Many good Christians argue from 1 Timothy 2:12 that women can have no authority over a man and no wife may have authority over her husband. But Paul explains the relationship of a husband and wife very differently in 1 Corinthians 7:
(1 Cor. 7:1-7) Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.
The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.
Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
Notice first how carefully Paul treats husbands and wives exactly the same. We will not consider the rest of chapter 7 in detail, but the remainder of the chapter continues Paul’s precise language treating men and women equally.
There is no distinction in this passage. And notice the application of the Genesis 2 principle. While Paul does not mention Genesis or the Law, what better example is there of the ideal of a husband and wife being one flesh? The wife’s body does not belong to her alone, and neither does the husband’s body belong to him alone. Each has given up so much of themselves that even their bodies belong to the other!
Does this mean that the wife has authority over the husband? Absolutely! He may not deny her his marital obligation, and she has authority over his body! In the most intimate of biblical passages, there is not a hint of subordination or submission, other than mutual submission.
This is what “one flesh” means, but we understand rightly that one flesh involves much more than sex. Rather, a mutually submissive sexual relationship must be the product of a mutually submissive relationship at all other levels.
The critical points are these. First, Paul goes to great lengths to point out that wives and husbands have an identical duty to the other. The one flesh principle is perfectly symmetrical. The duty owed by one is necessarily owed by the other — a concept dramatically contrary to both Jewish and Greek culture of the day.
Second, there is no reference to the curse of Eve still being in effect. Men aren’t allowed to dominate their wives. Rather, each has the same rights — but without being the same.
Your use of the term "authority" in the context of the sexual relationship is not warranted. Further, I think you make an unwarranted extrapolation from the sexual relationship to other matters. Neither concept is supported in the passage.
Remember that under Jewish law, it was taught that a woman could get a certificate of divorce if the husband did not fulfil her marital rights. So what Paul taught here was not different from what was taught under the old covenant — a time at which I think even you would admit women were under the authority of their husbands.
Writing in a time where women were seen as "less" than men, Paul saying that both are equal in the matter of sexual obligation is very counter cultural. Paul even uses the word authority in the same sense that Jay is using it. So Alan, I am confused why you feel it is not warranted?
Let me just say that I am glad my husband is not Alan! Just kidding, Alan…well, not really…(where are the smilies?)
But anyway, I think this is a great point, Jay, and I am so blessed to have a husband who believes much the same way, as far as equality and mutual submission. I can't imagine it being better any other way.
Kyle,
I should have been more precise in what I said. I was commenting on the following statement:
1 Cor 7:4 does indeed say that the wife has authority over the husband's body in the context of marital rights (as in Ex 21:10). It does not indicate that she has authority over her husband, but rather over his body. And there is no support in the passage for extending that authority to any other area.
Hi summer,
No problem, I am happily married to a wife who shares my convictions on this subject. We believe that the scriptures plainly teach that wives are to submit to their husbands as to the Lord, and that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church. The two roles are not the same. Submission is not reciprocal. Teaching otherwise undermines God's plan for marriage.
Sorry Alan,
But please review Ephesians 5:21 and reconsider your position that submission is not mutual.
There are no limitations on the scope of the statement in Eph.
Alan,
I am late to these discussions so may be re-plowing old ground.
But if "[s]ubmission is not reciprocal," then what is the point of Eph. 5:21 ("Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ")? Seems pretty reciprocal to me.
I think the NIV editors did much harm to this passage by sticking their "Husbands & Wives" topic heading after, instead of before, vs 21, thereby separating Paul's topic sentence regarding mutual submission from his topic. The NLT puts the topic heading in front of vs 21.
Jay,
What do you make of Paul's point in Eph 5:32? Is he suggesting that his comments re husbands/wives are getting away from his main point and that he has more to say about husbands and wives, but not here? That's the drift I get.
And how would you fit the slaves/masters discussion from Eph 6 into this (since – in context – it's part of the same "submission" discussion from Eph 5? I.e., few today would argue that Eph 6 supports maintaining slavery. Why do some take the Eph 5 mention of marriage as ordaining a particular marriage hierarchy, while we no longer use Eph 6 in the same manner to support slavery?
As noted – my attentions have been elsewhere recently, so if these sorts of thoughts have already been worked through, my apologies.
David P and David G,
I have explained why Eph 5:21 is not reciprocal in previous comments. For a more complete explanation of my view, go take a look at those comments. But as a summary: Verse 21 says that everyone must submit to someone. "Submit" is inherently not reciprocal, both in Greek and English (see any Greek lexicon). Paul explained what he meant by verse 21 in the subsequent verses. In those verses he described quite different roles for husband and wife. Similarly, he described different roles for fathers and children, and for slaves and masters. He was no more telling husbands to submit to wives, than he was telling parents to submit to their children. Note that the instruction to the wife is to submit to her husband "in everything." That doesn't leave any areas where she is free not to submit.
The model for the marriage relationship is Christ and the church. Christ has authority over the church — not the other way around. OTOH husbands are to carry their authority as Christ did, in selfless compassion, taking care of the wife.
Alan,
If wives and husbands have equal authority over one another in the bedroom, why not elsewhere?
Gen 2 tells us that husbands and wives are united and one flesh. The most immediate application is, of course, to sex. Paul plainly interprets this as non-hierarchically, saying each has authority over the other.
If "one flesh" means mutual authority in 1 Cor 7, why can it not mean mutual submission in Eph 5:31? If you argue that submission can run in but one direction, how can authority run in two?
Now, this is typical NT talk. It is paradoxical to say each has authority over the other, just as it's paradoxical to say each must submit to the other. But it's two ways of saying the same thing.
David G,
I'll be getting to the slavery argument down the road. For those who want to get a head start, Webb's Slaves, Women & Homosexuals in a fascinating study on this question (although a challenging read).
David G. —
I read 5:32 the opposite way.
Paul first reasons from Gen 2 that husbands and wives are one flesh. Thus, the wife is part of the husband's body and he must love her as he loves himself (perfectly equality in this sense).
He then says this is how Jesus loves the church, which refers to back to the fact that Jesus is the "head" of the church. Referring back to the meaning of "head" in Eph 4, Paul sees the head as the nourisher of the body (not the ruler, which his foreign to the metaphor in Eph.).
V. 31 is his proof text for the relationship of husbands and wives.
V. 32 tells us that Jesus and the church are "one flesh" as well, as the church is his body on earth. This refers back to Eph 1 and 2, where the church is said to be Jesus' body and to sit on Jesus' throne in heaven with him, together ruling the universe.
Here is the "mystery" Paul refers to — the fact that the church is the body of Christ, even "one flesh" with Jesus and the church will rule the universe with him. These are indeed mysterious ideas!
"Mystery" revealed is a theme of Eph, beginning with
But his point is that this mystery is being revealed. (3:3-9) Hence, Paul isn't saying "I don't know what this means." He's saying, "This is what it's all about — this mystery is no longer hidden. We now know about Jesus and the church. Therefore, we can act in accordance with what God has revealed!
However, the relationship of husbands and wives is not a "mystery" (knowledge no longer hidden) as it goes back to Gen 2. Hence, when he says this is a mystery, he has to make clear that he is referring to the application of Gen 2 to Jesus and the church — not to husbands and wives.
But I can't say I feel all that dogmatic on the subject …
Jay, I have two problems with that logic. First, the text doesn't say the wife has authority over the husband. Rather, it says she has authority over his body. Second, your statement is an unwarranted extrapolation. Nothing in the text suggests that the authority applies outside the context of the physical relationship.
But in answer to the "why not" question, here's Paul's answer: Wives are to submit to their husbands in everything.
On another tangent entirely – is there any better way to translate "duty" in this passage?
Because nothing makes "marital duty" more pleasurable than seeing it as "duty."
Sorry. Bad first marriage here. (Really good second marriage.)
Keith,
In v. 3, the Greek is literally an instruction for each spouse to pay (render, deliver) the debt or "what is owed" to the other. It's euphemistic.
It's also very Jewish and rabbinic. The Jewish marriage contract typically followed Ex 21:10 —
(Exo 21:10) If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.
Does "submitting to her husband in everything" include doing something sinful "because he said so"?
I really need to know, because in the comments on 1 Peter, Alan seemed to interpret Peter's words to say that Sarah was right to act deceptively because her lord commanded it. The "model for marriage" works fine when the head is perfect. But when the head, the husband, has sinful desires, to which (according to this line of thought) the body, the wife, MUST SUBMIT…. "Note that the instruction to the wife is to submit to her husband “in everything.” That doesn’t leave any areas where she is free not to submit."
Nick,
If the wife has to choose between obeying her husband and obeying God, I think the correct choice is obvious. See Acts 4:19 for an example of obeying God rather than "rulers and elders of the people" who had been put in a position of authority by God, but were commanding Peter and others to disobey God.
Jay,
I know you have more territory to cover in this series. At some point I'd like to suggest a careful discussion of how we should handle disagreements over this particular topic. How sure are we that we are right? How critical is agreement to unity? How should we treat those who disagree with us?
Discussions like this one can polarize. People holding the majority opinion may walk away overconfident in their own conclusions. They feel infallible because so many others (in the current discussion) agree with them. They develop an increasing disrespect for the opposing view. All of that does harm to the higher purpose of unity around the core gospel.
I'm not concerned that this discussion affects my relationship with you. I am more concerned that the spirited disagreement could polarize others who participate or only witness the conversation.
You and I both have blogs with a stated purpose of taking down walls that divide Christians. In that spirit, we need to be sure this conversation ends well.
Alan,
Once I get through laying out my case, I plan to compare and contrast the two views in terms that show they aren't that far apart. The hierarchic/complementarian view is a respectable view held by people with far more Bible knowledge than I have. (But then, the same is true of the egalitarian view). It's certainly not a salvation issue.
When it gets down to deciding which is right, we need to revisit the question we started with — hermeneutics. It is my view that the test is twofold — does the interpretation fit the over-arching hermeneutic of the gospel I lay out here? And does the test fit the words of the apostles? If a theory can pass both of those tests, it's bound to be right. But we aren't nearly far enough along to properly apply the tests. (And of the two tests, the gospel hermeneutic is the more important one, as I'll explain.)
I didn't cover hermeneutics in much detail, but I'll be coming back to it.
By the way, I appreciate your so doggedly taking the contrary view. It's far too easy to win an argument when there's no one on the other side! And you're forcing me to dig deeper and re-test my theories. It's all good. (And you're prompting other readers to help me, which is good, too. I can't come up with all the arguments myself!)
I'm a little surprised that no one has jumped to your defense. But this likely means that those who agree with you think you're arguing the case as well as it can be argued (which I think is true).
I agree that who is right doesn't depend on who gets the largest number of favorable comments. However, it's very, very important that questions this difficult be resolved in conversation, not just within a congregation but as broadly as possible.
But when we finally get down to it, it'll all about which interpretation is truest to the gospel.
Thus, to expand on a point David G made yesterday, whether slavery is condoned or condemned is ultimately determined by reference to the gospel, even though the slavery-is-okay camp has plenty of proof texts in its arsenal.
But I've gotten WAY ahead of myself.
Jay,
sorry to be a late commentor. I'm somewhat curious about the use of "alone" in the passage by the NIV. No other translation appears to have it, nor do any of the Greek texts I'm aware of (I looked at 8). Kind of bouncing off Keith's comment, adding "alone" gives the spouse a certain measure of authority over their own body. That is to say, it allows them to "protect themselves" against the advances of their spouse. (Never "refuse", however (1 Cor 7:5)).
Thoughts?
Thanks.
1 Cor 7:4a as translated by the NIV says,
There is no "alone" in the Greek. Neither is there an "also" in this clause. Read too literally, we might conclude that the wife has no say so at all. And the husband has no authority over his own body either, as the remainder of the verse speaks of the wife's authority over her husband in the same terms.
Nonetheless, we should take Paul as overstating his case for effect (as he often does) and interpret in light of the context Genesis forward.
Paul's theology of sex comes from Genesis 2 (and Exodus 21:10). "One flesh" in Gen 2 does not mean being absorbed into the authority of the other, but rather complete mutuality.
Paul's egalitarianism is well-evidenced by his expansion of Ex 21:10 —
Here the command is to the husband to have sexual relations with his first wife. Paul expands the command to require women to have sex with their husbands, in reliance on the earlier, broader principle of Genesis 2.
I agree with Keith that seeing this as a mere matter of duty and command misunderstands God's intentions — and the means of having a good marriage. But Paul was writing against a rabbinic background that spoke in those terms. His point, I think, was to counsel spouses that sex in marriage is not only permissible but also necessary and important. He didn't mean to turn either spouse into the sex slave of the other.
Interesting discussion….. But irrelevant in God 's kingdom…. If beleiver's are in Christ…. Walking in the spirit… Humbly before God… As they interact with the body of Christ in grace… Lovingly with peace in mind… We should understant that the biggest responsability lays on the man's shoulder. The comand to love trumps the one to submit…. In love as shown by Christ is complete selflessness mixed with mercy and grace. No matter if the wife submits or not. it is not meant to encourage ruthless and docile interactions within a marriage. The man loves to feel strong and capable. So I go out of my way as a wife to make sure my husband feels I respect him and he showers me with patient love. Wether submission is mutualy exclussive or only one sided is just a lot of rhetorics…. The key for me to a successful marriage is to have sex all the time…. Unless the couple choses to spend the time fasting and in prayer. I say endulge in the physical union and the emotions will follow. kingdom living is to accept whaever situation we are in knowing that when we surrender to God, He will use us and our situation for his glory…. Before I was married he rule was to wait for sex until marriage… Now that I am married the rule… And Paul makes it clear my husband and I have to gave sex. It's sad that so many people live in an sexless marriages. If we all were living in our position in Christ we would not be worried that our spouse would be treating us wrong or even act out from past hurts fearing intimacy… But faith that God's love magicaly fills any gap in our flimsy self esteem allows us humans to let go of what we think we deserve and freely give of ouserlves in our marriages and with the world.