Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Husband, Give yourself up for your Wife

Biblical teaching demolishes current complementarian interpretation concerning the husband being the “head of the wife.” Instead of stating that a husband is to be the authority over his wife, the Bible states the opposite. It is the reasoning of man that imposes an authority definition upon the words “head” and “submit.”

Ephesians 5:25 Husbands love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.

Just how much giving of himself is a husband to do? He is to do it “even as” Christ loved and gave himself for the church. Strong’s #2531 says this is
just (or inasmuch) as, that:—according to, (according, even) as, how, when.
So husbands are to love and give themselves for their wives “just as,” “according to," “according as,” “even as,” “how,” “inasmuch as,” Christ loved and gave himself for the church. Notice that the passage does not say a husband is to be an authority over his wife as Christ was and is over the church. That side of Christ’s job description is not mentioned at all in relation of husbands to wives. Instead loving and giving are the focus. Those are the specific ways that husbands are to be toward their wives.

Now that we know that husbands are to love and give themselves up like Jesus did, what does it mean to give oneself up? According to Strong’s # 3860, give, "paradidomi," means
to surrender, i.e. yield up, intrust, transmit:—betray, bring forth, cast, commit, deliver (up), give (over, up) hazard, put in prison, recommend.
So a husband is to surrender himself, yield up himself, intrust himself to his wife, transmit himself (I get the idea of transmitting himself into the power of another like Saul transmitted Christians to the government and to prison and death—namely he is to transmit himself to his wife), betray himself, bring forth himself, cast himself, commit himself, deliver up himself, give over or give up himself, put himself in prison, put himself in hazard, recommend himself (as giving himself over.)

I fail to see any authority in this whatsoever, except the authority he has over himself, with which he gives himself up for his wife.

This surrendering to the point of betraying, imprisoning and putting himself in hazard, is beyond submission. This is more like submitting “no matter what,” like submitting even to the betraying of himself, the imprisoning of himself, and to putting himself in a hazardous position.

This surrender and committing of self has nothing to do with demanding submission from his wife, or with demanding submission from all wives to their husbands in general, or even in teaching wifely submission. It is beyond selflessness toward his wife.

It is literally laying down his life for his wife. It brings to mind Romans 12:1 “I beseech you therefore, brethren…that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice.” It is literally when husband and wife disagree, the husband is to choose his wife’s preference instead of his own. He is to lay down what is in his own best interests and instead do and aim for what will benefit his wife.

Even if the complementarians are right, and a husband’s position of “head” gives him the right to make the final decision, scripture commands that he give up his will and his way in favor of his wife’s will, way, and intuition, and in favor of her benefit. This is the position most complementarians, along with men of the world, would consider as wimpy or passive.

But the Bible considers this kind of behavior as active. It is active love and consideration of another above one’s own self. It is a love so deep it cares for the other more than it cares for oneself. It is what makes a boy a man.


Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel,"a story about a woman who grapples with her husband's demands that she submit--no matter what. Please visit www.wanetadawn.com

13 comments:

  1. Great insight!

    I checked that "delivering up" verb from Eph 5:25 in the interlinear. It is in the ACTIVE voice. While the "is subject" applying to the wife in Eph 5:24 is in the PASSIVE voice. I think the difference in voice is intentional and of HUGE significance in understanding the teaching. See “Wives [Subject] to Their Own Husbands in Everything” Ephesians 5:24

    ReplyDelete
  2. Charis,
    Your study is fascinating! And it makes so much sense. In the KJV, "so LET the wives be to their own husbands in everything," the let is added.

    I personally had difficulty with this, since I facilitated the batterers education program, where we were taught that it is not correct to say that a man "let" or "allowed" his female partner do something. In that instance it implies he has the power to restrict her freedom, yet it is used in the passive sense. IE, he sat back and let her go, rather than getting up and restraining her.

    Using a passive word, when they are trying to tell wives to actively submit doesn't make sense. Since I am a fiction writer who is very conscious to only use passive verb forms when the character is indeed passive and being done to, this stood out to me. But I didn't think of researching it like you did.

    The way many teach Eph 5:24 would be similar to saying a phrase like "the wife was being beaten," had the meaning, "wives, do everything you can to get yourselves beaten."

    This also addresses the problem in Eph. 5:33 where "See" and "her" are added to change the meaning from passive to active. It should read, "Nevertheless, let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife that she reverence husband."

    When husband "lets" love flow to his wife, and stops halting it with bitterness, false blaming, & etc, he ends up being the one responsible for and even in control of provoking the reverence and awe his wife feels and acts out toward him.

    One woman commented that she did not care for the statement of the character Michael in the movie "Fireproof:"

    “A woman’s like a rose.
    If you treat her right, she’ll bloom.
    If you don’t, she’ll wilt.”

    should not be true. A wife should have more control over herself than that. She does have a point. Yet, it takes a HUGE effort on her part to avoid wilting in response to a tongue lashing or beating of any kind from her husband. Wives do tend to submit (react accordingly) to whatever behavior their husbands dish out. And the phenomenon IS passive on the part of wives.

    Thanks for your careful study, Charis!

    ReplyDelete
  3. "A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger." Prov 15:1

    In the case of an abusive husband, when he lashes his wife with his tongue, if she replies with a soft answer, he frequently becomes MORE angry, not less angry.

    Could this passive vs active voice in Ephesians have something to do with this? If the husband actively dishes out a tongue lashing, he is looking for a passive (wilting) response from his wife. When she refuses to wilt and gives a soft answer, instead, it increases his anger, because it shows he has not been effective in forcing her to submit to him. Therefore, he sinfully doubles his efforts to force subjection.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Some well thought out things based on good biblical analysis!

    I think there are certain things built in by God to our human nature from the Creation:

    (1) Men tend to have a wandering eye and desire to control. They want to look lovely women over, but don't want another man to look over their own lovely women. This is a man's kind of jealousy, envy, greed.

    I always asked myself when tempted, "If I should chase any skirt, would I be willing to allow my wife to do the same?" My answer was always, "NO!" so why should I allow myself something not allowed emotionally for her.

    In other words, what is good for the goose should be good for the gander. If it will destroy my relationship, that is a high price to pay for lust and greed.

    (2) Women, on the other hand, have a built in desire for security and nurturing of children. If they go after men more for security sake than love, then trouble is ahead.

    Too many women let jealousy take over their lives. Sometimes it is jealousy that children might get more love from daddy than they do.

    Living with the same woman for 42 years has given me the insight that women have trouble approaching many interpersonal issues straight up. The lady who is most offensive to my wife at work because she is lazy and caniving gets "the look!" I tell my wife it would be better to look her in the eye and say, "I am doing my job and you do yours. Stop running your mouth with patients and wasting time so you have no time to do your job of handling the files of the Therapists. I refuse to do your job for you!"

    "The look" will never get the message across, and the boss is a wuss for not dealing with a non-productive employee who puts a damper on an otherwise efficient Physical Therapy practice. She needs to be more direct with him as well so he knows there is a serious issue.

    (3) The beauty of our personal relationship is that we don't let things fester long. If there are problems, we admit to them and are willing to work on making things better as a man / woman team.

    The result is that I have a 60 year old wife who does not look a day over 40. She walks with her head held up and a sense of self worth that causes men to turn their heads!

    That is OK because it compliments me a a husband who knows how to love his wife and meet her needs. I have no worry she will stray because I trust and love her dearly. She knows where the grass is green and has no need to keep jumping over the emotional fence in search of the love that is missing in too many relationships.

    We are as poor now as we have ever been because my business is suffering with the economy. Despite all this we have something no amount of money can buy--love and trust along with working together to make what little we have go further. Our children and grandchildren are our wealth and we thank God for being millionaires.

    Too much these days is made of looks / things / surgeries to make us look even better. When the body begins to loose its natural youthful look on the outside, a young and vibrant inner self shines through. I have met a few people, both men and women, who are 90 in body, but 20 in outlook. Those are the attractive and real people I want to be around!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Very good post, Waneta. And much needed.

    How many of us have heard preachers go on and on and on about what submission really means with definitions and shamings while what 'giving yourself up' is mentioned in passing if at all?

    Three times in the Proverbs it says that God HATES a false balance (Pr 11:1 & 20:10&23). And this "obsession with submission, dismissal of givingselfup" is one huge false balance and an abomination to the Lord.

    Keep up the good, balancing words.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wow, that is exactly what Joel and Kathy Davisson teach in their marriage ministry, but in different words. The rightly explain the husband as head meaning "source" and they go on to say that a wife responds to her husband with no effort on her part,i.e. if he is resentful she will respond defensively, if he is gentle she will respond with gentleness herself.

    I just don't remember them ever having scripture to support this reality. I'm going to send them this link!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Shadowspring,
    welcome to my blog! And thank you for your comments. You are right, the husband "giving himself up" does give scriptural support to the Davisson's teaching.

    Adding to your examples: if the husband is selfish, the wife tends to respond with selfishness to protect herself and often the children. If he chews her out, she either wilts, defends herself, or attacks him back. If he ignores her during the day and then expects to use her in bed at night, she will become resentful.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "(1) Men tend to have a wandering eye and desire to control. They want to look lovely women over, but don't want another man to look over their own lovely women. This is a man's kind of jealousy, envy, greed."

    Gene, why are men this way? Why the desire to control? Why the desire for other women? I suppose its a matter of the heart? But that doesn't fully explain it to me.

    I mean, my desire (when I was married) was for a deep, close relationship with my husband. I wanted to listen and to be heard. I wanted mutual respect and working for the satisfaction of the other. Only after he had been a jerk for quite a long time did I even THINK of looking to another man for solace. And then it was because I wanted solace, not s*x.

    I suppose a person could say that wanting a close relationship is a type of lust, a type of putting someone else ahead of God. Yet the usual antidote is to love God more, not to love the other person less.

    What is with men? Why the lust? Why the lust for power over their wves? What feeling do they think they will have when they gain the other woman, or when they gain control of their wives? According to Dr. Phil, when we want something badly, we actually want whatever it is we imagine we will feel when we achieve the desire of our hearts. Often there is aother way to achieve that feeling.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Three times in the Proverbs it says that God HATES a false balance (Pr 11:1 & 20:10&23). And this "obsession with submission, dismissal of givingselfup" is one huge false balance and an abomination to the Lord."

    Mara,
    By bringing the above verse to our attention, you add weight to everything I say on this blog. The false balance is indeed what the whole problem is. If they would teach husbands to love their wives and give themselves up for their wives at least as much as they teach wives to submit, and if the whole church held husbands as accountable as they do wives, domestic abuse in Christian families would begin to dwindle down to nothing. Although it may take several generations to completely get rid of it. And I would fully expect a backlash from wives, because women have been held in bondage for so many years.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Speaking of backlash, Waneta. I may be totally wrong on this and completely admit that this is my opinion.

    Sometimes I wonder if Paul added that wives should submit because back in the day, the men DID have all the power. And back then, there had to be a lot of wounded, bitter women who WOULD take advantage of a man laying his life down like it would be paybacks for all the lording over he did before. So Paul HAD to add it for the sake of giving men some breathing room in order to work out what the heck this laying down of his life is supposed to look like.

    Paul wasn't trying to say the man or the woman is in power. He was trying to promote what Jesus said about learning to be servants of all.
    Women already knew how to be servants. The men had a lot to learn about being servants where women were concerned.

    Just a thought.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Sometimes I wonder if Paul added that wives should submit because back in the day, the men DID have all the power. And back then, there had to be a lot of wounded, bitter women who WOULD take advantage of a man laying his life down like it would be paybacks for all the lording over he did before. So Paul HAD to add it for the sake of giving men some breathing room in order to work out what the heck this laying down of his life is supposed to look like."

    Mara,
    You bring up an interesting point, which reminds me that Paul usually didn't write a command about something people were already doing. Wives were already submitting and husbands were already masters of their wives.
    I think you are right; if Paul had not told wives to submit, many of them would have trampled all over their husbands.

    Notice also that he mentions wife submission first. My understanding of the day is that Paul's letters were read aloud to the congregation. Christianity was new. How many husbands would have stopped listening if Paul had started with 'Husbands love your wives," and told wives to submit last? How many would have angrily decided Christianity was not for them?

    Because our laws today limit male power, we may not fully grasp the power and privilege males had in Jesus's and in Paul's day. Wives were mere property. They had little to no respect. They could not be witnesses in court. They did not sit in the main santuary of the synagog, but instead were off to the side, out of view of the men. They had little to no control over their own lives, over their own futures--unless their fathers or husbands gave them that control. Their fathers arranged their marriages, their husbands dictated after that. As I mentioned in a previous post, with a culture like that, it is amazing that the angel came to Mary, and not to her father or husband.

    I think Paul knew the new Christian males would not easily give up their power and privilege. So he explained what kind of attitude they were to have--like that of Jesus. But he said it AFTER he had already told wives to submit, so their minds would not be busy defending their privileges and authority "rights."

    ReplyDelete
  12. Wanetta Dawn, you have done a great job of showing what kind of activity Paul is admonishing husbands in this latest post.

    "This surrender and committing of self has nothing to do with demanding submission from his wife, or with demanding submission from all wives to their husbands in general, or even in teaching wifely submission. It is beyond selflessness toward his wife. "

    What is so often missed by others is that Paul is admonishing the same attitude for all believers toward each other, including wives to husbands, parents to children, children to parents (as much as a child can comprehend). We are to be selfless toward each other, loving passionately as Christ loved us. (Ephe. 5:1-2 coupled with Ephe. 5:21)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Welcome to my blog, believer333!

    "We are to be selfless toward each other, loving passionately as Christ loved us. (Ephe. 5:1-2 coupled with Ephe. 5:21)"

    You say it so well. Selfless, and with an active passionate love for others--like Christ loves us.

    ReplyDelete