Husbands love your wives?

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her (Ephesians 5:25).

Since when did husbands have to be told to “love your wives”? As liberated people in the 21st Century we’ve been led to believe that “love and marriage, love and marriage, go together like a - well you know . . .” In reality, historians tell us, that for most of recorded history, no sensible person selected a life partner based on love. If love between husband and wife happened to be part of a marriage it was considered a fortunate byproduct. The 19th century was the first to wed love to marriage, deciding that love is of equal importance to economics as the primary reason for selecting a mate. Unfortunately, all too often, love and marriage become disordered.

Context:  What did the original audience know and understand?

One of the most common mistakes we make when trying to understand and apply Scripture is to image that its various parts were written directly to us. But they were not: they may have been written for us, but they were not written to us. Only as we understand the situation of the original readers, and what they would have understood by the words, can we who live in a very different situation or culture begin the task of deriving meaning for ourselves from the text. Interpreting this passage has resulted in many conflicting explanations. This is not a surprise, Peter warned that Paul’s writings are hard to understand (2 Peter 3:16).

Ephesus was the capital of Western Asia Minor, a port city with access to great roads and harbors. It boasted a population of 200,000 people in the first-century and was the guardian of the temple of Artemis, a major banking center and one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. For two years and three months the city served as a base for Paul (AD 50-53; Acts 19). An uprising made the apostle decide to end his time in the city earlier than planned. The problem? Serious opposition from the followers of Artemis. Read more on the context of Ephesus here.

Central to the prevailing philosophy of the first century was the idea that a free man ruled over his household as a sovereign, exercising unilateral authority over his subordinate wife, children, and slaves. This authority was codified in the Household Codes of the Roman Empire. The most familiar of the codes comes from the philosopher Aristotle who believed “the male is by nature fitter for command than the female.” The first Christians to hear Paul’s letter would have instantly recognized his version of the household codes as a sort of radical Christian remix, no longer focused on the subordinates who needed to get their act together. Paul’s upgraded code (Ephesians 5) does something never done before: in each pairing of relationships, he gives most attention to the person with power, telling the man to get his act together. First, he is to love his wife—love her by willingly laying down his life for her. Second, he is not to exasperate his children or threaten his slaves. This remix would have been an absolutely groundbreaking challenge in its day. In a culture that gave men the power of life and death over their wives, children (including adult children), and slaves, Paul tells husbands to lay down their power and their lives so their wives can flourish. These remix codes had a powerful effect on Roman culture by reordering relationships. It was men, inspired by Scripture, who fought to enshrine laws affirming the rights and dignity of women (1848), children (1924), and slaves (1863) in the United States and beyond.

Authority : The household codes guaranteed the man’s authority. As Josephus (Jewish historian) observed, “The woman is in all things inferior to the man. Let her accordingly be submissive, not for her humiliation, but that she may be directed; for the authority has been given by God to the man.” Men and women are not natural enemies. This statement echoes the hierarchical arrangement brought about by the fall, announced by God not as a promise, but as a dire prediction of disordered love: “He (man) will rule over you (woman)” (Genesis 3:16). Jesus’ relationship with women stands in stark contrast to the culture of his time. Throughout his ministry he opposed hierarchy: “Whoever wants to be great must be a servant, and whoever wants to be first must be a slave of all” (Mark 10: 42-45). Intent on imitating Christ, Paul begins his remix household codes with mutual submission: “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Ephesians 5:21). Paul then uses the verb for “love” six times when addressing husbands in Ephesians 5. Nothing that is asked of husbands in this passage requires leadership or authority; it requires love (Eph. 5:28-30, 33).

Divorce : Divorce was a hardship born exclusively by women. The average age of a man at marriage was thirty, but for a woman it was eighteen or less. When a man married he was already a man of the world who could function socially and economically. When a woman married she was still a girl who had never even been allowed to answer a knock at the front door of her home. A woman could not divorce her husband, but a man could divorce his wife for any behavior he deemed unreasonable. According to Aristotle, “This inequality is permanent.” According to Jesus this is appalling. In Judea, beside the Jordan River, he was approached by some Jewish Pharisees asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” (Mark 10:1-9) He dialogues with them briefly before he pinpoints the problem. With the precision of William Tell he skewers the target— them. “Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of your [men’s] hearts.” Jesus further reminds them that “a man must leave his father and mother and be united to his wife. The two shall be one. What God has joined together, let no man tear apart.” Divorce destroys God’s order. It disrupts his exhortation to “delight in the wife of your youth” (Proverbs 5:18).

Marital Fidelity : 1 Timothy 3 begins with this statement: “Here is a trustworthy saying,” signaling a common colloquialism or familiar concept. “If anyone desires to be an overseer… he must be the husband of just one wife” ( 1 Timothy 3: 1-7). “If anyone desires” is inclusive, signifying either a man or woman, but the “husband of just one wife” specifically points to the man. In our common parlance the husband is to be “a one-woman man.” Why is Paul fixated on the man? Polygamy was a common practice in Judaism since Cain’s son, Lamech, chose to double his pleasure and acquire two wives (Genesis 4:19). While women were not permitted to have more than one husband, the Jewish Talmud records a teaching that a man may take several additional wives provided he has the means to support them all. A warning label is attached to this practice: the Talmud’s word for a co-wife, tzarah, means “trouble.” Greco-Roman literature contains numerous references about the sexual freedom of men, often with no hint of censure. Apollodorus, (circa 340 BC), revealed how many men regarded the sexual roles of women. “We have hetaerae (mistresses, courtesans) for pleasure, pallakae (concubines, prostitutes) for the daily [sexual] service of our bodies and gynaikes (wives) to bear us legitimate children and to be faithful guardians of our households.” In his Advice to the Bride and Groom, Plutarch (b. 46 AD) condones husbands having sexual liaisons with other women (except married women), but he advises that husbands not provoke (or upset) their wives with the knowledge of these affairs. Furthermore, Plutarch advises that women should accept their husband’s extra-marital affairs. Consequentially, in Rome, the taxes collected from prostitution constituted a significant portion of the royal treasury. Christianity undercut patriarchal license by requiring men to be faithful to their wives in the same way that the culture required women to be faithful to their husbands. Paul expounds (1 Corinthians 7:2-4), each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. As expected, the wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. What is unexpected, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Unlike Aristotle’s household codes, bodily autonomy and mutual consent are to be de rigueur in Christian marriage.

Historical Progression: For most of church history, “wives submit” has been the horse and carriage maxim of marriage, promoted from the pulpit and preserved in church tradition. Paul’s instruction to mutually submit (Eph 5:21) is tucked out of sight and rephrased to suggest the husband does not submit to his wife but rather to the role of servant-leader. This is a questionable use of “submit.” Obviously, one-way submission is not mutual; it privileges only one person, the man. Furthermore, the idea of “roles” is not Biblical. Roles are a sociological construct of the 1960’s that refers to divisions of labor, in which both women and men hold positions of leadership based on individual abilities. It didn’t take long for the servant-leader role in the home, to gallop into the church, declaring once again, women must submit to men, specifically those privileged in the servant-leader role of elder. This disorder of one-way submission obscures love and erodes relationships. Current statistics, tracking young female church attendance, are dismal. Eventually women had enough, abandon the horse and carriage, and rode off into the sunset on their own mounts.

In Ephesians 5, Paul uses a literary tool, an analogy, to compare two similar concepts. Rooted in the household codes, the husband/wife marriage is compared to the Christ/church marriage. The wife, who is inferior, submits to her husband, just as the church, who is inferior, submits to Christ. “As the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything” (Ephesians 5:24). This analogy is consistent in the context of the first century. Every married couple, of the time, would assent to the notion of superior and inferior partners. After all, Aristotle stated it bluntly, “The woman is in all things inferior to the man.” Paul recognizes his analogy falls short. He concludes by acknowledging the relationship between Christ and the church is a profound mystery. Simply stated, one of these is not like the other. Christ is God, but husbands are not gods. To add a bit of levity, “Many men think they’re God, but this one (Jesus) just happens to be God” (Bedazzled, the movie). Christ is superior to the church, but husbands are not superior to their wives. It took millennia for God’s design at creation to be rediscovered, not by the church, but by science. Ontologically men and women are equal in their being; there is no subordinate (Genesis 1:27-28). In the beginning, Adam rejoices at his first glimpse of Eve. She is both his equal and his helper (Genesis 2:23). He is not set on subordinating her… yet. That comes later, with a lie. There is a yarn, a relic of wisdom past, that weaves the mottled tale of disordered love. It begins with a loving father who creates a marvelous gift for his son. The father says to him, “Son, this gift is delicate, unique, and worthy of honor. I am giving it to you because I love you so much.” The father patiently instructs his son on how to care for the gift. The son exclaims, “Oh Father, I will cherish this gift and protect it always.” At first he obeys his father’s instructions, but after a while, the gift no longer has the allure it once had. Influenced by the lie of a jealous friend, the son ignores his father’s instructions, carelessly uses his gift, and the gift is broken. The son cries to his father, “Oh, my beautiful gift! It is ruined!” In response, the wise father says, “My son, I told you the gift was unique, it is one of a kind. Now it will take a very long time to mend. But I will repair and restore your broken gift.” There is sorrow in the father’s heart, because his son trusted a lie rather than his father’s truth. In essence, the son changed their relationship. In fixing the broken gift, the father must reorder all that is disordered. And that is why it will take a very long time.

Conclusion: God is the author of marriage. Rightly ordered: “Husbands love your wives as Christ loves the church” and “submit to one another.” Why did Paul have to tell husbands to love their wives? Because the highest form of love in Greco-Roman culture was philosophical and spiritual, found only between men. As Plato said, "Love is the name for our pursuit of wholeness, for our desire to be complete.” Yet, to be complete and know love, Paul says the husband must put his house in order; he must lay down his desire to dominate and love his wife sacrificially. By so doing, he mirrors the heart of God. Love is the ultimate expression of God in his image bearers. Peter uses the beautiful metaphor of a fragile, valuable vessel, like fine china, to describe a wife. She is not inferior, she is vulnerable, so handle her gently. Treat her with honor and care, not with harshness or disrespect. Love her deeply, because she is worthy of your love. Protect her at all costs because she is the answer to your prayers (1 Peter 3:7). Why is the wife not instructed to love her husband? Because, from the beginning, her desire has been for her husband (Genesis 3:16). Long ago and far away, the Son of God cast off eternity and stepped down from glory for love’s sake. In his incarnation, he embodies a man, yet he is the self-revelation of God. He loves his bride with a holy love, a sacrificial love that is indelibly displayed on the day of his horrific execution, an eternal love that will not let her go. He pursues her with passion, but he does not dominate. “He cannot ravish; he can only woo” (CS Lewis). She responds freely; she loves him because he first loved her (1John 4:19). To know him, to experience the overflowing sweetness of his love, is her heart’s desire. She is alight because he is the flame (Acts 2:1-4). This is the symbiotic relationship husbands and wives are called to emulate, a marriage ordered by love. As St Augustine of Hippo said, “To fall in love with God is the greatest romance; to seek him the greatest adventure; to find him, the greatest human achievement.”

Sources: Discovering Biblical Equality, Ronald W Pierce et al; https://rachelheldevans.com/blog/aristotle-vs-jesus-what-makes-the-new-testament-household-codes-different ; Paul and Gender, Cynthia Long Westfall; How God Sees Women, Terran Williams; Love Thy Body, Nancy Pearcey; https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/mutual-submission-frames-household-codes/; https://margmowczko.com/household-codes-power-not-gender/; Why Can’t Women Do That? Philip B Payne and Vince Huffaker; https://margmowczko.com/wives-submit-in-everything-eph-5/; https://margmowczko.com/submission-respect-1-peter-3_7-8/; Strange Religion, Nijay K Gupta; Paul, Women & Wives, Craig S Keener; Lighthouse Faith, Lauren Green; God of the Fairy Tale, Jim Ware