A wee look at Ephesians 5:22-25

I was a reader at my sister’s wedding this week. The passages chosen were safe: 1 Corinthians 13 (the Love Chapter) and John 2:1-11 (the wedding at Cana). I am reminded of the less safe passage chosen at my own wedding: Ephesians 5:22-25 ff. Reportedly, the reader almost choked on the words:

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.

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her…. (ESV)

It’s easy to see how this passage is the root of all patriarchy in our society, leading to subjugation of women, blah, blah, blah. With a little bit of investigation, it can been seen as otherwise.

First off, Ephesians was a work of Jewish literature long before it became part of the canon of Christian Scripture. Essential to the Jewish wedding is the Ketubah, or marriage contract, whereby the husband obligates himself to his wife (“Husbands love your wives….”) and the wife submits herself (places herself under) the contract. She is not obligated to love her husband. The Ketubah places all of the obligation on the husband. It’s his promise to her.

Of course, anyone who is committed to 21st Century North American egalitarianism is bound to be offended by the gender distinction, no matter how the roles are defined. However, it’s fun to imagine how this passage might be read in a society where the gender roles are reversed. The husband has to love his wife (no similar obligation on the part of the wife), he has to be willing to lay down his life for her, and she has to do what? Just accept that?

Okay, there’s that headship business, but otherwise, it’s easy to see how this passage is the root of all matriarchy in our society….


One thought on “A wee look at Ephesians 5:22-25

  1. Sure, she’s not obligated to love her husband – the contract is not for her, it’s for the first child. It was (perhaps somewhere still is?) in many societies common for the woman to be obligated to stay until she produced a baby, and then she was free to go (we’re talking theoretically of course). Naturally she most often stayed after that, because she wouldn’t want to leave her child behind. A man doesn’t need his wife to love him, just their child.
    Oh, and I am happily married, for love and like, with no children. Other than the furry four-legged ones that is…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s