In thinking about the role of the husband we are not thinking about the role husbands may happen to play in some marriages today. In other words, we are not discussing his role as, for example, the executive husband or as an artisan husband. We are going to look at what the Bible teaches about the role of the husband in Christian marriage. That is, we are dealing with prescription not description, with what God says his role ought to be.
The key passage in understanding the role of the husband is Ephesians 5:21–33. It is part of a section which deals with relationships: wives and husbands (5:21–33); children and fathers (6:1–4); slaves and masters (6:5-9). In each case the persons in subjection are treated first: wives (v. 22f.), children (6:1f.), slaves (6:5f.). What Paul says reminds us that God has appointed certain authority-structures within which we function as believers, within which we are to glorify God. We ignore these at our peril.
In Ephesians 5:21–6:8 we find three authority structures:
1. Headship of husband over wife (5:21f.)
2. Authority of father over children (6:1f.)
3. Master over slaves or servants (6:5f.) Then there are two others to which the Christian must submit:
4. Authority of the state (Rom. 13:1f.)
5. Authority of the elders (Acts 20:28, Heb. 13:17).
To teach that there are these God-ordained authority-structures is not popular in an age of lawlessness and anarchy, but we ought to bless God for his wisdom and goodness in ordaining these structures, for without them life becomes impossible. As a student once said to me during a visit I made to one of our more liberal and permissive universities in the sixites, ‘The majority of students are crying out for some discipline but the Vice-chancellor is so afraid of provoking the Left that he will not act. The result is continual disturbances which makes study well-nigh impossible.
We now come to what Paul says about the role of the husband.
1. The Husband is the head of the wife
There it is (in v. 23), and boldly as that. Such a statement is enough to send Women’s Lib movement into a collective rage! Some try to evade the force of Paul’s statement by claiming that it is culturally conditioned, i.e. he was merely accepting the custom of his day whereby women were the chattels of their husbands. But what he says does not apply today in changed social conditions. Now we expect theologically liberal people to argue like that, but quite often one finds so-called Bible-believing Christians doing the same. This view of Paul’s teaching will not. stand up to serious examination, for he bases his statements upon a truth which never changes: ‘the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church.’ The force of what Paul says is to be appreciated. The lordship of Christ over his church is not culturally conditioned, chapter 1:19–23 makes clear. Especially should we weigh the statement of v. 22 that he is ‘head over all things to the church.’ His headship is an unchanging fact, completely unaffected by changed social conditions. He is as much head of the Church now as in the first century A.D. Christ, then, is the head of the Church and the husband is the head of the wife. The latter headship is built upon the former and reflects it. And since the former continues to the end of time, the latter will do likewise. So the headship of the husband is based not upon social custom but on the divine, unchanging order ordained by God himself.
Elsewhere Paul brings the fact of the husband’s headship in marriage before us, and again he bases it on a doctrinal foundation. Both in 1 Corinthians 11:7–12 and 1 Timothy 2:11–15 he is dealing with the place of women in the Church, no less than in marriage, they are under authority. So in public worship the woman is to have her head covered, in recognition of the fact that she is under authority (1 Cor. 11:3–5) whereas the man’s head is not to be covered (v.7). (It is not my purpose in this article to go into the question of the nature of the women’s covering.) The point I want to emphasize is this: Paul bases the practice he commands upon a doctrinal consideration.
The woman must show visibly that she is under authority because of the truth of verses 8, 9. The woman is from man; woman is for man (Gen. 2: 21–23). The roles must not be reversed, otherwise God’s Word is denied. The man is prior to the woman, though not independent of her (vv. 11, 12). What is true in marriage must not therefore be denied in the practice of the Church. If we turn to 1 Timothy 2:11–15 we find the same principle worked out in relation to a different subject. Here the issue is whether women should teach in the Church or, more precisely, whether in so doing they should exercise authority over a man. Paul forbids it, Why? For two reasons: (1) It was Adam who was first created, then Eve. God made man to lead and to teach, woman to follow and submit. (2) It was Eve who was deceived. She did not submit to her husband by asking his advice, but to Satan! She was the leader, with disastrous results. She reversed the roles and dragged Adam down with her. Now she must submit to a sinful husband. We see how, in both passages, Paul grounds his teaching. on the submissive role of women in the Church on the foundation principle, of doctrine.
So with the role of the husband in marriage—his headship is founded not just upon the order of creation but also on the order of redemption; he is head over the wife just as Christ is head over the Church. Therefore the husband’s role is not arbitrary; it is ordained by God. To deny it is to fight against it, is to sin against God, is to work against his will and to despise his wisdom. The husband, for his part, is not to forsake his role. He is not to look upon his wife as if she were his mother. He is not to make his wife take the decisions. He is to be a man and take seriously his God-given responsibility to lead.
The wife, on the other hand, is to recognize his role as head; she is to submit (v. 22). The word implies respect, defence, a willingness to be led. She must never wear the trousers even when her husband is an unbeliever! (1 Peter 3:1–2). More unbelieving husbands would be influenced for good if Peter’s teachings were to be applied.
The husband, then, is the head of the wife. His headship is by divine appointment. God has so ordained it. To quarrel with this is to quarrel not with Paul but with God.
But Paul does not stop with the assertion that the husband is the head of the wife. He does not leave the nature of that headship unexplained, nor is the way it is to be worked out in practice left to our imagination. In this he is very wise. If husbands were left without specific instructions as to how they are to exercise their headship they could interpret their headship in terms of the exercise of an awful tyranny, with their wives being regarded as chattels or maids. Paul therefore spells out to husbands how they are to exercise their headship.
2. The Husband’s Exercise of Headship
As the Christian husband exercises headship over his wife he must always keep before him certain vital principles which Paul brings before us. If he does not, his exercise of headship will become a tyranny or, by reaction, he will not exercise it at all, for having not succeeded with a reign of terror he will abdicate his responsibility for the sake of peace!
Let us see how Paul first makes a general point and then follows it up with two specific and particular injunctions. The general point is found in verse 23.
a. The headship ofChrist over his church provides the pattern for the exercise of headship in marriage
The key word is ‘as.’ As Christ is over the church so is the husband over the wife. Paul here is not just asserting a fact, that Christ is head over the church, the husband is over the wife. He is saying something more and something far deeper. He is saying this: in just the way that Christ exercises His headship over the church, so are husbands to exercise headship over their wives. (That this interpretation is correct is confirmed by verse 25 ‘just as . . . .’ See also v. 29.) How then does Christ exercise his head· ship over his church? Is it through the exercise of tyranny? Is his regime hard and unfeeling? Does he treat us like dirt? We only have to ask the question to know the answer. ‘Of course not. He is not that kind of Person!’
When he was here on earth, though He was Lord and Master over His disciples, how did He rule over them? There is a precious story in John 13 which shows us that he ruled by serving. Verse 3 emphasises His tremendous dignity. Yet what did He do? He washed their feet (v. 4ff.). He did what one of them should have done for the rest before supper. He pressed hoe the lesson of His action in verses 12–15. This is how He ruled—by serving (cf. Mark 10:45). He did not rule by lashing His sheep but by leading them (John 10:3–5). And though He is now exalted to His Father’s right hand the way in which He exercises His rule has not changed. He is still the same (Heb. 13:8), still touched with the feeling of our infirmities (Heb. 4:15). So here is the pattern for Christian husbands; it is in Christ the Servant who at the same time is the Head of the Church. His exercise of eldership (2 Peter 5:1–4). He ruled by serving. He did not crack the whip! He stopped and washed dusty feet. When a husband patterns his exercise of headship on that of Christ, then the wife finds it easy to submit. Her ‘yoke’ is easy! which is just the point our Lord makes in Matthew 11:29–30. If a husband keeps his headship is not a lording it over his wife, by a loving service to her. b. The husband’s headship is to be exercised in love towards his wife (vv. 25, 28, 33). Again Paul counteracts any idea that headship consists in tyranny. Tyranny was never yet exercised in love, for love seeks not to crush, but to give. Paul gives specific content to the work ‘love.’ Here is the pattern to be followed: ‘As Christ loved . . . so you must.’ Love is here defined as giving, giving to the point of death. You cannot love more than that. The love of the husband, then, is to be patterned on the love of Christ of His bride, the Church. It is to be a continual self-giving directed to the development and well-being of his wife as a person. Just as Christ loved the Church with a specific end in view (vv. 26, 27), ‘even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies’ (v. 28). In the intimate bond of marriage, love of neighbour finds its profoundest expression in human life. ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself’ as applied to Christian marriage means that ‘husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself’ (v. 28). But the order is all important. ‘He who loves himself loves his wife’ is not true by consequence, whereas ‘he who loves his wife as himself’ is, for his wife is ‘his own flesh’ (v. 29), so close and real is the union between them (v. 31). As the husband loves hi wife his exercise of headship is directed to her good, for love seeks not its own but the good of others. So his authority over his wife is power exercised in love; it is strength poured out in giving. And when this is the case, submission is easy for the yoke is easy and the burden is light. c. The husband’s headship is to be directed toward the nourishing and cherishing of his wife (v. 29). Paul assumes that it is right for us to nourish and cherish our bodies. Basically this means that we must treat them properly by taking adequate food and not putting upon them demands that they were not meant to bear. To fulfill this end there must be an understanding of the body’s role and needs. For example, we recognise that our bodies need rest when we say ‘you can’t burn the candle at both ends.’ Applying this now to the husband’s role in marriage. (1) The husband must understand his wife as a woman. He must not treat her as if she were a man, with a man’s strength and outlook. She is a woman. God made her such. She is the weaker vessel or sex (1 Peter 3:7). She can become over-burdened and harassed. She can get ‘wrought up,’ especially at certain times such as pregnancy. So she must be treated with tenderness. She must be made to feel that she is appreciated. The husband must try to think himself into her position. (And a wife can help him to do so by explaining how she feels, and why.) (2) The husband must direct his energies to cherishing his wife. To cherish means to lavish special care upon–to give special attention to, with a view to increasing the well-being of, another person. For instance, a mother will lavish special care upon and cherish her sick child. Well, Paul says a husband should cherish his wife. To cherish a wife is a corrective to the danger of taking her for granted and is also a safeguard against resentment building up on her side. When a man cherishes his wife she will feel wanted; she will feel that she is more than a poorly paid housekeeper! I say the husband mush ‘direct’ his energies because it requires thought and planning to cherish a wife, e.g. to give her an unexpected treat, a break from the children for awhile, so that she can recharge her batteries as it were. There is nothing automatic about cherishing a wife. It is something that has to be worked at, otherwise a situation builds up where the wife is not cherished and the husband is completely unaware of the fact. Just as Christ the Head directs His energies now to the cherishing of the church, so also must the Christian husband direct his energies to the cherishing of his wife. A final word to husbands reading this article: How are you exercising headship? Do you exercise tyranny or are you giving yourself in service? Are you exercising headship at all, or have you abdicated your responsibility, expecting your wife to shoulder it? Are you cherishing your wife, showing tenderness to her; do you seek to understand her, or has communication broken down? Do you consciously seek to make her feel appreciated and wanted? And, above all, are you building your marriage relationship upon Christ who, in his relationship with His church, has given us the pattern we are to copy through the power of the Holy Spirit? ‘Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her’ (v. 25). Reprinted from the Sept-Oct. 1982, Reformation Today, Haywards Heath, West Sussex, England.