Yesterday I received an email asking how my wife and I interpret and apply Ephesians 5.22ff. I do not deny that this passage is more “complementarian” in it’s message, but I do deny that it legitimates universalizing complementarian principles. Once I was talking to a professor who told me, “I’d love to be an egalitarian, except there are a few passages of Scripture that prevent me.” I responded half-jokingly, “I’d love to be a complementarian, but my wife won’t let me.” In part, this is true because I live in world where women are educated, they have vocations, and unlike the days of the Apostle it can be observed that women are truly equal to men (except maybe in slam dunking a basketball). As Paul sought to neutralize the impact of slavery, yet we condemn it (to some extent since human trafficking is worse than ever), so I think he aimed to neutralize the impact of excessive patriarchy, something I think should be discarded where possible. Anyways, this is how I responded to the question of interpreting and applying Ephesians 5.22ff:
It is important to realize that much of what the Apostle Paul writes in vv. 21-33 would have been common place in a Greco-Roman culture where young women were married in their teens, often mothers at a very young age, and rarely afforded the opportunity of education or self-sustaining vocation. So when he says things like “the husband is the head of every wife” and “wives be subject to your own husband” he is addressing a particular culture, a particular worldview, which he shared. It would be helpful to imagine a church in Iran or Iraq where women are not given the same opportunities as they are in the United States.
What would not have surprised this audience is that he places women in the inferior position and asks them to submit to their husbands in all things. What would have been surprising is the call for husbands to use this authority as Christ shows his authority over the church. Men had all the rights and privileges, so most “household codes” in the Greco-Roman world settled with men being in authority. To call men to live for their wives as Christ did for his church is almost a tongue-in-cheek neutralizer in my opinion. It is as if Paul says, “Yes, women, submit fully to your husbands, and husbands you should give yourselves to the same extent that Christ have himself to the church, for which he died!”
This call to love as Christ loved make it quite difficult to lord over one’s wife. Although Paul is shaped by the Adam-Eve narrative (from Adam comes Eve) he knows that in Christ there is no room for anything other than self-sacrificial love of one’s spouse.
I should note that while Paul does use the Adam-Eve narrative as a way of showing female dependence, elsewhere he backtracks a bit. In 1 Corinthians 11.1-10 he makes essentially the same argument only to say in vv. 11-12, “However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.” So while he does see value in the Eve from Adam story he notes that all subsequent men owe their existence to women (as mothers) and that “in the Lord” the created order is inferior to our oneness in Christ (which we see in his statement in Galatians 3.28 that there is neither male nor female in Christ).
So when I interpret Ephesians 5.22ff. I do so with all of Paul’s works in mind, including the statements above which neutralize any use of this text that may seek to portray inferiority of women. Overall I think Paul mixes his arguments depending on the pastoral situation so we have to read him as a whole, not limiting ourselves to isolated passages. As a whole the genders are interdependent and in Christ there is no superiority. While Paul may call for functional hierarchy based on creation, I think “in Christ” there is a higher calling of mutual submission and sacrifice. Even in this passage the call to love one’s wife as Christ loves the church neutralizes any effort by husbands to say, “Well, I am the man so you should submit and that settles it.”
Miranda and I aim for the egalitarianism of Galatians 3.28, 1 Corinthians 11.11-12 as interpretive guides to those passages that would seem to indicate the inferiority of women. Neither of us has an ultimate trump card. If we need to take the time to wrestle through tough disagreements we do, but I never end an argument with “I’m the man, so deal with it.”
Also, I should add, women aren’t limited as they were in Ephesus in Paul’s day. Women can be educated, employed quite well, and fend for themselves, so that needs to be considered. The cultural side of Paul’s point is relativized.
Finally, we must read passages like Romans 16 where Paul mentions a prominent woman deaconess in v. 2 named Phoebe and a female apostle in v. 7 named Junia. These women are co-laborers with Paul, and they are going to serve in one of the more “progressive” cities of the empire-Rome itself. So even Paul changes his tune about women depending on what situation he is addressing.
the archives near Emmaus 
Ephesians 5.22ff has always confused me a bit, and I’m so glad that you decided to tackle it for your readers. You have some really interesting points, and I’m looking forward to sharing your thoughts with my fellow ministry leaders. Thank you for sharing this, and keep up the good work!
Brian, so if Paul was addressing things which would have been common place in a Greco-Roman culture, what about those who faced the same issues outside of the Greco-Roman empire. Wouldn’t Paul have taught Christian principles which would have been equally valid outside of the realm of Greco-Roman influence? For example, how were Hebrews (or Christians) to conduct themselves who encountered slavery within the Assyrian empire, or Germanic Europe?
Christ said the ‘poor you will always have with you’ [Matt 26:11]; which is also true of slavery (as long as we are fallen, and gender relations.
You’re suggesting that Paul’s Christian view is only valid in particular social contexts, but not applicable elsewhere. How can any Christian precept be not universally true? Look at Paul’s epistles to the Corinthians; clearly Paul was specifically addressing problems that arose within the context of the Corinthian churches, yet do we not hold his letters are universally true, as principle? If so, aren’t you suggesting we must pick and choose when something applies and when it only applies to the context of Paul’s address? How?
I previously posed a question to you (which you have not yet answered):
As a parent with a son and a daughter, what does equal treatment mean (in the context of purchasing toys)?
A. Does it mean you must purchase exactly the same toy for both (without distinction)?
B. Does it mean you must purchase a toy appropriate to the child’s interest, but of equal value? (with distinction)?
Although I’m interested in your answer, would add that our answer naturally depends on how we take ‘equality’ to mean. For the history of the church at least, orthodoxy has favoured approach B where equality does not demand a failure to distinguish between the genders. Yet you argue this is the product of a patriarchal society (which I admit is possible). However, it could equally be the product of a sound interpretation of the bible apart from natural prejudice. If you’re going to make this argument, you’re going to have to show how it is not fair or Godly to distinguish between men and women WRT biblical roles. We are able to see (at least) one instance where God’s word DOES distinguish between genders (albeit fairly).
Though Eve sinned equally, and indeed first, [Romans 5:12,16,19] holds a man (Adam) accountable for sin entering the world. If God was to treat men and women equally according to your definition, why hold a man accountable for the first sin, and choose a man to redeem all from that sin? Not just Paul but Christ did this too [Matt 5:9,45][Matt 8:12][Luke 11:19][John 12:36].
Is it not possible, that this complaint against the orthodox interpretation is influence more by modern feminism than by concerns for biblical accuracy? If so, note that even moderate feminism has not demanded equality without distinction in its ‘suffrage’ efforts. For example, moderate feminism has not demanded the legal right for women to go topless (though radical feminism has) in public, by and large.
Margo
You are welcome! Thank you for sharing it.
Andrew
We do hold some of what Paul said in the Corinthian correspondence to be situational and not universal, like his call to singles to remain unmarried.
Again, you keep arguing that I deny distinction between genders. I don’t. I deny the distinctions prohibit women from equal giftings and callings.
I personally wouldn’t see that call to remain unmarried as situational. I’d see it as desirable, save for if it causes in to stumble, just as remaining married is desirable save for the instances of sexual impurity that come out of the hardness of out hearts.
I’d argue this on the grounds that when Christ returns, marriage between people will be done away with; which shows God’s true preference. Marriage is a property of our fallen state, and a function of our need to procreate.
Regardless, can you provide other examples from Paul’s work you belief to be now obsolete? Also, was slavery in non-Greco-Roman context exempt? How are we to interpret it that God held man responsible for the first sin, though the first sin was actually Eve?
Andrew
I maintain that the call to singleness is not something as urgent as it was then. I would say that slavery in general is something we should oppose with more vigor that he did (I don’t know what point you are trying to make about non-Greco-Roman slavery). I do not find the mandatory hierarchy of man and woman applicable, nor head veils in worship, nor strict prohibition against jewelry. Those are a few examples.
As far as Eve I see her as deceived while Adam rebelled knowingly. Of course, I don’t know that there is one way to interpret and apply Genesis 1-3. Paul has his ways. Other Jews had their ways.
You’re saying we should pick and choose which parts of the bible apply to us then, or that Paul’s understanding was only one such possible understanding?
It isn’t as simple and “picking and choosing” pieces of Scripture. It is reading Scripture as something more than a legislative document. I have found Daniel Kirk’s views on Narrative Theology to encapsulate my hermeneutical approach well: http://www.jrdkirk.com/2012/03/05/narrative-theology-and-instruction-manuals/ and http://www.jrdkirk.com/2012/03/02/what-is-narrative-theology/ .
Also, this weekend I linked to other parts of his series.
Thanks for the links. I will follow them.
The issue is certainly about what constitutes exegesis vs eisegesis and the collision between authorial intent vs how we read the text to mean.
Favouring the universal over situational interpretation does not require one to take the text as a ‘legislative document’, however. Likewise, there is more to the text than mere narrative, which suggests that there is more to reading the text than one single algorithmic (hermeneutical) approach, but numerous (depending upon the apparent intent of the text)
Andrew
I hope Kirk’s posts can provide a bit more insight into how I think through Scripture. He says it better than I.
Brian, thanks for taking the time to lay out your answer to applying Eph. 5:22ff. It’s curious to read through, since Alison and I would hold to very similar interpretations of the same verses. However, we would label ourselves ‘complementarians.’ I recognize that there is much to be desired of the term ‘complementarian’ in view of equality of men and women, though I think that the function and value of men and women in this entire debate gets frequently confused. Though ideologically there is so much good work being done in the egalitarianian study of this topic, it frustrates me that there is not a more biblically, gospel focused, balanced term that can be used to describe this view. Just lamenting more than anything, I guess. Thanks, as usual, for the thoughts! Good stuff here.
Brian, do you drink wine when you have a stomach ache? Probably not.
Being unmarrried was desireable to Paul because he thought the world was coming to an end. Me, i’m a stumbler, which I guess makes me a stumblebum, and I don’t even feel guilty about it.
@Brian: Not really. Now that you’ve redirected me to his site, I recall looking over it before (obviously I believe he’s missed something obvious … so of course I disagree with his position). If he has articulated a position you follow, I can’t hold you accountable for his mistakes, though I could hold you responsible to articulate your own beliefs. (So I’ll address my comments about his beliefs to him directly).
Dunking basketballs… it’s getting there. Check out Brittney Griner… 52 dunks in her senior year of high school and five so far at Baylor. So, we’re not quite equal, but we are getting there.