The Bible teaches that the man is the head of the wife but does this mean that he is her “spiritual” head and the “priest” of the marital home?
There is a teaching that has emerged in the church, which says that a man is not only the authority in the home and the head of his wife, but that he is also the “spiritual” head and “priest” of his marital home. Those who adhere to this teaching use the following scripture to support it: “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.” Ephesians 5:22-24 (KJV).
There is no doubt that husbands have authority over their wives. However, the question becomes: how far does that authority go? Many interpret the above verses of scripture to say that the authority of the husband is not just an earthly one, but a spiritual and priestly authority as well. The thinking is, since the Lord gives us spiritual direction and the wife is to submit to her husband as unto the Lord, it is now the husband’s job to direct her spiritually. But I contend that this is a misinterpretation. The scripture is simply directing the wife as to how she is to submit. She is to submit to her husband just as willingly as she would submit to the Lord. The scripture is not focusing on the type of headship but instead on the type of submission.
We see something similar when we look at how slaves are to submit to their masters. Ephesians 6:5 teaches the following: “Slaves obey your earthly masters with respect, and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.” The King James Version reads, “as unto Christ.” So, just as a woman is to submit to her husband as unto the Lord, a slave is to submit to his master as unto Christ. However, in the case of slave and master, the church doesn’t go so far as to say that the master is the spiritual head and priest of his slave.
One of the main problems we run into when we say that the husband is the spiritual head of his wife is how to apply this type of thinking to a marriage in which a Christian woman is married to an unbeliever. Although the unbelieving husband is still the head of his wife, there is no way that his authority transforms into a spiritual authority…it can’t…he is an unbeliever. This is one of the dangers of this teaching. To say that since a man has an earthly authority over his wife, also means he has a spiritual authority over his wife, automatically 1) places the wife’s spirituality as second to her husband’s 2) implies that when a woman gets married her spiritual connection to God must somehow now come through her husband 3) assumes that the husband is more spiritually mature, and more spiritually in-tune to God, than his wife, 4) puts the wife in a position where her spirituality can always be questioned by her husband 5) assumes that the husband will always hear from God first 6) gives the impression that the wife must always go to her husband regarding spiritual matters 7) puts the wife in a position of second guessing-herself or having to get a confirmation from her husband as to whether or not she has truly heard from the Lord. This is indeed oppressive, and in my opinion, unbiblical. I have not read one scripture that says that the husband is the spiritual head, but only that he is the head. I contend that the spiritual head is Jesus. This is not to say that the husband cannot, at times, lead spiritually, but there is a difference between leading spiritually and declaring oneself to be the spiritual head.
Case in point: This is the account of the birth of Jesus Christ found in Matthew 1:18-20 (NIV) “This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, ‘Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.” Most of us know the account of how the Holy Ghost overshadowed the Virgin Mary with his Spirit resulting in the birth of Jesus (Luke 1:26-38). Before this happened, the angel Gabriel visited Mary to inform her that she would be with child and give birth to the Son of the Most High, Jesus.
There are some significant points to be made here. First, God brought this very important spiritual matter (if not the most important spiritual matter ever) to Mary before bringing it to her husband, Joseph. If Joseph was Mary’s spiritual head, then it would seem that God would have brought this information to Joseph first. Secondly, Mary apparently told Joseph the good news but from looking at the historical account it appears that Joseph didn’t believe her and was going to divorce her because of it. He was going to divorce her privately but he was still going to divorce her. In a sense, it looks as if he questioned Mary’s spirituality in all of this or that he doubted that Mary had ever really had a spiritual visitation from Gabriel. It took God’s intervention to turn Joseph around. I believe that Joseph probably initially felt as many men in the church today would have…that God would not have given such important spiritual information and direction to a man’s wife without first informing her husband. After all…the husband is the spiritual head, right? You see the danger here? Although Joseph was a righteous man, he was righteously wrong in his initial assessment of this very spiritual occurrence.
Another case in point: I knew of a church which supported the teaching that says that a man is the spiritual head of his wife, and therefore turned women away from its church membership whose husbands did not also want to join. At the end of service, an invitation would be made for church membership for those who felt led. During the invitation, there were times when women would come to the altar and by the prompting of the pastor give reason why they wanted to join this particular church. If a woman happened to say that her husband was not going to join, or that her husband belongs to another church, she would be told in front of the entire congregation that she was welcome to visit the church but that she could not become a member without her husband joining too. This ultimately meant that she could not serve in this church.
The problem here is that, in order for these women to have been denied church membership, the following assumptions had to be made: 1) that these women, who claimed that the Lord had led them to this church, must have been mistaken and weren’t spiritually adept enough to know better 2) that the husbands couldn’t have been rebelling against God so these wives must have been rebelling against their husbands 4) that since the husband is the spiritual head of the home, then these husbands knew what was spiritually best for their wives and for their families. Of course there are instances where husbands do know best. But there are also instances where wives know best. There are historical examples of the former and the latter in the Bible and in present times. The dangerous part of this latter scenario is that these women were turned down from a church that they felt God led them to. As a result, they no doubt eventually became members of churches that were spiritually unsatisfying to them or some may have become discouraged and stopped attending church altogether. This is spiritual oppression. A woman’s spiritual wellbeing is more important than a man’s exercise of authority.
Now, one last point: there’s a second half to all of this and that’s the teaching that not only are husbands the spiritual head but they are also the priests of their homes. There is no doubt that the husband’s authority reigns supreme in his home, but I believe identifying him as a priest takes things too far. 1 Peter 2:4-6 reads, “As you come to him the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him—you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” The NIV study Bible Commentary identifies the holy priesthood as the “whole body of believers.” Therefore, all of us (this includes women) who are saved are priests, in a spiritual sense, and offer spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus (sacrifices of praise, holy living, etc). Consequently, in this sense, a married Christian woman is a priest just like any other believer is. She is to offer up her own spiritual sacrifices just like any other believer. Her husband is no more a priest than she is. She is not dependent upon her husband to offer up spiritual sacrifices to the Lord on her behalf. She can do this on her own, for herself, as she should. Of course, her husband can intercede in prayer for her just as she can for him, but there are important distinctions between intercessory prayer and the holy priesthood. And I believe that the church often times inappropriately infuses the two.
Hebrews 7:22-27 reads, “Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. Such a high priest meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once and for all when he offered himself.” Jesus is our High Priest. Hebrews Chapter 8 defines Jesus as the mediator between us and God. Therefore it is not the husband that is the priestly mediator between his wife and God, but instead, Jesus. The wife has the ability and opportunity to offer spiritual sacrifices to Jesus who in turn intercedes and mediates between her and God on her behalf. To teach that a woman’s husband is her priest instead of teaching that Jesus is her priest is unbiblical and minimizes her privilege to approach the throne of grace for herself. It also implies that somehow her husband can help to exonerate her of her sins, which, of course he cannot. The term “priest” should not be used too freely. It has too much biblical meaning.
Both the husband and the wife are spiritual priests and are subject to the High Priest, Jesus Christ. Therefore, both can approach the High priest on an equal basis at any time without sanction or permission from the other. With all this said, it is simply best and spiritually safer to identify the man’s role as no more than what it is…he is the head of his wife and the head of his house. He is the earthy head of his wife, but he is not identified in the Bible as his wife’s spiritual head, and he is not identified as his wife’s priest. Therefore, I think it would be best if we were not to identify him in that way either because to do so can easily lead to the spiritual oppression of women.
There is no doubt that husbands have authority over their wives. However, the question becomes: how far does that authority go? Many interpret the above verses of scripture to say that the authority of the husband is not just an earthly one, but a spiritual and priestly authority as well. The thinking is, since the Lord gives us spiritual direction and the wife is to submit to her husband as unto the Lord, it is now the husband’s job to direct her spiritually. But I contend that this is a misinterpretation. The scripture is simply directing the wife as to how she is to submit. She is to submit to her husband just as willingly as she would submit to the Lord. The scripture is not focusing on the type of headship but instead on the type of submission.
We see something similar when we look at how slaves are to submit to their masters. Ephesians 6:5 teaches the following: “Slaves obey your earthly masters with respect, and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.” The King James Version reads, “as unto Christ.” So, just as a woman is to submit to her husband as unto the Lord, a slave is to submit to his master as unto Christ. However, in the case of slave and master, the church doesn’t go so far as to say that the master is the spiritual head and priest of his slave.
One of the main problems we run into when we say that the husband is the spiritual head of his wife is how to apply this type of thinking to a marriage in which a Christian woman is married to an unbeliever. Although the unbelieving husband is still the head of his wife, there is no way that his authority transforms into a spiritual authority…it can’t…he is an unbeliever. This is one of the dangers of this teaching. To say that since a man has an earthly authority over his wife, also means he has a spiritual authority over his wife, automatically 1) places the wife’s spirituality as second to her husband’s 2) implies that when a woman gets married her spiritual connection to God must somehow now come through her husband 3) assumes that the husband is more spiritually mature, and more spiritually in-tune to God, than his wife, 4) puts the wife in a position where her spirituality can always be questioned by her husband 5) assumes that the husband will always hear from God first 6) gives the impression that the wife must always go to her husband regarding spiritual matters 7) puts the wife in a position of second guessing-herself or having to get a confirmation from her husband as to whether or not she has truly heard from the Lord. This is indeed oppressive, and in my opinion, unbiblical. I have not read one scripture that says that the husband is the spiritual head, but only that he is the head. I contend that the spiritual head is Jesus. This is not to say that the husband cannot, at times, lead spiritually, but there is a difference between leading spiritually and declaring oneself to be the spiritual head.
Case in point: This is the account of the birth of Jesus Christ found in Matthew 1:18-20 (NIV) “This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, ‘Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.” Most of us know the account of how the Holy Ghost overshadowed the Virgin Mary with his Spirit resulting in the birth of Jesus (Luke 1:26-38). Before this happened, the angel Gabriel visited Mary to inform her that she would be with child and give birth to the Son of the Most High, Jesus.
There are some significant points to be made here. First, God brought this very important spiritual matter (if not the most important spiritual matter ever) to Mary before bringing it to her husband, Joseph. If Joseph was Mary’s spiritual head, then it would seem that God would have brought this information to Joseph first. Secondly, Mary apparently told Joseph the good news but from looking at the historical account it appears that Joseph didn’t believe her and was going to divorce her because of it. He was going to divorce her privately but he was still going to divorce her. In a sense, it looks as if he questioned Mary’s spirituality in all of this or that he doubted that Mary had ever really had a spiritual visitation from Gabriel. It took God’s intervention to turn Joseph around. I believe that Joseph probably initially felt as many men in the church today would have…that God would not have given such important spiritual information and direction to a man’s wife without first informing her husband. After all…the husband is the spiritual head, right? You see the danger here? Although Joseph was a righteous man, he was righteously wrong in his initial assessment of this very spiritual occurrence.
Another case in point: I knew of a church which supported the teaching that says that a man is the spiritual head of his wife, and therefore turned women away from its church membership whose husbands did not also want to join. At the end of service, an invitation would be made for church membership for those who felt led. During the invitation, there were times when women would come to the altar and by the prompting of the pastor give reason why they wanted to join this particular church. If a woman happened to say that her husband was not going to join, or that her husband belongs to another church, she would be told in front of the entire congregation that she was welcome to visit the church but that she could not become a member without her husband joining too. This ultimately meant that she could not serve in this church.
The problem here is that, in order for these women to have been denied church membership, the following assumptions had to be made: 1) that these women, who claimed that the Lord had led them to this church, must have been mistaken and weren’t spiritually adept enough to know better 2) that the husbands couldn’t have been rebelling against God so these wives must have been rebelling against their husbands 4) that since the husband is the spiritual head of the home, then these husbands knew what was spiritually best for their wives and for their families. Of course there are instances where husbands do know best. But there are also instances where wives know best. There are historical examples of the former and the latter in the Bible and in present times. The dangerous part of this latter scenario is that these women were turned down from a church that they felt God led them to. As a result, they no doubt eventually became members of churches that were spiritually unsatisfying to them or some may have become discouraged and stopped attending church altogether. This is spiritual oppression. A woman’s spiritual wellbeing is more important than a man’s exercise of authority.
Now, one last point: there’s a second half to all of this and that’s the teaching that not only are husbands the spiritual head but they are also the priests of their homes. There is no doubt that the husband’s authority reigns supreme in his home, but I believe identifying him as a priest takes things too far. 1 Peter 2:4-6 reads, “As you come to him the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him—you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” The NIV study Bible Commentary identifies the holy priesthood as the “whole body of believers.” Therefore, all of us (this includes women) who are saved are priests, in a spiritual sense, and offer spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus (sacrifices of praise, holy living, etc). Consequently, in this sense, a married Christian woman is a priest just like any other believer is. She is to offer up her own spiritual sacrifices just like any other believer. Her husband is no more a priest than she is. She is not dependent upon her husband to offer up spiritual sacrifices to the Lord on her behalf. She can do this on her own, for herself, as she should. Of course, her husband can intercede in prayer for her just as she can for him, but there are important distinctions between intercessory prayer and the holy priesthood. And I believe that the church often times inappropriately infuses the two.
Hebrews 7:22-27 reads, “Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. Such a high priest meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once and for all when he offered himself.” Jesus is our High Priest. Hebrews Chapter 8 defines Jesus as the mediator between us and God. Therefore it is not the husband that is the priestly mediator between his wife and God, but instead, Jesus. The wife has the ability and opportunity to offer spiritual sacrifices to Jesus who in turn intercedes and mediates between her and God on her behalf. To teach that a woman’s husband is her priest instead of teaching that Jesus is her priest is unbiblical and minimizes her privilege to approach the throne of grace for herself. It also implies that somehow her husband can help to exonerate her of her sins, which, of course he cannot. The term “priest” should not be used too freely. It has too much biblical meaning.
Both the husband and the wife are spiritual priests and are subject to the High Priest, Jesus Christ. Therefore, both can approach the High priest on an equal basis at any time without sanction or permission from the other. With all this said, it is simply best and spiritually safer to identify the man’s role as no more than what it is…he is the head of his wife and the head of his house. He is the earthy head of his wife, but he is not identified in the Bible as his wife’s spiritual head, and he is not identified as his wife’s priest. Therefore, I think it would be best if we were not to identify him in that way either because to do so can easily lead to the spiritual oppression of women.
posted by Elreta Dodds at 7:53 AM
|
1 comments
