Why I am an egalitarian

The issue of gender roles within marriage is one that has become increasingly controversial during the feminist revolution of the last 30 years. It is interesting to read a book like New Testament Nuptial Imagery¹ from 1971, where the ‘traditional’ concepts like the submission of the wife and the headship of the husband are simply stated without revision or alternative suggestions.

Only 14 years later, a work like Bilezekian’s Beyond Sex Roles² is typical of much recent scholarship that has proposed different interpretations of passages like Ephesians 5:21-33. In opposition to the traditional understanding, many commentators like Bilezekian portray their position as ‘egalitarian’ (defined as “asserting the equality of all people”³). Equality of all people, they assert, is a biblical principle demanded by passages like Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”.

This principle will not allow gender to determine a person’s function or position—such as one submitting to another. In fact, “true egalitarianism must be characterised by … ‘role-interchangeability’”.⁴ That is, the role you have in life determines your value, and as we are all equal before God, we must all be allowed to have the same roles. Under this definition, passages like Ephesians 5 simply cannot be interpreted in the ‘traditional’ way.

This raises important questions: if the ‘traditional understanding’ of passages like Ephesians 5:21-33 is correct, does that mean that men and women have an inherently different value? In other words, is God anti-egalitarian? Does it matter? And what determines human value anyway?

In order to resolve these issues, we need to examine the passage in question carefully to see what real egalitarianism is like.

The major grounds of dispute in Ephesians 5:21-33 rest on three points of interpretation: the meaning of ‘submission’ (hupotasso) in 5:21, 24; of “to one another” (allelois) in 5:21; and the meaning of “head” (kefale) in 5:23

Context

Every passage of Scripture needs to be examined in context.⁵ Ephesians 5:21-33 needs to be understood as the direct explanation of 5:15-18. Paul has already reminded his readers to no longer live in darkness, but light (5:8)—no longer foolishly, but wisely (5:15). These wise children of the light make the most of every opportunity to please the Lord. The way they do this is by being filled with the Spirit, rather than with wine (5:18).

Understanding the structure of verses 18-21 is crucial to understanding what follows it, for the verb “be filled” in 5:18 is then defined or explained by the four participles (-ing words) that follow it: speaking, singing, thanking and submitting. These four activities define what it is to “be filled” with the Spirit.

It’s like the sentence “Jump into the sea, running, leaping and landing in the water”. We can work out what kind of jumping we are to do by the following –ing words.

The significance of this is that submission, as a subset of ‘being filled with the Spirit’, is foundational to “understand[ing] what the will of the Lord is” (5:17)—to what being Christian is all about. This supports the overall tone of chapter 5, which is that of doing the will of God (5:17) and imitating him by loving, as Christ loved us (5:1). For our Lord came to serve rather than be served (Mark 10:45), counting others as better than himself (Phil 2:3).

Submission

In this context, then, what does the word ‘submit’ (hupotasso) mean in 5:21 and 24?

Firstly, in Greek literature written about the same time as Ephesians, hupotasso means ‘submission to a higher authority in an ordered array’.⁶ Bratcher states,

This verb is used in military contexts of a subordinate’s relationship to his superior in the army hierarchy. It is used of a wife’s relationship to her husband, … of servants to masters, … of people to state authorities in Romans 13:1, 5. It means “be subject to, obey, be ruled by”. It carries the implication of subordination, reflecting the standards of the time, which no amount of special pleading can disguise.⁷

Secondly, the only other use of the verb hupotasso in Ephesians is in 1:22. Here, it is used in reference to all things being ‘placed under’ (NIV) or “in subjection under” (NASB) Christ’s feet. Paul’s use of hupotasso must mean ‘subject to’ or ‘under the authority of’.

Finally, the qualifier in verse 22 of “as to the Lord” tells us what this submission is to be like. A wife is to submit to her husband in the same way she submits to the Lord.⁸

To one another

Nevertheless, it is contended, ‘submission’ might mean all these things, but what about 5:21? Isn’t that speaking about ‘mutual submission’ of Christians to “one another”—that is, you submit to me and I submit to you, so that we take turns submitting to each other?

Words, however, also need to be understood in their context. So in Revelation 6:4, the same word is used when men are made to slay “one another”. In this context, it doesn’t mean they all killed one another simultaneously; instead, it means that one was killing one and another was killing another. The word meaning “to one another” doesn’t need to be used reciprocally.

But what does it mean in the context of 5:21? We’ve already concluded that the word hupotasso always refers to submission to a higher authority, so the semantic possibilities for “to one another” must be limited. The word “always implies a relationship of submission to an authority … the word is never ‘mutual’ in its force; it is always one-directional in its reference to submission to an authority”.⁹

In the Bible, hupotasso is used in connection with Jesus submitting to the authority of his parents (Luke 2:51); demons being subject to the disciples (Luke 10:17); citizens being subject to government authorities (Rom 13:1, 5; Titus 3:1; 1 Pet 2:13); the universe being subject to Christ (1 Cor 15:27; Eph 1:22); unseen spiritual powers being subject to Christ (1 Pet 3:22); Christ being subject to God the Father (1 Cor 15:28); church members being subject to their leaders (1 Cor 16:15-16; 1 Pet 5:5); servants being subject to their masters (Titus 2:9; 1 Pet 2:18); and of Christians being subject to God (Heb 12:9; Jas 4:7). In none of these instances are “these relationships ever reversed; that is, husbands are never told to be subject (hupotasso) to wives, the government to citizens, masters to servants, or the disciples to demons, etc.”.¹⁰

Ephesians 5:21-33 is an even more difficult one in which to argue for mutual submission. Even if you remove the parallel statements about children/parents (not even Bilezekian can argue that parents should obey their children or masters obey their slaves¹¹), you are still left with the submission of the church to Christ in 5:24. If submission is mutual in this passage, then there must be times when Christ submits to the church!

Head

Finally we come to the discussion concerning the word ‘head’ in 5:23. Some have suggested that the word ‘head’ means ‘source’, as in ‘head of the river’. That would make the point of 5:23 that man is the source or origin of woman, just as Christ originated the church.

However, an extensive study that surveyed every instance of ‘head’ (kefale) in Greek literature between 200 BC to 200 AD concluded that the assertion that it commonly meant “source” is mistaken. The word ‘head’ when used metaphorically of a person always has the notion of authority and leadership.¹²

Real egalitarianism

Why is this important? It’s important because there is something behind the distaste for the clear teaching of this passage: it’s a failure to understand the nature of what Christianity is all about.

At the heart of being Christian is service, in imitation of the selfless service of Christ for us. We are to be like the author and perfecter of our faith—the one who selflessly loved us and gave himself for us, even to death. Husbands are to love their wives in the same sacrificial way that Christ loved us.

At the heart of being Christian is also submission—submission to God. Wives are to submit to their husbands as the church does to Christ. It is the profound mystery of the marriage of Christ to his church that we are to imitate in our marriages. Being Christian is the opposite of demanding rights or position, or abusing our authority, for being Christian is being like Christ.

The views of Bilezekian and others also miss out on the freedom we have in Christ. In calling themselves ‘egalitarian’, they reckon human value as dependent on what you can or can’t do, or on what roles we are or aren’t allowed to fill. However, if human worth were dependent on function, then my value would rise and fall with my salary, with my position in the company and with what company that was. If human worth was dependent on function, then the handicapped, the ill and the unborn would have less worth than us—the sort of reasoning that allows philosophers like Peter Singer to continue to advocate mercy killing today.

Rather, by the grace of God, we have been freed from reckoning ourselves on the basis of our birth, status, wealth or accomplishments. The very equality of Galatians 3:28 that Bilezekian and others pursue can only be found in the redemption of Christ. For in his death, Christ purchases us; we cannot be valued higher than to have God die to buy us.

In this, we are freed from reliance on ourselves, for all our works are but filthy rags to God. In this we are freed from our rights—for what is right but that we all face the judgement and condemnation of God? In this, we are freed to serve in imitation of Christ, seeking to count others as better than ourselves (Phil 2:3). In this, we are all equal—valued not for ourselves or what we can do, but by the infinite worth of God’s Son.

Real egalitarianism is found in what Christ has done for us, and in Christians imitating him in service and submission. It will never be found by running away from it.

Endnotes

¹ RA Batey, New Testament Nuptial Imagery, Brill, Leiden, 1971.

² G Bilezekian, Beyond Sex Roles, Baker, Grand Rapids, 1985.

³ The Macquarie Concise Dictionary.

⁴ LD Scanzoni and NA Hardesty, All We’re Meant To Be, Eerdmans, Michigan, 1992, p. 163.

⁵ “A text without a context is a pretext for a subtext”—and often-repeated principle by Don Carson.

⁶ Arndt & Gingrich, ‘A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament’, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1979, pp. 847-848.

⁷ Robert Bratcher, A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians, United Bible Societies, London, 1982, p. 139.

⁸ B Witherington, Women in the Earliest Churches, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1988, p. 57.

⁹ GW Knight, ‘Husbands and Wives as analogues of Christ and the Church’, in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, edited by J Piper and W Grudem, Crossway, Wheaton, 1991, p. 172.

¹⁰ Knight, p. 172.

¹¹ Bilezekian excludes children-father and slave-master relationships as falling under the definition of mutual submission because it would not fit his argument: “Obviously, the word obey does not belong in the dynamics of mutual subjection,” which is supported in circular fashion by the immediately following sentence, “To be mutually obedient to each other is a logical absurdity”, p. 171.

¹² W Grudem, ‘Does kephale (“head”) Mean “Source” or “Authority Over” in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2336 Examples’, TrinJ 11 (1990), 3-72. Cf. also Batey, pp. 23-24.