Dead Man Blogging

Proving they’ve come a long way from their Mouseketeer days, the young pop tarts [Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera] gave a gyrating, writhing tribute to Madonna to open the show. Dressed in the same kind of white bustier wedding dress Madonna wore while performing “Like a Virgin” during MTV’s inaugural awards broadcast in 1984, Spears and Aguilera sang a cover of the not-so-innocent tune.

Then, while Madonna sang her new song “Hollywood” in a masculine all-black outfit, she shared an open-mouthed kiss with both Aguilera and Spears.

Proverbs 11:22 As a ring of gold in a swine’s snout, so is a beautiful woman who lacks discretion.

2 Corinthians 6:17 - 18 “Therefore, COME OUT FROM THEIR MIDST AND BE SEPARATE,” says the Lord. “AND DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN; And I will welcome you. And I will be a father to you, And you shall be sons and daughters to Me,” Says the Lord Almighty.

Remember that there is absolutely no reason to believe that Iraq has any terrorist connections. Terrorists do things like plant car bombs and kill civilians. This is very different from the guerillas we are now facing in Iraq.

Sole Survivor Recalls Chicago Shooting

Sanchez, bound and left tied on a ramp, listened as Tapia executed his co-workers at Windy City Core Supply Inc.

The story doesn’t say how long this crime took, but I get the impression that it was more than a few minutes.

If even ONE person in that factory had been armed, this tragedy might have been avoided. Again.

Because he was a convicted felon, Tapia was prohibited from owning a firearm. Investigators were trying to determine how he obtained the weapon used in Wednesday’s shooting.

This man has been arrested 12 times, has threatened family members with a gun, and has committed “domestic battery” and aggravated assualt.

But how, oh how, could he have gotten a weapon? Doesn’t he know there’s a law against that?

Here’s a clue: CRIMINALS DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE LAW!

The only thing gun control laws accomplish is to disarm vicitims.

Chalk up 7 more bodies to the left.

1 Timothy 4:7 “…discipline yourself for the purpose of godliness”

While I don’t have clear direction on whether or not I should be militant, it’s indisputable that I must be self-disciplined. I must be militant with myself.

A good friend gave me a book in college which I’ve only recently read. The book is J. Oswald Sander’s updated Spiritual Leadership. While his book is directed at those called to leadership, clearly much of it is equally applicable to people who are just seeking to be good Christians.

The first essential quality of leadership he lists is “Discipline”. Sanders writes

Without this essential quality, all other gifts remain as dwarfs; they cannot grow… Before we can conquer the world, we must first conquer the self. A leader is a person who has learned to obey a discipline imposed from without, and has then taken on a more rigorous discipline from within…

The young man of leadership caliber will work while others waste time, study while others snooze, pray while others daydream. Slothful habits are overcome, whether in thought, deed, or dress. The emerging leader eats right, stands tall, and prepares himself to wage a good warfare.

Sanders later points out, on his chapter on one’s use of time, that there are exactly 60 minutes in an hour, 24 hours in a day. Everything I do for God, all of my Christian walk, will occur in those 1,440 minutes per day. I have no other opportunity to serve Christ aside from what I do with those minutes.

The life I have is not something to be passed; it is a resource, like the talents in the parable, to be used for my Master. My time is not mine to do with as I please. It belongs to Another.

My pastor made a spiritual application out of Proverbs 13:4 “The soul of the sluggard craves and gets nothing, but the soul of the diligent is made fat.” I believe it’s primarily speaking to finances and work, but if it’s true in that context, it’s certainly true in our spiritual lives. Craving is not enough. The sluggard craves, but does not receive. Profit (including spiritual maturity) requires craving and diligence.

There is a philosophy in the church today that if you just love Jesus enough, you’ll spontaneously serve Him as you ought to, and never sin again. I do not believe such a philosophy is supported by the Bible or by anyone’s experience. Certainly not mine.

For the past couple of months I’ve consistently had a morning “quiet time” for prayer, Bible study, meditation, solitude, etc. It has been a tremendous blessing to me. Every evening I look forward to the next morning. My wife says it makes me nicer, too! It puts me in a better mood, and I can tell the difference in my walk with Christ.

But, for the past couple of weeks, I’ve neglected it. I have plenty of excuses, but that’s all they are. I stopped setting my alarm so early, and you know what? I stopped getting up.

I valued that time immensely, but I lost my discipline. “A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest. Your poverty will come in like a vagabond and your need like an armed man.” Spiritually speaking, this was true. A little bit of slacking and before I knew it, I’d lost the time I treasured so much.

The Bible uses metaphors to describe the Christian walk. Those metaphors are things like a soldier, an athlete in training, and running a race. All of these involve lots of self discipline. The Christian walk is not a leisurely stroll, nor is desire sufficient. To be profitable, we must be diligent and self disciplined in how we spend the life God has given us.

What we do with our time is how we spend our lives. If I stay up late playing Civ and consequently don’t get up the next morning in time to meet with God, well, that’s how I spent that small portion of my life. When I spend the money I’ve earned, it is essentially trading part of my life (i.e., my time) for the thing I purchase. It’s how I’ve spent my life. I can choose to spend 30-60 minutes watching an unprofitable show on TV, or I can spend it for Christ in some way.

I can be careful or careless with my time. I can choose to plan my day, or neglect that and have my day “nickle and dimed” away. I can be careful in what I do, where I go, who I spend my time with, what I purchase, etc., or I can be careless. In either case, I have the exact same amount of time. One way of investment will be profitable, the other will be worthless.

My life consists of a number of minutes that only God knows. My time is all that I have. It’s a resource to be expended for the glory of God.

“Thou shalt have no other gods before Me”

There have been a series of events I’ve found out about over the last week or week and a half that have really shaken me. I won’t go into much detail about it here, but I’ll try to explain what I’ve learned.

I was in a difficult situation about 2 years ago in which I took a very hard stance and wound up splitting from a church that I loved. I didn’t have any real choice and, to this day, I believe my decision was Biblical. I know that I did the right thing. But some things have come to light that made me really re-evaluate what happened. I didn’t understand why events worked out as they did, and I told God as much. He responded by exposing a huge area of sin in my life. It’s something I repented of privately, but now I should do so publicly.

The prayer went something like this (obviously I’m writing as though God spoke audibly; He didn’t. This is just roughly what He impressed on me.)
Me: I took a stand for what I knew was right. And look how bad things turned out!
God: Who told you to take a firm stand?
Me: It’s right there in the Bible! I know that my position was right!
God: That’s not what I asked. Who told you to take a firm stand?
Me: Oh. I see what You’re saying. I told me to.

It’s important to follow this carefully so as not to misunderstand me; it’s a little bit confusing.

I’ve prayed to God that if He would simply show me where to stand, I’d stand there firmly. I’d be militantly right, left, or even in the middle. I was sincere about it. I was, and am, willing to hold any belief that God shows me to be true. My position has been that, wherever the Bible clearly speaks, I will stand firmly - even if it appears to be a really insignificant issue. And if the Bible doesn’t clearly speak, I won’t take a firm stand, even on issues that appear to be very significant. (Sometimes I think the Bible is clearer on an issue than others do, though.)

In all this taking firm stands, I missed something. I was willing to let God dictate my beliefs. What I (unconsciously) was not willing to let Him dictate was my level of (in)tolerance when holding that view, which is an entirely independent factor. I was dictating that.

See, I told God that I’d firmly stand wherever He wanted me to. I did not tell Him that I’d stand where and how He wanted me to.

I’d made an idol of militancy. I would die on whatever hill God planted me on - not because I had any biblical reason for believing I should be firm there, but just because that’s what kind of guy I am. I’m a militant, intolerant kind of guy who likes to take bold stands and let the chips fall where they may. I’ll draw a line in the sand and not budge one inch from it. I was willing to let God show me where to draw the line, but not tell me how firmly to hold it.

I confessed to God that I was taking hard stands just because I wanted to take them, not because I really believed He wanted me to take them. I looked to His word in this area to find justification for militancy, not for instruction.

I want to point out that God did not convict me of being militant, nor has He clearly instructed me to be anything else. I may very well have had the right attitude, but motivation is at least as important as where you wind up. It was my motivation that was all wrong, not necessarily my stand.

I’m continuing to seek God’s direction in this area, and have learned some things from Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the pastoral epistles (1 Tim, 2 Tim, Titus). I haven’t learned enough to have any consistent approach to how firmly I should stand, but I am learning some things. I’m no longer looking for verses to justify my militancy, but instead to teach me.

I may still wind up being a militant and intolerant near-fundamentalist, or maybe not. But I’m pulling down the idol of militancy for militancy’s sake. Whever I wind up, I intend for it to be because I’m acting on orders from above, and no longer from my own desires.

Stark Raving Dad by Dave Meurer

I got this book last Christmas from my sister. I can’t believe it took me so long to start reading it! Once I got started, I devoured it.

This is one of the best books on fatherhood I’ve read. It made me laugh a lot, but it’s not primarily humorous. The heart of the book is not a fond recollection of touching incidents that happened while raising his boys. It’s a guide to being a dad.

Meurer touches on dumb advice from parenting “experts”, the “mix of euphoria and wistfulness” you get watching your kids grow up, and a dad’s loss of “coolness”. He discuss the irrational worrying of a father for his kids’ safety, how you can do everything right and still “lose” your kids, spiritually speaking, and how your kids watch and imitate you. He focusses on how, through it all, we’re called to faith - not faith that things will turn out well, or faith in a specific outcome, but faith in a specific person, namely, God.

When I first started reading this book, I expected to give it away after I was done. Fifteen pages later I was having second thoughts. Another eighteen pages and it had earned a place on my bookshelf forever.

I loved this book and I recommend it for every dad.

Introduction

For the past three years or so, up until just the other day, I was reluctantly King James Only. I say “reluctantly” because it’s such a controversial and painful issue and, contrary to popular opinion, I don’t actually like serious controversy.

Like most folks, I was raised on the KJV. When I was in high school, my parents got me an NIV, which I used until I became convinced of KJV Only. I’ve now turned to the NAS.

I want to emphasize one point. While I’ll be explaining some about Bible versions, the theological case for KJVO, and what’s wrong with it, it is not my slightest intention to mock or ridicule those who hold to the KJV only. I believe that KJVO advocates sincerely love the Word and it’s Author.

History of Bible Translation

There are lots of good sources for the history of the Bible, particularly English translations. I am not one of those sources. I can, however, give a rough “good enough” overview.

Once the manuscripts that made up the Bible were written, many copies were made. These copies were copied, and so on. Unfortunately, sometimes errors were made in these copies. Then the erroneous copies were copied. Given the limited travel opportunities over the first few centuries A.D., it wasn’t possible to regularly compare all the variations. What wound up happening is that you’d have “families” of manuscripts develop, generally following some geographic areas. The manuscripts in one family tended to agree with one another, but would disagree with those in another family. The New Testament texts are primarily divided into the Western, Alexandrian, and Byzantine families.

At various points in time, scholars tried to recreate the authentic set of Scriptures by selecting and editing the best texts they had available. There are several of these that are quite significant, but I’ll only discuss three of them.

From the wikipedia

From the 800s to the 1400s rabbinic Jewish scholars known as the Massoretes compared the text of all known Biblical manuscripts, in an effort to create a unified and standardized text; a series of highly similar texts eventually emerged, and any of these texts are known as Masoretic Texts (MT). The Masoretes also added vowel points (called nikud) to the text, since the original text only contained consonants. This sometimes required the selection of an interpretation, since words can differ only in their vowels, and thus the text can vary depending upon the choice of vowels to be inserted.

The primary set of texts for the Old Testament was the Masoretic Text.

For the New Testament, there are two really important texts to our discussion. The first is known as the Textus Receptus. It was edited by a guy named Erasmus right around the time that Gutenberg produced the printing press. Erasmus relied on the Byzantine texts almost exclusively, since those were by far the most prevalent in western Europe at the time.

Another significant Greek New Testament was developed, in the late 1800s, by two men named Westcott and Hort. This is, unsurprisingly, known as Westcott-Hort.

The science of evaluating manuscripts and identifying the correct reading is known as textual criticism.

Translations were made into various languages, and these translations were circulated widely. For the Old Testament, around the time of Christ, 72 rabbis translated the best Hebrew scriptures they had into Greek. It’s known as the Septuagint (Greek for 70) and abbreviated LXX.

When the KJV translators began their work, they primarily relied on Masoretic text for the Old Testament, and Erasmus?s Textus Receptus for the New Testament.

More recent translations, rather than relying as heavily on the Textus Receptus, use Westcott-Hort primarily. This is the reason for many of the differences between translations, particularly where words, verses, or sections are added or removed.

The Case for KJV Only

The case for King James Only is a logical and theological argument based on a belief in God?s verbal inspiration of the Scripture and subsequent preservation of those words. It is as follows.

1. God inspired the actual words that the human authors used in writing the Bible. This is known as verbal or plenary inspiration, and is believed by most conservative evangelical Christians.
2. When we talk about the Word of God, we?re talking about the actual words that God inspired (or a faithful translation of those words). Written communication cannot exist apart from the words used in that communication. If God inspired the words, then that?s what He wanted us to have.
3. If two sets of text differ in any non-trivial way, they are not the same. As any good sci-fi junkie knows, subtle differences are an excellent warning sign that one?s mom/dad/commanding officer/best friend has been replaced by a robot or changling. It?s not enough that they look, talk, and act very much the same. Different is different. I say ?any non-trivial way? because we?re not really concerned about a punctuation mark or word here and there ? we?re concerned about the use of very different words, the inclusion or omission of entire phrases, sentences, verses, and passages, and so on.
4. If two things differ or disagree, at most one can be correct. Perhaps neither is. This is self-evident.
5. God has promised to preserve His Word for His church.
6. God?s promise to preserve His Word implies, from statements 1 and 2, that God will preserve the actual text that He inspired, not some vague ?meaning? apart from the inspired words.
7. Preservation has some actual value to God?s people, meaning that not only is God?s Word preserved, but it?s also available. An inspired, preserved revelation from God does no good if it?s unavailable to God?s people. Why would He bother with a revelation if He wasn?t going to exercise some providential care to get it to His people, and in a way we could understand?
8. Since the vast majority of all known manuscripts are Byzantine, from statement 7 it follows that God?s Word is preserved in the Byzantine texts.
9. From statement 4, any manuscripts which differ non-trivially from the Byzantine texts do not comprise the Word of God.
10. From statement 9, the Westcott-Hort cannot be considered the Word of God. Furthermore, no translations that use the Westcott-Hort instead of the Byzantine texts can be considered the Word of God.
11. From statement 8, only the Textus Receptus, which is based on the Byzantine texts, is trustworthy. Only translations that are based on the TR can be considered the Word of God. This means KJV.

It?s a pretty sound logical case, IMO. So I was stuck. I had no choice but to be KJV Only. It made sense.

The Problem with KJVO

Recently, though, I re-evaluated the logical case a little differently. First, I realized that something may be nearly incomprehensible to me, but still true - God?s sovereignty and man?s free will, the Trinity, etc. Second, I kept in mind that scripture and facts trump logic, even when the facts seem illogical. After some more thought, I discovered that the logical case for KJVO is not correct. I do not understand why it?s not correct, but I know it?s not.

The various Byzantine manuscripts do not agree with each other entirely. Erasmus had to select among the readings found in those manuscripts, and sometimes he did not choose the majority reading. Furthermore, the KJV translators didn?t follow Erasmus?s Textus Receptus entirely. Dr. Hills, a KJV Only advocate, writes ?the King James Version ought to be regarded not merely as a translation of the Textus Receptus but also an independent variety of the Textus Receptus.? (Further discussion at http://wayoflife.org/fbns/whichtr.htm).

What this means is that, if my logical case built in statements 1-9 is correct, God has not preserved His Word, and no extant manuscript or translation can be called ?The Word of God?; God?s revelation has been lost to us. Even if one Byzantine manuscript was the perfectly preserved Word of God, the TR does not completely follow any of those manuscripts, and the KJV does not follow the TR. Preservation would be disproved.

Matters continue to worsen for my KJVO case, and this next point is the one that really torpedoed KJVO in my mind. The KJV translators themselves provided the argument!

The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men do confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy of the appellation and name of the word of God.

The Septuagint differs from the best OT manuscripts in many places. However, it was written in Greek and available to the New Testament authors, who freely quoted it in the New Testament.

Now, everything quoted in the New Testament is necessarily inspired. But what to do when what?s quoted in the New Testament is different from what was actually inspired in the Old Testament? How can two things that differ both be right? This flies directly in the face of statements 3 and 4 above.

Clearly, my KJVO case is flawed, but like I said, I?m not sure where. I think that perhaps I?m taking preservation far too literally. I am a programmer, and I like precision. I do byte-by-byte comparisons on strings. I like checksums. Even whitespace is important. I suspect that this is where the problem lies. The KJV translators answered this type of thinking when they wrote

things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, ? A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) [James 3:2] also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?

Somehow, and I don?t really understand how, God has inspired the very words of the Bible, and preserved His Word in such a manner that does not require us to have 100% of the originally inspired words. I can trust the infallibility of my English Bible without requiring it to be a perfect translation of the particular words that were inspired. It may well be perfect, but it doesn?t have to be. This is very unsatisfying to me, but it appears to be true so I have to be content with it.

Objections

Some people hold that Erasmus was inspired in his selection of texts for the TR. If true, this would mean (per Dr. Hills assertion) that the KJV was uninspired, for it differs from the TR in some instances. Others hold that the KJV translators were inspired. If true, this would mean that the Word of God was effectively lost to the church for hundreds or thousands of years, from the loss of the authentic copies of the autographs to the creation of the KJV. Both of these contentions still have to explain why the NT writers quoted the Septuagint, even though it differs from the Masoretic.

Methods of Translation

Selection of different manuscripts is one reason for the differences among Bible versions. Another reason is the method of translation.

Some Bibles use what?s called a formal equivalency, or a word-for-word translation. When the translators read a Greek or Hebrew word, they wrote an English word, except for minimal changes so the grammar worked in English. Sometimes they had to rearrange the words, sometimes they had to change the tense, and sometimes they had to add words. The KJV and NAS italicize added words. The NAS puts a star by words where they had to change the tense. I know the KJV and NAS use this method, but I?m not sure which other translations do. This method of translation focuses on accuracy.

Another method of translation is dynamic equivalency, or a thought-for-thought translation. The translators would read a phrase, thought, sentence, etc., in the original language and re-write it in English, attempting to preserve the meaning, but not necessarily the actual wording. The NIV is a good example of this form of translation. This method of translation focuses on readability.

Since I believe in plenary inspiration, I prefer formal equivalency to dynamic equivalency. I?m not sure there?s a big difference between dynamic equivalency and paraphrases, and I don?t necessarily trust translators enough to believe they don?t let their own biases influence the translation. That is certainly more possible with dynamic equivalency than with formal equivalency.

Conclusion

The conclusion I?ve reached is that God has preserved His Word, and to a great extent (well over 99%) has preserved the actual words He inspired. There are substantial differences among Bible translations, which is disconcerting to me, but no more so than many other questions in life.

Given my belief in plenary inspiration, I believe a word-for-word translation is the best. The NAS is highly recommended by my elders and people I trust, so I?ve chosen to use it.

The 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals has lifted its “stay” on the order to remove the 10 Commandments monument from the Alabama State Judicial Building. Chief Justice Roy Moore has until August 20 to comply.

Vision Forum has a great article about Moore’s stand.

Moore’s case is significant in that he refuses to “win at any cost”. He is not arguing that the Ten Commandments have simply a historic significance.

He has staked his case, his career, his very life on a simple proposition: The Lord God of the Bible who gave us the Ten Commandments is the only source of law and authority under which our nation and its judges may govern. It is this very God of Scripture to whom our Framers appealed when they drafted the charter documents for our nation.

Moore insists that the First Amendment, which prohibits Congress from making a law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, is not applicable to him.

As Moore has pointed out: He is not Congress, and no law has been passed. He is simply acknowledging the source of law, God Almighty.

This case has been appealed to the US Supreme Court. I pray they will hear the case. If SCOTUS hears the case, it will likely issue a comprehensive ruling that will end America’s wavering between two opinions (1 Kings 18:21). Either the Lord will be acknowledged as supreme over our laws, Constitution, government, and nation, or He will be denied.

Psalm 2
1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? 2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, 3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. 4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. 5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. 6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.

7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. 8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. 9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.

10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. 11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. 12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

Does a husband have unique authority within a family? What is the source of that authority? What is the reason for it? Finally, what is the extent of it? I will argue that every man has been divinely appointed to a position of significant authority in his family with the responsibility of leading his family - wife and children - to be godly, and that this authority includes requiring or forbidding certain behaviors of them.

This is not a complete discussion of family roles and responsibilities; for that I recommend the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’s book, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, which is available from CBMW, online as a PDF, or from Amazon. This essay is intended to answer one simple question: Can a man tell his wife what to do?

It is essential to provide some context when discussing male headship, to prevent misunderstanding. There are two essential things to keep in mind. First, authority is not necessarily a value judgment on the parties involved. Second, we are all in authority and under authority, to some extent.

Christians are commanded to subject themselves to civil authorities in Romans 13:1-7, and the divine origin of civil authority is clearly taught. Hebrews 13:17 establishes that Christians must submit to their leaders, and teaches that religious leaders have a divine calling to watch over our souls. Ephesians 6:5-8 teaches us to obey our employers. Per Ephesians 6:1-3, children must obey their parents. In fact, Christ Himself is subject to the Father’s authority according to 1 Corinthians 15:28. We see authority everywhere. Authority is not unique to families.

This also demonstrates that authority is not necessarily based on merit. For instance, a citizen may be equally or more compentent than a civil authority who he must obey. Being in authority does not mean one is superior, and being under authority does not mean one is inferior. Christ shares the same essence as the Father (Philippians 2:6-7) but is under His authority (1 Corinthians 15:28).

A brief survey of some significant Bible figures will further demonstrate that authority is based on God’s calling, not one’s own merit.

The only thing going for King Saul was that he was tall and handsome. He was a member of one of the least important families of the smallest tribe of Israel. He was hunting for lost donkeys when God called him. He even tried to hide during his anointing ceremony. Christ chose relative nobodies - fishermen, tax collectors, etc. - for his apostles. Moses was a refugee murderer who was slow of speech and timid. Paul was a self-righteous Pharisee who was persecuting Christians when God called him.

Authority is not about merit; it’s about God’s choice. While I don’t think God is capricious or arbitrary, He choses who He will.

A final point to realize about divine authority is that it’s primarily a responsibility rather than a privilege. The responsibility includes the necessary authority to discharge that responsibility. For instance, Romans 13:1-7 gives civil authorities the responsibility to punish evil and reward good. Some of the authority granted to carry out these duties include making laws, punishing offenders, and levying taxes. Religious leaders are given the responsibility to care for and watch over the flock (1 Peter 5:1-4, Hebrews 13:17). They are given authority to teach and preach, to be financially compensated (1 Timothy 5:17-18), to reprove, rebuke, and exhort believers (2 Timothy 4:2), to appoint leadership (Titus 1:5), and so on. The authority granted corresponds to the responsibility given.

Now let’s move from nice, safe, generic discussions of authority and consider a husband’s responsibility and authority with respect to his family and his wife in particular. In addition to establishing the existence of a man’s authority over his family, I’ll try to show the purpose and extent of that authority.

A man’s responsibility to and authority over his wife is established as early as Genesis 2. First, consider verses 19-23. God formed each animal, brought it to Adam, and Adam named it. Then God formed woman, brought her to Adam, and Adam named her. I am not trying to somehow claim that women are no better than animals, but to show the similar ritual that established Adam’s authority. Second, consider the purpose of woman. She was formed as a suitable helper for Adam. Paul refers to this in 1 Corinthians 11:9 when he writes “man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake”.

What was Adam’s responsibility to his wife? We can infer part of the answer from Genesis 2:16-17. God gave Adam the law concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to Adam, not his wife. He gave this law to Adam before the woman was even created. By Genesis 3:1-3, the woman knew the law. We can conclude that Adam had the responsibility to teach his wife the law of God. Further, Genesis 3:6 pointedly mentions that Adam was right there when his wife was tempted, was deceived, and sinned. I think it’s reasonable to see this as a criticism of Adam for not intervening. He should have stomped on the serpent, taken the fruit from his wife, and thrown it away.

Old Testament law explicity gives a husband authority to override his wife’s vows in Numbers 30:1-16. A man’s vow was automatically binding, as was the vow of a widow or divorced woman. But the vows of an unmarried girl in her father’s house were subject to his approval, and the vows of a married woman were subject to her husband’s approval. It’s not hard to understand the responsibility behind this authority. Men are responsible for the spiritual well-being of their households. Since a widow or divorced woman’s vows were just as binding as a man’s, we can see that God is not making a value judgment about men and women. Men’s vows are no more important than a woman’s vows. This law is about the authority of a husband or father, not the relative worthiness of men and women.

A man’s authority over his wife is clearly established in the New Testament. 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 teaches us that “the man is the head of a woman” and “the woman is the glory of man.” It also gives clear instructions, based on that hierarchy, about religious practices both in this passage and 1 Corinthians 14:34-36.

Ephesians 5:22-33 teaches that “the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church” and consequently wives should be subject “to their husbands in everything.”

This passage is particularly helpful because of the parallels it draws between a husband’s duty to his wife and Christ’s relationship to His church. Particularly, husbands are commanded to love their wives “just as Christ also loved the church”. In the same sentence, Paul elaborates on Christ’s love for the church. Specifically, he mentions Christ’s sanctification and glorification of us. We men are also commanded to love our wives as we do our own bodies, specifically by nourishing and cherishing them just as Christ nourishes and cherishes the church. A husband cannot spiritually care for his wife just like Christ does for the church, but the husband’s responsibility for his wife’s spiritual condition is hard to miss.

Considering his responsibility to look after his wife’s spiritual well-being, what authority is a husband given? His wife is to be subject to her husband, just like the church is subject to Christ, in all things. She is to respect and obey him.

Two concrete examples from the Old Testament should serve to demonstrate a man’s responsibility to lead his family spiritually, and what that leadership looks like.

Near the end of his life, Joshua called the Israelites together to speak to them. He reviewed God’s dealings with Israel and then challenged them: “If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” (Joshua 24:15).

It is not recorded or implied that Joshua consulted with his wife - or any other member of his household - before making this declaration. He understood that he had a divine right and responsibility to lead his family in the ways of the Lord.

This was not a hypothetical or vague commitment. He both required and forbade things of the members of his family. They were forbidden to worship false gods or do any of those things associated with the worship of false gods. They were required to keep the law of God. This was not an idle commitment. But it was his right and duty to make it.

The patriarch Jacob exercised his authority in an even more explicit passage. In Genesis 35:1-4, God tells Jacob to move to Bethel. Following God’s call, Jacob commands his family, among other things, to “put away the foreign gods which are among you.” This is particularly significant because we know from Genesis 31:19, 32-36 that Jacob’s wife Rachel was one of them who possessed idols. Jacob apparently felt no compunction in commanding her to get rid of them, and he buried them under a tree in Shechem. He unilaterally made the decision. He did not consult her, make a suggestion, or use any other such wimpy approach. He knew what was right, commanded his family, and expected obedience. Such bold actions are not called for in most situations, but when it is called for, a man must be willing to exercise his authority.

What does this mean to Christian husbands in 21st century America? We must realize that, like Christ does for the church, we have a duty to care spiritually for our wives. I am ultimately responsible for the spiritual nourishment of the members of my family. I cannot guarantee the outcome, but I am responsible for the effort. Like Christ, I must nourish and cherish my wife spiritually. This may include making decisions that affect her personally and directly. Just like Jacob commanded Rachel to get rid of her idols, a husband may have to command his wife to rid herself of things that are sinful or causing her to stumble. As under Old Testament law, a husband may forbid his wife from some spiritual undertaking that he sees to be a rash commitment or otherwise inappropriate for her.

The husband is never scripturally referred to as the “head of the house”. He is the head of his wife and has a responsibility to her greater than his general responsibility to lead his entire family. Biblical headship is far more than strategic decision making. It involves nuturing, teaching, and caring for the members of ones family, and that includes the wife.