Does a woman need a spiritual covering?
Oct 27th, 2009 by Cheryl Schatz
Does a woman need a spiritual “covering”?
Submission and authority are a big issue in the church today. Closely tied into the issue of authority is the teaching that women need a spiritual “covering”. Men, we are told, are to be the spiritual “covering” to provide protection and to allow the man to have the accountability. But is a human “covering” a Biblical teaching? There is no New Testament concept of a human “covering” and only one clear human “covering” in the Old Testament.
There was a tradition in the Old Testament of the kinsman redeemer who would “redeem” a widow by marrying the widow of a deceased relative.
Ruth 3:9 He said, “Who are you?” And she answered, “I am Ruth your maid. So spread your covering over your maid, for you are a close relative.”
Ruth 3:10 Then he said, “May you be blessed of the LORD, my daughter. You have shown your last kindness to be better than the first by not going after young men, whether poor or rich.
Ruth 3:11 ”Now, my daughter, do not fear. I will do for you whatever you ask, for all my people in the city know that you are a woman of excellence.
Ruth 3:12 ”Now it is true I am a close relative; however, there is a relative closer than I.
Ruth 3:13 ”Remain this night, and when morning comes, if he will redeem you, good; let him redeem you. But if he does not wish to redeem you, then I will redeem you, as the LORD lives. Lie down until morning.”
The purpose of the marriage would be the protection and support of the widow who would be lost to the family and likely made destitute because of the the death of her husband. This was a very needed help in that culture where a woman was traditionally unable to make a living for herself. But other than the kinsman redeemer in the Old Testament, there is no human “covering” spoken of in the Bible.
But what about the teaching in the church today that a woman needs a spiritual covering? The term spiritual “covering” is really spiritual “control”. The teaching is that a woman must be under a male spiritual “covering” and if she operates outside of that control she will be spiritually attacked by the devil. This is what supposedly happened to Eve. According to the spiritual covering teaching, the woman was created to be under the authority of her husband (her spiritual covering) and in apparent rebellion against her spiritual authority, she stepped outside of that authority by making a decision without the approval of her husband and this caused her downfall.
Folks, this is a fairy tale. Genesis does not say that a woman must have an authority over top of her to keep her safe as if she was created to be child-like and dependent. God did not tell Adam to rule over Eve to take control of her as her spiritual covering and God did not tell Eve to ask permission from Adam for all of her own decisions. God created both the male and the female to make godly decisions in ruling over His creation. That rulership was not created in the form of a hierarchy. God created two equals who were to rule together.
Complementarians will also state that Adam’s responsibility over Eve was shown when God came to Adam first after the fall happened. However there is no evidence at all by the words that God spoke to the man, that Adam would be held accountable for Eve’s actions. God only talked to Adam about what Adam did. God did not ask Adam to speak for Eve nor did God say that He held Adam accountable for Eve’s actions. In fact if God held Adam accountable for Eve’s sin, then God would not have approached Eve regarding her sin. Adam would have already answered for Eve if he was responsible for everything that she did.
So why did God approach Adam first? It isn’t rocket science to understand that Adam was both created first and had the most knowledge of God. We know that Adam was created first and we know that Paul tells us clearly that Adam was not deceived (1 Timothy 2:14). Why would God go to the second one created first? Why would He go first to the one who had less experience with God and who had been seriously deceived by the serpent? God’s principle is that to whomever He gives the most to, that person will have the most required from him/her. Adam was the most responsible for his own sin.
Luke 12:48 …From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.
Adam as first created and the one who saw some of the creative acts of God would obviously be the first in line to be rquired to give an account of himself. But in no way was Adam required to give an account to God for his wife. The fact that God went to Adam first does not prove that Adam had authority over Eve or that he was responsible for her sin. To reason that way would be to seriously misrepresent the Word of God.
Ask a complementarian to explain the spiritual covering of Adam over Eve in the garden and they can only add to the text instead of pulling the teaching out of the text itself. This is always what happens with a myth.
In fact this teaching of a human needing to have a spiritual “covering” has done great harm to the body of Christ through the Shepherding movement that placed everyone under a spiritual “covering”. The man who was the “covering” was called a Shepherd and the ones who were covered by that Shepherd had to clear their every decision with him. While the movement may have started with sincere desires to protect the flock, when a mere sinful human is placed in a position of complete authority over others who must obey their every word, the stage is set for controlling and abusive behavior.
Jesus dealt with the foundation of the spiritual covering movement contrasting the worldly leadership pattern with body ministry.
Matthew 20:25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them.
Matthew 20:26 ”It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant,
Matthew 20:27 and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; Matthew 20:28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
“Lording over” or “exercising authority” over others is not the way of the Master. Jesus said “It is not this way among you”. Jesus is not just condemning abusive leaders but the entire system itself. Power and authority from a top down hierarchical flow is the worldly way, while true leadership is a servanthood model based on bottom up support. Those who are the greatest, Jesus said, are to be at the bottom in a position of servanthood for the benefit of others.
In God’s kingdom, authority is based on godly character not on strength, position or rank. This is why we are all allowed to have the authority to use our gifts. Authority is in using what we have been given for the service of others (1 Peter 4:10, 11).
One of the flaws of the teaching about spiritual “covering” is that it makes the one under the covering weaker instead of stronger. We are all encouraged to grow up and to make our own decisions as we will all be ruling the world and the angels in the next life (Matthew 6:1-3). If we place ourselves under a “covering” we are relying on someone else’s wisdom instead of growing up to have our own maturity. This doesn’t mean that the wisdom of others isn’t important. We are all needed in the body of Christ and the wisdom and strength of others can really help us. However if we place ourselves under the umbrella of a “covering” and use that “covering” to make our decisions for us, we are opening ourselves up to be spiritually abused and spiritually immature. It is much easier to let someone else make all the decisions rather than go through the difficult steps to learn how to make wise decisions on our own. While children need a protector, adults should grow to the position of being able to think for themselves and be able to make wise and godly decisions on their own without having to seek approval for all that they do. Paul’s admonition in 1 Corinthians 14 is for all of us:
1 Corinthians 14:20 Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature.
Some may ask, doesn’t the Bible say that the husband is to be the woman’s head? Doesn’t this mean that her husband is to have authority over her? The picture of the “head” is always an attachment and not an authority of one over the other. The “head” is not an office nor is it a position. It is a relationship. The head is a part of the body and the body is connected to the head. If the “head” meant a “boss” or a higher rank and authority over the wife, then the terminology of lordship authority would have been used. Instead the Bible uses terms for relationship not authority. It is always head “of” not head “over”.
Lastly, Jesus said that we are all brethren in Him and only one is to be our leader and that is the Lord Jesus.
Matthew 23:8 ”But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers.
Matthew 23:9 ”Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
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”.
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.
It is time that we lay aside the fairy tales of a human spiritual “covering” and get down to our Father’s business of spreading the gospel to all of the world. In the kingdom every warrior counts and all of us are in the battle. We are to be mature, sound in judgment and practiced in wisdom and grace.
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?
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?
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,
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,
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.
Male translators translate from their own crooked hearts and prejudices against women.
http://journalofanezer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/bible-verses-corrupted-by-misogynists.html
One thing done in Ephesians five, as Cheryl pointed out, is that translators sever verse 21 from 22 thus gutting 22 of it’s verb, “submit” but then they go ahead and add to scripture by putting the word submit in verse 22 where is doesn’t occur thereby doing violence to the text.
(?emember what Revelation said about adding to God’s word? Yet men believe they are justified in doing so because they want the best seats in homes and churches.)
The traditions of men further skew the meaning when they determine that the words of Paul carry more weight in understanding God’s will and preference and purpose than the words of Jesus Christ, Himself.
They take the words of Paul and build those words on the foundation of sand of the traditions of men rather than on the bedrock of the words of Jesus Christ.
Jesus was very plain and very clear. It is men who have twisted and contorted Paul’s words to undermine what Jesus said.
Remember, Peter said that Paul was not always clear or understandable. Yet men are ready to throw the words of Jesus under the bus in order to worship and serve the words of Paul that they have interpreted after the wickedness of their own hearts.
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,
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.
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?
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. http://www.pureforapurpose.com/2012/09/the-umbrella/
This blog post has moved to http://mmoutreach.org/wim/2009/10/27/woman-need-spritual-covering/
I will answer at this link in the comments section.