For the husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is the head and Savior of the church, which is His body.

—Ephesians 5:23

The parallel between Christ-Church and husband-wife relationships is referred to in both the Old and New Testaments. The Song of Solomon is an entire book dedicated to the topic; its symbolism of the Christ-Church relationship is uncontested.

In the New Testament, Ephesians 5:25 has been cited by pastors and authors ad nauseam over the last fifty years. This wouldn’t be so bad if those who beat the Ephesians 5:25 drum would properly handle its meaning and place it in the proper context of the entirety of Scripture. Those who over-emphasize this single verse insist that the man "sacrifice" himself for his wife as Christ did for the Church. Focusing on Ephesians 5:25 while neglecting other passages that speak to the husband or wife is to redefine the marriage relationship.

Preaching this counterfeit view, unbalanced teachers talk about the husband-wife and Christ-Church parallel while obsessing on the idea of the husband sacrificing himself for his wife as Christ did for the Church. This rather myopic focus overshadows the other dynamics of the relationship that have greater scriptural emphasis. I see this as an error of basic hermeneutics, which is similar to mischaracterizing Christ’s nature by looking solely at His overturning tables in the temple and omitting other relevant Scripture about His makeup.

This trend of placing disproportionate emphasis on the husband’s sacrificial duty toward his wife started to take hold in the 1970s. The feminist movement of the 1960s—rightly so—brought to light some of the cultural issues that were contrary to biblical teaching and called attention in the culture and the Church to unbalanced attitudes about women. The changing social movement put pressure on Christian leaders to respond to these legitimate concerns. Christian pastors and authors began countering the attitudes and practices of the preceding decades by admonishing men. In and of itself, this was not necessarily bad.

However, with heightened sensitivity toward women, coupled with feminists becoming less tolerant of biblical views of marriage, pastors and authors also pulled back on admonishing women and calling them to their biblical role. Since then, the pendulum has gradually swung to the other extreme. While the cultural shift in attitudes about women was in some ways positive, it simultaneously recast men so dramatically as to lower them to a position of contempt. Too many pastors and authors jumped on the cultural wagon. Their material leans heavily toward putting men in their place by admonishing them for their predispositions to offense in the marriage. Concurrently, there is an omission of balanced admonition for women, whose sin nature is equally inclined to commit offense.

One seminal book in this trend was the best-selling Design for Christian Marriage by Dwight Hervey Small. Originally released in 1959, new editions continued to appear in the years that followed. I believe his teaching heavily influenced the Church’s view of the husband-wife relationship from that period through to today, with many pastors and Bible colleges adopting his views. The predominant thinking in the Church today reflects it.

Now, I recognize that Small was a man of considerable education. During his career prior to his death in 2003, he earned a seminary degree, taught college and seminary-level courses, pastored a number of churches, and wrote fourteen books. So please don’t interpret my criticism of his work as some kind of uninformed broadside, but a respectful disagreement between Christian brothers.

That said, I think Small holds the Ephesians 5:22–33 (verse 25 being the centerpiece) passage in disproportionately high esteem. To cite his own words, he calls it "the high-water mark in the New Testament teaching concerning the relation between husbands and wives." ²⁰ He discards basic hermeneutics to prop up this errant teaching. Small is careful to point out that only two verses in Ephesians 5:22–33 are directed at wives, while all the others are directed at husbands. If he were as diligent with the rest of Scripture, he would have found a contradicting proposition. For example, there is more written in the Old Testament and New Testament about the woman’s duties, position, disposition, and sins in the husband-wife relationship than there is about the man’s. This created a flawed bias throughout his book—and is evident in books by other authors that followed.

Throughout Design for Christian Marriage, Small paints the husband as a shadow of egotistical selfishness rather than supporting his God-ordained position as the head of the relationship. Today the net effect of this myopia (on the husband’s sacrificial deportment) is to reposition the relationship where the man is the one who submits. His "sacrificial" disposition toward his wife becomes an excuse to override the balance of Scripture, which requires the woman to be the "help meet" and to submit to him.

Now, Christ "gave Himself" for the Church. His act of going to the cross was the ultimate demonstration of His love for His flock, as well as an act of love for His Father. In Ephesians 5:25–31, Paul is saying that the husband is to actively demonstrate love for his wife. But he is not saying that a man yields his position to his wife, any more than Christ yields His position as Prophet, Priest, and King to the Church. A woman is still to submit to her husband, regardless of his disposition (see 1 Peter 3:1–6), just as the Church does to Christ.

The relatively recent trend of obsessing on the misinterpretation of Ephesians 5:25 and the omission of the rest of Scripture that speaks to husbands and wives is to align the Church more with a secular world view of marriage than a biblical one. It has built women up at the expense of men while perpetuating a cultural mindset that knocks men down instead of building them up as the proper leaders in the home. For anyone who has lived long enough to observe it, this shift is evident in the way men and women are portrayed today in various media. Men are caricatured as aloof and boorish while women are calm, rational, and smart. In contrast, the scriptural model maintains the dignity of both husband and wife.

The overemphasis on Ephesians 5:25 and the teaching that Christ "gave Himself for it" as the Christ-Church and husband-wife parallel has created an erroneous view. However, the four foundations undeniably parallel the two in a more comprehensive and balanced way:

These parallels are quite simple and have an abundance of scriptural evidence to support them and provide practical application. They don’t require specialized interpretation of Scripture to understand. It is time that today’s pastors, authors, and Christian counselors abandon their obsession with Ephesians 5:25 and restore the prominence of these four foundations in their work.

Ephesians 5:22–33

Ephesians 5:22–24 is quite clear in its instruction: "Wives, be submissive to your own husbands as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is the head and Savior of the church, which is His body. But as the church submits to Christ, so also let the wives be to their own husbands in everything."

These words are consistent with the many other New Testament verses and with Genesis 3:16. The words be submissive and submits in verses 22 and 24 are translated from the Greek word hypotassō, meaning "to subordinate" or "to obey."²¹ In verse 22 Paul parallels the wife’s obligation of submitting to her husband as "unto the Lord" to her obligation to submit to God. How much more emphasis and importance can be placed on her submission? There should be no doubt or confusion about the positions a man and woman are to assume in the marriage.

And as if that is not clear enough, Paul again makes another parallel in verse 24, comparing the wife’s subjection to her husband to that of the Church’s subjection to Christ. Paul tops it with the crowning phrase, "in everything," to close the loopholes and the human rationalization that the Holy Spirit knew would follow two thousand years later.

Meanwhile, verse 23 emphasizes the headship a husband is to maintain in the marriage. You cannot deny the plain statement Paul is making. He is comparing the husband to Christ, the "Savior" of the Church. The Greek word for Savior is sōtēr, meaning a deliverer. Sōtēr is from the Greek word sōzō, meaning "to save, i.e.. deliver or protect."²² So, from what is the husband to "deliver" or "save" his wife? The best you can conclude is that the husband’s role, in part, is to save her from her susceptibility to Satan’s lies, as pointed out in 1 Timothy 2:14: "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, being deceived, fell into sin." It is consistent with the wife’s requirement to seek biblical instruction from her husband (see 1 Corinthians 14:35) and with the transfer of care between God and Adam in Genesis. Go back and read Genesis 3:1–6 to understand the full impact of the woman’s susceptibility—which led all mankind into sin. What makes us think that the modern woman is any less susceptible to Satan’s lies? The husband is to protect his wife. He can only do so when she submits herself to him in the Word. He cannot hold his role with an unwilling wife.

Agapao and Phileo

"Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband" (Eph. 5:33, KJV). The term love used repeatedly in Ephesians 5:22–33 is the type described in the Greek as agapao. A Greek and Hebrew dictionary based on Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible defines this word as "to love (in a social or moral sense)"²³ while drawing distinctions between agapao and phileo:

Agapao is chiefly of the heart (wholehearted, unconditional, devoted) while phileo is chiefly of the head (feelings, conditional, sentimental). Agapao "embraces the judgment and the deliberate assent of the will as a matter of principle, duty and propriety."

Phileo 1. to be a friend to (fond of (an individual or an object)), i.e. have affection for (denoting personal attachment, as a matter of sentiment or feeling; 2. (specially) to kiss (as a mark of tenderness).²⁴

Note the contrast of agapao as "the heart" and phileo as "the head." Our contemporary understanding of what consists the head and the heart would assign them to opposite definitions. We most associate the heart with affection, sentiment, feeling, or personal attachment, which are all terms Strong associates with "the head." It is important that we don’t take just a cursory view of "the heart" as the definition for agapao love, since its contemporary meaning can mislead us in our understanding of what Paul is saying. Paul is speaking to a husband’s obligation to be married to one woman and committed to her in a moral sense—to be faithful. He is speaking to a man’s lifetime commitment. The woman is required to check her heart and keep her vow to love her husband. She is to make a willful, heartfelt effort to demonstrate her love and to keep her husband in his rightful place in her heart and mind. The love that Paul refers to is not mushy sentimentalism. Agapao is not the romantic love that dominates modern culture’s music, movies, and books. It is "the deliberate assent of the will."

Many today mischaracterize the love a husband is to have for his wife due in part to an improper understanding and use of the term agapé, the noun form of agapao. Many pastors, authors, and Christian counselors read more into agapé than "the deliberate assent of the will as a matter of principle, duty and propriety." In fact, some have gone so far as to misinterpret agapé simply as unconditional love. To characterize it this way is to redefine the relationship. Unconditional is defined as "without conditions or limitations; absolute."²⁵ This is much different than "the moral obligation as a matter of principle, duty and propriety." The moral obligation in a Christian marriage refers to the covenantal vows each made to one another. And those vows are not subject to transactional negotiations by one or the other. She is to reverence him in his headship position. He is to love her and honor her in her position as “help meet.” When she becomes dishonorable by being irreverent or by withholding the intimacy (love) of the covenant, then she has broken her vow. It is no small matter. Those entering into biblical covenants –which marriage is one– are pledging (vowing) commitments that, if broken, are cause to sever the covenant. We know that any marriage is subject to conditions that would permit its termination—fornication, certainly. Unrepentant abuse (physical or emotional) and withholding intimacy are two that break the marriage vows.

The husband and wife are responsible as individuals to perform to agapé. It is under the umbrella of agapé (the moral obligation) that couples maintain their integrity. This is exemplified by seeking forgiveness when they’ve offended the other, assuming the best in the other, holding an empathetic disposition toward their spouse, and being obedient to scriptural teaching regarding their role in the marriage. These are matters of the will.

This willed love, agapé, is required of husbands and wives. It is what compels us to act and speak kindly to the other when we don’t necessarily feel like it. It is what persuades the Christian woman to submit to her husband when she is tempted to rationalize and act differently. It is what induces the husband to correct his wife’s rebellious words and acts when it would be easier to let them slide. It is what obliges the husband to continue expressing acts of kindness when she isn’t kind. It is what necessitates both husband and wife to uphold the biblical elements that are unique to marriage.

This willed love of agapé is what some describe with the old cliché "Fake it until you make it." It is to do what the Lord requires of us, against what our feelings of anger, apathy, or pride would lead us to do—or not do. Eventually, the feelings succumb to the pattern laid down by the will.

Willed love is the bridge that sustains the marriage across temporary chasms of hardened hearts, rebelliousness, and unforgiving spirits. Willed love is true love. It is the manifestation of the vows made on the wedding day. The thick and thin, for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, days are traversed in willed love, not the fleeting, fickle emotions that are fueled by pride and an impenitent heart.

Willed love is also two-sided. The will of one to continue in acts and words of kindness and goodwill is complemented by the responsibility of the other to repent and change their hurtful and destructive ways. Willed love allows the target to uphold under the duress of an injurious wife or husband. At the same time, it doesn’t remove accountability from an offending spouse. Willed love requires the offended to firmly and lovingly confront the other and for the offender to own their offenses. Agapé relies on the biblical promise that love will win over evil and hate.

Make no mistake, the marriage is comprised of both agapé and phileo. The Song of Solomon demonstrates phileo where the affection, sentiment, and feelings are unambiguously demonstrated between the couple. Failure to demonstrate either is a separation, a divorce from the state that is meant to be.

A husband’s obligation to love his wife includes calling her out on her biblical shortcomings. It is part of his headship as much as it is part of her willingness to submit. But that’s not what some pastors will tell you. I’ve heard pastors state that it is not the husband’s position to admonish his wife when she breaks with biblical character. Some go so far as to blame husbands for their wives’ behavior because he hasn’t delivered some level of Christlike love and that if he would only be more like Christ, she would be the woman she is meant to be.

This position presumes the wife has no role in the matter and removes from her responsibility for the state of the relationship. It changes the biblical dynamic. What those who deliver this message are saying is that the husband must submit to his wife. They are saying that the husband must offer some token that is acceptable by his wife—a standard that is not even close to being objective, let alone biblical. Unlike the submission that Scripture requires of the wife, the trend in Christian circles is to impose a nonbiblical, subjective requirement on the husband to submit to his wife’s fickle expectations. This is one area where many leaders take extreme liberties in imposing disproportionate meaning on "and gave Himself for it" (Eph. 5:25).

Ephesians 5:25 Malpractice

Verse 25 parallels the husband’s love for his wife with the love Christ has for the Church.

"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it."

Regarding the phrase that ends this verse, the Greek word for gave is paradidōmi; it means "to surrender, i.e., yield up, intrust (meaning entrust), transmit."²⁶ In contemporary teaching, which I find incomplete and unclear, pastors and authors allow the meaning to be carried beyond scriptural intent. They provide no further scriptural citations as to what it means in spiritual or practical terms. Neither is there teaching of what "give himself for his wife" is not.

If the man is to his wife what Christ is to the Church, then what are the woman’s complementary obligations that parallel the Church’s obligations to Christ? There is a huge gap in the answer to that question with today’s predominant teaching. In the way Ephesians 5:25 is often taught, it is difficult to know at what point a husband’s "sacrificing himself" becomes submitting to his wife. Without balanced teaching of a wife’s obligations, this unbalanced view of Ephesians 5:25 turns the husband into a trash can for a wife who is not instructed in who she is to be in relation to him. There is no basis for her accountability to own her part in the relationship.

Given the five-decade-long trend, it is safe to assume that most Christian women have not been instructed in who they are in relation to their husbands. Many in the Church appear to fall back on the secular assumption that women naturally know how to love their husbands. Therefore, they don’t need admonition or instruction.

A balanced view would include Scripture that addresses both the man and woman. For example, 1 Peter 3:7 is appropriate to use in admonishing husbands, "Likewise, you husbands, live considerately with your wives, giving honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they too are also heirs of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered." This instruction to husbands needs to be balanced with instruction to the wives, for example, "A gracious woman retains honor" (Prov. 11:16).

Balanced presentation acknowledges that both husband and wife are susceptible to sin and offense. Scripture places an expectation on the wife to behave honorably, not acting contentiously nor railing against her spouse. The man is expected to give honor to her as the weaker vessel. Without consistent reminders of her obligation to maintain an honorable disposition toward her husband, you have what is common today: women who behave like peevish, self-centered teenagers. Right behind them are pastors, fueling them with unbalanced instruction that leaves no check on their hearts.

The Ephesians 5 Prerequisite

The Church is the body of believers, those who repent and have faith and submit to Christ’s headship. The unbelievers, the rebellious, are not in His Church. Christ did not give Himself for unbelievers.

The Christ-Church dynamic in the marriage requires submission by the wife to her husband in the same way the Church submits to Christ. Submission by the wife to her husband is a prerequisite for this parallel to work. Without her heartfelt submission "in everything," the husband does not have a willing object of his love. A woman with a pattern of rebellion and refusal of her husband’s headship requires from him a different response than if she displays a heartfelt love and willingness to submit in everything. It is a mistake to expect a husband to maintain the same relationship to his wife when she does not exhibit a pattern of submission but is rebellious. How can he? How can they be "one" in a state of rebellion?

Now that we understand the biblical marriage foundations and how they are the application of the Christ-Church and husband-wife parallel, let’s look at the secular influences that have infiltrated the Church and marginalized them.

Continue to Chapter 6