Hansel Taylor

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!