STEWARDS WITH SCEPTRES: WHY AUTHORITY DOES NOT EQUAL OWNERSHIP

Written by Abrie JF Kilian.

A COVENANT CLARIFICATION IN RESPONSE TO CONCERNS RAISED in re TYRANTS, REBELS, AND THIEVES: HOW WE’VE ALL MISREAD OWNERSHIP IN THE BIBLE This response was written to address thoughtful critiques raised by readers of Tyrants, Rebels, and Thieves, particularly concerning the nature of male authority and the distinction between stewardship and ownership. Rather than dismiss sincere questions, the article seeks to clarify biblical headship in its true covenantal context—one marked not by sovereignty, but by sacred responsibility. It reaffirms that authority is not denied, but sanctified, and that true dominion in Scripture is always held under accountability to YHWH.

I. INTRODUCTION: THE CRUX OF THE CONFUSION

When “Tyrants, Rebels, and Thieves” was published, its thesis struck a chord—and a nerve. Many readers resonated with the call to dismantle the illusion of ownership and restore the theology of stewardship. Others, however, voiced sincere concerns, particularly about the implications this might have for male authority. One reader asked pointedly:

“If we do not own, why are we liable?”

“If a man is called baʿal—master, owner—does this not imply real possession?”

“If everything is stewardship, isn’t that just semantics?”

Such questions deserve more than a curt reply. They demand clarification—not because authority is in question, but because its nature, source, and limits are.

Let us be plain: Scripture does not erase male headship. Rather, it defines it with greater reverence and peril than most modern men dare acknowledge.

In the original article, I stated:

“Male authority is derivative, bounded, and accountable.”

This was not a disclaimer. It was the cornerstone. It affirms that men—fathers, husbands, rulers—are not owners in the sovereign sense. They are appointed stewards, clothed with real command but called to higher judgment.

The issue at hand is not whether authority exists—it does. The issue is whether that authority confers sovereignty. And on this point, Scripture is neither silent nor soft.

To answer the critiques, let us examine ten truths. But in this session, we begin with five:

II. OWNERSHIP VS. STEWARDSHIP: WHO BEARS FINAL CLAIM?

Ownership (Hebrew: מִקְנֶה | Greek: κτῆμα) implies ultimate disposition rights—the power to alienate, discard, sell, or destroy. It implies autonomy.

Stewardship (Hebrew: מִשְׁמֶרֶת | Greek: οἰκονόμος) implies entrustment under conditions—to manage, guard, and multiply what is not one’s own.

Scripture reserves ultimate ownership to YHWH alone:

“The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is Mine. You are sojourners with Me.” — Leviticus 25:23“The earth is YHWH’s and the fullness thereof.” — Psalm 24:1

Human “ownership,” then, is conditional—a lease, not a deed. Thus, the rebuttal:

“If an owner must answer to a higher law, is he truly an owner? Or merely a steward with a longer leash?”

This distinction is not semantic. It is covenantal. The Owner gives commands. The steward obeys them—or is replaced.

III. THE PARABLE OF THE TALENTS: YESHUA’S MODEL OF HEADSHIP

The Messiah Himself settles the matter.

“The Kingdom of Heaven is like a man going on a journey, who called his own servants and entrusted to them his goods.” — Matthew 25:14

This is not a fable of capitalism. It is an eschatological blueprint of accountability. The master (a figure of Yeshua) entrusts real resources to his servants—“talents,” not metaphors. They are commanded to trade, invest, and multiply. They have agency, risk, and decision-making power. But what they do not have is title.

When the master returns, the steward who buried the talent is condemned. Not for theft. Not for destruction. But for failing to steward.

“You wicked and slothful servant… You ought to have invested My money.” — Matthew 25:26–27

The point is piercing: the steward bears real authority, but with greater judgment, not less.

“The steward acts as if it were his—but never forgets that it is not.” So too with men: your wife, your children, your flock—none are yours in absolute terms. But they are yours to guard, to lead, and to answer for.

IV. LIABILITY ≠ OWNERSHIP: THE ERROR OF PRESUMED SOVEREIGNTY

A common rebuttal arises:

“If I’m responsible for something, doesn’t that prove I own it?”

No. It proves you’ve been entrusted with it.

Exodus 21:28–29 illustrates this with brutal clarity: If a man’s ox gores someone, he is liable, especially if the ox had a history of aggression. But the man’s liability does not imply cosmic ownership. It implies legal accountability within a legal framework.

Exodus 22:5: If a man’s beast grazes in another’s field, restitution must be made. Why? Because stewardship boundaries were trespassed, not because of inherent sovereignty.

Likewise, Numbers 30 does not portray the husband as a tyrant but as a covenantal covering. His right to nullify a vow is not because he “owns” his wife, but because headship carries spiritual liability. His silence affirms. His objection is negated. But either way, he bears the consequence.

“In Scripture, authority flows from assigned responsibility, not from personal entitlement.”

You do not need to own a soul to be accountable for how you treat it. You only need to be assigned its care.

V. THE FERRARI ANALOGY: HOW STEWARDSHIP HEIGHTENS ACCOUNTABILITY

Picture this: A man owns a rare Porsche. It is his pride. His legacy. He services it. Showcases it. Drives it with joy. Then a wealthy friend entrusts him with something more valuable—a Ferrari Enzo—for five years. “Use it carefully,” the friend says. “I’ll ask for it back.”

Now ask yourself: Which will he guard more carefully? Not the Porsche.The Ferrari.

Why? Because it’s not his.Because he must give it back.Because he will be judged for his condition.

“We cherish what we possess. But we guard what we do not own with trembling.”

This is the theology of stewardship:

• The husband leads a wife who is YHWH’s daughter.

• The ruler governs a people who are YHWH’s flock.

• The priest serves in a Temple that is not his to desecrate.

Stewardship does not weaken authority. It intensifies responsibility.

VI. THE BAʿAL–ISHI SHIFT: AUTHORITY SANCTIFIED, NOT STRIPPED

One of the most profound shifts in Scripture’s theology of relationship occurs in Hosea 2:16:

“You shall no longer call Me Baʿali, but Ishi.”

Baʿali (בַּעְלִי) means my master, or my owner. Ishi (אִישִׁי) means my husband. YHWH does not deny His authority—He refines His tone. The problem was not command—it was perception. Baʿal evokes coercion, hierarchy, and domination. Ishi evokes intimacy, covenant, and mutual devotion.

This linguistic shift is not incidental—it’s revelatory. It signals that true authority in covenant is not rooted in possession, but in sacrificial care. The same YHWH who thunders at Sinai also whispers, “I will allure her and speak tenderly to her” (Hos 2:14).

In marriage, then, the husband’s title may include “baʿal,” but its tone must become “ishi.” Not a loss of headship—but it's sanctification.

“Biblical headship is not discarded. It is transfigured into trust-bearing intimacy.”

To rule as a tyrant is easy. To rule as a husband, with reverence and restraint, is the weight of covenant.

VII. TITHES: PROOF OF STEWARDSHIP, NOT RETAINED OWNERSHIP

Another objection raised was: “If everything belongs to God, why give tithes? Does that not prove we own the 90%?” Quite the opposite. The tithe is not a tip paid from our profits. It is a visible covenantal marker that none of it is truly ours.

“The tithe is not taxation—it is testimony.”

Just as the Sabbath is a weekly reminder that we do not own time, the tithe is a recurring confession that we do not own increase. Malachi 3:8 calls failure to tithe “robbing God.”Why? Because it is a breach of stewardship, not ownership. The 100% is His. The 10% is just the portion He demands to remind us. The tithe, like headship, is not about dominance—it is about discipline. It teaches every patriarch that provision flows through him, not from him.

“Tithing is not giving to God. It is returning to Him what was never ours.”

Ownership feels entitled. Stewardship feels entrusted.

VIII. THE PROPER VIEW: AUTHORITY CLOTHED IN ACCOUNTABILITY

Let us now speak plainly to the concern of male headship. The article did not dismantle male authority. It exposed unauthorised claims to sovereignty. Headship remains. So does rule, leadership, and guardianship.

But here is the proper view: “The father, husband, ruler, and elder are clothed in authority—but bound by judgment.”

Scripture requires of these offices:

• Commanded leadership

• Covenantal restraint

• Judgment for abuse

To rule is not to dominate. It is to answer for the flourishing or withering of those under your care.

“The difference between a patriarch and a tyrant is not power—it is posture.”

Even Messiah rules as One who is accountable to the Father (John 5:30). How much more should we? A man does not lose authority by being a steward—he gains gravity. Authority is not revoked. But neither is it unregulated. To stand as head is to stand at the front of judgment. And that is no light thing.

IX. THE STEWARD’S BURDEN: GREATER ACCOUNTABILITY THAN OWNERSHIP

We often think ownership implies more responsibility. But biblically, it is the steward who trembles.

“An owner may destroy his own field. A steward must multiply it—or be judged.”

In Luke 12:42–48, Yeshua makes this devastatingly clear:

• The steward who knows the master’s will and fails to act is “cut in pieces.”

• The one who did not know receives fewer stripes.

• But both are judged.

“To whom much is given, much will be required.” (Luke 12:48)

1 Corinthians 4:2 echoes this:

“It is required of stewards that they be found faithful.”

The steward must walk with precision. He does not own. He cannot dispose. He must account. This is the burden of headship:

• The husband is answerable for the spiritual atmosphere of his home.

• The father for the direction of his children.

• The elder for the health of his flock.

Stewardship, not ownership, invites greater scrutiny, stricter justice, and eternal reward or rebuke.

“The test of ownership is liberty. The test of stewardship is fidelity.”

X. CONCLUSION: TO RULE IS TO TREMBLE WITH TRUST

The question was posed:

“If we don’t own, why are we liable?”

The answer is now clear: Because YHWH entrusts what He retains.

• The land remains His.

• The breath remains His.

• The people remain His.

• Even our families are His.

And the one entrusted will be judged. This is why the righteous steward rules with reverence. He leads not because he is sovereign, but because he fears the Sovereign. His authority is not annulled, but constrained—sanctified by the weight of divine trust.

“To be a steward is not weakness. It is sacred weight.”

Yet let this not be misunderstood: women, too, are stewards.

A wife may not rule her husband, but she is fully accountable for her words, emotions, and conduct before the Throne. Her posture, like his leadership, is held to account.

“Submission does not erase stewardship—it deepens it.”

There are no spiritual freeloaders in the covenant. Every soul stands before YHWH, answerable for what was entrusted. Yeshua, the King of Kings, models this perfectly. Though all things are His, He acts only under the will of the Father. His sceptre is stewardship perfected. So too for us—husbands, wives, fathers, daughters, elders, sons:

"We are not owners of people. We are not emperors of households. We are stewards with sceptres—governing what is not ours."

May we rule with reverence, respond with restraint, and walk with trembling trust—Until the true Owner returns.

Let each steward remember: ‘Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing’ (Luke 12:43). For we shall all give account, not of what we possessed, but of how we preserved what was never ours. Equal Ownership