The Jezebel Profile by Debi Pearl

I've read the article about 4 times and I didn't really like the article that much. She said some things that were ok, but I think many of her comparisons and example were off base and portrayed a kind of submission that basically tells the wife to shut up, say nothing, never ask questions, and that her sole goal in life is to please her husband and that if she doesn't do all this she has a Jezebel spirit. Let me go through specific things I had problems with in the article.

First of all, Debbi Pearl is writing this article to women in the church. I think it's rather harsh and in some ways demeaning to compare, what are probably well intentioned women who are seeking after God, to Jezebel who was the most wicked woman in the entire bible. It would be like comparing a man to Judas for every time he was the least bit unfaithful to God, or if he got something wrong....like walking around telling men they have a "Judas" spirit. Jezebel was without a doubt the most wicked woman in the bible who sought to pervert the worship of the one true God, turn men and women away to worshiping false God's, and who murdered to accomplish her goals. She most definitely exerted her will and influence over her husband Ahab, but that would not have been possible without the will of Ahab. Like Francis Frangipaing says, "You can have no Jezebel without an Ahab".

The only time Jezebel is mentioned in the New Testament is when Jesus mentions a woman by the name of Jezebel in Revelations 2:20: "Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols."

Here is what James Faucet Brown says about this passage:
that woman — Two oldest manuscripts read, “THY wife”; two omit it. Vulgate and most ancient versions read as English Version. The symbolical Jezebel was to the Church of Thyatira what Jezebel, Ahab’s “wife,” was to him. Some self-styled prophetess (or as the feminine in Hebrew is often used collectively to express a multitude, a set of false prophets), as closely attached to the Church of Thyatira as a wife is to a husband, and as powerfully influencing for evil that Church as Jezebel did Ahab. As Balaam, in Israel’s early history, so Jezebel, daughter of Eth-baal, king of Sidon (1Ki_16:31, formerly priest of Astarte, and murderer of his predecessor on the throne, Josephus [Against Apion, 1.18]), was the great seducer to idolatry in Israel’s later history. Like her father, she was swift to shed blood. Wholly given to Baal worship, like Eth-baal, whose name expresses his idolatry, she, with her strong will, seduced the weak Ahab and Israel beyond the calf-worship (which was a worship of the true God under the cherub-ox form, that is, a violation of the second commandment) to that of Baal (a violation of the first commandment also). She seems to have been herself a priestess and prophetess of Baal. Compare 2Ki_9:22, 2Ki_9:30, “whoredoms of ... Jezebel and her witchcrafts” (impurity was part of the worship of the Phoenician Astarte, or Venus). Her spiritual counterpart at Thyatira lured God’s “servants” by pretended utterances of inspiration to the same libertinism, fornication, and eating of idol-meats, as the Balaamites and Nicolaitanes (Rev_2:6, Rev_2:14, Rev_2:15). By a false spiritualism these seducers led their victims into the grossest carnality, as though things done in the flesh were outside the true man, and were, therefore, indifferent. “The deeper the Church penetrated into heathenism, the more she herself became heathenish; this prepares us for the expressions ‘harlot’ and ‘Babylon,’ applied to her afterwards” [Auberlen].
to teach and to seduce — The three oldest manuscripts read, “and she teaches and seduces,” or “deceives.” “Thyatira was just the reverse of Ephesus. There, much zeal for orthodoxy, but little love; here, activity of faith and love, but insufficient zeal for godly discipline and doctrine, a patience of error even where there was not a participation in it” [Trench].

I think that is a far cry from the "spirit of Jezebel" that Debbie Pearl is saying that many Christian women must have if they don't meet her standard of submission to their husband.

Let me go through some specific things that Debbie says that I don't agree with:

1. "Revelation 2:20 says that Jezebel “calleth herself a prophetess,” and men received her as a teacher. This was given as a warning to the church. The one whom you have received as a spirit filled teacher comes to you in the great tradition of Jezebel. We have observed that many wives have stalled their half of the marriage by assuming the spiritual headship of the home. They would teach their husbands. But consider 1 Cor. 14:34-35, “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.”

Rev 2:20 is not just about her calling herself a prophetess and men receiving her as a teacher. It's also, and primarily, about what she taught and how she sought to led me into spiritual fornication (maybe physical as well) and idolatry. Then Debbie jumps to the passage in 1 Cor 14 that says women shouldn't speak in the church and they should ask their husbands questions at home. Then she relates this to how women should not teach their husbands anything spiritual. I don't think the two issues are related. I do think that primarily the man should be teaching his wife. But there are cases (quite frequently in India), where the woman comes to Christ first and for years grows in the Lord before her husband ever comes to know the Lord. Going with Debbie's premises it would be wrong for the obviously more spiritual and knowledgeable wife to share spiritual things with her husband. If she did Debbie would say she has a Jezebel spirit.

2. Debbie says: "The first thing I noticed was that Jezebel was more religious than her husband. She was spiritually intense. The Bible says in 1 Cor 11:3, “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” As a woman, our place is under our husband, especially in the spiritual realm. Regardless of our circumstances, when we take the spiritual lead, we have stepped out from under our head. We have tried to rearrange God’s designated place for us. We are no longer in God’s will."

Debbie says the she noticed that Jezebel was more religious and spiritually intense than her husband...as if that was a bad thing! Debbie equates taking the spiritual lead with having more zeal for God than her husband. She almost makes it sound as if a woman's spiritual and religious affections must be just a degree lower than her husbands so that he can "remain the head" in all things. I think that is utter non-sense. A woman's first love in life is to God. She is to grow as close to God and be as mature as she can in the faith regardless of the spiritual condition of her husband. Jezebels problem was the her spiritual intensity was towards a false God.

3. Debbie says: "And men who are forced into spiritual subjection to their wives tend to be angry and retreat like Ahab." Men are never forced into spiritual subjection to their wives. If their wives are truly rebellious, and they give into it, they are willingly giving in to it. While the women is wrong, the man is also wrong for giving into it. No man is "forced into subjection".

4. Debbie says: "Dominance and control are always masculine. It is a hormonal thing. It is the way God designed male nature." Just because dominance and control are masculine doesn't mean they way they are exerted is Godly.

5. Debbie says: "By nature, men need honor (this includes not questioning their decisions)." That is a completely bogus statement. She's basically saying the woman she hear what her husband says, shut up and obey. That is no basis for a Godly healthy relationship. That, to me, resembles more of the worldly macho way that men view submission. A wife should feel comfortable enough with her husband to ask why he wants to do a certain thing. The husband should love his wife enough to know that it's important to make her feel secure and safe, and if possible explain why he's doing what he's doing. Debbie also makes it seem as if the wife could have no godly input about family decisions. A husband should be able to (and want to) explain things to his wife because they "are one in the Lord" (the two become one flesh). If his wife is a godly wife, having the Spirit of God dwelling in her, (and she's aware of whatever situation they are dealing with) he should also value her opinion as his "other half" who also knows the Lord. Ultimately the final decision on matters is the husband responsibility and the wife needs to submit to whatever his decision is....but to say that she can't question his decision or talk about it is nonsense.

6. Debbie says: "We were created as a helpmeet to the man we married, fulfilling who and what he is. This is God’s will for us as women." I don't believe this just applies to stroking his ego (which she kinda what she's eluding to by emphasising the need to meet his masculine needs - in a worldly way). I think it also applies to helping him fulfill his God given duties as a man in the kingdom of God.

7. Debbie says: "A woman who criticizes her husband for watching too much TV no longer honors him." I think this is another one of those totally bogus statements. Is a wife to do the same thing if her husband spends all day on the Internet and never spends any time with the family or kids? Should she never say anything? Does she not also have a responsibility to exhort her husband in the Lord and also watch after his soul as should would any other brethren in Christ? If a husband, especially a Christian husband, just watches TV all day, and the wife never says anything, can she really say that she loves him?

8. Debbie says: "When a woman tries to control areas of their life together because she thinks she is right, she is usurping authority over him, and lording over him." There is no way a wife is "lording over her husband" because she says something to him about his useless time of watching too much TV. (Again, she is portraying this idea that a woman basically just lives in the shadows and never says anything to her husband).

9. Debbie says: "A depressed, discontented woman, who feels that her husband does not meet her needs, is dishonoring God" The bible never says that. If her husband is not meeting her needs spiritually, then her husband is dishonoring her and God - if he's not doing his duty. What a horrible statement to say that if a woman is discontented because of her husbands lack of attention and affection (not meeting her needs) that she is dishonoring God. This statement could really throw a lot of women under false condemnation.

10. Debbie says: "Hurt feelings are a way to control." They can be, but they can also not be. A woman may just have hurt feelings because of the actions of her husband that are ungodly. Debbie makes it seem that if a woman has hurt feelings there is no basis for this and she must have a Jezebel spirit.

11. Debbie says: "Some women control their husband by having an intense spiritual hunger." How is having an intense spiritual hunger controlling her husband?

12. Debbie says: "There are many various and subtle ways to control and direct your husband. One of the ways to take control is to tell your husband that you want him to be the spiritual leader in the home and then let him know that you are waiting to follow." So if a woman is more spiritual than her husband, it's wrong for her to tell her husband what the scriptures says on the subject and to "encourage" her husband to fulfill his God given role???

13. Debbie says: "The very first command God gave to a woman was, “Thy desire shall be unto thy husband and he shall rule over thee (Gen. 3:16).” Is your desire toward your husband? Do you desire him as a man? Do you live to please him? Does he rule over you? This is God’s will." Actually, that wasn't a command as much as it was a curse. If you read back in Genesis you will find out that this was part of the curse. It's still the truth, and needs to be followed, but it was the result of sin entering into the world. Here's what Barnes says on that verse:

"The third part of her sentence refers to her husband - “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” This is evidently a piece of that retributive justice which meets us constantly in the administration of God. The woman had taken the lead in the transgression. In the fallen state, she is to be subject to the will of her husband. “Desire” does not refer to sexual desire in particular. Gen_4:7. It means, in general, “turn,” determination of the will. “The determination of thy will shall be yielded to thy husband, and, accordingly, he shall rule over thee.” The second clause, according to the parallel structure of the sentence, is a climax or emphatic reiteration of the first, and therefore serves to determine its meaning. Under fallen man, woman has been more or less a slave. In fact, under the rule of selfishness, the weaker must serve the stronger. Only a spiritual resurrection will restore her to her true place, as the help-meet for man. ~Barnes"

There are some things in the article that Debbie says that are good. She definitely touches on some area's of submission that women need to hear...but she is woefully off balanced and teaches things that the scripture does not teach. She sets up an argument that if a woman does not conform to what she has just listed then the woman has a Jezebel spirit - the spirit of the most wicked woman of the bible. Debbie's idea of submission is that the woman should basically be seen and not heard, that she should never question anything the husband says or does, that she should never feel disappointed or discontented, that she can never speak to him about his spiritual condition (watching to much tv), etc... and that if she does this she has a Jezebel spirit. I think that is totally wrong, especially given the way the Lord Jesus uses the phrase "Jezebel" in the book of Revelations to describe the type of person He refers to who has that spirit. The way she portrays a biblical marriage is that basically a husband does not have to love his wife by caring for her input and being ok with his wife questioning what he is doing, and him being willing to explain and wanting her to understand. The article comes across that a woman's role is to realize the man is in charge, that her sole purpose in life is to please him, and that she does this by realizing that he's the head, that she should never question anything and get her sole fulfillment from life by bringing him pleasure (very man centered and very little God centered). It seems to be a very worldly masculine way of looking at submission. She didn't touch on any of the open, transparent, and godly communication that there should be between a husband and wife. She even makes it seem that if a wife gives godly council to her husband that she is wrong!...because somehow if he (the husband) doesn't come to these conclusions by himself (without his wife's input) that he is not the head and the wife has usurp her authority. I find that absurd. People always use Abraham and Sarah's example, and rightly so, but they forget that there is an element missing in their situation that is present in ours. Abraham was the one who was hearing from God in his family matters. God was only speaking to Abraham. Sarah was to follow Abraham knowing that she was accountable to follower her husband and his leading. The same is true in the New Covenant, yet the difference is that both people, the husband and the wife, have the Spirit of God dwelling in them. God is speaking to them "both". God may give direction by speaking to the husband, OR God may even given direction and/or Godly council and advise through the wife... However, the ultimate decision about the family and it's direction is the husbands responsibility and decision. God may speak to the husband and the husband makes a decision and the wife follows.... or God may speak through the wife to the husband, and if the husband realizes that what was spoken if of God, then he makes the decision to follow it (or if not from God, he makes the decision not to follow it). The headship and the direction of the family still falls to the husband, and either way the wife must follow and submit... but for the wife to share what she also believes the Spirit of God is saying does not mean she has a Jezebel spirit.

Debbie says: "The very first command God gave to a woman was, “Thy desire shall be unto thy husband and he shall rule over thee (Gen. 3:16).” Is your desire toward your husband? Do you desire him as a man? Do you live to please him? Does he rule over you? This is God’s will." Actually, that wasn't a command as much as it was a curse. If you read back in Genesis you will find out that this was part of the curse. It's still the truth, and needs to be followed, but it was the result of sin entering into the world. Here's what Barnes says on that verse: sscott7

"The third part of her sentence refers to her husband - “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” This is evidently a piece of that retributive justice which meets us constantly in the administration of God. The woman had taken the lead in the transgression. In the fallen state, she is to be subject to the will of her husband. “Desire” does not refer to sexual desire in particular. Gen_4:7. It means, in general, “turn,” determination of the will. “The determination of thy will shall be yielded to thy husband, and, accordingly, he shall rule over thee.” The second clause, according to the parallel structure of the sentence, is a climax or emphatic reiteration of the first, and therefore serves to determine its meaning. Under fallen man, woman has been more or less a slave. In fact, under the rule of selfishness, the weaker must serve the stronger. Only a spiritual resurrection will restore her to her true place, as the help-meet for man. ~Barnes"

Your post is very lucid and meaningful. Here is a little passage from Mr Pearl which is added as an appendix to Mrs Pearls book “Created to be his help meet.” This should serve to make sense of her attitude and belief as to what should constitute a non Jezebelic woman.

“Has your husband reviled you and threatened you? You are exhorted to respond as Jesus did. When he was reviled and threatened, he suffered by committing himself to a higher judge who is righteous. You must commit yourself to the one who placed you under your husband’s command. Your husband will answer to God, and you must answer to God for how you respond to your husband, even when he causes you to suffer. Just as we are to obey government in every ordinance, and servants are to obey their masters, even the ones who are abusive and surly, ‘likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands’…You can freely call your husband ‘lord’ when you know that you are addressing the one who put him in charge and asked you to suffer at your husband’s hands just as our Lord suffered at the hands of unjust authorities…When you endure evil and railing without returning it, you receive a blessing, not just as a martyr, but as one who worships God.” Michael Pearl.

I agree that a wife should honor her husband regardless of what he does. Both the husband and the wife will give an account to God for their actions regardless of what their spouses did or did not do. The problem with the article is that Debi says that many things are "Jezebel" and rebellious that Gods word never says are. If one wants to see an example of a New Testament Jezebel they should read the description that Jesus uses to describe this person in Rev 2:20. In Debi's article she says that a women has this spirit if they question their husband, speak to him about watching too much tv, and that they are dishonoring God if they are discontented with their husband in any way. That's crazy. A husband and wife relationship should be open, transparent, and comfortable enough that questions can be asked. And the husband should love his wife enough to know that it's ok for her to ask question and want to know why he's does or decides to do certain things. If a husband is spending all day watching tv or on the Internet, and neglecting his family, apparently the wife is supposed to say nothing or else she's manifesting a degree of Jezebel. That's not biblical. Is a wife not allowed to exhort her husband towards godliness? Does her godly exhortation make her a Jezebel? Debi's also says that if a wife feels discontented towards her husband that she is dishonoring God. The bible doesn't say that either. She may not like what her husband does, and she still has to submit to him, but that does not mean she has to feel contented. If her husband wants to spend hours on the net or watching tv Instead of spending time with his wife and kids, does she have to feel contented and good about that? If she doesn't is she a Jezebel?

Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife. (1 Corinthians 7:10, 11 NKJV)

It is ideal, in the Lords eyes that husband and wife stay together. However, if a wife is being physically beaten she can live somewhere else, but she is not to divorce her husband. She should pray of her husband and his conversion and hope for reconciliation.

I would also imagine that if a wife is being physically beaten that the authorities would get involved and probably arrest the husband.

The quote from Michael Pearl is complete wickedness. It is a charter for wife abuse. It is a careful woven text of words into which the Scripture is grafted with such subliminal skill that it gives an impression of truth. It is a complete parody of truth.

I kept my opinion out of my previous post of this man's words just to see what reaction or direction the OP would take. To my astonishment it has taken a strange "lets discuss it and pretend" sort of route. I make no apology for saying this. If no one can see that to say that it is admirable to call your husband "lord" because it really means that you are addressing the Lord Himself, or that a wife is to become a martyr to her husband then we have entered the time and space of madness. It is a complete wickedness without any doubt whatsoever.

What person claiming to be of Christ would advocate and promote an idea that was then presented to the body of Christ as teaching, which says that a man's wife is to be a punch bag for her husband and that the woman should still call him Lord. Have you all lost your sense or discernment. God have mercy when we are so removed from reality that we actually believe or even countenance this wickedness with a discussion. The fact that this man's wife can then agree ought to tell us something about spiritual deception and make you flee from it. Not post this rubbish on the internet as acceptable truth.

Where is the compassion of the men? Where is the understanding that no man has any right whatsoever to treat his wife with such contempt as this teaching of Michael Pearl teaches. Where is the courage to say that it is wicked. The naming of a woman as rebellious if she resists such abuse and to advocate an attitude that she could even bear with it and its ok because God will one day judge the man, is a mockery of the truth. Do you not know the compassion which Jesus had on women and why? Do you not understand that injustice which men have leveled against women in almost every age? Do you not know that Elijah was merciful to women and humbled himself for their sake. Do you not comprehend that God is going to pour out his anger on this generation because of wickedness arising from injustice which has been produced by injustice of men. Not the rebellion of women. Do you not know that a man is accountable for his wife and not a wife for her husband?

Do you not comprehend that it was God Himself who made the women a weaker vessel as a consequence of the fall. Eve did not rebel. She was deceived. Don't you get it? Eve was deceived she was not wicked. SHE WAS DECEIVED. She was innocent as was Adam and then she was deceived. In every generation men have laid against women misery upon misery because she was deceived. God did not intend this to be so. One day he will judge it. God's intention in making the women a weaker vessel after the fall was to provide a basis of accountability of men. The women has paid through increased child bearing pains. Not just giving birth but the pain of bringing up children with a weakened emotional heart. When men have simply disregarded their pains despising their sorrows God has been comprehending it.

God have mercy.

I certainly don't think that Michael Pearl is endorsing abusive husbands, but the article by Debi is filled with statements that aren't true. I've listed them in my first response and subsequent responses. It's really sad that she is calling certain things a "Jezebel" spirit when the word of God never does. I can see this article bringing women under a lot of false condemnation.

I certainly don't think that Michael Pearl is endorsing abusive husbands, but the article by Debi is filled with statements that aren't true. I've listed them in my first response and subsequent responses. It's really sad that she is calling certain things a "Jezebel" spirit when the word of God never does. I can see this article bringing women under a lot of false condemnation. sscott7

No well he could hardly do that even if he intended it. That is the point. It is not the intentions of the man which matter it is its effect. Search the internet and read something of the reality of what happens when men believe their wives are to obey their commands. When they confuse submission with total obedience. Read 1 Peter and see that it is not a command to women but to all men (male and female) and wives and not all women are encouraged (not commanded) to submit to their husbands (not to call them Lord as though he were Christ Himself. It is "joint heirs of grace together" not the wife being an instrument in her body to facilitate her husbands folly and disobedience because he will not be gracious to his wife and merciful with all long suffering as was Christ.

It is a religious spirit which blinds the mind and prevents many men from seeing their duty, which they perceive as less than a duty and their wives duties as paramount.

To say that this teaching is an opportunity for abuse is to mean just that. If anyone needs to shed tears then let them shed tears according to their own conscience. But that has nothing to do with the presentation of women which amounts to an opportunity for the flesh and for unclean spirits to oppress women and drive men to abuse their wives.

Hi Proudpapa,

Do you see anything wrong in what Debi wrote in her article on the Jezebel spirit? I pointed out quite a few things where she went way overboard...just curious about your thoughts on those.

RE: AK wrote ///No well he could hardly do that even if he intended it. That is the point. It is not the intentions of the man which matter it is its effect///

The intensions do matter otherwise we could blame the scripture whenever people wrongly interput them. Proudpapa.

If you were a woman whose husband was in any event abusive and domineering you might think a little differently about any teaching which said “you must answer to God for how you respond to your husband, even when he causes you to suffer. Just as we are to obey government in every ordinance, and servants are to obey their masters, even the ones who are abusive and surly, ‘likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands”.

These words are Mr Pearls to other men’s wives. The direction of them is “in the home” because it has to do with how to behave when a woman is abused by her husband. I have heard of many men who are abusive in secret “in the home” but are as gentlemanly as one can imagine in the street and the church.

The reference to employers in 1 Peter 2:18 and what ones attitude should be to an employer, is not “in the home” but in the “work place”. That is to say in the Scripture it is in the “masters” house or whilst going about his business. The admonition is to serve your employer well regardless of whether he is a smiley person or a sultry person. In short no matter how his countenance and demeanour are serve him well. It is a witness not a ticket to empower our employers to make slaves of us. Even though at the time of the letter of Peter many people were indeed slaves. If a slave then one may well suffer the poor treatment of a master and in this regard suffering for no wrong doing is better than suffering for doing wrong because this too is a witness of Christ who suffered for us.

The reference to obeying government in every ordinance (the law of the land) is not in the home it is in the land. (1 Peter 2:13-14). It is for the Lord’s sake whose servant or minister of righteousness (governors appointees)) are sent to punish evil doers as well as to bless those who obey the law of the land. This too is a witness.

The reference to “wives” in 1 Peter 3:1 to be, subject to their husband BECAUSE if “they” (other women’s’ husbands), who “obey not the word or else BELIEVE NOT, may be “won” SAVED by THE CONVERSION OF THEIR WIVES; is also a witness. Then just in case these poor “stupid” saints didn’t GET IT, Peter explains something about appearance, dress and attitude. ALL of this is in the context of a public witness and has nothing to do with the privacy of the home except in the context of having other UNBLEIVEING MENS wives over for tea. This is consistent with the direction and purpose of this passage. One thing is for sure the passage has very little to do with anything which is hidden in the home (husbands, wives and children's private lives) but rather that which is visible in the public domain of the street, land, workplace , etc. If it is to do with the home it is in the context of unbelieving husbands being won by their wives having become saved through believing wives’ good example. What none of these things have to do with in an emphatic injunction for wives to be somehow conformed to a pattern of conduct which includes being incapable of resisting their husbands, if they mistreat them in the home.

For Mr Pearl to connect the three elements in the way he has, is false and misleading. If all Christian men did in fact treat their wives with respect in the home as well as in the street things would be just fine. But they do not. So any teaching which asserts that a woman (wife) should be submissive to the point of accepting abuse and misery at the hands of their Christian husbands is a parody of truth as presented in this passage. To connect employment, the law of the Land and private family life in this way is nothing short of male ego gone wrong.

The brethren to whom this letter was written are the Jewish pilgrims (1 Peter 2:11-12) who have by reason of persecution been scattered to gentile countries. The first admonitions have to do with ALL the brethren and the purpose of the admonition is to teach them the importance of their conduct and manner in a foreign land for the sake of the Lord Himself and nothing directly to do with their wives or for that matter their husbands either. This can be easily understood because no mention of children is ever made. It all has to do with being witnesses in the land of the gentiles. Children on the other hand are at home or else are not a basis for having concern over behaviour. Children are children. And there is a clue brother. Just take the matter a little further and you have another teaching which says that children are to be “trained” as well by being systematically hit with a variety of instruments including a 15” piece of plumbing hose from as young as 6 months. If they defecate themselves they are to be hosed down a little, but not so quickly if they are being stubborn. You no doubt understand this. It too forms part of the stable of teaching you have posted.

Brother I will stop there. Women in the Lord are able to walk as good and faithful wives because they are joint heirs of grace with their husbands. Husbands’ can similarly be motivated to walk as faithful and reasonable husbands because they too are joint heirs of grace with their wives. Setting aside the curse of Genesis, which whilst it is still in the female through the body of sin, genetically implicit and emotionally evident, yet it need not be a thing to lay claim too as proof that a woman needs to be trained as one would train someone to carry out a task. Being a wife is firstly a matter between husbands and their wives. The reality of male and female, and husbands and wives, is significant in the church and in public; in the church because a woman ought not to teach in the church and in public because her conduct is being observed and may glorify Christ in other women lives if they too believe. If they do believe because of a wife, a husband may end up believing as well.

I don’t say this is perfect, but I do say that to call any woman, let alone your wife a Jezebel in most instances is hypocrisy and will lend itself to women abusing themselves and men abusing women and children.

How many saints truly comprehend what the Jezebelic spirit really is? I have seen it face to face firstly in my mother who was driven to beat me unconscious and to hate me with a truly malevolent spirit. I have seen it in my mother’s eyes and it was a cause of much fear and suffering. Yet I do not hate my mother. I have seen it in the lives of a few women who have made agreement with it without comprehension whilst still in unbelief and I have seen it laying waste to husbands and children many years after being saved. I have seen it in men who have despised their wives, even though they loved their wives bodies and it too has been judged and cost lives. Loss of life or its report came on the same day for men and the loss of life. Only the Lord can take the first born unto Him, but the last born child may be taken by the evil one if sufficient ground is given and the enemy finds a foot hold in a family or else presents his worker in the midst. I have also seen the first born being taken by the Lord because the husband would not repent of his wickedness despite many warnings and admonitions in love. The former is an outworking of Satan and the latter is God's mercy and righteous judgement for men and His own names sake.

Those who receive teachings from whatsoever source and yet have profound spiritual difficulties in their lives may end up beating their children to death, not just the hand of a father, but the hand of a mother also. It is foolish not to comprehend that this reality exists. To simply pass it off as a figment of the imagination or else to suggest that somehow Satan baits believers into acting out of personal bitterness and experiences is to fail to grasp that his primary intention is to devour. It is not necessary for Satan to bait us we are baited by our own fleshy natures if we walk in them. He devours and destroys that which he is legally permitted to destroy by God Himself according to his accusations against us in heaven. Grace to survive these things is not mystically acquired it is either comprehended or else it is not. If it is not comprehended and faith is equally deficient to resist him, he will devour and destroy if he is able to. He is wicked.

You appear to believe that everything is simply a matter of personal motive. Spiritual warfare is never a matter of personal motive. That was my sin for a season and I have stated it clearly. The calling of God in our lives is the basis of our lives now that we have believed. It is warfare not opinion or personal motive. Many parents find it difficult to trust God with their children and out of fear and a lack of faith they close their children in and smother their godly development. Some are able to comprehend that this is a reality before it happens and so instead they can at least trust in the reality of their calling to humble themselves to God on the one hand, but resist the devil on the other with regards to their children’s lives. God is not offended with this. He understands very well the nature of the world in which we live. Others more fully trusting God, trust not only for their own lives but their children’s and the lives of those they serve. It is all a matter for God. There is no one prescription or measure in this life.

Regardless of how many benefit from the teachings of Michael and Debbie Pearl there are those who have most assuredly not benefitted from them. This is because their underlying beliefs with regards to what constitutes the circumstances of the fall of man, as well as the nature of innocence before the fall both inform and make certain that what is set into motion in one place, is profoundly off course when it is received in another if the circumstances are present. The schism is by an almost imperceptible degree to the natural mind. In the spirit it is profound in its outworking. Brother, go and read their articles of faith. They ought to provoke a concern at very least.

Beside that they employ psychological and natural wisdom to achieve their methodologies. There is no need for anyone to make a ministry of teaching other men’s wives how to serve their husbands in order to give glory to God and Christ. It comes with natural affection and the grace of God, by faith. It cannot be a prescription. The same is true for men. Separating out Mrs Pearl for women and Mr Pearl for men is a construction of vanity, when Mr Pearl makes his own contribution as an appended directive. It also denies the very essence of the ministry of the Word in the local church which should be led by the Lord Himself in a true and faithful walk by men of God with the support of their wives. No one is perfect in understanding no one is entirely responsible but we are all accountable before the Lord. No one should call their wives Jezebel and no wife should be encouraged to think of herself in that spirit either.