Women in Ministry and at Home - by Jennifer Lang

WOMEN IN MINISTRY AND AT HOME

If you want to hear my video teaching of this blog as you read, then here is the video for part 1, "Women in Ministry"

"Women in Ministry and at Home Pt 1 (ministry) - Jennifer Lang"

Here’s one of several cases where Paul writes something and it’s not his own words, but he is quoting what the people said and it should be in quotation marks, and then he responds to their statements.

1 Corinthians 14:34-38 King James Version
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

36 What? came the word of Yahuwah out from you? or came it unto you only?

37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of Yahuwah.

38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

Ignorant men, and some women too, like to use this verse to control women into silence in the congregations, but it’s being used out of context. Paul is quoting the people and then responding to them. It should be written like this.

Their words that Paul is referring to: “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

Paul’s response: What?! came the word of Yahuwah out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of Yahuwah. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

That word “What?!” is conveniently omitted in some of the translations. Yet it’s that word that shows that Paul is challenging them on the words they wrote to him. First of all, Paul had women ministers who taught both women and men, Priscilla being one of them, who with her husband, Aquila, who had a home church together (1 Corinthians 16:19 The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.), taught Apollos the ways of Yahushuwa more clearly (Acts 18:24-26 -v. 26: And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, THEY took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly). He never forbade this! It wouldn’t even make sense for him to tell women to keep silent in the churches because that would make him two-faced, going against his own practices.

Secondly, they were asking him about how to keep order in the services because they had people speaking messages in tongues and prophecy all at once, and women asking questions of their husbands who may have sat across the room, and these things disrupted the services. To have them run more smoothly he told them to speak one at a time, and concerning the women question, they wanted the women to wait until they got home to ask questions, but Paul was NOT agreeing with them on the ‘law’ telling them to keep silent. Nowhere does Torah tell women to keep silent!

Women spoke in tongues and prophesied as well as men, in this same letter, in the previous verses (look them up), he was just giving instruction to both women and men on speaking one at a time so things would be orderly. 

1 Corinthians 14:26-33 King James Version
26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to Yahuwah.
29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
33 For Yahuwah is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

He didn’t turn right around and tell women to keep silent and that it’s shameful for them to speak in the services! The verse below also shows us that women as well as men will prophesy. And by the way, for those who insist women cannot teach men, the word prophesy is #4395 in Strong’s Concordance and the meaning includes ‘to teach’, in the original language.

Acts 2:17 King James Version
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith Yahuwah, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

It needed to be done in an orderly way for all. There is absolutely NO LAW in the Bible that forbids them to speak in or out of the congregation or forbids them to teach men, no law or Scripture that tells women to keep silent, nor that says it’s shameful for women to speak in the church. Guess what laws say these things about women? The man-made oral laws that are in the Talmud, that we are not required to follow. Let’s look at those, and you can see where those people got it from and why Paul was challenging them on the origin of them.

“A woman’s voice is prohibited because it is sexually provocative” (Talmud, Berachot 24a).

“Women are sexually seductive, mentally inferior, socially embarrassing, and spiritually separated from the law of Moses; therefore, let them be silent” (summary of Talmudic sayings).

“It is a shame for a woman to let her voice be heard among men” (Talmud, Tractate Kiddushin)

“The voice of a woman is filthy nakedness” (Talmud, Berachot Kiddushin)

The rabbis taught that "a woman should know nothing but the use of her distaff."

Rabbi Eliezer "Let the words of the law be burned, rather than that they should be delivered to women."

These quotes show a negative attitude of men towards women in the past, and I think we all know that many men continue to have a negative attitude about women in modern times. To take Scriptures like this one in 1 Corinthians out of context, and ignore other verses like Acts 2:17, as well as Paul’s example of having several female ministers helping him in his ministry and teaching and preaching to men as well as to women, and even being in charge of churches at times, seems to be a well-enjoyed habit by men who either hate women, or who love to suppress women, or who love to be in total control and don’t want a woman to have a ‘say-so’ about many things, and seem to feel better about their insecure selves if they keep the women in bondage and make them feel inferior and small!

For a few years I attended the Church of God (the 7th day type) and they didn’t allow women to have leadership roles. There was a female organist, which surprised me. But only men could lead the music service, and the men they chose had no anointing for leading in music. It was hard to stay in a service like that. They’d sing a hymn, sit down and read some Scripture or teach, stand up and sing another song, sit down and teach, and so on.

With no anointing there wasn’t much ‘worship’ going on, and worship is very important to have before the message is given – it brings people in touch with Yahuwah and they will be more sensitive to Him and more open to receiving the message that is preached. This church didn’t have any men with the anointing or calling to lead praise or worship, and they would not let a woman do it.

But one day they had a group of singers come in and lead some music as a ‘special’ event, including women as well as men. It was so anointed that I lifted my hands, closed my eyes and harmonized with them, and felt Yahuwah’s tangible presence, and when the service was over one of the leaders of the church came to me and said that I must have really liked the music. This was because they saw me lifting my hands, something they frowned upon, thinking it draws attention to the person doing it. I guess they were all staring at me because I dared to actually worship Yahuwah instead of just ‘sing’ along like a robot.

Women were allowed to teach children’s church, and women’s groups, but never men and never from the pulpit. I felt so oppressed there, as I am called to be a worship leader and Psalmist, and also a teacher in the 5-fold ministry, and could not even consider pursuing my calling. But I sat in a little room one day and silently spoke to Yahuwah about how much I desired to be a worship leader and minister in music, and He gave me a definite sign and answer, telling me I would be. And a few years later I was asked to help lead worship in a Messianic congregation I later attended, and that blossomed and grew from there. And now I am teaching certain subjects as well. The difference between feeling totally oppressed and in bondage, and later feeling free to do what Yahuwah has called me to do, is like the difference between night and day. HalleluYah! In the picture below I am leading worship with my husband James, but before we met I led many times by myself.

There are many modern-day churches that still take these ‘women’ verses out of context and suppress women, not allowing them to teach, preach or lead music in their churches. Some don’t even allow them to pray out loud. I read about one that made the women sit in the back, and if they wanted to speak they had to raise their hand and get permission from a man to speak! It saddens me that they do that to people when Yahuwah never intended it.

Here is another Scripture that is misused, to put restrictions on women that Yahuwah never intended. It has been taken entirely out of context, not only by mainstream churches, but also by many Messianic/Torah observant Sabbath keeping groups. Let’s take a look at the verses, and then let’s study them in context of what is really being addressed here.

1 Timothy 2:8-15 King James Version
8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness [this clip is not my note - is part of the verse]) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety

Some take these verses to mean that men should lift their hands when they pray in pubic but not women, as they are to keep quiet, women should not fix up their hair to make pretty hairdos, nor wear jewelry or hair jewels, nor nice clothing, women should not speak in the congregation, nor pray out loud like the men – should shut up and learn what the men teach, and this is because Yahuwah made man first, therefore he is superior to women, and women are weak and easily deceived, but if they have children, they can be saved and go to heaven.

Some would like it that we women are kept barefoot and pregnant, imprisoned in the home to cook and clean and change diapers and not allowed to contribute to the functioning of the church, or have any say-so in it, except to bring food they’ve cooked for everyone to eat after the service, and to teach the children. 

In some of these groups they aren’t allowed to wear make-up, must never cut their hair and must wear it in a bun in public or hide it, because only their husbands are allowed to see their hair down, as it is seductive and even seduces angels and puts the women in danger of fallen angels attacking them (1 Corinthians 11:10), must wear skirts to their ankles and shirts up to their throats, and they must be bland colors that do not draw attention, such as brown, tan, dark green, etc. 

 

Many require the women wear fabric or lace head coverings as if there were a commandment to do this (there is not.) A woman’s hair is a sufficient head covering, as it says in 1 Corinthians 11, but she can wear a fabric one if she wants to.

Just look at some of the Messianic groups where the women dress like Hebrew women of the early church, the Holiness churches where the women think holiness is obtained by wearing long-skirts, no make-up, hair in buns, and a glassy stare in their eyes that makes one wonder if they are possessed, even though the Scriptures clearly show that holiness has to do with obeying Yahuwah’s laws (which we are to do AFTER we get born-again), as you will soon see if you read my other topics. 

What is Holiness and How Do We Be Ye Holy

Many think they are holy because of their outward appearance, yet they violate Yahuwah’s laws by eating their hams and bacon, many of the Amish teenagers sneak off and have drunken parties and fornicate, and I could go on and on, but you already know how it is with all of the different religions that all believe they are following the Bible, especially Scriptures like the one above, but they have taken so many verses out of context and made religions out of their error.

Before I go on, I want to let you know that I am not saying it is wrong to wear earthy colors, skirts to the ankles, hair up in buns, head coverings, etc. I am just making issue out of how so many people mistakenly think these things are required because of verses like the one above, when in fact the verses have NOTHING to do with these things, as they have been taught out of context.

Women SHOULD dress modestly so as not to tempt men to lust after them. Showing cleavage, thighs, wearing skin tight outfits, globbing on the make-up to the extreme, and things like that are not how godly women should display themselves. Some like bright colors, some like earthy colors, some like to put their hair up, some like to wear it down. Women should look like women and men like men, but that doesn’t mean a woman cannot wear a pair of pants or a man cannot wear a pink shirt.

Dressing Modestly

Let’s just use some common sense here. A man shouldn’t put his hair up in a woman’s style hairdo, he should seek to always look ‘manly’ and not ‘effeminate’! A woman shouldn’t shave her head unnecessarily – she should seek to always look feminine, not like butchy-boy next door. There are Scriptures for this, but right now let’s get back to the verses we are addressing, and their true meanings. Let’s go over 1 Timothy 2:8-15 verse by verse and understand the meaning in context!

First of all, Paul wrote to Timothy, addressing a situation in a church in Ephesus. This was a corrective letter, not a general teaching for all women or all men. The men were angry and arguing. Rich women were showing off their wealth by wearing expensive jewelry and clothing, and fancy hairdos that were so elaborate that everyone could tell they could afford servants to fix their hair. Kind of like the picture below would be extreme to dress like this in a fellowship service!

They were not being humble, but were showing off. The men and women needed to show humility rather than anger or pride. Let’s read this section again:

1 Timothy 2:8-15 King James Version
8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety

In verses 11 and 12 Paul was addressing a married couple in the group, ‘woman’ coming from the Greek word ‘gune’ meaning wife, and man from ‘aner’ meaning husband. He had been talking about women and men (plural) and then switched to woman and man (singular), indicating that this is about a particular husband and wife.

They had been teaching false doctrine of the Artemis cult (also called Diana in Roman mythology) – that Eve gave birth to Adam and was superior to him, having special spiritual knowledge that she imparted to him. They believed that all women are superior to men, since they gave life to man without the help of a man, as well as more qualified to teach men spiritual things than men are to teach women, provide salvation to men, and should dominate them, which is why Paul told the men to go pray directly to Yahuwah in verse 8, and not to be wrathful. It is understandable that men would be angry, living in a society like that!

Their false doctrine developed into full-blown Gnosticism, which was a cult that was based on the idea of Gnosis, the Greek word for knowledge. It focused on salvation through the discovery and fostering of secret, inner knowledge, which these worshippers of Artemis believed came from Eve. It is apparently still practiced in some places.

Paul pointed out that Adam was formed first, NOT Eve, because they were taught that Eve came first and he was correcting them, and that the cult belief that men had to be dominated by women was not true. Eve was deceived – she did not have special spiritual knowledge – she stupidly let the enemy trick her, and women in this cult were doing the same thing. But at the same time, this does not mean that women are inferior to men, just as they are not superior to men.

The fact that Adam was created first does not make him better. Even though Esau was born first, Jacob got the blessing. David was born last, but look at how he was used of Yahuwah. Yahuwah created animals before humans, but that doesn’t mean that animals are superior to humans. ‎Genesis 1:26 says Yahuwah gave us dominion over the animals.

The fact that Eve was deceived does not make her the inferior sex. Adam was not deceived – he willingly and knowingly chose to sin when Eve gave the fruit to him. He was right there with her and could have stopped her (“she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat” Genesis 3:6) Romans 5:12 says “by one man sin entered the world….” The responsibility of sin entering the world was put on him even though both were guilty. In the Artemis cult, the women were deceived, and the men chose to let them dominate them – again, both were guilty, women by deception, and men by choice.

The domination of males was so bad in that cult that the men would cut their testicles off to emasculate themselves. Neither men nor women are to dominate each other. Where it says the woman should not usurp authority over the man, the word for authority is 'authenteō' (also called ‘authentein’) and this is the only time it’s used in Scripture, and DURING the New Testament writings in Paul’s time it had the meaning of “self-murderer” and “one who slays with his own hands.” In one non-scripture use of the word, it means “one who with his own hands kills another or himself” and is not about women dominating men. It is about the men making themselves enuchs (self-murderer – killing their ability to procreate, slaying with their own hands by cutting their testicles off). "In the Greek language of the New Testament period, Flavius Josephus used the word “authenten” to refer to a man who was responsible for the death of another man by poison. Those who sacrificed offspring to false gods and goddesses in the Wisdom of Solomon, chapter 12, are called “authentas.”" (from apostleswarning.wordpress. com - by BOBANDHELGA)

Later on in the second century, well AFTER the New Testament time, it had the meaning of an abuse of authority, to dominate as a superior or master, not ‘normal’ authority of church leadership or marriage leadership. So believers should never use that verse or word to suggest that men or husbands have ‘authority’ over women or wives, and that the women ‘usurp’ it. It does not mean that.

"A study of Paul’s letters shows that he regularly used a form of the Greek “exousia” when referring to the use of authority in the church (see 1 Cor 6:12, 7:4, 1 Cor 6:12, 7:4, 9:4-6, 9:12, 11:10, 2 Cor 2:8, 10:8, 13:10, Col. 1:13, 2 Thess 3:12, Rom 6:15, 9:21)" - (Gail Wallace). The word authentein was only used ONE TIME in the Scriptures, and as I said, it did NOT mean 'authority' nor 'usurp authority' when Paul used it, and not until the next century did it mean anything to do with authority (and even that was rare).

Here are some quotes by Bible scholars about the meaning of the word "authentein":

<<<Bob Edwards (He holds degrees in Religious Education):

“Regarding studies on authentein, a comprehensive study was published in 2010 by Wilshire, using the Thesaurus Linguae Graeca, an online computer database containing 306 uses of authentein or its derivatives throughout the entire history of Greek literature (a 1200 year span). Such a large sample has frankly never been available before in human history. In other words, it’s a landmark study.

Meanings for authentein in the TLG between 200 B.C. and 200 A.D. (a 400-year span with the New Testament period at its center) include the following:

– “doer of a massacre”
– “author of crimes”
– “perpetrators of sacrilege”
– “supporter of violent actions”
– “murderer of oneself”
– “sole power”
– “perpetrator of slaughter”
– “murderer”
– “slayer”
– “slayer of oneself”
– “authority”
– “perpetrator of evil”
– “one who murders by his own hand”>>>

<<<It seems that after conducting his landmark study Wilshire actually rejected the idea that “authentein” refers to the use of authority at all, either positive OR negative:

Wilshire concludes that authentein might best be translated “to instigate violence.” Women in Timothy’s congregation, therefore, are to neither teach nor instigate violence. He bases this conclusion upon a study of every known use of the word authentein (and its cognates) in Greek literature from the years 200 B.C. to 200 A.D.>>>

This poorly translated word is about the cult violence issue, since it had the definitions relating to violence until between 100 and 200 A.D., and the Scriptures were written in around 65 A.D. The New Testament was printed up in about 96 A.D. Not until around 100 to 200 A.D. did this word take on the meaning of authority. When these words authentein, as well as the other original word hypotassō, and context in which it is used (submit, obey, subjection which all come from the same word that is used in telling all believers to submit to one another), are used in Scripture, none of them indicate that wives are to be under the authority of their husbands, but that marriage partners are to submit to one another as appropriate, depending on the situation, and that both, if submitted to Yahuwah, will be able to get in agreement with each other on different issues and not have the ‘husband’ make the ‘final decisions’ as many religious people teach. Husbands are not to dominate wives, and wives are not to dominate husbands.

A quote from author Sandra Clements, on godswordtowomen.org, that will help us understand this better is:

“Submission is a term that has been greatly misused within the church world. It is a term that has been used to elevate one person over another, particularly in reference to men as they relate to women. In order to understand the term and its application in scripture, we must first get a proper definition of the word and then place the term in its proper setting and context.“

“Finally, submission does not mean "to obey." The Greek word for "obey/obedience" is hupakoe, which means to listen to or to harken to. Submission (hupotasso) means to get under and lift up, or to put in order. It does not mean obedience. Gundry well defines this equalizing principle as a sort of voluntary raising everyone else to your own personal level of importance and worthiness.(2) It is interesting to note that other languages further reinforce this concept. For example, Kluane Spake, writes, "The German translation of that word, sich unterstellen, means to place oneself at a disposition of another."

The verse below gives an example of one of the problems in Ephesus where false doctrine was being taught and needed to be stopped. I’m putting two different versions below – the NIV makes it a little more clear:

1 Timothy 1:3-4 King James Version
3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

1 Timothy 1:3-4 New International Version
3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command CERTAIN PEOPLE not to teach false doctrines any longer 

4 or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing Yahuwah’s work—which is by faith.

1 Timothy 1:7 King James Version
7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

1 Timothy 1:7 New International Version
7 They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.

It was specific people who were teaching this false doctrine that women should teach their men to do violence to themselves or castrate themselves, and he wanted those people to stop teaching until they understood the truth and knew what they were talking about. Once Paul knew that the false teachings had stopped, he would feel comfortable with the women teaching the true doctrine, as many women did in other churches including Philippi, Thessalonica, Cenchrae, and Rome. Priscilla, Phoebe, Junia, Nympha, Mary, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Persis, Debra, Huldah, and other women, were trusted to teach and be leaders in the churches, so Paul was not making a blanket statement that a woman could not teach a man, or teach and lead in a congregation. It was just in this particular group, CERTAIN PEOPLE, that there was a problem that needed correction.

Speaking of Priscilla, did you know that she is the probable author of the book of Hebrews in the Bible? Here is an excerpt of an article that shows why this is so (and please go read the rest of the article after this blog because it is VERY informative about her activities in the ministry and assisting Paul!)

Priscilla

PRISCILLA: LEADER IN THE EARLY CHURCH by Linda Seiler 

"One of the most fascinating theories about Priscilla is that she penned the Epistle to the Hebrews. While many once thought Paul authored the letter, it differs stylistically from his other writings, lacking the traditional Pauline pre and postscripts as well as his characteristic use of exhortation and argument. Additionally, certain details of the letter are inconsistent with Paul’s life. For example, Hebrews 2:3 says, “This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him,” indicating the author heard the gospel from someone who had direct revelation from the Lord. That detail disqualifies Paul since he refers to having received the mystery of the gospel directly from the Lord Himself (Eph. 3:2-5). However, it applies to Priscilla who likely heard the gospel from Peter when he traveled to Rome. Other scholars have posited that Apollos wrote the letter. However, his conversion is also unlikely to be that described in Hebrews 2:3, and there are no pre- or postscripts bearing his name.

The lack of pre- and postscripts is actually one of the strongest evidences that Priscilla authored the letter. All other New Testament epistles include the name of the author and recipients, which begs the question: Why would one of the most prolific letters in all of the New Testament lack such crucial information? “This is one of the strangest facts in all literature, that the author of so important a document as this should have left no trace of his name upon church history. … It is strange enough that any epistle in the New Testament should be anonymous, but that this masterpiece among the epistles (is anonymous), seems doubly strange.”

Were the pre- and postscripts to the letter accidentally lost or intentionally withheld? The latter seems a likely possibility if Priscilla were the author since many during that time period may have rejected a letter written by a woman. Deborah M. Gill and Barbara L. Cavaness, co-authors of God’s Women Then and Now, explain why an anonymous letter would be advantageous:

Perhaps not leaving a clue as to its authorship, however, was the only way for a woman’s work to be accepted (especially amid the Judaistic tendencies prevalent among the recipients of the letter to the Hebrews). But by leaving it anonymous, the epistle would have the opportunity to become circulated and accepted on the merit of its contents, in spite of the mystery of its authorship.

Other contextual clues suggest Priscilla may be the author. For example, the author is in contact with believers from Italy, Priscilla’s homeland, as mentioned in Hebrews 13:24. The author is also well acquainted with Timothy and states in Hebrews 13:23 that he or she plans to travel with him to visit the recipients. This is consistent with the fact that Priscilla would have known Timothy well, having ministered with him in both Corinth and Ephesus. Additionally, the author switches effortlessly between the pronouns “I” and “we,” suggesting the author is referring to an ally whom the readers know. If Priscilla is the author, the plural “we” logically refers to Aquila, her husband and ministry partner.

The language of the epistle indicates the author was well-educated. Gill and Cavaness note that it is written “in the sophisticated, polished Greek of an upper-class educated person,” which would be consistent with Priscilla’s noble heritage in Rome. In fact, archeological evidence points towards Priscilla being a relative of Pudens, a Roman senator who was one of Peter’s converts mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21. If such were the case, it would not only account for Priscilla’s access to higher learning but also clarifies Hebrews 2:3, indicating she (and her family) first heard the gospel from Peter who knew the Lord personally.

The content of the epistle indicates the author was a Gentile, unfamiliar with the specifics of Jewish worship. In fact, the temple is never mentioned; there are only references to the tabernacle, suggesting the author has never been to Jerusalem and is familiar only with the Old Testament depictions of worship. The author is apparently unfamiliar with the Hebrew language, always quoting the Septuagint when referring to the Old Testament. This is consistent with Priscilla’s Roman background and the likelihood that she never visited Jerusalem and was most prolific in Greek.

Additional content that favors a female author are the repeated references to women in the famous “faith chapter” of Hebrews 11. For example, while Romans 4:21 cites Abraham as the one who was “fully persuaded God had power to do what He had promised,” Hebrews 11:11 highlights Sarah: “And by faith even Sarah, who was past childbearing age, was enabled to bear children because she considered him faithful who had made the promise.” Second, Joshua’s name is nowhere listed in Hebrews 11, yet Rahab, the woman who hid the spies, is mentioned by name in verse 31. Third, the author fails to mention the great prophets Elijah and Elisha by name and instead makes reference to the widow of Zarephath and the Shunammite woman in verse 35. It seems the author purposefully emphasizes the fact that women of old demonstrated faith just as much as men. A female author would be sensitive to that detail.

Moreover, the author gives particular attention to the humanity and compassion of Christ—aspects that would appeal more notably to the feminine heart. For example, Christ is depicted as, “fully human in every way … [able] to empathize with our weaknesses … tempted in every way, just as we are … subject to weakness … [who] offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears … [who] learned obedience from what he suffered … [who] endured the cross, scorning its shame … endured such opposition from sinners” (Heb. 2:17; 4:15; 5:2; 5:7; 5:8; 12:2-3). A female author would more likely demonstrate such empathy for the physical and psychological suffering of the Christ.

In addition to vast array of evidence in the preceding paragraphs, Priscilla, having been a fellow church planter with Paul and Timothy, would have had a vested interest in the Gentile churches and a burden for their safety and success, necessitating a letter to guide and exhort the leaders. Hebrews qualifies as such a letter. Hence, Priscilla’s authorship is a likely possibility."

Here is a link to a book called “Priscilla's Letter: Finding the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews“

“The name of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews was lost early in its story: Tracking down every clue, and developing a convincing line of reasoning, Ruth Hoppin contends that Priscilla a woman who was a leader in the early church and an associate of Paul is ultimately the only suspect who meets all the qualifications for authorship. Originally published in 1997, Priscilla's Letter: Finding the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews was secretly taken out of print after only a few months of availability.”  Well, it is available now.

“The mystery of the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews has been the subject of endless debate. The only comprehensive book on the subject, Priscilla's Letter is a scholarly examination of this puzzling New Testament question. Ruth Hoppin presents a meticulously researched case in support of the theory that Priscilla -- a woman who was a leader in the early church and an associate of Paul -- is ultimately the only suspect who meets all the qualifications for the authorship. Originally published in 1997, Priscilla's Letter disappeared from the market after only five months of promotion and general availability. The author became convinced that her publisher deliberately suppressed the book, presumably under pressure from religious extremists who regard the concept of female authorship of any part of the Bible subversive and intolerable.”

Well, it is available now. Below are some reviews by readers of the book.

“Beautifully researched book that makes strong case for Pricilla being the author of Hebrews. Interesting that her book has been suppressed due to religious extremists who regard the concept of female authorship of the book as intolerable. Hoppin writes well and the notes/bibliography are amazing. The book gives a good perspective of what was happening in the early churches and the lives of the people. Even if you can't agree - you will find out much about Priscilla and Aquila and their dedication to the gospel.”

“Ruth Hoppin provides a compelling and convincing case that Priscilla is the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is an engaging read. She presents the evidence as an attorney would in front of a jury, the readers functioning as the jury.

Ruth brings in evidence from within the letter, from related writings in the Bible, from other literature of the time, archaeology (in particular the Dead Sea Scrolls, Qumran, and the Essene sect), politics, sociology, history, anthropology, psychology, religious”

“Well, this book was a surprise. I went into this loving Priscilla and loving Hebrews but not expecting to be convinced that she was the author. Guess what? I am convinced. The book is laid out like a police lineup up people who have been suspected of writing Hebrews and then systematically eliminated based off of the evidence in the text. Once the author got to Priscilla though a lot lined up (and I know that was the author's argument but I was convinced). It was fairly academic so I did struggle at times understanding some of the evidence she presented but it was still a quick and enjoyable”

“I've had this book on my to-read list for several years now. I'm normally not one given to theological debates as I would rather spend my time studying and teaching scripture. However, I was curious about the case for Priscilla as the author of Hebrews. Ultimately, I am glad I read the book; not because the case is settled, but because I now have a much better grasp of the imagery within Hebrews, ancient history and customs, and the Essenes.”

“This is the most compelling and well-written case I have read in support of Priscilla’ authorship of Hebrews. It definitely reads as more of an academic treatise than a typical book, but it is convincing nonetheless. I especially appreciate the author’s method of taking other theories of authorship and dismantling them one-by-one. A must-read for anyone who adores Hebrews.”

“Priscilla's Letter tackles the age-old question of the authorship of the 20th book of the New Testament, Hebrews. This is the only book of the New Testament where the identity of the writer has been unclear. Hoppin does an exceptional job of making a strong case for Priscilla, the wife of Aquila, as the author and alleges that her identity was hidden because of gender biases throughout history, especially in the church. She examines cultural factors, the style of writing, her statements regarding other women and children, genealogical factors and more to reach her well-researched and well-thought-out”

“I had long suspected that Priscilla could very likely have written Hebrews. Let's say that I thought the chances were 51%. Since reading this book, I'll change that to 99%. Very well researched; very well written. If you're at all interested in the topic, you should read this book.”

A lot of Christian and also Sabbath keeping men who believe in oppressing women like to blame problems in the congregation on what they call a ‘Jezebel spirit’. If a woman teaches men or a man, then she is called a Jezebel. If a woman is outspoken and assertive, they’ll call her a Jezebel. The thing is, these were not the qualities that made Queen Jezebel evil. It is WHAT she taught men (and women) that made her evil. She taught them to worship the pagan god Baal, a deity that they sacrificed babies to, had ritual sex and orgies, and temple prostitutes, on behalf of, she had people murdered, was a prostitute, taught people to hate Yahuwah…

She was eventually thrown out of a window to her death and the dogs ate her body, except for her skull and the palms of her hands and her feet (2 Kings 9:30-37). Jezebel is a horrible and abusive title to put on women who don’t fit into some religious men’s molds, yet I’ve heard many men throw it around as if it was the answer to all their ‘woman hate’ issues. It wouldn't surprise me if some of these men would want to do this to women ministers.

We are related to a minister who calls me a ‘Jezebel’ because I teach the Bible. Yet this man is more of a ‘Jezebel’ than any women we have met. He has stolen property from people, which is something she did, abused his wife, and many other evil things. He’s accused my husband of letting a ‘Jezebel spirit’ into our home because he is fine with me teaching and ministering. A Scripture that people use to refer to a ‘Jezebel spirit’ is Revelation 2:18-29 at the church of Thyatira. “you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce my servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.” (She actually taught them to worship a pagan deity Baal.) This has nothing to do with our family, but men bent on oppressing women will use the memory of this evil woman to try and subdue women and fit them into ‘their’ little oppressive, abusive mold!

The last verse in that section, about the woman being saved in childbearing, sounds like she will only receive salvation if she has children, which is ridiculous, as if the blood of our Messiah isn’t sufficient to cover women’s sins. Some people say it has to do with the birth of Yahushuwa, and although that makes more sense, it is not what this is about.

This whole section of Paul and Timothy dealing with the problems in Ephesus has to do with the pagan worship they needed to give totally up. Ephesus was the seat of the Artemis cult. Artemis was the Goddess of nature, childbirth, wildlife, the moon, the hunt, sudden death, animals, virginity, young women, and archery. They were still clinging to the worship of Artemis, and she was in charge of childbirth. They gave offerings to appease her so she would protect the women and babies in childbirth. They believed if they didn’t appease her, she would kill the mothers and babies during birth!

The Greek word for saved used in verse 15 is used elsewhere in the NT without reference to spiritual salvation. It can also mean “to rescue,” “to preserve safe and unharmed,” “to heal,” or “to deliver from.” In the context of this section of Scripture, this is what it means. Paul was teaching them that they should not try to appease a pagan goddess for protection in birthing, but that faith in Yahuwah/Yahushuwa would protect them - 15 “Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”

Below are two verses mistakenly used to ‘prove’ that women cannot be pastors or leaders in churches.

1 Timothy 3:2 King James Version
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1 Timothy 3:12 King James Version
12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Women did not fill the roles of priests in the Levitical Priesthood, but that does not exist at this time and believers who have Messiah plus obey the commandments are a holy priesthood spiritually anyway. Without the Levitical Priesthood and with the temple not existing, we now have Yahushuwa as our High Priest, and that area of worship is done differently at this time.

We now have congregations or churches which can be in buildings but many are in homes, and we have the five-fold ministry operating (Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets, Pastors, and Teachers.) People will often say there were no female priests in those days but when the priesthood ceased to operate we got the pastors, deacons, bishops, etc. Also keep in mind that being a pastor or church leader is not the same as a Levitical Priest. We cannot use the fact that there were no female Levitical Priests to insist there shouldn’t be any female pastors, deacons, bishops (bishops can also be called elders or pastors), etc. There is no commandment on this.

Just because something was a certain way back then, also doesn’t automatically mean it should be that way now, or that it was Yahuwah’s design that it be that way back then. For instance, there were slaves back then. Do you think that means there should be slaves now? If so, will you be the first in line and come clean up my yard? I’m just kidding, but do you get the point? Some men had many wives, and also had sex with concubines and servants and had children with these women. Do you think this should be going on now? Some men do, but in Yahuwah’s original plan He made Eve for Adam, not Eve and Julie and Betsy and Gloria. 

Adam and Eve’s offspring had to procreate with each other back then, in order to be fruitful and multiply, back when the gene pool was pure and original. But later Yahuwah made laws that forbid incest, and in today’s times we know better than to go that route. Back then women were often treated like property, were not respected, could not own property, could barely survive unless they either were still provided for by their father or a husband. Otherwise they would end up being prostitutes in effort to survive, which is probably the reason men were allowed to have more than one wife – if there weren’t enough men to go around, the women would end up on the streets selling their bodies so they could support themselves. Do you think that was Yahuwah’s original design for people and that women should go back to prostitution instead of having jobs and getting paid well for them? 

Just because women were not priests back then does not mean they cannot be leaders in the congregations now. Even back in the New Testament days, women had all kinds of leadership positions in the ministry and there was a female judge, female deacons, female prophets, etc. Some people think if they didn’t do something in the Old Testament days, then they cannot do it now or if they did something a certain way then they cannot advance outside of that box. Gee, they used to drill holes in people’s heads to supposedly let diseases out, some used to sell their children into slavery if they were poor, and it goes on and on – so should we live that way now since those are examples for us? Some people still do those things and we now fight against them to stop them.

The two verses quoted above do not qualify to ‘prove’ that women cannot be pastors or leaders. First of all, although they are saying the man must have only one wife, this is irrelevant to gender. They did not need to say ‘and the woman must have only one husband’ because women did not have multiple husbands as some men had multiple wives! They did not need to be addressed in that way! It was already NOT a problem! This is common sense, but male chauvinists and men who disrespect or hate women do not have this common sense. So let us take these verses apart and see what they really are saying. We will look at the whole section.

1 Timothy 3:1-13 King James Version

1 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop (my note: which can also mean pastor), he desireth a good work.

(‘man’ is #1536 ‘ei tis’ in Strong’s Concordance and means ‘whoever, whatever’ – “if whoever desires”. Is from #5100 ‘tis’ – ‘an enclitic indefinite pronoun; some or any person or object’ – “if any person desires”)

(‘bishop’ is #1984 ‘episkopē’ ‘feminine noun’ – ‘overseership, office, charge, the office of an elder, the overseer or presiding officers of a Christian church’ – “if any person desires the office of an overseer, elder, or presiding officer of a Christian church he desireth a good work” – and the word ‘man’ in this text means ‘any person’ and the word ‘bishop’ is a feminine noun. And it’s a ‘good work’ - Hmmmmm. LOL to you men.)

 

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

(‘bishop’ is #1985 ‘episkopos’ ‘masculine noun’ – ‘a superintendent, i.e. Christian officer in genitive case charge of a (or the) church (literally or figuratively):—bishop, overseer.’ – so THAT word bishop is a masculine noun, and as I said, they didn’t need to address a woman to not have multiple husbands because that was not an issue in those days. It was just the men who needed to be told to knock it off.)

(So there you have it – a bishop can be a man or a woman, and a bishop is an overseer, elder, or presiding officer of a Christian church. And as to ruling a household, you will see later in this article/book that both the husband AND the wife have the task of equal rulership of the household and having the children in subjection.)

3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; (my note: ‘given to wine’ refers to a drunkard)
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;

(‘Deacon’ is #1249 ‘diakonos’, is a masculine/feminine noun, and means ‘one who executes the commands of another, esp. of a master, a servant, attendant, minister, the servant of a king, a deacon, one who, by virtue of the office assigned to him by the church, cares for the poor and has charge of and distributes the money collected for their use, specially, a Christian teacher and pastor (technically, a deacon or deaconess):—deacon, minister, servant.)

(So a deacon is a male OR female servant and includes being a Christian minister, TEACHER and PASTOR.)

9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.

(‘deacon’ is #1247 ‘diakoneō’ is a verb and basically means ‘to minister to attend to anything, that may serve another's interests, to minister a thing to one, to serve one or by supplying any thing.)

11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

(Since women tend to be more of gossips than men, this verse tells a male deacon that his wife must be venerable, i.e. honorable: — grave, honest. Common sense anyone?)

12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

(Since deacon clearly is either male OR female, and includes being a Christian minister, teacher or pastor, this verse about having only one wife was not needed to correct women from having multiple husbands, because women did not have multiple husbands in those days, nor in our time. But it WAS/IS needed for the men. That doesn’t mean women can’t be deacons, teachers, pastors, as I showed you above! Common sense anyone? And Phoebe was a deaconess! One thing she is famous for is that she carried and delivered Paul’s epistle to the Roman Christian church.) 

Here's another opportunity for common sense. If the instructions for a bishop being the husband of one wife meant that only males could be a bishop, then the exact same instructions for a deacon being the husband of one wife would have to mean the same thing – that only males could be deacons. But Phoebe was a woman deacon, and not only was allowed to be one, but Paul commended her for her service as a deacon!!! So knock it off chauvinists, and stop trying to fit women into your little restrictive boxes.

Phoebe

 

From “Phoebe: Deacon and Benefactor” by Dr. Rob Dixon

(“In his essay “What Can We Say About Phoebe?,” J. David Miller argues that Paul’s usage of diakonos in Romans 12 carries with it the notion of leadership. He writes, “Phoebe’s description as diakonos includes the qualifying phrase ‘of the congregation in Cenchreae.’ This localization of Phoebe’s position strongly suggests Paul had in mind a specific status rather than general comportment.” “In other words, when Paul commends Phoebe to the Romans, he chooses to illuminate her specific leadership role within the Christian community in Cenchreae. Phoebe the deacon is a leader, and Paul wants the Romans to know it.”)

13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Messiah Yahushuwa.

Titus 1:6-7 King James Version
6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

(We already saw from 1 Timothy 3 that a bishop can be male or female. So, this verse also, when saying the husband of one wife, was written just for men because women didn’t need correction on this issue – they were already of only one husband.)

Definitions of Bishop from our dictionaries:

Dictionary dot com: “A person who supervises a number of local churches or a diocese, being in the Greek, Roman Catholic, Anglican, and other churches a member of the highest order of the ministry. A spiritual supervisor, overseer, or the like.“

Merrian-Webster Dictionary: “A person who supervises a number of local churches or a diocese…. a member of the highest order of the ministry. A spiritual supervisor, overseer, or the like.”

Cambridge Dictionary: “A priest of high rank who is in charge of the priests of lower rank in a particular area.”

Oh, and by the way, a woman named Junia was an APOSTLE!

Junia

Romans 16:7 King James Version
7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

John Chrysostom, an important early church father who was an archbishop of Constantinople in the fifth century, wrote: “And indeed to be apostles at all is a great thing. But to be even among these of note, just consider what a great tribute this is! But they were of note owing to their works, to their achievements. Oh! How great is the wisdom of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle!”

In an article “Junia - The "Hidden" Apostle” by Dr. Rob Dixon it says:

“It’s possible that you’ve never heard the name Junia before. There are at least two reasons for that. For one thing, she is only mentioned in one verse in the last chapter of Romans. For another, for generations, Junia was systematically removed from our Bibles.”

“You read that right! For almost 2,000 years, scribes, commentators, and teachers changed her name from Junia to a masculine version of the name: Junias. Theologian Scot McKnight articulates the reason why they did that:

Junia was a woman, and she was an apostle. But since a woman couldn’t be an apostle, Junia became the male Junias … There was no evidence in ancient manuscripts that anyone understood Junia as a male, no evidence in translations she was a male, and there was no ancient evidence that Junias was a man’s name. But, still, the church got into a rut and rode it out until some courageous folks said, “Oh yes, Junia was a woman and she was an apostle, and we’ve been wrong, and we’re going to do something about it.””

Junia has spent centuries as the hidden apostle, but it’s time we changed that!”

From: Faithward - Women of the Bible Study Series - Junia...

And there was Thecla! (Posted on Facebook by Matt Jones – He either wrote this or quoted someone else)

“Thecla was a female Apostle converted by Paul directly in the 1st century. She survived attempted martyrdom TWICE by miraculous intervention: being burned alive and being killed by beasts. She founded a teaching and healing center in modern day Syria that functioned for 1,000 YEARS and still stands today. It is said that she put the local doctors out of business. First century church history confirms that she was an early apostle and the same figure who founded the Apostolic Center mentioned above.

Both Gregory of Nazianzus and Basil of Caesarea spoke of Thecla as a historical figure. Writing in the 300s, they described her teaching center and hospital near Seleucia. The pilgrim Egeria visited this facility in 399 A.D., and also described its monasteries, convents and assembly buildings, along with the teaching and healing ministries that went on there.

The German team that excavated the center in 1908 found the apse still standing above the ground, with the main basilica's outlines covering a space equal to that of a football field. The excavators also found numerous cisterns, apparently for washing the sick, two other churches, and many fine mosaics. The center apparently was in active use for at least 1,000 years, indicating the presence in Asia Minor of an extremely strong female leader.”

Women at Home

If you want to hear my video teaching of this blog as you read, then here is the video for part 2, "Women at Home"

"Women in Ministry and at Home Pt 2 (women at home)"

Now that we’ve established that these verses in Timothy and Corinthians are not about forbidding women to teach or have leadership roles in ministry, I will address the issue of women ‘obeying’ their husbands, and what that actually means. Let’s start with Genesis 3:16-18, when after Adam and Eve sinned by eating the fruit that Yahuwah forbade them to eat, and He pronounced judgment on them.

Genesis 3:16-18 King James Version
16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

First of all, I want to mention that I know of women who say this is the curse for disobedience, but that if we are born-again and living for Yahuwah, we are not under this curse, and they delivered babies without pain or sorrow. 

"My Supernatural Child Birth | Painless Delivery Story"

"Becky's Supernatural, Pain Free Birth seeing Jesus in the hospital room"

"On the way to the hospital Becky feels Jesus massaging her belly. Then, during pushing she sees Jesus' face in front of her, beaming with pride! All her doubt and fear left and her baby was born supernaturally fast in 2 1/2 hours, from first contraction to birth! Listen as she shares keys of focusing on Jesus to have a Pain Free Birth. Take the Pain Free Birth Course at painfreebirth.com!"

"Katherine's Pain Free Birth Story with Karen Welton"

Notice how this lady relaxes through all of her contractions:

"Natural, pain free childbirth story"

A birth in the shower - again, notice how relaxed and under control the mom is:

"PAIN FREE BIRTH STORY NO EPIDURAL | Positive Home Birth Labor and Delivery vlog unmedicated!"

"This unmedicated pain free birth experience was well worth the wait!"

"My Pain Free Home Birth - Supernatural Childbirth!"

@tiffanythrelkeld9630

I read this book with my 6th baby and I had a supernatural home birth, I felt everything but felt no pain. It was a wonderful experience. People have a hard time believing it, thank you for sharing! I will say once I started to get fearful I would say "in the name of Jesus, I will not be afraid" and the fear was swept away. I'm expecting another baby in a few months and I'm actually excited to go into labor and experience this again!

@laurafarr2693

I had 2 pain free births! I’m so happy to see so many more testimonies now than I did when I started.

Supernatural Childbirth) By Jackie Mize

Also, there is a method of gardening takes the hard work out of it, preventing the weeds, thorns and thistles, and even removes the need for watering once the seedlings start growing, and it was given to a man by Yahuwah Himself, called ‘Back to Eden’ gardening. 

"Back To Eden Gardening Documentary Film - How to Grow a 

Regenerative Organic Garden"

So, it appears that if one loves Yahuwah and trusts in Him, following His instructions, this curse of Adam and Eve does not have to affect him/her. After all, the Bible does say if we obey Yahuwah, we will be blessed and not cursed.

The part of this Scripture I will talk about is “and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” and what that means for us today. Many men believe it means that they are to RULE over their wives in a dictatorial controlling way (like my husband jokingly shows us here): 

and sometimes even abusively by some men. Some believe this is to punish them for Eve’s sin. But this is not how our Heavenly Father wants His daughters treated!

If this is a curse for her disobedience to Yahuwah, we can see that it has manifested. Men have been treating women like property, slaves, sex objects, inferior humans, etc., for thousands of years. Even many men who are believers in our Messiah are guilty of this. I say ‘guilty’ because a curse is a negative thing and not Yahuwah’s perfect will. Society in general has gone along with this ‘women are inferior’ idea and treated them badly.

Was Yahuwah putting a curse on Adam and Eve, or was He letting them know that life outside of the garden and out from under His covering was going to be like this, to prepare them for being out on their own because of their rebellion against Him? One person worded it this way, and it seems appropriate: ”’Even though you are devoted to your husband, he may abuse authority over you.’ God pronounced the potential for a husband to be abusive authoritatively over his wife as a result of the fall—even when she is devoted to her husband.”

Well, it plainly says “Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife …… cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field”, but what about those men who have repented of their sins, and live in obedience to Yahuwah? What about the Back to Eden form of gardening? What about all the Christian women who have had no pain in childbearing? What about the verses below which instruct us to obey Yahuwah's commandments and we will be blessed in the fruit of our womb, and the fruit of our fields?

Check this out – this, of course, was written after the Adam and Eve crisis:

Deuteronomy 28 King James Version
28 And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of Yahuwah thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that Yahuwah thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth:
2 And all these blessings shall come on thee, and overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of Yahuwah thy God.
3 Blessed shalt thou be in the city, and blessed shalt thou be in the field.
4 Blessed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy ground, and the fruit of thy cattle, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep.

11 And Yahuwah shall make thee plenteous in goods, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy ground, in the land which Yahuwah sware unto thy fathers to give thee.
12 Yahuwah shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his season, and to bless all the work of thine hand: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou shalt not borrow.

Read on:

15 But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of Yahuwah thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:
16 Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field.
17 Cursed shall be thy basket and thy store.
18 Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep.

24 Yahuwah shall make the rain of thy land powder and dust: from heaven shall it come down upon thee, until thou be destroyed.

38 Thou shalt carry much seed out into the field, and shalt gather but little in; for the locust shall consume it.
39 Thou shalt plant vineyards, and dress them, but shalt neither drink of the wine, nor gather the grapes; for the worms shall eat them.
40 Thou shalt have olive trees throughout all thy coasts, but thou shalt not anoint thyself with the oil; for thine olive shall cast his fruit.

Were the curses in the garden just for Adam and Eve? Consider this – the curses that mankind received in the garden can be reversed by being obedient to Yahuwah instead of continuing the rebellion against Him. Blessings can then be received in the same areas that curses were pronounced. Part of being obedient to Him is to repent of our sins and believe in Yahushuwa and confess that He died for our sins and rose from the dead. And the other part is to start obeying His commandments/laws after we get born-again. Faith without works is dead. Dead faith does not get us the blessings.

What about these verses that let us know that the offspring will not be punished for the sins of our parents?

Deuteronomy 24:16 King James Version
16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

2 Chronicles 25:4 King James Version
4 But he slew not their children, but did as it is written in the law in the book of Moses, where the Lord commanded, saying, The fathers shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin.

Ezekiel 18:20 King James Version
20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

My main point here is that when Adam and Eve sinned in the garden, it did not condemn women to be treated like they are inferior to men, and it didn’t condemn men to forever toiling in unsuccessful gardens to keep from starving to death.

The part where the woman shall desire her husband is not a negative thing. It is normal and good for a wife to desire and be devoted to her husband. The word ‘desire’ in Strong’s Concordance is #8669 and means “desire, longing, craving, of woman for man“. Him ‘ruling’ over her may also not be a negative thing. Many believe it’s referring to him being responsible for her, taking care of her, protecting her from harm, providing for her, etc. (Genesis 2:15) Bible verses that tell husbands to love their wives like Messiah loves the church and gave Himself up for her, indicating a sacrificial love, looking out for her even more so than himself, do not support the idea that it was meant to be a curse to punish women for Eve’s sin.

Verses like 1 Peter 3:7 where it says “Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered. Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:” This doesn’t sound like men are supposed to ‘rule’ over their wives in a negative, domineering sense. ‘Weaker vessel’ refers to physical weakness – men are normally physically stronger than women and should protect them. We are supposed to use Scripture to help us interpret Scripture. Giving honor to the wife means he is to respect her.

I believe it’s the ‘consequences’ of her sin, as Adam and Eve are the parents of all of mankind and their sinful nature was passed down to us all. Those who submit to Yahuwah can live with blessings instead of curses. If only Adam and Eve would have repented instead of making excuses, they probably could have also lived without the curses. Each person is responsible for their own choice to obey our Creator or to rebel against Him and do things their own way instead of His way. Women are not to be punished for Eve’s sin, nor men for Adam’s sin.

Deuteronomy 30:19-20 King James Version
19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
20 That thou mayest love Yahuwah thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he is thy life, and the length of thy days …..

Here is an area of Scripture (coming up below in Ephesians 5:24) that is often used to imply that wives are to obey every command of their husbands, and men will often add ‘unless he tells her to sin’ to make themselves feel better about their controlling attitudes. Submission and obedience are similar yet different. Submission is a voluntary thing done in love and trust, and I do believe wives should submit to their husbands as unto Messiah, but I do not believe they are subordinate to their husbands. There are actually a lot of religious men in the world who abuse their wives if they don't 'obey' them in 'everything', especially in third-world countries, and Yahuwah NEVER meant this for His daughters!

 

Yahuwah loves His daughters and sons equally and NEVER desires for the husbands to treat their precious wives like subordinates, but wants them loved, protected, cherished and respected by their husbands as they work together as teams to further the gospel and bring people into Yahuwah's family. Husbands are instructed to wash their wives with the water of the Word, to make them without spot or wrinkle, but into beautiful heirs of Yahuwah's kingdom.

Ephesians 5:21-33 King James Version
21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of Yahuwah.
22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto Messiah.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Messiah is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Messiah, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Messiah also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as Messiah the church:
30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Messiah and the church.
33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband. (*Reverence is a feeling of profound awe and respect, and treating with great respect.)

The NIV translated it properly – King James did not:

Ephesians 5:22-25 New International Version
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to Messiah. 

23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Messiah is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 

24 Now as the church submits to Messiah, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 

The NIV does a better translation in many verses. Notice in this one in Ephesians that the word ‘subject’ is not used. That is because it clouds the true meaning of the ‘head’ topic. 

Verse 21 tells both sexes to submit to one another. That’s a good start. They are not subject to one another. Since that same word that is translated 'submit' for fellow believers, it should also be translated submit for wives. Believers in general should not demand their own way all the time, but should submit to each other when appropriate, in order to live peacefully together, and not be selfish. This verse was written to all believers, so it goes for both men and women, husbands and wives.

Verse 22 has a condition on it – ‘as unto the Messiah’. We submit to Yahushuwa our Messiah because we know we can trust Him, as He will always do us good and not harm. In that same way a wife should be able to submit to her husband. If he is doing his part of the marriage, by loving his wife as Messiah loves the ‘church’ (believers), then it is easy for a born-again wife to submit to him. If he does not love her in that way, it is going to be more of a challenge for her to submit to him, and seriously, there are times when she should not. For the times when she can submit to him, her willing and sacrificing attitude may help turn his heart to Yahuwah, but there is no guarantee of this, so she should not let him walk all over her. ‘AS’ the church submits to Messiah shows this is conditional – a wife isn’t expected to submit to him in ‘everything’ if he is not submitted to Yahuwah. If he IS submitted to Yahuwah, and she is subitted to Yahuwah, her and her husband will be in agreement and it will be easy to submit to him. Submit, being a voluntary thing, gives her discretion. Husbands are not perfect like Messiah is. She can always submit to Messiah because He is perfect and she can perfectly trust Him. It would be ideal if husbands were like Messiah, but they are not. This comparison of Messiah and the church with the husband and the wife is not an exact comparison.

I realize that our marriage relationships here on earth are supposed to be a representation of our relationships as the bride of Messiah, but this needs to be taken in context like everything else. For instance, Messiah is our Savior. Husbands are not. Messiah is our healer. Husbands are not. Messiah is our boss, so to speak, as we are to obey Him. Husbands are not the wives' bosses. Subjection as in being under, being obedient to, is not what we are to be unto our husbands. Submissive as an act out of love is what we are to be, and our husbands are also to be that way unto their wives, as sacrificial acts of love. Married believers need to balance this with the help of Messiah.

If she truly was to be under subjection to her husband, meaning obedient to him as if under his authority, instead of voluntary submission out of love, then she would be committing idolatry, devoting herself entirely to her husband in subjection, rather than to Yahushuwa. Yahushuwa is the only one her complete obedience is to be unto. With words translated properly, ‘obedience’ is never used in relation to the marriage relationship. Submission is, and it’s the same word that is used to tell believers to submit to one another. Believers do not have to ‘obey’ or ‘subject themselves’ to one another. So that word in that verse is translated 'submit', and since it's the same word in the next sentence, it should also be translated 'submit' and not 'subject to'. The translators should not have changed it to 'subject to' in the King James Version. The NIV people got it right.

Women are accountable to Yahushuwa just as men are accountable to Him. Women do not go through men to get to Messiah. The comparison of earthly marriage to Yahushuwa and His bride is on certain issues but not all. It would be unfair for Yahuwah to expect complete comparison of us, and He does not. He expects reasonable submission as a result of love and trust, and the word subjection should never have been used in the translation.

Some Bible toting men expect their wives to obey their every command, using verses like this to control them, then tell them to do things that may not be ‘sin’, but that are not in line with Yahuwah’s will or common sense. Example – husband tells wife to let their child play in the street – wife sometimes sees cars whiz down this street and knows it’s very dangerous, and refuses. Or – husband tells junior to go play by the creek or lake with his new fishing rod – wife knows he could drown, or knows there are rattle snakes by the creek, but husband insists Yahuwah will protect junior – wife stops him from going or sends a much older and very mature person with him. I’ve lived through these scenarios and they are not all that uncommon. I believe a wife should look for opportunities to submit to her husband, but they should both understand that there are times when the husband should submit to his wife. Marriage is not a dictatorship from either side. The husband is NOT the BOSS of the wife, and neither is the wife boss of the husband.

My control-freak x used to tell me “YOU don’t tell ME what to do, I tell YOU what to do!!!!” When I found out he was acting abusive towards my son by scolding him harshly just for not agreeing with him about everything Biblical, and threatening to pick him up by the head and pin him against the wall, I told him if he ever did anything like that I would call the police and have him arrested. He left shortly after that and I found out a few years later that he had punched my son in the chest when I was at work. I wish my son had told me much sooner, while we were still married, so that I could have had him arrested, but he didn’t, so I didn’t know.

This man was so ‘into’ the woman obey the husband lie that he referred to himself as Hitler as a husband and father, and thought that was a good thing! And he was only a Church of God member, not a Torah observant believer. His former wife told me he once picked her up by the head and put her against the wall. She left him and moved to Alaska. I wish I had talked to her before I married him. Some people I knew who knew him for years said he was a stable and nice man and they apparently didn’t know him as well as they thought they did, even though one of them even attended Bible college with him for a few years. I knew that he expected his wife to ‘obey’ him but I thought that was the way it was ‘supposed’ to be, because of being taught these Bible verses out of context, and married him thinking I would do my best to be an ’obedient’ wife, but no matter how much I submitted to him, it was never good enough for him. Yet it wasn’t until years later that I found out that was never the way Yahuwah intended it to be.

In verse 23 where it says the husband is head of the wife, as Messiah is head of the church, the word ‘head’ has been widely used to abuse and control wives, because it hasn’t been understood correctly. Yahushuwa as ‘head’ gave Himself up for His church in sacrificial love. He nourishes and helps her grow. He protects and gently loves her. He loved her before she loved Him. This is how the husband is instructed to love his wife. It’s right there in this same section of Scripture. She is to have the highest respect for him. What godly wife wouldn’t respect a husband who loves her like that? Submission in marriage is a voluntary yielding fueled by love.

Concerning the word for ‘submit’ in the above verses, it is from the Greek word ‘hypotassō’ in Strong’s Concordance (#5293), and means ‘to arrange under, to subordinate, to subject, put in subjection, to submit to one's control, to yield to one's admonition or advice, to obey, be subject’. Strong's: "This word was a Greek military term meaning "to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader". BUT in non-military use, it was "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden". 

Since these verses (Ephesians 5:21-33) are talking about the marriage relationship, and the first verse about believers submitting to one another, the meaning is the latter one. Believers do not need to ‘obey’ one another, they are NOT subject to each other, they are not the authority over each other, but submitting to one another in love is appropriate. Same is true for married people.

Here is another opportunity to use some common sense folks. Although some men would like to treat their wives in the military fashion, like a sergeant commanding his troops, and punishing them if they disobeyed, throwing them in jail and/or court-martialing them, the Scriptures do not indicate this in the marriage relationship when you put them all together, in context, and get to the heart of the issue. Yes, woman was created to be a help meet for man, and that also means military front:

(when Yahuwah said He will make a help meet for Adam, in Genesis, the words ‘help meet’ and ‘for him’ was ʿēzer kĕnegdô, which means, ‘a strength corresponding to him’, from Strong’s #5828 and #5048 and is used in other places in Scripture to mean ‘a military front’!- will mention again later.)

but that does not make the marriage home to be like a Marine base with sergeants giving orders and soldiers having to obey them or get thrown in the brigg!

The same word that is translated as submit when it talks about fellow believers, being translated as obey or be subject to when it talks about marriage partners, is the work of poor translators who do not understand the non-military meaning of this word, or do not care because they want to oppress women. It’s the same word, and practically in the same sentence in Ephesians 5 the one verse, and yet the translators called it ‘subject to’ when it’s referring to wives and husbands. That is sneaky. Most believers do not look these words up to check up on the translators!

Many Christian teachers insist that there cannot be two captains or two in charge of a family, that the husbands make the final decisions and that wives have to obey their husbands, but if the husbands make a wrong decision then the burden is laid on him and not her, as if this is supposed to comfort the wives. So what, if the man is responsible for the outcome – protecting a child is more important than him learning from his stupid decision, and losing their child. James had a relative who experienced that. He is a controlling husband, and believes he is to be the controller of his wife, and let the older children watch the toddler, outside, and his wife looked out the window while on the phone, at the pool, and there was their toddler floating on his face, dead, in the pool, because the older kids were not responsible enough to watch a toddler. And a few years later they had another toddler and we were at Sukkot (I hadn’t met James yet) and I saw the little guy running towards the lake, alone, where the older kids were – so they didn’t learn their lesson and continued to leave children in charge of the toddler. That one didn’t drown, but geesh. She ‘obeyed’ her husband and lost a child and could have lost another one.

Yes there can be two captains, because both are supposed to be submitted to Yahuwah and they are supposed to be one flesh – when there is a decision to make both should submit to Yahuwah and they will get the same answer. That is the ideal. Two leaders help keep each other in check. One person having final authority makes for a dangerous situation. Look at a judge in a court – if a case doesn’t go to trial and the judge makes the decision, that can be disastrous. Innocent people going to prison for crimes they didn’t commit if he rules the wrong way. Juries can do this too, but I’m just saying – having ONE to have final authority is not the ideal. A husband makes a wrong decision because he didn’t submit to Yah, and his child drowns or whatever.

1 Corinthians 11:3 King James Version

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Messiah; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Messiah is Yahuwah.

Where it says the husband is head of the wife, as Messiah is head of the church, the word ‘head’ has been widely used to abuse and control wives, because it hasn’t been understood correctly. Yahushuwa as ‘head’ gave Himself up for His church in sacrificial love. He nourishes and helps her grow. He protects and gently loves her. 

But even more needing to be understood is that the word head does not mean boss or authority, but is referring to the source of life, the cornerstone, etc. Yahuwah is not the authority of Yahushuwa, they are one God – they are equal.

It becomes more obvious when you make the comparison – the word is a military term and had those first listed meanings when used in a military context. Picture the commander of an army ordering the soldiers to do things, and if they refuse, the commander has them court-martialed, or flogged, or dishonorably discharged, or thrown in the brigg (prison). If you think a marriage should also be ran this way, you need to be single! Yahuwah’s instructions for marriage are not anything like this.

"I Am Your Drill Instructor Mashup"

Yahushuwa does not treat His beloved like that (above). Husbands are instructed to treat their wives like this (below):

Ephesians 5:21-33 King James Version
21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of Yahuwah.
********
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Messiah also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as Messiah the church:
********
33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself….

In the military video above, do you see the drill sergeant giving himself up for his soldiers? Do you see him submitting himself to any of them, as “submitting yourselves one to another” goes? Do you see him trying to encourage them to be holy? Is he showing love to them as Messiah shows love to His beloved? Is he nourishing and cherishing these soldiers? So do you realize that the military word hypotassō, which the translators applied to marriage without explaining its’ non-military meaning, does NOT mean ‘to arrange under, to subordinate, to subject, put in subjection, to submit to one's control, to yield to one's admonition or advice, to obey, be subject’.

Do you realize that its’ NON-MILITARY definition is what applies to marriage relationships? - "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden" (and yielding to one’s advice could apply also), and does not DEMAND submission out of the wife, but indicates a mutual loving relationship where the husband is gentle with the wife, respects her, and she respects him and voluntarily submits to him when appropriate, and he submits to her when appropriate? Many men do not love their wives the way they are instructed to, yet expect their wives to submit to them like they do to Messiah. Some of them WANT to have the kind of control over their wives as the sergeants have over their soldiers. This is NOT what our Messiah wants for His children. Please understand that the word hypotassō has been used out of context to control women and wives for thousands of years, and this needs to be exposed.

Here is another section where the word hypotasso was translated incorrectly to the word ‘obedience’:

Titus 2:3-5 King James Version
3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

By the way, the Scripture above does not mean that teaching young women is the only way they can teach. This is just one example. Women can teach Scripture to all human beings. There is no Scripture forbidding women teaching men, as many insist.

Concerning husband being the head of his wife:

Wood, D.R.W., & Marshall, I.H. (1996), New Bible Dictionary (3rd ed.). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. 

“The head (Heb. rù’š; Gk. kephalē is not regarded as the seat of the intellect, but as the source of life (Mt. 14:8, 11; Jn. 19:30). Thus to lift up the head is to grant life in the sense of success (Jdg. 8:28; Ps. 27:6; Gn. 40:13, but cf. the pun in v. 19), or to expect it in God himself (Ps. 24:7, 9; Lk. 21:28). To cover the head by the hand or with dust and ashes is to mourn the loss of life (2 Sa. 13:19; La. 2:10). Figuratively, headship denotes superiority of rank and authority over another (Jdg. 11:11; 2 Sa. 22:44); though when Christ is spoken of as head of his body the church (Eph. 5:23; Col. 2:19), of every man (1 Cor. 11:3), of the entire universe (hyper panta, Eph. 1:22), and of every cosmic power (Col. 2:10), and when man is spoken of as the head of the woman (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:23; cf. Gn. 2:21f.), the basic meaning of head as the source of all life and energy is predominant.” Indeed, if you’re the head, Paul says you­r role is not to dominate but to cleanse, wash, and edify, to nourish and tenderly care for your beloved in such a way that they grow in grace as they grow in age, so that, when the world looks at the two of you — at your family, your holy union points to God. “

Yahuwah IS to be the boss over us, His children, born-again believers, who are instructed to obey His commandments/laws, but the term 'HEAD' is not referring to this part of His function over us. It's referring to Him being the source of us and our nourisher, protector, supporter, provider... and therefore, relating this to marriage does not make the husbands bosses or authority over their wives with laws and commandments for them to 'obey', nor does it make them the wife’s savior.

And as far as Yahuwah being the head of Yahushuwa – they are one God, and there is one mind there – no disagreement – no bossing or lording it over the other! They are one God and completely in agreement! Yahuwah is the SOURCE of Yahushuwa. Yahuwah came to us as a man – in that way, He is the source of Yahushuwa. Yahushuwa is the source of man – the Creator who made man out of the earth. Man is the source of woman, as she was taken out of him.

Here is some more information about the word 'head' in Scripture that will help you understand it better:

‘Head’ does not mean ‘leader’ in 1 Cor 11.3

Here are a few quotes out of that article to give you an idea of what is being explained:

"When the Hebrew word for “head” (rosh) meant a literal head, the translators invariably translated rosh into kephale. However, in Hebrew, as in English, “head” can also mean a “leader” or “ruler”. In the instances where rosh meant a “leader”, in the majority of cases, the translators did not use the word kephale in their translation. Instead, they typically used the Greek word archon, which does mean “leader” or “ruler”."

"Out of 180 instances where rosh has the sense of “leader” in the Hebrew Bible, only 8 were translated as kephale. It seems that most of the translators of the Septuagint knew that kephale does not usually mean “leader”, “ruler”, or “one in authority”."

"Interestingly, the Hebrew word rosh can also mean “origin” or “beginning”. Kenneth Bailey writes:

"The Jewish new year is celebrated as Rosh Hashanah, “the head of the year”. The first day of the year is not “in authority over” the rest of the year. Rather the year “flows from” that first day. In the Old Testament “The fear of the Lord is the head [rosh] of wisdom” (Psalm 111:10). English translations usually read, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.”"

"I suggest that the Greek word kephale in 1 Corinthians 11:3 has a similar meaning of “origin” or “beginning”, or, as some say, “source”."

"Lexicons Of Secular Ancient Greek Do Not Give “Leader” As A Definition Of Kephale.
Another piece of evidence that shows kephale did not usually mean “leader” in ancient Greek is that LSJ, the most exhaustive lexicon of ancient Greek, does not include any definition of kephale that approximates “leader” or “authority”"

"Kephale Can Mean “Point Of Origin”
The Greek word for “head” rarely, if ever, meant “leader” or “an authority” in works originally written in Greek before or during the first century AD. And Paul definitely wrote First Corinthians in Greek. “Head” with a meaning of “point of origin” or “beginning” (or “source”) was not common in ancient Greek, but it was less rare than the meaning of “leader”. There are three reasonably clear examples where kephale means “origin” or “beginning” in surviving texts which date before First Corinthians was written: Herodotus 4.91.2, the Orphic Fragment 21A, and the Testament of Reuben 2.2."

"Furthermore, if we take head to mean “authority”, then something or someone is missing from the statement in 1 Corinthians 11:3. The statement is incomplete. It’s not quite right.[14] Surely, Christ is the authority and the leader of every woman as well as of every man. There is absolutely nothing to suggest elsewhere in Paul’s letters, or anywhere else in the New Testament for that matter, that women are somehow distanced, even slightly, from the authority and lordship of Jesus Christ.""

"Covering And Protection Or Origin?
1 Corinthians 11:3 has been used to support an idea called “covering”, which is that women need the covering or protection of a man’s (spiritual) authority. Again, there is absolutely nothing in the Bible to support the idea that women need the covering or protection of men. Even in the Old Testament, God bypassed husbands and fathers and spoke to women directly, or he sent an angel to speak to women. In the New Covenant, however, every redeemed man and woman has access to God, through Jesus, facilitated by the Holy Spirit. God did not, and does not, single out men as his authorized spokesmen (prophets) or as protectors. God used, and uses, women as prophets and protectors.""   -End of quotes from the article.

1 Corinthians 11:3 King James Version
But I would have you know, that the head G2776 of every man is Christ; and the head G2776 of the woman is the man; and the head G2776 of Christ is God.

Strong's #G2776 – kephalē is used all 3 times! Do you think it’s being used in the meaning of being a boss or in subjection to? Do you think Messiah is in subjection to the Father? That Yahuwah is the boss or ruler over Yahushuwa, and therefore Yahushuwa is subordinate to Yahuwah? Or a ‘lesser God/god”? They are one God, as you know (as the Bible states), and there is no disagreement with them because 'They' are 'He', one God, they are equal. If you take Ephesians 5:22-25 to mean that husbands are the authority over wives, then you’d need to also take it to mean in 1 Corinthians that Yahuwah is the authority over Yahushuwa. He does say that He only does what the Father tells Him to do, but at the same time they are one God and there is no disagreement there because what the Father wants Him to do has to be the same as what He wants to do. They think exactly alike because they are one God. I believe that what Wood, D.R.W., & Marshall, I.H said about the word ‘head’ describes it perfectly, as well as the article I linked above.

Strong’s definition of head:
I. the head, both of men and often of animals. Since the loss of the head destroys life, this word is used in the phrases relating to capital and extreme punishment.
II. metaph. anything supreme, chief, prominent
    A. of persons, master lord: of a husband in relation to his wife
    B. of Christ: the Lord of the husband and of the Church
    C. of things: the corner stone

Even if you insist on going with only what Strong's says, with the Scriptures comparing a husband being the head of his wife with Yahushuwa being the head of the church (believers), here are some verses giving us more insight as to what Yahushuwa being head of the church involves.

Ephesians 4:15-16 New International Version
15 Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Messiah. 

16 From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.

So instead of thinking that Yahushuwa as the ‘head’ of the husband, or the husband as the ‘head’ of the wife, refers to a bossy, domineering, constricting leadership, let’s consider that it’s referring to the source helping the other grow and mature, hold together, be loving and fulfilling. Being ‘head’ of the wife does not mean the husband is boss of the wife. Marriage is a partnership where both work together, submitting to one another as they submit to Yahuwah. You have to put all the Scriptures together on this subject to understand the full picture.

And as far as Yahuwah being the head of Yahushuwa – they are one God. The invisible God, Yahuwah, came to us in the form of a visible man, and there is one mind there – no disagreement – no bossing or lording it over the other! They are one God!

Yahushuwa tells us that if we love Him, we will obey His commandments. Both husband and wife are accountable to Yahushuwa to obey Him. This is not a ‘husband obey Yahuwah, and wife obey your husband’ thing. It is ‘both husband and wife obey Yahuwah.’ The Scripture in Ephesians is about marriage, and Yahushuwa’s relationship with His bride, the church. People who know about His commandments/laws, and yet refuse to obey them, are NOT His bride. Exodus 31:14 says if we refuse to honor the 7th day Sabbath, we are cut off as His people. Leviticus 7:27 says if we eat blood, we are cut off as His people. (Do a search on ‘cut off’ to learn what other things cause this.) So deliberate commandment breakers (lawless people) are not part of His bride, as Matthew 7 shows us.

Matthew 7:21, 23 King James Version
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Iniquity means lawlessness!)

But for those of us who are doing our best to honor His commandments, He is gentle with us as He leads us in His path, and because we trust Him, we should respond. Yahushuwa never abuses His Lordship over His bride. Men often do. I believe the men who are the most controlling of their wives are the most insecure, or in some cases very selfish. They get a false sense of security by being in control of their wives instead of trusting them to let Yahushuwa control them, and/or they want their own way and don’t care about what her needs and desires are. They are driven by a prideful desire to be ‘big and powerful’ rather than humble and submissive to Yahuwah. Both husbands and wives should look out for the needs and desires of the other.

Here is a Scripture where Yahushuwa lets His people know we are not to ‘Lord it over’ each other, but are to serve each other, and this applies to husbands and wives as well.

Matthew 20:25-28 King James Version
25 But Yahushuwa called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Notice that the word used for authority here was not authentein, but was Strong's G2715 – katexousiazō, which means ‘to exercise authority, wield power, to have (wield) full privilege over’. As I said earlier, the word authentein was only used ONE TIME in the Scriptures and WHEN it was written, it did NOT mean authority, it means things like ‘taking one’s own life’ as I previously explained. I stress on this word because I’ve gotten the most arguments over that one Scripture from people who insist husbands or men are in authority over their wives or over women in general. To get people to realize the truth of this word is like trying to drive a nail into a solid brick wall!

What happens when husbands do not obey the commandment to love their wives as described above? Can wives help their husbands become more like Yahushuwa?

In the verses in 1 Peter below, the word ‘subjection’ comes from the exact same Greek word (#5293) as the word ‘submit’ comes from in Ephesians 5:21 where it says “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of Yahuwah” and 5:22 where it tells wives to submit to their husbands. If it was to mean be under control of, or obedient to, it wouldn’t be used in a verse telling believers to submit to one another, as common sense tells us we don’t need to obey all of the other believers in our congregations – that would be impossible to do, and makes no sense whatsoever.

These verses about submitting are about giving in to one another to make for peaceful relationships. Sarah trusted Abraham and so she did what he told her to do in Genesis 12:1-20. Now it almost got her raped, but thankfully it turned out good in the end. It is used as a positive example of a husband/wife relationship in 1 Peter 3. In the story of Abigail and Nabal in 1 Samuel 25, Nabal made a decision which would have gotten many people killed, and his wife literally went behind his back, doing the opposite of what he had instructed his people to do, and it saved all of those lives. Yahuwah sided with Abigail and struck her husband Nabal dead. So, there is a time for a wife to do what her husband tells her to do, and a time to refuse and do what is right instead (when he wants her to do something that is not good).

1 Peter 3:1-8 King James Version

1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection (Strong's #5293 'hypotassō')
to your own husbands; that, if any obey not (Strong's #544 'apeitheō') the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of Yahuwah of great price.
5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in Yahuwah, adorned themselves, being in subjection (Strong's #5293 'hypotassō') unto their own husbands:
6 Even as Sara obeyed (Strong's #5219 'hypakouō") Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
8 Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:

Here’s what the author Sandra Clements says about this section:

“Finally, Peter uses Sarah as an example. Sarah is recorded as referring to Abraham as "lord." She used the word, "lord" when she had been informed that she would bear a son, Isaac, from her own body. She did not use the word to convey subservience, but it is used in respect to her husband. Historians report that the term as actually one of endearment as in "honey" or "Sir." It did not mean rulership. Keep in mind that scriptures also says that "Abraham obeyed Sarah," mutual respect and submission. Peter in 3:7 reinforces his point of mutual submission by informing the men that in the same way the women are to live, "...so are you." You show consideration to your wives in your life together, paying honor to the woman as the "weaker vessel, since they too are also heirs of the gracious gift of life - so that nothing may hinder your prayers." The term "weaker vessel" is a cultural term; women of that time were considered weaker in every aspect: physically, intellectually, and spiritually. Peter says that men were to pay honor to this person whom they have always considered weaker. But now, she is an heir, and if they fail to respect her, their prayers will be hindered.”

‘Conversation’ here means actions, not just words. Giving ‘honor’ to the wife means to respect her, just to clear up the notion that women are to respect their husbands but husbands are commanded to love their wives but are not commanded to respect their wives – they are commanded to respect them. Some men tell their wives they love them on a daily basis, but also yell at them and tell them to shut up on a daily basis, when they say something the husband doesn’t want to hear. And yes, some wives will do this also.

Strong's #G544 'apeitheō' means "not to allow one's self to be persuaded, to refuse or withhold belief, to refuse belief and obedience, not to comply with" from #545 'to disbelieve (wilfully and perversely): not believe, disobedient, obey not, unbelieving.'- This is for the unbelieving husband.

Remember what I said a few paragraphs above - allow me to repeat all of this because it is very important that we understand it - "‘hypotassō’ in Strong’s Concordance (#5293), and means ‘to arrange under, to subordinate, to subject, put in subjection, to submit to one's control, to yield to one's admonition or advice, to obey, be subject’. Strong's: "This word was a Greek military term meaning "to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader". BUT in non-military use, it was "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden". Since these verses are talking about the marriage relationship, the meaning is the latter one. 

So the translators were incorrectly interpreting that word in 1 Peter 3:1-8 and calling it 'be in subjection' which is NOT the correct meaning according to the non-military meaning. A marriage is NOT to be like a military base where there is a sergeant who gives orders and there is a soldier who better obey them or she will get court marshalled and thrown in prison or dishonorably discharged! That totally goes against the meaning of the word submit as a voluntary act of love! It also goes against the fact that there are times for the husbands to submit to their wives, as believers are told to submit to one another.

Strong's #5219 - 'hypakouō', used in verse 6 "Even as Sara obeyed" means 'to harken to a command, to obey, be obedient to, submit to'. Her husband did not command her to say she was his sister, he asked her to, or begged her to, and so the word obey or be obedient to doesn't really fit there, but submit does, because she voluntarily gave in to his request. When the Scriptures talk about marriage relationships and use the word 'obey' concerning the women to their husbands, they are picking the wrong word - they should have picked 'submit', which has a meaning implying that the woman had a choice and chose to honor the request rather than obeyed like a dog would his master.

Gen 12:13 King James Version
13 Say, I pray thee, (#4994) thou art my sister: that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee.

Strong's #4994 is 'nā'' and means 'I (we) pray, now, please - used in entreaty or exhortation'. As I said, he didn't command her, he asked her or begged her, so she didn't obey an order, she submitted to a plea!

  

Some will call their wives names like ‘bitch’, ‘idiot’, etc., or belittle them or make jokes of them in front of others (or alone) and think it’s alright to disrespect their wives in this way, and it hurts the woman and the relationship more than they know. Both partners need to understand that both need love and both need respect. It goes on to let us know that if the husband does not respect his wife his prayers will be hindered.

I know of one man who often threatened to smash his wife's face when he got angry with her, and although he didn't actually do that to her, it caused great harm to their marriage, as she not only felt belittled and verbally and emotionally abused, but also afraid that one day he may actually do that and then she would have to leave him and be alone and very sad. He would also threaten to send her to the middle east where the men would teach her how to respect men, which even though he would never really try to do that, it is a horrible thing for a Christian man to say to his wife. In the middle east they torture and even murder their wives whom they think are not acting 'right'. He would also 'threaten' to lock her up in a mental institution, saying she is schizophrenic, or say things like "Jesus Himself would do the same to you." And she said he almost always blamed the strife in their marriage on her, even though she often just wanted to talk about something and work it out, and he would often get mad and start yelling and calling her names, accusing her of always starting strife, when he was the one yelling and cursing and creating the strife instead of talking peacefully about the topic or complaint. She actually was so traumatized by some of the horrible things he said to her and names he called her, and the loud yelling and cursing, that she began begging Yahuwah to take her home where she knew she would have peace and always feel loved. As far as I know they are still together, and she is still alive, but no wife should be treated this way by her husband who is supposed to love and protect her, not even when he gets angry at her. Both partners need to understand that both need love and both need respect. Plus, men need to remember and understand that if the husband does not respect his wife his prayers will be hindered.

I personally was once married to a man who beat me, and he would say "If you hadn't made me angry, I wouldn't have hit on you. I will stop beating you if you stop making me angry!" - making every incident 'my' fault in his eyes. See my book "The Father Who Never Fails" for information on abusive relationships and how to overcome them.

Colossians 3:18-19 King James Version
18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in Yahuwah.
19 Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.

Colossians 3:18-19 New International Version
18 Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in Yahuwah.
19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.

There are times when it is NOT fitting in Yahuwah for the wife to submit to her husband. That is the condition there - to submit to him when it is fitting. I mentioned a few examples within this topic when it was not 'fitting' for the wife to do this. There are times when he should submit to her. Both should submit to Yahuwah.

Titus 2:3-5 King James Version
3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of Yahuwah be not blasphemed.”

The word ‘obedient’ comes from the exact same Greek word (#5293) as the word ‘submit’ comes from in Ephesians 5:21 where it says “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of Yahuwah”, so to translate it here as ‘obedient’ is misleading, and the word was probably picked by a man who believes women are inferior to men and who wants to keep them in bondage that was not ordained by Yahuwah.

Genesis 18:18-19 King James Version
18 Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?
19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of Yahuwah, to do justice and judgment; that Yahuwah may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.

Genesis 18:18-19 New International Version
18 Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. 19 For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of Yahuwah by doing what is right and just, so that Yahuwah will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.”

Above is a verse talking about a man directing or commanding his children, and their children after them, to live for Yahuwah. A verse that goes right along with that is Proverbs 22:6 “Train up a child in the way he should go; and when he is old, he will not depart from it.”

2 Timothy 3:15 King James Version
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Messiah Yahushuwa.

Deuteronomy 6:6-7 King James Version
6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:
7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.

Isaiah 38:19 King James Version
19 The living, the living, he shall praise thee, as I do this day: the father to the children shall make known thy truth.

That is what Yahuwah trusted Abraham to do – to raise his children to be obedient to Yahuwah.

Ephesians 6:4 King James Version
4 And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of Yahuwah.

So, although a father has a God-given right and obligation to train up his children (direct, command, instruct) in the way they should live, he should be careful not to do it harshly. He can ‘command’ them, but not provoke them to wrath. I believe this means to be fair to them, not unreasonable and abusive. Yahuwah trusted Abraham to do it the right way, and receive the blessing that was promised to him.

Proverbs 29:15 King James Version
15 The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.

Proverbs 22:15 King James Version
15 Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

He can spank his children when needed, but not abuse them. So can the mother.

Does Genesis 18:19 mean that he should ‘command’ his wife? Is ‘household’ referring to his wife as well as his children? No, the verse is talking about his children and future descendants specifically, so that they multiple into a nation of blessed people as Yahuwah has promised Abraham in verse 18. It’s not about controlling a wife here. It’s about training up children correctly and it’s concerning the huge blessing Yahuwah promises Abraham. Here’s another translation that shows it more clearly:

Genesis 18:19 New Living Translation
I have singled him out so that he will direct his sons and their families to keep the way of Yahuwah by doing what is right and just. Then I will do for Abraham all that I have promised.

Verse 18 tells us what Yahuwah has promised Abraham: “KJV 18 Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?”

Next is a verse about who commands the immediate household, and it may surprise you:

1 Timothy 5:14 King James Version
14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.

‘Guide the house’ is #3616 ‘oikodespoteō’ in Strong’s Concordance, and means ‘to be master (or head) of a house, to rule a household, manage family affairs.’ Household (oiko) /despot (despoteo) - In the online Merriam-Webster dictionary the word despot’s definition is ‘a ruler with absolute power and authority’.

Before learning the meaning of that phrase, most will believe that it means the wife’s highest calling is to be a homemaker, in the sense of raising children, cooking meals, cleaning the house, etc., and while there is nothing wrong with a woman taking on this role and going no further, it is not what is meant by this Scripture. In fact, while there are children in the family, the wife SHOULD stay at home and prioritize raising and teaching the children, even to homeschool them if possible. The public school system is a dangerous place to let teach our children. But none of the Scriptures hold her down to this, or to not having any authority in the home, as a ‘rule’ or a ‘command’. It is men who translated these verses about women in ways that can easily be misunderstood, and I think we all know that men, for thousands of years, have considered women to be inferior to men. What better way to keep women under control than to word the Scriptures’ translations in a way that makes them look that way.

I read an article by one man who insisted that a verse that uses the same word for ‘husband’ as other verses use for ‘owner’ (verses that refer to owning an ox) means ‘owner’ in the verses referring to ‘husband’ in a marriage. This man, along with other twisted verses, insists that husbands are the owners of their wives and should have complete control over them. I got a good laugh out of that because it seems this guy compares his wife to an ox!

Since the purpose of this book is to show you why believers are to keep the Sabbath and other Torah laws, I want to warn you about this false teaching that they tend to incorporate into their doctrines so that you can avoid those who do. I have worshipped together on the Sabbath and feast days with people who are like that, but I do not let them influence me in that way. And we have fellowshipped with several Messianic or Torah observant husband/wife partners who pastor their congregations as a team, so I can verify to you that they do exist.

While it’s a historical fact that women have been treated like the husband’s property for centuries, and still are in many third-world countries, this does not mean that Yahuwah orders it to be this way. This is the result of the fall of man in the garden, and when we submit to Yahuwah, being born-again through Yahshuwa, we can get back to the way the relationship was before the fall. In Genesis 1:28, Yahuwah told them both to be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it: and have dominion over every living thing that moves upon the earth. He did not say anything to Adam about having dominion over his wife.

In fact, when Yahuwah said He will make a help meet for Adam, the words did not mean ‘helper’, but ‘help meet’ and ‘for him’ was ʿēzer kĕnegdô, which means, ‘a strength corresponding to him’, from Strong’s #5828 and #5048 and is used in other places in Scripture to mean ‘a military front’!:

Genesis 2:18 King James Version
18 And Yahuwah said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

Something very interesting is that in Exodus 18:4 where it says “for the God of my father, said he, was mine help, and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh” – the word ‘help’ that is referring to ‘God’ is the same word used in Genesis 2:18, that refers to Eve. And in Psalm 46:1 where it says “Yahuwah is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble” the word ‘help’ there is the same. And in John 14:16 where it says “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter…..” the word ‘comforter’ that is describing the Holy Spirit is Strong’s #3875 – paraklētos which means ‘one who pleads another's cause with one, an intercessor’, ‘in the widest sense, a helper, succourer, aider, assistant’.

Now I’m not implying that a wife is the same thing as Yahuwah or the Holy Spirit, but this does show that Eve’s role (and a wife’s role) is similar to their roles and she is not an inferior ‘helper’ to Adam (the husband), as the word normally implies, but she is very important to him. Christian men frequently say to their wives when they’re trying to correct or advise them “STOP trying to be the Holy Spirit to me!” I find this a bit amusing, because it appears that her role is supposed to be similar to the Holy Spirit and Yahuwah! That just gives me a bit of a chuckle. Men, let go of your pride and listen to your wives more. They may save your lives. Suck up your pride and submit to Yahuwah’s word and treat your wives with respect.

I’m going to quote from an article I found that explains this very well:

“The structure of the creation narrative climaxes in the creation of woman, fulfilling man’s need for a partner corresponding to him (Gen 2:18, 20). The text describes woman being created to be the man’s ʿēzer kĕnegĕdô, literally, “a strength corresponding to him.” Unfortunately, the word ʿēzer here is often translated “helper,” which, in English, implies a subordinate or servant. Never in the Bible, however, does ʿēzer suggest “helper” as in “servant,” but almost always describes God as his people’s rescuer, strength, or might. The most authoritative biblical Hebrew dictionary (Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann Jakob Stamm, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (hereafter HALOT) 5 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000), 2 (1995): 811–12) lists biblical meanings of ʿēzer as “help, assistance, might, and strength,” but not “helper.” Three times ʿēzer describes a military protector. Nothing in the context of any of these passages warrants concluding that, as ʿēzer, either God or woman is subordinate to man.”

“The second word, kĕnegĕdô, combines kĕ (as) + negĕd (in front of) + ô (him) and so conveys “as in front of him.” Nāgîd, a noun related to negĕd, refers to the person in front and means, “the one declared (by Yahweh) to lead.” Therefore, like ʿēzer, kĕnegĕdô is more appropriate to identify a superior or equal than a subordinate. Nothing in the expression ʿēzer kĕnegĕdô in Gen 2 implies God created woman as a subordinate helper for man. Quite the opposite, it highlights her strength to be an equal partner with man, rescuing him from being alone. She is his counterpart: his companion and friend who complements him in exercising dominion over the earth. She fulfills him so that together they can be fruitful and care for the earth. Likewise, nothing in the Genesis account of creation grants man priority in status or authority over woman, but throughout it emphasizes their equality.” – “The Bible Teaches the Equal Standing of Man and Woman” by Philip B. Payne - Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 29, No. 1 ◆ Winter 2015

Now, back to 1 Timothy 5:14, some may go totally in the opposite direction and take this to mean that the wife has total control of ruling and managing their household, that she is the ‘head of the household’, period, but to be fair, I found some other verses that show us this is a husband/wife joint effort – that neither should try and be a dictator over the other and take the whole ‘head of the home’ idea as just for his or her self, and this is where ‘submitting to each other’ comes into play, as marriage is a partnership where both should work together as a team, both submitted to Yahuwah, and not strive for dictatorship in the relationship! There is no Scripture saying that the man has the final authority in decision making. Teamwork is very necessary of two people who are both in submission to Yahuwah and both listen to the Holy Spirit.

In these verses below, the SAME word is used, Strong's #3616 ‘oikodespoteō’, for the man that is a householder, and for the goodman of the house.

Matthew 20:1 King James Version
For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, (#3617) which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard.

Matthew 24:43 King James Version
But know this, that if the goodman of the house (#3617) had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.

In the first one, the man is hiring people to work in his vineyard, and in the second it shows that the man is supposed to protect his household. Does that mean the woman cannot help do these things also? Remember Abigail and Nabal? He was not protecting his household from danger, but causing them to be in danger of being slaughtered instead, and his wife stepped in and did the protecting, and saved many lives in their community. And look at what the Proverbs 31 woman does (the chapter that is used to show us the ‘perfect wife’): 16 “She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.”

I’ve heard several men try to jimmy out of the Abigail situation by saying “yeah but she had certain troubles later on… blah blah blah”, trying to blame her later problems on the fact that she did something against her husband’s will. It is laughable. All of us have troubles in our lives at one time or another. Her troubles were not because she went against her husband’s evil decision and saved all of those lives. Even if she had just saved one life, she still was right to do what she did. Men who want to control women just cannot stand to hear how Yahuwah sided with a woman who did not ‘obey her husband’!

Here it shows that both fathers and mothers are to teach their children the commandments of Yahuwah.

Proverbs 6:20-22 King James Version
20 My son, keep thy father's commandment, and forsake not the law of thy mother:
21 Bind them continually upon thine heart, and tie them about thy neck.
22 When thou goest, it shall lead thee; when thou sleepest, it shall keep thee; and when thou awakest, it shall talk with thee.

Look at Proverbs 31, as it describes a wife who runs a business and helps support her family and her husband trusts her.

Proverbs 31:10-31 King James Version
10 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.
11 The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.
12 She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.
13 She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.
14 She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar.
15 She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens.
16 She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.
17 She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms.
18 She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night.
19 She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff.
20 She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy.
21 She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet.
22 She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple.
23 Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land.
24 She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.
25 Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.
26 She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness.
27 She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness.
28 Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her.
29 Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all.
30 Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth Yahuwah, she shall be praised.
31 Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.

So, here’s a woman who takes care of and runs the household, runs a business, buys and plants vineyards and manages them, feeds the poor people, is respected by her children and her husband, causes others to respect her husband, and her husband trusts her. He is not concerned about who is the ‘boss’. He feels secure with this woman who is so active and independent. And check this out – in verse 10, the word ‘virtous’ is #2428 ‘chayel’ in Strong’s Concordance and it means “an army”! That sounds like a powerful woman to me, not a wallflower! 

Some men prefer a wallflower - a woman who looks attractive like a picture on the wall, but isn't outspoken, never makes waves by trying to preach or teach the Word to anyone, doesn't challenge her husband even when he's wrong - like mentally just stick her on the wall to look pretty, and come down when she's needed. 

Thankfully, most men are not like this, but there is an obnoxious handful of religious men who are.

One more thing I want to say to women before I close. Please don't let the above verse intimidate you if you are a woman. Don't let it cause you to feel like you have to do all of those things in order to be a successful godly woman. None of us have to be perfect in every way. The Proverbs 31 woman was actually a poem describing a perfect woman. It's an example for us, to show us that we can do these things. We should not feel inadequate if we don't live up to all of it. We can use it as an example so that we understand that we do not have to be limited to being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and laundry room and nursery, and asking our husbands for permission to do everything. The main point to remember is that husband and wife are a team, partners, NOT the boss and the minion.