Holy Matrimony? Part 2

When I preach at conferences, no one ever wants the session right after lunch. That is the session when everyone has full stomachs and closed eyes. However, I will assume that you are use to it, since you enjoy an afternoon worship weekly.

Christianity brought with it significant change for women and apparently their freedom was a source of offense to non-Christians. It is understandable, therefore, that in Titus 2:5, Paul instructed women “to be obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed”.

Ancient texts do not speak frequently husbands loving their wives. Paul’s words to women seem negative to us, but in Paul’s day, they were surprisingly positive. The commands to both husband and wife are Christologically grounded and require giving oneself to the other person. The stronger language is used for the husband’s responsibility than the wife’s. However, the mutual submission is required of all Christians (Ephesians 5:21)

In the ancient world, husbands had relatively few obligations beyond providing food and shelter. They were free to do as they please, whereas wives were obligated to do domestic chores and to do what their husbands required. Rather than be guided by self-interests, the husband is asked to place the well-being of his wife first and to give himself to caring for her.

Women are viewed very differently in modern Western civilization than in ancient Judaism and the Greco-Roman world. What information we do have about women and attitudes toward them paints an absolutely awful picture. One writer said women were the worst plague Zeus ever made. Another said, “the two best days in a woman’s life or when someone marries her and when he carries her dead body to the grave”. Judaism was not much better. One rabbi advised, “do not talk much with a woman”. Another rabbi added to that, “not even with one’s wife”.

Ancient sources do not speak frequently of husbands loving their wives. This is uniquely Christian. The view of husbands having the responsibility to love their wives ran counter to their culture. Roman women did not have rights as a man. Jews were not much better. The Pharisee in his prayer would say, “I thank God that I am not a woman, Gentile or Samaritan”.

Women were viewed as inferior and were given relatively little freedom. In few places like Sparta and Egypt, women were given greater freedom and responsibility. In most places, however, if they were allowed to live at birth, women were minimally educated, could not be witnesses in a court of law, could not adopt children or make a contract, could not own property or inherit, and were viewed in all respects to be inferior to men. They were seen as less intelligent, less moral, the source of sin and a continual temptation.

Typically, women lived in one part of the house and men in another. In many cases, they did not eat meals together. In larger homes, virgins spent most of their time in a section set aside for them. Conversation with people outside the house was kept to a minimum. For a woman even to do her spinning in her doorway was considered scandalous. Imagine how scandalous some would view the early church where both sexes met together in a house for worship and shared the Lord’s supper!

Transition:The first issue that needs clarification and explanation from this text is the matter of submission.

The Matter of Submission (v. 22)

v. 22

The word “submit” does not appear in the Greek in verse 22. In the Greek it states, “wives to their own husband”. So, where do the translators get the word “submit” from? Verse 21. This whole passage, 5:22-6:9, is teaching the many different ways that we are to submit to one another. We are all to submit to one another. We must have mutual submission in the family, mutual submission within marriage (1 Corinthians 7:1-5)

“submit” (v. 5:21) – hupotasso () “A Greek military term meaning ‘to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader’. In non-military use, it was ‘a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden’”. This word is “primarily a military term, to rank under (hupo, under, tassoµ, to arrange), denotes (a) to put in subjection.” This word is in the middle voice, indicating, “the subject performing an action upon himself (reflexive action) or for his own benefit.” It is also an imperative indicating, “expresses a command to the hearer to perform a certain action by the order and authority of the one commanding.”

God designed the wife to be under the husband’s authority and 1 Timothy 2:13-14 provides two reasons why this is in place after the fall; 1) the creation order – that man was created first and 2) the sin order – that woman sinned first.

However, the battle of the sexes started in Genesis 3:16. She will desire to rule over the man as used in Genesis 4:7. “masal” – to rule or dominate.

Wives submit to your own husbands. Some of you may say, “but I do not believe that passage”. Why? Is it because you do not like what it says or because you do not understand what it says? Please open your Bible starting at Genesis 1:1, start flipping pages one at a time and stop at the point where you should start believing it. Ok, it was a trick question. All of the Bible is true, trustworthy and authoritative (2 Timothy 3:16-17). However, what I find is that the problem most people have with this passage is a misunderstand not unbelief.

Paul’s words to wives seem negative to us in this culture; however, when Paul wrote them they were surprisingly positive.

The wife’s relation to the Lord is the basis, motivation and qualification of her submission to her husband.

The wife’s submission is unto Christ first and her husband second

The wife’s submission is an example of the church’s submission to Christ

This text is not about women being submissive to all men. It is about mutual submission of all Christians to each other and the submission of wives to their own husbands.

Transition:The second issue, after the matter of submission that needs clarification and explanation from this text is the matter of headship.

The Matter of Headship (vs. 23-24)

v. 23

“head” (v. 23) – “The head “ is not regarded as the seat of the intellect, but as the source of life (Mt. 14:8, 11; Jn. 19:30). … Figuratively, headship denotes superiority of rank and authority over another (Jdg. 11:11; 2 Sa. 22:44); though when Christ is spoken of as head of his body the church (Eph. 5:23; Col. 2:19), of every man (1 Cor. 11:3), of the entire universe ( Eph. 1:22), and of every cosmic power (Col. 2:10), and when man is spoken of as the head of the woman (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:23; cf. Gn. 2:21f.), the basic meaning of head as the source of all life and energy is predominant.”

The wife is not less than the husband, but the husband is the head of the wife.

The commentators have come up with several different meanings for the issue of, “the husband is the head of the life”. What is this matter of headship all about? Possibilities:

Source

Some use some extracanonical texts (that means books outside of the Bible) to prove this thought

The thought is that Christ is the source of the church therefore the husband must be the source of the wife.

This then is rooted in the creation of Adam and Eve, that Eve was formed from the rib of Adam (Genesis 2:21). Therefore, the man is the source or the wife.

This avoids any issues of the husband-wife relationship, which may explain why many choose this view to avoid dealing with the real issues of the context.

Prominence

Tied closely with the husband as the source, the thought here is that man was created first; therefore, he has a prominence with God before his wife.

This places the husband as a priority before his wife.

This too does not make sense with the context for the passage. Would God be teaching mutual submission within the church and specifically within the family, only to then state that the husband has priority? It does not fit nor properly explain the mutual submission with the church structure that Paul is emphasizing.

Completion

This is the thought that the man needs the wife as a helper (Genesis 2:18), therefore the husband completes the wife as well.

This view makes the wife depended on the husband. However, the reverse must therefore also be true; that the husband is dependant on the wife for completion.

However, again we have the problem of the context. How does the completion produce the mutual submission?

Subjection or Obedience

This is the most popular misinterpretation, usually made by men. (I wonder why?)

This is the thought that the wife is subject to the husband and therefore must obey his every command, except of course if he asks her to sin then she would be free from obedience to the husband in order to obey God.

Some take this so far as to attempt to teach that the wife must obey EVERY command of the husband, EVEN if sinful.

The proponents of this view use Ephesians 1:22 and Colossians 2:10 to support their view. The word “head” is used in both these passages. The argument is that Christ is sovereign over all of creation and all creation must obey Him, therefore the husband is sovereign over the wife and she must obey him. However, the context on these two passages is Christ’s authority not sovereignty. Christ’s sovereignty is used to show His authority.

The focus is on Christ as the Creator, not on the creation’s obedience. Therefore, the rulership of the husband over the wife should focus on the husband responsibility not the wife obedience.

When this view is practiced, it often leads to suppression and depression of the wife.

Authority

The focus is on the leadership role of the husband

Authority requires accountability to God.

Authority carries the connotation of responsibility to the family and to God.

The authority of the husband is the same as Christ’s for the church. It is the sacrificial love, giving completely of self for the other.

The responsibility is evident in the leadership role that comes with the authority of the husband.

The wife’s submission is a middle voice, which means that she performs the submission on herself, unlike the husband’s love, which is an active verb, which means that the husband must perform the act on another, his wife. This supports the thought that the wife’s submission is an inner heart attitude. Therefore, the submission cannot refer to outward obedience.

The purpose of headship is for the benefit of the wife, not the husband.

Men you will be held accountable to God for your marriage. You will not be able to pass the responsibility to your wife. That did not work for Adam in the garden and it will not work for you on the Day of Judgement.

1 Corinthians 11:3 – the husband is the head of the wife and God is the head of Christ.

Its focus is not on the privilege and dominance of the husband and Paul never intended to suggest their wives were servants, compelled to follow any and every desire of their husband. The text does not tell women to obey their husbands, nor does it give any license for husbands to attempt to force submission.

v. 24

“subject” (v. 24) – the same word as “submit” (v. 21) except that it is a passive voice and indicative. “The passive voice represents the subject as being the recipient of the action.” “The indicative mood is a simple statement of fact.”

The phase, “in everything” indicates that all spheres of life are included in this submission, provided that it is in keeping with the life lived “to the Lord”.

God never calls on obey to any man that is in disobedience to God (Acts 5:29).

Abused authority does not demand obedience (2 Chronicles 26:16-21)

There is a difference between the position of authority and the person in the position of authority. We can resist the man if he is disobeying God but not he position.

Conclusion

Parents' your own marriage is your children's best model for understanding marriage. As they observe your marriage, how will your children envision their own future relationship with a spouse?

Ask yourself these questions:

Parents, does your marriage imitate Christ's relationship with His bride, the church? Does your marriage give your children a healthy appetite for a godly marriage? Or does sinfulness between you and your spouse suppress their natural hunger for a life companion?

Fathers, through your vigilant care for your wife, are you giving your children a thirst for a husband who spiritually leads, morally protects, and sacrificially provides for his bride? And wives, through your respectful submission to your husband, do your children eagerly look to their father for oversight? Or do your children witness self-centeredness by the husband and disrespect by the wife?

Parents, through your purity and faithfulness toward your mate, have you given your children a single eye of devotion and affection to one spouse for a lifetime? Or, do your children observe a cold heart within the home and a wandering eye outside it, an attitude of sensuality?

Fathers, are you exemplifying preparedness through your own spiritual leadership in your family? Are you active in preparing your children for responsibility? Or is slothfulness in your own life begetting slothfulness in your children. Remember that the sins of the fathers are passed on to their children?

Finally, parents, is your marriage one of confident patience mixed with diligence? Or are you often anxious and intolerant toward one another and toward your circumstances? In short, is your example teaching your children to be persistent or impatient?