BELONGING AND STEWARDSHIP: REASSESSING COVENANT HEADSHIP IN BIBLICAL MARRIAGE

Written by Abraham Kilian.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction

II. Defining the Terms

III. Scriptural Framework of Covenant Belonging

IV. Historical and Theological Witnesses

V. Misogyny vs. Covenant Order

VI. Legal-Theological Parallels

VII. Responding to the Accusation

VIII. Conclusion

References

I. Introduction

Questions of marital order remain among the most contested in both theology and law. A recent incident illustrates how swiftly Biblical categories are misread through modern egalitarian lenses. Shortly after commencing my articles at a Canadian law firm—an essential stage for admission to the bar—an interview I had given to theologian Pete Rambo became the topic of discussion. In that conversation, I affirmed a conviction grounded in Scripture: that the women with whom I stand in covenant belong to me, and that I do not belong to them. Within two days, this statement was labelled “misogynistic,” and my position was rescinded.

This reaction exposes a conceptual confusion: the conflation of Biblical belonging with ownership, and of covenantal headship with misogyny. The apostle Paul provides the ordering framework: “the head of every man is Messiah, the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Messiah is YHWH” (1 Cor. 11:3). He likewise enjoins husbands to “love [their] wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Eph. 5:25), underscoring that headship is sacrificial stewardship, not domination. To invert this order—by claiming that a husband belongs to his wife in the same sense—would displace Messiah’s headship and verge on idolatry.

Therefore, this article’s thesis is clear: belonging in covenant does not denote ownership but stewardship under Messiah. As scholars from Josephus to William Luck have shown, covenant order differs sharply from commodification. To confuse it with misogyny is to misunderstand both covenant and misogyny alike. The deeper irony is that a law firm—an institution sworn to guard justice, human rights, and the ancient principle of audi alteram partem—should itself commit the very injustice it condemns, silencing a man not for misconduct, but for conviction and responsibility.

II. Defining the Terms

The dispute over covenantal belonging often turns on definitions. Three terms require distinction: ownership, stewardship, and belonging.

Ownership denotes absolute right—the power to dispose, alienate, or destroy. Such sovereignty belongs to YHWH alone: “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is Mine” (Lev. 25:23); “The earth is YHWH’s and the fullness thereof” (Ps. 24:1). Roman law framed property as perpetual and transferable (dominium), a notion foreign to Torah’s covenantal economy.[i] When studying church history, it is clear that Western marriage law too often absorbed Roman property categories, confusing covenant with contract.[ii]

Stewardship (mishmeret, οἰκονόμος) denotes entrusted responsibility under accountability. In Yeshua’s parable of the talents (Matt. 25:14–30), servants wielded authority, yet were judged as stewards, not owners. Biblical authority flows not from personal sovereignty but from responsibility to YHWH and those entrusted to one’s care.[iii]

Belonging in Scripture is relational, not proprietorial. Paul reminds, “You are not your own, for you were bought with a price” (1 Cor. 6:20). Israel belongs to YHWH (Deut. 7:6); a wife belongs to her husband (Gen. 2:24 and 1 Cor 11:3). Yet Hosea records a decisive linguistic shift: “You shall call me Ishi [my husband], not Baʿali [my master]” (Hos. 2:16), signaling covenantal intimacy rather than commodification.[iv] 

Thus, belonging describes covenantal trust under divine order. It sanctifies stewardship, never ownership.

III. Scriptural Framework of Covenant Belonging

If ownership belongs to YHWH alone and stewardship defines human authority, the next step is to see how Scripture applies this framework within marriage. The Biblical texts consistently describe a covenantal chain of belonging that is relational, accountable, and never proprietorial.

The Husband Belongs to Messiah. As mentioned earlier, Paul sets the pattern of order in 1 Corinthians 11:3: “the head of every man is Christ, the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God.” Authority and responsibility flow downward, but accountability flows upward. The husband is not autonomous; his authority is derivative, exercised as one who “loves his wife as Messiah loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Eph. 5:25). Even Messiah’s authority is stewarded under the Father (John 5:30), and no human headship can claim greater independence.[v]

The Wife Belongs to Her Husband. Genesis 2:24 provides the creational foundation: a man leaves his parents, cleaves to his wife, and they become “one flesh.” In covenant, she is joined to his household, takes his name (Isa. 4:1), and becomes his “glory” (1 Cor. 11:7). Yet this belonging is framed by stewardship, not ownership. A husband’s headship carries responsibility for his household but never sovereignty over his wife.[vi] Josephus reflects the same order in his descriptions of Judean family life: the husband bears responsibility for household direction but does not own its members.[vii]

Mutuality in Conjugal Practice. Paul also insists that within the act of marital intimacy, authority is reciprocal: “The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does” (1 Cor. 7:4). The context, however, is limited. Paul is addressing conjugal deprivation in Corinth (vv. 3–5), not establishing egalitarian household rule.[viii] In the bedroom, bodies are mutually yielded to safeguard fidelity and affection; outside that sphere, covenantal hierarchy remains intact.

Thus, Scripture presents belonging as covenantal trust under divine ownership—hierarchical in structure, reciprocal in intimacy, and always accountable to YHWH.

IV. Historical and Theological Witnesses

The Biblical framework of belonging as stewardship rather than ownership was not confined to Torah. It continued to shape Judean life in the Second Temple period, was reaffirmed by Messiah and His disciples, and later informed Christian ethics.

Second Temple Judaism. Josephus depicts Judean household norms in which husbands possessed legal prerogatives (e.g. in divorce) that wives did not, thus implying a patriarchal household structure (Ant. 15.259). While he does not explicitly frame this authority as constrained by divine law, his acknowledgement of legal limits—especially in matters like divorce—suggests that authority was not unfettered sovereignty.[ix] This contrast highlights that Judean headship was stewardship of persons entrusted by Heaven, not ownership.

Messiah and Torah. David Friedman demonstrates that Yeshua and His earliest followers upheld this covenantal order. In They Loved the Torah, Friedman argues that the Nazarene community affirmed Torah’s household structures, understanding male headship as responsibility rather than domination.[x] Yeshua reinforced this in His teaching on marriage: He pointed back to Genesis 2:24 to reaffirm creational order (Matt. 19:5; 1 Cor. 11:8–9), and condemned covenantal betrayal by restricting divorce to cases of sexual immorality (Matt. 5:31–32). His rebuke of hardness of heart (Matt. 19:8) targeted abuse of authority, not the principle of headship.

Christian Ethics Tradition. William Luck frames marriage as a covenant of companionship marked by asymmetrical but reciprocal duties.[xi] Mosaic law itself presupposed polygyny as legitimate and regulated it strictly: “If a man has two wives…” (Deut. 21:15–17) regulates inheritance rights, proving the practice was moral under Torah, provided justice was observed. Likewise, Exodus 21:10–11 required provision of food, clothing, and conjugal rights, demonstrating that wives were not commodities but covenantal trusts.[xii]

Thus, from Josephus to Messiah’s teaching to later ethicists, the testimony is consistent: male headship is covenantal stewardship, never proprietary ownership.

V. Misogyny vs. Covenant Order

The accusation most often levelled against Biblical headship today is that it is inherently misogynistic. To evaluate this claim responsibly, we must first define our terms.

Defining Misogyny. The word derives from the Greek misos (hatred) and gyne (woman). Standard lexicons describe it as “hatred, contempt for, or prejudice against women as women.” Contemporary philosophers such as Kate Manne extend the term to social systems that “police and enforce women’s subordination.”[xiii] In modern law and culture, misogyny often describes structures that demean or exclude women. Across these definitions, the core element is hostility, disdain, or the denial of worth.

Misapplication to Biblical Marriage. To equate covenantal belonging with misogyny is to confuse categories. Scripture nowhere permits contempt for women. Rather, it intensifies the husband’s accountability: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Eph. 5:25). Malachi rebukes treachery against “the wife of your youth” (Mal. 2:14), and Proverbs affirms that “he who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favour from YHWH” (Prov. 18:22). Such texts elevate the wife as a conduit of divine blessing, not an object of domination. Indeed, wives are repeatedly portrayed as daughters of the Almighty (Sion)—women under the direct guardianship of God Himself (cf. Ps. 45:10–11)—and husbands who mistreat them incur Heaven’s displeasure (1 Pet. 3:7). These commands and examples are incompatible with hatred. While some critics argue that any hierarchical order constitutes structural subordination, the Biblical model differs: authority is derivative, bounded, and exercised in sacrificial stewardship, not in sovereign domination.

Historical Continuity. Josephus distinguished Judean headship from Roman patria potestas, stressing that husbands remained accountable to Torah, not absolute rulers.[xiv] Patria potestas was the extensive legal power held by the male head of a Roman family, or paterfamilias, over his descendants through the male line and adopted children. David Friedman shows that Yeshua and His followers upheld Torah’s household order while condemning abuses.[xv] William Luck frames marriage as covenantal companionship with asymmetrical but reciprocal duties.[xvi]

The Opposite of Misogyny. Misogyny devalues; covenant order dignifies. Submission in covenant is not contempt but alignment with divine structure. Stewardship is not domination but accountability. To collapse these categories is to mistake tyranny for trust.

VI. Legal-Theological Parallels

The distinction between ownership and stewardship becomes clearer when viewed through legal categories. In civil law, ownership belongs to the realm of contract. Contracts govern commodities: they create rights that are transferable, alienable, and enforceable by exchange. Under such logic, to “own” a spouse would be to treat her as an object of property, subject to purchase or disposal—an idea both foreign and abhorrent to Biblical law.

By contrast, under Biblical Law, belonging belongs to covenant. Covenants establish identity and vocation, not commercial exchange. Both Israel and Judah “belonged” to YHWH because they were chosen and consecrated (Deut. 7:6).[xvii] Covenant ceremonies in Scripture, such as the renewal in Nehemiah 9–10, bound parties together in loyalty and vocation before YHWH, rather than in contractual exchange. As John Witte Jr. observes, even John Calvin’s argument against polygyny confirms the covenantal mode of marriage. It would be prudent to note that Calvin disregarded passages that clearly state YHWH's own covenant with two women, daughters of the same mother. (Isa. 54:5; Jer. 3:6–10; Ezek. 23:1–5; Jer. 31:31–34; 33:24). Albeit metaphorical, it would be theologically incoherent to suggest that YHWH employed a sinful relationship as the medium for His own covenantal Self-disclosure.

A second parallel arises in trust law. A trustee is granted authority for the benefit of others, yet this authority is fiduciary: he may not convert trust property into personal possession. Likewise, the husband functions as a covenantal trustee. His authority is real, but fiduciary—bounded, accountable to Messiah, with wife and children as beneficiaries.

Thus, marriage is illuminated not as ownership but as guardianship: covenantal stewardship under divine oversight.

VII. Responding to the Accusation

The charge of misogyny often carries with it an unspoken demand: that one recant covenantal language and embrace egalitarian formulations. Yet to do so would be to betray not merely conviction but theological truth.

Why Refusal to Recant Is Necessary. To deny covenant order is to invert the hierarchy given in Scripture—placing man under woman rather than under Messiah. Paul’s schema is unambiguous and worth reiterating: “the head of every man is Christ, the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3). To suggest that a husband “belongs” to his wife in the same sense that she belongs to him is to obscure Messiah’s headship. Such inversion collapses stewardship into idolatry, displacing Messiah as King of the husband.

Paul’s idiom in 1 Corinthians 7:2 helps clarify this distinction. From the wife’s vantage, her husband is “her own” (idios) much as one might say, “the United States is my country.” The phrase denotes belonging and identity, not ownership—she is joined to him, incorporated into his household, and may share that belonging with co-covenant members. From the husband’s vantage, however, his wife is “his own” (heautou) in the sense that he embodies the household itself: as a nation bears responsibility for its citizens, so he bears accountability for her welfare and sanctification. She belongs to him covenantally; he does not belong to her in the same sense, for his accountability flows upward to Messiah. Yet Paul immediately balances this asymmetry by affirming mutual authority in conjugal matters (1 Cor. 7:4), underscoring that covenantal order is not ownership but stewardship—hierarchical in structure, corporate in belonging, reciprocal in intimacy, and always accountable to YHWH.

Paul’s concern for covenantal fidelity appears again in the Pastoral Epistles, where elders are required to be “faithful husbands” (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:6). Towner stresses that the issue was marital faithfulness in a culture where family stability undergirded civic life.[xviii] Marshall likewise argues that Paul sought to exclude men of broken character, not condemn lawful marriages.[xix] Gloer and Stepp confirm the emphasis on fidelity rather than marital arithmetic.[xx] Hanson adds that the idiom “one-woman man” barred divorcees who remarried, not men in polygynous households.[xxi] Together, these voices affirm that Paul’s concern was faithfulness and covenant, not numerical restriction.

The Practical Witness. Covenant headship does not produce oppression but flourishing. The husband who loves as Messiah loves the ekklesia (Eph. 5:25) secures his wives’ well-being through provision, protection, and sanctification. Mosaic law required no less (Exod. 21:10–11). Properly ordered, covenantal households manifest dignity and security, not domination.

VIII. Conclusion

The argument has traced a consistent theme: in Scripture and in covenant, belonging does not denote ownership. Ownership is the prerogative of YHWH alone. Belonging in marriage is covenantal—anchored in stewardship, responsibility, and accountability to Messiah. The husband does not hold proprietary rights over his wife; he bears a fiduciary duty, charged with her provision, protection, and sanctification under Messiah's Kingship.

To collapse this covenantal order into the language of misogyny is to confuse categories. Misogyny is contempt, hostility, and the degradation of women. Covenant order, by contrast, is love arranged within divine hierarchy. It binds the husband to sacrificial service and dignifies the wife as a sacred trust within the household. Where misogyny devalues, covenantal belonging consecrates.

In an age eager to flatten distinctions into egalitarian abstractions, Paul’s voice still calls for clarity: “the head of every man is Messiah, the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Messiah is YHWH” (1 Cor. 11:3). The task before us is not recantation but recovery—the recovery of Biblical categories of covenant order that reveal marriage as stewardship, not sovereignty; as order, not oppression; as love, not contempt.

For only when headship is restored to stewardship and belonging reclaimed from possession can marriage once again mirror the mystery it was ordained to reflect—the union of Messiah and His people (Eph. 5:32; Rev. 19:7). Such covenantal order is not tyranny but trust, not subjugation but sanctification, not bondage but blessing.

It is a marital order far more fulfilling—and far more divine—than anything civil law can ever secure.

REFERENCES

[i] Kilian, Abraham, "Tyrants, Rebels, and Thieves: Rethinking Ownership in the Bible." Maxima Potentia, July 10, 2025. https://www.maximapotentia.com/post/tyrants-rebels-and-thieves-how-we-ve-all-misread-ownership-in-the-bible

[ii] John Witte Jr., The Western Case for Monogamy over Polygamy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 101-104.

[iii] Kilian, Abraham,“Stewards with Sceptres: Why Authority Does Not Equal Ownership.” Maxima Potentia, July 13, 2025. https://www.maximapotentia.com/post/stewards-with-sceptres-why-authority-does-not-equal-ownership . Ibid “Tyrants, Rebels, and Thieves: Rethinking Ownership in the Bible.”

[iv] Supra

[v] Supra “Tyrants, Rebels, and Thieves: Rethinking Ownership in the Bible.”

[vi] Ibid “Stewards with Sceptres: Why Authority Does Not Equal Ownership.”

[vii] “He that desires to be divorced from his wife for any cause whatsoever (and many such causes happen among men), let him in writing give assurance that he will never use her as his wife any more; for by this means she may be at liberty to marry another husband, although before this bill of divorce be given, she is not permitted so to do.” —Antiquities 4.8.23 (§253–254) The husband initiates divorce but must act through law (“in writing”) to release her; this reflects responsibility bounded by divine order, not personal ownership. Kindly note that divorce, according to Torah, is only permitted in the case of adultery. There are minor exceptions, which will not be discussed in this article.

[viii] John Witte Jr. observes that early Christianity adopted core Roman legal norms on monogamy and then “pressed for a monogamous union that was more egalitarian, more exclusive, and more enduring.” This theological shift, while seeking moral refinement, effectively absorbed Greco-Roman property and gender categories into Christian marriage doctrine—thereby departing from the covenantal realism of creation, Torah, and Paul’s household teaching. See John Witte Jr., The Western Case for Monogamy over Polygamy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 103.

[ix] Josephus presents Judean marriage as patriarchal in structure yet distinct from Greco-Roman conceptions of absolute paternal sovereignty. When recounting Salome’s unilateral divorce from Costobarus, he remarks that such an act was “not according to the Judean laws; for with us it is lawful for a husband to do so; but a wife… cannot of herself be married to another, unless her former husband put her away” (Ant. 15.259). The phrasing “with us it is lawful” situates male authority within the bounds of divine and communal law rather than as unrestricted patria potestas. Elsewhere, Josephus prescribes formal legal procedure for divorce to prevent arbitrary dismissal (Ant. 4.253), further implying that a husband’s authority was regulated by Torah, not grounded in proprietary ownership. Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 15.259; 4.253.

[x] David Friedman observes that Yeshua and His earliest followers “were careful to keep the mitzvot of the Torah and to instruct [their] students and kinsmen to do the same,” emphasizing a pattern of covenantal obedience rather than authoritarian hierarchy. This demonstrates that the Nazarene community upheld Torah’s ethical order—including its household structures—as stewardship under divine accountability, not domination. David Friedman, They Loved the Torah: What Yeshua’s First Followers Really Thought about the Law (Baltimore: Messianic Jewish Resources International, 2001), 36–39.

[xi] William F. Luck develops the concept of marriage as a “covenant of companionship,” emphasizing that it is a relationship of “equal representatives of the divine image” yet structured by “different role responsibilities.” He notes that Genesis portrays the husband as the “leader of the team,” but that headship entails responsibility, not superiority. Thus, marital order is “asymmetrical but reciprocal,” grounded in covenantal fidelity rather than hierarchy of worth. William F. Luck, Divorce and Remarriage: Recovering the Biblical View, 3rd ed. (San Bernardino, CA: AuthorHouse, 2016), 31–33.

[xii] The context of Exodus 21:10–11 concerns a bondswoman—one of the lowest social classes in the ancient household economy. Yet even she, when taken as a wife or concubine, was elevated into the protections of covenantal responsibility. The husband was bound to provide her with sustenance, clothing, and conjugal rights, and failure to do so constituted grounds for her release. If such dignity and protection were accorded to a servant-wife, how much more to a free woman? The law thus affirms that marriage in Israel was not ownership but entrusted stewardship under divine accountability. (Exod. 21:10–11; cf. Deut. 21:10–14; Luck, Divorce and Remarriage: Recovering the Biblical View, 33.)

[xiii] Kate Manne, Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny (London: Penguin Books, 2019), 33–34.

[xiv] Ibid at ix.

[xv] Ibid at x.

[xvi] Ibid at xi.

[xvii] Both Israel and Judah “belonged” to YHWH through covenantal election and consecration. The prophets repeatedly depict this relationship in marital and familial terms: YHWH as husband and redeemer (Isa. 54:5), Israel and Judah as unfaithful wives or daughters (Jer. 3:6–10; Ezek. 23:1–5), yet ultimately renewed through covenantal restoration (Jer. 31:31–34; 33:24).

[xviii] Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 251.

[xix] Howard Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 156–57.

[xx] W. Hulitt Gloer and Perry L. Stepp, Reading Paul’s Letters to Individuals: A Literary and Theological Commentary on Paul’s Letters to Philemon, Titus, and Timothy (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2008), 79.

[xxi] Anthony Tyrrell Hanson, The Pastoral Letters: Commentary on the First and Second Letters to Timothy and the Letter to Titus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966), 49.

biblical marriage headship