Part 3 - Wives, Submit to Your Husbands

Christians have little trouble accepting the broader teaching of the biblical story, but when it comes to applying it specifically, we often find tension in the details. Ephesians is a good example of this, where some use Paul’s teaching about submission and headship in marriage to manipulate women into subjugated positions below men. Others interpret the passage so liberally that the importance of submission and headship is lost entirely. One difficulty with Paul’s letters is that we only have one side of a conversation. We don’t have the questions he was asked and little context to help with understanding. I can't entirely agree with a literal application in this instance, and we need to be clear about what Paul meant in utilizing the word “head”. However, I believe the narrative contains the truth, but it’s been misconstrued to the point of being completely rejected.

Eph 5:22-24 “Wives, submit 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, of which he is the Saviour. Now, as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”

The meaning of authority is a case in point. The New Testament does not suggest that headship and submission means “coming under someone’s control” or “who’s in charge”, and the greater context of Ephesians makes it clear that submission in marriage relationships is to be mutual, and on the same basis as submitting to Christ. The problem today rests on basic ignorance of theological axioms, and the Church makes things worse by teaching submission as a “who’s in charge” derivative of “Headship”. The contested idea is that a woman must submit to the “authority” of a man because the Man is the “head” of the Woman. This is grammatically true, but, wrongly conveys a sense of who's in charge rather than spiritual accountability through the interpretation of both words. Headship is not about who’s in charge, it conveys the idea of who God holds responsible, it’s a spiritual axiom embedded in the creation order that extends upward from Woman to Man, Man to Christ, and Christ to God, but not an authority suggesting the servitude of a Woman. God holds a man accountable, for the spiritual health of a marriage. There is an argument, suggesting, the word head means “source”, which is grammatically true, but somewhat irrelevant, in that it attempts to invalidate the authority of “Headship” altogether. Love and respect lie at the heart of any relationship, and if an argument for the total subservience in a marriage were true, any notion of mutual submission, or love and respect, cannot survive. Without “headship” men are released from accountability to God, and released from any responsibility to submit to their wives, which becomes theologically problematic for all relationships. Why, because the proclivity for power and control in demanding submission, severs the basis of love and respect at the outset.  The bedrock for actively loving and respecting another person is submission, and marriage isn’t sustainable without it. Sometimes it seems more palatable to change the meaning of various words, but this only serves to entrench, but not illuminate the problem. Further, if Men and Women refuse to submit in a marriage, the marriage is theologically castrated and questions whether we can submit to Christ and God.

I don’t want this commentary to be side-tracked by the controversy surrounding “headship” because I’ll expand on this in the final commentary. The focus of teaching in the Ephesians narrative is love and respect. God wants two people to have a loving and respectful relationship, where both parties are prepared to lay aside their own needs for the well-being and betterment of the other.

Unfortunately, the Bible doesn’t supply a complete list of details like a manual for living; it talks extensively about how we should treat each other but provides little detail about the changing social attitudes we might face today. Even in the Church, we find little considered response, to the subject of relational breakdown. One Pastoral visit and it’s all done and dusted!! The Bible suggests that Christ is the cornerstone and love and respect form the basis of all relational endeavours.  It’s about what we do for, and how we serve others, rather than what we receive ourselves. This is a sad testimony in light of marriage problems today.

New Testament leadership has authority, but the nature of this authority needs to be defined. I would argue that its only purpose is one of sacrificial service, to encourage the spiritual growth of others, sometimes to the detriment of those who have it. Ironically, being loved and respected is not a right, and I want to challenge the idea that “it’s my right” to be loved and respected. To claim anything as a right is highly subjective. It’s an unbiblical emotion, which stems from pride and insecurity, and through coercion and manipulation. The wider body of scripture does suggest reciprocity; in so much as what we receive from others is often a consequence of what we do for others. But taking what others do for us, as the validating reason for giving love and respect, is not a biblical approach either.

What does it mean for a woman to, “Respect her husband”? As I previously suggested, I do not believe that women instinctively respect their husbands because the active verb “phobeo”, “to hold in reverence and awe” is implicitly submissive, and therefore a decision of the will, not an underlying predisposition. Respect is a decision of the will and that choice is an act of submission. A wife can love her husband but convey disrespect in her words and actions. The point to consider here is that it’s not about what the wife thinks she is saying, or about a husband knowing he is loved, it’s whether her husband feels respected by the words and actions he’s subjected to.

For a husband, feeling respected is like feeling loved. In most cases, it’s the words a wife uses and how she speaks and acts, toward him. Do the words convey reverence and awe if you like (phobeo), and build him up as a husband? Are they words that lift him as the hunter-gatherer, protector, and provider for the marriage relationship? This may come across as something sloppy and pandering to an emotionally deficient Neanderthal, but it remains a vital ingredient that makes a man feel important, needed, and respected. This act of submission, through respect, causes a man to feel loved. Acts of submission are not always easy, because choosing to deny one’s feelings can be very difficult when there’s miscommunication and emotional tension. Sometimes husbands and wives want different things, and someone has to give way, however, there is no biblical support for a response suggesting that in the case of unresolved decisions, “headship” implies a husband makes the final decision. Here the Christian principle is tested, and the will has a choice to make, (Phil 2:1-8).