Covenant Theology: The Family (Part 3)

We are considering the last subject in this sseries on Covenant theology, which is the family. When I began examination of this final subject, I stated that the traditional family, consisting of a husband, wife and children, is patterned after the Biblical example of our first parents and is, therefore, relevant at all times and in all places. I also noted that in the record of our creation, we find the definition of male-female role relationships. We looked at Gen. 2 where we find a detailed account of man's creation; included in this detailed record is a chronological order that helps defines the relationship between Adam and Eve. Based upon this account, I cited two significant truths related to Adam and Eve that have broader application to all men and women.

The first of these truths had to do with the chronology of the creation of Adam and Eve. The fact that Adam was created before Eve means that his role as a man, including his relationship to God and creation, was determined while Adam was alone and it means that Eve, having been created after Adam, would relate to God and the rest of creation through Adam. The second truth that I observed in this passage had to do with God's judgment concerning Adam's single state. The Creator said: “It is not good for the man to be alone.” Adam was not created to live in isolation, he was created to live in fellowship. The fact that this judgment of the Creator comes before the fall indicates that this need in Adam is of the essence of man and, therefore, God's solution, which was Eve, is normative and universally applicable.

All of this comprised the first point in this study on the family. That first point was: The Relation of Male and Female. I now am ready to proceed with the second point in this section on the family. We've talked about the relation between males and females in a general way and, in so doing, have touched upon the institution of marriage. The second point has to do with the relation of husband and wife. Under this second point, I am going to concentrate on the ways in which husbands and wives are to view one another and on the fundamental duties husbands and wives have toward one another.

As I move to the specific consideration of the marriage relationship, I would like to emphasize that the first point of this section on the family, which concerned the relation of male and female, concentrated on Adam and Eve, our first parents, before the fall. The observations that I made were based upon an environment free from sin. God presents us with the perfect diagram of male-female role relationships in Gen. 2. When sin entered the picture, however, the ideal was distorted and our roles and responsibilities have been imperfectly understood and exercised ever since. The great confusion that exists regarding male-female role relationships is not due to the silence of Scripture, but to the influence of sin. This fact must be kept in mind as we move to this new subject of marriage relationships.

What we must understand is that the material we are going to study under this second point is God's correction for our fallen minds; it is the Creator's restatement of those principles found in the pre-fall record of Adam and Eve. What we further must understand is that this restatement of creation principles takes place within the context of our deliverance from the dominion of sin in Jesus Christ. As we look at revelation subsequent to the fall of man, we should find the writers of Scripture repeating and expanding upon the principles of Gen. 2 within the context of redemption. This is, in fact, exactly what we find in the most notable passage on the marriage relationship, which is Eph. 5:22-33. There are several places in the Bible where instructions are given to husbands or wives regarding their respective roles and duties, but no passage is as complete as Eph. 5 and no passage relates marriage to redemption as clearly and fully as Eph. 5.

22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her; 26 that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless. 28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30 because we are members of His body. 31 FOR THIS CAUSE A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND SHALL CLEAVE TO HIS WIFE; AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. 32 This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each individual among you also love his own wife even as himself; and let the wife see to it that she respect her husband.

There is a key to understanding what Paul says in these verses and without this key, the reader is bound to gain, at best, only a partial comprehension of the husband-wife relationship. The key to which I'm referring is the apostle's use of the Christ-Church model as the basis for what he has to say to husbands and wives. Based upon what can be observed in Christ's relation to His Church, Paul explains how wives are to relate to husbands and how husbands are to relate to wives. The extensive use of the Christ-Church model will become apparent as we examine these verses. Paul's use of this model is such that the reader is constantly forced to consider how the Church responds to Christ and what Christ does for the Church as he learns about the husband-wife relationship. Specifically, a wife cannot properly know her role in relation to her husband unless she first knows the nature of the Church's role in relation to Christ; and a husband cannot properly know his role in relation to his wife unless he first knows the nature of Christ's role in relation to the Church.

As we look at these verses, I want to alert you to an outline that Paul uses. He speaks first to wives, then to husbands and then closes this passage with a reference to the creation account and a final exhortation. Within the two short sections, the first dealing with wives and the second dealing with husbands, there is a three-fold pattern. First, Paul states the duty required, then he explains why the duty is required by referring to the Christ-Church model and then he concludes by restating the duty required. So, to the wives there is a command, followed by an explanation of the command, which comes from the Christ-Church model, and then there is a repetition of the command. The same is true for husbands.

In this sermon, I will concentrate on what Paul says to wives: “Wives, be subject to you own husbands, as to the Lord.” (v. 22) This is the command given by the apostle to wives. As I stated earlier, this passage does not cover every aspect of marriage, but is concerned with the most fundamental elements of this institution. Paul is covering the most basic relational facts for wives and husbands. In his judgment, the duty for a wife, the one chief duty that serves as a foundation for the wife's role in marriage, is subjection to her husband. Obviously, the question that must be asked is: What does the phrase “be subject to” mean? I should point out that the phrase “be subject to” doesn't actually appear in v. 22. Literally, the verse says: “Wives to your own husbands, as to the Lord.” According to Greek grammar, however, the verb is supplied from the previous verse where Paul says: “...and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.” (v. 21) So our translation, “Wives be subject to your own husbands,” is perfectly correct and this or similar wording is what you will find in all leading English translations.

The word translated “be subject to” comes from the Greek term hupotasso, which, in basic usage, refers to the submission of one party to another party with greater authority. This word, then, deals with the recognition of and yielding to the authority of someone else and this yielding may be by compulsion or it may be by desire. It should be observed that there is nothing about this particular Greek word that implies intrinsic inferiority. What I mean is that the act of submission, which this word describes, does not necessarily require that the one submitting be viewed as substandard in some fashion. The word is concerned primarily with the right use of and response to authority.

With this explanation of that phrase “be subject to,” let us return to the verse. Wives are told to recognize and yield to the authority of their husbands. This verse, then, presupposes two things. First, the marriage relationship incorporates a government; one party, the wife, is told to submit to another, the husband, and this presupposes some kind of management within that relationship. Second, husbands hold the seat of final authority within this government; the fact that the wife is told to submit to the authority of her husband proves this point since there are only two parties involved in a marriage and if one party is told to submit to the other, then the latter party must hold authority over the former. I'm speaking in terms of “government” simply to help us realize that, within marriage, God intends there to be structure and this structure has to do with the respective roles of the wife and the husband.

In a marriage, the husband is appointed by God as the one with the responsibility to govern or manage. As a quick aside, let me mention that I use this word “manage” in reference to the husband's role in a marriage because this is the term Paul uses in 1 Tim. 3:4 where he says that an elder candidate must be a man who “manages” his own household. The word translated “manages” (proistemi) in that verse means “to be the leader, to have authority over, to care for, to superintend.” In one sense, Paul provides us with this commentary on our current passage. The word “manage,” therefore, gives us a more accurate idea of the role assigned to husbands. They do have authority and their authority is decisive, but a husband's role is that of a loving, self-sacrificing leader, not a self-centered and selfish oppressor. It is the former husband to which wives are commanded to submit.

Returning to Eph. 5, I'll point out that, practically speaking, Paul teaches that in terms of decision-making, planning, instruction and determination of purpose, the husband occupies the place of leader. To avoid being misunderstood at this point, let me emphasize that this does not mean that husbands should ignore the advice or opinion of their wives; it does not mean that husbands should disregard the desires of their wives; and it certainly does not mean that husbands are free to abuse their wives in any way whatsoever. What is implied in the apostle's instruction to wives, “wives, be subject to your own husbands,” as I've stated, is a government for the marriage and home. This government is necessary for peace and prosperity, but it is not tyrannical, uncaring, callous or selfish. When we come to the verses dealing with the duty of husbands, the nature of a husband's authority over his wife will be made clear and all that I've just said will be supported.

Notice further that Paul adds, “as to the Lord.” One of the important points to be made as we study this verse is that the wife's subjection to her husband is defined by her relationship to the Savior. Paul says the pattern of a wife's submission to her husband is to be a reflection of her submission to her Savior. This leads to one extremely critical conclusion: Any explanation of how the wife fulfills this duty of submission to her husband must conform to the model of her submission to Jesus Christ. I'm not saying that the husband takes the place of Christ in the marriage, nor am I saying that the husband's authority is equal to Christ's authority. But Paul says, “Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.” It is the apostle who establishes a parallel between how a wife submits to the authority of the Savior and how she submits to the authority of her husband.

This means that we cannot define “submission” one way when speaking of the wife's relation to Christ and another way when speaking of the wife's submission to her husband. In both cases, it is a matter of one party recognizing and yielding to the authority of another party. This phrase, “as to the Lord,” says that if a wife wants to know how she is supposed to respond to her husband, then she should look at how she responds to Christ. On a smaller scale, from the wife's perspective, the marriage relationship is supposed to mirror her relationship with her beloved Savior. In the application, I will return to this thought and develop it more fully. For now, however, let us see that a wife's submission to her husband is a religious activity; it is a duty laid upon her in the context of redemption, which makes this duty desirable and beneficial. Because of that phrase “as to the Lord,” we have to understand that what Paul commands here is a good thing. It is a beneficial thing.

Before continuing, I want to say a few words about how this verse is being treated by some in the modern Church. When Paul compares a wife's submission to her husband with her submission to her Savior, we cannot conclude, as do the misguided Biblical feminists, that a wife's submission to her husband is a bad thing unless, of course, we are ready to say that a wife's submission to Christ is a bad thing. Paul's parallel requires that a wife's submission to her husband and her submission to Christ be similar. Biblical feminists reject the idea that a wife's submission to her husband means that there is a hierarchy of authority in a marriage. They want to guard against that conclusion at all costs, so they redefine the term “submission” to maintain the wife's equal standing with her husband, authoritatively speaking. In the explanation of Biblical feminism, “submission” becomes “cooperation” and the idea of recognizing and yielding to the authority of another is lost.

The duplicity of Biblical feminism is exposed when you learn that these people will not apply this definition of “submission” to the Christ-sinner relationship. They know that if they were to define “submission” to Christ as they define “submission” to the husband, they would be saying that there is no hierarchy of authority in salvation and the saved sinner has equal standing with the Savior. This is so blatantly unbiblical that even evangelical feminists can see it. But, by defining “submission” one way for the wife-husband relationship and another way for the “sinner-Savior” relationship, they contradict Paul's teaching in this verse. He says, once again, “Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.” If the interpreter of Scripture wants to remain credible, he must conclude that the wife's submission to her husband is nothing less than a copy of her submission to Christ. Again, this is not to say that the husband is Christ, it is only to say that the husband has a position in the marriage that must be recognized just as Christ's position in our Christian experience is recognized. There are responses which are proper in both situations. At the moment, Paul happens to be talking about how a wife responds. Later, he'll talk about how a husband is supposed to respond.

I've said that v. 22 presupposes two things, the existence of a government in marriage and the husband's role as leader in that government. These two facts are confirmed in the next verse: “For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.” (v. 23) Verse 23 marks Paul's move to the second part of the outline, which I mentioned earlier. He now gives the reason for the command we saw in v. 22 by referring to the Christ-Church model. Why should a woman submit to her husband? Paul answers: “Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church.”

Obviously, the definition of the term, “head,” is necessary for us to understand the apostle's explanation. We must first ask, what is meant when we say that Christ is “the head of the Church,” then we must take that response and apply it to the statement, “The husband is the head of the wife.” Notice, once again, that Paul draws a parallel between the husband's headship of his wife and Christ's headship of the Church. By defining Christ's headship, we'll be able to understand the husband's headship.

The word, “head,” is a translation of kephale, which, literally, refers to a part of the body and, figuratively, to rank or standing. There is a considerable amount of material in the New Testament dealing with the concept of headship. Three main passages explain the nature of Christ's headship. They are: Eph. 1:22, Col. 1:18 and Col. 2:10. In these verses, kephale is used to describe the status of the Savior following His resurrection and ascension to the Father. As applied to Christ, kephale signifies the Savior's indisputable right and ability to rule decisively over all created jurisdictions. To say that Christ is the “Head” of the Church, therefore, is to assert that He is Her Redeemer-King.

Now, if we apply this idea to the husband in his role as head of his wife, what must we conclude? We must conclude that kephale, head, refers to the husband's capability and duty to exercise authority within the sphere assigned to him by God, which is the marriage/home institution. Verse 23, as I stated, gives the reason for the command in v. 22. The wife is to submit to her husband because he possesses a God-given authority in the marriage and that authority is exclusive. The husband's authority in the marriage/home is like that of Christ's authority in the world. By this I mean that the marriage/home is the sphere assigned to the husband and in that sphere his authority is certain just like Christ's authority is certain in the sphere assigned to Him by His Father.

I have to emphasize, once again, that the parallel drawn by Paul between the husband's headship and Christ's headship must be allowed to inform us as we try to ascertain just what is involved in a husband's headship of his wife. As I said regarding the issue of submission, we are not free to define a husband's headship in a manner that differs essentially from our definition of Christ's headship. This is the force of Paul's words in v. 23. Once again, I'll call attention to the value of the Christ-Church model that I mentioned before. Paul uses this model throughout this passage to explain how a marriage is supposed to operate.

Previously, I said that Paul's teaching here does not mean that the husband's authority is equal to the authority of Christ; and I would repeat that observation. We are talking about the nature of the authority possessed by the husband and the nature of his authority is similar to the nature of Christ's authority. It is not equal to Christ's authority in terms of magnitude and extent, but it is equal to Christ's authority in terms of certainty. The husband's authority, within the realm assigned to him by God, which is the marriage/home environment, is genuine and is to be duly respected as the will of God.

If a wife or husband wants to know what it means for the husband to be the head of his wife, then she or he should look to Christ's headship of His Church. By studying how Christ is a Head to the Church, we learn how a husband is to be head of his wife. This is, of course, the approach that Paul takes when he later describes the duties of a husband in vv. 25 ff. He uses Christ's example to teach husbands what it means to be a head. For now, however, notice Paul's phrase at the end of v. 23: “He Himself being the Savior of the body.” This statement implies that Christ's role as Head of the Church involves more than a mere possession and exercise of raw authority. The word, “Savior,” (soter) speaks of the Lord's role as Deliverer and Keeper of the souls of those who comprise the Church, which is His body. The idea of spiritual preservation, then, is bound up in this word. And this is where many representations of male headship go astray. They fail to incorporate the spiritual dimension that Paul specifies here.

It is primarily this aspect of headship, that of spiritual care, that Paul concentrates on later when he addresses husbands. The apostle does not focus on a husband's role as if the man is supposed to walk around the house, beating his chest and declaring himself to be the ruler! In vv. 25 ff. the ideas of spiritual nurturing and protecting are bound up in Paul's teaching on headship. Paul is not teaching that the husband becomes his wife's Savior, but he does teach that Christ's role as Savior of His Body, the Church, is to find some expression in the husband's concern for his wife's spiritual development. This, I believe, is the primary thrust of male headship-loving leadership, compassionate management of the home, authority that is clothed in humility and a Christ-like demeanor---that is what Paul means. This, by the way, is the reason so many wives have trouble submitting to their husbands and the reason so many husbands complain about their wives not regarding their authority-husbands typically do not govern the marriage and the home with tenderness, patience and a Christ-like demeaner.

And husbands, don't look at me like “How dare you!” I've done a lot of counseling in twenty-five years and I'll tell you that rarely is the wife the primary issue in a troubled marriage. While a husband's headship surely involves the authority to lead and determine the course for a marriage and family, Biblical headship also involves other qualities that are so perfectly illustrated by the Savior in His loving care for His Church. It is these very qualities that so often are overlooked in discussions or teaching about male headship. (I'm getting ahead of myself. The behavior of husbands will come in the next sermon.)

Verse 24 represents the third point in Paul's brief outline for this section. First, we saw the statement of a command to wives in v. 22; second, we saw the explanation for the command given according to the Christ-Church model; and, third, we have a restatement of the command: “But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.” The difference between this statement of the wife's duty and the previous statement in v. 22, is that Paul prefaces the command in v. 24 with a reference to the Christ-Church model: “But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives...”

This verse is helpful in that it specifies the extent of a husband's authority and, consequently, the extent of a wife's duty to submit. Just how is the Church subject to Christ? Is the Church subject in some things or in all things? Does the Church view Christ's word as open for discussion or as law? Based upon the obvious implication of the statement, “as the church is subject to Christ,” Paul identifies the extent of the wife's duty to submit to her husband: “in everything.” This means that within the realm where his authority is active, which is the marriage and home, a husband's authority is absolute. There is one Head of the Church and one head of a marriage. At the same time, I would caution that Paul's words must be understood within the context of the Bible's teaching about the right exercise of authority. I've already alluded to this issue in my comments about how a husband is supposed to behave, so at this point I'll only add that the authority that God gives to certain individuals, including husbands, is not of such a nature that it can be exercised contrary to God's will. So, the husband's authority, while it is certain, is itself subject to the standards of God. In other words, in the exercise of his authority, a husband must conform to the teachings of Scripture. This means, of course, that a wife's submission is not to some arbitrary standard or demand, assuming that the husband is acting as he should; her submission is to the will of God and no Christian woman should have a problem with that. The matter of utmost importance, as I've just indicated, of course, is the manner in which a husband functions as head in the marriage. That element is so essential.

It now should be apparent why I said earlier that the Christ-Church model is the key to interpreting this passage. The relation of the Savior to His Church is the pattern for marriage. I would note that this Christ-Church model guards against two things. First, it guards against making too little of Paul's words so that one comes away from the passage without understanding the true nature of male headship in the marriage and the corresponding duty of the wife. Second, it guards against making too much of Paul's words so that one comes away from the passage with a warped view of male headship in marriage that tends toward detached authoritarianism.

When Christ's relation to the Church is held up as the model for the husband-wife relationship, correct interpretation of male headship within marriage is greatly aided. All one has to do is study the abundant amount of material in the Bible that speaks of what Christ did for the Church and what He continues to do now that Her redemption has been purchased. As we know, this is what Paul does in the next few verses as he speaks to husbands.

In the application, I want to return to v. 22 and say a few words to wives about that little phrase at the end of the verse, “as to the Lord.” You will recall I emphasized that Paul establishes a parallel between how a wife submits to Christ and how she submits to her husband. Briefly, let me list a few of the most obvious characteristics of a Christian woman's relationship with Jesus Christ. A Christian woman knows that Christ is her Savior and she loves Him for what He has done for her and she seeks to do His will in all things. A Christian woman does not resent or resist Christ's authority in her life and she has no desire to be left without His headship; she eagerly depends on the Savior's care. Now, these few observations can be applied to the wife's relation to her husband.

Paul says that the husband is the head of the wife, which means that he holds a position of authority over her. Paul also says that the wife is to respond to the husband's headship as she does to Christ. So, the image presented by the apostle is that of a wife who loves her husband for what he is to her and what he does for her. A wife does not resent or resist her husband's authority and has no desire to be left without her husband's headship; in fact, she eagerly depends upon his protection.

The parallel between the wife's response to Christ and her response to her husband is such a simple concept. With all that is being written about marriage and all the confusion that can be seen in the Church regarding the relation between husbands and wives, you get the impression that this must be one of the most complicated questions in all of life; you get the impression that God must have included practically nothing on this subject in His Word. The truth is, however, that much of the confusion and worry connected to the issue of the husband-wife relationship stems from a simple neglect of God's Word. Few things could be easier to understand than a wife's role. In essence, Paul teaches that wives should relate to their husbands the same way they relate to Christ. In the sphere of authority assigned to Him by the Father, Christ is to be loved and followed; in the sphere of authority assigned to him by the Father, the husband is to be loved and followed. The concept, I'll repeat, is quite simple. It's the application of the concept that leads to trouble. And you know why the application of the concept is where we run into problems. We run into problems because we are sinners.

Wives who try to fulfill Paul's command have three things to deal with and these three things are monumental problems. First, they must deal with their own sinfulness. A Christian woman routinely sees ways in which she is not submitting to Christ as she should. She knows that her sin sometimes prevents her from relating to the Savior with complete success. In the same way, wives must recognize that their sin sometimes prevents them from responding to their husbands as they should. Wives who desire to follow Christ realize that their flesh will, at times, forcefully resist even though the duty is clear. Likewise, wives who desire to obey Paul's command in this passage must realize that their flesh will, at times, forcefully resist. They must realize that while the duty is clear, the doing of the duty is not always easy. But, at all times, the wife must remember that the legitimacy of the duty to submit to a husband's headship does not depend upon her desire or convenience; it depends solely on the fact that God has so spoken and has so ordained marriage. The wise wife, therefore, will be on guard against her own sin in her relationship with her husband in the same way she is on guard against her own sin in her relationship with her Savior.

Second-and please, I don't want any applause from the women-wives must deal with their husband's sinfulness. It would be enough of a task to follow Paul's command if a wife had only her own sin to worry about. But, since her husband also is a sinner in the process of being sanctified, wives also have to operate in a situation where her earthly head is something less than perfect. A wife who desires to obey Paul's command must realize that her husband wrestles with a sinful flesh and will never be able to carry out his duties without error. It is quite easy to find fault with even the most diligent husband; faults will be evident even in the husband who is striving with all his heart to be a proper head in the marriage. But, just as the wife's duty to view her husband as her head in marriage is not negated by her sin, neither is it negated by his sin. This is not to say that lazy husbands who make no attempt to fill their roles are to be excused and it is not to say that abusive husbands who pervert their roles are to be excused; but it is to say that the wife's obligation to her husband, as stated by Paul, remains valid even in imperfect environments. Wives should pray for their husbands as they attempt to fill this most important and difficult role.

Speaking from personal experience, I can tell you wives that husbands do not respond well to criticism from their wives. What we cannot resist, however, is your prayers. What cannot offend us is your prayers. What even we must admit we need is your prayers. When a wife commits herself to praying for her husband-and I don't mean the kind of prayer that begins, “O Lord, please do something with this bonehead I married”-she is bringing to bear the influence of God in her husband's life and God has the ability to change a husband. God has the ability to shape a husband's disposition and make him into that Christ-like head he is supposed to be. As far as the wife is concerned, the way to get a husband to be the kind of man you want as head in your marriage is humble petitioning to the Lord. Being a head is a marriage is a matter of sanctification for a husband. You, as a wife, cannot make your husband holy in any other area, so don't make the mistake of thinking you can make him holy in this area. Pray for your husband. This is one of the most effective things you can do to create a solid marriage.

Third, wives who try to fulfill Paul's command must deal with the influence of a sinful world. Particularly in our day, the idea that a wife should recognize and submit to the authority of her husband is ridiculed and opposed in a multitude of ways. The most vocal and influential forces in our society do not recognize a government for the marriage and home. You, as a woman, should expect no support from this culture when it comes to this particular aspect of being a wife. In fact, you will face incredible opposition when it comes to this issue of recognizing your husband's headship. Moreover, you should be careful about expecting support even within the Christian community. Many in the Church have adopted the unbiblical view of men and women that is so prevalent today. Like few other times in history, the wife who wants to submit to the headship of her husband is going to have to put forth a strong and sustained effort.

There is much more in this passage and, in my opinion, the most important part is yet to come and that is Paul's description of how a husband expresses his headship. I say that because a husband's headship is the central issue in these verses. What Paul says to wives has to do with a husband's headship and what he will say to husbands has to do with the same thing. I'm convinced that the Biblical model for marriage, as it is presented here by the apostle, depends most substantially upon the husband's comprehension and execution of his role. Without question, the husband bears the greater responsibility and if he is not fulfilling his role correctly, you can be sure that the wife will be having difficulty fulfilling her role. Next time, Lord willing, we will take up the matter of the husband's duties.

In all of our attempts to live as we should, our hope and help is in the Lord. In this most fundamental of relationships, that of husband and wife, we have been reminded that Christ is our pattern. His role as Head of the Church serves to define our responsibilities toward one another. As we receive the sacrament, therefore, let's be thankful for the Lord's love for His Church and for His words of instruction. Our communion with Him now is for our encouragement and our comfort as we are reminded of what He did for us and of our duties as His people.

We talked about this several months ago in Sunday School. Our teacher tipped toed through the wives being submissive like he was walking through a mine field.

Adam and Eve are the perfect example of how a family should NOT act. Eve took the lead, taking the fruit and offering it to Adam. Adam submitted to Eve's sin behavior and without question also ate.

...there is neither slave nor free, Jew nor Greek, male nor female...

You are taking scripture out of context. That passage is clearly referring to our positional equality in Christ, but you are twisting it to make your case for functional equality here on earth and in the church.

From the sight you referenced, "God's Word for Women",

"We understand, now, that the Hebrew text may have mistakes which we are free...to amend...for no one claims that the Scribes who made these additions to the text in comparatively recent times did "inspired" work, as did the original authors. And then, women must never forget that all this addition to the text was not only the work of men exclusively, but of men who, in their day, were, as Jews, bitter opponents of the teachings and of the spirit of Christianity. Furthermore if we may judge from the spirit of the teachings of the Talmud on the "woman question" (for the Talmud was then in the ascendancy, and the sayings of the rabbis considered more authoritative than Scripture itself), these amenders of the original text, as a class, held women in utter contempt."

I think even the Southern Baptists you pretend to argue for would disagree.

I've said that v. 22 presupposes two things, the existence of a government in marriage and the husband's role as leader in that government.

... the authority that God gives to certain individuals, including husbands, is not of such a nature that it can be exercised contrary to God's will.[emphasis mine]

These are great propositions regarding aspects of the nature of authority, and it is interesting to me that the second can and should be applied to civil government as well.

Cordially,

Most groups which define themselves along sexual lines are seeing life too narrowly and have a political agenda that divides rather than unites. I read the GWTW site yesterday, looking in vain for evidence that these three female ministers were the exception. Sadly, they are not.

IMO, and as the parent of two sons, these women do great harm to their faith, their congregations, their own families and any lives they may touch.

These women, perhaps unknowingly, perhaps not, are the bridge that leads a mushy-headed congregation to accept a lesbian pastor.

You said you have a daughter. After 20 years of witnessing other parents up-close, I believe many daughters are being short-changed when it comes to a sturdy, responsible, righteous upbringing in favor of flighty gibberish, perverse instruction, naive life-lessons, sexually-ambiguous directives and a sense of entitlement at the expense of anyone in their paths, especially males.

Unfortunately, the school system has been a motivating force in this divisive atmosphere; so much so that college enrollment is now 60% women and 40% men. This is an astounding statistic and a perfect example of the elite doing their best social engineering to build a gnostic world of weakened men and butch but compliant women.

FWIW, reflecting, forewarned is forearmed.

Most groups which define themselves along sexual lines are seeing life too narrowly and have a political agenda that divides rather than unites.

We are in absolute agreement at this point. The writer of the original article clearly defines roles and functions along sexual lines...and he's got such a plan, and grand scheme, with tidy verses to wall it in. When you accept a doctrine that advantages yourself, your are under double obligation to scrutinize that doctrine and your own heart's motives for accepting it.

Well Dr. I would like you to meet my daughters, three. Strong, Godly, young women who love the Lord, who seek His will, who are not cowards nor silly heads. They are indeed not bound by the so-called curse, nor the desire of some to set them in a artificial culturally derived role. They are free in the service of Jesus Christ to do all the He requires of them. They are gentle and kind, courageous and bold. (and very beautiful:) )

They love and honor the men in their lives; husband, father, brother.

They have been taught that the Christian life is a life of submission and sacrifice and service and leadership.

As for such leading to the sinful things you suggest, I refer you to Deborah.

As for decline in male enrollment in college by percentage compared to women. Shall we have the girls stay home, so the boys won't be so easily discouraged? Maybe the parents of boys need to be doing a better job. Or do you think the success of men is dependent on women clearing the field? That would be a fairly low view of men don't you think?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.