Catholic Exchange

Opening Our Hearts to Ephesians 5

Written by

Jim Curley

in

It has a reputation as a hard teaching: Ephesians, Chapter 5 — you know, that passage which many preachers dodge or avoid (either because they can’t figure out what it means, don’t agree with St. Paul, or are afraid of backlash from the congregation). Yes, I am talking about "let women be subject to their husbands…" (Ep. 5: 22). This St. Valentine’s Day of the year of St. Paul is the perfect time to contemplate and embrace St. Paul’s teachings on marriage, and this is part of it.

First, we must realize that this passage is not an anomaly with St. Paul. St. Paul teaches similar sentiments elsewhere: in 1 Cor. 11: 3 ("the head of every woman is the man"); and in Colossians 3:18 ("Wives be subject to your husbands…"). Some have said that St. Paul just didn’t like women; but then we look and find that St. Peter, our first pope says: "let wives be subject to their husbands" (1 Peter 3:1)!

Is it simply a matter of a different culture, thus we can ignore these passages? Fr. Benedict Groeshel, C.F.R. in Reform of Renewal (Ignatius Press) says, "The believer accepts the fact that divine Providence has given us the Sacred Scriptures as a special grace. They are not the words of men; they are the words of God. … We have to accept the words of Scripture as living words addressed to ourselves. While we use our intelligence and research to discover the best possible understanding and interpretation of these words as they were originally given …" So we see, we can’t just dismiss these words, "let women be subject to their husbands" because they don’t fit our "culture;" we need to take a closer look, and embrace these words as coming from God.

Passages in Holy Scripture can have more than one meaning, or have different levels of meanings. Any particular line in Holy Scripture must be understood in the context of all of Scripture and especially in context with those passages surrounding. Unfortunately everyone is so focused on the line "wives be subject to your husbands," that context is lost. We need to look at the whole of St. Paul’s teaching on marriage. After we seek understanding, then we can enter prayer and ask guidance on how this Scripture applies to our very circumstances

First, we may have heard that the family is a model of the Holy Trinity. We say that the love between God the Father and God the Son is so great that the Holy Ghost proceeds from Them — in a similar manner, the love between husband and wife begets children. But note, the family is not the Holy Trinity; it just models the Holy Trinity. In the same way we see St. Paul modeling marriage, the relation between the husband and wife, as Christ and the Church. Note that this is a model or prototype — the husband and wife aren’t actually Christ and His Church. While this would seem obvious, sometimes the distinction gets lost as the words used to describe reality and prototype merge.

St. Paul models marriage after Christ and His Church. The husband is the prototype of Christ; the wife the prototype of the Church. Christ physically "enters" His Church in the Holy Eucharist. The husband "enters" the wife in marriage. These are realities. Christ is the protector of the Church — the husband, is the protector of the family. The Church is subject to Christ. Yet also the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. This is why St. Paul says of the husband: "He that loveth his wife, loveth himself. For no man ever hateth his own flesh". This hearkens back to Genesis, — "they shall be two in one flesh".

The parallels continue: Adam says of Eve, "This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man " (emphasis added). The Church was born from the Side of Christ on Good Friday. Woman is originally born from the rib — or the side of man. So with these similarities, we can see why husband and wife take on their respective prototypical roles.

We can not leave the academic study of scripture without mentioning one sobering point. We know that in reality and throughout history some men and societies have (because of their physical strength and power) placed women as inferior to men and have subjected women to all kinds of outrage and abuse. This continues especially in the pornography which is so widespread today. This was prophesized in Genesis. After God has found Adam and Eve in their guilt, God admonishes Eve, saying: "I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power; he shall have dominion over thee." The natural order has been broken and thus true charity is turned into selfish desires and struggles for power. However the dominion of man over woman that God admonishes Eve with is not the same subjection St. Paul talks abou — for St. Paul is raising women out of their sorrow created by Eve.

In fact we must digress for a moment and emphasize that while many societies have placed women as inferior, it is the historical fact, (contrary to what secular historians claim), that it is the Catholic Church that has raised the dignity of women to be the same as that of man — because (in part) She (the Church) sees in women a reflection of Herself — and because the dignity of women is a God-made reality.

Note that St. Paul describes wives’ subjection to their husbands as the prototype for the Church’s subjection to Christ. Does the Church feel cheated because She is formed from the side of Christ? Does the Church feel slighted because She must follow Christ (to Her salvation)? Yet the hairs rise on the necks of feminists when women are made the prototype of the Church. Christ loves the Church. It is the object of His great affection. Women are made prototype to this image of Christ’s affection. How can one take offense? The wife should embrace the honor given her as prototype for the Church: that instrument of Christ, that bride of Christ, through which graces flow — through which all men come to their salvation. Women are the prototype of this worthy bride!

In fact, it is the husband who should pale and fear the words of Ephesians. He is asked to love his wife as Christ loved the Church. How did Christ love the Church, His bride? Through suffering and death; by opening His side and pouring out every drop of His precious life-blood. This is what husbands are asked to do for their wives as the prototype of Christ — love without counting the cost, without ceasing. St. Paul says that the husband must sanctify his wife. Just as Christ cleanses and purifies His bride so that it can approach the Father "not having a spot or wrinkle, … but should be holy and without blemish", thus also, the husband must present his bride to God — having made her "holy and without blemish".

We need to take this new understanding, which has only scratched the theological surface, to prayer so we can understand what it means in our own lives. Everyone wants to focus on their spouses’ responsibilities instead of their own. It is easy to tell for a man to tell his wife, "You are not being subject to me!" But this is in reality a matter between her and her confessor. Or the woman to say to her husband, "You are not loving me as Christ does!" This is a matter between him and his confessor. Instead of examining each other’s consciences, we need to examine our own.

For the woman, she should meditate on this passage in a new light — the light of embracing her vocation as wife, mother, and woman. She should always be mindful that she is the prototype for the Church and all that this entails. In her life as mother and wife, is she a vessel of love and grace to her family? Does she understand she is one flesh with her husband — not an independent woman?

For the man (and I can speak to this more readily), we find the tables have been turned. Instead of Ephesians 5 being an excuse to lord it over our families, we find it is an obligation of service. Recall Christ’s washing His disciples’ feet at the Last Supper. Again, it was the Lord who suffered on the cross, not His Church. We are the prototypes of Christ in our family. His leadership of the Church is one of charity and suffering. We must examine our conscience as husbands and fathers and ask ourselves: How do I suffer for my family? What sacrifices do I offer? Do I fast for my wife and children? How, when and how often do I pray and mortify myself for my family? Do I serve my family — giving all, or do I expect my wife and children to serve my needs? Do I lead family prayers? Do I lead by edict or by sacrificial example ? What concrete efforts am I making to present my spouse to God as "holy and without blemish"?

Whether we understand all the theological prototypes in Ephesians or not, in the final analysis husband and wife must make charity for each other a priority. St. Paul begins his treatise on marriage with the words, "Being subject one to another , in the fear of Christ" (emphasis added). The Church, through the teaching of Sts. Peter and Paul on marriage, brings husband and wife to their greatest dignity. Christ has sanctified marriage — let us not sully it in our territorial selfishness. Instead of keeping score, as husbands and wives we must give until we have nothing left — until the last drop has fallen. If we want to truly take to heart St. Paul’s (and Christ’s) teaching on marriage, we need to stop setting boundaries on our service to each other. Instead, let us take to heart St. Paul’s great exhortation to charity in 1 Corinthians 13 ("love … endureth all things"), and St. Peter’s most practical admonishment for married couples in 1 Peter 4: 8 ("for charity covereth a multitude of sins").

(A version of this article was published in 2005 by Catholic Exchange.)

Comments

12 responses to “Opening Our Hearts to Ephesians 5”

  1. felix1571 Avatar
    felix1571

    I am suprised that no one has commented on this, but perhaps, it quite suffices on its own. Thank you in any case for this helpful article. I didn’t realize how often in Scripture these sentiments were given by the Apostles. I have struggled to understand these sentiments before, but I have always taken them seriously as words from the Lord.

    I thought it was funny when a woman suggested that she submits to her husband, adding that she submits her opinion!! I don’t know how far etymology can get us, but here goes: “sub” means “under” and “mit” comes from “mitere” which means “to send.” It does make one think of the formula: behind every great man is a great woman.

    The other thought I have is that there is an aesthetic at stake in marriage. The married couple are together the artist, and they are trying to paint a picture, or present a drama, that reflects the history of man and the economy of God. Also, they try to live what is truly unique in their marriage and so witness to the creativity of the omnipotent God. The man provides for the wife as God provides for the Church. His authority is there, but also “Jerusalem is a free woman.” (Galatians 4:26) If free will, in and of itself, is a role reversal, then, let us say that role reversals are seen in marriage. Certainly, role reversals can set the truth about roles in relief, highlighting them and giving them their proper definition. They can also be a means of attack on the proper roles in marriage, but my point is that a dearth of such reversals may also be unhealthy. If recourse is given to them in a right spirit, they can provide irony and humor in a relationship. Moreover, they may be strictly necessary. Paul confronting Peter, or Catherine confronting Gregory XI, or Veronica wiping the face of Jesus: these may be seen as role reversals in a certain sense. They all speak to the reality of circumstances without ignoring the greater reality of what God has instituted from of old and on his own accord.

    In other words, is it safe to say that a marriage relationship is lost in both situations: a life without these gender roles or a life without a certain openess to role reversals? Does a married couple witness to the beauty of marriage by simply adhering to roles set up by God? or do they better witness to the splendor of the gift by creatively approaching their life’s circumstances in a way that respects roles while allowing flexibility?

  2. Cooky642 Avatar
    Cooky642

    Thank you for the exposition of this bit of theology, for bringing THE TRUTH to light. Both men and women are at fault for not making this truth a reality in their marriages. It is our responsibility to repent, and ask God to make us the husbands and wives He created and called us to be.

  3. GaryT Avatar
    GaryT

    Felix,
    what you suggest is not role-reversal. For instance Catherine of Sienna never said she would dissent against the pope (that I know of anyway). You can be subordinate and still tell someone that you believe they are wrong. In charity they ought.

  4. katievs Avatar
    katievs

    I am sorry to have to say that this article strikes me as Protestant rather than Catholic in substance and ethos. Catholics look to the Church to interpret Scripture, do we not? And the Church has interpreted this passage in a way very different from Mr. Curley’s. John Paul II was careful, explicit and expansive on this point: It is no longer fitting to speak of wives as subject to their husbands, as if that is her “role” in marriage, while the husband’s role is to lead. Note that Catholic wedding vows no longer include a promise to obey–not because the Church has allowed the vows to be watered down under pressure from feminists, but because the Church has judged it no longer fitting. A wife is not to obey her husband, as if she were his subordinate; she is to love and honor him, as he is to love and honor her. They are equals. Co-regents in the domestic realm.
    A deepening appreciation of the dignity of women (see JP II’s “Letter to Women” has led to a new sensitivity to their position in marriage and society and a call for new cultural forms (such as the wording of marriage vows, and views of her relation to her husband, and her freedom and vocation to unfold her talents in society and not just in the home). Mr. Curley seems not to acknowledge any of that.
    According to the pope, we are to understand Ephesians 5 as approaching a great mystery that has been unfolding more and more through ecclesial history. And the verse “wives be subjected to your husbands” is to be taken in the light of the preceding verse: “be subjected to one another”. Marriage is a union and communion of total self-giving love. The husband is also to subject himself to his wife; and she is also to lay down her life for him.
    This is not to abolish sexual difference. There are typically feminine and typically masculine ways of living out the mutual self-donation of conjugal love. But these cannot be reduced to “roles”; and they must not be understood as prescriptive: the woman is the man’s subordinate and must accept his authority. The Church has said no to that.
    Catholic theologian John Grabowski here argues persuasively that JP II’s theology of marriage represents a genuine development of doctrine: http://www.geocities.com/johnaugus/grabowski.html
    I don’t think it’s wrong for a fellow theologian to dispute his argument, but I do think it’s wrong for lay Catholics to pass on private interpretations of Scripture that significantly contrast with papal teaching on the same passage, as if the Church hasn’t spoken, when she has.

  5. Mary Kochan Avatar
    Mary Kochan

    I disagree. In the practical day-to-day of life there are going to be situations in which someone has to make a final decision. The husband and wife may not agree, even after a lot of dialogue, but still a decision has to be made and the head of the family is the one who finally has to make it and bear the responsiblity before God for it. He also has the grace from God to make it. The wife should at that point submit to it and do her best to make it work, even if it was not what she preferred. There simply cannot be a human organization with two equal heads.

    There is not a single thing in this article that precludes a woman using her talents outside of the home. But while we are on that subject, JPII has really argued forcefully for women’s roles in the home to be more supported by society even to the point of making that a centerpiece of political and economic justice.

    There is one specific area in which the pope argues that the woman should have the final say. And that is on the subject of whether to have a baby, given in the context of NFP conversations.
    This is due to the fact that physical and emotional demand upon her is the greatest.

    One of the biggest problems in modern families is not overbrearing husbands, lording it over their wives, but men who are too passive and do not exercise leadership in their familes.

  6. katievs Avatar
    katievs

    Mary (whose writings against cults so I love and admire!), could you site a current (i.e. post-JP II) Church teaching that identifies the husband as having authority over his wife, or of the wife needing to be subject to her husband? If you can, I will humbly consider whether my position needs revising. Meanwhile, keep in mind that not all human organizations are hierarchical in structure with a single head. Consider, for instance, a business partnership, where each partner has equal weight, different gifts, and different zones of particular competence, where he is respected and deferred to by the other, etc. Neither can be said to have final decision making authority. Yet it works. Somehow decisions get made without one being over the other.
    I think there is profound spiritual meaningfulness in the head/heart analogy describing the respective roles of husband and wife in marriage. I think it’s much more profound and beautiful and mysterious than Mr. Curley allows. (For instance, those who look closely at human experience know how often it is the heart, rather than the head that leads, because the heart is more sensitive and intuitive. Remember Pascal: “The heart had reasons that the reason does not know.” Sometimes the wisest thing the head can do is decide to follow the heart.)
    My point in reply to the article was twofold: 1) The author should have taken account of the development of doctrine that took place in JP II’s papacy in the area of marriage, and 2) the sexual complementarity in marriage is not prescriptive in the way his article implies.
    When my husband and I were first married we were very much under the influence of the covenant communities and thought that headship and submission was the biblical model for marriage. We would have said just what you say here: “Someone has to make the decisions.” Trying to live it out led to the only serious tensions we have had in 20 years. JP II’s teachings liberated us from that unnaturalness. We began to see that what the community leadership taught was not what the Church was teaching, and that what the Church was teaching was much more beautiful, more profound, and truer than what we had found in the CC’s.
    Now we experience a free and easy co-regency in our family life, a natural give and take having to do both with normal sex complementarity (e.g., he is less emotionally sensitive, which has both positive and negative dimensions) and our individual personalities (he is very laid-back; I am intense.) In our experience, this “works” much better than what we had tried before with genuine Christian sincerity and zeal. Our children and friends know we love and respect one another. They know that we have very different gifts and ways of being, weaknesses and strengths. They know how we turn to and rely on one another for help and support and “reality checks.” I don’t think anyone would describe our marriage as reflecting a headship/submission model. They WOULD, though, see a kind of head/heart union and communion of love.
    And it’s not just our marriage by any means. I see it all over the place. Beautiful sacramental marriages where the complementarity between the spouses is respected and rejoiced over, but where one cannot be said to be in authority over the other.

    To your last point: Yes, JP II has argued for women’s roles in the home to be more supported. He has also argued that society should make dramatic structural changes in order to allow women to be much more present in the wider society. To me, the most obvious needed change, which has begun to happen abundance (I witness daily in the “JP II marriages” among my friends and family) is that husbands have to take on much more responsibility in the home and in the educating of their children than was normal in my parents’ generation. They also have to make developing their wives gifts and talents a priority in their “husbanding.” (cf. Edith Stein.)

  7. katievs Avatar
    katievs

    PS I meant “cite” not “site.” 🙂

  8. Mary Kochan Avatar
    Mary Kochan

    I read the theologians account of JPII’s teaching. What we cannot do is use one passage of scripture to anhilate another. I understand JPIIs location of the anthropology of marriage within the Trinatarian economy. I think he is corrective without being nearly as prescriptive as you are making it out. When you show me that the Father is anywhere spoken of or concieved of as in subjection to the Son, I will buy it. When you show me the Father saying to the Son, “Let your will, not mine be done” I will buy it. When you show me where the Father is ever obedient to the Son, I will buy it. Nevertheless, I think you and I would agree in practical application in just about every instance, anyway.

    You might be letting the distortion under which you lived color what you think I and Mr. Curley were intending.

    Thanks for the kind words about my work on cults.

  9. katievs Avatar
    katievs

    Mary, the relationship between the spouses is not a Father/Son relationship. No one questions the propriety of sons being subordinate to Fathers. But the fullness of love in the Holy Trinity is not exhausted by the Father/Son paradigm.
    All analogies between human relations and divine ones are imperfect, and create difficulties when taken too far. We say that Mary was the daughter of the Father the mother of Jesus. So was she Jesus’s grandmother as well as his mother? (Excuse me for bordering on irreverence here, but I have heard people use such reasoning to “expose” the illogic of our Faith.)
    We’re meant to ponder these mysteries in our hearts. For the working out of their practical implications in Christian life, we’re to look to the teaching authority of the Church.
    The Church has given a lot of teaching on marriage and women in the last 50 years. There is Humanae Vitae, Familiaris Consortio, On the Dignity of Women, The Letter to Women, plus JP’s years of Wednesday audiences collected under the name The Theology of the Body. I claim that none of it sounds like Mr. Curley’s article. (Notice that he nowhere cites Church teaching, but sola scriptura.) The Church is notably NOT instructing wives to be subordinate to their husbands. The Church is NOT teaching husbands that they are to lead their wives. The Church is rather emphasizing mutual self-donation and service, mutual love and respect, generosity and collaboration in rearing children, and so on. She removed “obey” from the wedding vows. Fathers no longer (literally) give their daughters away, but the spouses give themselves to one another…
    This is not an annihilation of Scripture, but a deeper penetration of a mystery that puts a particular Scripture passage in a new light, and even changes our understanding of it in a significant way.

  10. Mary Kochan Avatar
    Mary Kochan

    Thank you. You have provided much to ponder and research. And of course if you are really exercised about the subject, you are welcome to write another article!

  11. katievs Avatar
    katievs

    You are kind. Perhaps I shall.

  12. antony Avatar
    antony

    Ephesians 5
    21 Being subject one to another, in the fear of Christ.
    22 Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord:
    23 Because THE HUSBAND IS THE HEAD OF THE WIFE, AS CHRIST IS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH. He is the saviour of his body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject to Christ: so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things.
    i think that should give people a clearer view. God bless all humble women.

Leave a Reply

More posts