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 utilising the word “head”. However, I believe the narrative does contain the truth, but it’s been tortured 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 imply an authoritarian idea of “coming under someone’s control” or “who’s in charge.” The wider 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 in a willful ignorance of theological axioms, and the Church makes things worse by teaching submission within the narrow window of “Headship”.
The point of contention is that a woman must submit to the “authority” of a man because Man is the “head” of Woman. This statement is partially correct, but it’s theologically wrong if suggesting who's in charge. Headship is about responsibility and accountability. Headship is not about who’s in charge; it conveys who God holds accountable, 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 that requires the servitude of a Woman. In the same way, Jesus never sought equality with God, but submitted to God. God holds a man accountable for the spiritual health of a marriage. There is an argument that suggests the word head (Kaphale) actually means “source”, which is also true, but a red-herring, since those responsible for making this argument are attempting to invalidate the authority of “Headship” altogether.
Love and respect lie at the heart of any relationship, and both are the fruit of mutual submission. Without the accountability of Headship, it might be argued that men are released from any responsibility to submit to their wives, which becomes theologically problematic for all relationships. Why, because the proclivity for power and control 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 appears expedient to change our understanding of various words, but this only serves to entrench, not illuminate, the problem. Further, if Men and Women refuse to submit in a marriage, the marriage is relationally castrated and raises questions about whether we can submit to Christ.
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 are prepared to lay aside their own needs for the other.
Unfortunately, the Bible doesn’t outline a list of details like a manual for living; it talks extensively about how we should treat each other, but little about navigating the changing social attitudes we 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.
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. A wife can love her husband but convey disrespect in the way she speaks to him. The point to consider here is that it’s not about what the wife thinks she is saying; it’s whether a husband feels respected by the words and actions he’s subjected to.
For a husband, feeling respected is like feeling loved. 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 issues, the husband makes the final decision. Here, the Christian principle is tested, and the will has a choice to make (Phil 2:1-8).
