The Biblical Design for Marriage: The Creation, Distortion and Redemption of Equality, Differentiation, Unity and Complementarity

Paul A. Twelker
Professor Emeritus of Psychology
Trinity College
Trinity International University

Chapter 6: Equality and Subjection

The Relationship of Husband and Wife after the Fall

I do not say that it is the function of women to pray, work the land, and fight; they are married to those who pray, work the land, and fight; and they serve them.

Bishop Gilbert of Limerick (Duby, 1978)

There has been endless discussion on the question of whether or not God established a new normative pattern for the relationship of husband and wife after the Fall. These discussions center on the consequences of sin as described in Genesis 3:

Yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you (Gen: 3:26).

There are three major viewpoints.

• First, after the Fall, God established a new normative pattern characterized by subordination rather than equality (Gen. 3:16).
• Second, God simply informed the man and woman of the consequences of sin, thus allowing us to interpret the passage in a way that places subordination of women as a distortion and a corruption of the original plan.
• Third, the equality of man and woman is a given, but there is role differentiation that implies a subordination, not of worth or person, but of tasks.

The three viewpoints begin with the assumption of the equality of the sexes as originally created. There is nothing in the first Genesis creation narrative that would suggest otherwise:

Then God said, "Let us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them (Gen. 1:26-27).

It is clear from an examination of this first creation narrative that God created mankind as male and female, and gave dominion over the earth "to them", thus implying intellectual equality, if not equality in decision making. Both were created in the image of God, hence implying equality in the spiritual realm. Carlson (1978) states that in this narrative, "the emphasis is on togetherness and partnership...oneness, unity and fellowship". Williams (1981) states that the Creation narrative "helps explain the unity of mankind and guarantees the dignity and equality" because the woman was not made of an inferior substance. The unity is between man and woman, and mankind with God.

It is also clear from the creation narrative that there are differences in nature between men and women. There are obvious physical differences because God created mankind in two sexes, thus allowing for procreation as well as companionship. But there are psychological (cognitive and emotional) and social differences as well, stemming from a very complex interaction between biology, parental influence, education, birth order, and cultural conditioning by society, the media and history (Gray, 1992). Gray clearly calls for men and women to remember their differences:

Without the awareness that we are supposed to be different, men and women are at odds with each other. We usually become angry or frustrated with the opposite sex because we have forgotten this important truth. We expect the opposite sex to be more like ourselves. We desire them to "want what we want" and "feel the way we do" (Gray, 1992, pg. 10).

Julius Fritze states that the denial of real differences between men and women, or the affirmation that differences are due only to societal influences, has been common through history. He points to the educational system as the one institution that has done much harm by not recognizing these differences. He affirms that:

a man and a woman are basically psychologically different. These differences are innate. They are not the result of convention, custom, training, or public opinion. The actuating of these traits may vary from society to society; however, the basic traits are the same and the thread of these differences runs through every society in history as well as at the present time. An attempt to change men and women, or a desire to rationalize the differences and act accordingly, would violate all creation and its basic design (Fritze, 1969, pg. 47).

Culver (1986) reviewed reports of primary research in biological anthropology, psychobiology, social psychology, genetics and social anthropology, and concluded that the feminist ideal of androgyny is unsupportable and that there exist genetically determined differences between the sexes. The research on newborn infants reveals that "infant females act and respond as females and males as males" before any socialization could influence behavior.

Gray describes the basic differences: men value power, competence, efficiency and achievement while women value love, communication, beauty and relationships. Men's sense of identity comes through their ability to achieve results while women's sense of identity is through her feelings and the quality of her relationships. Julius Fritze (1978) asserts that, basically, men are logical, rational creatures while women are emotional creatures. Hugh Davey Evans, in a book dating back to 1870, states that although self-love is found equally among men and women, benevolence is stronger in women while malevolence is stronger in men. In women, imagination predominates while in men, logic predominates. These differences are but a fraction of those listed by each author, and serve to point up the fact that observations have been rather consistent over the last century.

DeJong and Wilson (1979) summarize the conclusions that they draw from the first Creation narrative:

• that sexual differentiation is a result of the original creative act of God,
• that God distinguished mankind, male and female, from the rest of creation by creating mankind in the image of God, and
• that males and females alike participate in that image so that there is no differentiation between the sexes in the essential quality of humanness. Furthermore, nothing in these verses supports the notion of an essential difference between men and women that would warrant any type of a relationship between them other than one of equality (DeJong and Wilson, 1979, pg. 126).

Ross (1985) suggests that there is no need in the Genesis narrative to discuss headship since Adam and Eve were a spiritual unity. Since they were living without sin, there would be no need for instruction on this issue. This viewpoint is consistent with the principle that the Bible progressively reveals truth.

Moynihan (1985) argues in the same way when he asserts that the first creation account (Gen. 1: 2-28) gives no hint of role distinctions or subordination: male and female are equal before God. However, he states that the Fall devastated this harmony and order established by God, and the resulting social inequalities were a result of this event and did not represent any plan of God.

Lorne Carlson contends that because mankind is created in God's image, that allows for differences between male and female while affirming equality.

To draw the conclusion that female is in subordination to male is to neglect the Imago Dei teaching (Carlson, 1978, pg. 16).

Hall (1989) argues that the first creation narrative is concerned with the relationship of man and woman to God, and His rule over creation. Therefore, it is important that the verses in this narrative not be used in an attempt to inform us of how man and woman relate to each other, the subject of the second Creation narrative. Hall maintains that what the first Creation narrative reveals is that men and women are complete and separate equals.

They are each created in the image of God, not as a team, but individually "created He them"...Man and woman are equals as created beings (an equality of essence), and men and women are different (role distinction). But it can't be logically deduced that woman is therefore subordinate (Hall, 1989, pg. 7-8).

Thielicke (1964) also contends that the first Creation narrative contains:

"no indication whatsoever of any distinction of rank between man. The threefold reference to God's "creating" in verse 27 leaves no room for any distinction of value. Both, man and woman, are equally immediate to the Creator and his act. Furthermore, both together receive (v. 28) the blessing as well as the command to subdue the earth (1:28f.) (Thielicke, 1864, pg. 7).

The second creation narrative in Genesis (2:18-25) poses more problems. Williams (1981) strongly affirms the concept of equality as biblical. However, he sees the differentiation between the sexes (mainly physical and biological) as connoting a role differentiation where:

God has provided for the provision and protection of the weaker sex through His role requirements for the stronger sex. This is primarily seen in the marriage relationship, but is also present in society in general because no role assigned by God is completely shed in the psychological and sociological dimensions of our lives...Being weaker does not mean being inferior (Williams, 1981, pg. 224).

Williams asserts that the subjection of women to men, with respect to their role (not their person), originates in the creation account as part of God's creative order. Here are some of his reasons:

• Adam was created first, which, according to Williams, implies a subordinate role of women;
• Eve was created as a helper to Adam, implying a subordination of role in the context of Gen. 2: 18-25;
• Eve was created from the side of Adam, thus implying her subjection;

Does Adam's creation first suggest a hierarchy? Hall (1989) suggests that there is a purpose and a meaning in the creation of man first, which has to do with God's "order" or "system" or "condition or state in general". In the context of Chapter 1, which established the created order of equality (of essence), a study of Chapter 2 reveals an indication of role, which has to do with "either a character in a performance or a 'function or office assumed by someone'". It is important to realize that this chronological ordering occurs before the Fall. According to Hall, the purpose of God's creating man and woman chronologically was to allow time for Adam to see his need for woman, a view expounded centuries ago by the ancient rabbis, as was discussed earlier. As such, subordination or inequality are simply not seen in this Creation account. The only thing that can be said here is that within the ordering of equality, roles can exist.

As was discussed earlier, Terrien's ideas on the "architectural building" of the woman contains no hint of inequality since "sexual differentiation is justified by sexual union." Further, some might argue that the nature of the woman's creation was superior to that of the man since woman was created out of living material. In the same vein, some might argue that since creation progressed from the lower to the higher life forms, the creation of the woman represented the highest act since she was last. DeJong and Wilson (1979) state that Adam's response in seeing the woman can be taken as evidence that he saw no difference in value or worth (Gen. 2:23).

It is easy to see how a society can move to a point where first born connotes superiority. Even if equality is assumed by all parties, and this is hardly a guarantee, perceptions about equality may differ significantly among the parties. I was born an identical twin by caesarian section. The doctor had a choice in which baby to deliver first-- my brother's leg was handier so he was delivered first and given the name, "John". I was delivered a minute later and given the name, "Paul". Through my early years, I always heard, "John and Paul, come here" or "John and Paul, behave yourselves". Gifts were usually handed out in alphabetical order. I grew up believing I was number two, even though my parents said they loved us equally. Their alphabetical naming of us contributed to my misperception. Further, my name, meaning small, gave me the perception that I was in second place. (It did not help that my "older" brother was slightly taller and heavier than I.) Had I been born in another culture or another time, I would have been in second place with respect to the inheritance. Psychologist Augustus Napier relates a situation where a middle-aged client stated that he saw his older brother at Thanksgiving. What is interesting and amusing is that the older brother was his identical twin, born only twenty minutes earlier. Perceptions of hierarchical relationships are perhaps unavoidable, considering our tendencies to distort reality to meet our basic needs. Besides the emotional basis for the tendency of forming relationship hierarchies, Napier (1988) hints that there might even be a genetic basis as well.

Many cultures place a premium on being born first. In light of this, and our tendency to develop relationship hierarchies, it is little wonder that some theologians interpret Adam's being created first as having privileges of rank. From my personal perspective, warped as it is from being "second delivered" and growing up in second place, it hardly seems consistent with the design of God!

In early Israelite culture, the first-born had certain rights, such as the privilege of being married off first (cf., Gen. 29:26) and receiving the inheritance. Yet, God's way was remarkably different than man's way. The birthright, slated to go to Reuben, Jacob's first son by Leah, went to Joseph instead. And in Jacob's dying days, when he blesses Joseph's two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, he switches his hands so that the right hand was on Ephraim, who was the younger (Gen. 48:14-20). In this simple act, Jacob revealed that the younger brother would be greater than the older. Being first born does not guarantee hierarchical superiority!

Does Eve's creation as a helper suggest a hierarchy? Williams points out that the word, "helper":

does not suggest that the woman is merely an inferior servant of the man, but that she is an equal who has been created by God to correspond especially to man as his mate. The animals had a specially created mate to correspond to them and God ordained it so that man would have the proper helper also (Williams, 1981, pg. 29).

Brown, Driver, and Briggs (1907) state that negeath, the Hebrew word for helper, connotes a correspondence to the man that is equal and adequate to the man. In contrast, Evans (1870) brings out the idea that the woman is "fit" for the man, "but no idea of equality is implied". Evans allows "near-equality" only in the sphere of companionship; the roles of helper and advisor or counselor denote a subordinate and unequal position:

...woman is the complement, or completion, of man's nature. Her subordination implies inequality; but a qualified inequality, which exists in some respects and not in others, and which is nowhere very great (Evans, 1870, pg. 54).

Adams (1980) indicates that the word connotes a meaning of Eve as the other half (not better half) of Adam, a counterpart that approximates or corresponds to Adam in every way. Further, the word, "helper", cannot imply inferiority since it is used of God as being the helper of man (Ex. 18: 4; Deut. 33: 7, 26; Psalm 33: 20; 70: 50; 115: 9, 10, 11) (cf., Williams, 1981; Terrien, 1976; Gundry, 1980).

Hocking (1984) disagrees with the notion that the term, "helper", cannot denote subordination simply because it is used to refer to God's help. He points out that the term refers to a human helper, not a divine helper. He quotes George Knight (1977) who asks,

Cannot a word...have a different nuance when applied to God than it does when applied to humans? (Knight, 1977, pg. 43).

Hocking further maintains that the term, "suitable for him" (Gen. 2:18) is better rendered "alongside him" or "corresponding to him" which indicates the complementary role of woman in a marriage relationship. This, for Hocking, implies subordination of the woman to the man in order that the dominion covenant might be fulfilled. This subordination is in function, not essence, where there is equality.

"Complementarity" implies an equality, a correspondence between man and woman. It also implies a difference. Woman complements man in a way that makes her a helper to him. Her role is not identical to his. Their complementarity allows them to be a partnership in which each needs the other, because each provides something different from what the other provides. The partnership of man and woman is based upon a community of nature and an interdependence due to a complementarity of role. That partnership and sameness of nature, both of which together make possible the creation of a race of people, are the central concerns of Genesis 2 (Clark, 1980, pg. 23).

Yee (1990) provides some helpful insights with respect to the role of Eve as corresponding helper. God gave man responsibilities to tend the Garden and "keep the Limit". The responsibilities clearly allow the man:

to discern and order the world as his own, as a vice regent over it. The man's role in the world carries with it real authority and freedom to exercise on behalf of the Lord God ...the account does not present these responsibilities and privileges as rigid boundaries defining the man's life. Instead, the account portrays the man as a genuinely free being who has the authority to make choices on his own behalf, living as he pleases as long as he keeps his responsibilities to tend the garden and observe the Limit. He is capable of making meaningful decisions about how he will live his life. The world is truly his to roam and to enjoy (Yee, 1990, pg. 19).

Wojcik (1968) provides us with two fascinating insights concerning equality. First, the Hebrew words for husband, ish, and wife, ishshah, are the same word with but one difference: the word for wife has a feminine ending. He maintains that this illustrates the unity of marriage, where the only difference is that of gender. Second, the woman is called "wife" or "woman". Adam does not give her a name as he had done with the animals. Wojcik speculates that names were given to the animals by Adam because he had dominion over them, while he did not name the woman because there was no domination of one over the other in Eden. In any event, the woman was not named Eve until after the Fall where Adam begins to assumes dominion over the woman. This is by no means a universally accepted explanation. Williams (1981) makes the observation that Adam named the woman Eve in response to God's promise that the seed of the woman would triumph (Gen. 3:15).

Now the man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living (Gen. 3:20).

It is obvious from the Genesis narrative that man is a social creature. As mentioned in an earlier section, we usually take this to mean that the man was lonely. Leupold (1956, pg. 133) states that Adam's review of all the animals was not staged by God to help Adam find a mate from among them, but to help arouse in him a realization of loneliness. Jay Adams bluntly states that the reason for marriage, based on Gen. 2:18, is to solve the problem of loneliness (Adams, 1980, pg. 8). He goes on to state that the essence of marriage is companionship:

God made most of us so that we would be lonely without an intimate companion with whom to live. God provided Eve not only (or even primarily) as Adam's helper (though help is also one dimension of companionship) but as his companion (Adams, 1980, pg. 11).

Beck (1978) indicates that the emphasis of the second Creation narrative is not on the superiority of the male, but on:

• the fact that his temporary aloneness was a clear demonstration of how unsatisfactory is was for man to be by himself. Together man and woman had the potential for fellowship and oneness which otherwise would be beyond their reach (Beck, 178, pg. 144).

It is interesting to note that the narrative does not specifically allude to loneliness. Instead, the passage reads, "It is not good for the man to be alone" (Gen. 2:18). Clark (1980) points out that the second Creation narrative "portrays the dominion responsibilities of man and his inadequacy to accomplish those responsibilities alone" (pg. 78-79). North states that:

• Adam worked before he married. His definition of himself was set in reference to his subordination to God and the covenant of dominion. Man's work is fundamental to his very being. Eve was given to him within the framework of his calling or vocation before God. The family has its meaning in terms of the covenant of dominion (North, 1982, pg. 85).

North adds that marriage is intended to be subordinate to, and finds its purpose within, the covenant of dominion. North observes that since Adam was provided with a helper only after demonstrating skills in his calling, the calling of man is basic to, and antecedent to marriage. One practical implication is that wives are to be selected in terms of the man's calling.

North's views are consistent with those of Yee (1990) who reminds us that the Genesis Creation narrative is set in the context of enjoying the benefits of the privileges and bearing the burden of the responsibilities with a helper, specifically a kind of help "according to the opposite of him" or having "an equal bearing with him the moral responsibility of keeping the Limit and so enabling him to avoid death" (Yee, 1990, pg. 21-22). Yee alludes to this relationship later as "one flesh", a term which he states must minimally involve the mutual enjoyment of the privileges of being human, created in the image of God, as well as the mutual responsibility of keeping the Limit, or keeping the other out of harm's way.

However, as Adams (1980) points out, the close union (or relationship) is at the heart of companionship:

• A companion is one whom you are intimately united in thoughts, goals, plans, efforts (and, in the case of marriage), bodies (Adams, 1980, pg. 11-12).

Adams points to Mal. 2:14 as illustrating the concept of marriage as companionship:

• ...the Lord has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant.

However, scholars such as North leave little room for the companionship aspect of marriage.

• Marriage was originally intended to be grounded in the covenant of dominion, not in mutual (sexual) attraction of men and women, and not even on the needs of human beings to reproduce (North, 1984, pg. 91).

In another place, North states that "the heart of man's being is not his sexuality...(but) his calling before God" (pg. 90). Hocking (1984) extends this theme to say that the married couple's primary responsibility and foremost commitment is to Jesus Christ and the effectual promotion of the Kingdom.

• In light of this priority, a Christian should be slow to initiate a marriage relationship. He needs to carefully consider whether he will be able to live with his wife in a way that is compatible with God's Kingdom priorities. The only legitimate reason why a Christian should contemplate marriage is the conviction that status is necessary in order to most effectively advance the Kingdom of God (Hocking, 1984, pg. 85).

Hocking places the priority of the Kingdom ahead of any priorities related to relationship.

These three aspects, marriage as companionship, marriage as partnership in moral responsibility, and marriage as partnership in dominion, are not inconsistent with each other. These ideas help us understand the broad meanings of "helper". Scholars such as Hocking, North and Yee are helpful in reminding us that marriage is more than the establishment of a relationship for the purpose of relieving loneliness. As the Westminister Confession reminds us, man's chief end is to serve and glorify God. Unfortunately, societies, and individuals in these societies, operating under the curse of sin, can easily distort marriage to the point of overemphasizing one of these aspects to the exclusion of the others, or distort marriage by subverting helping with connotations of subordination and inequality.

Does Eve's creation out of Adam's side teach subjection? Williams gives no clue as to why he believes this is so, and I will refrain from venturing a guess. From the insights of Yee, this could be taken as evidence of equality. Symbolically, the woman's creation from Adam's side might imply that she was to serve along side of the man, indicating equality. Adam recognized this equality when he exclaimed, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh."

DeJong and Wilson (1979) suggest that the phrase indicates a blood relationship, hence an equality of being (cf., Vos, 1968). I would suggest that an equally likely interpretation would be that the blood relationship connotes unity in addition to equality. Smith (1903), in his classic study of kinship in early Arabia, defines what is meant by a blood relationship:

• ...a share in the common blood which is taken to flow in the veins of every member of a tribe--in one word, it is the tribal bond which knits men of the same group together and gives them common duties and responsibilities from which no member of the group can withdraw (Smith, 1903, pg. 27).

The duties and responsibilities of a blood relationship extended to covenant allies. Two groups that promised to stand by each other took upon them the duties of common blood-feud, and participated in a sacred ceremony where they commingled their blood.

Here we see the very ancient use of blood to seal a covenant. Incidentally, it is interesting to note in that the earliest tradition, the covenant makers licked or tasted one another's blood. It is possible that the meaning of Jesus' words were obvious to his disciples because they knew this tradition:

• Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves...He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him (John 6: 53, 56).

I believe that unity is illustrated when one member's blood was spilled, and the tribesmen said, "our blood was spilled." It is also illustrated by the blood-feud where a slain man may be avenged by any member of his clan on any member of the slain man's clan. For the unity of the clan, all must act together. Smith refers to the old Semitic principle, "the life of flesh is in the blood" (Lev. 17:11).

• The whole kindred conceives itself as having a single life, just as in the formula "our blood has been spilt" it speaks of itself as having but one blood in its veins (Smith, 1903, pg. 46).

DeJong and Wilson (1979) suggest that from the creation narratives, three dominant themes emerge: equality, differentiation, and unity. They find no reason to infer a superiority-inferiority hierarchy from the second creation narrative:

• All these attempts to find a superiority-inferiority relationship of man and woman in Genesis 2 appear to require of the narrative a meaning that is either completely foreign to it or at the very most peripheral to its essential meaning. The attempts reflect more the biases of the interpreters than the message of Scripture.

These authors do, however, suggest that most likely there would have been a task differentiation in society, even if no sin had occurred. They point to the consequences of the sexual differences that God created. There would be different reproductive roles, different nurturing roles, and different labor roles regarding hunting, building, and so forth. But, DeJong and Wilson reject the notion that there would be a link between division of labor and a hierarchical structure.

In summary, the two Creation narratives give little basis for stating that God built in a hierarchy, with man on top, and women on bottom, by design. What is emphasized in Genesis 1 and 2 is unity, oneness, intimacy,fellowship and equality in creation. Both male and female are created in the image of God to relate together as complementary and appropriate partners.

The Relationship of the Fall to Subordination of Women

Other reasons have been advanced to show why the teaching that woman is to subject herself to man begins in the Genesis narration:

• God places the man in charge of the Garden and commands the man not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2: 15-17) (DeJong and Wilson, 1979);
• the Lord God calls to Adam and asks, "Where are you?", implying a headship of Adam;
• the woman's sin involved disobeying God and tempting her husband, while "the man's sin involved letting the wife lead him to sin (Genesis 3: 17). This teaches that it is God's will for the woman to obey the husband as God's appointed leader" (Williams, 1981, pg. 228).

Alexander (1981) represents those scholars who see accountability for and authority over in headship as the result of the Fall:

• The first marriage that God established illustrates this fact. After the pair sinned, God did not summon both Adam and Eve to give account as coequals in responsibility. He summoned the husband as if to say, "You are the responsible partner in your marriage, and I am calling you to give an account.

Hall (1989) emphatically states that the Genesis passage regarding the consequences of the Fall reveals no reason for a change in essence. In other words, man and woman are still equal. What does change are some aspects of role, including increased pain in childbirth, problems in providing food for the family, and so forth, all reflecting a corrupted state. The original commands to rule, fill and subdue, given to both the man and the woman, did not change significantly. What changed in the Fall was mankind's spiritual relationship and physical fellowship with God.

Thielicke (1964) makes a provocative point in relation to the change that occurred as a result of the Fall: the domination of the man is the result of the desire of the woman. I assume that he draws this conclusion from the order of the prognostic curse spoken by God in Gen. 3:16. He states that this consequence of the Fall indicates that sexuality has lost its original form:

• Whereas originally its purpose, in conformity with the common origin of both man and woman, was to maintain this original unity and make them "one flesh" (Gen. 1:24), now it is promised that the sexes will be "against" each other and the question is who shall triumph and who shall be subjugated. Now libido-thralldom on the one hand and despotism on the other constitute a terrible correspondency (Thielicke, 1964, pg. 8).

Thielicke speaks here of sexuality in relation to what it means to be male and female in relation to one another.

DeJong and Wilson suggest that the hierarchy that arose quickly after the expulsion from the Garden of Eden was the result of the loss of a proper relationship with God. The result was the loss of the:

• "original harmonious relationship to all aspects of his experience...From this point in history women began to experience a subordination that was not part of the creation order. This subordination was at times vicious and at times benign, but only rarely absent (DeJong and Holmes, 1979, pg. 134).

Carlson (1978) indicates that the rulership mentioned in Gen. 3:16 is a severe rule of the husband over the wife, as indicated by a strong noun. If this were a prescriptive judgment of God upon women, then everything we know from scripture about the way in which Jesus relates as Head to His bride, the Church, which represents love and leadership through servanthood, would be inconsistent with the prescription.

Wojcik (1968) points out that as a result of the Fall, woman was no longer a partner, but now was under man's dominion. Woman now becomes a sex object: the whole complexion of the one-flesh union was shattered. Coexistence replaced union. He points out that all women after Eve became powerless and no longer equal with men. Up to Genesis 5, women are mentioned in the genealogies. After Genesis 4, the names of women were dropped.

Smith presents a strong case for concluding that in early Arabia, female kinship preceded male kinship, and that "all over Arabia the rule of female kinship must gradually have given way to a rule of male kinship..." (Smith, 1903, pg. 36). Further, Smith claims that all later Arabic marriages under the system of male kinship were characterized by the wife losing rights and the husband gaining authority over her. In this kind of marriage, where the husband (baal) is called the woman's "lord" or "owner" or "husband of marital dominion", Smith proposes an interesting name: a baal marriage or marriage of dominion. Whether these marriages were constituted by contract or by capture, the end result was similar: "the contract brought the woman into the same condition as a captive slave" (Smith, 1903, pg. 94). Only one difference separated the wife and a slave: the wife could not be sold in the slave market. This deplorable situation led one writer to say,

• Marriage is nothing but bondage, so a man should consider who receives his darling [kar ma] as his bondservant (Smith, 1903, pg. 95).

Smith goes on to assert that the bride price was the inducement that was necessary for a woman's family to give her up. It should be noted that there was one factor that checked marital tyranny and preserved some personal dignity for the woman, and that was her family still recognized blood obligations toward her. Strictly speaking the husband did not own the woman herself, but only the right to live with her and obtain children by her. Although the husband exercised full control over his wife, the wife's family could intervene if things got out of hand.

In both Israelite and Arabic traditions, there is evidence of the gradual loss of women's rights through the ages. The woman's role shifts from partner to property. Smith contends that baal marriage, "once introduced...tended to lower the position of women" (Smith, 1903, pg. 127). Further, he states that baal marriage gradually superseded other types of marriage where the woman had more equality. One important factor was that:

• ...men wanted sons who should be theirs, and not belong to their wife's kin (Smith, 1903, pg.128).

Here again we see distortion in relationship in that now, in a sense, the children are thought of as being owned.

James Olthuis states the results of the Fall upon male-female relations in a starkly descriptive way:

• With the Fall, intimacy became a curse instead of a blessing, oneness meant vulnerability, dependence felt like defenselessness, and mutuality turned into hostility. Fearing the expose of their hearts' intent, man and woman covered up in order to keep a safe distance from each other, and together they tried to hide from God...Sin distorted the relation between man and woman from a helping-and-needing-each-other bi-unity to a denying-and-hindering-each-other disunity (Olthuis, 1975, pg. 9).

The prophet Hosea alludes to these two roles of women as partner or property:

• "And it will come about in that day," declares the Lord, that you will call Me Ishi (my husband) and will no longer call Me Baali (my master or my Baal). For I will remove the names of the Baals from her mouth so that they will be mentioned (remembered) by their names no more. (Hosea 2:16)

In this passage, God changes the rules so that Israel considers her relationship with God, not as a slave looks upon her master, but as a wife looks upon a loving and protecting husband. The passage that follows (Hosea 2:18-21) powerfully speaks of God making a covenant with Israel (and the whole of nature for that matter), where harmony will be restored, where war will be banished, where Israel will feel secure, where righteousness, justice, lovingkindness, compassion, and faithfulness are characteristics of the relationship, and where Israel will "know the Lord." Further, the prophecy goes on to include Gentiles in this covenant relationship (cf., Rom. 9:25-26; I Peter 2:10).

The scholars cited above all speak of the toll of sin on human relationship as if the consequences were the natural result of sin, not the result of a new structure imposed by God. In other words, it seems that the curse spoken of in Gen. 3:16 is prognostic, not prescriptive. This view is not universal. Beck (1978) admits that God originally designed marriage to exhibit equality and oneness, but sin brought with it the need for structure, a framework on which roles of husband and wife, the distribution of power, and the formal operations of marriage rest. Beck clearly states that this structure was imposed by God because of sin, but that it was:

• no closer to God's heart than are weeds and thistles, also part of man's curse. All who promise a male-dominant marital structure as "the way God intended it" should be fair enough to add "but only because of sin" (Beck, 1978, pg. 144).

The language of Gen. 3:14-16 clearly denotes God as an active agent in bringing about certain changes in the marital relationship. On this basis, one could say that God changed the structure of the relationship. However, the active role seems limited to God increasing pain in childbirth. The woman's desire for her husband, and the husband's rulership over the wife could be considered as passive consequences of the new state of affairs, i.e., spiritual death (cf., I Cor. 15:22). Prior to the Fall, man and woman ruled over the earth. After the Fall, when this rulership was frustrated (cf., Gen. 3:17-19), the man turned his attention to that which could be ruled, his wife. This rulership was made possible for the man by the synchronous change in the woman that allowed this sort of rulership to become established. Both changes occurred, both as a result of a loss (spiritual life) and a gain (the sin nature [cf., Rom. 7:18-20]).

Williams (1981) indicates that the desire for the husband is linked to the previous statement concerning pain in childbirth. One might jump to conclusions and relegate desire to a mere sexual attraction that was stronger than the fear and risk of childbirth, but this interpretation ignores the possibility that an emotional turning toward the husband could also be stronger than any fear of childbirth. Gaddini (1984) admits that the meaning of the term, desire, is ambiguous. He indicates that it could either mean to please, delight, joyfully crave, or desire jealously, or on the other hand, to drive, herd, impel, as one would a prisoner or cattle. Gaddini suggests that the desire spoken of here is probably not sexual. I will examine this issue in more detail in the next section.

Using only the Genesis narrative as a basis of a theology of equality and subjection, three possibilities seem to stand out. First, equality is a given, as well as the headship of man, but this principle was not revealed because there was no need for this instruction. Second, equality is a given, as is headship, but the quality of headship changed dramatically as a result of the Fall. Third, equality is a given but headship and submission were not a part of God's original plan for husband and wife. It is important to note that all three explanations presume equality of man and woman. I propose that it is not possible on the basis of the Creation and Fall narratives to satisfactorily select one option that represents absolute truth. Since the Bible progressively reveals truth, it would be foolish to settle on one of the three options at this point. Suffice it to say, scholars down through the ages have used these Old Testament scriptures to illustrate a variety of "truths", many far-fetched and ludicrous. Admittedly, equality has been a precious commodity through the ages; hence, the gospel message of reconciliation between Jew and Gentile, slave and free, man and woman, proclaims that in Christ, we are indeed new creations that are capable of unity.

• For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothes yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:26-28).

Union in Christ does away with sources of alienation and separation and subordination, whether these sources arise from nationality, social status or sexuality. DeJong and Wilson make it clear that:

• this verse doesn't mean that such differences will cease to exist among Christians; what it means is they will not separate people out for different treatment or recognition in Christ. In other words, believers' oneness in Christ supersedes their human differences. Yet the differences will continue to exist, and consequently the different roles will continue to exist (DeJong and Wilson, 1979, pg. 137).

No one would argue the point that mankind's sinful nature distorts relationships. Just how sin distorts is of pertinence to our discussion here.

The Distortion of Sin and its Effect on Relationship

Sarah Hurty (1992), in a provocative paper entitled "The Essence of Sin", suggests that pride is the central characteristic of sin. Throughout the Bible, pride is condemned (e.g., Prov. 16:5; James 4:6; Prov. 3:34; Is. 2:12). But Hurty goes further by suggesting that self-definition is at the heart of pride, and that is the basis of sin:

• The essence of pride is self-definition. It is a disposition of spirit which says, I will define for myself who I am. It is an attitude that cause us to refuse to accept whatever is true, especially about ourselves. We create in our minds an image of who we are or who we wish to be, and then we set out to convince ourselves and everyone else that we are truly what we claim to be. By willfully defining for ourselves who we are, we set ourselves up as God (Hurty, 1992, pg. 2)

The lie that the first man and woman believed was that they could function independently of God. This attitude of independence is what is at the heart of sin and self-definition (cf., Thomas, 1964). Once we act out this independence in self-definition, it is easy to move on to the next step. We define God Himself as well as concepts such as sin, right living, truth, all in service to our redefined self-image. Hurty states that there are two basic ways pride is manifested: arrogance and insecurity.

• Arrogance seeks to assert self-image. When we are arrogant, we are seeking glory for whoever we have defined ourselves to be...And we often act arrogantly to guard our self-image when there is some threat that we may not be who we have decided we are (Hurty, 1992, pg 3).

Insecurity, Hurty maintains, is the flip side of arrogance:

• They may act weak and self-debasing in order to receive what they are really seeking--affirmation of their self-image. They may even enter relationships in which they are very dependent in order to gain from the other person the affirmation they desire (Hurty, 1992, pg. 4)

Hurty points out that in our society, it is more acceptable for men to be arrogant and women to be insecure. I would maintain that this is true down through the ages, and this is aptly described in Gen. 3:16. Here, we see that the penalty of sin involves the woman turning toward the man in dependence for her self-image while the man asserts his independence in the form of subordinating and ruling the woman. Both are manifestations of sin, the root of which is pride. DeJong and Wilson (1972) suggest that the "desire" mentioned in Gen. 3:16 may refer to:

• eagerness to please the man--that is, to seek to continue the harmonious relationship of husband and wife that they had experienced before they sinned (DeJong & Wilson, 1972, pg. 133).

The problem with this eagerness to please is that it neglects to acknowledge the woman's true identity, and simply acts to safeguard the self-image she has created for herself. The net result is that she becomes isolated, lonely and insecure. In essence, a vicious circle is established with pride being at the root. Regardless of what the woman does, the husband will continually seek to extend his sphere of influence over the woman until she finds her sphere of authority truncated to the point that she is ruled over. Obviously, the man did not possess this type of authority in the beginning.

Emil Brunner states that men and woman are so different that they even sin differently. Brunner's thoughts parallel those of Hurty. King Tak Ip summarizes Brunner's theology of differentiation this way:

• Man sins on the side of freedom. He is arbitrary, dominating, masterful and arrogant. He objectifies everything. He is the destroyer. His sin "is generally speaking so violent and obvious that he has less difficulty than the woman in admitting that he is a sinner." The sin of woman is that she abandons her freedom. She adapts rather than rebels against evil. She is falsely bound. (Ip, 1988, pg. 36).

Augustus Napier also speaks of the difference between men and women:

• The roles that encourage male narcissism and enforce female self-denial are of mythic proportions: they loom large through history, and they are communicated to us in subtle and not-so-subtle cues which we begin to absorb from our earliest days. Males have a right to get what they want, while females must deny and sacrifice their needs (Napier, 1988, pg. 79).

The ideas of Hurty and Brunner and Napier are consistent with those of Gray (1992), Fritze (1969) and Evans (1870) who I quoted earlier. Men resist being corrected or told what to do because that undermines their perception of competence. Women are more concerned with living in harmony and relationship. I would not want to leave you with the mistaken impression that these roles are always consistent. All of these authors would agree that patterns of narcissism and self-denial tend to be sex-typed, but there are always exceptions.

In summary, I have suggested that from the perspective of the Old Testament, the three concepts of equality, differentiation and unity are dominant as we examine the Genesis creation narrative. I have also suggested that pride, which manifests itself as self-definition and usually takes the form of either arrogance or insecurity, is at the heart of the distorted relationship between husband and wife. However, since the Bible progressively reveals truth, it is impossible to stop here in our search for answers to the questions posed at the beginning of this section. Now we will turn to several New Testament passages that speak to the marital relationship between husband and wife.

Headship and Submission in the New Testament

Paul's letter to the church at Ephesus focuses on the main theme of unity:

• He made known to us the mystery of His will...the summing up of all things in Christ...(Eph. 1:9-10).

Jews and Greeks are united in Christ in a community of believers because Christ Himself "made both groups onto one, thus establishing peace" (Eph. 2:11-16; 3:6). Note the specific words used in vs. 15:

• in Himself He might make the two into one new man (Eph. 2:15).

Köstenberger (1991) puts it this way: "Jews and Gentiles are 'reconciled both in one body.'"

He quotes John Stott, who writes:

• To sum up, we may say that the "mystery of Christ" is the complete union of Jews and Gentiles with each other through the union of both with Christ. It is this double union, with Christ and with each other, which was the substance of the "mystery" (Stott, 1979).

Individuals are gifted to demonstrate unity (Eph. 4:4-13). Note that it is individuals, not the united entity, that is gifted. The purpose of the gifting is to allow individuals to "attain to the unity of the faith" that is positionally or conceptually theirs but experientially has yet to be attained. One of the key factors in seeing this unity come to pass is to lay aside "the futility" of the mind (lack of understanding, falsehoods, crooked thinking, and ignorance) and seek truth (Eph. 4:25). This truth certainly must involve our true identity in Christ. Returning to Hurty's ideas, individuals must stop defining for themselves who they are, which is a manifestation of pride, and embrace truth. What is the truth? We are new creatures in Christ who "lay aside the old self" and "put on the new self" (Eph. 4:22-24). Our primary identity is who we are in Christ. Because we are reconciled one to another and the barrier walls are down, we regard one another as more important than ourselves (Phil. 2:3). This results in a change in the way we perceive others so that now we look out for their interests. Why? Because now we are one with them. Further, we take our clue from Christ's attitude toward God, in that:

• although He existed in the form (very nature) of God, (He) did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bondservant...humbled Himself by becoming obedient..." (Phil. 2: 5-8).

The truth is seeing others as more important than ourselves because we see ourselves in light of what it means to be in Christ. Hurty states that:

• it is only the one who knows his identity who has strength to attend to the reality of others and truly serve them...

  The one who is proud is continually defending himself, hiding in relationships, claiming his rights, seeking honor for himself to serve his self-image. To the extent that one knows the whole truth about himself, he is free to love and serve others, even to death, as did Jesus (Hurty, 1992, pg. 6).

Returning to Ephesians, we see that the truth is also manifested in being "subject to one another" (Eph. 5:21). The word, "submission", is a very negative word in our culture since it is linked with slavery, inferiority, and subordination. The Greek word for submission is a military term meaning "to place or rank under" (Lewis (1983; Boyer, 1986)). However, Boyer points out that the common Koine usage of the term is not in reference to marital relationships, but to civic, literary or military contexts. In these contexts, the meaning of the term ranges from a forced, involuntary submission to a voluntary surrender of freedom. Boyer states that the voice of the verb and its immediate context are two determining factors that help establish its meaning in the Ephesians context. He concludes that submission in Eph. 5:21 refers to a voluntary response of yielding to another. Further, he asserts that the term, "one another" denotes a mutual reciprocal process that allows individuals to serve one another in a mutual way. In this context, the purpose is to allow the body of Christ to function effectively. Boyer goes so far as to state that humility is a synonym for subordination. Thus,

• ...it becomes possible for husbands to submit to their wives, elders to submit to their flocks, parents to submit to their children and for masters to submit to their slaves (Boyer, 1986, pg. 30).

Boyer expands this notion of serving one another to include two perspectives:

• Humility is the attitude held toward another in relationships, placing the other person in a higher position. Subordination is the attitude held toward oneself in a relationship, that of placing oneself in a secondary, or lower position. Submitting is placing individual needs and purposes in a secondary position below those of another (Boyer, 1986, pg. 30).

This would be similar to the example of Christ's submission to the Father. In light of the principle of equality described earlier, the term can hardly be taken as something degrading, as in the sense of being a slave. The reason is that the motivation for submission is "in the fear of Christ", or in "reverence or awe at the greatness of His being and His works" (Boyer, 1986, pg. 32). This reverence is not limited to holding some emotional attitude toward God, but demands a life style consistent with this attitude. These life style behaviors, according to Boyer, include worship and obedience, in the sense of being "aware with awe of one's own dependent position within God's cosmic order" (Boyer, 1986. pg. 34). This order is nothing less than that mentioned in Ep. 5:21: all believers are to be servants of one another. Boyer summarizes Eph. 5:21 in this way: it is

• an attitude of voluntary submission or servanthood to all believers out of a reverent dependence on the wisdom and order established by Christ, knowing His ways to be best (Boyer, 1986, pg. 35).

Note that the order alluded to by Boyer has nothing to do with authority.

It is imperative to recognize the context in which submission takes place. All Christians are called to "be subject to one another in the fear (or reverence) of Christ" (Eph. 5:21). The reason is to allow unity to be exhibited or lived out in daily life. No one can lord it over another. Jews cannot dominate Greeks. Husbands cannot dominate wives.

There is considerable support for the views expressed concerning submission. Simpson and Bruce (1977) state that the subjection that is called for, in its most basic form, is that of "surrendering one's own rights in recognition of another's" (Simpson and Bruce, 1977). Carlson (1978) indicates that the subordination spoken of by Paul speaks of a free, responsible and voluntary action that does not involve any elimination or breaking of the will. Williams points out that the word also denotes obedience, but in this context, self-surrender is a better meaning since :

• Paul certainly does not mean for everyone to obey everyone else. Total confusion would result. Rather each is to submit to their proper place within the body of believers and the world (Williams, 1981, pg. 165).

DeJong and Wilson claim that the submitting that is spoken of in Eph. 5:21 and these other passages refers to being selfless:

• ...seeking to serve others rather than oneself regardless of one's role or standing in the social system. In its context, which is an exhortation to unity, this verse (Eph. 5:21) seems to mean that each person is to submit himself or herself in a serving way by faithfully fulfilling his or her particular role in the society, so that the unity that should characterize the body of Jesus Christ can be achieved (DeJong and Wilson, 1979, pg. 145).

The Apostle Paul speaks of this type of self-surrender in two other passages:

• Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind let each of you regard one another as more important than himself (Phil. 2:3).

  ...all of you, clothe yourself with humility toward one another, for God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble (I Peter 5:5).

Beck (1978) talks of this new emphasis as a shift in focus from structure to process. That is, whereas man and woman struggled with "a sin-cursed marital structure, void of love and understanding", now on the basis of Christ's redemptive and reconciling work on the Cross, the headship-submission structure is changed to a process which should characterize Christian marriage:

• (Paul's) emphasis is not on the husband assuming the place of a head but on doing the work of a head. He exhorts the woman not to take her "proper place" but to go about interacting with her husband in the spirit of Christian submission. In other words, Paul states that what is significant between a husband and a wife is not their roles but their relationship (Beck, 1978, pg. 145).

This idea of relationship replacing roles seems consistent with Paul's teaching of interdependence and complementarity in other letters to the church:

• Let the husband fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to the husband (I Cor. 7:3).

Williams (1981) points out that "fulfill" is in the present imperative tense, indicating that this duty is to be done continually. The "duty" that is spoken of here has been translated in other versions as "due benevolence" or "conjugal rights", obviously referring to sexual relations in marriage. Paul goes on to add that the reason this is a command is that:

• The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does (I Cor. 7:4).

A married couple give up or surrender voluntarily individual rights and assume equal rights over each other's bodies. Throughout this entire passage, equality is seen. The sexual nature of the woman is on par with that of the man. Both are subject to the same passions. Both have responsibility to the other. Note that Paul does not say that each partner has rights: the emphasis is on responsibility to fulfill a duty. To demand sexual rights would be contrary to everything the one flesh union stands for.

The idea of interdependence and complementarity is emphasized again by Paul later in his letter to the Corinthian church:

• ...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 (I Cor. 11:11-12).

In the Ephesians passage, Paul takes the principle of mutual self-surrender and applies it to the wife and then the husband. It is at this point that much misunderstanding has occurred. Some modern translations indicate a new paragraph at verse 22, thus encouraging readers to allow verses 22-24 to stand on their own. Beck (1978) makes a strong case for keeping the context of verse 21 clearly in mind as the two applications are discussed by Paul in verses 22-30. In fact, Beck suggests that the paragraph begins in verse 15, and that the primary verbal forms that govern the passage are in verse 15 ("be careful how you walk") and verse 18 (do not get drunk with wine...but be filled with the spirit"). The process or relationship between the husband and wife is primarily spiritual work related to being Spirit-filled. Keeping this context in mind, let us examine Paul's commands for the wife to submit and the husband to love.

The exhortation for wives to be subject to their husbands must be taken in the sense of mutual submission and self-surrender as discussed above. The reason is that in the best manuscripts, verse 22 is missing a verb. Translated literally, it reads:

• Wives, to your own husbands, as to the Lord (Eph. 5:22).

In some translations, the verb, "be subject" is in italics, indicating that the word is not found in the original translation. Boyer (1986) states that the closeness of the context demands that the meaning of submission not be changed.

• Paul is calling women to place themselves under their husband in the sense of service. At this point no mention of authority is implied, here the emphasis is service (Boyer., 1986, pg. 38).

The reason for this voluntary self-surrender in service is that it is a duty owed to Christ. Boyer maintains that the phrase, "as to the Lord" is best interpreted as, "because of".

The Apostle then introduces the concept of headship. Seaquist (1979) stresses that the words, "head" and "headship" are used in many contexts, thereby making it absolutely mandatory that the words not be isolated from their metaphorical literary purpose. For example, in the book of Ephesians, we see several different meanings when the words are used to describe Christ (Seaquist, 1979; Lewis, 1983). One use connotes an order of rank or Christ's position over the church (Col. 1:18; 2:19; Eph. 1:22). Another use connotes a source or origin, as one who joins and holds the church together (Eph. 4:15), or is a fountainhead or source of constant nourishment or guidance. Another use emphasizes authority (Eph. 1:22; 5:22-24; Col. 2:10), but this authority is tempered by the unselfish character of Christ's life, even to the point of sacrificing His life. Finally, "head" is used in the sense of capstone or cornerstone, which connotes prominence as well as a necessary entity that holds everything in proper perspective.

Boyer (1986) indicates that the best English equivalent of the term, which must capture both the concepts of leadership and origin, is the term initiator. Quoting John Baker's definition, he states that:

• the man "is the initiator and leader in the relationship and the woman is the responder" (Boyer, `986, pg. 42).

This headship is exemplified by the headship of Christ over the Church, and involves responsibility for the welfare of believers. There is no connotation of leadership by authority, coercion or force. It is motivated by purely sacrificial love for another person, even being savior of the body. Christ initiated the relationship with the believer and he continues to sustain the relationship. In fact, Barth (1960) states that Christ proves Himself head by his saving the Church.

Lewis (1983) points out that it is dangerous to take the analogy of Christ's headship too far when applying it to the husband. There is in fact a vast difference, in that only Christ is the savior of the church body. The husband is not called upon to be the savior of the wife.

• The headship of Christ over the church is based on His saving work and the church responds with grateful submission in light of what her head has done for her. The wife's submission to her husband arises out of conscious obedience to God who designed the marriage relationship (Lewis, 1983, pg. 26).

Paul calls the wife to be subject to her husband, imperfect as he is, just as the church is called to be submissive to Christ, perfect as He is. Once again, this submission is always in the context of equality and unity, and it always recognizes the difference between a husband, as imperfect, and Christ, as perfect. Further, the emphasis is on the wife's voluntary self-surrender, not the husband's demanding his wife to submit.

The key to the husband's headship. then, is in the roles of initiating and providing. Boyer points to the Creation narratives as supporting the notion of the origin of headship, namely in the order of creation and in making the woman the helper of the man. Paul cites the same narrative in I Cor. 11:3,8-9. But again, headship does not connote authority, but ministry to the wife that is motivated by her welfare being placed above that of the husband's own welfare. In other words, the husband by virtue of his headship actually places himself in second place to that of his wife. This is consistent with the same passage in I Corinthians where Paul reminds his readers of the interdependence of the husband and wife, where the order is reversed ("the man has his birth through the woman").

Just as the role of headship does not connote authority, so too the role does not connote inequality.

• The wife is equal to her husband in their spiritual position before Christ, which is the message of Galatians 3:28 and equal in value and importance as a person. She is also equal in that she too is to be the recipient of submission from her husband just as she is to submit to him (Boyer, 1986, pg. 45).

Just as the husband ministers to the wife in his role of head, the wife ministers to the husband by helping him develop the qualities of leadership.

• Submission for the wife is a ministry; it is not subjugation of her will to her husband's. Rather, it is determining what actions and responses to her husband will best help him in his leadership role. Thus submission for the wife is to allow the husband to function in this role. The submission of the husband is to be the type of head over the wife that Christ is over the church (Boyer, 1986, pg. 46).

When Paul compares the submission of the Church to Christ with the submission of the wife to the husband, he essentially introduces the subject of the next verse, "husbands, love your wives" (Eph. 5:25). The Church is not forced to submit to Christ, but responds to Christ's great love for the Church. So the Church seeks to place her wishes behind that of the head in self-surrender, respect and out of a deep sense of gratitude. Likewise, the wife responds to her husband in the same way.

• This submission is not unquestioning obedience and subjection, rather it is an attitude of servanthood which places the needs and desires of her husband above her own (Boyer, 1986, pg. 49).

Many preachers speak of an hierarchy of authority or relationship as ordained by God and suggested in such passages as I Cor. 11:3.

• God
• Christ
• Man
• Woman

Such a ranking speaks not of their relative dignity or worth (Is Christ any less than God? Or is woman any less created in the image of God than man?), but only of their job relations, responsibilities to each other and ultimately to God (Kaiser, 1976).

The use of the linear model to show the relationships omits a very crucial truth. Williams points out that:

• ...the submission of the wife is limited. She does not obey her husband in the absolute way she obeys Christ...the husband is not the absolute authority of the wife, for she has a direct relationship to the Lord also (Williams, 1981, pg. 166-167).

In other words, the degree of submission is limited by its context. Submission is limited by both the nature of the relation and the higher authority of God. In light of this truth, Kaiser's hierarchy does not adequately capture the true nature of subjection. Williams (1981) points out several limitations of subjection:

• the Old Testament teaches that the abuse of authority is sinful, and the woman should be protected when a man misuses authority;
• the Gospels teach that a person's relationship with God supersedes every other relationship, thus implying that a direct command from God takes precedence over a direct command from another;
• the Bible teaches that "God and Christ, being perfect and holy beings, can command absolute obedience. Man and woman, being sinful creatures, cannot command absolute obedience";
• the interdependence between the sexes limits the subjection of women.

This last point requires some elaboration, for it relates to the second half of Paul's commands in Eph. 5:21-33. The command of self-surrender on the part of the woman is balanced by the command of self-surrender on the part of the man (since all believers are to be subject to each other). The husband is to reciprocate self-surrender by showing love as demonstrated by Christ. In other words, the mutual subjection of believers which is characterized by self-surrender manifests itself differently in the husband and wife. Westcott explains it this way:

• The church offers to Christ the devotion of subjection, as the wife to the husband. Christ offers to the church the devotion of love, as the husband to the wife. Both are equal in self-surrender (Westcott, pg. 84).

Gregory Lewis attempts to portray the seriousness of this responsibility on the part of the husband:

• In case some of Paul's male readers think that they are kings of the family he goes on to explain the husband's overwhelming responsibility to love his wife with the same pure and godly qualities that Christ Himself expresses toward the church. Any pride or superiority the husband feels over his wife is quickly dashed to pieces when he comprehends a little of the great love of Christ for the church. Paul begins the Ephesians husbands on a divine assignment that will demand the length of their lives and beyond to understand the depth of love they are called to display to their wives (Lewis, 1983, pg. 28-29).

Lewis goes on to state that the instruction to husbands to love is much more forceful than the instruction given to wives to be subject to their husbands. The instruction to wives is in the indicative mood while the instruction to husbands is in the imperative mood. Recall that society in Paul's day had clearly placed the woman in a very low status. The Palestinian Jews and some segments of Greek and Roman society viewed women as inferior, weak, and similar to property. Jewish women were reluctant to marry and Greek women were virtual prisoners in their home. As I stated earlier, the wife is to respond to her husband, as to the Lord, which places the responsibility onto the husband to be that person to whom the wife can respond. Since Paul commands the husband to love their wife, it is obvious that the wife is responding to the love shown by her husband, just as believers respond to the grace and love of Christ.

The example of Christ as shown by His actions and attitudes toward His disciples and others He came into contact with is what the husband is called to emulate. Frank Stagg observes that this involves no less than a radical subordination of the husband to the wife (Stagg, 1977). For example, Jesus washes the feet of His disciples who were called to serve Him (John 13:1-11). Jesus Himself stated that:

• You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not so among you, but whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many (Matt. 20:27-28).

The crux of the matter is this: when a husband loves his wife, that is, he shows caring behaviors and holds attitudes of respect toward his wife, the hierarchy is turned topsy-turvy. The wife is placed in a position of extreme importance. The husband, in effect, says, "You are the most important thing in my life." This is precisely why the New Testament stresses humility to such a great extent:

• ...make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose. Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind let each of you regard one another as more important than himself; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, also for the interests of others (Phil. 2:2-4).

  ...I say to every man among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so far as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith (Rom. 12:3).

  Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation (Rom. 12:16).

Jesus clearly recognizes social positions of leadership and authority. But he also clearly denounces the world's way of exercising leadership. Lording it over subordinates and exercising authority over others is not Jesus' way. The social position is not at stake here; rather, it is the way in which authority and leadership is exercised. Jesus says that whoever wishes to be first, that is, to be in the one-up position, shall have the attitudes and behaviors of one who is last. It is interesting to note that the last position Jesus refers to is that of a slave. Then Jesus clearly puts Himself in the position of servant, and ultimately Savior (Matt. 20:28).

Matthew gives us the key to selfless service in the very next passage. Two blind men were sitting by the side of the road, and Jesus stopped. His question exemplifies the self-surrender that Paul calls from husbands:

• What do you want Me to do for you? (Matt. 20: 32).

When the blind men asked that their sight be given to them, the scripture states that Jesus was moved with compassion and answered their request.

Walters (1979) lists eleven expressions of servanthood that are pertinent to our discussion here as they highlight the qualities that husbands should strive for in their relationships with their wives. The servant:

• Has concern for the character and reputation of God--a servant is guided by the revealed information about God, and how that information determines and influences their actions.
• Shows humble obedience to the will of God--a servant possesses the proper heart attitude of humility and love that leads to obedience and willing submission to the will of God.
• Exercises faith that compensates for the limited faith of others--a servant possesses scriptural information that he allows to affect his emotions and his mind in such a way that it results in action, so that others who are being served may be benefited.
• Accepts suffering--a servant relates suffering to the development of a Christlike character.
• Has a gracious forgiving spirit--a servant is able to pardon or dismiss debts incurred by someone's improper actions.
• Is not quarrelsome--a servant is alert to the likelihood of conflict, to the importance of prioritizing issues, and to the necessity of evaluating his own attitudes and relationships.
• Corrects error with gentle firmness--a servant discerns and speaks the truth lovingly.
• Possesses concern for the spiritual success of others--a servant has compassion for the whole person, an interest in seeing others walk in truth and be involved in character transformation, fulfillment and growth.
• Desires to communicate the truth--a servant possesses an active internal compulsion to transmit truthful information in a way that it can be intelligently acted upon.
• Practices moral purity--a servant understands his relationship to God, himself and others in a way that permeates the entire lifestyle.
• Is approachable--a servant has something to offer people in need and the personality traits and other qualities that foster a solicitation of help from others (e.g., kindness).

The command of Paul for husbands to love their wives (Eph. 5:25-20) is simply a part of submission because submission is yielding voluntarily to another person in love. Love is a very difficult concept to define, and it is even more difficult to practice. When evangelical writers try to simplify the concept of love by breaking it down into its several forms (eros, phileo and agape). they promote misconceptions. There are not pure varieties of love represented by each of the Greek words, nor is one kind superior to the other. The Bible presents phileo and agape love interchangeably. The important thing to note about love is that it involves the whole being, not simply the will or the intellect (cf., Hosea 11). The three Greek words in totality present a better image of what love is than three separate definitions. Dufek (1983) suggests that the New Testament meaning of love is not based on the definition of agape love as much as on the revelation of God Himself and His character. Dufek ends up defining love in this way:

• Love is the warm, affectionate response of the heart of one person toward another accompanied by willful action which results in personal benefit to the one so loved (Dufek, 1983, pg. 26).

The important thing to note in this definition is that love translates into practice. In the early Church, Christians were recognized by the love they showed to others. Tertullian, an early church father, expressed this love between a married couple in a beautiful passage entitled, "To His Wife":

• How beautiful, then, the marriage of two Christians, two who are one in hope, one in desire, one by the way of life they follow, one in the religion they practice. They are as brother and sister, both servants of the same Master. Nothing divides them, either in flesh or in spirit. They are, in very truth, two in one flesh; and where there is but one flesh there is also but one spirit. They pray together, they worship together, they fast together; instructing one another, encouraging one another, strengthening one another. Side by side they visit God's church and partake of God's banquet: side by side they face difficulties and persecution, share their consolations. they have no secrets from one another; they never shun each other's company; they never bring sorrow to each other's hearts...Hearing and seeing this, Christ rejoices (Tertullian, 1926, pg. 35-36).

This noble, uplifting passage on the relationship between man and wife is a far cry from the quotation by Bishop Gilbert of Limerick, cited at the beginning of this chapter, which stresses how wives submit to husbands whom they serve. On the other hand, Tertullian's words do not capture the work involved in mutual self-surrender, as does Mike Mason's commentary:

• Even the closest of couples will inevitably find themselves engaged in a struggle of wills, for marriage is a wild, audacious attempt at an almost impossible degree of cooperation between two powerful centers of self-assertion. Marriage cannot help being a crucible of conflict, a crucible in which these two wills must be melted down and purified and made to conform...Marriage turns out to be through and through an act of acquiescence, a willing compliance both with God and with one other person, in the difficult process of one's own subdual and mortification...one's own self cannot and must not emerge as the winner of this struggle (Mason, 1985, pg. 139).

Mason refers to marriage as a contest involving "'one-downmanship', a backwards tug-of-war between two wills determined not to win." This very apt description gives meaning to what is involved in the unity that couples reveal to others, as expressed in Tertullian's words. I cannot leave our discussion of the Ephesians passage without returning to Paul's emphasis on unity. I pointed out above that when Paul talks about the reconciliation between Jew and Greek, he uses the phrase, "make the two into one new man" (Eph. 2:15). Now Paul introduces the concept of "the two shall become one flesh" (Eph. 5:31) and now he is speaking, first of all, of the husband and wife union, and second, the union between Christ and the church. Richard Batey points out that this one flesh union is characterized by each partner possessing the body of the other, and:

• an identification of each partner with the other so that when one partner suffered the other was filled with anxiety. The desire to care for and please each other was so great that loyalty and devotion to Christ could be hindered (I. Cor. 7:32-35) (Batey, 1966-67, pg. 278).

Everything that is involved in the one-flesh union concept precludes the husband domineering the wife. The two commands of Paul, "Wives, be subject to your husbands..." and, "Husbands, love your wives..." will lead to much confusion if they are interpreted without any reference to;

• male and female He created them (equality and differentiation)
• they will become one flesh (unity)

Köstenberger (1991) is emphatic here:

• ...it is important to recognize that Paul's teaching on headship and submission is given in the larger framework of his theology of the breaking down of old barriers and the restoration of united relationships. In that sense, then, there is "neither Jew nor Greek, neither male nor female" in God's new community.

If God had meant for husbands to rule and dominate their wives, (interpreting Gen. 3:16 as a prescription, not a description), then Paul would have commanded husbands to do just that. However, from our discussion of the Jewish, Greek and Roman cultures, that would have been ludicrous. The last thing Paul needed was to remind the husbands of his day to exert more domination. The status of women was already low, and the society was already in enough turmoil. If God had intended wives to turn to their husbands for fulfillment and identity and self-valuation, thus revealing to the husband their insecurity, then Paul would have commanded wives to think and act as if they weak and self-debasing and codependent. Again, in light of what we know of the status of women in Paul's time, this would have been ludicrous.

In many churches today, the command for wives to be submissive is taken to mean that husbands are free, if not commanded, to act as authorities and dominate wives. And the command for husbands to love their wives is taken to mean that wives are the weaker sex to whom husbands are to give compassion and aid. Unwittingly, both sexes are placed into the distortion alluded to in Genesis:

• Yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you (Gen. 3:16).

DeJong and Wilson summarize this particular way of thinking:

• This approach emphasizes such expressions as "the husband is the head of the wife" and "a wife should submit unto her husband in everything." Men and women are viewed as fundamentally different with respect to decision-making authority. Supporters of this viewpoint also point out that the relationship of the wife and the husband is parallel to the relationship of the church and Christ. Christ is the head of the church; the husband is the head of the wife. The church's responsibility is to serve its Lord; the wife's responsibility is to serve her husband. The church owes its very existence to Christ; the woman's very existence is derived from the man. As a result, man and woman are not equal in origin, in responsibility, or in authority. The picture derived with this approach is one of a clear hierarchy between husband and wife (DeJong and Wilson, 1979, pg. 139).

I have met many Christians who believe that this approach represents the will of God. Some authors, including women, are adamant in insisting that this hierarchy represents the will of God:

• I would begin by admitting--even insisting--that the historical role of men as the dominant sex and women as the subordinate sex has the stamp of God upon it. This is the way He intended us to function; it's the way we function best (Guder, 1965, pg. 75).

Any approach to marital relationships that stresses headship or submission to the exclusion of servanthood is not Christian. Persons holding this viewpoint might find the practice prevalent in 12th century France quite consistent with their belief: during an ecclesiastical marriage ceremony, the bride knelt before the man who became her "master". The token giving of the ring to the bride was not given out of love, but signified the husband's claim over his new property (Duby, 1978).

Once again, it is crucial to bring this truth into focus in light of the one-flesh union, as Paul does in Eph. 5: 31. As Bailey (1952) so aptly pointed out, the one-flesh union, once established, is ontologically complete but socially imperfect. The expression of one's love toward the other in its complete self-giving and self-surrender is what brings the union into fullness (perfection), but it also reflects a result of the union in that God's creative love joins the couple and sets the stage for its creative outworking. DeJong and Wilson seem uncomfortable with any approach uses the terms headship and submission. They suggests that servanthood:

• softens the character of the hierarchical relationship, but it does not change the essential structure of it, for the husband is still the "head" and the responsibility of the wife is still to "submit" (DeJong and Wilson, 1979, pg. 140).

In other words, what is involved here is a headship of service, which is more palatable than a headship of authority, but it still does not go far enough in recognizing the reconciliation and the unity males and females have in Christ. I believe that DeJong and Wilson make a legitimate point, but I believe that the headship of leadership and service is biblical as long as the broader principles of equality, differentiation and union are observed. However, there is another perspective offered by DeJong and Wilson (1979), based on the Ephesians passage, that must not be overlooked. In the fourth chapter of Ephesians, the theme of unity is again expressed, and the apostle uses the metaphor of the human body to address the question of how unity can be achieved among diverse persons:

• ...we are to grow up in all aspects into Him, who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by that which every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love (Eph. 4:15-16).

Arms and legs, hands and feet, organs and tissues, all uniquely contribute to the welfare of the whole body. Some body parts are visible while others are less visible. But each has a purpose, and each is differentiated from the other to fulfill its purpose. According to DeJong and Wilson:

• ...each part must be recognized, regardless of visibility and outward importance, as making a unique contribution to the whole. Each part must perform its particular responsibilities in a selfless manner--not assuming an importance beyond that which is legitimate, bot belittling the contributions of others, not exerting an undue authority, and not resisting the legitimate authority of others (DeJong and Wilson, 1979, pg. 142).

This perspective looks at headship, not as authority, not as service, but as a differential distribution of role and authority in a totally complementary fashion. Any authority that is exercised or any service that is accomplished is done for the good of the body as a whole, and in recognition of the fact that it could not have been accomplished alone.

Just as love is best defined by integrating all of the elements of eros, phileo, and agape love, so too the marital relationship is best defined by integrating all of the concepts we have discussed. Then, it must be recognized that there are distinct differences between the husband-wife relationship and the Christ-church relationship. Headship does involve an element of authority, but the headship of a husband, with respect to authority, clearly does not resemble or match in degree the headship of Christ in relation to the church. Headship does involve an element of obedience, but here again the degree of obedience varies with the relationship. As we have seen, obedience involved in a husband-wife relationship is severely tempered by the sinfulness of humanity. Headship does involve an element of service, although the degree of service again depends on the relationship. Husbands may lovingly serve their wives, but they clearly cannot act as their Savior. In summary, we cannot throw out the concept of headship, and its reciprocal, submission. However, these concepts applied to everyday relationships may become easily distorted. It is not easy for a husband "to occupy his life in total self-giving devotion to his wife" (Fennema, 1971). It is difficult for a husband "to be motivated in seeing his wife come to her full potential in God's plan for her life" (Lewis, 1983). One of the most important barriers in preventing these things from occurring is the pride and self-definition that prevent a husband from developing a realistic self-appraisal and self-identity.

According to Hurty (1992), the opposite of pride is humility and the essence of humility is embracing the truth about ourselves, and how we relate to others. Walters (1979) defines humility as the "resulting balanced self-concept and attitude based on a realistic evaluation of oneself." Walters states that this evaluation involves both the recognition of assets (the good and noble) as well as liabilities. For both sexes, the truth involves the reality of their sin, the reality of God's response to their sin, the fact of the new creation in Christ, the recognition of the equality of male and female, the recognition of the differentiation between the sexes as created, and the unity of the one flesh union. For the husband, truth also involves the responsibilities of headship in terms of loving leadership and sacrificial devotion to his wife. For the wife, truth also involves the responsibilities of voluntary self-surrender in synchrony with the husband's love.

I believe that our society today is reaping a terrible toll of distorted husband-wife relationships, both within and outside the church. I cannot help but think that there is some truth to the notion that some married women in abusive situations may turn to a lesbian lifestyle because they are emotionally and physically safer and more satisfying. Anita Bradshaw, herself a lesbian, states that the evidence is accumulating that:

• the more women share their stories, the more they realize that genetics or biology or psychology may play a role, but it is not the defining one for lesbians. Lesbians choose to be lesbians if in no other way than choosing to break from social pressures and not relate to a man (Bradshaw, 1993, pg. 117).

This chilling speculation that lesbians choose not to relate to a man is supported by other writers. Bradshaw quotes Beverly Harrison, who states that:

• for many women, lesbianism is less fate than choice, and many women choose lesbian relations because more and more women have moved beyond male dependency and will not accept intimate relations that lack mutuality (Bradshaw, 1993, pg. 114).

Bradshaw cites the case of Cheryl, who decided to become a lesbian because she concluded that "equal power relations and mutual love was impossible under the current cultural norm." Erotic attraction was not the basis for a subsequent homosexual experience for this woman. Susan is also cited as a woman who had been married several times before she turned to lesbianism. She suffered sexual abuse as a child, and emotional, physical and sexual abuse from her husbands. Katherine was a married woman with a son who maintained an on-going lesbian relationship with another married woman in addition to her marriage. The reason she gave was that she felt most fulfilled by her "special friend."

Jeanette Howard believes that pseudo-masculinity as self-protection is at the heart of lesbianism:

• Many women...were brought up with poor masculine role models ...In reaction to a negligent or unresponsive father, and coupled with an ambivalence or disdain toward her mother, the daughter assumes masculine functions. She rejects the feminine role model based on her view of her mother, and embraces all that is masculine. The woman focuses on what she can do, rather than on who she can be, and she places emphasis on self-reliance, perfectionism and competition. The woman becomes performance-oriented, and has a tendency to spend her energies on causes or "rights" in which she believes. So often this is an unspoken cry for final recognition from her dad. (Howard, 1991).

Unfortunately, these women have problems with being "at cause" and "at affect."   Functioning in the masculine mode presents little problem with initiation but an immense problem with receiving from others.  Wholeness requires a "compatibility between our masculine and feminine sides, which will produce harmony rather than discord" (Howard, 1991).  Women who have been abused suffer from the same disequilibrium since they tend to engage in controlling and manipulative behaviors to keep from being hurt yet another time.

From my perspective, the arrogance of men and the insecurity of women feed this distortion we call lesbianism. Further, I believe that the church had better wake up to the seriousness of their doctrinal errors and specious interpretations with respect to equality of men and women, and realize how patriarchy and male control contribute to the disintegration of the family as well as the adoption of distorted lifestyles by women in search of intimacy and mutuality.

Social scientists have studied the relationship between marital satisfaction and marital power. Gray-Little and Burks (1983) reviewed a number of these studies and found some interesting trends. They found that across a variety of cultures, the most satisfying marriage to be the egalitarian marriage. This is a marriage where either the couple negotiates all decisions jointly or they have separate areas of responsibility. The second most satisfying type of marriage was the husband-dominated marriage. Coming in last place was the wife-dominated marriage.

Egalitarian marriages generally do not begin with such a relationship. Few couple have parents who model such relationships. More often than not, friendships are the basis of egalitarian marriages. In most marriages, the way they become egalitarian is for both partners to admit that each is equal and to deal openly and constructively with conflict that arises. Napier (1988) states that couples must learn the art of making "surrenders of wish and will." They have learned to grow up and value autonomy both in themselves and their mate. Perhaps the most important aspect of an egalitarian marriage is that it requires constant work and maintenance:

• Egalitarian partners spend a lot of time together solving problems; and they talk about everything--the kids, the bills, their sex life, the daily news. Talk--lots of it--may be the one common denominator of the successful marriage (Napier, 1988, pg. 123).

Husband-dominated marriages usually involve one over functioning spouse, who acts as parent, and one underfunctioning spouse who acts as child. The anxiousness of losing this type of support, on the part of the underfunctioning spouse, prevents them from growing up and becoming more autonomous. Although such marriages may be nominally happy, there is an element of unhealthiness in them. Fear and anxiety, usually operating at the unconscious level, are powerful forces against change.

Wife-dominated marriages, where the wife is the over functioning spouse, are rarely happy. Generally, both spouses feel critical of themselves and usually bring intense emotional needs to the relationship. Overfunctioning women appear strong, organized and competent on the outside but are often emotional wrecks on the inside. They may be emotionally starved and unsupported, but may not be aware of their emotional needs. Their obsessive-compulsive personality may drive them to strive for perfection, and they may marry dependent men who have difficulty functioning at work. The overfunctioning wife tries to compensate for their mate's incompetence, which places the couple in a "catch-22" situation. The husband can use the advice and support, but feels put down by it. The wife sets herself up for an emotional tirade directed either toward overcontrolling and smothering, or rejecting. Since each spouse has learned these roles well from an early age, this type of marriage is highly resistant to change. Both partners need to grow up and learn to function as autonomous individuals.

It would be a mistake to say that all egalitarian marriages are satisfying and healthy marriages. What may appear on the surface to be egalitarian may be a pseudomutual marriage or an embattled marriage. The former is characterized by much togetherness and cooperation, but anger and resentment lurk just beneath the surface. In an effort to please one another, each spouse denies their frustrations and anger. These couples are essentially out of touch with their feelings. Mike Mason has a revealing description of this type of marriage:

• ...a couple may manage to achieve a highly convincing veneer of affection and cooperation, when in reality what they have achieved is a conspiracy of sin, each neurotically nursing and feeding upon the other. Whatever the particular circumstances, these sorts of unions are not marriages of symbiosis but of mutual parasitism (Mason, 1985, pg. 158).

The embattled marriage is characterized by equality, but that equality is in a context of heavy conflict. Essentially, each partner is anxious about being dominated by the other and an uneasy truce develops. These couples, with their intense control issues, fight about nearly everything, including their perceptions about mundane things such as the weather. Their histories often involve a parent who was severely dominated by their spouse. The interesting thing is that often these partners appear deeply dependent on each other, but at the same time, are anxious about being subsumed by this dependency. Their battles serve the purpose of keeping them emotionally at arm's length.

I am reminded of a newspaper article I read that described a two-headed snake. The biologist commented that in every case he has encountered, the two heads , who share one body, give mixed signals to the body. Two-headed snakes rarely thrive, and in fact, become so confused they wither and die. Even when food is presented, they cannot eat because of the mixed signals. Embattled marriages do not thrive because the toll of fighting wears out the partners.

Although it is my opinion that the egalitarian marriage is the closest thing to the biblical model, I am reminded that it is but a label placed on a relationship that possesses certain characteristics. The self-surrender of wish and will that is called for from each partner is the key element. The other important ingredient is maturity in the sense that each partner has grown up to be an autonomous, emotionally healthy individual. I suspect that emotionally truncated individuals would have a hard time with self-surrender as it would be too threatening.

A Closing Thought

Mike Mason suggests that the two words, "love" and "submit" really mean the same thing:

• Surely that is the underlying assumption of Paul's message, and it turns out to be a very succinct statement of the essence of the gospel: to love is to submit, and to submit is to love. How do we know that God loves us? Because in the Person of His Own Son He "made Himself nothing, took on the very nature of a servant...humbled Himself and became obedient to death, even death on a cross" (Philippians 2:7-8) (Mason, 1985, pg. 154).

Jesus did not believe that He was better than others, but He did believe that others were more important than Himself. Once again, I go back to Sarah Hurty's comment that only a person who knows his identity has the strength to realistically assess the needs of others and to serve others. The one who lets pride reign in his life is the one who must constantly defend himself, hide from intimacy, and continually seek his rights rather than admit to his responsibilities. The key in all this appears to be knowing the whole truth about oneself and developing an identity or self-definition that is biblically based and God-honoring.

This point bears repetition: a true self-definition has an its capstone the truth that a believer is in union with Christ, and because of the reconciling work of Christ on the cross, that believer is also in union with other believers of different nationality and different sex and different social status. If that were not enough, the person who is in a marital relationship with another person is in a one-flesh union with that person, a union that is based on equality, differentiation and unity. Only after the church at Ephesus was reminded of these truths were wives told to be subject to their husbands and husbands were told to love their wives. Only after realizing that the gospel had freed them from a life of inferiority and misery, and promoted them to an equal position with men, were wives asked to freely self-surrender because everyone was to "regard one another as more important" than themselves. As Maxie Dunnam reminds us,

• Wives were to be subject to their husbands not because that was a part of the natural order, but because submission is the style of all Christians (Dunnam, 1982, pg. 232).

Only after realizing that the gospel had freed them from a life of domineering and restricting women were husbands asked to freely self-surrender because everyone was to "regard one another as more important" than themselves. The women of Ephesus, in their insecurity, had a hard time believing that someone else (their husband) was better than themselves in their miserable social state. The men of Ephesus, in their arrogance, had a hard time acknowledging that their wives were better than themselves and were in fact part and parcel of their success. This is why Paul reminds husbands that if they love their wives, they are in effect loving themselves (Eph. 5:28-29). Note that in Paul's admonitions both to wives and husbands, the cross of Christ looms large in his thinking. For women, the new order was created by Christ's ultimate act of submission by dying on the cross. For men, the new order was created by Christ's ultimate act of love--again, death on the cross. Submission and love is the closest identification we have with the cross of Christ in our marriages. As Maxie Dunnam states so concisely,

• ...married love looks like the cross. The love which flows from the cross, and which must be the dynamic of marriage, is not a love you can achieve but the love you have received. Christ empowers us to implement in marriage the love with which He has loved us (Dunnam, 1982, pg. 233).

This love which must be at the heart of marriage is difficult, for as Julius Fritze reminds us, we were born to hate, but we have to learn to love (Fritze, 1969).

Reflections

I find the ideas presented by Sarah Hurty to be of immense help in understanding the distortion in relationship. The root of the distortion is pride. It simply manifests itself in two major forms. I wish the church at large, especially men, would ponder the implications of her line of reasoning.

Since writing this piece, I have read the instructive words of Steven Tracy in a Christianity Today article, entitled "Headship with a Heart: How Biblical Patriarchy Actually Prevents Abuse."  His thesis is that male headship is often distorted: "due to inborn depravity, males often need little or no training to abuse their power; it is their default setting" (Tracy, 2003, pg 50)

Tracy emphatically affirms that healthy male headship is rooted in equality, as revealed in John's description of the Father's relationship with the Son recorded in John 5:18-24.  Further, the Father's headship over the Son is reflected in loving intimacy, sharing authority, honoring and protecting.

I invite you to celebrate who you are in Christ. Then I invite you to act on that identity. Along the way, you will have to do away with the old distortions of identity that you find so comfortable In every encounter with a person of the opposite sex, allow the concepts of equality, differentiation, complementarity and unity to overwhelm your thinking. Only then consider what submission and headship are all about. Life will never be the same.

Readers of this document are permitted to download any portion provided "all such use is for . . . personal noncommercial benefit." Please cite the document as follows: Twelker, Paul A. (1998). The Biblical Design for Marriage: The Creation, Distortion and Redemption of Equality, Differentiation, Unity and Complementarity. Deerfield: Trinity International University. Internet resource available at URL: <http://www.kamsandsinfo.com/Professional//BDFMChap6.htm> (last updated 09 February, 2008 ).  Copyright 2000-2003 © Paul A. Twelker.

Go to Top

Go to Index

Go to References