SubMission: Impossible!

Ephesians 5:22-24
“SubMission: Impossible!”

“I’m in charge here, and if you don’t like it, tough!” Whenever the word submission is used in our American culture today, the knee-jerk reaction is to believe that whoever is in authority has the right to speak in such a way. Ever since the 1960s, when we perfected the art of questioning authority in all forms, submission has become an exceedingly bad word. It connotes weakness, subservience—door-mat status. It is the antithesis of all things American, even of the American dream. Submission means you’re granting that someone else is better than you are, more powerful. And there is something profoundly un-American, and therefore inadmissible, about any that. We talked about this a bit a few weeks ago on Father’s Day when we preached on Eph.6:1-4, the family, but the observation cannot really be over emphasized.

The world around us is particularly sensitive to the use of the word submission within the context of Christian marriage. Wherever men gather for Promise Keepers events, for instance, the news media is always present asking anyone who will answer whether they believe their wives must submit to them in the home. And as well-meaning Christian husbands seek to articulate their beliefs to the best of their abilities, you can watch the reporters’ expressions change as though they were staring at an animal that they heard had become extinct.

I attended a Promise Keepers event back in 1993 when it was still more of a local phenomenon contained in the University of Colorado football stadium, in Boulder. I remember the press being everywhere. I remember women’s groups picketing, carrying signs. I remember an airplane flying over the stadium pulling a sign that read, “Promise Keepers, Losers, Weepers”—it made me laugh, too. I remember one sign that read, “Submit to this,” and underneath it bore a line drawing of a person’s hand with one select finger raised—the universal sign of disapproval.

That is etched in my mind as our culture’s impression of submission. They consider it perverse. In the wake of gaining so much ground on gender equality and women’s rights, going all the way back to securing the right to vote in 1920, people who talk of submission in marriage are greeted with all the warmth of those who propose a return to slavery. That’s the way our culture views it—those two movements have been linked in the mind of our age, and submission of wives to husbands, we’re told, just greases the slippery slope back into the practice of misogyny, domestic abuse, and suppressing of human rights. It’s a moral issue, and Christians are on the wrong side of it. That one human being should submit to another, even in marriage, is just wrong—impossible.

But what do the Scriptures say? Let’s read our text for today. “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.” With these words, Paul open the most extended and culturally unencumbered description of the roles of husband and wife in marriage that appears anywhere in Scripture. 

And notice, he spoke first to the wife. Why do you suppose he did that? When I speak to engaged couples in my office, I often begin by asking that very question. “Why do you suppose Paul addresses the wife first?” Invariably their eyes fall to the page in their open Bible hoping to find the answer looking back at them. But then I add, “This may be the only time I ask a question about a passage when the answer is not explicit in the text itself.” Left to their own imaginations, then, I often hear answers like: “Perhaps the cycle of love an submission between husband and wife needs to begin with the wife.” It’s usually the man who makes that suggestion! Or I may hear, likely from the woman, “Paul clearly has more to say to the husband than he does to the wife, perhaps he is just getting her instruction out of the way before he gets on to the really important stuff!”

Although I don’t believe any couple has yet proposed it, there may be an exegetical answer: the word submit doesn’t actually appear in v.22. It is assumed from the participle in v.21. Thus, the text literally reads, “submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.” V.22, “Wives, to your own husbands, as to the Lord.” Perhaps, then, Paul is just illustrating his instruction from vv.18-21 as he moves into v.22—a possibility we identified last week. 

However, a broader examination of marriage passages in the NT reveals that each and every time instruction is given to both husbands and wives in the same passage, the wife is addressed first—Col.3:18-19; 1Pe.3:1-7; and here in Eph.5:22-33. Is that simply a random coincidence, or is it perhaps more likely a deliberate choice? Interesting, but let’s let these questions linger unanswered for a time until we’ve explored in greater depth what Paul actually wrote to wives. But suffice it to say in the meantime that we appear to be on solid ground here in our handling of the wife’s instruction first—no easy decision to make.

In Eph.5:22-24, Paul addresses Christian wives in three successive steps as he begins his instruction on submission to God-established authorities in three related categories.

Step 1 – The Calling Commanded – 22

“Wives submit to your husband as to the Lord.” The first thing we notice on the heels of hearing the command is that wives are given a model or an example of what their submission should look like. They submit “as to the Lord,” meaning at very least that they behave this way as one expression of their submission to the Lord—it is cast in that context. As v.23 unfolds, though, which we’ll get to in a moment, we see that the whole relationship seems to be cast as an illustration of the relationship between Christ and the church. 

But before we jump to any conclusions, let’s make sure we understand Paul’s meaning. There is a word in Greek which can well be translated submit, meaning a cessation of resistance, giving way (ὑπείκω [Strong]). It appears in Heb.13:17 where we’re told to submit to church authorities. But that is not the word Paul chose here or in Col.3; nor the one Peter chose in 1Pe.3. They each chose the word which may better be translated be subject; nasv renders it that way here in Ephesians and in Colossians, but uses submit in 1 Peter; esv does precisely the opposite in all three places. 

Clearly, these words are quite similar in meaning. But it is the same Greek word that stands behind each of these English translations in all three passages. In Paul’s day it was a military term. The literal meaning was to stand or arrange under. The idea is that, just as subjection of one human being to another reflects order and facilitates a singular purpose in the military without lessening the inherent value of either person, so it is within marriage. In a number of the more recent studies of marriage, however, the perception of what Paul meant by submit is severely off-line. Some want to say he is requiring wives to forego any self-satisfying pursuit of their gifts or education or advancement in order to support their husbands’ pursuits more fully. Others want to say he is proposing an actual ontological inferiority of women to men—meaning that women are lesser in value than men. And the list could go on. But a careful reading of this text demonstrates that Paul meant nothing of the sort. 

Paul was describing the woman’s role within the relationship of marriage which was designed by God. And it is a voluntary role. That is to say, if one chooses not to take on such a role, that is perfectly allowable. Entry into marriage is, in that sense, quite voluntary. One may also choose to enter into marriage and then seek to redefine her role to suit her liking better. That, too, is allowable in the sense that failure to follow the God’s instructions does not automatically dissolve a marriage. However, such an approach does mean that any woman who chooses to live her life that way has forfeited any possibility of experiencing the fullness of marriage that God intended her to experience. But beyond that: for any woman who does follow God’s plan, there is no more implication in Paul’s word choice here that a she is admitting her ontological inferiority to her husband than there would be implication that a colonel is admitting her ontological inferiority to a general in the U. S. Army merely because she follows his orders.

There are those who would have us believe that a wife’s submission to their husbands may begin well, but that it will inevitably result in his taking advantage of her. That conclusion, however, ignores the fact that the wife is not the only one receiving instruction in this passage. Continuing to read through the next few verses will illustrate that the husband is given a rather demanding charge as well—and one which, by definition, would preclude his taking advantage of the assignment given to his wife. 

Clearly, Paul is describing a relationship of mutually self-sacrificial, intricately intertwined love and service to one another. There is no room for abuse here! There is no room for self-serving tyranny. More than anything, this is a picture of humility and gentleness—self-controlled strength, not cowardly, selfish pride that would prey upon the vulnerability of a beloved one.

It cannot escape our notice that, because this charge to the wife appears in Scripture, her pursuit of submission to her husband is far less an affirmation of her belief that she is inferior to him than it is an affirmation of her willingness to do anything God requires of her in her in order to walk in obedience to Him. I’m tempted to illustrate this point with real life examples, and there are many such examples right here in our church—women whose highest priority as a wife is to walk in obedience to the Word of God as it gives instruction to wives. But a better illustration comes in the text itself as we move into Step 2 of Paul’s instruction.

Step 2 – The Calling Clarified – 23

Paul holds up the bride of Christ as the example. “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord” essentially because God has designed the relationship to operate in a way analogous to the relationship between the bride of Christ and her Husband, Jesus, the Lamb of God. It is as though marriage is to be a representation of the relationship between Christ and the church. Marriage is a visible, human relationship that is designed to imitate the invisible, spiritual relationship between the Savior and the saved. Salvation is the landscape, marriage is the painting. Salvation is the subject, marriage is the portrait. Paul used images like this in v.23. Wives submit because the husband is the head as Christ is the head; and the church is His body of which He is the Savior. Now, that is a remarkable statement! 

That Christ is the Head of the church no genuine believer would doubt. That the church is the body of Christ is an entailment of salvation for which we praise Him. But in what way comparable to this is the husband the head of the wife? How are we to understand her as his body? And how are we to understand the reference to Savior as a description of the way in which the husband is the head of the wife? As Paul has structured this passage, I believe we will find the answer to the first question by answering the other two. 

First, then, granting that the church is the body of Christ, in what comparable way is a wife the body of her husband? Fortunately, we do not have to wonder. Down in v.28 Paul gave specific instruction to husbands on ways in which they need to view their wives as their own bodies. We’ll address the specifics of this charge next time we’re together, God willing, as we discuss the role of the husband. But at this point I believe the best way to summarize the meaning is by saying that the virtually unconscious way in which a husband provides care for his own body is the same way that he should provide care for his wife—as though she actually were his own body. That is to say, just as, under normal circumstances, a husband would not forget to eat for extended periods of time, v.29, or would not forget to get dressed before he goes off to work, even so his care for his wife should come that naturally to him—without conscious thought. In that sense she is as his body.

Second, how are we to understand how the role of Christ as Savior as in any sense comparable to the role of the husband with his wife? Initially that sounds a bit tougher but, again, I believe Paul has made it explicitly clear in vv.25-27. The husband is to imitate the boundless, pure, self-sacrificial, saving love of Christ in his expressions of love for his wife—jealously guarding her best interest just as Jesus did. In response to such love, about which, again, we will also say more next time, the wife’s call to submission could actually become a delight!

Third, then, what about this word head here in v.23? No small amount of ink has been spilled in pursuit of the best meaning of that word! And a big part of the reason is because of the way it is used over in 1Co.11, especially v.3. There Paul wrote, “I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” That passage and this one here in Eph.5 cause real problems for those who don’t really appreciate a traditional, biblical model of marriage. And as a result, there has been a movement afoot in recent years to suggest that the best definition of that word head is source, like the way in which the head of a river is understood as the source of the river. But the problem for such people is that all the uses of that word from the literature in Paul’s day favors the established definition of that word head to mean authority, not source. So, you see the problem: if the word does mean authority, then there is really no way to conclude that marriage is anything other than an authority structure—an asymmetrical relationship between partners with uniquely complementary responsibilities, not interchangeable responsibilities.

In order to have the sort of marriage most people seem to want these days, you’ve got to find a way to keep head from meaning authority. But it does mean authority. And when I said all of the uses of it in Scripture point to that, I really meant all. NT scholar Wayne Grudem wrote an amazingly detailed article on the meaning of the word head after sampling over 2,300 of its more than 12,000 uses dating from the works of Homer up to about AD 300! It has been published in several places, but most notably as an Appendix in the book he edited with John Piper titled Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Do you want to know what Grudem concluded? He wrote (468), “There is no linguistic basis for proposing that the New Testament texts which speak of Christ as the head of the church or the husband as the head of the wife can rightly be read apart from the attribution of authority to the one designated as ‘head’” In fact, he found that there was not one single, unambiguous usage of the word head in which its meaning was source. Thus, not only does it appear clear that Scripture is identifying the husband as the God-established authority in the marriage relationship, it also ties that authority by analogy to the very authority of Christ.

But in so doing, Scripture is very careful not to diminish the value of the wife. For, you see, not only is the husband head over the wife in the way the Christ is head over the church but, based on 1Co.11, the husband is head over the wife in the way the God is head over Christ. Thus, if we believe that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is co-equal and co-eternal with God the Father, identical in essence, God of very God, Light of very Light—and we certainly do believe this—then there no more basis for saying that the husband’s authority means that the wife is inherently inferior to him than there is to say that the authority of the Father means that the Son is inherently inferior to Him. 

This verse, which can initially seem to be affirming by illustration the worst-case scenario from a worldly perspective—namely, ontological elevation of the husband over the wife—this passage may instead be introducing the very sort of humble and gentle, self-sacrificial love in which submission is most able to thrive. Paul does say that the husband is the head of the wife, but that headship is not without parameters. The sort of headship the husband is to exercise is that which was modeled by Christ Himself in relation to His bride. That is not an abusive headship. It is not a self-serving headship. It is not an emotionally detached headship. It is, in fact, the exact opposite of each of these. Although we shouldn’t go any further into the details of the husband’s instruction at this point, we simply must not overlook the fact that Paul appealed to the nature of the husband’s role in clarifying the wife’s. And that nature is not only one that is completely devoid of the sort of attitude which could result in abuse, it is also one that provides the nutrient-rich soil in which submission is intended to take deep root and grow. 

Step 3 – The Calling Confirmed – 24 

So, what about our lingering question: why did Paul address the wife first? It must linger just a bit longer before the answer can become entirely clear, but we should now be able to deduce at least one insight which moves us toward an answer. We now have basis for the fact that Paul did not speak to the wife first because the relational cycle of love and submission between husband and wife needs to be initiated by the wife’s submission. 

We should now be able to see clearly that this is not so. Paul’s gentle appeal to the role of the husband in describing the wife’s submission suggests that within genuine submission from the wife, there is a generous helping of response to Christ-like love from her husband. Yet, even as we make that point, we must be very careful. This insight is potentially more misleading than it is helpful. Why? Simply saying that there is a generous amount of response to the husband’s Christ-like love that is alluded to in Paul’s description of the wife’s submission could be twisted around to suggest that wives need to be submissive only in response to truly Christ-like love from their husbands. That would mean that, if one’s husband is not loving his wife in a Christ-like manner—or in what she would define as a Christ-like manner—she need not submit to him. But that is not so! In fact, there is no directive given to us in Scripture to which our obedience is dependent upon the behavior of someone else. No, each wife and each husband will stand before God and give account for her obedience to his Word, or lack of it, at every point. 

Regarding the wife, v.24 here, Paul’s concluding word nails down her responsibilities with unambiguous clarity: “the wife is to submit to her husband in everything.” This is a definite and unconditional calling. 

 “But what if my husband is not even a believer?” a wife may ask. “Or worse, what if he is abusive? Does Scripture really call me to submit to my husband in everything even in the face of such evils?” Let’s answer these questions one at a time. First, is a wife called to live in submission to her husband as unto the Lord even if he is an unbeliever? Hopefully it is not surprising to hear that the answer is, yes. Just as Paul spent most of his time addressing husbands in Eph.5, Peter spent most of his time addressing the wife over in 1 Pe.3. He wrote to her, “Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that if any of them do not believe the Word, they may be won over without word by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.” Husbands who do not believe the word is best understood as referring to husbands who are not Christians—they have not received Christ as savior. Thus, even if a husband is not a believer, the biblical calling to the wife does not change. She is still to submit to her husband as to the Lord. 

The initial response of many to this thought may be that it does not sound fair. And perhaps that is how it sounds. But let us not forget that God has warned us against becoming unequally yoked together with unbelievers. And He knows that His calling in our lives will be immeasurably more difficult to obey if we ignore this warning. But the calling doesn’t change. Peter’s word to wives then becomes the primary illustration of why it is so important for us avoid unequal yoking with unbelievers in marriage. Honoring the Word when it makes such statements is far more than just a good idea; our very happiness and enjoyment of life depends on it—not to mention our potential to live lives that are pleasing to God. Why should a woman obey God’s Word? Why should she war against allowing the demon of loneliness to chase her into the arms of a man who does not know or love the Lord? Because it is far easier to walk in obedience to God when bound by loneliness than when bound by sacred covenant to someone who is a stranger to God. 

Second, what about the wife who is abused, must she walk in submission to her husband? The answer here is quite a bit more delicate. In light of the fact that the immediate context of the instruction to the wives in 1Pe. is the unjust sufferings of Christ, the short answer is, yes. But that answer is far too short—in fact, it is misleading in its brevity. And many readers of Scripture have stumble over that fact. This brief answer should immediately be followed by asking, “What, then, would submission look like in such a situation?” First, let me say clearly and emphatically that if there is any woman in a relationship with a man who is physically abusive, leaving the home is not at all inherently unsubmissive. There is nothing within the biblical call to submission that requires two people to be present at the same address while any form of abuse goes unchecked. The same is true if a husband is physically abusive to the children. This separation should be pursued carefully under the authority and direction of the local church, but it must be done. And when it is done, it must be acknowledged that the separation is toward repairing the relationship, if at all possible—toward implementing established, observable, testable principles within the home. By established, I mean that the principles are rooted in Scripture. By observable, I mean that their implementation is visible, provable to neutral witnesses—Elders, Christian family and friends, other loved ones, etc. By testable, I mean that the principles can be monitored closely by the local church to ensure that the pattern of abuse does not continue in any form. 

Now to the question, I would want to argue in the strongest possible terms that an approach like this is the most loving expression of submission that one could make. It honors God’s call by doing whatever is needed to guard the best interest of the beloved. And removing all opportunity for abuse from the presence of an abuser is a courageously God-honoring expression. Leaving a woman or child in the home of a man whose is an abuser is not just unloving to the victim, it is also unloving to the abuser. He is heaping up judgement for himself by acting in such a way. Thus, separation is actually a demonstrably appropriate expression of biblical love and submission. 

Now, that said, these scenarios clearly represent some of the most difficult of marital circumstances. But, equally clearly, the greatest enemy to wide-spread acceptance to the biblical role of the wife is neither the unsaved nor the abusive husbands; nor is it even a concern regarding the possibility of ontological inequality. No, the greatest enemy to biblical submission, even in the healthiest of marriages, is, as Peter explicitly noted, fear (1Pe.3:6). In context, this fear is tied up with a sense of vulnerability, a genuine concern that standing under the authority of her husband will somehow threaten the wife’s safety or individuality. Peter mentions Sarah as an example, and this brings up interesting Old Testament memories. Sarah is his illustration of how women should walk in submission to their husbands. He mentioned that she obeyed Abraham and called him her master. Sarah called Abraham master in Genesis 18:12. The occasion was the announcement to Abraham and Sarah that they would bear a son. Peter’s mention of her obedience, however, recalls a different situation. In both Genesis 12 and 20, Abraham sent Sarah off into a harem—first Pharaoh’s, in Egypt, then Abimelech’s, in Gerar. On both occasions, Sarah did as Abraham requested! Like Jesus, she entrusted herself to God and He protected her. 

Peter affirmed this as the model wives should follow; it is within that sort of context that wives should not give in to fear! Now, certainly, I am not arguing that wives today must invariably respond as Sarah did if their husbands require what Abraham required! The cultural bridge toward a clear understanding of Abraham’s actions, and of Sarah’s response, is far too long to cross here. But this passage has left many wives asking a very relevant question about the correlation between submission and obedience. Thus, a very important third question is: does submit equal obey? The later word, after all, has long been included in the traditional wedding vows: “… to love, honor, and obey….” However, although the word does appear in the text of 1Pe.3, I would, nevertheless, answer, no. Truly, obedience is one means of expressing submission. And flagrant disobedience is doubtlessly unsubmissive. But still, I do not believe the two words should be taken as synonymous. If a husband is determined to pursue a certain course of action, then the call to submission requires the wife to be a helper suitable to her husband in that pursuit. However, as we shall see in more detail in the next chapter, a genuinely loving husband would not pursue such a course without a fair amount of effort being given to bringing his wife along toward agreement with his decision. He may even consider suspending any action at all until she is in full agreement with him. Such a move on his part would be a clear demonstration that his marriage is his highest priority.

I know of a husband, a Christian leader, who thought he knew what God wanted him to do next in his life; it was a major vocational move. His wife, however, disagreed, even after an extended times of prayer and discussion. As he was praying one afternoon before leaving his office, he said, “Heavenly Father, I have never knowingly disobeyed you before, but I am going to do so this time for the sake of my marriage.” He recognized the fact that if a truly godly wife who loves him deeply was unpersuaded by God’s call in his/their life, how could he be so confident in that call, especially when, from this world’s perspective, that call seemed so much more attractive? Shortly after this wording this prayer in his office, however, his wife informed him that God had changed her heart! God opened the door for His purpose to be accomplished and for the integrity of their marriage to be preserved all at the same time! Bottom line, a godly will follow her husband virtually anywhere, but a godly husband will not take her there without her agreement.

Conclusion

That’s usually the big test question when it comes to understanding they meaning of headship and submission: who makes the decisions? I have often been asked by wives something like, “What if he decides to move to Alaska, must I go with him?” I believe the best answer is, “Yes. However, I truly believe that if he is walking with the Lord, he will not make such a decision without your agreement.” Even more important, though, the better case would be that the husband and the wife are each more dedicated to living out a convincing obedience to biblical passages on marriage than they are to pursuing their individual priorities, pleasures, or opportunities.

Godly marital relationships simply cannot be reduced to the sum-total of one-sentence answers to the most difficult of hypothetical scenarios. Both husband and wife are called by God to love Him with all of their heart, soul, mind, and strength. Both are called to fill their role as believer—man or woman, husband or wife—motivated by an overflow of passionate love for the God Who saved them, enabled by grace that is drawn on by faith. Submission should not be perceived as some distasteful task that is grudgingly obeyed. It is a calling from God to an obedience which brings about fullness of joy. It is freedom, not bondage. It is fulfillment, not fear. It is an expression of faith in the God of the universe to dispense grace sufficient to live in a manner worthy of one’s calling. It is an enthralling entrance into a divine design which facilitates the ineffable thrill of authentic marital oneness. 

A personal word to wives in closing: submission is a hard calling; it is very hard indeed. Some even call it mission impossible. But I urge you to give yourself to obedience of the Word in this area and just see whether God will prove Himself faithful. This is one of the expressions of being filled by the Spirit, which is precisely the life God calls you to live. Go for it and just see what happens! A. J. Gordon once said (Tan 6101), “It costs much to obtain the power of the Spirit. It costs self-surrender and humiliation, and a yielding up of our most precious things to God. It costs the perseverance of long waiting, and the faith of strong trust. But when we are really in that power, we shall find this difference, that whereas before, it was hard for us to do the easiest things, now it is easy for us to do the hard things.”

Far from being an impossible mission, the submission of the wife to her husband is quite possibly a doorway to her garden of delight in him.