Ephesians 5:21ff

Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Ge 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. Ge 3:9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? Ge 3:17 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;

Before the Fall, Adam and Eve lived in the beautiful harmony and satisfaction of a perfect marriage. When Adam first saw Eve, he immediately recognized her as his perfect companion. “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh,” he said (Gen. 2:23). He saw no blemishes or shortcomings in her, because both her character and his attitude were pure.

There was nothing to criticize in Eve and there was no critical spirit in Adam. Though they were both naked, they were not ashamed (v. 25), because there was no such thing as an evil, impure, or perverse thought.

Man was created first and was given headship over the woman and over creation. But their original relationship was so pure and perfect that his headship over her was a manifestation of his consuming love for her, and her submission to him was a manifestation of her consuming love for him. No selfishness or self-will marred their relationship. Each lived for the other in perfect fulfillment of their created purpose and under God’s perfect provision and care.

CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN CULTURE has gone beyond, “Daddy has a roommate.” New Jersey was the first place that created a moral and legal monstrosity by recognizing for the first time in America—and perhaps in human history, that an unmarried gay couple could adopt a child jointly. The infant boy, had two legal homosexual fathers.

On the heterosexual side, a recent book by secular commentator, Wellesley grad and single mother, Maggie Gallagher, The Abolition of Marriage: How We Destroy Lasting Love, says:
Not only is marriage in danger of disappearing.… Though we do not realize it yet, it already has … By expanding the definition of marriage to the point of meaninglessness, courts are gradually redefining marriage out of existence.

Ephesians 5:21–28

21) Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22) Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. 23) For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24) As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. 25) Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26) that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27) that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28) Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

The question today is one that is repeatedly neglected in Christian feminist treatments of Ephesians 5, What is the positive, practical difference in a marriage between the man’s role as compared to Christ the head, and the woman’s role as compared to the church, Christ’s body?
Ephesians 5:22–23 says, “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body.” Verse 25, “Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church, and gave himself up for her.” Husbands are compared to Christ; wives to the church; husbands to the head; wives to the body; husbands are commanded to love as Christ loved; wives are commanded to submit as the church to Christ. My question is: What are the positive, practical differences between a husband’s role and a wife’s role implied by these different comparisons?

As you books and articles on this passage, they seldom get around to this question. They stop short of it. They point out that verse 21 teaches a mutual submission; they stress correctly that Christ’s headship was not domineering but servant-like; and they emphasize that the church’s submission is not slavish but free and willing. But then they stop.

Because they stop there, young people today are left with great ambiguity and confusion about the proper roles of husband and wife. Christian singles and young couples know that husbands and wives are not to lord it over each other; they know they are to serve each other and put the other’s interests first and not be mindless and obsequious. If you ask the average young man or woman today, who has been bombarded with feminist ideology for fifteen years, What is distinct about your God-intended role as husband?

What is unique about your God-intended role as wife?

What are some positive, practical implications of being called “head” that make the husband’s role different from his wife’s? Most don’t have a clear answer to these questions.
Interpretations of Ephesians 5 have offered little help to young people in defining the biblical differences between the roles of husband and wife.

Paul devotes 12 verses to unfolding the difference in the way a husband and wife should serve each other. After verse 21 the whole passage is devoted to making distinctions between the loving headship of a Christ-like husband and the willing submission of a church-like wife.

It is not enough to say, “Serve one another.” That is true of Christ and his church—they serve each other. But they do not serve in all the same ways. Christ is Christ. We are the church. To confuse the distinctions would be doctrinally and spiritually devastating. So also the husband is the husband and the wife is the wife. And to confuse these God-intended distinctions harms personal, church, and social life over the long haul.

There is no good reason for husbands and wives not to like what the Bible says here. There is something deep in every man that comes into its own when he assumes the role of loving servant-leader in his family. And deep down he knows that part of his personhood is compromised if his wife has taken the leadership of the family. Likewise there is something deep in every woman which rejoices and flourishes when she can freely and creatively support and complement the leadership of her husband. God’s plan for marriage is beautiful and deeply fulfilling. It is not oppressive and fearful. It is freeing because it’s God’s deep design.

“Head” Means Leader

1Cor 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.

We need to remember right at the outset that much of 1 Corinthians has to do with not standing on your rights. In chapter 8, for example, the person who has a strong conscience has the right to eat food that has been offered to idols.

On the other hand, it’s the mark of graciousness, of Christian wisdom, of charity, of concern for the weaker brother or sister not to so model conduct that that weaker person (weaker because he or she thinks that it is wrong to eat even though it is not objectively wrong; that’s what makes the conscience weak) might be tempted to do something against conscience and thus damage their conscience.

In that kind of framework, Paul will say, “If that’s the test, I will not eat meat while the world stands.” In chapter 7, likewise, in the context of marriage, a great deal of Paul’s admonition has to do with not exercising all rights. He has the right to get married, but there and in chapter 9 he resolves not to use that right.

Ephesians 5:23 22Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, being himself the saviour of the body. 24But as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their husbands in everything. 25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it; 26that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word, 27that he might present the church to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 28Even so ought husbands also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his own wife loveth himself: 29for no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as Christ also the church;

Over the meaning of head in v23, much ink has been spilled. The two dominant theories are that it means source, like the head of the river is a spring, or something like that, or authority over.

Almost everybody who is really linguistically trained and who has actually looked at the evidence right across the whole theological spectrum recognizes that when kefάli (head) is used in the singular to mean something other than the organ that wobbles on the top of my neck (when it’s used metaphorically) it has the overtone of authority somewhere in the context, usually very strongly so.

Even where it has overtones of nurture, or the like, as in Ephesians 4:15 and Colossians 2:19, there is authority built right into it in the context as well. Moreover, in the few instances where out of about 3,800 instances that you can pull out of the Greek literary corpus from about 200 BC to AD 200.

You go through all of them and you discover that in the handful of instances where it could mean source, it’s always in the plural. It’s the heads of a stream, the sources of a stream. When it’s in the singular, there’s no unambiguous exception, it has to do with authority.
Although people still write articles from time to time to try to find them.

“The head of every man is Christ. The head of the woman is man. The head of Christ is God. Every man who prays and prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head.” There’s clearly some going back and forth between what’s balanced on the top of my neck, whether I’m male or female, and headship in this authority sense.

“I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” You might not like the word hierarchy. The word hierarchy certainly can have a whole set of nasty overtones that can go with it, but if head metaphorically does have overtones of authority, the text makes perfect sense.

This does not mean that the woman is inferior to her husband any more than it means that the Son is inferior to his Father. It is certainly not suggesting that the Son is less God than his Father and, therefore, somehow the woman is less human being than her husband. All such notions, it seems to me, are completely missing the point.

Eph 5:21 ” The verb “to submit” invariably in the New Testament suggests submission in some ordered array. It’s in a military hierarchy, or it’s in a master/servant relationship, or something of that sort of thing. It always suggests ordered array. Take out the disputed passages. It’s simply not used in a context where everybody is sort of submitting to everybody. That doesn’t make any sense in an ordered array.

“Submit to one another …” What is often presupposed in contemporary debates is that word must always be reciprocal. That is, if three people submit to one another, then each one is submitting to the other two. Or if two are submitting, then each is submitting to the other. That is, there has to be reciprocity, or you cannot make sense of the pronoun.

It is clear in the following verses, there is a massive comparison going on between, on the one hand, Christ and the church and the husband and the wife. On the one hand, there is something relatively brief said to the wife, something much longer said to the husband. It’s worth pointing out on the fly that what is said to the wife is not said to the husband about the wife. That’s important to recognize. It’s not said to the husband about the wife as if she is second-class and can’t be spoken to by God herself.

She is addressed as a morally responsible agent, and this is what’s required of her. Then he is addressed as a morally responsible agent, and this is what is required of him. Now the notion of Christ as head of the church in one fashion or another, that theme occurs and occurs sometimes with the specific word head and sometimes in some other phrase.

In Ephesians alone (Ephesians 1:22), “And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.” That simply has nothing to do with origins. It has to do with authority.

Again, in chapter 4, verse 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, Christ.”
But how does the church submit to Christ? That’s the question. For in the same way, we’re told, the church submits to Christ, the wife is to submit to her husband.

How then does the church submit to Christ? Not in wrestling misery. After all, people use the term submission in a variety of different contexts even in our culture. If you have a son or a daughter who is involved in team wrestling or the other.… you signal to say, “I submit.” You say, “I submit” to say basically, “You’ve won,”

Does the church submit to Christ as a wrestler submits to a better wrestler? What is the mental image that is brought up when we start speaking of submission? Is it just, “Be under and don’t ask nasty questions”?

If you listen to the whole voice of Scripture on this regard, the submission of the church to Christ is joyful, whole-hearted, grateful, willing, voluntary. Doubtless because of grace, but still, that’s the way it’s supposed to be.

It is the totality. There is supposed to be at least no grudging. “Okay, I’ll let you have this part of my life but not that part of my life.” The old slogan, “Christ is either Lord of all, or he is not Lord at all” has a certain kind of power to it beyond the mere poetry of it.

Ephesians 5:10: “… and find out what pleases the Lord.” Well, that’s what you want to do when you want to submit to this Lord. chapter 5:17 “Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord’s will is.” Now we’ve too easily disconnected such passages from the submission passage, but of course they’re tied up together. It’s not just that they’re in the same chapter, but to submit to the Lord presupposes finding out what the Lord’s will is, because precisely, you want to do it.

On the other side, Christ loves the church.

Chapter 3: “And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the Lord’s holy people, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.”

We’re told Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.

This is such a truism for us that sometimes we fail to be moved by it unless we stop and think it through again so clearly. Costing him not less than everything

“Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.” His matchless sacrifice was precisely for her good to build this perfect unity of Christ and the church.

Now we apply this to wives and husbands. The wives are mentioned first, as I’ve said, with a shorter exhortation. It presupposes that they are morally responsible agents themselves. Why then is she supposed to submit to her husband? What’s the reason given? Simply because he is her head, as Christ is the church’s head. That’s the only reason given.

When we are told, “… so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything,” don’t misconstrue this. This does not mean every decision a husband makes is always good and wise and godly and just, and therefore, right across the board without exception she must submit in everything. I don’t think that’s quite the point. We’ll come to abusive husbands in due course. That’s not the point either.

The point is there’s no no-go area. That is to say, just as the church in submitting to Christ is supposed to submit to Christ right across the board, there’s no no-go area. There’s no place where you say no to Jesus. “You can be Lord everywhere else but not here.” There’s no no-go area here either, but in everything, that’s the way it’s supposed to be.

I suspect we find this difficult not because the text is so difficult but because we don’t like it. Before we come to the husbands, we still have to acknowledge this is an argument by analogy. Whenever you have an analogy, you don’t have an identity. After all, the parallel between Christ and the church on the one hand and husbands and wives on the other, is not perfect in every respect. It is an analogical argument.

There are a lot of differences too. After all, Christ is perfect. Husbands are not.
Meanwhile, the husbands for their part are to love their wives as Christ loved the church.

That’s a pretty miserably high standard, speaking as a husband. What does that mean?

Just as it’s possible out of the sweep of the Bible to talk about what it means for the woman to submit to her husband if she is to submit as the church submits to Christ. Joyfully. Completely Over the whole range of things. In everything. Without begrudging things. Without scoring points. Thankfully. Respectfully.

This passage is no more in favor of some sort of generic putdown of women than it is of a sort of generic putdown of Christ’s love. Is the husband voluntarily, cheerfully, happily sacrificing for his wife’s good. Otherwise, I don’t know what self-sacrifice means. Now the text does not get fleshed out then in a whole lot of rules about what needs to be done. That could mean very different things in different cultures, even in different families with different personalities.

On the other hand, it does not say, “Husbands, love your wife provided she is decently submissive,” nor does it say, “Wives, submit to your husband provided he loves you as Christ loves the church. Otherwise, you don’t have to.” He just doesn’t think in those terms.

——————————-
In this country, the best recent book on the subject, is the lovely little book by Claire Smith called God’s Good Design.

In Genesis 1, God makes man and woman in his image. It is very important to say that on all kinds of fronts, men and women are linked. They’re tied. They’re equivalent. They are human beings equally made in the image of God and are of equal significance. We are not to go down any of those wretched traps in which women are considered to be two-thirds of what men are in terms of value or worth or the like.

Here, there has been an astonishing effort to demonstrate that the word head, when it is speaking of something metaphorical as opposed to that which wobbles on the top of my neck, often means something like source. After all, she came from him, but all of the “hes” and “shes” thereafter come from her. She’s the source. She’s the head, in that sense, and he is the head in that he is the source for her. She is taken from his side.

One should be initially a wee bit suspicious of that kind of exegesis when, in text after text after text, the wife is enjoined to submit to her husband and the husband is never specifically enjoined to submit to his wife. The only cover for that interpretation is Ephesians 5:21, “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” Everything, in that case, turns on the meaning of the pronoun (it’s a single word in Greek): “Submit to one another.” The question is.… Is that word always reciprocal? Does it mean that they mutually submit to one another?

Whether it’s reciprocal here depends on context. A text without a context becomes a pretext for a proof text. In this context, what you have is submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ, and then wives submit to the husbands, children to the parents, and slaves to the masters. If you want perfect reciprocity in the flow of the argument, you also have to have parents submitting to their children too.

Finally, if this is, in truth, what God’s Word says then it is, God’s good design. It is not to be fought against; it is to be rejoiced in. It is to be worked out. It is to be cherished, defended, and lived out with pleasure, because God knows the end from the beginning. He knows what is really good.

It does not justify men becoming exploitative. It does not justify women becoming mice. It does seek to restore the family to the church, to the home, to the culture, and to society. It does seek to call men to be men in a biblically defined notion of manhood that includes compassion and gentleness and the love of Christ, who sacrifices himself for others.

It calls women to be women, including the kind of woman who was described in Proverbs 31, who sells real estate, runs a farm, and orders the household.

Lord God, where we are wrong in our understanding of texts, correct us. Where we are wrong in attitude, enable us to see it and repent. Where we are fudging with the evidence, grant us a passion for submitting to your most Holy Word. And grant that, in our generation, young men and young women will rise again with a joyful determination to submit to the whole counsel of God. In Jesus’ name, amen.