A) QUESTION, PROBLEM, AND BOTTOM LINE.

B) COMPELLING PROOF.

C) TWO VITAL CONCEPTS.

D) WOMEN TEACHING.

E) HEADSHIP.

F) TO THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM.

G) GOD’S FUNDAMENTAL STRUCTURE.

H) IN CONCLUSION.

 

 

A) QUESTION, PROBLEM, AND BOTTOM LINE

 

 

Let me ask you to consider a question:  Did our Lord set up women in the role of priests in the earthly Sanctuary?  Instead of assuming my motive in asking this question, let us consider why He did not.

 

The problem, if there be one, begins with role conflicts within marital relationships, which largely stem from the different interpretations and applications of the Biblical teaching on husband-headship and wife-submission.  The very mention of the terms “headship/submission” is anathema for many in recent years.

 

Let me point out that before sin, THIS WAS NOT SO.  If we go to Genesis 5:2, we can see that our God called both of them “Adam.”  Both were equal agents.  By contrast, after sin, in order to keep order in the relationship between the sexes in a marriage, one had to ultimately make the final decisions.  And unconverted women never let their men forget about their mistakes in making that decision.  He is to listen to the suggestions of the wife, but ultimately one has to pay for that decision.
 

The bottom line, is that before Paul goes into his famous (made by us) and misunderstood “submission” of wives’ statements, as found in Ephesians, Chapter 5, verse 22 and onward, he first qualifies his further statements with the setup of both submitting to one another as found in the statement in Ephesians 5:21:  “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.”  Double check me.  Who is the one “submitting” now?  This is the Biblical ideal.  Even when we consider verse 22, “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord,” the, “as unto the Lord” seems to be forgotten, abused, or misunderstood.  Let’s try to understand it correctly; and what better example than our Lord Himself?

 

 

B) COMPELLING PROOF

 

 

First of all, the misconception that women are to be silent in Church (1Co. 14:34-35; 1Ti. 2:12), can be dispelled by seeing First Chronicles 25:5-6, where “[5] three daughters” sang in “[6] the house of the LORD.”  Also, “Anna, a prophetess,” Luke 2:36, spoke in “the Temple,” Luke 2:37.

 

That they are not to teach when men are available is a different subject.  If we go to First Corinthians 14:33, the setup for this instruction, is that it would be “confusing” if both men and women teach together.  See also verse 40.  Men and women were also to be “silent,” verse 28, if they didn’t understand something.  First Timothy 2:12 puts it in the perspective that woman were not to be primary over men.  It could also be pointed out that Timothy was having a problem with disobedient “younger widows [women]” in the Church (1Ti. 5:11-15), and this could have caused Paul’s strict instruction to Timothy about them.

 

The most compelling proof of submission of either party is the fact that this functional role exists within the Holy Trinity Itself.  The Bible tells us, ”the head of Christ is God,” First Corinthians 11:3, and that the Son Himself, “will be subjected to Him [the Father].”  If there is nothing morally wrong with the functional distinctions within the Trinity, why is it morally wrong for the functional distinctions to exist within male/female relationships?

 

Therefore, the assumption that male-headship entails superiority and female-submission inferiority, is false.  They simply have different functionality towards the same purpose, i.e., unity.  This is true in the Trinity and is also true in male/female relationships.

In the Trinity, the headship of the Father does not make the Son ontologically or functionally inferior because of His submissive role.  Christ Himself affirmed:  “I and the Father are One,” John 10:30.  In human relationship, male headship does not make women ontologically or functionally inferior because of their submissive roles either.  The reason is that we “are all one in Christ,” and consequently there is no male superiority or female inferiority (Gal. 3:28-29).

Therefore, the real issue in the debate over women’s ordination is not whether men were created superior and women inferior.  No Evangelical scholar opposed to women’s ordination holds to any type of this point of view.  Rather, the real issue is whether God created men and the women equal in nature and worth, and yet, different in function; with the man called to serve in the servant headship role and the woman in the submissive helper role.

Therefore, here is the issue:  Should women be ordained to serve in the headship role of elders or pastors in order to minister in the Church?  The answer of Scripture is abundantly clear.  Both in the Old and New Testaments, women were precluded to serve as priests, elders, or pastors, not because they are inferior or less capable than men, but because these offices entail the headship role of a spiritual father and not the supportive role of a spiritual mother.  God, in His infinite knowledge, and in His creative makeup of the sexes, knows that each function better and happier in their perspective role makeup.  We may never understand completely why God set it up this way, but the fact remains, this is how He knew it would work best for both (all) parties.

 

Therefore again, I would say to women, if their true desire (as should be the desire of all Christians) is to be Christ-like, and for them to take hold of the role in which our Lord designed them to have, then being in the supportive role is what they will find best suits their makeup; designed by God.  Here is what I would suggest to women in the long run:  “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:  Who, being in the form of [in this case, apply woman as being in the form of man] God, thought it not robbery to be equal with [then the woman not thinking she is less than a man] God:  But made Himself [but she makes of herself] of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:  And being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient. . .” Philippians 2:5-8.

To appreciate the Biblical teachings on role distinctions within marriage, and within the structure of each of the sexes, we should examine key statements as found in Genesis, Chapters 1-3, and later Paul’s interpretation of these statements.

Genesis 1:26-31 contains three key statements:

 

1) God Created mankind in His own image and likeness;

2) God Created mankind as male and female;

3) God gave mankind dominion over all the living things and power to increase and multiply, that is, to become a race.

 

Paul alludes to Genesis 1:26-27, when he writes:  “For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.”  First Corinthians 11:7.  Here Paul is not implying that woman reflects the image of God to a lesser degree than man.  The focus of his discussion is not the personal dignity or worth (ontological value) of men and women which is not inferred even in Genesis 1:26-28, but rather the headship of man in marriage and worship, which is implied in Genesis 2:18-23.  Paul refers specifically to the distinctions and operating functions of the sexes in First Corinthians 11:8-9.

 

 

C) TWO VITAL CONCEPTS

 

 

These three statements embody two vital concepts:  1) Equality in being; and 2) Differentiation in gender.

Equality is suggested by the fact that both man and woman are created in the image of God.  In Genesis 1:26-27, one should notice that “man” is mentioned twice and refers inclusively to men and women.  This is indicated first by the Hebrew word for “man” (‘adam), which can be translated equally well as “mankind, humanity,” i.e. “Let Us make mankind in Our Own image.”  The second indication is the plural “them,” which points to “man” as being a plurality consisting of both man and woman.  The fact that Genesis 1:26-27, moves back and forth three times between the singular “man” and the plural “them,” clearly indicates that the term “man” is used collectively to refer to both man and woman.

Genesis 1:27 corroborates this conclusion.  The statement, “So God created man in His Own image, in the image of God He created him,” is clarified by the following statement, “male and female He created them.”  Genesis, Chapter 1, does not say much about the roles of men and women.  It simply affirms that men and woman are equally created in the image of God, but they are sexually different. The implications of the gender distinctions are explained subsequently in the Bible, beginning with Genesis, Chapter 2.

The most important consideration, in my opinion, is the fact that God designated both male and female as “man-ha ‘adam.”  We see this again in Genesis 5:2, where the word “man” denotes both male and female (don’t miss this very important point):  “He created them male and female; at the time they were created, He blessed them and called them ‘man.’”  Therefore, God originally, as I believe now, considered and considers them one and the same, i.e., equal, i.e., “I and the Father are One,” just as husband and wife become “one.”

If any distinction between men and women is more understandable from the beginning, I know of none.  In Genesis, Chapter 2, is contained a considerable expansion on the creation of mankind.  While Genesis, Chapter One, affirms that God created mankind as male and female in His own image, Genesis, Chapter Two, elaborates on how the two sexes were created and the relationship between them.  God first created man from the dust of the ground and breathed into him the breath of life (Gen. 2:7).  He stationed man in the Garden of Eden to develop it and guard it (Gen 2:15).  He instructed man to eat of every tree except of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:16-17).  God then paraded the animals before Adam for him to name them (Gen. 2:19-20).

 

From this exercise Adam discovered that there was no creature that shared his nature (Gen. 2:20), and also that he was missing something for himself, i.e., a mate.  God, who had already planned to create for Adam a “helper fit for him,” verse 18, even before He brought the animals to Adam, now proceeded to create the woman from the rib of the man (Gen. 2:21-22).  Adam then acknowledges her as part of his own flesh and calling her “Woman” because she was taken out of Man (Gen. 2:23).  In other words, God was showing Adam, and Adam realized it, that he was not complete without the woman.

In her equality with himself, Adam perceives Eve not as a threat, but as a partner, capable of fulfilling his inner longing.  And God blesses the blissful union by stating:  “Therefore a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh,” Genesis 2:24.  These are not the “submissive” types of false statements and misconceptions that we hear of proposed in these our day.

Although the focus of the narrative is on the sameness of nature and the partnership between man and woman, within that equality and partnership there exists a clear sense of the woman’s submission to man.  The term “submission” is used here not in its negative connotation of oppression, denigration, or inferiority, but in its positive sense of depending upon one another for direction and protection of the marriage relationship.  Its purpose is to ensure unity and harmony.
 

Rather, the narrative suggests a distinction between the “headship” role of man and the “helper” role of woman.  The temporal priority of man’s creation reflects God’s plan that man should serve in a leadership role in the home and the Church.  Genesis, Chapter 2, continues to suggest that the creation of woman is the climax and culmination of the account, because in her, man found at last the “helper fit for him,” Genesis 2:20.  This is evident by Adam’s exclamation:  “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman because she was taken out of Man,” Genesis 2:23.  The movement of the narrative is indeed “from incompleteness to completeness.”  By contrast, it is Adam who experiences the completeness as a result of Eve’s creation, and not vice versa.  Not until woman feels compelled to join in union with man does she then also feel complete.

 

 

D) WOMEN TEACHING

 

Paul’s interpretation of the above event is the most decisive line of evidence that discredits any attempts to negate any headship significance to the priority of Adam’s creation.  If we did not have the internal witness of the Bible as to the meaning of the priority of Adam’s creation, then speculations would be in order.  But since we do have such a witness, subjective speculations are unnecessary.

Paul appeals to the order of the creation of Adam and Eve to justify his injunction that a woman should not be permitted “to usurp authority over the man,” First Timothy 2:12 (I’ll discuss “teach” further down).  Continuing on, he writes:  “(13) For Adam was first formed, then Eve. (14) And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”  First Timothy 2:13-14.  The temporal sequence of man/woman’s creation is strongly marked by “protos-first,” Adam, then “eita-then,” Eve.

The logic of this passage and of the parallel one in First Corinthians 11:8-9, where Paul speaks of the manner of the woman’s creation out of man and not vice versa, is abundantly clear.  Paul saw in the priority of Adam’s creation and in the manner of Eve’s creation a clear indication of the headship role God intended man to exercise in the home and in the Church.  The fact that the woman was created after man, out of man, and as his helper, meant to Paul that God intends the woman to fulfill a submissive role in relation to man. This role is violated if a woman teaches in the Church in a headship position or exercises authority over a man.

By rooting the headship/submission principle in the order and manner of creation, rather than in the consequences of the “fall,” Paul shows that he views such a principle as a creational design and not the product of the curse, presumably to be phased out by redemption.  Contrary to “Ordinationists,” who argue that headship/submission are the consequences of the “fall” (Genesis, Chapter 3), Paul grounds such a principle in the “pre-fall” order of creation, as described in Genesis, Chapter 2.

The local circumstances of the Christian congregations in Ephesus and Corinth may have provided the context of Paul’s injunction, but they do not provide the reason.  Paul’s reasoning is creational, not cultural in consideration.  This is a most important consideration that makes Paul’s injunction relevant for us today.  It is unfortunate that “Ordinationists” choose to ignore the creational reason given by Paul for not permitting a woman to teach in the Church as the head/leader of the congregation. Therefore, since Paul does provides us with an inspired interpretation of Genesis 2:21-22, it is futile to submit alternative interpretations.

We must remember that in First Corinthians 11:8, Paul defends his call for women to respect the headship of man by appealing to the manner of the woman’s creation, i.e.:  “For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.”  For Paul, the order and manner of the creation of Adam and Eve are the theological foundation of the headship/submission principle.  In Biblical thought, origin and authority are interrelated (see Col. 1:15-18).  A child must respect the authority of his/her parents, because he/she derives wisdom from them.  In Adam’s historical situation, Eve derived from him in the sense that God formed her from his body.  Thus, Adam was her “source,” and to him was due appropriate respect.  And the fact that Eve was formed from Adam as being from himself, she deserved total respect.

We must also remember that God first entrusted Adam with certain responsibilities.  He named first the animals (Gen. 2:19-20) and then the woman herself; both before and after the “fall” (Gen. 2:23; 3:20) he was entrusted with this headship authority.  By this very act of being first formed, Adam was simply exercising the leadership role assigned to him by God Himself.  By contrast, man was also instructed by God regarding the forbidden tree and was apparently held responsible for passing on the information to his wife (Gen. 2:16-17).  After the “fall,” God held man accountable for the original transgression (Gen. 3:9).  This application could only fall to Adam if he were the leader, and as such, responsible.  This is acknowledged in form even today, in that no matter what happens upon a ship at sea, even though the captain was not present for the mishap, he is held responsible.

 

In regards to “suffer not a woman to teach,” First Timothy 2:12, the Greek here for “teach” is, “didasko.”  This is the same word used for “debate,” or “usurp authority over” a man in this instance.  An example would be Acts 21:28, where “the Jews. . . stirred up all the people,” verse 27, that Paul was “usurping the authority” [“teacheth” -- “didasko”] of God’s Law, “against the people, and the Law.”  Titus 1:11 is another example of “usurping authority.”  See also Hebrews 8:11 & First John 2:27 & Revelation 2:20.

 

Therefore, the principle is that a woman should not “usurp authority” over a man in the Church.  But to not teach, when well qualified to do so, is to be ridiculous and push the text (1Ti. 2:12) beyond its meaning and intent.  It is also to be noted that in the phrase “the man,” that “the” is a definite article.  That means that “the” points at the object that it is clearly defining.  Therefore, what is “the” defining?  It is speaking of her husband, NOT THE MEN IN THE CHURCH.  That should shed some light on whether or not a woman should “teach” in Church.  Her husband is the one that she is to be “subject under” or “subject to;” the only one that her “desire is to,” thus showing that he is the head of the house.  It is NOT speaking about a Church setting here as most falsely assume.

 

Bottom line, a woman is not to “debate” with her husband publicly, nor “usurp” his “authority” in the Church or publicly.  It is not that she cannot open her mouth in the Church, or “teach” in the Church.  She just needs to discuss differences with her husband in private, at home, before “teaching” anything (especially in a Church setting).  A Godly woman will not “debate [debase]” her husband publicly; but show him respect.  Therefore, it is perfectly fitting for women to teach in the Church, especially when she is better qualified then the men in that said Church.

 

First Timothy 2:15 says that a woman “shall be saved in childbearing.”  All men know that a woman runs the house.  If a child needs a spanking, she may ask for her husband’s help.  But mostly, a woman will raise the children.  This is her “authority” if you will.  Therefore, do you not think that a woman teaching in the Church how men can better help in the raising of children (as an example)?

 

 

E) HEADSHIP

 

Another consideration that we should look at is the counsel given in First Corinthians 11:13-15.  Paul makes this statement in the context of his admonition that women should respect male headship in the Church by covering their heads according to the custom of the time.  Quickly, the woman’s head covering is here hair; not a vail.  (See also my Bible Study:  “TO VAIL OR NOT TO VAIL”).  The head covering was a custom subservient to the principle of male headship (1Co. 11:3).  And although different customs vary between different cultures, the principle of male headship is permanent, and the application principles will vary pertaining to the different cultures.
 

Bottom Line:  Would you agree that each individual in God’s family has a different role; some pastors, some evangelists, some teachers, etcetera?  If so, and you should, then so is it that the man has his role, or calling, and so it is with the woman.

Notice our Lord Himself, Who covers both the male role, and the female role.  On the one hand Christ says, ”I and the Father are one,” John 10:30, and “He who has seen Me has seen the Father,” John 14:9, while on the other hand He states, “I can do nothing on My Own authority; . . . I seek not My Own Will but the Will of Him Who sent Me,” John 5:30, along with, “the Father is greater than I,” John 14:28.  Yet Christ is fully God (John 1:1; Col. 1:15-20), while “the head of Christ is God,” 1Co. 11:3 (see also 1Co. 15:28).  Don’t forget, we are speaking of Christ’s humanity only.

Thus, the submission part of the woman brought about in Genesis, Chapter 2, is similar to the one that exists in the Godhead between the Father and the Son.  In fact, Paul appeals to the latter model to explain in what sense a husband is the head of a wife, namely, the Father God is the head of Christ (1Co. 11:3).  This is a unique kind of submission that makes one person out of two.  Man is called to be the head of a one-flesh relationship.  Thus, the TRUE submission in Scripture does not connote subservience, as commonly understood, but willing response and loving assistance. 

Our problems in understanding submissiveness came about after the fall, not before.  Christ’s humanity became submissive to the Father.  But this made Him of no less value in the Fathers eyes:  “This is My beloved Son, in Whom I Am well pleased.”  Matthew 3:17.  “This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him.”  Matthew 17:5.  If husbands would treat their wives as the Father treats the Son, and if wives would treat their husbands as Christ treats the Father, then this structure, set up by God, designed by God, and created by God, would work like that of the Godhead, as I believe it was designed to be.
 
Let’s look at what happens when our Lords designs are not followed.  In the first five verses of Genesis, Chapter 3, Satan, masquerading in the guise of the serpent, plants seeds of doubt in Eve’s mind which lead her to question the (supposed) limitation God placed on them regarding the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  The serpent pretended to disclose to Eve an important secret, namely, that by partaking of the forbidden fruit she would reach her full potential and become Divine.  Eve succumbed to the deception.  Genesis describes in a matter-of-fact way the actual acts of Adam and Eve:  “she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.”  Genesis 3:6.

What happened has significant implications.  The text clearly indicates that Eve played the leading role in taking the fruit, eating it, and giving it to her husband, who apparently joined her while the temptation was in progress.  The latter is suggested by the prepositional phrase “with her,” Hebrew, “ ‘immah,” which, as Leupold points out, “strongly suggests that at the outset, when temptation began, Adam was not with Eve but had only joined her at this time.”  My favorite Bible commentator supports this interpretation, saying that after eating the forbidden fruit Eve went in search of Adam and brought some fruit to him (Patriarchs and Prophets, page 46).

Here is my point.  Note that Adam did not take the fruit from the tree; rather, he received it from his wife who played the leading role in the “fall.”  Adam appears as just a passive onlooker who willingly lets his wife lead.   Apparently, Eve “was flattered [by the serpent] with the hope of entering a higher sphere than that which God had assigned to her,” “PP:59,” at her husband side.  Herein she usurped Adam’s headship and instead of being his helper to live as God intended, she led him into sin.  However, we know Adam took her offering out of love for her.

Thus, a careful reading of Genesis, Chapter Three, suggests that the original sin of Adam and Eve was largely due to a role reversal.  The “fall” did not originate male-headship and woman-submission, as “Ordinationists” contend, but was caused by the failure to respect these roles.  Adam failed to exercise his spiritual leadership by protecting Eve from the Serpent’s deception, and, on her part, Eve failed to respect her submissive role by staying by her husband’s side.  The tragic consequences of the first sex role reversal carry a solemn warning for Christians today who are told by the feminist propaganda that role interchangeability is a sign of human emancipation.

Here is another point to consider.  If there were no role distinctions before the “fall,” why didn’t God summon Adam and Eve to account together for their transgression?  After all, Eve had played the leading role.  Why did God call out only to Adam, “Where are you,” Genesis 3:9?  Why does Genesis 3:7 say that it was only after Adam ate of the forbidden fruit that the eyes of both were opened?  Why does Paul hold Adam responsible for the entrance of sin into this world when he writes, “Sin came into the world through one man,” Romans 5:12?  Why didn’t he say, “Sin came into the world through one woman,” or, “through the first couple?”  And why is Christ portrayed as the Second Adam and not the second Eve?

The answer to these questions is simple.  God had appointed Adam to serve in a headship role.  He bore primary responsibility for failing to exercise his spiritual leadership at the time of the temptation, just as much as a Captain of a ship is responsible for the actions of his crew, even though he himself did not perform the mishap of his ship.  Consequently, as the head of Eve and of the human family, his transgression brought sin and death to fallen humanity.

In Genesis, Chapters 2 and 3, before and after the “fall,” Adam is addressed as the one to whom God had entrusted the responsibility of spiritual leadership.  Adam received the Divine instructions not to eat of the tree of knowledge (Gen. 2:16-17).  Consequently, he was in a special way responsible for instructing Eve so that neither of them would transgress God’s Command.  The great fault of Adam in the “fall” was his failure to exercise his spiritual leadership role.  Instead of leading his wife into obedience to God’s command, he allowed his wife to lead him into disobedience.
 

By contrast, the great fault of Eve was to attempt to usurp Adam’s leadership role by straying from his side and making decisions without him (see 1Co. 14:35).  The phrase, “he shall rule over you,” Genesis 3:16, represents God’s rejection of the woman’s attempt to take on the leadership role at the time of the Fall, and His summon to the woman to return to her creation submission to man.  The story of the “fall” shows how the woman endangered herself and her husband by her bid to dominate.  God’s judgments upon the woman represent the Divine remedy to maintain the intended order of the sexes, as it appears in Genesis, Chapter 2.  The Divinely intended submission of women has nothing to do with male domination and oppression of women.  It is a beneficial arrangement designed to protect men and women from the destructive powers of evil.
 

It is interesting to note that the reason given by God for inflicting any punishment upon Adam is not “Because you have eaten of the tree which I Commanded you,” but, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I Commanded you.”  Genesis 3:17.  The point here is obvious.  Adam sinned because he listened to the voice of his wife rather than to the Command of God.  By so doing, he abdicated his headship role.

 

Notice that God issued a formal indictment only before sentencing Adam, not for Eve.  The reason is because Adam was the head, and thus ultimately responsible for the disobedience of both.  God does not place the blame on both as if both shared equal responsibility.  God says: “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife . . . cursed is the ground because of you.”  Genesis 3:17.  The “you” refers exclusively to Adam because he had been entrusted with the responsibility to serve as the spiritual and moral leader.

In conclusion, though women ministered to God’s people in a variety of vital religious roles, including that of prophet, there are no indications in Scripture that they were ever ordained to serve as priests in the Old Testament, or as pastors/elders/bishops in the OLD or New Testaments.  The reason is to be found, not in the supposed patriarchal mentality of Bible times, but in the recognition of the headship role which God appointed man; to be fulfilled in the home and in public worship.  And as discussed, the Bible implies this principle in the creation story of Genesis, Chapter 2, and upholds these principles in both the Old and New Testaments.  And women, if you notice that a man will not take responsibility or lead, don’t marry him.

 

 

F) TO THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM

 

 

Few Biblical injunctions can stir up as much emotion and controversy as the command for the wife to submit to her husband (Eph 5:22, 24; Col 3:18, 1Pe. 3:1).  At the root of the problem is the different interpretations and applications of the Biblical teaching on husband-headship and wife-submission.  The very mention of the terms “headship/submission,” is anathema for many.

 

The major passages in question are Ephesians 5:21-33. Here are verses 22-23:  “[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.”  Then we have Colossians 3:18:  “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.”  What is brought out and that should not be missed, is the manner of a wife’s submission to her husband, in that it should be similar in quality to her devotion to the Lord.  What this carries with it is that our Lord would not ask His wife to do anything that would be harmful to her.  And that will not happen if the husband follows the instruction to love the wife as much as the Lord Loves the Church.

 

Bottom Line, the reason for a wife’s submission is because our Lord designed it that way.  This meaning is suggested by the preceding and following verses.  In the preceding verse (verse 21), the reason given for being submissive is “out of reverence for Christ.”  In that verse is also brought out, in the “fear of the Lord,” which is the positive response that produces obedience to His Commandments.  Thus, submission “in the fear of Christ,” means to accept the authority of another (in this case, the husband) out of obedience to Christ Who has delegated that authority.  This interpretation is supported by the following verse (verse 23), which states, “For the husband is the head of the wife.”  That is to say, because the Lord has appointed the husband to function as the head, the wife functionally submits.  This concept is also brought out in Paul’s writings to the Ephesians.  The recognition of this fact leads Paul to conclude his exhortation by urging wives again to fear their husbands:  “Let the wife see that she respects [literally “fears,” Greek: “phobetai”] her husband,” Ephesians 5:33; the “fear” being and meaning that you would displease our Lord more than displeasing her own husband.
 

Thus, Scripture points out that a wife’s submission to her husband rests not on cultural, but on theological reasons.  Wives are asked to submit for the sake of Christ, not for the sake of social conventions, or cultural exchanges and ideas.  The ultimate conclusion is the unique relationship of the loving mutuality and willing submissiveness existing between Christ and the Church.  This is to be carried out and demonstrated to the world throughout the marital relationship as the standard and proof that God exists.

It is to be remembered however, that Paul’s exhortation is “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord,” and not “because they are the Lord.”  Thus, this does not mean that a wife is to relate to her husband as if he were Christ, but only if he is acting Christ-like.  Thus, Paul takes what could be a natural submission and places it within a spiritual order, an order that Christ stands behind.

We must remember that we are not talking about subservience, but loving assistance.  The voluntary nature of her submission is indicated by two facts:  First, by the Command to the husband to love his wife rather than to make her obey; and Second, by the model of the submission of the Church to Christ, which Paul gives as an example for the wife’s submission to her husband.  This means that as the Church, which willingly chooses to obey Christ in response to His creative and redeeming love, so the wife willingly chooses to obey the husband as a response to his caring and self-sacrificing love towards her.  And women, if the husband is not performing his duty, than neither is it in your personhood to continue to be submissive to him.  Take back your lordship; not over him, but separate from him.  He will get the message.

The understanding is that as a Christian is willing to submit ones-self to Christ in order for Christ to uplift the individual, so the wife is willing to submit herself in order to better function as a unit in support of Christian principles and values.  Again, at the root of the rejection of husband-headship, there is a gross misunderstanding of its Biblical meaning.  In the Bible, husband-headship relates to function not to value.  If male headship in the home and in the Church meant that man was innately more valuable than woman, then something would be terribly unjust with the God of the Bible.
 

It must be realized that in the exhortation, “Wives, be subject to your husbands,” it is followed by Paul’s admonition for the “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her,” Ephesians 5:25.  It is noteworthy here that Paul speaks of the headship role of the husband only when exhorting wives, and not when addressing the husbands themselves.  In other words, the wives are reminded that “the husband is the head of the wife,” Ephesians 5:23, but that husbands are not exhorted to exercise their headship role by keeping their wives in submission.  Instead, Paul chose to confront husbands with the headship model of Christ’s sacrificial love (Eph 5:25-27).  Notice, Paul speaks of “sacrificial love,” not dominance or overlordship.  Paul’s approach reveals his sensitivity to human abuse of power, which is the reason there is any adverse thoughts to our Lords order of headship in the first place.  Consequently, our Lord chose to emphasize not the husband’s right to be the head over the wife, but rather his obligation to exercise his headship through care and concern for his wife.

 

 

G) GOD’S FUNDAMENTAL STRUCTURE

 

 

In The Foundational Structure:  Paul’s explanation of the marital relationship is what God designed in the first place.  And that is, that the two were to “become one flesh,” Ephesians 5:31.  The husband is to care for his wife as he does for his own body.  The implication is that he would never do anything that would adversely affect the wellbeing of either individual in the marital relationship.  Thus, Biblical headship is for the sake of building up others and not for one’s own benefit.  And as such, the two are not superior or inferior, but complementary.  Each will supplement the special gifts and responsibilities of the other (understanding that each have their distinctive roles and that neither is of less value in that role).  “It was not the design of God,” writes My favorite Bible Commentator, “that the husband should have control, as head of the house when he himself does not submit to Christ.  He must be under the rule of Christ that he may represent the relation of Christ to the Church.”  The Adventist Home, page 117.

By virtue of creation, both men and women are equal before God because both have been created in the image of God (Gen 1:27).  Similarly, by virtue of redemption, both men and women are equal before God because, as we read in Galatians 3:28, we “are all one in Christ Jesus.”  The major reason that husband-headship is hotly contested today is that all too often women recognize that men demand submission from their wives without in turn submitting themselves to the headship of Christ.  In this sense women are correct and should not submit except where possible and in submission to Christ, which is their and their husbands’ ultimate goal (especially as “one flesh” together).  In other words, I believe one should get married in order to better serve Christ, not for one’s own reasons.
 

 

H) IN CONCLUSION

 

In conclusion, Colossians, Chapter 3, and Ephesians, Chapter 5, present the headship of the husband and the submission of the wife as an order established by God to ensure unity and harmony in the home.  By utilizing the model of Christ to His Church, Paul effectively clarifies the meaning of headship and submission in marriage.  The purpose of this clarification was not to do away with role distinctions in marriage, but rather to ensure their proper expression in accordance with God’s intended purpose.

Jesus so loved the Church that He gave up everything for her.  This is a headship of total sacrificial and unconditional love, without rights.  As a husband, the man must ask:  “Am I the kind of head who is willing to give up everything for the well-being of my wife and children?”

Should God ask the husband one day, “Did you love your wife unconditionally as I loved you?”  What is the husband going to say?  Will he argue then that he is the head over the wife with the false worlds understanding of headship?  God knows our spouse’s weaknesses as well as our own.  Yet He calls husbands to exercise a headship of love by loving their wives no matter what their weaknesses might be.  He calls husbands to exercise their headship by being first in forgiving their spouses’ mistakes, first in nurturing and building their marital relationship, first in assuming responsibility for the physical, social, emotional, and spiritual needs of their wife and their children.

That is why Paul introduces into his discussion the proper relationship between husband and wife, parents and children, servants and masters, by exhorting Christians to “be filled with the Spirit.”  Ephesians 5:18.  It is only by the enabling power of His Spirit that a husband can begin to love his wife as Christ loved the Church and that a wife can submit herself to her husband as to the Lord.  “Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord:  whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.”  First Peter 3:6.
 

Headship in the Scripture presupposes a leadership of “service.”  Christ is the Head of the Church because He Came not to be served by the Church, but to serve Her (Mat. 20:28).  Thus, we witness a radical difference between God’s view and the world’s view of leadership.  Jesus Himself explained the difference between the worlds view of headship and that of His (and men’s towards their wives, if you will), in Mark 10:42-44:  “(42) Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them;  and their great ones exercise authority upon them. (43) But so shall it not be among you:  but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: (44) And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.”

“The Lord,” writes My favorite Bible Commentator, “has constituted the husband the head of his wife to be her protector; he is the house-band of the family, binding the members together, even as Christ is the head of the Church and the Savior of the mystical body.”  “AH:215.”  And Peter affirms this admonition in First Peter 3:7:  “Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.”  And please, it is to be realized that the wife is only “the weaker partner,” not morally, spiritually or intellectually, but only physically.  If this were not the case then Paul would not have instructed them to “guide [better, “rule”] the house,” in First Timothy 5:14.  To be the “Head of the House” means more than a man occupying the captain’s quarters and barking out orders.  It means learning to shoulder the responsibility for giving informed and intelligent direction to the family; and the wife knowing the difference between the two with the husband accepting and weighing every suggestion of the wife; and to some extent, the children.
 

My favorite Bible Commentator also emphasizes this important function, saying:  “All members of the family center in the father.  He is the lawmaker, illustrating in his own manly bearing the sterner virtues:  energy, integrity, honesty, patience, courage, diligence, and practical usefulness.  The father is in one sense the priest of the household, laying upon the altar of God the morning and evening sacrifice. . . he is a laborer together with God, carrying out the gracious designs of God and establishing in his children upright principles, enabling them to form pure and virtuous characters, because he has preoccupied the soul with that which will enable his children to render obedience not only to their earthly parent but also to their Heavenly Father.”  “AH:212.”

 

This is why mothers need the involvement of their husbands in enforcing discipline.  Fathers serve as a basis upon which parental authority is constructed.  Christ is the perfect model of both loving headship and loving submission.  Both of these role’s function in Christ not as limitations but as opportunities for greater service and blessings.  “(5) Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: (6) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: (7) But made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: (8) And being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”  Philippians 3:5-8.

 

Christ’s submissive mental attitude enabled Him not to question His Father’s headship or to grasp for equal authority, even though He shared the same Divinity of the Father.  He did not question the right of His Father to function as His head, nor did He attempt to redefine the notion of headship and submission.  And should you read the next verses (9-11) you will find that because of the result of Christ’s obedience, the Father exalted Him to the highest honor.  This would and will be the result of the obedient wife (see Proverbs, Chapter 31).  Christ’s example teaches us that in God’s order, submission is the way to glorification.  The submission of Christ to the headship of His Father provides for us a model to understand the true nature and manner of a wife’s submission to her husband.  Such a leadership provides the basis for a loving and joyful submission on the part of the wife.

The submission of a wife to her husband is manifested especially through her respect for him.  “Let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.”  Ephesians 5:33.  However, Respect is something that must be gained through proper conduct.  When a Christian husband exercises a loving, sacrificial headship, his wife finds him worthy of trust, honor, and respect.
 

Respect is an essential quality of love.  If love is to grow through the years, it must be based on mutual respect.  In his epistle to Titus, Paul encourages older women to teach younger wives “to love their husbands,” Titus 2:4.  And the fact that Paul exhorts wives “to respect” their husbands in the Book of Ephesians, and “to love” them in the Book of Titus, shows that in the apostle’s mind, love and respect go hand in hand.
 

Our families, Churches, and societies need women who are willing to accept their vital role as wives, homemakers, and mothers.  God has equipped women with unique biological and spiritual resources needed for the survival and growth of the home.  Biologically, God has endowed every woman with the marvelous capacity to conceive and nourish human life in her womb.  Spiritually, God has endowed every woman who becomes a mother with the unique power to mold her children’s characters for time and eternity.

 

I believe that the rejection of the Biblical view of role distinction within marriages is the major cause of the marriage break ups and divorces of our day.  Scripture clearly presents the headship of the husband and the submission of the wife as an order established by God to ensure unity and harmony in the home.  The fact that God has given different roles for husbands and wives to fulfill shows that each role is equal in importance, though they have a different function.  Neither is complete without the other.  Respecting the husband/wife role distinctions is essential to ensuring the stability of the marriage covenant, child rearing, and ultimately world government.  This is why Satan works so hard to break up family relations and humanities roles (boy/girl).