Under this title, Andrew Bartlett looks at Colossians 3 and Ephesian 5 in his book. He suggests that in relation to these passages, we should address three questions, disputed by commentators.
1.Does Paul teach in these letters that marriage is a hierarchical relationship in which the husband is in a position of unilateral authority over the wife? This involves deciding what Paul means when he says that the husband is ‘head’ over his wife (Ephesians 5:23).[1]
2. Is the wife’s submission one way or does Paul envision mutual submission of husbands and wives as in 1 Corinthians 7:3-5? .[2]
3. Does Paul teach a complementarian view of marriage in which husbands and wives have differentiated responsibilities or is his view fully egalitarian with no such distinction?” .[3]
He then goes on to identify the range of answers given. Interestingly, he offers three complementarian views -and even then, I would argue that there is more complexity, depending on what exactly he means. However, his diagram only offers one egalitarian position. Although he acknowledges there is greater complexity is there, the diagram itself gives the impression of more uniformity on the egalitatarian side. I think it would be helpful to flesh out those egalitarian differences and nuances.
One of the reasons as to why I think that a conversation is possible is that there are differences and nuances within egalitarianism both in terms of the answers reached and the methodology used. I believe that the reason he treats egalitarianism homogenously is partly because he conflates soft complementarianism with soft egalitarianism. I personally find it helpful to think of a spectrum which on the one extreme has those who completely deny any equality between the sexes and at the other one that denies any true distinction between them. In fact, it might be argued that those two extremes offer something distinct again, you cannot really regard a pure hierarchicalist as representative of complementarianism any more than you can treat a pure interchangeability as properly representative of egalitarianism.
Let’s have a look at those questions
- Headship, hierarchy and authority
Once again we again meet that phrase “unilateral authority” which isn’t a phrase that I am familiar with complementarians tending to use. In fact, Bartlett notes elsewhere that Grudem says that he prefers not to use the word “authority.”
Now, some complementarians do talk in terms of what we might term unilateral authority, though they are more likely to describe it in terms of an asymmetrical relationship Yet, this is only one view among a number among complementarians. Even with those who argue against mutual submission in theory, the practice, in the UK would be a long way from a kind of patriarchal situation where the husband/father dictated decisions without consultation. So, it seems to me that the question is more to do with what “headship” means and whether Christian marriages are meant to be asymmetric when it comes to authority relationships.
Hence, a significant proportion of the discussion in egalitarian literature tends to focus on what the word kephale means. Is it to do with authority, leadership and hierarchy? Bartlett gives attention to this too.[4]
The primary argument advanced from an egalitarian perspective is that kephale is not to do with authority and was not, in Greco-Roman times used as a metaphor for leadership. Instead, it is suggested that it refers to the head or source of a river from which life flows out. Wayne Grudem of course countered this with a pretty exhaustive word study and argued that its usage in reference to “source” was rare. Gruden also has argued that we need to focus in on the word usage and meaning at the time the New Testament was being written whereas the word may have developed and changed over the long period of Greek linguistic history.
There are problems with wooden word studies, though they are not completely without merit, especially when they challenge the conventional wisdom about what amounts to common usage. However, I agree that the best way to establish a word’s meaning is by looking at its usage in its specific context. So, he argues that we need to look at how the word is used in Ephesians 4:15-16
“15 Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. 16 From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.”
I would like to make two observations here. First, in so far as we talk about head/kephale a metaphor, this shouldn’t be taken to mean that the metaphor works narrowly so that head either means authority or source. Rather, the point is that the word can either be used to refer technically to the part of the human body which contains the brain or to a geographical position on a river. The image of either a body or a river is then used metaphorically not to represent authority or life source but to portray an entity. So, in the New Testament, and especially in the context of Ephesians 4:15-16, it is as Bartlett also observes, the head and body image that Paul has in mind. This is also clearly the case in Ephesians 5.
Secondly, when we talk about context, we are not simply thinking about how a word is used adjacently. If so, then in any case we must consider that the prior use of “head” before Ephesians 4 is a reference to authority in Ephesians 1:22.
Instead, what we need to be looking at is the immediate context, the text itself and doing the work of exegesis on the passage. When we come to Ephesians 5:22, it is worth remembering that this is an application that flows out of a lengthy thought, which Paul begins back in 15. He urges his readers to be wise in their thinking and living and then goes on to insist that they need to “be filled with the Spirit.” There then follows a string of participles showing the results of the imperative to be filled with the Spirit which culminates in “submitting to one another.” It’s then that Paul says: “wives to husbands” (note the verb is inferred).
Wives submitting to their husbands is an application of what it means to be filled with the Spirit. Now, this is itself contrasted with the warning not to be “drunk on wine.” In other words, you can either be under the influence and control of alcohol or you can be under the influence and control of the Spirit.
This of course means that the Spirit’s relationship to the believer is life giving, we owe our life to the one who has regenerated us but it also means that we submit to the Spirit and so there is an aspect of authority there too. He shapes. Influences and directs Authority and source are not in conflict, they link together.
I want to suggest that in each usage that we find in Ephesians that is the case too. We are not meant to debate over whether kephale means authority or source, rather we are meant to see that the word points us to both authority and life giver. Perhaps even the idea that we can separate them is modern. I would add that this is also true when thinking about the head of the river, it is the source of the river’s life but that also means it shapes, directs, influences and controls the river as well. Therefore, I would suggest that in all three cases where kephale is used in Ephesians that we should not attempt to evacuate the sense of either authority or life source from its meaning. Note that this means that whilst we most immediately see Ephesians 1:22 in terms of Christ’s pre-eminence and authority, v23 talks in terms of the body being
“the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.”
Given the build up of all that God has given us in Christ through his redemptive work and the focus on this being through his blood early in the chapter, this I believe should be seen in terms of life source language.[5]
Incidentally, whilst I note that some complementarians, even hard complementarians, shy away from using the word authority and prefer “leadership”, my gut is to keep using the word “authority”. This is because “leader” actually places greater emphasis on hierarchy. It also feels to me like a word that belongs more in the business world than the family. I’m not even so keen on using it in church life. I think that people shy away from “authority” because they associate it with power. However, the point about the word is that it reflects legitimacy and what someone is authorised or has the authority to do. Authority therefore can be positional when held by someone in the hierarchy but can be process auth toority when it reflects a person’s responsibility, there may also be expert authority and a kind of charismatic authority which is to do with someone’s ability to influence through personality.
However, this does mean a couple of things. First, it means that authority does not reside exclusively with the husband, even if we do hold to a hierarchical view. Secondly, it adds another reason to caution when interpreting the word. I personally, evn as a complementarian would be cautious about replacing it with leadership or authority and simply keeping the word “head” in application.
However, there is a further aspect to this if unilateral authority means asymmetrical or unreciprocated. The question then is whether or not there is a distinction in role between husbands and wives and whether that relates directly to headship.
That is why I think it is crucial to note that whilst Ephesians 5:21 sets the context as “submitting to one another”, which as I have explained elsewhere, I do (along with plenty of other complementarians and with some significant people throughout church history including John Calvin) take this to have a sense of mutual submission including within marriage, it describesd what husbands and wives do differently. Wives are to submit to their husbands, later they are told to fear or revere them. Husbands are to sacrificially love their wives. Wives are to act to their husbands as to the Lord. Husbands are to follow the Lord’s example.
This same pattern of wives submitting and husbands loving is also found in Colossians 3, in that case it is without the additional context of mutual submission and the reasoning is dropped. So, Colossians does not mention the husband’s headship nor the example of Christ giving his life for the church. Is this because Paul is making a different point? Perhaps, but it is more likely that either Colossians summarises Ephesians or Ephesians expands on Colossians.
If so, then this is significant because it seems reasonable then to assume that mutual submission, the headship of the husband and the example of Christ as saviour of the church is implicit in Colossians and would have been understood to be by its early readers.
This perhaps helps us again to see the problem with 1 Corintihans 7 and the argument from silence that because Paul doesn’t mention certain things there that they are not rlevant.
- Two way or one way submission?
Fascinatingly, we find on the first pages of chapter 3 an example of how ordering his material starting with 1 Corinthians unavoidably shapes the argument. Andrew overtly makes the link back to 1 Corinthians 7 when asking whether or not there is mutual submission
This is important because I would argue that the case for mutual submission is self-evident in the text, by reference to verse 21. However, what this also means is two things. First, that mutual submission does not rule our headship, nor does it mean that the nature of that submission is symmetrical. AS Bartlett notes “he tells wives to submit, husbands to love.”[6] I sometimes suggest that the command could be summed up as “husbands love your wives. Wives, let them.
- Is Paul teaching an egalitarian or complementarian position?
I wonder given that the labels are late 20th century terms that, whilst not in the case of complementarianism “novel” still are shaped by cultural context, whether the wording is right. What I mean is that perhaps it is anachronistic to say that “Paul teaches a complementarian or an egalitarian view.” Rather, we might want to talk in terms of whether those views offer a good fit with his teaching and if one is a better fit than the other.
Bartlett takes the view that “none of his three questions can be definitely answered from Colossians.”[7] I am personally more confident that they can be, or at least, the thrust of the questions can be answered, perhaps with some rewording and certainly by lookin at Colossians 3 and 5 together.
So, when we come to Ephesians 5, the crucial additional information is that the husband os head and that we are to submit to each other. I believe that this points to a relationship where husbands and wives submit to each other as equals in Christ. This submission looks different in terms of how a man is to submit and how the woman is to submit. The submission is in the context of a kind of order where the husband is head.
I think then that it would be difficult to argue that Egalitarian positions offer a close fit with Colossians 3 and Ephesians 5. This is because whilst the incorporate the relevant data concerning mutuality and equality, they fail to effectively engage with the data on headship and asymmetry. I think that Andrew recognises this throughout his book and is perhaps why he deems reluctant to embrace the egalitarian label himself.
Certain forms of complementarianism incorporate headship and asymmetry into their models. I do wonder at times whether complementarians, in their eagerness not tlose the sense of authority from kephale don’t capture the full richness of its meaning. At the same time those forms of complementarianism simply do not properly incorporate, and in fact reject mutuality. I think this is why, although they do seek to incorporate equality, many people strulggle to see it in their models.
However, because there are multiple complementarian models, I do think that there is a form of complementarianism which, teaching mutual submission within the context of male/husband headship, does offer a good fit with Paul’s teaching.
In my next post, I intend to revisit Ephesians 6 and Colossians 3 and offer an exposition of the passages to model how a complementarian from my perspective understands them.
[1] Andrew Bartlett, Men and women in Christ, 32.
[2] Andrew Bartlett, Men and women in Christ, 32.
[3] Andrew Bartlett, Men and women in Christ, 32.
[4] See Bartlett, Men and Women in Christ, 51-52.
[5] Consider the reasoning for not eating meat with blood in it post the flood was that life is in the blood.
[6] Andrew Bartlett, Men and women in Christ, 40.
[7] Andrew Bartlett, Men and Women in Christ, 42.
Faithroots 