Stephen
Baldwin
OT:
Joshua 24.1-2a, 14-18
NT:
Ephesians 5.21-33
Marriage: Going Against the Grain
I officiate my fair share of weddings. One of the many things couples often agonize
over is which Scriptures to read at their wedding, so I make suggestions to them. Today’s reading from Ephesians is about
husbands and wives, but it is not one I have ever recommended for a
wedding. Let’s read it.
How
many of you have heard that at a wedding?
I have. Perhaps you read it at
your own wedding. I don’t suggest it to
couples because not because it’s out of place at a wedding but because I’ve
heard such horrible sermons about it in the past from people who completely
misunderstand it. I actually think it
could be a beautiful wedding scripture, but we need to set some things straight
first.
First,
men and women were both created equally in God’s image. According to Genesis, both were created by
God out of love. One is not more
important than the other. They are
equal. For crying out loud, if I hear
one more time that it was Eve’s fault that Adam ate the fruit I think I’ll just
go sit under an apple tree. Because
being hit on the head by falling apples would be less painful than having that
conversation again. They both ate the
fruit.
Second,
don’t pick and choose. This is one of
those infamous passages people like to pull one sentence out of and therefore
totally miss the point. And you can
guess how that goes. Guys pull out verse
22: Wives, be subject to your husbands.
Ladies pull out verse 25: Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved
the church and gave himself up for her.
And somehow those verses become weapons we launch at one another in
moments of anger or disappointment. You can’t pick and choose one verse from a
larger context. This passage is about something
much bigger.
Third,
this is about marriage. Not just
marriage in a general religious sense, but marriage in the ancient world in a
legal sense. Our society is once again
fighting about the legalities and religious nature of marriage, and guess what…that’s
nothing new! Two thousand years ago,
Romans and Greeks and Jews all lived in the same communities but had different
ideas about marriage. What a shocker!
According
to historical records from the time of Ephesians, marriage regulations existed
for three main groups of people--Romans, Greeks, and Jews. Romans were Roman citizens. People of the Roman empire. A married Roman woman was considered legally
subject to either her father or her husband.
But if she was not married and had no living father, a Roman woman was
considered legally independent and lived subject to no one. As a result, marriage wasn’t very
popular. Women chose not be married, so
the Emperor Augustus passed a new Roman law requiring men and women of a
certain age to marry. The law even
required those who divorced or were widows to remarry within a certain
time frame. So if you’re upset about the
state getting too involved in marriage today, know that it was way worse in
ancient Rome.
In
Greek culture, it was ever worse for women.
Aristotle taught that women were by nature inferior to men, and
therefore wives should submit to husbands.
There was no follow-up saying husbands should submit to wives. Their law simply said that wives must submit
to husbands. They were to do so even if
the husband was unfaithful, as it was common and accepted practice for husbands
to engage in casual adultery with slave girls.
And this week we learned things haven’t really changed that much, as 40
million people’s names were hacked from a website called Ashley Madison that
sells affairs for married people.
Last
but not least, in Jewish marriages, marriage was technically viewed from a
legal point of view as a transference of property. Everything she owned belonged to her
husband. However, a Jewish husband did
have to sign a marriage contract (a pre-nup, if you will) saying that in the
event of his death everything that belonged to him would be hers. Believe it or not, that was progressive for
the day!
Now
that all the women in church today are sufficiently offended and the men are
sufficiently frightened as a result of their wife’s offense, let’s talk about
where Ephesians fits into this scenario.
New
Testament scholar Craig Keener says that in such a context where women were
routinely viewed as inferior to men, it wouldn’t have been surprising for
anyone to read verse 22: Wives, submit to your husbands. That would have been common practice
anyway.
But
to tell husbands to submit to their wives as in verse 25, to love them as
Christ loved, that was a radical redefinition of the way their culture viewed
marriage! The man who society told to be
head of the household was instead being told by God to be its servant. God is full of surprises! The Bible is rarely what it seems and never
the same as the world around it, because it is a counter-cultural book. It goes against the grain.
So
the next time you’re at a wedding where this is read or you’re in a heated
conversation where you start throwing around Bible verses like swords, “Wives
should submit to their husbands…husbands should submit to their wives,”
remember the radical and counter-cultural intent of Ephesians—to throw
society’s notion of one gender being dominant over the other out the
window. Instead, Ephesians tells us, “Be
subject to one another.” Only those who
are equals can be subject to one another.
That’s
why I think it could actually be a powerful wedding scripture. God leads us to view our partner as an equal
to whom we mutually submit in love for a lifetime. But it can also be a powerful testimony to a
church family.
Do
you remember what reason Ephesians gives after it says, “Be subject to one
another.” It says, “Be subject to one
another…out of reverence for Christ.” As
we discussed last week, reverence is more than respect, different from
fear. It’s a sense of utter
astonishment. We are subject to one
another because we are in total awe of Jesus Christ, and if he loves us then what
business do any of us have doing anything except loving one another, treating
one another as equals, and being subject to one another in mutual
relationships?
Amen.
