SERMON: The Submission of Wives (Eph. 5:22–25)
The Submission of Wives (Eph. 5:22–25)
Series: Ephesians: Building the Church Text: Ephesians 5:22–25
By: Shaun Marksbury Date: June
11, 2023
Venue: Living Water Baptist Church Occasion: PM Service
I.
Introduction
What we just read is condemned in many quarters. This passage has grown in controversy over
the past hundred or so years. It used to
be common to see marriages which were what we could call complementarian, where
each spouse fulfilled a particular role in the relationship, with men leading
and working while wives cared for the children and made the home. However, over time, this began to be replaced
with a more egalitarian view, where all the responsibilities in the home are
split and both spouses work, with neither claiming real authority in the home.
We can see the debate in seemingly small ways, such as the
wedding ceremony. The text of the 1559
Book of Common Prayer records the minister’s question to the wife as such:
“WILT thou have this man to thy wedded housband, to lyve together after Goddes
ordynaunce in the holy estate of matrimony? wilt thou obey hym and serve him…?” It goes on to record her vows, which include
“to love, cherish, and to obey.” Fast-forward
to 1928, and the nigh-centennial edition of the Book of Common Prayer dropped its
call for her obedience. Since then, all
such sentiment has vanished from wedding ceremonies.
If you remember your history, that places the omission on
the heels of the women’s suffrage movement.
The underlying philosophy of the unbelievers in this movement began to
skew the Western mind away from what we now identify as a complementarian view
of marriage. This first wave of feminism
became the second, which was tied to the eventual sexual revolution and
abortion. The third wave now is an assortment
of competing socio-political ideas that seem to seek the tearing down of all
traditional institutions and ideas, condemning them as patriarchal, including
that of gender itself. We could sum up
the three waves as 1) women are equal with men, 2) women don’t need men, and 3)
women can become men.
Folks would say that this is progress, though. One would think that, if we are moving forward,
our problems would be less. However, I
came across a collection of politically-incorrect facts which demonstrate this
isn’t the case:
- Women are less happy today
than they were in the 1960’s and 70’s. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/business/26leonhardt.html)
- Couples with traditional
gender roles are more sexually active than couples with egalitarian roles.
(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2270399/Couples-stick-gender-roles-home-sex-20-times-year.html)
- Couples who cohabit before
marriage have lower quality marriages.
(http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/10/25/sf.sos126.abstract)
- Progressive/feminist women
are less happy than their peers. (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_highbrow/2006/03/desperate_feminist_wives.html)
- Stay-at-home wives are
more content than working wives. (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_highbrow/2006/03/desperate_feminist_wives.html).
- Less traditional marriages
are lower quality. (http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/10/25/sf.sos126.abstract)
Even domestic violence is on the rise, but surprisingly,
from women. Though women may not claim
to be the leaders of such homes, they bully their husbands, who are typically
nice and easy-going guys in these kinds of relationships. I was recently listening to a podcast where a
biblical counselor was noting this, and it matches an article I recently came across,
which says things like, “About as many of the women as men are ‘intimate terrorists’
” and, “Similar percent of men and women perpetrate clinical-level violence and
it is rarely self-defense.”[1]
The feminist promise of fulfillment in
egalitarian relationships falls short, creating frustration and dissension in
the home.
We should all be concerned about the state of the family because
of how important it is to society. Numerous sociologists acknowledge the family
as the building block of society, leading to the ubiquitous term, “the nuclear
family.” Yet, with divorce rates
skyrocketing throughout the latter portion of the twentieth century, the bonds
holding the atom together weakened. The
constant talk of the restructuring family turned into the deconstructed family. That with general moral collapse in culture
results in news stories today like “Transgender man gives birth to non-binary
partner’s baby with female sperm donor,”[2] a sentence evidencing our
collective loss of sanity and the meltdown of society.
Accelerating these trends was their influence in the church,
affecting far more than wedding ceremonies.
It was not long into the twentieth century before women were being
ordained to ministry. This isn’t just
the case with liberal institutions; the update to the Southern Baptist
Convention’s statement of faith, the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, included
clear language against women pastors, but that hasn’t stopped recent debate
as to whether women can preach Sunday services.
Questions on homosexuality and transgenderism, let alone the role of men
and women in the family, seem to be prompting very wrong answers from
once-conservative colleges and seminaries.
Society needs biblical truth in such uncertain times, but it seems that
the church is asking society its opinion first.
Our response must begin with the root of the problem. That root leads back to the Garden of Eden
and the first marriage. We read, “For
this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his
wife; and they shall become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). However, the curse resulting from Adam and Eve’s
sin held dire consequences, a fracturing of relationships.
Recorded in the next chapter of Genesis, we read, “Yet your
desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” (3:16). This isn’t a good desire; it’s the same word
used in the following chapter to warn Cain that sin’s “desire is for you”
(4:7). Just as sin wanted to control
Cain, the wife would want to rule her husband, usurping his headship in her
life. Yet, he would rule with a “despotic
kind of authoritarianism that was not in God’s original plan for man’s
headship.”[3]
Doesn’t that seem to be the core of all marital
problems? The husband is domineering and
the wife is demanding. Perhaps there are
variations; the husband may be mousy, or the wife may be a doormat. Sometimes culture corrupts the institution, like
the Roman society Paul addresses, leading to other brands of disarray. Even so, it comes back to Genesis. No longer do the two seem to be bone of bones,
and flesh of flesh (cf. Gen. 2:23); they often seem to be irreconcilable.
The truth of Scripture corrects the problems that have resulted
from the Fall. Remember that we’ve been
talking in this chapter about a Spirit-filled life, and proper households are
the result of the work of the Holy Spirit through His Word. The gospel reverses the Fall, so let’s
consider the corrective we find in His Word for families. We’ll consider wives this week, and then
husbands next week. So,
II.
First, Note the Command to Wives (v. 22)
Wives, be subject
to your own husbands, as to the Lord.
We should note from the start that this interesting verse
doesn’t actually have a verb in the original.
That is why the words “be subject” are in italics here (in the NASB here
and in the KJV, the translators use italics to indicate supplied words). It’s framed in such a way to be dependent on
the previous verse, drawing the verb from there. It is clear this is what Paul means in
context, and he says the same thing in abbreviated form in the parallel,
“Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord” (Col. 3:18).
Last time, we noted that the verb is a military term,
meaning in the previous verse to line up under one another. Yet, as we’ll note later, Paul tells children
to “obey” their parents and slaves, their masters (6:1, 5), but he doesn’t use
that term here of wives. Indeed, as one
commentary notes of the term “be subject,” the “use of the middle voice of this
verb (cf. Col. 3:18) emphasizes the voluntary character of the submission. Paul’s admonition to wives is an appeal to
free and responsible persons which can only be heeded voluntarily, never by the
elimination or breaking of the human will, much less by means of a servile
submissiveness.”[4]
In fact, Paul places important restrictions on the
command. First, he writes that wives are
to be subject “to your own husbands.” Paul
said in Titus 2:5 that wives are “to be
sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so
that the word of God will not be dishonored.”
Peter said something similar — “you wives, be submissive to your own
husbands” (1 Pet. 3:1). Some women might
wonder if they are subject to all men, but they only have this relationship
with their own husbands.
There’s another important modifier Paul places on the
command. He writes that subjection
should be done “as to the Lord.” Paul
says something similar about slaves in 6:5.
The subjection that Christians are called to first takes into account
the commands of God (cf. Acts 5:29). Indeed,
there is even an element of worship in how the wife is subject (cf. Eph. 6:7).
So, while at first blush, Paul appears to be promoting the
household codes of his day, the subservience of wives, he’s challenging Roman
society by elevating women from their second-class status. Not all men have say over all women, and the
command relies on the ability of wives to know their own faith. This challenges any interpretation that would
deny women equal status with men. And
yet, submission to one’s own husband is commanded, the reason for which brings
us to the next verse.
III.
Second, Note the Cause of the Command to Wives
(v. 23)
For the husband is
the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself
being the Savior of the body.
With the word “for” here, we arrive at the because of
her submission. This is one of the most
hotly debated verses on this issue, most of which focuses on the word
“head.” The argument of Evangelical
feminists is that the word means “source” and doesn’t require submission.
However, the word simply isn’t used that way in Greek
literature. Indeed, the term has already
appeared in Ephesians, speaking of Christ’s rule over creation and His people
(1:22, 4:15); that’s the way it’s used of Christ in this verse. Moreover, we must interpret the term in
context, which demands an understanding of male leadership within the
marriage.
The husband, as the head, provides the “body” (the marriage)
unity, provision, and nurture. There are
certainly parallels between the husband and Christ. That’s brought out here and elsewhere. For instance, in 1 Corinthians 11:3, the
wife’s submission to the husband may have a Trinitarian comparison. The Son is equal with the Father while choosing
to bow His human will to the Father’s on earth.
Yet, we don’t want to go further than Scripture with this analogy; some
in our camp teach the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father, unintentionally
implying the ontological primacy of the Father (bordering on the heresy known
as Arianism).
Whatever the case, though, that’s not the analogy used
here. Instead, for this passage, we do
better to remember Adam and Eve in the garden.
In fact, Paul uses the creation ordinance elsewhere to discuss this
subject, that man was created first, then woman (1 Cor. 11:8–9; 1 Tim. 2:13),
even highlighting the effects of the Fall (1 Tm 2:14). This brings us to the ultimate cause — God
has created man and woman, the institution of marriage, and now, the
church. Christ as the head has the right
to direct it. As God creates us (both
in Adam and then in Christ), He has the right to order us.
So, that brings us to a third analogy: that of Christ and
the church. However, again, we don’t
want to go too far with this. Yes, the
husband is the head of the wife and Christ is the head of the church. Yet, we read of Christ, “He Himself being the
Savior of the body.” The husband is not
the savior of the wife nor does she comprise his body.
Yet, perhaps we do see something for husbands here in
Christ’s leadership of the church. He
should care for, protect, and seek the spiritual well-being of his wife. That is so much smaller when compared to the
work of Christ, but we will see more comparisons between Christ and the husband
in the following verses.
For now, it’s important for the wife to note that God has
created the institution of marriage and given her a husband. If she seeks to be Spirit-filled or
controlled in this arena of her life, she will learn to see her husband as her
head, her leader. Likewise, in a
Christian marriage, the husband seeks to live up to this expectation.
Again, this message would challenge the Roman culture around
Paul. One study notes, “While a
submissive wife is counter-cultural today, she was not so in Paul’s time.
Moreover, while a self-sacrificing and loving husband sounds quite appropriate
in our culture, he was radically counter-cultural in Paul’s time.”[5] We will talk more about husbands next week
but, for now, let’s more fully consider the comparison Paul gives to wives.
IV.
Third, Note the Comparison of the Command to
Wives (v. 24)
But as the church
is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in
everything.
We’ve already been talking about comparisons, but we keep
coming back to the comparison of the husband.
Who does the wife model herself after in these verses? We see that she is not only a member of the
church, but that she should see her marriage as reflective of the relationship
between Christ and His church.
The analogy here is simple.
As the church is to Christ in submission, so wives are to their
husbands. Again, we have the same middle
voice of verb in the original, implying voluntary submission. The wives are not
owned by their husbands and therefore not obligated with compulsory obedience,
but rather, they choose to place themselves under their husbands’
headship.
So, just as with the church, she is subject “in everything.”
That is comprehensive and
extensive. Obviously, some may worry
about a husband taking advantage of the wife, even abusing her, but we are
considering the Christian ideal with husbands who love their wives. In a Spirit-filled relationship, the husband
leads well, so the wife can feel safe in subjecting themselves to him in
everything.
Since we live in the real world, though, where sometimes
wives are Christians and husbands are unbelievers (or living like unbelievers),
these questions arise. Obviously,
though, the husband doesn’t have the right to compel her to cease
worshipping the Lord or to engage in some heinous act. However, she must still prayerfully consider
how to best honor him as her husband in everything.
For instance, here’s an example that was on a podcast this
week. An unbelieving husband who’s the
primary breadwinner for the home doesn’t want his “hard-earned money” going to
the church. However, he gives his wife a
spending allowance for anything she wants.
So, she can talk to him about her desire to use some of her allowance
for giving. This would be one way of
fulfilling passages like 1 Pt 3:1–2, winning their husbands with their “chaste
and respectful behavior.”
These are the kinds of virtues that wives should
prioritize. It’s not always easy, just
as it’s not always easy for the husband to lead. However, each should prayerfully seek to
cultivate the virtues they need for their relationship.
V.
Conclusion
These are broad-stroke principles. Whenever we talk about submission and proper
marriages, too often we descend into what-about-ism, asking about a number of
scenarios both real and fictitious. It’s
true that there are situations requiring pastoral counsel, but we are
discussing here the normal, all-things-remaining-the-same principles of
marriage.
Indeed, when we consider the problems with marriage, we
rightly often consider the husband’s role in creating those problems. After all, he is the man in the relationship,
and problems stem from his mismanagement.
Even so, as we do this, we tacitly acknowledge a truth that will affect
the wife’s response to trouble — the husband is the head of the home.
A marriage cannot work if the wife will not let her husband
lead. As he’s not to domineer his wife,
what options does he have if she usurps his authority? While wives can give a number of excuses for
why she believes she should run the relationship, a husband’s behavior (or lack
of leadership) does not excuse a wife’s misbehavior.
So, this is a challenging message for wives, especially with
the current spirit of the age. This is a
challenging message for girls and young ladies approaching marriageable
age. Your part in marriage is as
essential as the husband’s. So, seek the
Lord for wisdom in how to best fulfill it.
[1] Murray A. Straus, “Gender symmetry and mutuality
in perpetration of clinical-level partner violence: Empirical evidence and
implications for prevention and treatment,” Aggression and Violent Behavior,
Volume 16, Issue 4, July–August 2011, Pages 279–288, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359178911000620.
[2] Helen Whitehouse, 28 December, 2019, https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/transgender-man-gives-birth-non-21177808
(accessed 4 January, 2020).
[3] John F. MacArthur Jr., Ephesians, MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody
Press, 1986), 281–282.
[4] Peter Thomas O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians, The Pillar New Testament Commentary
(Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1999), 411–412.
[5] Ted Cabal, Chad Owen Brand, E. Ray Clendenen, et al., The Apologetics Study Bible: Real Questions,
Straight Answers, Stronger Faith (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers,
2007), 1769.
