Himself, yet, in a lesser sense, it is also true of the husband, insofar that in the

relationship being considered, he is a faint picture of the Saviour. Hence other truths

expressed in their fullness of Christ in this context, may also be taken to have a relevance

(even if only partial) to the role of the husband as "head".

In seeking to answer the question, "In what way is the husband a protector and

preserver?", the following words from verses 25-28 seem relevant:

The `love' which the man is to exhibit to his wife is that which gives itself; a love,

true in its fullness of Christ Himself (verse 25, cp. John 3: 16; 10: 11, etc.), but pictured

in the man. Its object is a presentation without "spot or wrinkle", two words which it is

worth while considering.

"Wrinkle" (rhutis) is associated with age, but such may be brought on prematurely

through worry or anxiety. The husband's role as "protector" must surely include the

thought of shielding his wife from anything which might lead to "wrinkles" of this

nature; He must bear the burdens of the marriage.

"Spot" (spilos), also used in II Pet. 2: 13, and found in the verbal form in James 3: 6

(`defileth') and Jude 23 (`spotted').  Dr. Bullinger says of the word, "a spot, a stain;

mark, stain, in a moral sense" (Critical Lexicon to N.T.). The word is associated in the

context with "the washing of water by the word" (26), and to a Hebrew, such as Paul,

this would bring to mind the O.T. washings which removed ceremonial defilement (cp.

Lev. 15: e.g.).  Such cleansing was a constant reminder of the need for holiness (the

outward being a picture of the inward) before God.

These things being so, the idea of a "spot" in this context, a moral blot, suggests that

the husband further exercises his place as protector, in that he defends his wife from any

such defilement. Was it here that Adam failed, failing to shield his wife from the

serpent's cunning and possible defilement? Did he fail to assert his headship in this way,

with the consequence that his wife was "thoroughly deceived" (ITim.ii.14, Weymouth)?

It is possible that Adam was with Eve when she was tempted (Gen. 3: 6 note "with her"

and "Ye" of verse 4), in which case he most certainly failed to defend her.

However this might be, when the life of Abraham is considered, the same fault is seen,

for he opted out of his headship when he allowed Sarah to be thought of as his sister only

thereby placing her in moral danger, and the seed with it (Gen. 12: 11-20). Isaac (like

father, like son), did just the same (Gen. 26: 6-11). Did they inherit this basic weakness

from their forefather Adam?

There are obviously practical considerations which make it impossible for a man

(living in the present society) to be on hand at all times in the role of "protector".

When the Western World changed from an agricultural to an industrial society, and