The Submission of Wives (Eph. 5:22–25)

Series: Ephesians: Building the ChurchText: Ephesians 5:22–25

By: Shaun Marksbury Date: June 11, 2023

Venue: Living Water Baptist ChurchOccasion: PM Service

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.” 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,” 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.”

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,

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.”

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.

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.” We will talk more about husbands next week but, for now, let’s more fully consider the comparison Paul gives to wives.

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.

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.