The Biblical Structure of Marriage
What is the biblical structure of marriage?
Is there even a structure for marriage laid out in the Bible?
By this point in the series, I’m sure you already know the answers to these questions, but now we’re going to dive into the structure of marriage a little more thoroughly.
Marriage does indeed have a structure that is laid out quite clearly in the Bible, and it is that structure that will really tell us how we are supposed to be operating our marriages if we are going to say we practice Biblical marriage.
I realize that many of the things I am going to discuss in this particular article are going to be very counter-culture and will probably upset quite a few people.
Still, I’m writing them anyway because the truth needs to be taught.
I’ve made every effort to show that women are extremely valuable, and they have the same spiritual potential as men, but if you find a place where I seem to be degrading women, be sure to let me know (if it’s my own opinion, that is).
As for everything else, I’m just laying out what the Bible says on the topic, so if you have an issue with what the Bible says, take it up with its Author.
We find the basic structure laid out in 1st Corinthians chapter 11, where Paul pretty much sums up the whole deal in a single sentence, which is impressive considering that Paul usually writes in chapter-long sentences.
1 Corinthians 11:3 NASB95 - But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
The Father→Jesus→Man→Woman→Children
That is the basic order and structure of the family, and it’s backed up by not just the rest of the New Testament, but the Old as well, as we’ll see. That information alone is enough for us to operate off of, simply the fact that God told us so, but there’s a lot more information for us to still take a look at. Next, we’ll hop over to check out another example of the reason why this particular structure exists the way it does.
The structure of marriage is demonstrated quite clearly (at least it’s clear in my opinion), by the relationship of Jesus and the Church. Let’s look at what Paul said about the picture marriage paints.
Ephesians 5:22 NASB95 - Wives, [be subject] to your own husbands, as to the Lord.
Ephesians 5:23 NASB95 - 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.
Ephesians 5:24 NASB95 - But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives [ought to be] to their husbands in everything.
Right here is the bedrock of marriage. Jesus and the Church are the prime example of how a marriage should function, and that apparently extends as far as humanly possible. Wives are to obey their husbands like they are obeying the Lord in everything!
Of course, this doesn’t extend all the way to breaking God’s law, but everything else is fair game.
As the Church is subject to Christ, so wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.
So, in what ways is the Church subject to Christ?
That’s the same exact way wives are supposed to treat their husbands and obey them, and even if he is an unbeliever or rebellious, she is still supposed to revere him.
The word for reverence is the same word that is used when the Bible tells us we need to fear God, again affirming that the same sort of attitude is supposed to exist from wives toward their husbands.
φόβος
fear, dread, terror, reverence
1 Peter 3:1 NASB95 — In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives,
1 Peter 3:2 NASB95 — as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior.
The example set by a godly wife is so powerful that Peter says a quiet example by a believing wife even has the power to turn an unbelieving husband's heart to the Lord. Not a single word is required; simply the godly behavior of the wife is enough to demonstrate the qualities of Jesus, with the effect of drawing the husband to Jesus. A wife doesn’t need to nag or preach to her husband; quite the opposite, in fact.
Simply her godly example is enough to turn his heart, especially if it is the example that Peter goes on to lay out.
Now, men also have a responsibility toward their wives, but it’s not what everyone tends to think it is.
Ephesians 5:25 NASB95 - Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her,
Ephesians 5:26 NASB95 - so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,
Ephesians 5:27 NASB95 - that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.
Ephesians 5:28 NASB95 - So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself;
Ephesians 5:29 NASB95 - for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also [does] the church,
Ephesians 5:30 NASB95 - because we are members of His body.
We are told to love our wives as Christ loves the Church and gave Himself for her. The word used for love here is actually quite interesting, and it is not about emotion, not at all.
Ἀγαπάω
To have a preference for, wish well to, and regard the welfare of
It’s preferring someone or something, and usually above yourself. The two greatest commandments, for example. Which only makes sense since obedience to God is choice-based, not feeling-based. None of the commands He gave us were based on the way we felt on a particular day; in fact, they were usually to regulate our feelings.
Feeling angry? Don’t sin.
Feeling like you want your neighbor's wife? Don’t commit adultery.
This love, in other words, is not about drumming up a feeling of warmth, desire, or fuzziness; it’s about choosing to prefer them. We can do this whether we feel like it or not, and whether we have the emotion to accompany it or not. One might even say it is our duty.
Ecclesiastes 12:13 YLT - The end of the whole matter let us hear: -- 'Fear God, and keep His commands, for this [is] the whole of man.
1 John 5:3 YLT - for this is the love of God, that His commands we may keep, and His commands are not burdensome;
So, while it is certainly nice to have the warm emotions to accompany this sort of love, it is independent of all emotion, which is great, because we are not going to feel warm and fuzzy toward our spouses 100% of the time.
Not even close.
I’m serious.
The other two words I’d like to take a look at, and two words that I go over extensively in my article on the man’s role link, are the words for nourish and cherish that Paul uses here. They harken back to the marital duties laid out in the Torah, and are vital if we are going to understand our role.
Ἐκτρέφω
To nourish up to maturity, to nurture, to bring up
Θάλπω
To warm, keep warm, foster with care
As Jesus nurtures the Church, so husbands ought to nurture their wives, feeding them spiritually and physically. We nurture and bring up our wives in the fullness of the Lord, teaching them His word, but we also provide for them physically. That also means providing clothing and shelter to keep them warm, which carries a sense of a shepherd caring for his sheep, looking after them closely to make sure they have what they need because he cares about them.
Coincidentally, this is the same exact way Jesus looks after and cares for us.
These two things go back to the marital requirements of the Torah, which were food, clothing, and sex. The three essential things that were the baseline for what a man had to provide or a woman could seek to have the judges order her husband to divorce her.
Check out this article on divorce for more info link.
Going back to Ephesians, Paul again points to the relationship of the Church and Jesus as the model for how we should conduct our marriages.
Ephesians 5:31 NASB95 - FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.
Ephesians 5:32 NASB95 - This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.
Ephesians 5:33 NASB95 - Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must [see to it] that she respects her husband.
The man and woman are to be joined together and have sex, which is what becoming one refers to. Spiritually, it refers to us becoming one with Jesus, as Paul says.
To finish up, Paul again restates that husbands are to love their wives and wives are to fear their husbands. A much stronger term than simply respect, by the way, as we have already discussed, and the word Paul uses is a slight variation on the one we looked at earlier.
Φοβέω
To fear, be afraid, be terrified, to reverence, venerate, to treat with deference or reverential obedience
The difference is that in 1st Peter, the word is a noun, which means it’s a feeling more than an action, and it’s primarily directed toward God, and then boils over from there and is directed toward her husband, but always in the context of God first.
Here in Ephesians, the word means an action toward the husband, and it is an action of reverence, veneration, and reverential obedience.
🙶Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines reverence as:
Fear mingled with respect and esteem; veneration.
An act of respect or obeisance;
It defines veneration as:
The highest degree of respect and reverence; respect mingled with some degree of awe; a feeling or sentiment excited by the dignity and superiority of a person, or by the sacredness of his character, and with regard to place, by its consecration to sacred services.🙷
Kephale/Head
There's a popular false teaching that seeks to undermine the concept of familial and spiritual authority in the Bible, and that is the question of what is meant by the word “head.” Does it mean authority, or might it simply mean source or origin?
Well, reading through Scripture, you can get a pretty good idea of context, and you will never once find the Greek word κεφαλή/kephale in a context that would mean “source” or “origin.”
Never.
Not once.
You will, however, find many places where it is literally a physical head, like what sits atop your shoulders, a few places where it refers to the top and end-most part of something, as in a mountain top, and many places where it refers to an authority structure. We don't have to simply rely on the New Testament to figure this out because we have a Greek translation of the Old Testament.
That enables us to see what the Hebrew word was and what experts in the Greek language supposed would be an accurate translation from Hebrew into Greek. Now, they were not always correct, and bias crept in in certain areas, but on the whole, it's useful in the area of word comparison.
Between the two sources of information, we get a pretty good idea of the usage of the word kephale.
Judges 11:11 YLT — And Jephthah goeth with the elders of Gilead, and the people set him over them for head and for captain, and Jephthah speaketh all his words before Jehovah in Mizpeh.
The word in the Septuagint that they chose is kephale, and it's clearly in an authority position as it is used here. The Hebrew nails it down, however.
רֹאשׁ rosh
Head
Wow!
So in Hebrew, they chose a word that can mean your literal head or a head with authority, just like the Greek word kephale!
The usage of this word in the Old Testament is 230 times to mean a literal head, 88 times to mean the top of a mountain, 171 times to mean a chief, head of a family, or the best of something (as in the chief spice).
More than 171 times!
The usage of rosh in the Old Testament is consistent with the usage of kephale in the New Testament, and they both can be used to denote an authority structure.
Now, what are the implications of choosing to translate this word as “source” or “origin,” and if not from biblical usage, where does it come from?
The implications of choosing such a translation are that man is the source or origin of woman, which is alright as far as that goes, but it also would mean that the Father is the source or origin of the Son, meaning the Son, Jesus, is created.
Obviously, that is an issue.
1 Corinthians 11:3 NKJV - But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman [is] man, and the head of Christ [is] God.
Another issue is that this interpretation reduces Jesus’s rulership and authority over the Chuch to simply being its life-giver rather than its husband, leader, and ruler; a quite astonishing idea indeed.
Jesus is removed, essentially, from the leadership of the Church and given a sidekick role in everyday life.
Sure, He gave His life for and is the source of life in the Church, but He doesn’t really have any say because He’s not the authority over the church. This is my synopsis of this viewpoint, and it is not a thorough treatment of it, but these are the implications of translating kephale as source, something for which there is no biblical evidence.
The sources for this idea that kephale can mean source or origin are all extra-biblical. A gentleman who did a quite in-depth study says the following about the claims that kephale was commonly used to mean source.
“(1) κεφαλή does not normally mean “ruler.” Bedale says, “In normal Greek usage, classical or contemporary, κεφαλή does not signify ‘head’ in the sense of ruler, or chieftan, of a community.
Bedale cites no evidence—no results of word studies, no lexical authorities—to demonstrate his point; he simply assumes it to be true for the rest of the article.
In the following major section of this essay I will quote thirty-two examples of κεφαλή used to mean “authority over” or “ruler” in Greek writings outside the New Testament (seventeen are from Greek translations of the Old Testament and fifteen are from other literature). On the basis of those quotations it is safe to conclude that this first point of Bedale’s argument is simply a misstatement of the facts and cannot be accepted as valid.”
“(2) The ancient world did not think that the head controlled the body. Bedale’s second point of support is the assertion that Paul and his readers would not think of the head as the ruling or controlling part of the body, for that idea was contrary to popular psychology in the ancient world. In fact, Bedale says that J. Armitage Robinson is “guilty of serious anachronism” (p. 212) when Robinson writes that it is natural to think of Christ as the body’s head in Ephesians 4:15, “for,” says Robinson, “that is the seat of the brain which controls and unifies the organism.”
Bedale says that such a metaphor “would be unintelligible to St. Paul or his readers… In St. Paul’s day, according to popular psychology, both Greek and Hebrew, a man reasoned and purposed, not ‘with his head,’ but ‘in his heart.’”
Is Bedale correct in asserting that the ancient world did not think of the head as controlling or ruling the body?
Once again he gives no evidence to support this affirmation. In fact, there is significant evidence to contradict it.
Plato (5th-4th cent. B.C.), describing the parts of the human body, wrote of “the head which is the most divine part and which reigns (δεσποτέω) over all the parts within us” (Timaeus 44.D).
Plutarch (A.D. 46-120), one of the most prominent Greek authors from the New Testament period (and one who reflected secular thinking independent of Jewish or Christian influence), explained why the words soul (ψυχη) and head (κεφαλή) can be used to speak of the whole person: “We affectionately call a person ‘soul’ or ‘head’ from his ruling parts (¢pÕ tîn kuriotatîn)” (Table-Talk 692.D.11).
Philo (Jewish philosopher, c. 30 B.C.—c. A.D. 45), representing one aspect of first century Judaism, had a similar understanding: “As the head in the living body is the ruling place (tÕ ¹gemonšuon prÒpon), so Ptolemy became head among kings” (Life of Moses 2.30). “The mind is the head and ruler (¹gemonikÒn) of the sense-perception in us” (Life of Moses 2.82); ‘“Head’ we interpret allegorically to be the ruling (¹gemÒna) mind of the soul” (On Dreams 2.207).”
Grudem’s treatment of the topic of whether or not kephale can mean source or origin is extremely thorough, and any further discussion of it on my part would only cover ground already well-traversed in his article. His conclusion is that there is no evidence either within the Bible or in external Greek literature for translating kephale as source or origin.
You can read the whole thing at this link: Kepahle/Grudem
That about sums up the basic structure of marriage. There’s not a lot of need to go deeper into the specific roles since I cover them quite extensively in their own individual posts, which you can find here and here link.
The only question is: why does this structure exist the way it does, and how does it play out in the bare bones mechanics of the marital union?
Well, it exists because of the order of creation. Man was created first, and woman was created second. I’m not sure how much thought we really actually give to that fact, but there’s a whole lot there that we simply skim over most of the time.
1 Timothy 2:13 NASB95 - For it was Adam who was first created, [and] then Eve.
1 Timothy 2:14 NASB95 - And [it was] not Adam [who] was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
1 Timothy 2:15 NASB95 - But [women] will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.
We’ll get into verse 15 more in-depth in the article on the role of Christian women, but it is the first two verses that are really of interest to us right now. First, Paul is giving the reasons for the authority structure in the Church and family, and why a woman is not to teach or have authority over men, and it’s not based on something that happened locally. It’s based on the order of creation!
Adam was created first; Eve was deceived, and Adam was not.
Those are the two reasons that Paul gives for women not being allowed to have authority over men or teach them. Alright, simple enough, let’s move on to something else Paul had to say about creation.
1 Corinthians 11:8 NASB95 - For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;
1 Corinthians 11:9 NASB95 - for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake.
Again, he takes it back to the order of creation, but with a twist. Man was not created for woman; woman was created for man. If we go back to the creation account, we see this to be true. God said it is not good for man to be alone, so let us make him a helper comparable to him. We’ll dive into that more in the articles on the individual roles, but for now, notice the reason woman was created.
The entire reason woman exists at all, as Paul affirms and even a quick reading of Genesis will tell you, is for man.
Woman was made for man!
I’m serious!
I struggle to understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp, because it is stated quite clearly multiple times throughout scripture. Woman was made for man, she was given to man, she was taken from man, not the other way around.
As we saw, man is supposed to nurture and care for woman, but even from creation, it was not a role of equality. I’m sorry if that hurts your feelings, but it’s the simple truth.
Men and women were not created equal, and God knew exactly what He was doing when He did it. He could easily have created both of them at the same time and moment and from the same material, but He didn't. He could easily have declared both of them to have the same job, the same authority, but He didn't. Instead, He created a crystal clear hierarchy from the very beginning, one that is impossible for us to miss if we are being honest.
The reason goes back to Christ and the Church.
Two friends who live together, love each other, spend time together, and maybe even have sex occasionally would paint about as clear a picture of Christ and the Church as an egalitarian marriage.
I'm serious!
It would be like looking through frosted glass, but it would be basically the same picture. Christ's relationship with the Church is not egalitarian; it never has been, and it never will be, period.
End of story.
In other words, to make what I am saying perfectly clear, an egalitarian marriage is not a picture of Jesus and His bride. It's just not, and nothing anyone can point to in scripture will change that. As I said, two people who are merely friends, living together, loving each other, and maybe even having sex from time to time, would paint the same picture as an egalitarian marriage.
The only minor difference is that there's often a covenant of sorts in an egalitarian marriage. It's not a picture of Jesus and His bride, because it shows nothing of the Holy, and it's simply a relationship between two people that would be just as possible among friends who never sleep together.
There are many marriages like this, and it's sad!
It's not simply sex that makes a marriage a picture of Jesus and His bride, though that is a part of it; it's the whole order of the marital union. A man becomes one flesh with whoever he sleeps with, and sex is not marriage. There is an idea that sex is what makes someone married to someone else, and that's simply not true. I cover this more in the article on Homosexuality and Lesbianism link.
You create a one-flesh union with whoever you have sex with as a man, and there is no limit to the number of one-flesh unions you can create, especially if you are promiscuous.
1 Corinthians 6:16 NASB95 — Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, “THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.”
You can sleep around all you want to and become one flesh with multiple women outside of marriage, which is part of what quickly debunks the idea that sex is what determines if you are married or not. You can certainly have sex outside of the marriage covenant, and it is the covenant that determines whether or not you are married to someone, as I cover in the article about the marriage covenant link. If you are married, you have a formal covenant, plain and simple.
The Language of Marriage
Before you read this section, please read the article on biblical slavery for context.
The language used around the practice of marriage is quite unique, especially in our day and age, where marriage is seen as an equal partnership equally entered into between the man and the woman. However, in the Bible, it's not that way. The language used around marriage is much less culturally appealing, but it is accurate to the model laid out for us in scripture.
The man's part of the marital covenant is described in pretty much one word: taking. This is the only thing that is consistent regardless of the type of marriage it is, and it plays a bigger part than you might think.
Leviticus 21:13 NASB95 — ‘He shall take a wife in her virginity.
לָקַח
Take, seize, capture, or purchase
The woman, on the other hand, never takes a husband.
Not once.
I'm completely serious.
The woman, if a father is involved, is always given in marriage. If no father is involved, she'll either give herself or simply be taken, as is the case with slaves. Why is this?
Well, to cut right to the chase, the woman is the property of her husband, but he is not her property (she has rights to sex with him, nothing more than that). I briefly covered this at the end of the article on slavery, but I'll explain a little bit more here.
One of the clearest places this is shown is in the tenth commandment, and it's crystal clear.
Exodus 20:17 NASB95 — “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”
The tenth commandment lists a man's wife as being one of the things that belong to him, which, as we'll see, is indeed correct.
Proverbs 31:11 NASB95 — The heart of her husband trusts in her, And he will have no lack of gain.
Here we have the famous chapter of Proverbs that feminists love to use to champion the boss babe, but that is simply a very poor interpretation of this chapter, as I go over in the article on the role of Christian women, link.
Genesis 20:3 NASB95 — But God came to Abimelech in a dream of the night, and said to him, “Behold, you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is married.”
Here again, we have another passage talking about a married woman, and just as with that chapter in Proverbs, there is something quite interesting to note here, just as with chapter 31 of Proverbs.
בְּעֻלַת
Own, possess, rule over, marry
בָּעַל ba'al
By a master/owner/husband
The word ba'al is the word that is often used for husband in Hebrew, and it literally means master or owner. In the section of Genesis, it is doubled up when God is talking to Abimelech to literally mean, “A woman owned by a master/husband.”
The same word “ba'al” is used there throughout Proverbs 31. A husband is the master or owner of his wife. That's certainly not a very politically correct way to talk these days! The Bible, however, is very blunt when it comes to things like this.
Deuteronomy 24:4 NASB95 — then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance.
We find that the exact same word is used again here to refer to the husband, that is, her former master/owner/husband, who cannot own her again once she has been owned by another man.
Deuteronomy 22:22 NASB95 — “If a man is found lying with a married woman, then both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; thus you shall purge the evil from Israel.
Again, the words used here to describe a married woman literally translate to a woman owned by a master/husband. The phrase used to describe a married woman is בְעֻלַת־בַּעַל, and it literally means a woman owned by a husband/master, and that is what makes her a married woman. The action of marriage itself is often described by the Hebrew word לָקַח, which means "take."
לָקַח
Take, seize
Genesis 26:34 NASB95 — When Esau was forty years old he married Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Basemath, the daughter of Elon the Hittite;
It’s the same word there in Genesis, as well.
It is a vital part of the marriage process, but it is not synonymous with having sex. Taking is marrying, or entering into that covenant, but it is not automatically having sex.
Genesis 20:3 NASB95 — But God came to Abimelech in a dream of the night, and said to him, “Behold, you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is married.”
The "taking" part in marriage is not synonymous with the consummation aspect, and by the same token, simply because there is consummation does not mean that there is a covenant.
So, in the Bible, husbands are described as the masters or owners of their wives, whom they take in marriage, and wives are described as being owned by their husbands, and they are given in marriage.
Jeremiah 29:6 NKJV - Take wives and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons and give your daughters to husbands, so that they may bear sons and daughters--that you may be increased there, and not diminished.
If that's not enough to convince you of the marriage structure (handed down by God, I might add), I'm not sure anything will. There are a few more things to mention, however, so hang tight for a moment, and we'll discuss them.
Genesis chapter 3 is one of the first places where we find the gender roles laid out in any sort of order. Right from the beginning, we find that God intended for men and women to fill different roles.
Genesis 3:16 NASB95 — To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.”
Genesis 3:17 NASB95 — Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life.
The woman is to bear children, and the man is to till the ground (or provide for his family). This isn’t all there is to either role, but it is a strong overview of the main aspects of their roles. Looking a little deeper, however, there is something lurking just below the surface. It lies in the Hebrew and a parallel verse in the next chapter of Genesis.
Genesis 4:7 NASB95 — “If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.”
The word for desire that’s used here is very unique, so unique in fact, that these are two of the three places it is used in the entire Old Testament. The word simply means a longing, and it can either be in a negative context or a positive one.
תְּשׁוּקָה
Longing
Song of Songs 7:10 NASB95 - "I am my beloved's, And his desire is for me.
As it is used in Song of Solomon, it’s in a positive sense, with Cain it is negative, and with Eve it is uncertain and much disputed. However, in the context, especially with the same wording as Song of Solomon, it could mean both a negative longing to control her husband as well as a longing to be emotionally intimate with him. The next words of God give us a pretty good clue, however.
Genesis 3:16 NASB95 — To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.”
He will rule over you. Interesting. The word form is imperfect, which usually wouldn’t be a command, but it can if the context allows for it, as it does in chapter 4.
Genesis 4:7 NASB95 — “If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.”
So, in addition to the wording for longing being the same, the wording here is almost identical as well. The same Hebrew word for master is used.
מָשַׁל
Rule, have dominion, reign,
The one difference is third person versus second person. Now, let’s take the first thing God says to Adam in the very next sentence and combine the two.
Yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you. Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’
The word for listen used here is שָׁמַע.
שָׁמַע
Hear, listen, obey
When the Hebrew word שָׁמַע (shamaʿ) is used with לְקוֹל (l’qol, “to the voice of”), especially in biblical contexts, it usually carries the sense of obedience, not just hearing sounds.
Genesis 22:18 NASB95 - "In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice."
It’s about response and submission to the one speaking. So literally what God says to Adam is, “Because you have obeyed your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’”
Now we are getting somewhere!
So, based on what God says to Cain, we can conclude that what He is saying to Eve is an insistent instruction. We already know, based on what Paul said (and even a simplistic reading of the account in Genesis), that the gender roles predated the fall, so, because of those two little tidbits of information, we can deduce something quite interesting.
Eve tried to take control when she ate the apple and usurped the role given to Adam. Adam, meanwhile, let her do so. In that context, God tells Eve her desire will be toward her husband, whatever that might mean, but he shall rule over you.
It’s an insistent instruction, given in Adam’s hearing, a reminder of who God set in charge. To our knowledge, this is the first time God has spoken directly to Eve. His previous instructions regarding the tree were delivered directly to Adam, as we see in verse 17.
Then God immediately turns to Adam and rebukes him, saying, “Because you failed in your role and obeyed your wife, because you didn’t lead in what I commanded you, here’s what is going to happen to you.”
Yet your desire will be toward your husband, and he shall rule over you. Then to Adam He said, “Because you have obeyed your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’
If you want a clearer understanding of what I’m describing, try this little exercise. Have two people, a man and a woman, stand in front of you, and then read God’s instructions as though you were God and they were Adam and Eve. Place emphasis on the last part of God’s instructions to Eve and the first part of His instructions to Adam, replacing the idiom “heed the voice of your wife” with the phrase “obeyed your wife.” Also, place emphasis on the part where He tells Adam that “I commanded you.”
Do that and see if it comes through more clearly for you.
Adam had clear instructions from God, and instead of leading the way he was supposed to, he let his wife take the lead. Everything that God then tells them is a magnification of something that already existed. A bit of bitterness to taint what was once pure joy and happiness.
The joy of childbirth will now be tainted by pain and suffering, the joy of tending the garden will now be marred by it being difficult to grow food, and the joy of leading as Christ would lead will now be tainted by domination.
The last point there could be misunderstood, so I’ll explain.
Everything that happened with the curses was, as I said, a magnification of something that already existed.
Adam’s role as the head and leader already existed; it was just perfect and pure, with Eve following and Adam leading her lovingly.
That all changed now, because Eve proved that she needed harsher rules at times, which led to what God said. The goal is always to get back to the ideal with what we do, you see. We use weed killers to get rid of the weeds, chemical fertilizers to rejuvenate the earth, pain killers for childbirth, and, in the case of marriage, feminism has risen up to try to force men back to the ideal of the Garden of Eden, but that will never work. Women rebelling is what started the relationship off to be the way it is now in the first place.
Only by submitting to their husbands and the men leading exactly as Christ does can the ideal be returned to. Yet, even then, there will still be moments when the man has to rule, because neither party is yet perfected.
Many have tried to say that that went away with Jesus’s death on the cross, but do we still have weeds? Do we still have pain and suffering in childbirth?
If we still have every other aspect of the curse, why would we think that this one was gone too, when we are all still clearly battling our human nature?
It just doesn’t make sense, does it?
Of course it doesn’t.
Even in the ideal that was created at the beginning, Adam was supposed to be the leader, but it didn’t require him to rule. Now, because of human nature, that is sadly necessary, and as men, we are absolutely responsible for whether or not our house is in obedience to God.
The goal is to always return to the ideal, to be able to lead as Jesus does in a gentle and tender way, as I discuss more in the article A Biblical Marriage link.
However, that is not the way life works at the moment, so while that is our goal, the reality of our fallen nature is still upon us. Instead of simply leading, ruling is required at times.
Moving on.
There’s a curious idea that a husband’s authority over his wife is actually a New Testament idea, but that’s wildly wrong. The New Testament is a bridge between the Old Testament and widespread gentile converts, and its purpose is to pass on the gospel of Jesus and get the outlying gentile congregations up to speed on the Old Testament.
It was not written to replace it.
Rather than starting the idea, the New Testament is where it actually begins to get reframed in light of the ideal, which is Jesus leading the Church, His bride. The idea originates quite clearly in the Old Testament, as we have seen already, and we’re about to see in more detail.
Numbers 5:19 NASB95 — ‘The priest shall have her take an oath and shall say to the woman, “If no man has lain with you and if you have not gone astray into uncleanness, being under the authority of your husband, be immune to this water of bitterness that brings a curse;
Numbers 5:29 NASB95 — ‘This is the law of jealousy: when a wife, being under the authority of her husband, goes astray and defiles herself,
Now, authority is an added word for clarity; the actual word used here in Hebrew is תַּ֥חַת. Before you get too excited, here is what that word means.
תַּ֥חַת
The under part, underneath, below, instead of
Numbers 5:29 ASV - This is the law of jealousy, when a wife, being under her husband, goeth aside, and is defiled;
That’s a pretty literal translation right there, and you can see in the context why they added the word “authority.” That’s what the verse means.
Numbers 30:3 NASB95 - "Also if a woman makes a vow to the LORD, and binds herself by an obligation in her father's house in her youth,
Numbers 30:4 NASB95 - and her father hears her vow and her obligation by which she has bound herself, and her father says nothing to her, then all her vows shall stand and every obligation by which she has bound herself shall stand.
Numbers 30:5 NASB95 - "But if her father should forbid her on the day he hears [of it,] none of her vows or her obligations by which she has bound herself shall stand; and the LORD will forgive her because her father had forbidden her.
Numbers 30:6 NASB95 - "However, if she should marry while under her vows or the rash statement of her lips by which she has bound herself,
Numbers 30:7 NASB95 - and her husband hears of it and says nothing to her on the day he hears [it,] then her vows shall stand and her obligations by which she has bound herself shall stand.
Numbers 30:8 NASB95 - "But if on the day her husband hears [of it,] he forbids her, then he shall annul her vow which she is under and the rash statement of her lips by which she has bound herself; and the LORD will forgive her.
Numbers 30:9 NASB95 - "But the vow of a widow or of a divorced woman, everything by which she has bound herself, shall stand against her.
Numbers 30:10 NASB95 - "However, if she vowed in her husband's house, or bound herself by an obligation with an oath,
Numbers 30:11 NASB95 - and her husband heard [it,] but said nothing to her [and] did not forbid her, then all her vows shall stand and every obligation by which she bound herself shall stand.
Numbers 30:12 NASB95 - "But if her husband indeed annuls them on the day he hears [them,] then whatever proceeds out of her lips concerning her vows or concerning the obligation of herself shall not stand; her husband has annulled them, and the LORD will forgive her.
Numbers 30:13 NASB95 - "Every vow and every binding oath to humble herself, her husband may confirm it or her husband may annul it.
Numbers 30:14 NASB95 - "But if her husband indeed says nothing to her from day to day, then he confirms all her vows or all her obligations which are on her; he has confirmed them, because he said nothing to her on the day he heard them.
Numbers 30:15 NASB95 - "But if he indeed annuls them after he has heard them, then he shall bear her guilt."
Numbers 30:16 NASB95 - These are the statutes which the LORD commanded Moses, [as] between a man and his wife, [and as] between a father and his daughter, [while she is] in her youth in her father's house.
A husband has the authority to annul his wife’s vows, simple as that. If he does it on the day he hears them, there is no guilt, but if he does it later, he bears her guilt. Which means, she still is not bound by her vows, but now he bears the guilt for unbinding them. If a wife makes any promise at all, her husband can either confirm or deny it.
This means even in her business, she would have to make deals and decisions under her husband’s authority, and any men having dealings with her would want to make sure that they had her husband’s approval; otherwise, the deal could be cancelled right out from under them.
We find a similar principle in betrothal, where a girl with a father would have to have his approval in order to marry; otherwise, he could annul any promise she made. You can read more about this in the article on Betrothal or Engagement link.
Everything that we’ve looked at above comes from the Tanak, without even having to hop over to the New Testament. If we go over there, we find everything that we have examined confirmed completely. There is an authority structure in marriage built into the very language used around it. Wives belong to their husbands and are their property, but the opposite is not true.
Husbands sometimes must rule, though they always must lead, and wives must submit and follow them (provided they do not lead them into direct disobedience of God’s way).
We’ll look at a few things in the New Testament rather briefly, then move on.
1 Corinthians 7:2 NASB95 - But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.
Ἐχέτω
Hold
Ἑαυτοῦ
By oneself, alone, own
ἴδιον
Pertaining to oneself, one's own
In context, this is basically saying you are to hold your spouse and not another person’s. It’s not talking about ownership or anything of the sort, and we’ll see why as we go along.
1 Corinthians 7:3 NASB95 - The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband.
1 Corinthians 7:4 NASB95 - The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband [does;] and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife [does.]
1 Corinthians 7:5 NASB95 - Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
ἴδιον
Pertaining to oneself, one's own
Again, the word that is used here for own means the body you have. Your own body as opposed to someone else’s, and it is purely talking about sexual rights. A husband has a right to sex with his wife, and the wife has a right to sex with her husband. It’s not talking about ownership and control at all here. As we see in verse 3, sex is called a duty, and the word used is quite interesting.
ὀφειλή
That which is owed, a debt
As we see in the article on biblical divorce, refusal of sex for any length of time is grounds for a woman to seek to have the judges, or in today’s case, the congregation, pressure her husband to grant her a divorce. On the husband’s side, he can divorce his wife if she refuses him sex. That is how important sex is, regardless of how much we might or might not want it.
It is a debt we owe to our spouse.
I’m serious!
That is the basic structure of marriage, as clearly shown in the Bible, and as we’ll see, a wife’s and a husband’s salvation is directly tied to whether or not they practice these things.
What’s In a Name?
We all hold our name as the dearest sound in the world to our ears (unless our mother uses it and it includes our middle name), but what’s so important about a name?
Well, biblically speaking, that is the way inheritances were passed down, land stayed in the family, and your place in the world was assured. You could either have a great name, based on the deeds of your ancestors and your own, or you could have a terrible name for the same reason. By the same token, you could change your name from either course to be the opposite through your own good or evil actions.
Ecclesiastes 7:1 NASB95 - A good name is better than a good ointment, And the day of [one's] death is better than the day of one's birth.
Proverbs 22:1 NASB95 - A [good] name is to be more desired than great wealth, Favor is better than silver and gold.
1 Timothy 3:7 NASB95 - And he must have a good reputation with those outside [the church,] so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
Proverbs 20:11 NASB95 - It is by his deeds that a lad distinguishes himself If his conduct is pure and right.
Matthew 7:16 NASB95 - "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn [bushes] nor figs from thistles, are they?
A good name and reputation, which is tied to your name, will take you a long way in life, and if your father has a good name as well, that will take you even further, but only if you also live in a way that aligns itself with that good name.
In the world of business, a referral carries greater weight if it comes from a name you trust rather than just randomly flipping through a phone book to find anyone in that area who might be able to help you. A good referral is worth its weight in gold, and by the same token, a referral from a person with a poor reputation will likely be ignored.
A name is generational, as I mentioned earlier, and it is to be treasured. In a world that grows larger every day, it’s possible to never meet someone who knows your name, but once they do, you will build a reputation. Cherish it and guard it, because it is quite valuable.
Names have always been valuable, and as we saw, the Bible confirms that to be the case. There’s a little more to it than that, however, and the naming structure of the Bible tells us a lot about how names function. Even in our modern world, we see holdovers of that Biblical format, and it is a good thing.
The first thing to notice about names and thus inheritance in the Bible is that they pass from father to son. As a son, you are known by your father’s name, but as a woman, you are known by your cover name, whether your husband or your father.
You are either the wife of Jacob or the daughter of Malachi, for example. While sons are known as the sons of Jacob, never the husband of or the son of a woman. Even the human race is named after Adam, not Eve.
Genesis 5:2 NKJV - He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created.
Just some things to keep in mind when you are reading through the Bible.
That’s why genealogy always passes from father to son, not mother to son, or mother to daughter. They are never called the Sons of Rachel and Leah; they are the Sons of Israel. God never refers to Himself as the God of Sarah, Rebecca, and Rachel; He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Yes, the system in the Bible is a Patriarchy.
Genesis 15:4 NASB95 - Then behold, the word of the LORD came to him, saying, "This man will not be your heir; but one who will come forth from your own body, he shall be your heir."
2 Samuel 18:18 NASB95 - Now Absalom in his lifetime had taken and set up for himself a pillar which is in the King's Valley, for he said, "I have no son to preserve my name." So he named the pillar after his own name, and it is called Absalom's Monument to this day.
Genesis 48:16 NASB95 - The angel who has redeemed me from all evil, Bless the lads; And may my name live on in them, And the names of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; And may they grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth."
Judges 11:2 NASB95 - Gilead's wife bore him sons; and when his wife's sons grew up, they drove Jephthah out and said to him, "You shall not have an inheritance in our father's house, for you are the son of another woman."
What they did here was wrong, by the way. Regardless of who his mother was, he was still a legitimate heir. Hebrew doesn’t have a concept of bastards the way English does; rather, a bastard, or mamzer, was anyone who was born to an unlawful union.
For example, adultery, incest, a mixed marriage (with a foreign man who did not become an Israelite), and prostitution. A child would be considered a child of prostitution if his mother was not married to the man who was his father, or if she was a known prostitute, as seems to be the case here.
מַמְזֵר
Bastard, specifically child of incest, foreigner from a root meaning to alienate
Simply being born out of wedlock would not be enough to have you labeled as a mamzer because the father of the child could always fulfill his duty to the woman and marry her, thus bringing the child into a marital union.
People today have a different view of bastardism, and consider anyone born outside of wedlock to be a bastard, whether the parents marry after or not, but in the Bible, a mamzer was the product of a forbidden union, and premarital sex was only a terrible thing if the man did not immediately marry the woman (The show, House of David completely ignores this when they try to make David a bastard, among many other egrgious errors where the Law of God is concerned).
Just to be clear, though, extra-marital sex is always a sin, as I cover in this article here link.
If she weren’t married, this would force her to become a prostitute, in other words, have sex with multiple men she wasn’t married to. Hence, the strict marital laws were for her protection because they ensured that the man who either seduced her or raped her would be forced to marry her, thus putting her in a protected status.
So the father’s name passes through the sons, and while I don’t have space to list every genealogy given in the Bible, you can easily go find one and notice that it always goes from father to son. The one exception to this rule is when it lists the genealogy for both of Jesus’s parents, but even then, it passes through Joseph’s father-in-law rather than through the women of that line.
The Hebrew word for son is ben, which comes from the root word bana.
בֵּן
Son
בָּנָה
Build
Bana means to build, which sons do for a father's house. They build his house and carry on his name, extending his wealth and family.
Daughters, on the other hand, are called bat, and that word comes from ben and bana, so daughters are builders too, but not of their father's house.
They build their husband's house, and bear children for his name.
Which again brings us back to a very important point: wives take on the name of their husband. They bear his name and represent him publicly, and they have a certain amount of authority to run his household and conduct business in his name. This might sound familiar, and for a very good reason. We have the same sort of relationship with Jesus!
We take His name at baptism, and we leave our old identity behind. We are now under His name and authority, and He gives us a certain amount of authority to conduct business in His name, which we represent publicly.
Exodus 20:7 NASB95 — “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.
Jeremiah 14:9 NASB95 — “Why are You like a man dismayed, Like a mighty man who cannot save? Yet You are in our midst, O LORD, And we are called by Your name; Do not forsake us!”
Ephesians 3:14 NKJV — For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
Ephesians 3:15 NKJV — from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,
Just as we fully leave behind our old identity when we take His name, so too a woman leaves behind her old identity when she is married. She gives up her identity as the daughter of her father and takes on a new identity as the wife of her husband. She gives up her father's name and takes her husband's name instead.
Hyphenating your last name to hang on to your father's last name is basically a lack of commitment to the authority and headship of your husband.
Don't do it!
I'm serious!
It looks like you are rejecting the authority of your husband when you refuse to fully take his name!
When you marry, you must fully enter under the authority and headship of your new husband, and you must fully enter the covenant! You now bear and represent his name in public and private, and you are building your husband's house, not your father's.
The Revelation of Chiasms
Quite unintentionally, this has turned into one of the longest posts in this series, but I think it's all essential for getting a good foundation in what the Bible has to say on the topic of marriage and marriage roles. A misunderstanding of the gender roles and the created order is behind most of the problems the Church is facing today. Men don't step up, and the women do, which creates an inversion and prevents the work of God from being done. Marriages are in the midst of collapse, and there is one easy solution, but no one wants to consider it because it's outdated.
The purpose of these roles is not to elevate men and beat down women; it's to demonstrate God's purpose and obey His commands.
If you are using your position and authority as a husband to beat down and abuse your wife, shame on you!
Really!
Shame on you!
You are abandoning your role as a man and husband just as much as if you sat back and did nothing!
Even worse, you are using the authority granted to you for teaching, protection, and provision to instead abuse the very ones you were given the role to care for!
God will judge for that, and His judgment on you will be very harsh because of your responsibility.
The way God looks at those who abandon or swap their roles is quite serious indeed.
Deuteronomy 22:5 NASB95 — “A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.
At first glance, it sounds like God has a thing against people wearing the wrong clothes, but this goes so much deeper than that.
עַל
Upon, and hence on the ground of, according to, on account of, on behalf of, concerning, beside, in addition to, together with, beyond, above, over, by, on to, towards, to, against
כְּלִי
Article, utensil, vessel, equipment, implement
לָבַשׁ
Put on (a garment), wear, clothe, be clothed
שִׂמְלָה
wrapper, mantle, outer garment
Here's a literal translation of this verse, and the Septuagint backs this up.
Not shall-be vessel/gear of a man upon a woman,
and not shall a man put on mantle of a woman,
for an abomination to Yahowah your God is everyone doing these.
Notice that everyone who does these things is an abomination to God, okay, that's not something you ever want to be.
Reading through the literal translation, it becomes pretty obvious that it's not literally talking about simply picking up a hammer or putting on your wife's coat; it's more idiomatic in the sense that it's talking about roles.
A mantle is symbolic of a woman's role in the household, and a man's tools and weapons are also symbolic of his role as provider and protector. In other words, this verse goes far beyond simply wearing a piece of clothing and strikes at the heart of what is behind transgenderism: assuming the role of the other gender.
The mindset that is behind a woman taking on a man's role, and the mindset that is behind a man wearing women's clothing and acting like he's a woman, is what is at the heart of this. A woman should not take a man's role, even to the point of taking up a man's job or joining the military, and a man should not take a woman's job either.
To do so is an abomination in the eyes of God.
I'm serious!
That's what it says!
Deuteronomy 18:12 NASB95 — “For whoever does these things is detestable to the LORD; and because of these detestable things the LORD your God will drive them out before you.
If you are an abomination in the eyes of God, He will drive you out from before His sight. It's best not to let that happen, so don't abandon your role!
Now, this section about swapping roles has a parallel in the New Testament, and it is in the writings of Paul. 1 Corinthians 11 contains a Hebraic literary structure known as a chiasm.
What is a chiasm?
A chiasm is a Hebraic literary structure, a form of parallelism. Chiasms form an upside-down triangle, with the main point being the point on which the triangle is balanced. The two sides mirror each other to emphasize what is being said, and then the midpoint, the bottom of our triangle, is the main message the writer is trying to convey.
Psalm 8 is a perfect example of this, so we'll take a quick look at it before we jump into 1st Corinthians. The table below demonstrates this, albeit without the triangle formation. The left side mirrors the right, and the very bottom is the central idea that is being conveyed.
If you were to write it out, it would form a pattern like this one below, where X is the main point that the author is trying to get across.
A A’
B B’
C C’
D D’
X
Now, when we apply this pattern to 1st Corinthians 11:2-16, an interesting pattern emerges which makes it obvious that Paul was using a chiasm. Chiasms utilize bookends, that is, the same idea repeated at the beginning and end of the passage. In this chapter, verses 2 and 16 form perfect bookends, so we now know the scope of the chiasm.
1st Corinthians is what is known as a truncated chiasm (if you want another example, Psalm 23 is a great one), and a truncated chiasm does not go all the way to a close. The writer will do this for emphasis, disruption, and to leave the reader a little unsettled. Here, it leaves you feeling unsettled, rebuked, and with a strong warning.
A: 1 Corinthians 11:3 NASB95 — But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
B: 1 Corinthians 11:4 NASB95 — Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.
C: 1 Corinthians 11:5 NASB95 — But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.
D: 1 Corinthians 11:6 NASB95 — For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.
E: 1 Corinthians 11:7 NASB95 — For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
F: 1 Corinthians 11:8 NASB95 — For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;
G: 1 Corinthians 11:9 NASB95 — for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.
X: 1 Corinthians 11:10 NASB95 — Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
G: 1 Corinthians 11:11 NASB95 — However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.
F: 1 Corinthians 11:12 NASB95 — For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.
E: 1 Corinthians 11:13 NASB95 — Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
D: 1 Corinthians 11:14 NASB95 — Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him,
C: 1 Corinthians 11:15 NASB95 — but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
B: 1 Corinthians 11:16 NASB95 — But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.
Verse ten is the central point of what Paul is getting at with everything he is saying from verse 2 to 16. He brings in the authority structure, the created nature, and the origination of all things, to make the point of correction that a woman must have authority upon her head.
You'll notice in several places that the ideas on the mirror side of the chiasm seem to contrast, and that is intentional. It emphasizes what is being said, and it is characteristic of Hebraic literature.
The main point of this passage isn't about headcoverings, it's about authority. Notice the “C's” and how, in the mirror, “C” Paul states plainly that the reason a woman has long hair is to cover her head. Her long hair is her covering because she is the glory of man.
1 Corinthians 11:5 NASB95 — But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.
The woman whose head is shaved is either a woman in shame or a woman in rebellion. The culture of the time, and even today, has women shaving their heads or shearing their hair short when they are in rebellion or rejecting men.
It's a sign of shame and direct rebellion.
Notice something else, Paul never says this is in the context of the assembly. A woman can pray or prophesy in private or among other women, just not publicly. Paul is directing this to whenever a woman might be praying or prophesying, if she does so with an uncovered head, that is, taking on the role and authority of a man, bringing shame to her husband, then she might as well be shaved like one of those rebellious women.
He's basically using sarcasm to point out that you're already as good as shaved if you're being rebellious.
1 Corinthians 11:6 NASB95 — For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.
Again, Paul is saying that if a woman is uncovering her head while praying or prophesying (her husband, in other words), she might as well have her head shaved in shame and to show her rebellion against God's created order. Her husband is her covering, whereas the man should not be covered by his wife, as we'll see in the next verse.
1 Corinthians 11:7 NASB95 — For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
Why?
1 Corinthians 11:8 NASB95 — For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;
1 Corinthians 11:9 NASB95 — for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.
Back to the created order we go, right?
All that is to get to the point that a woman needs to have authority upon her head, that is, a sign that she is under her husband's authority.
1 Corinthians 11:10 NASB95 — Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
Paul says, and it lines up with everything else we have looked at throughout this article, that a woman must have authority upon her, or be under authority. Every single woman, married or unmarried, is under authority, and that is why women have long hair. Simple as that.
There is a very important thing to take note of here, and it is the word that is translated as “ought” here, which is a poor translation.
ὀφείλει
A debt, a duty, an obligation, be bound
A woman is, in other words, bound by a duty to have a symbol of being under her husband's authority on her head. That is, long hair. As a side note, a covering is a symbol of being under authority, not of having authority.
The last thing we need to look at, which emphasizes the created order, is that very odd clause at the end, “because of the angels.”
That doesn’t make a lot of sense, and I’ve wondered about that verse ever since I was old enough to read the Bible, but without a satisfactory explanation. I think I have one now, and it’s based on the context of the rest of the section and its mirror in 1st Timothy.
What could possibly be because of the angels?
Well, the whole context of this passage is about headship, authority, and not circumventing the created order of things, and then it says it’s because of the angels. Well, which angel rejected the created order and sought to take a role that wasn’t his?
Satan’s rebellion against God when he and a third of the angels fell to Earth is the only recorded time the angels left their proper domain and sought to rise above and tear down the created order.
So is that what Paul is getting at here?
Is he saying that because of the angelic rebellion, women must have a visible token of their husband’s authority, so that what happened with the angels will not happen again?
I think that is very likely when everything is put together.
It’s a stark warning that unless you want what happened to the angels to happen to you, maintain the order God set in place. The angels were cast down because of pride.
Don’t be like them!
So, a possible rendering of that verse with everything taken in context (not a literal rendering) is as follows.
“Because of creation order and the rebellion of the angels, the woman is obligated to show that she is under her husband’s authority by wearing a symbol of that authority on her head.”
Jude 6 contains a key component of this, and we’ll look at that next.
Jude 1:6 NKJV - And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day;
τηρήσαντας
To attend to carefully, take care of
Ἀρχή
Principality, domain, charge
οἰκητήριον
a dwelling-place, habitation
The angels that left their proper sphere of authority, who did not stick to their role, who rebelled against the created order, have been assigned chains in darkness. That’s how serious God takes His created order!
That’s what Paul was getting at in 1st Corinthians.
They failed to remain in their appointed position, so God is punishing them for it. We need to take the roles God has given us very seriously, not because of our own pride and arrogance, but because He Himself takes them seriously! In fact, that is the whole theme of the book of Jude.
A: Jude 1:1 NKJV - Jude, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, To those who are called, sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ:
Jude 1:2 NKJV - Mercy, peace, and love be multiplied to you.
B: Jude 1:3 NKJV - Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.
Jude 1:4 NKJV - For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.
C: Jude 1:5 NKJV - But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.
Jude 1:6 NKJV - And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day;
Jude 1:7 NKJV - as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
D: Jude 1:8 NKJV - Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries.
Jude 1:9 NKJV - Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"
Jude 1:10 NKJV - But these speak evil of whatever they do not know; and whatever they know naturally, like brute beasts, in these things they corrupt themselves.
X: Jude 1:11 NKJV - Woe to them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, have run greedily in the error of Balaam for profit, and perished in the rebellion of Korah.
D: Jude 1:12 NKJV - These are spots in your love feasts, while they feast with you without fear, serving [only] themselves. [They are] clouds without water, carried about by the winds; late autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, pulled up by the roots;
Jude 1:13 NKJV - raging waves of the sea, foaming up their own shame; wandering stars for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever.
C: Jude 1:14 NKJV - Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, "Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints,
Jude 1:15 NKJV - "to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”
Jude 1:16 NKJV - These are grumblers, complainers, walking according to their own lusts; and they mouth great swelling [words], flattering people to gain advantage.
B: Jude 1:17 NKJV - But you, beloved, remember the words which were spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ:
Jude 1:18 NKJV - how they told you that there would be mockers in the last time who would walk according to their own ungodly lusts.
Jude 1:19 NKJV - These are sensual persons, who cause divisions, not having the Spirit.
Jude 1:20 NKJV - But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit,
Jude 1:21 NKJV - keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
Jude 1:22 NKJV - And on some have compassion, making a distinction;
Jude 1:23 NKJV - but others save with fear, pulling [them] out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh.
A: Jude 1:24 NKJV - Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, And to present [you] faultless Before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy,
Jude 1:25 NKJV - To God our Savior, Who alone is wise, [Be] glory and majesty, Dominion and power, Both now and forever. Amen.
God takes rebellion extremely seriously, and the penalty for it was quite often death. God desires our obedience, not us thinking that we know better and that we can do things better than the way He designed them to work.
1 Samuel 15:23 NKJV - For rebellion [is as] the sin of witchcraft, And stubbornness [is as] iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, He also has rejected you from [being] king."
The gender roles aren’t just some fun little things that are totally optional; you know, they might work for some people, but we do it differently in our house or in our congregation.
No!
It's rebellion and witchcraft!
It’s a rejection of what God designed and a desire to usurp a role that isn’t ours and abandoning our assigned domain!
Revelation 2:20 NASB95 - 'But I have [this] against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit [acts of] immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.
God doesn’t take this sort of thing lightly! Not at all!
There were a few times Israel was ever ruled by a Queen, and God allowed it as a curse on their land. They were far worse than even the worst of the Kings ever were, and they both died horrible deaths because of their rebellion.
There's one more chiasm we need to take a look at before we finish up, and that is going to be over in 1 Timothy.
There are actually two chiasms in 1st Timothy 2, and they are in that nested pattern I mentioned earlier (there are also some nested chiasms there in 1st Corinthians 2 as well, but you can see if you can find them on your own).
A: 1 Timothy 2:9 NASB95 — Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments,
B: 1 Timothy 2:10 NASB95 — but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.
C: 1 Timothy 2:11 NASB95 — A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.
X: 1 Timothy 2:12 NASB95 — But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. (A direct command)
C: 1 Timothy 2:13 NASB95 — For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
1 Timothy 2:14 NASB95 — And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
B: 1 Timothy 2:15 NASB95 — But women will be preserved through the bearing of children
A: if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.
Here, verse 12 is the center of the chiasm, and the reason for that is that in passages containing a command, the command is almost always the central point.
Verse 12 is a clear command, and there’s really no way to explain it away, especially as you work through the rest of the chiasm. Even the B’s are an emphasis that the good works a woman is to carry out is her role as the mother and bearer of children! Women will be preserved, that is, restored to spiritual health, if they continue in bearing children (one of their primary roles).
Next, let’s take a quick look at the mini chiasm since it emphasizes an alternate point Paul was making as well.
The mini chiasm or nested chiasm between verses 11 and 15.
A: 1 Timothy 2:11 NASB95 - A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.
B: 1 Timothy 2:12 NASB95 - But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
C: 1 Timothy 2:13 NASB95 - For it was Adam who was first created, [and] then Eve.
X: 1 Timothy 2:14 NASB95 - And [it was] not Adam [who] was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
C: 1 Timothy 2:15 NASB95 - But [women] will be preserved through the bearing of children
B: if they continue in faith and love and sanctity
A: in all self-control. [The counter-part of submission in verse 11]
So, the two chiasms work together to emphasize that women are absolutely not to teach or exercise authority, and that the reason is because of the created order. Eve usurped authority after the serpent went around Adam to speak with Eve, and she acted on her own authority. She was deceived and acted on that outside the role God had given her; hence, she rebelled.
All of this ties back to what God said in Deuteronomy and brings us full circle.
Deuteronomy 22:5 NASB95 — “A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.
After demonstrating that abandoning or leaving your role (whether man or woman) is serious rebellion in the eyes of God, perhaps we would do well to take these things a little more seriously, and tolerate less those who teach that there are no gender roles in the Bible, since their teachings are teachings of spiritual death and destruction, not only for others, but for themselves as well.
It all boils down to something that’s pretty simple, really.
God designed something, and who are we, mere ants, to say that we know better than God?
The Reason For the Structure
The reason for this structure is just as important, perhaps even more so, than the structure itself. Of course, there is the practical aspect of the structure; someone to lead and provide, while the other is the keeper of the household. One can’t work full-time and properly raise the children, etc. However, there is another side to this, and one that is conveniently overlooked in favor of logical arguments either for or against the order God created.
It goes far deeper than simply being the logical necessity of everyday life, and it touches on something that we forget quite easily or never knew in the first place because of sloppy reading and study habits.
I fall into the latter category, unfortunately, but live and learn, as they say. The Jews tend to put a microscope on a single verse, but they ignore the context surrounding that verse, so while a microscope is good, we can’t neglect the verses around it. (Again, if you have never read any of the Rabbis' arguments, this happens all the time. They’ll argue for hours about the meaning of a verse when the very next one gives the answer, but because they never get there, they’ll come up with some pretty odd conclusions.)
Anyway, as I said, the reason for the existence of this structure goes back to something God said when He was getting ready to create the first man, Adam. If you have a poor translation, it’s no wonder that you missed this, and if you have a good one, well, it’s still pretty easy to miss.
Genesis 1:27 NASB95 - God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Did you catch it?
Let’s look at a couple of other things while we mull it over.
צֶלֶם
Image, likeness, especially, something cut out to represent something else, of resemblance.
The word in Hebrew that means image carries the connotation of something made in the likeness of something else to represent that thing or person. The Greek word does the same thing, but we’ll look at that in a minute.
This Hebrew word is used to refer to carved idols as the representation of a false god, and also any carved thing that represents another thing, but specifically represents that thing's authority or function.
1 Samuel 6:5 NASB95 - "So you shall make likenesses[H6754] of your tumors and likenesses[H6754] of your mice that ravage the land, and you shall give glory to the God of Israel; perhaps He will ease His hand from you, your gods, and your land.
2 Kings 11:18 NASB95 - All the people of the land went to the house of Baal, and tore it down; his altars and his images[H6754] they broke in pieces thoroughly, and killed Mattan the priest of Baal before the altars. And the priest appointed officers over the house of the LORD.
There are three other words used for image in the Bible, but none of them have this same connotation of representative authority.
Daniel 2:31 NASB95 - "You, O king, were looking and behold, there was a single great statue; that statue, which was large and of extraordinary splendor, was standing in front of you, and its appearance was awesome.
Daniel 3:1 NASB95 - Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold, the height of which [was] sixty cubits [and] its width six cubits; he set it up on the plain of Dura in the province of Babylon.
Daniel 3:5 NASB95 - that at the moment you hear the sound of the horn, flute, lyre, trigon, psaltery, bagpipe and all kinds of music, you are to fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king has set up.
Daniel 3:10 NASB95 - "You, O king, have made a decree that every man who hears the sound of the horn, flute, lyre, trigon, psaltery, and bagpipe and all kinds of music, is to fall down and worship the golden image.
It’s the same word here, with a different Strong’s number because this is the Aramaic form of the word rather than the Hebrew form, but it is still the same word. As you can see, its meaning carries delegated authority and a representation of that authority. Bowing to the idol the king set up would be the same as bowing to the king himself.
Now, that is the word used there in Genesis when God creates man, which means that God is delegating His authority to Him. He is the ruler of the Earth, he has the power of naming, and he has the responsibility of bearing that image or representation of God.
Well, doesn’t that mean women also have that authority since women are made in the image of God as well?
Let me ask you this: where does it say they are?
I’m not being facetious; it’s a real question. In Genesis, it only says the man is made in the image of God, and it says the same thing in the other place it is repeated in Genesis.
Genesis 9:6 NASB95 - "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.
In the image of God He made man.
Genesis 5:1 NKJV - This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.
Genesis 1:27 NASB95 - God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Man himself, singular in verse 27, was made in the image of God. We'll get to just what this means in a moment, but I want to really nail this down. It could be argued that verse 27 is ambiguous enough that it could be referring to humankind rather than just Adam (despite the tense of “him” being singular, not plural), but there's another clarification, and this time it comes from Paul.
1 Corinthians 11:7 NASB95 — For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
Man is the glory and image of God. We've already covered this a bit earlier, but to really nail this down, we need to go deeper. Glory also has to do with representation, but in a different way.
δόξα
Magnificence, excellence, preeminence, dignity, grace, majesty, radiant weight, honor
εἰκών
an image, figure, likeness, representation
Glory is the weight of honor and majesty, the glory that man reflects on God. Man glorifies or honors God; in other words, man is the representation of God on Earth. Man is made in His likeness, while women are the glory of men. Man glorifies God, woman glorifies man.
What should be clear by now is that only man is made in the image of God, and only man is the representation of God on Earth. The reason men are the spiritual leaders and teachers makes a lot more sense now, I bet. That is man's purpose and the reason he was created. Men were given authority and responsibility by God to take care of the Earth, and women were given to men to aid and assist in this task.
Women are the glory of man, but they, too, bear part of God's nature.
They are not made in His image, but they bear part of His nature.
They don't represent God’s authority, in other words, but they have the same spiritual potential men do because of that shared nature. Remember, women were made out of one of the sides of man, one part of his nature that God repurposed to form woman.
Genesis 5:3 NASB95 - When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of [a son] in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth.
What is interesting about this is that Adam's two other sons weren't said to be in his image, but this one, Seth, was. Seth is also the line from which Abraham would be born, so perhaps there is more to being in the likeness of something than simply looking like that person.
We are growing to be more and more the representation of Christ, and it is a process. It's not something that happens overnight, but we were created to bear the image of God. We were created to have authority in the dominion of earth. Many have corrupted that and abused that authority, and rather than caretaking the earth, they have destroyed it, but that does not change the way God designed things. It simply means men as a whole have rejected God.
The marriage structure exists, then, because God created man to bear His image, and He gave woman to Adam to be his help, his aid, his second in command in the mission God laid upon him.
That's very backward from how most people see things, and they like to think God is gender blind, but, well, God is the one who made gender in the first place.
The truth is, at the time of Abraham, God instituted a patriarchal religion.
You might argue about why He did so, and whether it was simply a product of the times, or that perhaps God made a mistake, but you can’t argue that it isn’t what He established. That very same patriarchal religion is the foundation, the very beginning of Christianity.
The very foundation of what God established, Jesus or Joshua, if you prefer, before He came in the flesh, was patriarchal. Coincidentally, He continued this exact same pattern into the selection and establishment of the early church when He picked the 12 Apostles, all men.
His 12 disciples were also all men, and the first of those appointed to minister to the locals were also all men, chosen from among the men.
You can argue that Jesus was just bowing to the pressure of the day, that He was just doing things that way because of the bias of the times, but when did Jesus ever bow to pressure and fail to do what is right?!
In fact, He often sought every opportunity to go against the grain where it was needed!
I’m serious!
Jesus was not influenced by peer pressure, and He certainly didn’t allow men to dictate the way He did things.
Never.
Not once.
So, what He did, He did intentionally, and the question remains as to why. We’ve already seen one of the main reasons why, which is that men bear the image of God, but why men?
Couldn’t God have just as easily created women first and set women as the image bearers?
Is it simply the luck of being created first, or is there more to it than that?
What does a patriarchal religion mean, my friends?
It means it passes down from father to son, from father to future father.
Deuteronomy 6:6 LSB - "These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart.
Deuteronomy 6:7 LSB - "You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall speak of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up.
Deuteronomy 11:19 LSB - "And you shall teach them to your sons, speaking of them when you sit in your house and when you walk along the road and when you lie down and when you rise up.
Deuteronomy 4:9 YLT - 'Only, take heed to thyself, and watch thy soul exceedingly, lest thou forget the things which thine eyes have seen, and lest they turn aside from thy heart, all days of thy life; and thou hast made them known to thy sons, and to thy sons' sons.
Deuteronomy 4:10 YLT - 'The day when thou hast stood before Jehovah thy God in Horeb -- in Jehovah's saying unto me, Assemble to Me the people, and I cause them to hear My words, so that they learn to fear Me all the days that they are alive on the ground, and their sons they teach; --
God also refers to Himself as the God of their fathers, never of their mothers, as we discussed earlier in the section about names.
Deuteronomy 4:1 NKJV - "Now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the judgments which I teach you to observe, that you may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers is giving you.
Why?
You know, something that is interesting throughout the Bible is that God never ever refers to Himself as a woman, the God of their mothers, or as anything of the sort. Whether He is addressing men or women, He always says He is the God of their fathers.
He does this even though, as far as we know, God has no biological gender. He has chosen to reveal Himself to humanity as a He, and more specifically, as a Father.
Even when Jesus was here on earth, that is how He instructed us to address God.
Luke 11:2 NKJV - So He said to them, "When you pray, say: Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done On earth as [it is] in heaven.
God is a Father, our Father, and the Father of Jesus. That is how He has chosen to reveal Himself, and that is the structure He set up on Earth. We have an answer to our question, then, of why men. Quite simply, because God is a man, a Father, and He created a system on Earth that would reveal that. He set His image on man, not because they were the superior gender, but because He created them and their role to reveal Himself.
God created men to bear that image, the image of Father.
The religion God set up from the very beginning has been a religion of fathers, and it is still such a religion to this very day. The fathers are the religious head of their family, and a congregation is simply a collection of fathers and their families.
Hierarchy, in a religious sense, is meant for those who are trying to function as an organization rather than as a family. You have someone at the top, or a collection of someones, and they issue orders to their officers, in this case, elders, who are then responsible for passing those on to those they manage and ensuring that they are carried out. God’s religion is not that way.
The head of each family is the husband, and his head is Jesus. Not another man, Jesus Himself!
Jesus issues His orders directly to each head of the family, and it is the father’s responsibility to see that those instructions are carried out, not the elders. The structure of the congregation, then, is heavily tied to the structure of the family, because it is a family!
The head of the family/organization is Jesus, and the officers of the family/organization are the husbands and fathers!
A congregation is a collection of these fathers and their families who all come together to edify each other and worship God!
When you see a congregation from this perspective, how then can there be any hierarchy in the congregation?
Think about it for a moment!
There are elders, certainly, a collection of spiritual grandfathers who offer wisdom and counsel to the fathers, who guide, shepherd, and lead, but their authority is entirely in their godly knowledge, wisdom, and counsel. They are there to provide spiritual guidance and support to the fathers of the congregation, each one of whom is the head of his own family.
How much difference would this approach make in your congregation?
All that being said, obviously God loves women as well since He created them, and we see the evidence of this love throughout scripture.
There’s no question of that!
None!
Were women created to represent God?
No.
Obviously not.
The role they play in this, and the organism they represent, is the Church, the Body of Christ.
Ephesians 5:22 NKJV - Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.
Ephesians 5:23 NKJV - For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.
Ephesians 5:24 NKJV - Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in everything.
Ephesians 5:25 NKJV - Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her,
Ephesians 5:26 NKJV - that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word,
Ephesians 5:27 NKJV - that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.
Ephesians 5:28 NKJV - So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself.
Ephesians 5:29 NKJV - For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord [does] the church.
Ephesians 5:30 NKJV - For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones.
Ephesians 5:31 NKJV - "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."
Ephesians 5:32 NKJV - This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
The mission of the Congregation is to bring many sons to glory, enlarging the family with as many as the Father shall call!
Growth, in other words!
Growing the Body of Christ!
The Church takes what the Father provides and uses it as good stewards to produce this growth.
Women reflect this in that they are the ones who grow and enlarge the family, raising the children, and stewarding the household under the authority of the father, their husband. They take the seed he provides, and with it, they grow another human inside their own body, literally growing the family!
The picture this paints is incredible, and as soon as you ignore the God ordained structure of marriage, it is lost, and society begins to crumble. Society needs the role of the father, because without it they cannot relate to our Heavenly Father. Perhaps that is why Satan tries so hard to destroy fathers and erase their role, blurring the lines of gender and erasing the biblical roles God created.
Conclusion
Well, in the course of this article, we've gone from simply discussing the structure of marriage to discussing the structure of society as a whole, especially the church. Such a shift is only natural because the two cannot be separated. The structure is the way it is because it is meant to demonstrate the way God relates to mankind, which requires the father to be the central figure. As we saw in the two articles on feminism, when this is not the case, a society naturally collapses.
Are there abuses that occur because of this structure?
There are abuses that occur because of a misuse of this structure, a perversion of the structure God created. God didn't give men wives to abuse them, mistreat them, and despise them. Absolutely not, and to do so is a terrible misuse of what God has created.
It's just that, however, a misuse, a perversion of what God intended.
We'll look a little more at what God thinks of men who abuse their wives and how He handles them in the article The Role of the Christian Man link.
The point is, the structure is designed by God and set in place to teach us something vital, and to provide the best system under which to operate. In fact, the only system under which a society, whether pagan or Christian, can survive for any length of time is a Patriarchal one. Even a pagan society that adheres to a patriarchal system will thrive, but as soon as women are made the social and political equals of men, the erosion that leads to the eventual collapse of that society begins.
For a detailed explanation of this, please check out this article on Feminism pt 2 link. As a brief rundown, a historian did an extremely thorough analysis of thousands of ancient societies, and his findings were, well, contrary to the beliefs he himself held, and he almost didn't publish his findings because of that. Anyway, if you want to learn more, check out that article.
For our part, rather than rejecting what God has ordained, let us learn more about it and seek to live out the life He designed us to live, always bringing glory and honor to Him through obedience to Him. If God designed something a certain way, there's a reason for it, even if it goes against what our reason tells us.
In the course of this article, we’ve examined the structure God has set in place and why, and in the next couple of articles, we’ll look at the specific roles and how they operate within that structure. Thoughts and comments are always welcome!
As always, rely on the Spirit of God and the Scriptures alone, dear friends!
Comments
Post a Comment