Do Wives Need to Submit to Husbands? pt 4

So. The big question- do wives have to submit to their husbands?

In some senses that’s the wrong question. Paul says in Ephesians, just before writing out similar commands to husbands and wives and children and slaves- he says- submit to one another. Husbands submit to wives? Yeah. Wives to husbands? Yeah.

Here’s what the Gospel says to husbands and wives- you are equal. You are in relationship with God. You both have a duty to submit to each other and to love each other. Your lives, including your marriage should reflect well on Jesus and part of that means it should be attractive and compelling- you represent Jesus.

If you live in a patriarchal society where women are considered property, submit to your husband and show him to whom you really belong.
So, ironically, in our society… those who read these passages and because of them demand that wives take on some kind of subservient role (and they still exist, believe me), that women cannot be leaders in the church, that they are somehow equal in value and yet cannot have the same voice as men in the life of the community- those Christians in an effort to remain faithful to the Scriptures, often end up doing exactly what Paul is arguing against here- their marriages and their communities run the risk of failing to represent Jesus well and so becoming a stumbling block for others.

Now-hear what I’m saying and don’t hear what I’m not saying. The Gospel has serious claims on our lives on the ways we treat others, on our relationship to sex, to money, to power- and sometimes those claims are going to be offensive.

But the point is, if anything about us is going to be offensive, it darn well better be the Gospel, and not our marriages, and so the church better give some serious thought as to how we treat our wives and even women in general.

It’s offensive enough to proclaim that Jesus is the Savior, because that means proclaiming that people are in need of a Savior, that there is a problem that needs to be fixed called sin, and no one wants to hear that. Let’s not add to the offense of the Gospel by missing what’s really going on here and saying that women are somehow second class citizens in the ecclesia.

The prevailing Roman society of Paul’s day, drawing mostly from the Greek thought of the Stoics and others had very rigid family definitions. There was the pater familias, the Man, the Father at the top. And the woman was not equal, not in rights and not in value. In Greek thought she was second class. And the children under her and slaves last of all. Aristotle put it this way: “For the male is by nature better fitted to command than the female… The free rule the slave, the male the female, the man the child…”
So- into the mess of that society, into a whole world patterned on that Paul says, “Wives, submit to your husbands, but do it so they know who you really belong to. Husbands, love your wives and even if the law gives you the right to treat them harshly, Jesus doesn’t. Children, obey your parents- not because you are inferior, but because it makes God happy when you do. Fathers, don’t aggravate your children- you may have a legal right to treat them however you want, but it makes them discouraged.
Slaves- live so that your master knows you have a higher authority in your life than him. And remember- though the law of the land considers you property that can be inherited, the Lord, Jesus Himself says He will give you an inheritance- a reward for serving Him.

Paul, in reiterating to these women who might think that freedom in Christ meant throwing off the "shackles" and no more submission to their husbands that no, they still have a duty as Christ followers to submit, is not defining the woman's role as submissive and the man's as dominant.

Do I submit to my wife? You better bet I do. I couldn't follow Paul's command to love her sacrificially, like Jesus, without submitting myself to her wishes, her desires. To claim that I can love someone sacrificially and yet try to keep "submission" out of it is silly.
Does she submit herself to me? You bet. As a Christ follower, is she to love me sacrificially like Jesus? Yes. And that includes, even in this day and age though probably looking very different than it did in the first century,  the idea of submission.

For both of us.

Some concluding thoughts tomorrow...

(This series is adapted from a sermon I preached during our time in Colossians. I'm heavily indebted to Walsh and Keesmaat and their book Colossians Remixed)

Comments

[tom]

Bob you just don't take into account Eph. 5. Which is speaking of marriages and relationships that have been redeemed. There is still a call for wives to submit to husbands. Obviously this is predicated by the assumption the man is submitting to God, but it does not negate that the Bible in its fullest redemptive state speaks of wives submitting to husbands.

I also think you are being a bit reductionistic to think that our marital relationships are not somehow gospel related. To advocate that if people are going to be offended by something it should be the gospel and not women submitting makes a false separation between the two. The gospel is always more, and never less than what we think it is, especially in light of the amazing redemptive picture Paul paints for us of relationships in Eph. 5.

The truth is people are not offended by wives submitting to husbands, in the biblical, godly way that Paul teaches. They are offended (and rightfully so) by the distortion of this ethic that often happens when in many churches and families.

[Bob Hyatt]

I do take it into account! :) Read this whole thing again. What's my answer to "Do wives need to submit to husbands?" And I quote... "Well, sure."

I think our definition of what that looks like might be a little off, but...

I think YOU are failing to take into account Eph 5:21... :)

I think we are trying to understand the command to submit and the command to lay down one's life as two separate things. I don't think you can do either without doing the other. This is Paul defining what submitting to one another looks like.

And don't misunderstand me. Our marriages are PRECISELY gospel-related. Our disagreement is over what that means.

[Bob Hyatt]

AND... we probably disagree on what "kephale" (head) means in Paul's context...

[tom]

Sorry bob I was honestly not sure if the "well sure" was serious or not. I misread it.

And yeah I think we do disagree on "kephale" source/head.

[Bob Hyatt]

No problem- sorry I wasn't clearer...
I think my summary statement is probably the last two paragraphs of this article...

"Paul, in reiterating to these women who might think that freedom in Christ meant throwing off the "shackles" and no more submission to their husbands that no, they still have a duty as Christ followers to submit, is not defining the woman's role as submissive and the man's as dominant.

Do I submit to my wife? You better bet I do. I couldn't follow Paul's command to love her sacrificially, like Jesus, without submitting myself to her wishes, her desires. To claim that I can love someone sacrificially and yet try to keep "submission" out of it is silly.
Does she submit herself to me? You bet. As a Christ follower, is she to love me sacrificially like Jesus? Yes. And that includes, even in this day and age though probably looking very different than it did in the first century, the idea of submission.

For both of us."

[Patrick Gillen]

Though it is quite impossible, I always attempt to read and interpret Scripture without an agenda. I'll admit there are things the Bible says that I disagree with personally -- but it doesn't change the truth of the Bible. Thanks for elevating the Word to that status (though we do disagree slightly at the end result).

As to those being offended of the Gospel and not our marriages -- shouldn't our marriages be a picture of the Gospel? Isn't that the whole point of Eph 5? If our marriages are pictures of God's relationship to us, and we submit to Him; does He then also submit to us? I can't imagine a scenario where someone would be 'offended' by a marriage (especially in a society that says 'do what you want', as long as your wife isn't 13), but our marriages should be reflective of the Gospel, and so in turn could hypothetically be justifiably offensive. Just a random thought.

[Bob Hyatt]

"As to those being offended of the Gospel and not our marriages -- shouldn't our marriages be a picture of the Gospel?"

Yes- they should.

But those who take that to mean that submission moves only in one direction misread (I believe) what Paul is saying here, misunderstand the "leveling" work Gospel ("There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female") and miss the very example of Jesus in becoming a servant Himself- both in death and practically, as an example to His disciples in washing their feet.

Submission runs both ways- by Paul's explicit command, by the working of the Gospel and by Jesus' example...

I've seen "complementarian"marriages that were both offensive and non-offensive. However...
I think the idea of stressing wives' submission misses both Paul's command to submit to each other as well as his intent.
He's not laying this over-arching ethos of womanly submission as many seem to think. He's speaking specifically to those living in a patriarchal, abusive-to-women society and saying "Believing in Jesus doesn't give you the right to give your husband the finger. As a Christ folower, you still have a duty to submit to each other- as to the Lord!"