Woman Need Spritual Covering

This is what I believed for such a long time. I was taught in Evangelical circles that I was supposed to be the “spiritual leader” in my family, and that the pastor and elders were the “spiritual leaders” of the flock. It is so easy to believe because it sounds so good – who could argue that being a spiritual leader is a good thing. The blinders started to fall off when I began asking where my guide-book for being spiritual leader was in scripture. Moreover, I began wondering exactly how this “job” looked in the activities of daily living. When someone would propose that a certain function was the spiritual leader’s, I first turned to scripture to find where such a delegation of duties was outlined. I could never find any biblical teaching to coincide with the human claim. Moreover, every activity that was presented seemed to be universal for all humans, not just a unilaterally male activity. In fact, for many things, it seemed that women were often more gifted than men at doing “x”. At the very least, when I looked at individual marriages, there was no unilateral gender that was better at activity “x”, “y”, or “z”.

So, I have slowly abandoned any trust in the “spiritual leader” teaching. It has freed my wife and I to BOTH lead according to our gifts, and has greatly enhanced the “spiritual” dimension of our marriage and our connectedness to God.

Cheryl – You missed one important aspect of the Genesis teaching that contributes to the spiritual covering mindset. Mark mentioned it in earlier posts. It is the belief that God’s approaching Adam first has significance in who is accountable in the marriage. Although comps will often admit that Eve is accountable for her sin, they see a kind of super-accountability for the husband over the family. They believe Adam’s being questioned first demonstrates that the husband/father is accountable before God for the operation and conduct of the family, even though the individuals are accountable for their individual sin.

Although I’m sure you can easily dismiss such adding to the text, you should not ignore the strong appeal such a position has, especially for many evangelicals now adays who see the decay of the core family as a result of irresponsible and unaccountable husbands and fathers (not necessary a false assessment). Many women, in particular, desire a spiritual leader in their lives and the lives of their children because they, frankly, have been doing ALL the heavy lifting for years – even generations. When presented with a biblical text that appears to support their appeal for the men in their lives to stand up and be accountable, they cheer, not ever once thinking about the other shoe.

I believe this was the primary reason why Promise Keepers had such initial and overwhelming cross gender support. It is very insidious. Men as the spiritual leaders of church and home sounds very, very appealing even to many women. Especially when Jesus is held up as the model. Especially when men have been so AWOL from any spiritual contribution at all. It all sounds so appealing – just like the fruit in the garden.

Oops – one more thing. I didn’t mean that Promise Keepers as a movement is insidious. I meant that the general appeal to be spiritual leader is. Promise Keepers had its good points.

gengwall,
I really appreciate your feedback! Yes, you are right, I missed a very “vital” part that I should have commented on. Interesting that my spam word for this comment is “vital”. 😉

I will work on adding that part perhaps later today or tomorrow as I have time. I will leave up your comment so that people will see that there are people on my blog who provide valuable input and without them I would not have as much balance as I do. Thank you!

Once upon a time, I was going to write a book entitled “Submit Does Not Mean Obey; Head Does Not Mean Boss”. As I reflect more on those concepts, I think the “Head” portion of the title still doesn’t quite get it right because it still leaves open the interpretation that “Head” is some kind of “role” or “job”. I really believe that is where the whole train comes off the rails. As long as people continue to view “headship” in a vocational light, they will continue to apply a vocational paradigm to the rest of the equation. Vocational paradigms are inherently hierarchical, and task oriented. Being “head” becomes a “job” for the husband in which he has to fullfill certain obligations and perform certain tasks, all in relation to his wife, who must inherently have a different “job” because, as we all know, “too many cooks…” I think the challenge, Cheryl, is to finally get us out of this vocational mindset. You have a great start here. And my book title? Well, I’ll have to give that more thought.

I know that we are were taught this and I use the term too, but where did headSHIP come into the picture? The Bible says “head” and “body” not headship and bodyship. Maybe we should write a book about the duties of the bodyship. 😉

Nice post Cheryl (and gengwall)!

Of course it all begs to ask the question who is covering all the young (or old single) women of the world. I have noticed both in Mark Driscoll and Matt Chandler (both Resurgence blokes) the idea that the father covers the daughter until they marry. There is no age limit, it just continues. It is also important to note that this includes approving (or not approving) possible want to be husbands. Matt Chandler mentioned when he was out here that when the Father is not around he sees his role as the Pastor to approve possible husbands. Mars Hill has been accuesed of similar things.

I guess all this is a part of the complementarian extra biblical rule book that is required to live out these “fantasy” beliefs.

Gengwall, I love how you point out that being freed from the complementarian model meant that you were BOTH free to lead according to your gifts. When my wife and I tried to live the comp life we both struggled, but probably I found it the hardest…I was being asked to do things I did not feel equipped to do.

LOL – although I agree with the made up state of the word, “headship” is used to parallel “submission”, not “bodyship”. I make no claims to the appropriateness of such a distinction, just the recognition that that is how people use them. Of course, there ARE plenty of books related to the duties of submission (and headship). Ugh!

Never-the-less, your correction is well noted. “Head” and “Submit” are not parallel in Ephesians 5. The parallels are Head/Body and Submit/Love. Head and Body are not jobs. How do we get everyone to stop making incorrect connections of words? There’s the rub!

“Matthew 23:10 ”Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. Matthew 23:11 ”But the greatest among you shall be your servant.
In Jesus we have all the “covering” that we need. Does a woman need a human spiritual “covering” over her? No. Her place is to be in the body of Christ as a fully functioning body part without having to be led and controlled by a human “covering”.”

The question I always have for comps using this paradigm is that it leaves single women and widows who do come from a Christian family out of the picture. This has caused many comp and patri leaders to come up with some really odd practices of having women in this situation seek out ‘surrogate’ fathers and male figures to be their ‘spiritual covering.’

And that whole deal just begs the question – how could an ‘uncovered’ woman ever be certain that she was making a ‘spiritually correct’ decision on the right man????????

That’s exactly how it was for us, Dave! The biggest example in our life, and in many couples, was prayer. My wife is simply better gifted as an intercessory prayor than I am. Yet I was always told that I was supposed to lead the family in prayer, lead my wife in prayer, lead, lead, lead. I was never comfortable, and whenever we tried to fit that “spiritual leader” paradigm, our corporate prayer life suffered! But once we were free to see that there was nothing wrong with my wife leading our families prayer life since she was the more gifted at it, prayer came busting out all over from all of us.

How sad is it that there are truly many, many fellow Christians who would claim both that I am shirking my responsibility and she is usurping my authority because of our approach to family prayer!

Sorry Dave – I only posted my comment because I thought you’d still be asleep and unable to do so. LOL

“But what about the teaching in the church today that a woman needs a spiritual covering? The term spiritual “covering” is really spiritual “control”.”

Indeed.

“How sad is it that there are truly many, many fellow Christians who would claim both that I am shirking my responsibility and she is usurping my authority because of our approach to family prayer!”

What gets to me about that is somehow they can’t seem to allow for the husband choosing to “let” “relegate” (take your pick) that responsibility to the wife. No, no.

“One of the flaws of the teaching about spiritual “covering” is that it makes the one under the covering weaker instead of stronger.”

This is a MOST excellent point!!

Of course, to “relegate” the responsibility still assumes it is mine to dispense. No need for the Spirit in such families, I guess. As if it is the husband who gives out the spiritual gifts and decides in what measure each family member receives them. Even if they did allow such a distribution of work, it would be a very scary thing.

“But once we were free to see that there was nothing wrong with my wife leading our families prayer life since she was the more gifted at it, prayer came busting out all over from all of us.”

When we are under law we are slaves to sin, but when we are under grace we are slaves to righteousness. The comp teaching places men under law (as well as women, obviously!). The law increases sin! I am so glad we are free from this (false) law, as it has helped me contribute more to our marriage than when I was told I had to!

Sorry, Kay…did you say something?… 😉

“No need for the Spirit in such families, I guess. As if it is the husband who gives out the spiritual gifts and decides in what measure each family member receives them.”

Distortion on every level. Can I say “hijacking the Holy Spirit”?

Why is it so scary for them to let each believer walk in the Spirit?
…is He somehow inadequate? or maybe He just doesn’t always do what they think is best.

No,Dave…must have been an echo.

“Of course it all begs to ask the question who is covering all the young (or old single) women of the world. I have noticed both in Mark Driscoll and Matt Chandler (both Resurgence blokes) the idea that the father covers the daughter until they marry. There is no age limit, it just continues. It is also important to note that this includes approving (or not approving) possible want to be husbands. Matt Chandler mentioned when he was out here that when the Father is not around he sees his role as the Pastor to approve possible husbands. Mars Hill has been accuesed of similar things.”

This is incredible. I have heard them both many times and it is sad that some of the younger reformed guys are downright patriarchal. It is such a sin trap for them.

Yes, it does mean ‘spiritual control’ which is an oxymoron for humans. It is spiritual abuse because it takes the place of the Holy Spirit.

“Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ.” Matthew 23:10

How difficult is that to understand? Why wouldn’t someone question when what they think Paul is saying is the opposite of Jesus short and simple statement?

Kay, a lot of it is because of the desire for there to be a “leader” and “follower”. We as humans are remarkably comfortable in one-up, one-down situations, especially when we are the “one-up”. We chafe when we’re the “one-down”, and this has been my problem about submission/headship for many years. It reared its head again at Bible study last weekend when one of the women was talking about how, even in a dating situation, we as women need to be watchful and discerning about our dates, to see what kind of “leadership” they take, and if we would be OK submitting to them once married. They were saying things like, “Does he decide where to eat, what movies to see? Does he take the lead in planning outings?” It made it sound like compromise was a dirty word!

The other thing that’s always bothered me is how the whole “leading” in a marriage thing works, especially where there are areas where the wife is stronger than the husband. To take a big and often contentious one: finances. If she’s the stronger mind financially (understands budgeting, makes wise decisions) and he can barely keep his checkbook balanced, should she have to “submit” to him, even if it puts their marriage in financial jeopardy? I would hope not.

This is where I appreciate your work, Cheryl. It can be so easy to attach headship/submission to notions of authority, as if submission were to be the same as mindless subordination. I don’t think the two are the same, at all. Thanks for shedding some light on what has always been a murky subject, especially now as I prepare for my own upcoming marriage. (If someone tries to get me to say “obey” in my wedding vows, I’ll just go get married by a justice of the peace!)

Thanks for the kind comments, Alison!

“When we are under law we are slaves to sin, but when we are under grace we are slaves to righteousness. The comp teaching places men under law (as well as women, obviously!). The law increases sin! I am so glad we are free from this (false) law, as it has helped me contribute more to our marriage than when I was told I had to!”

What could be better than a one-flesh mutually submitting, loving marriage without the purposed power struggles that complementarians deal with so much – as indicated by the amount of teaching and writing they are doing trying to regulate it?

Lin, I think you might agree with me saying that perhaps creating a problem and then having seminars and selling books and movies to solve it is very profitable. Could be some job security involved as well.

I first came across the FACT that the passage talks about head/body and love/submission (not headship and submission!) in Sarah Sumner’s book, Men and Women in the Church. Have any of you read it?

In Jesus we have all the “covering” that we need. Does a woman need a human spiritual “covering” over her? No. Her place is to be in the body of Christ as a fully functioning body part without having to be led and controlled by a human “covering”.

Maybe that is the fundimental question that a comp should be required to answer before continued discussion: “so, fellow Christian, do you believe that Jesus is an insufficient spiritual cover for women?”

“Maybe that is the fundimental question that a comp should be required to answer before continued discussion: “so, fellow Christian, do you believe that Jesus is an insufficient spiritual cover for women?”

Could we follow that with “Who was covering Mary Magdalene on her way to tell the brethren that Jesus had risen?” and “When she reached them, why doesn’t it say which one took over as her ‘spiritual covering?

However the Scriptures never offer such a teaching. All of us are responsible for our own actions and God shows this clearly in the way that he called both Adam and Eve to account for each of their personal actions.

Those who believe that God approaching Adam first means that Adam was a covering for Eve need to explain why God didn’t ask Adam “what has Eve done?”, or at the very least, “what have [the two of] you done?” Each participant was interogated as an individual:

“Who told you (singular) you were naked”
“Did you (singular) eat of the tree”
“What have you (singular, to Eve) done”

Neither was asked nor answered for the other’s actions (although both tried to distract from the issue). If Adam was to answer for the first family, then why wasn’t he asked family oriented question. Moreover, if Adam was to cover Eve, why was he not asked about Eve? And why was Eve asked to answer for herself if Adam covered her? All of this covering nonsense is simply read into the text. Why did God seek Adam first? Could be any number of reasons (I still think it was because Adam was undeceived and therefore the more grevious perpetrator). The only reason not supported in any way based on God’s actual questioning is the reason that Adam was Eve’s cover.

gengwall,
I added the question about God going to Adam first. Thanks again for the suggestion!

Cheryl, you’re very welcome. If only convincing some were easier….(sigh).

My facetious answer to “does a woman need a spiritual covering” is “no more so than a fish needs a bicycle”.

Snarkiness aside, I think the whole idea of spiritual covering is ridiculous on its face, especially when it’s used to dominate or control, as if women were inherently incapable of making their own decisions, much less being held accountable for those decisions. I love what you’ve said here:

“Those who appoint themselves as a spiritual covering over their wives may be tempted to keep her under their own control instead of lifting her up to be a mature, functioning member of the body of Christ with full authority in her own gifts. Staying under a “covering” may be a comfortable place for a woman who has been taught to believe that she bears no responsibility whatsoever as long as she is obeying her “head”. However the Scriptures never offer such a teaching. All of us are responsible for our own actions and God shows this clearly in the way that he called both Adam and Eve to account for each of their personal actions”.

Exactly. I don’t think I could have said it better. If “covering” a woman is merely the shell for keeping her down, then that’s a serious sin–the man is attempting to hinder (quench) the Holy Spirit, something that we’re explicitly told NOT to do. I just don’t get how the comps don’t seem to understand that. The excuse of “I was just following my covering; I didn’t know action X would be wrong!” doesn’t hold water, nor does the idea that Jesus is insufficient spiritual cover for a woman (funny how He’s sufficient for a man, IMO).

Thank you for answering my question! I’ve been on vacation and just now saw this post.

I’ve been reading the Bible since I was a small child and never found any of this stuff about women (or men) needing someone to cover them. To call it a fairy tale is too kind. It is an invention, a lie if you will, made up by people who want to control others.

Study world religions, past and present, and you will find that most really strange ideas usually are inventions by someone who wants some advantage over other people, so they tell the other people that the gods or the holy writings support them and their strange ideas.

This “covering” teaching is an invention, a lie, and often results in spiritual abuse.

Sam,

This “covering” teaching is an invention, a lie, and often results in spiritual abuse.

Absolultely!

The “spiritual covering” attitude is not just applied to women in the controlling atmosphere of certain megachurches. Men in that envoronment are also emasculated, contrary to the party line that emanates from the pulpits. Asking questions is deemed “sinful,” and dissension is dealt with swiftly in the form of “church discipline” which silences all but “yes” men and fosters blind conformity.

Ted,
Welcome to my blog! When questions are deemed sinful and there is an attitude of blind conformity, there is a cult-like attitude going on. These are signs of real red flags to me to watch out.

Yes, Ted.
God says to sinful man. Come let us reason together.

Yet some ‘authorities’ who claim to represent God will not have that. They crave blind devotion. A mindless, voiceless following. Something that God doesn’t even ask for.

Genesis is a Jewish folk story about how the world, and everything in it, were created; I do NOT take Genesis 2 literally, nor do I believe the Creator made men first.
I think Christian males and females need to stop worrying about who needs to do what and just love and serve each other. My husband and I have been doing that for 20 years, and we are happily married. We don’t get bogged down with rules, except to “love one another,” and to love God with all our heart, soul and mind.

Do you mean you do not believe the creator made humans first or males first?

Christian Wife/Mom,

I think that it does matter what Jesus thinks about the OT and Genesis 2. He quoted from Genesis regarding the creation of the man and the woman so apparently he thought it was a real event and not a Jewish myth. And Jesus is our Creator so He ought to know.

I agree that there shouldn’t be all the “rules” that men put on women, but we do have to have something other than love to go by. After all, most other religions operate on love too but they do not follow Jesus in His life, death and burial. I would just prefer to follow Jesus who can’t be wrong, then any man-made idea which could be wrong. There is too much at stake. It is a life and death matter.

Thanks for popping in and I hope you come back!

Great comments.

I believe a husband has been given full authority IN THE NAME OF YESHUA to protect his wife from all spiritual fallen angels including Satan, but 99.99% of men have no idea that there is a real enemy who desire to steal their wives destiny and joy and therefore don’t learn to fight in the heavenlies on behalf of their wives. We men need to be on watch 24-7 on the walls of our own Jerusalems (City of Peace) our wives. Our Messiah desires to be tangible through us to them and ooooh what a feeling to feel Yeshua touch our wives through us men. Honored!

Hi, Ryan.

Hmmm. Does your “maleness” give you special access, special clout in the heavenlies? How’s that? Just feels very strange to think that I am in some kind of unique danger from “spiritual fallen angels”, moreso than my husband is. Truth be told, I’ve gotten him out of many a spiritual bind through my prayer of faith on his behalf. And I agree with you, what a feeling it is to feel Yeshua be tangible through me & touching my husband through me (a woman, gasp!). An honor indeed.

If your wife is a praying person of faith, I venture to guess she has done the same for you more times than you obviously realize. You need her spiritual influence in the heavenlies no less than she needs yours.

This is classic Pharaseeism. What did the Pharasees do, in the matter of the “corban”? They did a very fancy theological dance and, Presto!, when the dust clears, they had excused themselves from obedience to the simple commands of the One whom they professed to serve. And it is just so with this matter. It is very plain that God has ordained “I suffer not a woman to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence”. And in our day, we do a fancy theological dance and Presto!, no, that’s not what it means, and we justify our disobedience. It find it interesting that, in 1 Corinthians, right after God says, ” Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church”, He then says, “What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.” The Holy Spirit put an exclamation point after His doctrine of women keeping silence in the churches.

When it comes to the husband being the “covering” for the woman, this is utter nonsense. Its as much nonsense as the man being the “priest of the home”. From the way people repeat these bromides, you would think these phrases occur all over the Word. But they are not to be found. The man is neither the covering for the woman, nor the priest of the home. Hi IS the boss. He IS in authority. But the only “covering” the woman is obligated to have is a cloth veiling of some kind upon her head, 1 Cor 11. She is also to have long hair, 1 Cor 11. also. And we are all priests. My wife is on totally equal standing before the throne of the Father as I. There is no difference in that regard. But she is obligated, as Sarah, to submit, to obey. And to not exercise authority nor teach in the Church.

Another sad thing in all this is that our view of the Christian life has so narrowed “ministry” to the 1 or 2 hours per week of “church service”. But as we are filled with the Holy Spirit, the other 71 hours can make those meeting times relatively insignificant–and that is where the woman can do so much–without disobeying the Scripture–that it makes our petty striving to pervert the Word of God, so that we don’t have to obey the plain meaning of it in regard to the role of woman that God has ordained, laughable. And it would be truly laughable if so many people were not under the deception of this false doctrine.

Tom,

You can perceive what you want, but be honest what does your (hierarchal) interpretation or perception have to do with the facts of Scripture?

The facts of Scripture show that “the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church”, Eph 5. The Scripture says to the first woman, “your desire shall be to you husband, and he shall rul over you”, Genesis. The Scripture says in 1 Peter that women are to be like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham, “calling him Lord”. In Titus, one of the fundamentals that older women are to teach younger women is to “be obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed”. In 1 Timothy, “I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to have authority over a man”. I 1 Cor 14, “34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” And that is not the exhaustive list. You should avoid clouding the issue by throwing out buzzwords like “hierarchical”. The question is, what does the Word of God SAY? Who cares if it is hierarchical or egalitarian? The question is, what does God COMMAND? So, this is what the Scripture teaches us. Not popular today. But there is it. Let us not be like the Pharisees who made fancy interpretations in order to wriggle out of what was plainly written. So to answer you question–it has EVERYTHING to do with what the Scripture says.

Hi Tom,

The facts of Scripture show that “the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church”, Eph 5.

It is a fact that the Bible says, in Eph 5, that the husband is the head of the wife. The question is though, what did Paul mean when he wrote that statement?
The context of Ephesians 5 is going to support what Paul meant by saying that the husband is the head of the wife, and the context is the best evidence available for what he meant.
When I look at the context, I see that the initial definition given to “head” that is provided by Paul, is in the same verse that the term is first used, v23 – 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. How then is Christ defined as “head” by Paul?
Paul defines Christ as “head” to mean “savior.” It’s right there in v23. So what I see is that Christ as head was a servant to the Church, giving himself up completely to the point of death, therefore the husband is the servant of his wife as Christ was servant to the Church. Do you see Christ’s sacrifice as a position of servanthood?
So when I begin to formulate my idea of what “head” means according to the context, I’m going to begin with v23 – how Paul defines Christ as “head” of the Church.
My question is to you is, where do you begin with the context to define Paul’s use of the term “head?”

OK, lets look at the flow of the passage:

Ephesians 5: 22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

NOTE THAT SUBMISSION BOTH PRECEDES AND FOLLOWS HEADSHIP IN THIS SCRIPTURE!! How much more plain must God be?

The scripture plainly links submission to headship in this passage.

In another passage dealing with headship, along with the original issue of this post which was “covering”:

NRS 1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ. 4 Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head disgraces his head, 5 but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head– it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. 7 For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man. 8 Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. 10 For this reason a woman ought to have [a symbol] of authority on her head, because of the angels.

The New Revised Standard does the best job of literally translating the phrases that are commonly all rendered “covering”. Note that at the beginning in verse 3 we have the headship. And at the end the woman is to have–literally–“authority on her head”. Headship and authority are tied together.

God is the head of Christ. What qualified Jesus to be our Savior, the spotless Lamb of God? Complete, perfect OBEDIENCE to the Father. In fact, it is the one thing he learned: “KJV Hebrews 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered”. He said, “I do always those things I see with my Father”, and again, “NIV John 12:49 For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it”, and again, “KJV John 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me”

Christ is the head of the male. And what must we men do? To be led by Him. To be obedient to Him. To no do our will, but His. We are directly answerable to Jesus–especially for the way we treat those women of whom we are the head, as we are commanded in that very passage in Ephesians–“husbands, love your wives”.

However, back to the original subject of the post–the male is NOT the “covering” for the female. And he is NOT the “priest of the home”. He IS the head of the woman, he IS the boss of the home. But he had better use that authority under submission to his head, the Lord Jesus. We males need to consider the qualification for bishops in Titus, “not self willed, not soon angry”. And that’s just for starters. Take a look at the list of requirements for being a male who acts acceptably in the sight of God, in Timothy and Titus. Isn’t it interesting how much longer they are than the “lady lists” in Titus, Ephesians, and elsewhere? In fact its the same in Ephesians–the weight of responsibility for godly living lies heavily upon the one in authority–“to whom much is given, much is required”.

Don’t let the abuse of power define how the Bible is intepreted. In fact, don’t let the abuse of any doctrine lead you away from it. Satan is constantly perverting what is good, and often is successful in giving what is good a bad name. NKJ Romans 2:24 For “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you,” as it is written.

Tom,
I don’t have time to answer your comments as I am on the road, however your premise is faulty from the get-go. You cannot start from verse 22 since the word “submit” is not found in this verse. You are required to at least go back to verse 21 where mutual submission is mandated one to another.

Tom: “How much more plain must God be?”

God is plain on a lot of things. His overall themes and commands are clear and understandable.

The problem comes when men put their fingerprints all over God’s Word, smearing and muddying and sometimes even changing the meaning, then calling those changes God’s will or God’s preference, or even God’s laws.

First of all, your scholarship is shallow and you are showing a very judgmental attitude toward the translators. It borders on bigotry, I suggest you check your heart before the Lord.

FYI the verse 22 DOES have the word “submit” (upotasso) in it. Only two manuscripts–P46 and B have upotasso left out. “Submit (upotasso) IS in thousands of manuscripts, including Aleph, A, D, F, G, I, K, P, Psi, the Uncials, the Byzantine; ancient translations into Italic, Syriac, Georgian, and Slavic; and ancient quotations by Chysostom, Origen, Basil, Theodore, Ambrosiaster, Ambrose, Jerome, Pelagius, and Augustine (not to mention Ignatius, in the Epistle to the Philadelphians, chap IV). Why did the editors of the NA27 Greek text leave it out? If there’s a bias in this issue, it would seem to be one that wishes to avoid the submission of women to men as taught in this verse. The only major translation that seems to follow the NA27 at this point is the New American Standard. All the others–and rightfully so, given the manuscript evidence–follow vast majority of the manuscripts, and the critical editions such as the Majority Text, Stephanus, Scrivener, and render the verse, “wives, to your own husbands submit, as to the Lord”.

Second, in verse 24 of Ephesians, “submit” is in ALL the manuscripts, and thus in all the translations.

Third the “submitting one to another” is defined by the rest of the passage, and the rest of the New Testament. Please remember that parents/children and masters/servants are included in this passage. In these relationships we also find authority/obedience. The “mutual submission” works according to the various relationships God has ordained. Parents “submit” to their children’s needs by raising them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Children submit to the parents by obedience. Servants “submit” to their masters by offering them not only an outward obedience, but also obedience that is from the heart. And 1 Peter shows us that the submission to authority is especially important when the authority is “froward”, harsh, or unreasonable–

“NKJ 1 Peter 2:18 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh. 19 For this is commendable, if because of conscience toward God one endures grief, suffering wrongfully. 20 For what credit is it if, when you are beaten for your faults, you take it patiently? But when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God. 21 For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps:”

Not a very American concept, but there it is–it is suffering patiently under unjust authority that really brings reward. We Americans are so lusting after having no authority! Yet, look where reward in the Kingdom comes–from patient suffering under unjust authority! Perhaps we should consider the Scripture, “and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection”, and again, “if we suffer, we shall also reign with him”.

Thus, to return to Eph 5, the “mutual submission” applies to both the authoritative and submissive roles of the various relationship.

Now, as to the remark about letting the words of Paul be over those of Jesus–this demonstrates unbelief in the Scriptures, for it is written in 1 Corinthians 14: “If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things I write are the commandments of the Lord”. Paul got none of his teachings from men, as we are taught in Galatians–he got it straight from Jesus. In Thessalonians, it is written, “if any man obey not our word in this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him”. When you read the Epistles, you ARE reading Jesus’ words!

When it comes to the teaching of submission and the Lord Jesus, please note that the one thing Jesus learned was obedience, as it says in Hebrews. Note also that Jesus was subject to his earthly parents: NKJ Luke 2:51 “Then He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them”. This was part of perfectly fulfilling the Law of Moses. But the command is repeated in Eph 5, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord”. So Jesus showed perfect obedience to his head, the Father, as well as to the man and woman who were his earthly parents. The Church is obedient to Christ, and so (as Ephesians so plainly says) ought the wives be to their husbands.

Again, I strongly urge you to do a heart check in your attitude toward men (and women) who stand for what the Scriptures say about the authority of males in the family and in the Church.Grace and peace be with you, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior.

Tom, I do not have time to answer your accusations right now as we are headed for my son’s wedding. I am going to put you on moderation for the time being because you cannot come onto my blog and charge us with bigotry. You can continue to comment here, but your comments will be moderated until I have the time to deal with your accusations.
While you are on moderation, I suggest you look for a Scripture that tells a husband to take authority over his wife. The Scripture never once says that a husband has authority over his wife except in an area where she also has equal authority over his body. Perhaps you can search the Scriptures for such stated authority while you search your heart. Iwill get back toyou as soon as I can. It is an extremely busy time for me as I am working on a new DVD project due out a the end of 2012.

Tom,
This might be the time for me to do another post on the Eph 5:21, 22 issue. I haven’t had time to do a post for quite some time, but when we get back from vacation, I may just do another post on this issue and deal with the challenges that have been given us in a full post rather than just in the comment section. Hopefully I will remember to link to the post here so that anyone following up will be able to reference it.

I am dealing with the issue of a balanced view of the Sovereignty of God in my next DVD so it is a heavy subject and needs a lot of my attention. I also have a post that needs to be written about the digital direction that our ministry is heading towards that will be of interest to those who follow my blog,, so hopefully I can get both of these posts up within the next few weeks.

Tom,

The scripture plainly links submission to headship in this passage.

In a context of mutual submission (v21), the wife as the body is to submit to her husband, and the husband as the head is to be servant to his wife, which is a deeper form of submission (v23). So the link made from mutual submission (v21) to the husband as “head” of the wife (v23) is that the husband is to be a servant for the wife as Christ was for the Church. The servant in this passage is not the wife, it’s Christ and the husband.

I meant to quote Tom in the first line.

Tom,

NOTE THAT SUBMISSION BOTH PRECEDES AND FOLLOWS HEADSHIP IN THIS SCRIPTURE!! How much more plain must God be?

24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Since the title “Christ” refers to Jesus’ human nature, (and not his divine nature, the husband is not compared to God who has authority) in what way then does the Church submit to him? In what way does the Church submit to his humanity or flesh? The Church submits by accepting his death on the cross, it submits to his service, it submits to his sacrifice for her, which is what the husband as “head” is to do for the wife. He is to sacrifice himself for her as Christ did for the Church. The wife isn’t called to submit to the husband’s authority (though the husband had civil authority in Paul’s day) and she isn’t called to submit to his spiritual authority, and in which case he is never given any within the passage.
I’ve only ever seen two reasons given by comps for supporting the notion that “head” means to have “authority over” when looking to the text itself. The first is the wife’s submission, and the second the belief that the husband is compared to God. And comps never can provide support that deals directly with the husband himself, and we have to wonder why? The wife’s submission can’t count since her service is the same rendered to other Christians and within a context that is mutual. And the husband is not compared to God, that would be a lie. So then, the idea that the husband is in authority over the wife is just a fairy tale. And I’m not big on fairy tales, personaly.

The Scripture says to the first woman, “your desire shall be to you husband, and he shall rul over you”, Genesis.

Tom, here we are again. What does this mean?
Eve’s nature was still intact as perfect when God said this to her. There is no evidence that her nature had changed into a rebellious one, as had Adam’s, which there is evidence for. Her desire then for her husband resting with the evidence remains within her “good nature” and Adam’s desire to rule his wife within his spoiled nature. In spite of her desire for her husband, he shall rule her.
Ofcourse to you Eve’s desire probably has something to do evil or rebellion, and if that is the case, you are required to provide the evidence of this rebellious nature of hers. As far as spoiled Adam ruling Eve, it’s sensless to try to make anything good out of it. He was a rebel end of story, and you no doubt follow in his foot steps since you believe that wives are to be ruled. God simply as day is light and night dark, didn’t tell Adam to rule his wife, not in Gen 1, 2 or 3. He informed Eve of her new circumstance. So, to your Genesis statement – so what?

Cheryl,

I think you should carefully consider what I said. Because the attitude displayed toward those who have faithfully translated the Scriptures was so harsh, so stereotyping, and so based in an ignorance of the facts at hand, that it is not at all unwarranted to suggest bigotry. Perhaps you are so convinced of your point of view that you do not see the unloving attitude you and others posting on this blog have toward those who sincerely take the Scripture at face value in this area. Like many of the issues which divide the Church, it is those who insist on adding to the plain statements of Scripture who are the source and continuance of division. That is what Catholicism is–additions to the Word. That is what Calvinism is–additions to the Scripture. That is what Pentecostalism is–additions to Scripture. The list includes all the denominations. You boil it down, they almost all have some areas where they are sticking the Word of God as-is, but at least some area they insist on adding to it. Your version of God’s teaching on women is the same. You have to add to, interpret, appeal to “cultural matters”, get into the “intent of the human author” etc, etc, etc. Rather than the plain statements of Scriptures. Such as, “As the Church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything”; and “I suffer not a woman to teach nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence”; and “Let your women learn in silence with all subjection…and if they will ask anything, let them ask their husbands at home”. Etc.

For someone to take these at face value should not be greeted with the–yes, bigoted–reaction I find here. You really need to take a heart check. Can you not see that the motives of someone who has been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, and who has given himself totally to God, forsaking all, to have a bad motive for simply wanting to believe and practice the Scripture as-is? THAT is what some of the writers on this blog need to consider, and why I really think you should consider your heart attitude–because you are so confident you know the heart motive of a whole class of people. And THAT IS the definition of bigotry. I mean, think about it: what makes for racial bigotry? Its when one racial group views all others of another racial group in a negative way, without knowing them. You know, statements that reveal bigotry a such as: “all whites are greedy”, “all Japanese are bloodthirsty”, “the only good Indian is a dead Indian”, “all blacks are lazy”, etc. So what is the difference between these kinds of statements and “anyone who believes woman should be subject to man in the family and in the Church is just a power freak?” Which is the attitude you portray.

I love God. I am just a miserable sinner saved by grace. My life is not my own. His Word is to be obeyed. If he had said, “Men shall submit to women in the Church and not teach”, I would delight in doing that for my Lord. If He had said, “it is a shame for a man to pray uncovered”, I would delight in wearing a covering for my Lord, delight in displaying my obedience to him, unashamed, for all to see. Had He said, “Husbands, submit to your wives in everything”, I would joy that I can serve the One who shed his blood for me and bought me, by dedicating my life to obeying my King by submitting to my husband. If He said to be silent in the meetings of the Church, and I knew the daughters of Philip prophesied, I would be open to the Holy Spirit using me anywhere He would that He has not specifically told me I must not, and I would be confident His power will be all the more displayed as I walk in love and obedience!

As a man, I follow my Lord’s command, running my home according to His word, teaching according to His Word.

Please examine your heart. You do not know the motives of the people you are talking about, I am confident of that. And I KNOW that your analysis of me as one of those is not true. And I KNOW that you have spoken in ignorance of at least one specific point (the manuscript evidence for “submit” in that verse of Ephesians 5). Something is amiss.

Be you a true sister in Christ: grace, mercy and peace be with you, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior.

Tom

Pinklight:

It doesn’t have anything to do with whether Eve’s nature changed. That is because the Bible does not say that. It just says, the husband shall rule. Then, in the New Testament, the passages about submission and covering refere to 1. the order of creation, 2. the woman being deceived and in the transgression. That’s all God has told us. See?–what we have to do is not go beyond Scripture and start arguing over surmises and speculations and reading between the lines. Just, “What has my Lord said?”

Scott had written on my blog post from its other location: “Nope, Cheryl. You wrote, ” mutual submission is mandated one to another.” That’s from v. 21 (Ephesians 5) but instructions specifically for husband and wife don’t start until after that verse. How could God command mutual submission and then command the wife to submit to the husband?

The man is an umbrella”

Verse 21 sets the foundation for what comes later. In fact it sets the foundation for all of us. No one in the body of Christ is exempt from submitting “one to the other” (mutuality) Even Christ, the greatest Man that ever lived, submitted to serve the disciples, including Judas, by washing their feet. We are to have this attitude within ourselves.

So while husbands and wives are specific kinds of people within the body of Christ, just as slaves and masters are differing, all are commanded to submit out of our reverence for Christ, because in the body, we are all equal. They are no parts that are better or less. All are to serve one another in love as Christ served us in love.

That sounds good. Thanks, Cheryl. -Scott

Cheryl,

Hi Scott,

I don’t think we have a similar message. Submission is very important as a Christian virtue, and it is to be reciprocal “one to another”, men are not set up as a spiritual protection for women as if women need umbrellas. Rather the moral obligation is to anyone who has knowledge that can protect another from the lie, to share their knowledge freely so that God’s truth will protect us all.

Wait a second, Cheryl. You wrote, “men are not set up as a spiritual protection for women as if women need umbrellas.”

If that is the truth, then why does God say that “the man is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church”?

Scott,
The term “head” in the Greek does not carry the meaning of “spiritual protection”. Let me ask you a question, is God the Father the spiritual protection of Christ right now? If you answer yes, can you tell me why Jesus needs spiritual protection?

God is Christ’s father. Does that mean he protects Christ spiritually? I would imagine yes, just as I desire to protect my child. Does my son need it? Why is that your question? It is my obligation to do so.

You say “head” does not denote “protection”. We see a consistent teaching of Paul of subjection of the wife to the husband. No doubt headship refers to authority; do we agree on that?

The obligation is for any Christian who has knowledge to protect those who are vulnerable and without knowledge. Adam had an obligation to protect Eve because he was not deceived. If Eve was the one who was not deceived, then she would have had the obligation to protect Adam.

Is Christ in Heaven being protected spiritually by His Father? Or are they equals neither one of them needing protection in Heaven?

As far as Paul’s writings, there is a consistent teaching that the body of Christ belongs the “one anthers”. Love one another, submit to one another, prefer one another. It is reciprocal and wives are not excepted from the “one anothers”.

As I said there is nothing that defines the “head” to a determined position of authority. While God will always be the beginning of the humanity of Christ, the Father does not take authority over the Son and in Heaven the Father and the Son are equals.

If you disagree, please show where the Father takes authority over the Son if “head” means authority over?

Hold on. “Adam had an obligation to protect Eve because he was not deceived.” Are you saying his obligation to protect Eve was not based on his relationship to/with her? In other words, if there were fifty other humans around (just for illustration- I realize there was only two at that time), then would Adam have had the same obligation to protect all of them, in the same way?

Are the Father and Son equal? Yes and no. The answer is both.

A wife is obligatied to submit to all others in the body, as is the man. A wife also has an
obligation to submit to her husband- how else would God command it?

I’m OK with backing off of the your last point about authority, because I think it strays from my main argument, which is that the wife has an obligation to submit to her husband. If we disagree on that, let’s just part ways amicably instead of tossing scripture and/or doctrine at each other.

Scott you said:

Hold on. “Adam had an obligation to protect Eve because he was not deceived.” Are you saying his obligation to protect Eve was not based on his relationship to/with her?

The Bible specifically says that Adam was not deceived. The Bible also shows that Adam was there while his wife was talking with the deceiver. The Bible also shows that we have an obligation to use the knowledge that we have been given for the benefit of our brother. Adam had an obligation to protect Eve because she was in the state of deception. In that state she was making a terrible choice which was determined by a lie. Adam failed Eve because he had the truth and he didn’t allow that truth to be used for her good.

The Bible never says that the man is the spiritual protector of the woman. In fact in many cases the woman has more knowledge than the man and she then has an obligation not to fail to give out the truth.

Would Adam have had the obligation to protect all 50 people if all 50 of them were deceived like his wife was? Absolutely! There is a great responsibility that comes with knowing the truth. We cannot leave our brother who has been taken captive by the enemy and when we are with knowledge as watchmen on the wall, stay silent and let them be led away to their death. God does hold us responsible.

Are the Father and the Son equal in their Deity? If not where is the defect in the Son in Heaven that requires Him to need protection?

You said:

A wife is obligatied to submit to all others in the body, as is the man. A wife also has an
obligation to submit to her husband- how else would God command it?

The bible is clear that submission is reciprocal, meaning going both ways, not just one way. A woman, a slave and a child would be told that they too need to submit. Yes, the gospel frees them and a slave, for example, has just as much authority in Christ as his master has, but Christ’s example is that even the greatest should act in humility and in submission to the need of the lesser. The best way to show love, is to submit to one another, preferring one another and treating the other with true humility and love. The one who refuses to submit shows a disregard for Christ and a failure to understand that submission and humility are Christian virtues, not virtues of women alone.

Agreed, Adam failed Eve.

Surely you, Cheryl, will defend your own child before you would defend ten others who are not “your own”. That is seen in nature and common sense.

I believe that God the Father and Jesus the Son are equal yet also not equal. For goodness sakes, there are two simultaneous realtionships there. One of a son to a father, the other as Jesus said, “I and the Father are on.” If you can’t get that, then you don’t get that. No further argument because we’ll just go round and round.

“The best way to show love, is to submit to one another, preferring one another and treating the other with true humility and love.” I agree, but there still has to be a head- a final decision maker. Do you agree? Howelse will the buck stop somewhere? How else could any organization be run effectively? Multiple equal leaders don’t work.

Mutual submission is in the bible and it is written before specific instructions given more the marraige relationship.

You, with your website or your endeavors, do you not have the final say?

Perhaps you see me as the male chauvinist fighting to prove that “he gets the last say”. Seems I’ve read that if a woman is truly comfortable in her femininity, she has no problem with the idea. Because for a man, it carries quite a responsiblity as well. Whatever happened to the man as hero, provider, nurturer, hunter/gatherer, lover, buck-stops-here male leader?

Scott,

I will spiritually defend my own and at the same time defend any who are placed in my influence. I would never want to see someone die spiritually because I didn’t care for them…that they were not worthy of me defending them because they were not my own flesh and blood.

You said:

I believe that God the Father and Jesus the Son are equal yet also not equal. For goodness sakes, there are two simultaneous realtionships there. One of a son to a father, the other as Jesus said, “I and the Father are on.”

There is nothing in Trinitarian doctrine that says that God the Father and God the Son are not equal. They are not the same person, but they are One God. I was specifically asking you questions about Jesus in Heaven so as not to confuse the temporary limitation of Jesus while He was here on the earth. Do you believe that Jesus is under the protection of His Father in Heaven. If so what Jesus Jesus have to be protected?

You said:

I agree, but there still has to be a head- a final decision maker. Do you agree? Howelse will the buck stop somewhere? How else could any organization be run effectively? Multiple equal leaders don’t work.

The Greek term for “head” does not mean “final decision maker”. A marriage is not an organization and when husband and wife disagree and one has not chosen to submit for the benefit of the other, it is an opportunity to come before the Lord to help them make a proper and godly decision without going against the will of the other. If one takes authority over the other’s will, it is a road map for abuse and resentment. God created the man and woman as equals and He told them both to rule over His earth. He never told the man to rule over his wife.

You said:

Mutual submission is in the bible and it is written before specific instructions given more the marraige relationship.

I agree that Ephesians 5 sets up reciprocal (both ways) mutual submission. So what is your point? Does this exempt the man from following God’s way and in loving giving his wife mutual respect and mutual submission?

You asked:

You, with your website or your endeavors, do you not have the final say?

And a web site is a marriage???

Scott,

You said:

Perhaps you see me as the male chauvinist fighting to prove that “he gets the last say”.

That isn’t my thought at all.

You said:

Seems I’ve read that if a woman is truly comfortable in her femininity, she has no problem with the idea. Because for a man, it carries quite a responsiblity as well. Whatever happened to the man as hero, provider, nurturer, hunter/gatherer, lover, buck-stops-here male leader?

Femininity is not an excuse not to be responsible. In years gone by, women were expected to forego education so that the man could carry all of the responsibility. But in Christianity, we are all called to be warriors for the Lord and all called to study to show ourselves approved unto the Lord a workman that does not need to be ashamed. Women now realize that we must take responsibility for our own learning as we will all give account to God individually. No man will give an excuse to God for me. Being female is not an excuse to be a fully committed disciple of Jesus, and to use the gifts and abilities that He has given me for the common good. I have learned that I am not to be prejudiced in regards to a man or a woman when I share what God has given me. It is all about responsibility and faithfulness. And the buck stops with me with my own responsibility and faithfulness.

You asked me, “Do you believe that Jesus is under the protection of His Father in Heaven.” My answer is I don’t know.

Scott,
Your answer is puzzling. There is nothing in the Scriptures that show Jesus in Heaven is less than Almighty God, and fully capable of executing God’s judgment. No one can stand up to Him and every knee will bow to Him of those who are in heaven, on earth and under the earth.

It seems to me that your answer shows a lack of understanding of the power and authority of Jesus. I wonder if your view of the kingship of men and the subjection of women has tainted your view of the Almighty nature of God.

Covering has nothing to do with control. If I take shelter in my car from the rain, my car does not suddenly control me.

God the Father and God the Son, while equal, have different roles and one role is superior to the other – like men and women!

Jesus said “The Father is greater than me”. He spoke that while on earty but l think that it will be that way in eternity as well.

The Word says that Jesus has put all his enemies under his feet he will turn the kingdom over to the father so that God may be all in all. Jesus destroys the enemies and then hands the lead position over to the Father.

Who gave him the authority in the first place? Jesus answers that: “All authority in Heavn and on Earth has been GIVEN to me.” Given by Whom? The Father.

All authority belongs to Father who had given it to Jesus to carry out a mission and will then receive it back again for eternity.

What think ye?

Scott,
The only “covering” that a woman, or a man needs, is the covering of God. No mere human being can be our covering.

As far as God the Son there is no superior “role” of one over the other. Who had the “role” of Creator? Who had the “role” of Savior? There is not just one Person of the Trinity who fit the one “role”.

As far as the Father being “greater” than the Son, this must be kept in its context or we find ourselves in the camp with the JW’s and other cults. Jesus said this while He was in His position of humility on earth after He had limited Himself, and humbled Himself to come to earth. Nowhere does Jesus the exalted man after His resurrection ever say that the Father is “greater” than He is. You said that you “think” that the Father will be “greater” than the Son in eternity. Can you quote such a verse that says this?

The Bible does not say that Jesus hands over the “lead position” to the Father. It says He hands over the “kingdom”. But this in no way means that the kingdom no longer belongs to Jesus for the bible says that of His kingdom there will be no end. See Luke 1:33 and Isaiah 9:7.

Yes the Father gave authority to Jesus while he was in His humbled position on earth, BECAUSE he had gave everything up to live as a man. Note that ALL authority in Heaven and on earth was given to Jesus. No SOME authority.

So where does the Bible say that the Father had no authority while He gave Jesus ALL authority? And where does the Bible say that Jesus will have no authority in the end or where does it say that Jesus gives His authority back to the Father?

I think you will better understand the faulty position that makes Jesus in some way less than the Father and having less authority than the Father, by watching my DVD “The Trinity Eternity Past to Eternity Future, Explaining Truth Exposing Error” Parts 2 and 3 involve the future of the Son and where His limitations regarding His humanity compare to His position in the Trinity. The DVD set can be purchased on Amazon.com here

No Cheryl, the only covering that YOU need is the covering of God. No mere human being can be YOUR covering. That is your choice in this life,

I am my wife’s covering and I know the security and warmth it brings to her. Like a soft blanket.

You’re missing out, sister.

Psalm 146:3

As for you, please give me the Scripture that tells a woman that her husband is to be her covering. If you cannot give a verse that says this, can you explain why you have a doctrine without biblical support?

I can’t prove this, just as I can’t prove God is real. But I know in my heart He is.

I choose to believe, without biblical proof, that God has given me the responsibilty to cover my wife with a love so strong and pure that she can grow and trust and flourish as the woman God would have her be. It is an annointed spiritual role, and my wife is thankful that I see it that way. And it’s something my son will take with him, which she is also thankful for.

An ancient Hebraic wedding custom included a robe or shawl that a groom placed around the shoulders of his bride signifying she has come under his covenant covering of protection, and spiritual, physical, emotional, and material care.

Verses that help me:
Proverbs. There are..four things that I don’t understand…how a man loves a woman.

Song: Place me like a seal over your heart…for love is as strong as death.

In the beginning, God placed the woman under the protective covering of her husband and took responsibility away from her placing it on the man, because it was the woman
who had been deceived. [Genesis 3:1-13, 16, 1 Timothy 2:14]

The only command God gave to the woman is to submit to the authority of her husband. [Ephesians 2:22-24, Colossians 3:18, 1 Peter 3:1-6] The command to the husband is to be responsible for his wife in a loving and cherishing role.

It works for us.

Cheryl, it’s been good talking with you. Stand your ground on this issue while I go cover my wife.

Reading this argument is liking watching Republicans and Democrats argue if government should be all powerful or just very powerful. As an aspiring patriarch I can assure you that none of us support our positions on the idea that the Garden of Eden was a “normative” experience that should inform the roles of husbands and wives. This whole “covering” debate is equally silly. It is not in the Bible. What is in the Bible is far more powerful and scary than men being an umbrella.

So stop debating nothings. If you want to have this debate start in Numbers chapter 30. You are probably both familiar with it and ignoring it because it is so crystal clear and its implications are seismic for both sexes.

Scott, you sir are neither well informed on your topic nor qualified to debate it. You should study to show yourself approved. You have done a disservice to the Gospel with your weak words.

Cheryl, you know what you are and what you’re doing. You are the woman with the haughty eyes and you are tearing your house down around you simply out of spite.

The rest of you women out there who have piped in on this absurd thread, the Bible is clear. If you don’t want to be subject to a husband, then don’t get married. You have that right. If you want to be focused on spiritual things then you are to remain a virgin and devote yourself to God. If you choose to marry then God has ceded a portion of His authority to your husband. Deal with it. Remember that if God is not capable of writing and editing a book clearly and accurately then He is definitely not capable of saving your soul or creating the universe with the brush of His mind.

If you do want to throw out vast sections of scripture to craft a world of your own to live in, please remember that the men in your lives may feel free to do the same and by losing the responsibilities of submission you may also the lose the protections of the prohibitions against adultery, anger and violence and even marriage itself. Because why would any man submit himself to rules you have edited yourselves when with a little more editing he could completely free himself of any obligation to you? Do you honestly think that if men had written those rules with the intention of being self serving that they would have included restrictions on our own sexual freedoms? You should count yourselves blessed that you don’t believe in a faith written by men, those are very ugly, dangerous places to be women.

I now proudly go to join Tom in perpetual moderation.

Zec,

The fact that you do not use the creation account of God’s intention for male and female in both their job descriptions as “ruler” and for marriage is quite revealing. To disregard creation is unwise.

You said:

Cheryl, you know what you are and what you’re doing. You are the woman with the haughty eyes and you are tearing your house down around you simply out of spite.

You apparently have not read my blog through and you are making an ad hominem attack against me which is also not wise since you cannot read my heart or my thoughts.

There is no New Testament passage that gives authority to the husband over a wife, where equal authority is not given to the wife over her husband’s body.

As far as Tom being in “perpetual moderation”, I intend to take his comments out when I have the time to give a deep answer to his accusations. I always strive to do the very best that I can with the text and the last year the project I was working on was far more important although I have started on the answer to Tom. I do hope to release the full answer as I am able to with my current fight against cancer and going through chemotherapy.

Zec,

Blow it out your behind, eh?

Scott

Zec,

I apologize for my immature response. Thank you for giving me something in order to re-evaluate my position.

Scott

Thank you, Zec, for challenging me to know the scriptures better.

I believe semantics can through things off track. Here are my favs from all comments:

Ryan wrote, “I believe a husband has been given full authority IN THE NAME OF YESHUA to protect his wife from all…”

Tom wrote, “Christ is the head of the male. And what must we men do? To be led by Him. To be obedient to Him. To no do our will, but His. We are directly answerable to Jesus–especially for the way we treat those women of whom we are the head, as we are commanded in that very passage in Ephesians–”husbands, love your wives”.”

and, “Take a look at the list of requirements for being a male who acts acceptably in the sight of God, in Timothy and Titus. Isn’t it interesting how much longer they are than the “lady lists” in Titus, Ephesians, and elsewhere? In fact its the same in Ephesians–the weight of responsibility for godly living lies heavily upon the one in authority”

Christian Wife/Mom wrote, “I think Christian males and females need to stop worrying about who needs to do what and just love and serve each other. My husband and I have been doing that for 20 years, and we are happily married. We don\’t get bogged down with rules, except to “love one another,” and to love God with all our heart, soul and mind.”

Where the rubber meets the road is proably right inside folk’s homes. Take a peek into mine: in times past I attempted to throw the good book at my wife and the results were disatrous. Over the years I have learned (am learning) to be more patient, accepting, forgiving of her; more loving to her. So in turn our relationship has gotten better and better and better.

I want to thank everyone for their comments. I have learned a great deal from this post. I am dealing with a extremely difficult transition in life and this has shed much light on the matter.

Welcome to my blog, Denise! I am so happy that you have been helped by what you found on this blog. May the Lord richly bless you!

A comment was placed on my old blog by Castro Skinner. I will answer below in a new comment.

Castro Skinner wrote;

Women know that God placed a man over you to provide and protect. That’s God gift and don’t let other take that from you becaus they want to be in command. God created an order God man and woman. Just as Christ and the church. Order! That’s what wrong with the world no order, we become so smart that we become blind to the truth.

Women have only one Lord. In the beginning man was not placed OVER a woman but both were given the task of ruling the world. Both go directly to the one Lord and He is the provider and protector of both men and women.

Created order does not equal hierarchy. If that were true, then the animals would be “over” humans, yet we see the opposite. If one wants to use a created order argument, then woman would actually rule over man. But there was no hierarchy in the garden. Hierarchy was introduced along with sin. “He will rule over you” is an ungodly consequence of the fall. not a godly mandated “order” of things. We see male dominance manifested throughout human history, proving God’s prediction of the consequences of sin.

Paul presents an antidote for the human condition in Ephesians 5, calling for mutual submission manifested through love and respect. There is no hierarchy present in Paul’s head/body metaphor – although hierarchy is read into the text by those who do not want to give up their power.

The only teaching passage that might suggest a hierarchy is 1 Cor 11, but that too is a biased misinterpretation. Cheryl has successfully rebutted the notion that this teaching deals with a God ordained “order” in either human relationships or the church.

I’d be curious to know the biblical basis for Castro’s assertions (although I can probably make a pretty good guess). Specifically, where in the text is it stated that “God placed a man over you to provide and protect”?

Thank you, Cheryl. Im trying to work out my understanding on this topic, myself.

I’ve a friend who’s a husband that tends to believe along the lines of what you’re saying here. But he’s unsure now because His wife actually demands that he be her covering. If a serious disagreement arises, there is an exchange of angry words and tones at first. From what I see, it’s nearly always he that chooses to put aside his anger first. When he asks that they calm down and talk together, I’ve watched her refuse with the following awkward and very shocking response:

“You are supposed to be my covering. That isnt possible until you restore the covering!”

This seems like total hypocrisy either way you slice it. Although he does get angry and speak harshly at times, he also calms down, apologizes, and requests they talk together. However, she stays rude, nasty, and disrespectful in her words, tone, and mannerisms. She remains unwilling to talk things out and baffles him with her request for this mysterious “covering” which he doesnt understand. All in all, it appears very childish.

If it’s true that her husband is to be her covering, then the other half of that teaching is also true, and she’d need to get back under “submission” so as to be “covered”. In which case she should honor her husband request to talk it out. In witholding kindness and mature behavior as a ransom for his providing a “covering” – isnt she stepping into a role of control, herself – an assertive and manipulative kind – and therefore stepping out of the covering he is actually trying to provide by calling for a truce and conversation?

On the other hand, if this is incorrect, and her covering is Christ-alone, wont He continue to hold her-alone directly responsible for her immature and manipulative behavior, rather than my friend for not “covering” it for her?

You quoted several scriptures to support your assertion that the “covering” concept is untrue. Thank you so much for that, but I was dssapointed that you didnt address what seems to me to be the highest contributing sctipture to this mindset, 1 Peter 2:25 – 3:7. These verses appear to blatantly contradict the thrust of what you’ve written here, and give thrust to a different interpretation of all the other verses you quoted.

I’m not suggesting that a husband is the wife’s “covering”. But i have been troubled about the structure of marriage for a long time. I would like to lay this issue to rest within myself, and had hoped to find the answer in this article, but I cant purposefully ignore one part of scripture while embracing another.

Can you please shed some light on how these verses ought to be interpreted in a manner that coincides with what you’ve written here?

Thank you again for your time in writing this and rwading my commwnt, and also for your much-awaited response!

Hi Hansel,

I will answer your question in a new blog post likely within a week or so. I will post the link to the new post here in the comment section. Thank you for your question and welcome to my blog.

Cheryl

Yea! New blog post. Can’t wait.

I am now widowed and still run the ministry that my late husband and I had together. I’ve things breaking in my house since he passes away and some are telling me that it is because I don’t have a spiritual covering like a pastor over me. I have no problem with leaders and leadership my heart is always to honor all people. Yet, I’m still told that I need to be under someone’s covering. I’ve read this article once and now want to read it again. I’m struggling after two women told me I needed that covering and that’s why so many traumatic things happen to me. Any additional thoughts?