Today, we have the privilege of starting to tackle one of the more heated and debated passages and topics in the Bible. It's about how husbands and wives should relate to each other.
With respect to this topic, and this passage, there are three main questions that are debated among scholars. I'll just open with these three questions. I'm not going to answer them right away. I just want to put them at the forefront, for now:
(1) What does it mean, that a husband is "head" of his wife?
(2) What does it mean to submit, or "put yourself under" someone else?
(3) Are husbands called to submit to their wives, or is submission only something a wife does?
What husbands and wives both tend to find, I think, is that they really like parts of what Paul has to say about how marriage should work. And other parts, they find incredibly challenging. So I expect that's how today's sermon, and next week's, will likely work for all of us. At any given point, half the room will want to erupt with hallelujahs, and half will find themselves wrestling deeply with the cost of being a faithful spouse. This week, we'll talk a little about husbands, but the focus will be on wives. Next week, the focus will be on husbands. And if you take a quick peek at the translation handout, you'll see why that's the case. Paul starts, in Ephesians 5:22-24, by talking about wives. Then, after spending three verses talking about them, Paul then turns to the husbands, and spends 8 verses talking to them.
Now, the other really complicating thing in all of this, is that our English Bibles (without exception) do us no favors in how they lay out these verses. English Bibles tend to be set up so that every verse can be read by itself, and make sense by itself. That makes it easier to memorize verses, and it makes it easier for "Our Daily Bread" type devotionals. So what translators usually do, to help make that possible, is break up complex sentences into something that's more bite-sized and manageable. Even really formal translations like the KJV kind of make a mess of the passage here, by the way they break up Paul's argument. They do this in two ways. First, they separate out what Paul says about the Holy Spirit in verse 18, from what he says about marriage. Second, they separate out Paul's command that we submit to each other, from the command to wives to submit to their husbands. If you take my translation home, and read verses 18-22, and then compare it to basically any other translation, you'll see it comes out wildly different. And I know I'm just one random dude on this, and who am I to tell you that your Bibles don't do a great job translating here? But almost every commentator makes a big deal about this as well, and I can steer you toward a really helpful teaching by Tim Mackie, who unpacks this nicely as well (and Clinton Arnold really shines here, for those who have his commentary).
So basically, Paul's argument goes like this, starting at the beginning of chapter 5:
We live in wicked days, and we only have so much time on earth. So use your time well. Use it wisely. Live as a people filled with the Holy Spirit, who empowers you to live faithfully toward God and people.
Ephesians 5:18:
(18) and don't be drunk with wine, in which there is wastefulness,
but be filled with the Spirit,
(19) speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and Spiritual songs,
singing and praising in your hearts to the Lord,
(20) giving thanks always for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to our God and Father,
(21) putting yourself under one another out of fear/reverence of Christ,
(22) wives to their own husbands as to the Lord,
In verse 21, Paul says that if we are filled with the Holy Spirit, the result of that will be that "we submit to one another, wives to their own husbands as to the Lord."
In the first century Roman empire, there were crystal clear power structures. You have the government, with a Caesar at the top, and layers of bureaucracy underneath. Within family relationships, there were also clear power structures. Masters were over slaves. Parents were over children. Husbands were over wives. Everyone in society was expected to know their role, and work within that.
At the same time, those relationships were more complicated than we have today, because the Roman household wasn't just a nuclear family. So take the typical Roman free woman, for example. She would be expected to submit to her husband, if she had one. But she could also be a master, who had authority over male and female slaves. And she, along with her husband, had authority over their children. A male slave would be under the authority of his masters. But there were sometimes levels of slave, and one slave might be master over another. So it's not like all men were over all women, or that all women submit to all men. Roman households were a complicated thing (*Cynthia Westfall).
That said, Paul is writing to people who understand the idea of submission, and who accept it. Every Ephesian knew that there are clear power structures within Roman society, and your duty is to work within those power structures. You submit to those above you. That's what makes society work.
So the idea that wives are supposed to submit to their own husbands, wouldn't be controversial. Everyone would've nodded in agreement to that, including the wives.
It's what Paul says above that, at the start of verse 21, that would startle people. All of us are called to submit to one another, and that submission looks like how a wife treats her own husband.
So within this first century church, there would be husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and slaves. And we are all called to submit to one another, in ways that seemingly defy the traditional power structures. In the church, masters submit to their slaves. Parents submit to children. Husbands submit to wives. We all treat each other, the way that a good Roman wife treats her Roman husband.
How can this be? And what, then, does it mean to submit?
Generally speaking, to "submit" means "to put yourself under someone." How that plays out, and what that looks like, depends on the nature of the relationship. And Paul will go on to unpack how that looks in the three main types of first century Roman household relationships. But I think the way Paul has set this up in verses 21-22, shows that each of us is called to submit to each other, and this submission doesn't stop at these church walls. What Paul has in mind isn't just about how we relate to each other as a church in a posture of humility, and focusing on what's best for each other. What Paul has in mind extends outward to how we relate to each other outside of these walls, in our families.
The person who models this best, in my own world, is my mother-in-law. She's famous for putting herself under everyone else around her. If there's one piece of pizza left, and she and someone else want it, the words you'll hear out of her mouth next, are this: "I don't mind." When we eat holiday meals at a family, and we are all squeezed around the table, my mother-in-law is always the one who ends up in the tight spot, where only a little bench fits in. She doesn't mind. She puts herself under everyone else around her, and she really, truly, doesn't mind. Other people's comfort and desires are more important than her own.
At this point, let's reread verses 21-22:
(21) putting yourself under one another out of fear/reverence/honor of Christ,
(22) wives to their own husbands as to the Lord,
If we are filled with the Holy Spirit, the natural result of that will be that we live like my mother-in-law toward one another out of reverence for Jesus. You and I treat each other well, because of Jesus. And then Paul says, wives will submit to their own husbands in the same way they submit to Jesus. They treat their husbands, like they treat Jesus, in a posture of submission.
So all of a sudden, at the tail end of verse 22, we find ourselves talking about two things: marriage, and Jesus. The way we treat each other, is motivated by Jesus. And wives treat their husbands, in the same way they treat Jesus.
Why? Paul continues, verse 23-24:
(23) because (the) husband is (the) head of the wife,
as also Christ [is the] head of the church--
he himself [being the] savior/protector/deliverer of the body--
(24) but just as the church puts itself under Christ,
in this manner also, the wives to their husbands in everything.
Why does a wife submit to her own husband? Why does she put herself under him?
The wife's relationship to her own husband is a bit like the church's relationship to Jesus. It's not a perfect analogy, and the analogy has its limits. But they are sort of similar. In what way? The husband is the head of the wife, as Christ-- the Messianic king-- is head of the church.
And this, is where things start to get debated.
Jesus is head of the church. What does that mean? In our culture, we are so used to the idea that a man is the head of the house, and the head of the wife, that we reflexively read "head" language in terms of ruling, authority, and power. We tend to immediately explain Jesus being "head," in terms of Jesus ruling over the church. We hear the word "head," and we picture a crown on that head.
But the Greek word for "head" can have a lot of different nuances, and senses, and those nuances make understanding this pretty tricky. So one of the main things I want to do this morning, is muddy the waters, and expose you to this scholarly debate. What does "head" mean? When you crack up the commentaries, and enter into academic side of Christianity, you find that "head" might mean four different things. "Head" might mean "ruler," "source," "extremity," and/or "prominence."
I could easily spend the whole sermon unpacking each of these meanings for you. What I'd like to do, instead, is just focus on the idea of "head" as meaning "ruler" comes from. This is what we instinctively think "head" means, right? For a husband to be the head of his wife, means that he is in some sense her leader, or ruler, or guide, or something. We assume "head" has the idea of "authority" in it. There are three places in the Greek translation of the OT where "head" means "ruler," and two of those places actually are the same prayer. Judges 11:4-11, 2 Kings 22:44, and Psalm 17:44.
Let's turn to Judges 11:4-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judges 11:4-11 (Lexham English Septuagint):
4 Then it happened that the descendants of Ammon prepared to fight with Israel. 5 And the elders of Gilead went to get Jephthah from the land of Tob. 6 They said to Jephthah, “Come here, and be our leader. Let us array ourselves against the descendants of Ammon.” 7 And Jephthah said to the elders of Gilead, “Did you not hate me, and drive me out from the house of my father, and send me away from you? And on account of what did you come to me now when you are in need?” 8 Then the elders of Gilead said to Jephthah, “Because of this now we turn to you, that you should go with us and array yourself against the descendants of Ammon, and be to us as ruler (????? )to all the inhabitants of Gilead.” 9 Jephthah said to the elders of Gilead, “If you return me to array for battle with the descendants of Ammon and the Lord hands them over before me, then I will be to you as a ruler (????? ).” 10 So the elders of Gilead said to Jephthah, “The Lord will be listening between us, if we shall not do according to your word.” 11 And Jephthah went with the elders of Gilead and the people placed him over them as head (?efa?? ) and as leader (??????? ), and Jephthah spoke all his words before the Lord in Mizpah.
The second example is in 2 Samuel 22:44, which is mirrored in Psalm 17:44. David, looking back on his life, acknowledges that he has been "head" of the nations. This is then elaborated on in a parallel line by him describing this being "head" in terms of a people he hadn't known "serving" him.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Kingdoms 22:44 (Lexham English Septuagint, lightly modified. "served" is the verb for "slave," not the "submission" verb):
44 And you rescued me from battle with people;
you will keep me to be the head of nations;
a people whom I did not know served me.
-----------------------------------------------------
Those are the only three places in the entire LXX where "head" means ruler, so far as I know.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel 2:37-38 (Lexham English Septuagint) is close, but no cigar:
37 You, O king, are the king of kings, and to you the Lord of heaven has given the authority and the kingdom and the might and the honor and the glory. 38 All the inhabited earth of mankind and of the wild beasts and of the winged creatures of heaven and of the fish of the sea he has put under ?your authority? to exercise dominion over everything. You are the golden head.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A fairly early Christian writing, Hermas, calls the husband the head of the house. But this is not the language people like Aristotle use, which suggests two things: (1) that the point of "head" language is to talk about the head-body metaphor (so Cynthia Westfall, maybe? Someone talks well about this point), and (2) Hermas is using NT language about "head" in a new way:
Hermas, Sim. VII, 3. Found in Pope Clement I et al., The Apostolic Fathers, ed. Kirsopp Lake, vol. 2, The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge MA; London: Harvard University Press, 1912–1913), 185:
3 I said to him: “Sir, even if they have done such things that the glorious angel is enraged, what have I done?” “They cannot,” said he, “be punished in any other way, then if you, the head of the house, be afflicted. For when you are afflicted, they also will necessarily be afflicted, but while you prosper, they cannot suffer any affliction.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This usage of "head" to mean "leader" or "ruler" is rare in the Greek Old Testament. It's used only three times, to describe someone who is the leader over a nation or nations. It's never used, so far as I know, to describe a husband being the head of his wife. And none of the big Greek names like Aristotle, in any of their writings, refer to the man and the husband as the "head of the their wives, or head of their house." So it's clear that the word "head," by itself, can mean "ruler," but it's not obvious that when Paul uses "head" language, that it automatically has to do with leadership and authority. And it's not at all obvious that Paul's readers would instinctively have understood "head" to mean "ruler." The evidence is thin. Does that make sense? When we hear, "the husband is the head of the wife," we instinctively put a crown on the husband's head. But it's not at all obvious that the Ephesians, hearing this language, would do the same.
There are other options. Head might mean source, or beginnings, or prominence. None of those have been persuasive, in terms of husband and wife. None of them work very well in Ephesians 5. And if you find yourself curious about those other options, and want to explore this in more detail, I ended up writing a paper on this as background for this sermon, and I'd be happy to give it to everyone interested.
But basically, at the end of the day, this is the situation: scholars spend a lot of time and energy debating whether head means source, beginnings, prominence, or ruler. The debate is unsettled. Everyone is kind of unhappy about it, because none of the options work very well. They all have weaknesses.
Now, there is one other option. "Head" can mean "head." Like a human head. A skull. The thing on top of your neck.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I actually thought this was a new idea on my part, but I have apparently independently come to many of the same conclusions as R.S. Cervin, "On the Significance of Kephale ('head'): A Study of the Abuse of One Greek Word," (PriscPap30, no. 2 (2016): 8-20. In the end, it's only my understanding of 1 Corinthians 11:3 that's perhaps new. Cervin's article is available here:
https://juniaproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Cervin-Sig-of-Kephale.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's back up a second. In Ephesians 5, Paul says that Jesus is the head of the church. The church is Jesus' body. Not literally, right? Jesus has a body, and his body isn't literally the church. This body language is a metaphor, that helps us understand Jesus' relationship to the church. And the husband also has a body. His wife doesn't become his arms and legs. So there too, Paul is using a metaphor, and somehow we lose sight of this.
I think Paul isn't really using "head" language to make a point about authority, or source, or prominence. I think if we read the passage as a whole, Paul is using a metaphor about the relationship between a human head and a human body. So really, what might be most helpful in explaining this, is understanding how first century Romans, or maybe first century Jews, understood what the human head does. What is the relationship between a head and a body?
When we bring this question to the text, we find that Paul actually gives us the answer. Paul explains the relationship between the human head and the human body in the verses that follow. If we step away from the complex arguments about what the Greek word for "head" means, and just read the whole passage, we will see that Paul sustains this "head" metaphor throughout this whole thing on husbands and wives (and the fact that he returns in verse 33 to husbands shows that this was supposed to be read all at once as a whole).
So let's add verses 25-33. As I read, focus on this head and body language. Jesus is head of the church- body. The husband is the head of the wife-body. And what does Paul think, is the significance of that?
(25) Husbands, love your wives,
just as also Christ loved the church,
and himself, he gave for her,
(26) in order that her, he would make holy.
cleansing [her] with the washing of the water in/by the word,
(27) in order that he may present the glorious/magnificent church to himself,
not having a spot, or wrinkle, or anything like that,
but in order that she might be holy and blameless.
(28) In this way also, husbands ought to love their own wives-- as their own bodies.
The one loving his own wife, himself, he loves.
(29) For no one ever hated his own flesh,
but he nourishes/raises/trains [it] up, [Ephesians 6:4]
and he cherishes it,
just as also Christ [does] the church,
(30) because members, we are, of his body.
(31) For this reason a man will leave his father and mother,
and he will be joined to his wife,
and the two will become one flesh/body.
(32) This mystery, great, it is.
Now, I am speaking about Christ and the church.
(33) Nevertheless, also you, each one of you [husbands], must in this manner love his own wife as himself.
Now the wife, that she must fear/revere/respect her husband.
What do these verses tell us about the relationship between a human head and a human body?
(1) There is an essential unity between them. As a rule, heads are attached to bodies. When a man and a woman get married, they become one body. One flesh (Ephesians 5:31). Likewise, we, the church, have been united with Christ. We are one with him.
(2) The head has the responsibility of loving the body it's attached to. Most of what the head does every day, it does for the sake of the body. My head, all day long, constantly looks out for my body. I walk carefully, looking before I step, so I don't hurt my ankles. I clear intersections, so my body doesn't get hurt at an intersection. I feed my body, to make my stomach happy and give my body the nutrients it needs. I wash my body, to cleanse it. I cherish my body, understanding that it's the only one I have. I nourish it. I build it up, equipping it. I do all of this, knowing that I can't buy a replacement on Amazon. I can't swap my body out for a younger model, or one that I think will make me more happy, or one that has different features. A body is not a car, to be discarded and upgraded whenever I want. A body is not something to be abused, or taken for granted. A body is cherished.
It would be really easy to twist Paul's metaphor, and make him say something he's not. I could say that there are times where my head rules over my body, and refuses to give it the things it craves. I could talk about how Paul beats his own body so that he doesn't become disqualified for the prize. I could talk about the head is the thing that steers the body all day long, and tells it what to do.
We can push this head-body imagery in all sorts of ways, and end up a very long ways from where Paul starts. Or, we can very carefully restrict ourselves to what Paul actually says.
When Paul talks about the human head, it's really a way of talking about the human being as a whole person (which is also how the Greek word works, actually). When I say that my head takes care of my body, what I'm saying is that I take care of my body.
Jesus, as head of the body, did what for his body, the church? How did Jesus treat her? He loved her, cleansed her, made her beautiful, made her holy and blameless, provided for her, trained her. He cherished her.
Jesus, as head of the body, loved his body in every way possible, giving her every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies.
That's how Paul explains the significance of Jesus being head. Jesus lived sacrificially, for the sake of his body, turning it into something holy and beautiful. And in doing this, he brought a blessing to himself, by transforming the church into a beautiful bride.
That's how husbands are supposed to be human heads to their body wives.
How are wives supposed to treat their husbands, then?
Let's read verses 21-24, one last time:
(21) putting yourself under one another out of fear/reverence/honor of Christ,
(22) wives to their own husbands as to the Lord,
(23) because (the) husband is (the) head of the wife,
as also Christ [is the] head of the church--
he himself [being the] savior/protector/deliverer of the body--
(24) but just as the church puts itself under Christ,
in this manner also, the wives to their husbands in everything.
A wife is supposed to put herself under her husband. Or we can say, she's supposed to "submit" to him. Why? Because her husband is her head. Or, we could say, because her husband loves her, and cherishes her, and provides her, and helps build her up into something glorious, and beautiful. She doesn't submit because her husband is in charge. We read every verb, and Paul never explains "head" using that language of ruling and authority. She submits, because her husband as head lives sacrificially toward her.
Now, what does it mean to submit, concretely, for the wife? Paul tells us in the very last line of verse 33:
(33b) Now, the wife, that she must fear/revere/respect her husband.
A wife submits to her husband, puts herself under him, by showing him honor and respect as her head-- as the one who lives sacrificially toward her, seeking her good.
How exactly this respect works out in every marriage, I expect would look a little different. But a husband knows when he's respected by his wife, and when he's disrespected. And a husband needs to be treated with respect.
Since I'm calling this "wife" week, and next week "husband" week, let me just stop and make a big deal about this point, and address the wives here. This will be the part today, where the men want to say "hallelujah," and the wives need to really think about things.
In this country, many college educated women in particular struggle with Paul's default command to respect your husbands, because in Western tradition, respect is earned, not given. Many wives look at their husbands, and secretly say, "I don't respect him" for this or that reason.
So, to the wives, I ask this: Do you believe that God commands your Christian husbands to unconditionally love you, despite all of your imperfections? You do, right?
The verse where God commands this to husbands, Ephesians 5:33, is the same one that commands you to unconditionally treat your husbands with respect. Your husband doesn't need to earn your respect, to get your respect. Your husband can't lose your respect, when he does something stupid, or makes a bad decision. Your husband doesn't need to re-earn your respect, after that stupid thing. You treat your husband with respect, unconditionally. That's your basic, primary, command. You submit to your husband, by treating your husband with unconditional respect.
So I made all of this really complicated this morning, and some of you probably appreciate that more than others. If you decide at some point that you want to dive into this yourself, you'll be grateful I did this, because I've tried to give you a framework for reading thousands of pages of arguments.
But what's the bottom line?
With the power of the Holy Spirit, if you are Spirit-filled, the end result for those of you who are married, will be marriages where the husbands and wives put themselves under each other. Husbands will put themselves under their wives, by loving their wives as their own bodies, living sacrificially for them. Wives will put themselves under their own husbands, by respecting their husbands.
Now, what happens when you're not filled with the Holy Spirit? What happens when your husband doesn't act like Jesus? What happens when your wife doesn't put herself under you, and treat you with respect and honor? What happens when marriage becomes hard?
The temptation for both parties, is to revert back to a Genesis 3:16 mentality. Wives will desire their husbands, as sin desired Cain (I think I've officially switched my reading of that, interesting). Husbands will try to rule over their own wives, and claim a different sort of "headship."
But Paul points us in a different direction. When Jesus as husband loved his wife, he loved a very imperfect woman. The church is not the best wife ever. Jesus, through love and sacrifice, is making her into something glorious, and beautiful. The church is a work in progress. And husbands, so is your wife. Your calling as husbands, is to love your imperfect wife, as Jesus loves an imperfect church.
Wives?
Your husband is not Jesus, and that's rough, right? In verse 22, wives are called to submit to their own husbands, as to the Lord. You put yourself under your husband, as you put yourself under your Lord, Jesus Christ, knowing that your husband too, is an imperfect work in progress.
When husbands and wives struggle with these things, and marriage gets hard, you put yourself under the other. And it's good, also, in these situations, to talk about these things with your spouse. Husbands, you know when your wife isn't treating you with respect. Wives, you know when your husband is more interested in ruling, than in loving. Talk about this with each other. Don't just stew on it. Don't let frustration build. Talk about it.
And if you find that it's hard to be a good husband or wife, keep in mind how Paul starts all of this. Be filled with the Holy Spirit, and receive the power to live sacrificially, and have a healthy, happy marriage.
Ephesians 5:15ff.
(15) And so then, watch carefully how you walk, not as unwise but as wise,
(16) making the most of the time,
because the days, evil, they are. ["evil" is focused].
(17) For this reason do not be foolish,
but understand what the will of the Lord [is],
(18) and don't be drunk with wine, in which there is wastefulness,
but be filled with the Spirit,
(19) speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and Spiritual songs,
singing and praising in your hearts to the Lord,
(20) giving thanks always for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to our God and Father,
(21) putting yourself under one another out of fear/reverence of Christ,
(22) wives to their own husbands as to the Lord,
(23) because (the) husband is (the) head of the wife,
as also Christ [is the] head of the church--
he [being the] savior/protector/deliverer of the body--
(24) but just as the church puts itself under Christ,
in this manner also, the wives to their husbands in everything.
(25) Husbands, love your wives,
just as also Christ loved the church,
and himself, he gave for her,
(26) in order that her, he would make holy.
cleansing [her] with the washing of the water in/by the word,
(27) in order that he may present the glorious/magnificent church to himself,
not having a spot, or wrinkle, or anything like that,
but in order that she might be holy and blameless.
(28) In this way also, husbands ought to love their own wives-- as their own bodies.
The one loving his own wife, himself, he loves.
(29) For no one ever hated his own flesh,
but he nourishes/raises/trains [it] up, [Ephesians 6:4]
and he cherishes it,
just as also Christ [does] the church,
(30) because members, we are, of his body.
(31) For this reason a man will leave his father and mother,
and he will be joined to his wife,
and the two will become one flesh/body.
(32) This mystery, great, it is.
Now, I am speaking about Christ and the church.
(33) Nevertheless, also you, each one of you [husbands], must in this manner love his own wife as himself.
Now the wife, that she must fear/revere/respect her husband.
