Ephesians 5 has been crucial to the debate on women’s ordination because of the English translations of Ephesians 5:22-24, translated as does the ESV: “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.”

At first read, the passage seems to teach that women should submit to their husbands, and that this submission is unqualified and universal: “submit in everything to their husbands.” The submission also seems to be absolute. As Christ is “head” of the church and has absolute authority over the church, so the husband is the “head” of his wife. As Christ’s authority over the church is absolute, so, it might seem, is the husband’s authority over his wife.

In the essay “Women in Holy Orders,” written by myself and NT Professor and ACNA Bishop Grant LeMarquand at the request of the ACNA College of Bishops, we devoted only three pages to this passage (because of requested page-length limitation), and only an additional paragraph to the controverted interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:2-15, the other NT passage where Paul uses the metaphor of “head” to describe relationships between men and women. However, in my book Icons of Christ: A Biblical and Systematic Theology for Women’s Ordination (Baylor University Press, 2020), I devoted two full chapters (Chapters 7 and 8, pages 99-144) to discussing these two passages.

“Complementarian” Protestant evangelical opponents of women’s ordination have made this passage a centerpiece of their argument, as may be seen in the Anglican Diocese of the Living Word’s Response to our original essay. In addition, Matthew Colvin echoes complementarian arguments in his negative review of my book.

In each case, the “Response” (and Colvin) repeat standard complementarian talking points.

First, following Complementarian author Wayne Grudem, the Response insists that kephalē (the Greek word translated “head”) when used by Paul as a metaphor in Ephesians 5:23 and 1 Corinthians 11:3 must mean “authority over” (“Response,” 59-67). The “Response” devotes more space to this claim than to almost any other topic in their essay. Similarly, Colvin dismisses the discussion of kephalē in my book as “commit[ing] errors of lexicographical method.” Colvin defends Grudem: “If Grudem has Philo and the LXX from before the NT on his side, then he has the main texts of Judaic Greek on his side.” Because of its centrality to the discussion, I have already devoted three essays to the question of whether Paul’s use of the metaphor kephalē means “authority over.” Contrary to Colvin, Grudem does not have the “main texts of Judaic Greek on his side.” See my essays:

“Response to the Anglican Diocese of the Living Word: Does ‘head’ mean ‘authority’ in Ephesians 5 and 1 Corinthians 11? Part One”

“Response to the Anglican Diocese of the Living Word: Does ‘head’ mean ‘authority’ in Ephesians 5? Part Two”

“Response to the Anglican Diocese of the Living Word: Does “head” mean authority over in 1 Corinthians 11? Part Three”

Second, the “Response” claims that Paul’s use of the word that the ESV translates as the imperative “submit” indicates a hierarchy of authority: “Obey your parents, [Paul] tells the children. Obey your masters, he tells the slaves. Paul does not do away with role distinctions or hierarchy in marriage, in families, or in labor. Rather, the Gospel transforms these hierarchies so that they are no longer exploitative” (“Response,” 55). Similarly, Colvin insists that Ephesians 6 “gives the lie to the reciprocal and mutual submission that Padgett and Witt claim: slaves are commanded to obey masters, and children obey parents, but no reciprocal obedience or submission is enjoined upon masters and parents.”

Third, the “Response” draws on the parallel that Paul makes between Christ as the “head” of the church and the husband as the “head” of the wife to claim that as Christ exercises authority over the church, so the husband necessarily has authority over his wife: “For Paul, marriage is a living typological witness to the Gospel. It ‘refers’ to Christ and his Church. . . . . This typology itself militates against Drs. LeMarquand and Witt’s egalitarian reading. Does Jesus submit to his Church? No. Does he serve her and give himself up for her? Yes. Does the Church submit to Jesus? Yes. Is Jesus’ rule tyrannical? No. Is the Church’s submission coerced? By no means” (“Response,” 56).

I had already addressed this conflation of Christ’s authority with the husband’s authority here: “Throughout the Response, the authors regularly conflate the issue of Christ’s authority as God incarnate and Redeemer of sinful humanity with the authority husbands exercise over wives without regard to the actual language Paul uses or the context in which he uses it.”

Given that I have already addressed the issue of Paul’s use of the kephalē metaphor at length and conflation of the husband’s authority with Christ’s authority, the following three essays will focus rather on the question of hierarchy and authority in marriage. Specifically, in Ephesians 5, does Paul understand the relationship in marriage between husbands and wives as one of reciprocity and “mutual submission,” or does Paul rather advocate what P. T. O’Brien, in a commentary cited by Colvin in his criticism of my book, calls an “ordered hierarchy” of top-down ruling over and being ruled?¹

Before addressing that question, I precede by listing a number of related issues that that are crucial to the discussion, which I mention both in the original essay by Grant LeMarquand and myself, and at length in Icons of Christ, but which both “The Response” and Colvin either fail to acknowledge or simply ignore.

First, contemporary New Testament scholars acknowledge that the proper social context for Paul’s address in Ephesians 5 is what are called the Haustalfen, or “household codes” of antiquity. These are found in Aristotle and other pagan writers, and also among Jewish writers. They address relationships between husbands and wives, fathers and children, masters and slaves. (I provide an extended quotation of Aristotle’s example in Icons). Typically, these codes instruct the master of the household in his duties toward his subordinates They say nothing about any duties of the household owner to his subordinates, but rather only his duty to rule his subordinates. They do not address the subordinates at all.

In contrast, what is most significant in Paul’s discussion is not that he includes household codes, but the radical way in which he modifies and challenges them. Paul addresses the subordinates (women, slaves, children) first, and treats them as responsible agents. When Paul addresses the male of the household, he instructs him to act with gentleness and kindness toward the traditional subordinates, and he does so three times. In each case, the recipient of the command (both the male householder and subordinates) is provided with a theological motivation, rooted in Christ’s example, that transforms the codes in the light of the gospel. The result is a radical challenge to traditional hierarchical understandings. Paul does not explicitly overthrow the first-century Mediterranean household structure, but he certainly challenges it! (This will be addressed in more detail in response to the remarks of both “The Response” and of Colvin in discussing Paul’s address to children and slaves.)

This point is consistently overlooked or ignored by complementarians. As noted in my previous essay,  the “Response” not only failed to acknowledge the significant way that Paul challenged the codes, but rather took the opposite approach by claiming that Paul endorsed first-century Mediterranean social arrangements! Colvin acknowledges that “Ephesians 5:21 actually functions as a Heading for the subsequent Haustafel that continues in chapter 6,” but then interprets their significance directly contrary to that recognized in the current literature: “[N]o reciprocal obedience or submission is enjoined upon masters and parents.”

Second, Christology is crucial for interpreting Ephesians 5, but not in the way imagined by complementarians. As Michael Gorman points out in his book Cruciformity, Philippians 2:6-11 is the “master story” for Paul’s understanding of Christian spirituality.² Christians imitate Christ by following in the path of renunciation that prefers others to the self, even to the point of death. Ephesians 5:1-2 is crucial for everything else that follows in the chapter: “Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.” In everything that follows, Christians are asked to be imitators of God by walking in love in the same way that Christ sacrificed himself for us – by living lives of sacrifice. Paul asks Christians to imitate Christ throughout his writings. Significantly, however, the model is always that of cruciform self-giving. Paul never tells followers of Christ to imitate Christ by ruling over others. He does not do so in Ephesians 5. Ephesians 5:1-2 provides the model for all in the church and the family to imitate Christ in the discussion that follows, and it is a model of self-sacrifice and service, not of authority or command.

Third, Ephesians 5:22 does not begin a new sentence, as in English translations like the ESV, but is a continuation of a sentence that begins with verse 18 and contains several participles. There is no imperative “submit” in the original Greek of verse 22. Rather, verse 22 is the continuation of a participial phrase that begins with verse 18. The series of participles lists behavior that is expected of every member of the church. My own translation (as found in Icons follows):

Be imitators of God, as beloved children, and walk in love, as also Christ loved (ἠγάπησεν, ēgapēsen) you and gave himself up on our behalf, a sacrifice to God as a sweet-smelling offering . . . [B]e filled with the Spirit, by (1) speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and psalming with your heart to the Lord, (2) giving thanks always for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God the Father, (3) being subject/subjecting yourselves (ὑποτασσόμενοι, hypotassomenoi) to one (ἀλλήλοις, allēlois) another in the reverence (φόβῳ, phobō) of Christ, (3a) wives to their own husbands as to the Lord, because a husband is head of the wife in the same way that Christ is also head of the church, himself Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so in the same manner, wives to their husbands in everything. (3b) Husbands, love (ἀγαπᾶτε, agapate) your wives as also Christ loved (ἠγάπησεν, ēgapēsen) the church and gave himself up on behalf of it . . . Each of you [husbands] must love (ἀγαπάτω, agapatō) his wife even as he loves himself, and the wife should respect (φοβῆται, phobētai) her husband.

As I wrote in Icons: “[S]ubmission in this context is not something that is being asked uniquely of wives to husbands, but is rather an example of mutual submission that is expected of all Christians. . . . All Christians are to be filled with the Spirit (1) by singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, (2) by giving thanks to God the Father, and (3) by being subject to one another. Wives are not uniquely to submit to husbands any more than only some Christians should sing psalms and hymns or give thanks to God the Father. The submission that is asked for in verse 21 is a mutual submission of all Christians” (109).

Fourth, there are not simply two possible interpretations of this passage, but several. In Icons of Christ, I identify:

1) Patriarchal: Views the wife as subordinate to the husband and affirms the subordination. This is the position of complementarians (and of the Anglican Diocese of the Living Word as well as Colvin).

2) “Radical”: Agrees that the text affirms hierarchical subordination of wives to husbands, but rejects the text as patriarchal and oppressive (liberal Protestant feminist theologians).

3) Love Patriarchy: Views the passage as reinforcing patriarchy while simultaneously challenging it by appeal to Christ’s love as the paradigm for the husband’s behavior (views Paul as at least in tension, if not inconsistent).

4) Revolutionary Subordination: The subordinate persons in the hierarchy are called to submit, but the submission is voluntary, and the dominant member of the hierarchy is challenged to submit as well, undermining the hierarchy without overthrowing it.

5) Egalitarian: Paul affirms equality and mutual submission between husband and wife.

Note that none of these positions claims (as the “Response” accuses Grant LeMarquand and myself of claiming) that Paul (or contemporary Christians) simply rejected any notion of authority or hierarchy or that Paul was attempting to overthrow the hierarchical order of Mediterranean culture. Paul could no more have done this than he could have successfully attempted to overthrow first-century slavery or the rule of Caesar. All but the first position acknowledge that Paul did mission in a first-century Mediterranean culture that was hierarchical and, for lack of a better word, patriarchal. A handful of men ruled over everyone else. Slavery was widespread, and an essential part of the economy. For biological and economic reasons, women’s occupations were largely confined to the domestic sphere, while men could work in public spaces. Most women were illiterate, were often much younger than their husbands, and men, for the most part, were in charge.

In terms of biblical interpretation, and contemporary hermeneutical application, the question concerns whether Paul endorsed this first-century hierarchy (which was prevalent everywhere), whether and to what extent he challenged it, and to what extent the church should preserve or rather challenge it today. Within a first-century Mediterranean context, Paul could no more overthrow hierarchical marriage than he could free all the slaves. However, in teaching Christians to imitate Christ, he could take steps toward ameliorating the excesses of both. As these beginning steps led eventually to the elimination of slavery, so arguably the elimination of hierarchy in marriage is a logical consequence of what Paul teaches about the relationships between husbands and wives.

Positions 1) and 2) agree that Paul endorsed the first-century hierarchical system, while 1) continues to affirm this stance and 2) rejects it.

Position 3) essentially claims that Paul was inconsistent. At heart his theology was incompatible with first-century hierarchy, but he seemed not to recognize the full implications of his own views.

Positions 4) and 5) agree that Paul challenged patriarchal hierarchy, but disagree about how explicit Paul was in the challenge, and to what extent his strategy went beyond patriarchy.

Positions 2) and 3) are most problematic from the point of view of orthodox Christian theology. Both seem to affirm that, at least to some extent, Paul was mistaken – either in endorsing a position that the church must reject today, or that Paul was incoherent – in not realizing the full implications of his own views.

While complementarians claim that position 1) is the only orthodox position, and tend to conflate all other positions with either 2) or 3), both 4) and 5) equally affirm women’s equality and ordination in the contemporary church, and agree that Paul challenged first-century patriarchal culture without explicitly attempting to overthrow it. Crucial for the discussion is recognizing that 1) and 2) are not the only possible alternatives in the debate. Also, the borders between 4) and 5) are somewhat porous. Both positions recognize that Paul affirmed an equality between men and women within the context of a hierarchical first-century Mediterranean culture that did not affirm that equality. Disagreement occurs about the extent to which Paul explicitly challenged Mediterranean culture, and to the extent which he found it necessary for pastoral or missionary reasons to accommodate the culture.

Fifth, important for this discussion is the acknowledgment that Ephesians 5 is not actually directly relevant to the debate about women’s ordination for the following reasons:

1) Paul’s discussion in Ephesians 5 is not about church order at all, but about domestic family relations. Given a clear understanding of both the relationship and differences between office and authority, one could conceivably affirm a traditional understanding of male hierarchy within the family while still recognizing the possibility of women’s ordination. This is because:

2) Paul’s discussion in Ephesians 5 has to do with the relationship between husbands and wives, not the relationship between those who hold church office and their congregations. Paul says nothing whatsoever in this passage about an authority of all men over all women in general or even of an authority of men in church office over women in the church.

3) Even among those who affirm male-only ordination, the complementarian position is not the only position in the discussion. As we made clear in our original essay, and as I argue at greater length in Icons of Christ, although the Roman Catholic Church refuses to ordain women, its theology of ordination is based on sacramental theology, not a hierarchy or authority. In his Theology of the Body, Pope John Paul II argued for complete and mutual equality within marriage, basing his claim on a reading of “mutual subordination” in Ephesians 5. This means that, at least for those who uphold a Catholic understanding of ordination, one could still argue for complete equality between husbands and wives within marriage, and that women could fulfill all functions within the church denied them by complementarians – preaching, teaching, exercising ecclesial authority – with the single exception of presiding at the celebration of the sacraments.

Having laid some ground work, I will turn in the next essay to the criticisms raised by “The Response” against the essay “Women in Holy Orders,” written by Grant LeMarquand and myself, and Mathew Colvin’s criticism of Icons of Christ. As mentioned above, the crucial issue concerns whether, in Ephesians 5, Paul is advocating a position of “mutual submission” within the family, or rather, whether Paul is advocating what Peter O’Brien refers to as “submission within divinely ordered relationships.”³