The headship authority of the husband over his wife is the “bright red line” that is avoided at all costs within the feminized church because what Scripture says on the subject (and the concomitant implications of what Scripture does not say) is so profoundly disturbing to the feminized herd. Yet, in the battle against feminism, this is the mountain on which men must be willing to take their stand. This is written with full understanding of the legal and cultural environment.
God is perfect and His Law is both perfect and complete, for all people and for all time. However, there is a human tendency to want to speak where God was silent. This arrogance assumes, at best, that God somehow didn’t provide clear enough instruction to His people and someone needs to step in finish the job. History is replete with examples of individuals and institutions that did this. We live with the legacy of this today, but it’s the Achilles heel of churchianity, because to deny the authority of a husband over his wife is to deny the authority of Christ over His church. Nobody will deny that so they look for ways to limit it.
The Authority Issue Matters
In the family, virtually every issue revolves around the relationship between husband and wife with respect to their willingness to be obedient to the Lord. The husband is the head of his family and his wife is to submit to him in everything, as unto the Lord, even if he is not in obedience to the Word. The women are to keep silent in the churches; and if they desire to learn, are to ask their own husband at home. Family is a God-ordained covenant entity separate from the church. The husband is in authority within his family, which was created by his covenant marriage to his wife. Just as the congregation of believers exists within the state, so also does the family exist within the congregation of believers.
The relationship between the Christian and God the Father is that of child to Father. The relationship between the Christian and God the Son is dualistic. He paid a debt He did not owe in obedience to His Father’s will because we owed a debt we could not pay. By paying that debt, the Lord Jesus Christ redeemed each individual member of His church and we are His servants according to the Law of the Bondservant. As Christians and children of God, although Christ is the firstborn Son of God and thus is our brother, He is our Lord and Master because He redeemed us out of bondage to sin paying the price with His own blood.
In other words, a Christian doesn’t get a Savior without getting a Master. That Master isn’t the church; it’s the Lord Jesus Christ.
The relationship of Christ to the Christian is a master-servant relationship. The husband-wife relationship is also dualistic. Both are children of God and servants of Christ, equal in status; however, like the Christ-church relationship, the husband-wife relationship is also a master-servant relationship when it comes to the authority structure within the marriage
The husband wife relationship is a master-servant relationship.
Never, ever, ever deny it because this is what feminism is attacking.
The feminist argument is to claim Ephesians 5:21 as the ‘context’ within which to take everything that comes after that because it negates the husband’s authority over his wife and ultimately places her in control.
The biggest problem with taking that position is the argument has already been heard by the Lord, and it was the losing argument. Not just once, but twice. The first time, God personally intervened and humiliated the #1 prophetess in Israel; Miriam, the older sister of Moses. She began by whispering against Moses (regarding his second wife, a ‘Cushite’ woman, it has traditionally been taken to mean a black woman. We do not know if Zipporah, the first wife of Moses was alive when he took his second wife.) and when she got Aaron to join her in challenging Moses, God intervened. Read the story in Numbers 12.
Next was Korah’s rebellion, found in Numbers 16. Look at what they said to Moses:
“all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is in their midst; so why do you exalt yourself above the assembly of the Lord?”
How is that any different from the wife saying:
“We’re equal in Christ and we’re commanded to submit to each other in fear of Christ, so who are you to claim authority over me?”
That argument was very publicly shot down, all the way to Sheol. If that were not enough, it must also be recognized that Paul was speaking to two separate covenant entities that contain different relationships. Paul concluded his instruction to the covenant entity called ‘church’ with the admonition to submit to one another in fear of Christ at 5:21 and began his instruction to the Family at 5:22. The relationships within the church are sibling in nature, brothers and sisters in Christ. Beginning with 5:22 Paul was instructing husbands and wives, who have a master-servant relationship within the family. Following that he addresses the children in the family, then continues on to the master-servant relationships not bound by marriage.
In churches willing to admit the husband is the head of the wife, it is assumed the authority of the husband over his wife is quite limited because traditionally the church has tried to limit that authority. That is NOT what Scripture teaches, but even within the Christian Manosphere, men don’t seem to understand just how far the husband’s authority actually goes and how exegetically defensible it is.
Currently, it seems the marital bed is the de facto battlefield in the war against the headship of husbands over wives. So, for the sake of argument and in honor of the SCOTUS ruling on the DOMA, let the hysterics begin.
Reductio Ad Absurdum
In Dalrock’s post “Why Christians Need Game” he points to passages in the Bible that make feminists uncomfortable. In many, many marriages, sooner or later the authority of the husband over his wife becomes a battle within the marital bed for power and control within the marriage. As uncomfortable as the feminists are with what the Bible specifically said, observe that what the Bible didn’t say is an order of magnitude more disconcerting.
Sola Scriptura, a marriage has a man as its head and one or more women joined to him for life. The husband is commanded to love the wife, live in peace with her and treat her with gentleness as a weaker vessel and fellow heir of grace. The wife is commanded to obey her husband in everything and to respect him. The wife’s body is not hers alone, but also belongs to her husband and she’s commanded to give him sex if he wants it. Likewise, his body also belongs to his wife and he’s commanded to give her sex if she wants it. If the man has more than one wife he is to treat them equally (clothing, food, housing, conjugal rights, etc.) and the right of primogeniture are based strictly on birth order, not on which wife had the child.
Within a legitimate marriage, God was almost completely silent on what happens within the marital bed. Other than a prohibition against having sex while a woman is menstruating, and abstaining from sex for specific amounts of time after the birth of a baby, marriage bed activities are left to the discretion of the husband and wife. This seems strange to many, given the church’s panoply of teachings and prohibitions in this most intimate of areas.
The origin of western civilization’s assumptions and ideals about sexual morality originate not from Scripture, but from the church’s Augustinian view of Scripture. This view held that sexual intercourse was solely and strictly for the purpose of procreation and the pursuit of anything solely for the purpose of pleasure was sinful. Therefore, any form of intercourse that did not result in semen being deposited in the vagina was a sin. In addition, any position other than what is now known as the “missionary position” was viewed as unnatural and therefore wrong (sinful). Thus, the church expanded the definition of sodomy to include virtually any sexual contact between husband and wife that did not result in “true semen” being deposited in the wife’s vagina.
Much has been written about chivalry and romantic love informing the culture of the Medieval age with a view of women placed on a pedestal, fueled within the church by the cult of Mary worship. Women were idolized as chaste, noble, pure and holy vessels seemingly unequipped with a clitoris and unable to even possibly enjoy the brutish sexual assaults of their husbands within the marital bed. Such women had to be protected as the weaker vessels and the church stepped in with a phalanx of white knights in black robes to regulate and control the marriage bed. Unofficially it was recognized that some women actually did enjoy sex, but these were either coarse and vulgar peasants still clinging to their pagan heritage or lascivious sluts, fit only for work in the brothels owned by the church.
(condensed and paraphrased from “Law, Sex and Christian Society in Medieval Europe” by James Brundage, 1987. This book encapsulates the statement that “truth is stranger than fiction” because honestly, you just can’t make this stuff up.)
Biblically, sodomy is defined as two or more men having sex together. It wasn’t a list of specific acts, rather the fact it was men doing it with men. God focused on relationships, not how the plumbing got connected within the relationship. The Church reframed this to focus on the plumbing connections. Given that the church’s objections to various sexual acts within marriage were based on the idea that sex is for procreation and not recreation, if one accepts the proposition sex is also for recreation, the expansion of the definition fails. In the never ending war for power within marriage the marital bed is the ultimate battleground, so the question is asked:
Q: Can my husband legitimately demand that I do XYZ in bed with him?
- No, says the feminist wife. It’s my body; I make the decision of whether I’ll grant him access to it and what kind of access that might be.
- That depends on what he wants, says the orthodox tradition, and we’ve developed a detailed list of rules and prohibitions to govern this area because we don’t believe God left this to the discretion of the husband.
- “The wife is to submit to her husband in everything” said God.
The wife’s command to obey her husband in everything, as unto the Lord, is global and unbounded. In addition, she was also told to obey him even if he was not in obedience to the Word, so his behavior within the marriage cannot be used as a litmus test for her obedience. This makes many men uncomfortable and many women semi-hysterical, because if a husband cannot command his naked wife in bed, where can he?
The way around this is to redefine what “everything” means. As soon as “everything” gets redefined into “everything but that” we no longer have a global and unbounded standard. After the “that” (whatever it might be) is accepted as an exception to “everything” it is only a matter of expanding “that” until there isn’t any real requirement for the wife to obey her husband at all. The Church facilitated this by reframing permitted or forbidden sexuality away from relationships, over to a focus on plumbing in order to condemn certain plumbing connections as sin.
It is understood that some things which could happen within the marriage bed aren’t wise and just because something wasn’t forbidden doesn’t mean it’s a good idea, but there is a vast chasm between “unwise” and “sinful.” That the husband should not willingly offend the conscience of his wife is an entirely different discussion. The grant of authority to the husband is absolute but the use of the authority is discretionary. Wisdom is necessary but if a wife will not contain her rebellion, one option the husband has is to put her over his knee and spank her into submission. If she refuses to accept his discipline, his ultimate option is to take another wife because divorcing her is not an option.
The Lord was perfectly capable of providing detailed lists of things that are not allowed within the marriage bed. He chose not to do so. He didn’t forget to do so, He chose not to because His Law is perfect and complete. Therefore, redefining “everything” into “everything but (insert sexual act here)” is a subversion of the authority of a husband over his wife. The major perpetrator of this has traditionally been the church.
Q: Why would the church subvert the husband’s authority over his wife?
God created three separate and distinct covenant entities: the family, the state and the church. Each was created and ordained by God with certain functions, duties, rights and responsibilities. Each has its own separate and distinct sphere of ministry. The family and church each have a God ordained authority structure within their own sphere of ministry. However, there has long been a struggle between these entities to gain power over the others. Observe the long history of the church manipulating the state and its rulers in its quest to control the state. Observe a similar history on the part of the church in subverting the husband’s authority over his wife, thus bringing the family further under the control of the church. Ultimately, it’s all about power and control.
One has to look no further than the vigorous opposition to translating the Scriptures into the vernacular to see this. Those who could not understand Latin were hearing a foreign language within the church they helped build. They could not read the Bible even if they had access to one. They lived their lives in ignorance of what God’s word said and that isn’t a good way to advance the kingdom of God. As a business model, however, it works wonders for the organization to be the gatekeepers and interpreters of the sacred text. ‘Keep the peasants ignorant of the truth and they’ll believe anything’ was the idea, and it worked for a long, long time.
Q: So you’re claiming the church has no authority over the family?
Most Christians, worldwide, would agree the State does not have God-ordained authority to dictate policy within the church. Yet, the State is an ordained covenant entity created by God and the agents of the State are described as ministers of righteousness. Likewise, most Christians would agree that the Church was not given the power of the sword, that being given to the State. Family, Church and State each have their own area of ministry and while there is some overlap, just as it was not given to the State to dictate matters within the Church, it was not given to the Church to dictate matters within the Family.
The Church has no authority to regulate the marital bed because within marriage, God placed the husband in authority, not the Church. This is not an argument about whether the Church has authority over the family within the congregation or to what extent; but that the Church does not have authority within a marriage, much less the marriage bed.
God provided specific instruction to husbands and wives and within those boundaries, the husband is in authority over his wife. One of the responsibilities of the husband is to maintain discipline within the home and one of the rights that authority confers is the right to take more than one wife. Sadly, given the precedent of the church’s historic invasion and illicit regulation of the family, the State assumes it likewise has the right to invade the family and dictate policy.
Q: OK, so are you saying that not only can a man have multiple wives, but if a man has more than one wife he can legitimately demand all of them attend his bed at the same time?
Assuming he has a bed big enough, yes. If not, perhaps a lot of pillows on the floor would be more appropriate. The better question is whether it would be wise or even worthwhile to demand that, but as to his authority to do so, Yes.
This line of questions always leads directly to this one: And if the husband has multiple wives in his bed, can he tell wife A to do XYZ with wife B? That becomes the ‘money question’ of the discussion.
The subject of polygyny brings the issue of a wife’s commanded obedience to her husband front and center in an environment in which she isn’t the only woman in the relationship. Likewise it brings obedience to God into brutal contact with un-biblical ideals of romantic love. Polygyny negates the wife’s threat to withhold sex in order to get what she wants and thus weakens her position, but the true hysterics result from a deeply held fear of what she might be commanded to do that would take her far, far, far beyond the boundaries of her cultural conditioning.
The question of how the plumbing gets connected is always used to distract from the real issues, which are authority and morality, not plumbing. It also takes on a shaming aspect (a true man of God would never…) to stop any further debate in favor of the women. To answer the question we first examine who should be answering it. “And if [women] desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.” 1st Corinthians 14:35. The next question is where the husband should properly seek the answer if he isn’t sure. Like the Bereans, he should go straight to Scripture.
Who decides morality? God does. Not the deacons, elders, pastors, popes or patriarchs of the church, and certainly not a vote of the congregation. How do we know what the standard of morality is? God gave us His Word, which contains His Law. Carefully studying it, we see that God was never shy about saying something was wrong. However, there is a difference between saying something might be wrong for the individual and saying as a matter of doctrine that something is wrong for everyone. For a particular act to be morally wrong as a matter of doctrine, it must be because God said it was wrong. God’s Law is perfect and complete, to claim otherwise is blasphemy.
One man’s faith may be weak, and to him eating meat would be sin. Another has faith that is strong and he eats meat. It is thus recognized that while something might be sin for one and not another, in order for an act to be sin for all it must be because the Law identified it as sin. For we know, there is no sin imputed where there is no law. The word imputed in this case refers to a judgment.
Humans are fallible and sooner or later everybody gets it wrong somewhere. As soon as the idea is institutionalized that somebody has super-natural grace to determine truth simply because they got elected (or poisoned their predecessor and then bribed the hell out of everyone to get elected), there are bound to have problems. Wanting to step in and speak on God’s behalf or to expand on what He said is nothing new and it started in the Garden before the fall. Read Genesis 3:3 and compare it to Genesis 2:17. Eve added that bit about touching the fruit, it wasn’t something God said.
The doctrinal question: Is sexual contact between two women a sin?
The logic is Christ would never command the believer to sin, so the wife is not required to obey a sinful command by her husband.
A man lying with another man as with a woman (homosexuality) was forbidden as a capital offense and called an abomination. A man or a woman having sexual contact with an animal was likewise condemned as a capital offense and an abomination. However, there is no mention of women’s sexual contact with other women anywhere within the Law. The only passage in the entire Bible that comes close is Romans 1:26. Within the context of punishment for rejecting Him, God (in His wrath) gave them over to degrading passions and women “gave up the natural function for the unnatural.” Yet, there was no condemnation for these women.
We observe this lack of condemnation in stark contrast to the following verse describing the men who likewise gave up the natural function for the unnatural. As a result, the men burned with lust and committed indecent acts that resulted in a penalty. The women’s acts were not described as indecent, nor was there a condemnation or penalty. With the Scriptures silent on this, a woman’s sexual acts with another woman are not identified or otherwise condemned as sin, per se, so we must examine the relationships in which they might occur.
Given the cultural conditioning as a result of the traditional teachings of the church, this is extremely uncomfortable for many.
It gets worse, because the text raises a question: What is the natural function of a woman?
She was created to be a helpmeet to man within the covenant entity called marriage for the purpose of companionship and procreation. Could two women be engaged in the natural function of women within a polygynous marriage? Yes. 1st Timothy 2:15 says “But women shall be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.” Women in a polygynous marriage are pursuing their natural function if they are fulfilling the mandate to bear children (or at least trying) and continue in faith, love, sanctity and self-restraint.
Q: So you’re saying sexual activity between two women isn’t a sin?
Perhaps the better question is to ask what God said about sexual relations in general, putting contact between women into that context. Keep in mind that lust is a desire that cannot be legitimately fulfilled. A man’s desire for his own wife cannot be described as lust because that desire can legitimately be fulfilled.
Almost ALL sexual prohibitions are related to relationships rather than acts. Sexual relations between men, for example, are prohibited as any sexual act between two men, not based on the act, per se. Likewise, observe the detailed list of prohibited relationships between family members that classify such relationships as incest. Sexual acts are legitimate between a husband and wife because they are married, but are forbidden outside of marriage as either fornication, incest or adultery. With very few exceptions, it isn’t the acts themselves being prohibited, it’s the relationships they take place in.
God is apparently not concerned with how the plumbing is connected, but rather with the relationship of the people connecting the plumbing.
The text denotes the morality and the colors denote the wisdom of the act:
Any sexual acts with an animal by either a man or woman
Sin of Bestiality.
Any sexual acts between a man and a woman who are not eligible to marry
Sin of incest or adultery
Any sexual acts between two men
Sin of Homosexuality
Any sexual acts between two or more women who are not involved in any kind of a marriage.
Not a sin because it is not a condemned (unlawful) activity. It is a problem if they do so in rejection of men and marriage
Any sexual acts between two wives within a legitimate (polygynous) marriage, with either their husband’s permission, or at his command.
Not a sin because it is not a condemned (unlawful) activity.
Masturbation by either a man or a woman
Not a sin because it is not a condemned (unlawful) activity. Is the fantasy legitimate, or lust?
Any sexual acts between man and wife within a legitimate marriage; when the woman is not menstruating or within the proscribed period of time after a childbirth.
Not a sin; and to some extent,
Commanded: “be fruitful and multiply”
Recreation is a legitimate purpose of sexual intimacy within marriage and God was silent about how the plumbing might be connected, so desiring any particular plumbing connection places one on a culturally slippery slope, not a moral one. The boundary issues are not that oral automatically leads to anal; rather it’s the question “what if I like it” within the context of cultural conditioning. The consequences of learning that one enjoys the “taboo” and therefore desires it can be worse than merely performing the act itself because of cultural conditioning.
The argument that acceptance of homosexuality leads to the acceptance of polygyny fails because it’s based on the false premise that polygyny is morally wrong. The point of God taking credit for giving David multiple wives is that it was within the context of a rebuke in which God was pointing out the good things He had done for David.
The church hijacked the issue of sexuality and used it to pit the women against the men within the marriage by making lots of rules about what was and was not acceptable, giving the church control of the families (always remember: when you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow). These rules were enforced for so many centuries nobody really questions where they came from, they are part of the cultural conditioning.
Feminism took control away from the church, freed the hamster and the Feminist Imperative™ has now achieved the force of tradition. The current supply of high-N sluts, both single and with children, has created an environment within the church that bears a startling resemblance to the days of the patriarchs with all those former temple prostitutes needing husbands. Likewise, the so-called temples of higher learning bear a remarkable resemblance to the temples of Baal, complete with temple prostitutes.
The whole ‘God’s Best® for Marriage™‘ argument, aside from being feminist political rhetoric, was cooked up with the false notion that men and women were coming to the marriage as virgins. If we’re talking about real virgins and not butthexed vaginal virgins, monogamy probably is the best choice for marriage. Problem is, the church has a distressing under-supply of adult virgins and a serious oversupply of high-N single and divorced women, typically with children. Perhaps the best marriage plan for these reformed high-N former sluts who have damaged themselves beyond repair is a polygynous marriage. Three women marrying the same man? How about seven? Even God saw it coming.
Acknowledging the legitimacy of polygyny increases the tension of feminist wives by an order of magnitude because it opens the door to legitimate sexual contact between women within a marriage in which they were specifically commanded to obey their husbands in everything. Given that the desire for a ménage a trois is nearly universal in men, assume it will happen. Dread game, anyone? This is the point at which the church and most women come hysterically unglued. If one plumbs the depths of the women’s hysteria (sorry, couldn’t resist), once past the issues of control and jealousy (I will not share) it reduces to fear: “Women know women’s bodies better than men. I don’t want to go there because first I might enjoy it and then I might desire it… and what would that say about me?”
Many Christians, upon reaching this point will typically say “I don’t care what Scripture says, this is just wrong!” This is a normal reaction. Most people who claim the name of Christ discover at some point that they don’t agree with something God said. In fact, it’s emotionally quite similar to those who had problems over the issue of meat sacrificed to idols as opposed to those who didn‘t. The problem is this: God is not commanding that the meat be eaten, it is the choice of the individual. Where the Lord commands, the believer is to obey, no matter how uncomfortable it makes them.
Understanding the Real Issue
Because the marriage relationship between husband and wife represents the relationship between Christ and the church, if it is accepted that the wife’s global and unbounded command to obey her husband in everything doesn’t really mean everything, then logically the church has areas in which they are not required to obey the Lord… and so… they don’t.
The question is not what the husband commands the wife to do; the question is whether he has the authority to command her to do something that is not a sin, even if it forces her out of her comfort zone.
If the Lord has the authority to tell the believer to do something that isn’t a sin and takes the believer far out of their comfort zone, the husband has the same authority to do so with his wives.
To deny the Authority of the Husband over his wife
is to deny the Authority of Christ over the Church.
Take away points:
The family is a covenant entity ordained by God, separate and apart from both Church and State. Within the family the husband is the authority, not the Church or the State. The family is created through the institution of marriage.
The authority of the husband over the wife is global and unbounded. She was told to obey him as if he were God.
The doctrine of the husband’s headship and authority over his wife is the key doctrine in the fight against feminism within the church.
The major point at which women attack the headship doctrine is in the marriage bed. “Surely he can’t tell me to do _____!”
The church hijacked this a long time ago and invented lots of rules to govern what goes on in the marriage bed in order to control the men (when you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow).
Some Most men either desire or fantasize about polygynous marriages. God allowed polygyny for reasons that are abundantly clear to anyone who understands the nature of women. His Law regulated (did not prohibit) polygynous marriages and God took credit for giving David multiple wives.
We observe a nearly universal desire on the part of men to bed multiple women at the same time, a desire that spans time and culture. So, given a polygynous marriage, assume it will happen sooner or later and probably on a regular basis.
Assume likewise that a lot of things can and will happen in a bed full of naked, squirming sexually aroused bodies.
If sexual contact between women was a sin it would place polygynous wives in the impossible position of being forced to choose to obey either their husband or God, after being commanded by God to obey their husband as if he was God.
God chose silence on the matter, not condemning female-female sexual contact as a sin. Within the bounds of polygynous marriage sexual contact between women isn’t a sin.
This line of exegesis drives feminist women into a hysterical frenzy for two reasons:
1. Because it means he really can tell her to do “THAT”
2. Polygyny may be the only way to make high-N sluts and single mothers attractive to a decent man: team them up and let them offer themselves to the marriage market as a harem in search of a husband. They started down the road away from God’s Best® for Marriage™ when they gave up their virginity and became unfit for God’s Best® for Marriage™ somewhere around the time their N went into double digits.
3. Getting polygyny accepted as a reasonable answer to a serious problem means all the work done on the God’s Best® for Marriage™ program is now blown out of the water
Be prepared for ostracism/attack/excommunication if you make this argument in public because it is exegetically correct. The fact it cannot be defeated exegetically means they will shoot the messenger on sight.