The Comp Egal Debate: What does it mean that “the husband is the head of his wife”?

Most attempts at unpacking the New Testament phrase “the husband is the head of the wife" (Ephesians 5:23) are flawed from the start because they fail to treat “head” as part of a complex metaphor. Insofar as “head” is part of a complex metaphor, the choice to treat it as a word to be glossed dictionary style is, shall we say, wrong-headed.

In a forthcoming book, Sarah Sumner seeks a deeper understanding of the notion that the husband is the head of the wife based on sounder linguistic assumptions. Once it is realized that head (kephale) is not a word to be replaced by another like “source” or “authority,’ but part of a complex metaphor, it becomes possible to see the complex as an analogy. Like all analogies, at some point it breaks down. Sarah unpacks the analogy and explores its limits in light of the entire biblical witness.

Thanks to David Zimmerman of InterVarsity Press, I received an advance copy of Jim and Sarah Sumner’s forthcoming book “Just How Married Do You Want To Be?” It is a co-authored book, a richer and wiser book because of Jim’s voice. It would be fun to explain why, but that must wait for another day. Jim’s contributions are marked as such.

The metaphor in question encompasses both “head” and “body.” “Head” and “body” together serve to signify an indissoluble unity: husband and wife. A “head” cannot do without a “body” anymore than a “body” can do without a “head.” As the Sumners put it, oneness and shared identity are implied.

It is thus clear why Paul should say, “each of you should love his wife as himself” (Ephesians 5:33) - indeed,

he is loving himself, because he and his wife are one. (p. 71)

The Sumners go on to highlight three main dynamics of a biblical model of marriage: (1) oneness between head and body; (2) sacrifice and submission; (3) love and respect.

(2) and (3) differentiate according to gender just as Ephesians 5 does. This, of course, is a stumbling block to egalitarians. But the Sumners show that each relational term makes sense vis-à-vis the others so long as they are set within overarching and analogous relational terms in which Christ models both sacrifice and submission, and the church models both love and respect. This way of seeing things is possible only if Ephesians 5 is read in the light of the rest of scripture, because it goes beyond what Ephesians 5 says on its own.

To be continued.

Bibliography

Jim and Sarah Sumner, Just How Married Do You Want to Be? (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, forthcoming 2008) The key chapters are entitled “Two Popular Models of Marriage” (Chapter 2), “A Deeper Understanding of Headship” (Chapter 3), and “A Biblical Model of Marriage” (Chapter 4).

Here is a complete list of posts in this series:

• What is the Debate between Complementarians and Egalitarians really about?
• The Comp Egal Debate: Honesty is Such a Lonely Word
• The Comp Egal Debate: What does it mean that “the husband is the head of the wife”?
• The Comp Egal Debate: A Distorted View of Headship
• The Comp Egal Debate: A biblical definition of a wife’s submission to her husband
• The Comp Egal Debate: A “purely” historical take on Ephesians 5:22-33
• Sarah Sumner on the Need for Integrity in the Comp Egal Debate

Comments

[Don]

I am egal and agree that the head/body metaphor in Eph 5 is one of unity, at least that is the way I read it.

I do wish to point out that the WAY this unity is worked out in Eph 5 was written in a patriarchal culture. There are 2 implications of this, what was written to wives was MUCH LESS than the culture expected and what was written to husbands was MUCH MUCH MORE. This can be easily seen when contrasted with Aristotle's Household codes, where a wife was to OBEY her husband and a husband was to RULE his wife. As David Instone-Brewer points out, Paul is providing a Christian gloss on Aristotle, one that seems to conform to its norms but works to subvert them.

[JohnFH]

Hi Don,

Thanks for commenting here. I would say this: since you are egal, you look askance at "patriarchal" arrangements NT household codes fill with Christian content. My sense, however, is that Paul and Peter did not look askance at those arrangements, except in the sense that human culture in general stands under the judgment of God and likewise stands under God's mercy. NT writers sought to redeem those arrangements, not subvert them. It's a subtle distinction, perhaps, but an important one.

Another way of putting what I'm trying to say: I think that you, as an egal, may not be critical enough of your framework of choice. It too stands under the judgment of God in specific ways both in theory and in practice.

[Gary Simmons]

I know this is an old post, John, but I feel like commenting anyway.

Have you ever seen the show Futurama? It's a Simpsons-esque comedy set in the future. Contemporary personalities are still alive, albeit only as heads floating in jars. I can't read Ephesians 5 without thinking of how incomplete life is as a head without a body. This show was great, but I suppose it got cancelled because Family Guy stole the ratings. But I digress.

As for the body, however, I can't help but read Ephesians 5 and think of the Headless Horseman. Although I think it would be bad precedent for a woman to steal other women's heads. That's adultery. Or murder, depending on how literally you take me.

[JohnFH]

Hi Gary,

I think that is one of the essential insights that Sarah Sumner brings to the exegesis of this passage: at issue is a complex metaphor, in which head and body are both indispensable.