject to their husbands, isn't that the way God ordered things? If that system was good enough for New Testament Christians, isn't it good enough today?
The logical endpoint of the theology is husbands exercising sexual privilege over their wives. Few Christians come right out and say that like this pastor did, but they used to all the time. Today, the sentiment gets expressed in myriad softer ways from pulpits in Evangelical churches all the time.
I don't know that there's a solution to the problem in Christianity of women being subordinate to their husbands, not short of abandoning "sola scriptura" and in the case of Evangelicals, stopping the idolizing of the New Testament Church as the pinnacle of Christianity.
Given that for most Evangelicals what I just suggested is heresy, I suspect that Evangelical women will remain second-class citizens in their churches for the foreseeable future.
