"Husbands are charged with presenting their wives sanctified and spotless to Christ, not burdened and beaten down by neglect and dishonor."

What?!?

I find it very problematic that with one breath you're saying egalitarians play fast and loose with Scripture, and then with another, you're tossing up this poor piece of theology.

I understand the "iron sharpens iron" thinking, but my wife and I are both called to do that for each other. That is not a charge given specifically to men anywhere in Scripture. To preach otherwise is very troublesome.

Of the four passages you quoted, only one speaks of authority and it is mutual, something held by each spouse in relation to the other. Where does the bible "ground" a husband's authority other than the shared authority of 1 Cor 7? Curiously, always missing from this conversation, is the authority of the wife as if it doesn't even exist in the marital bed and any mention of such was also left out of recent conversations. If it doesn't even exist in the marital bed, of course, it couldn't exist beyond it.

I agree with Victoria. There should be great concern for teaching that husbands "present their wives to Christ spotless and sanctified". Who presents and sanctifies singles? Windows? Divorcees? There is only one mediator between God and woman (single or married) and that is Jesus Christ. As Victoria well said, it is speaking of what Christ did for the church:

"25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself [Jesus] up for her [the church], 26 that he [Jesus] might sanctify her [the church (not wives)], having cleansed her [the church (not wives)] by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he [Jesus (not husbands)] might present the *church* (not wives) to himself [Jesus] in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she [the church (not wives)] might be holy and without blemish." (The pronouns do not allow for any other interpretation. Wives is plural and feminine pronouns are singular.)

In your reply to Victoria on this issue you write:

"It would be a similar thing to the “iron sharpening iron” of Christian community."

What do you mean?

Great post, Jared. Complementarianism will always been misunderstood by some, but this goes a long way to showing its scriptural roots and laying out how simple the principles really are.

I think it all boils down to motive. Competition can be healthy in some circumstances, but many people have a competitive spirit and bring it to the marriage as though to see which partner can dominate the other. But true love is where each seeks the best good for the other. Given the obvious differences between men and women, Ephesians 5 is the discipline that practically mitigates the curse in Genesis 3. So if our motive is selfish, we follow the curse and engender strife. If our motive is selfless, we are aligned with Christ and we engender reconciliation.

And since men and women are different, this plays out differently. And God made men and women different for the purpose of revealing Himself. Christ is different than the Church. It's true that individuals vary and some women seem more masculine than some men, for example. But the majority is to be normative for the sake of the message. If the temptation is to assume undue control because of one's strengths, then the motive is wrong.

For men, this leads to a denial of the strengths of their wives. This results in the stunting of their spiritual growth and the use of their gifts in the Body of Christ. For women, this leads to a denial of a need for their husbands. A man not needed will either go elsewhere to find where he is needed or slump into sloth. But I'm painting clumsily with a broad brush here. These things manifest in so many different ways.

"...and to deny her flourishing and edification..."

Jared,

Could you tell me very specifically what that means?

Thank you.

According to I Cor. 7:4, wives have authority over their husbands body. Sounds egalitarian to me, rather than complementarian. I think that's a point often ignored in much of the dialogue on the subject. In your view, does the wife's authority end there, or does it extend to other aspects of the relationship as well?

Great stuff, and I appreciate the references to Prov. 12:4 and 1 Cor. 11:7 at the end. I don't tend to think of those passages in this discussion as often as I should.

Something that has always stood out to me about these passages (esp. Eph. 5) is that there is no command for a husband to "exercise authority" over his wife. Rather, Paul states the complementarian framework, then unpacks the actions for each party within that: wives submit, husbands love toward holiness with Christ as your example.

That's not to say, of course, that the husband is supposed to pretend he doesn't know he has authority, and this isn't a way to squirm into egalitarianism. Not at all. But it seems important that the indicative is that the husband is the head of the wife while the imperative is that the husband is to love the wife as Christ loved the Church.

Andrew

hi jared

Is it ok for a man to be a stay at home dad

a lot of people at college think that a man who works while his wife is at home is sexist.

The idea of a househusband seems to contradict scriptures,I do not want to get into an
argument but just want receive clarification

It is impossible for men to do for their wives what Christ has already done for them

Virginia, totally agree. My view is not that the husband does what the Holy Spirit does. My view is that the husband is supposed to "wash his bride in the word," something that husbands can do, honoring her and edifying her according to Scripture by the power of the Spirit. It would be a similar thing to the "iron sharpening iron" of Christian community.

I agree it is Christ that presents us spotless, not ourselves, and yet it is a husband's duty to lead and protect and edify his wife into pursuing Christ, a part of how the Spirit stewards the church in sanctifying us.

paul is talking about sex there

I'm thankful for this post today for two reasons: it is both biblically faithful and it continues to "work in" the truths about what the Comp. position ACTUALLY are and whacks away at the caricature so many still hold about it. Many thanks - God's peace.
W.

In light of what you wrote, can you explain the second part of Gen 3:16. Most translations seem to indicate that despite the pain of childbirth, a woman will desire her husband, who will rule over her. However, the NLT translates it as, "And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you," which makes more sense to me because it indicates a state of tension or conflict between husband and wife after the fall.

Hi Jared-I want you to know how much I appreciate your call for wives to be loved and cherished and encouraged in every way by their husbands. This is very needed and very helpful.

I have a problem however with the interpretation of this passage as saying that the husband presents the wife spotless before Christ. Challies too presents that argument here http://bit.ly/MXgLop. I have never commented on this because I am not much into criticizing people on their blog. I am however very concerned that this teaching seems to be spreading.

If one reads the passage in Eph.keeping it's plain sense just using the rules of grammar the idea of a husband presenting his wife spotless before Christ is not in that passage. The husband is charged to love his wife as Christ loved the Church-then it is shown how Christ loved the Church-he gave himself up for her that "he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish". It is impossible for men to do for their wives what Christ has already done for them-your Christian wives are part of the Church-Christ is the one presenting them faultless-not the husbands. The charge to the husband is very clear from the passage since it is repeated about 3 times-the husband is to love his wife like Christ loves the Church-what you say about husbands presenting their wives faultless before Christ is just not there in the passage-loving is charged-it is enough for a wife to be loved like Christ loves his Church. I do not understand hermeneutically how you dear men are coming up with this interpretation. If the passage is read as written using the rules of English comprehension that interpretation makes no sense. A clear charge is given to husbands-and it is deep and profound-love your wife as Christ loves his bride. I would beg of you not to go beyond what is written-no one sanctifies and presents the Church(or any member of it) spotless but Christ himself.

Excellent, and well stated Jared.

[...] Wilson on The shape of complementarian husbanding. Great post on what a husband does. [Image Credit] Share [...]

beautifully written. my husband is exactly this type of man. he leads me to our Lord daily and loves me so well. he cares for me, teaches me, admonishes me, rebukes me and our relationship is so that i can be completely open and honest with him as well. when it comes to decisions, he and i discuss everything together, but at the end of it, he ultimately makes the decision by going to the Lord and going to scripture. also, we are not even 30 years old yet and we have five amazing children that he and i are sheperding together according to our biblical roles. i cannot even describe how wonderful it is to be serving the Lord alongside a Godly, humble man who is living according to the guidelines set forth in scripture.

[...] The Shape of Complementarian Husbanding (While more could be said, this is a great, general corrective to the normal “complementarian” strawmen.) [...]

Robert,

I think Laura is right. Perhaps you are trying to read something into the text that is not there. In my nearly 60 years I have never seen a healthy marriage in which the husband and wife did not treat and respect each other as equals. I assure you my wife of 37 years is treasured for who she is and not because she is a "fragile piece of fine china". I return to my original comment that, if I were you, I wouldn't hang my complementarian hat on the peg of the verses cited in the post.

Laura,

I am probably not explaining it well, but I think the sense of it is not that my wife is an object, but that I am to treat her as a treasured thing. To be sure, there are physical differences as well. If it were just about physical strength, though, I'm not sure why Peter would say weaker "vessel." He could have said, "look out for your wife because she is a physically weaker person than you." In my opinion, the fact that he used the word "vessel" indicates he is trying to convey more than that aspect of it.

I like the physical strength interpretation better. I am not a piece of china, fine or otherwise, and it would tick me off for my husband to try to treat me as an object. And at the same time, he is not less valuable or to be treasured than I am.

Nice Akash. It's often easy for us to slice a verse and put it into a context it doesn't belong.

Clay,

My understanding of what Jared wrote is that these verses are clarifying how men are supposed to love their wives. Ephesians 5:22-24, for example, delineate the distinct roles of husbands and wives. Jared begins with Ephes 5:25 above, which explains more about the incredibly high standard that men are called to meet -- loving our wives as Christ loves the church. In other words, it is already presumed that men and women have complementary roles, and these are not the proof texts for complementarianism.

Regarding 1 Peter 3:7, most commentaries I have read seem to say that "weaker vessel" is referring to a fragile object, such as a fine piece of china. We are to treat our wives as we would treat a delicate, fragile, treasured object. It does not necessarily pertain to differences in physical strength.

I was reflecting on this some more, and I think there is another aspect of how a husband is supposed to love his wife. We are to provide physical and spiritual protection for our wives.

Adam is the source of our sin (Rom 5:12,14; 1 Cor 15:22) but it was actually Eve who first disobeyed God. She was deceived (1 Tim 2:14). So doesn't it seem "unfair" to blame Adam for bringing sin into the world? I believe that one must accept a complementarian view in order for this to not seem unfair. Adam, the husband, was right there with Eve (Gen 3:6) but he did nothing to protect her. He did not rebuke the serpent, nor did he tell Eve not to eat the forbidden fruit. He did not protect Eve in any way. That is why we can say that he is responsible for sin entering the world.

Hi, Clay,

First, I'm not making assertions, only observations. I'll concede that these are possibly inaccurate observations. They were just the initial impression I was getting. I assure you I intend no sarcasm.

Regarding A: thanks for the clarification. However, I don't follow this statement you made: "I don’t think that responsibility is exclusive to the husband." Could you explain that a little?

Regarding B: I don't think you understand my intended meaning. A man must consider his reasons for the way he behaves toward his wife. I believe that a man must take his wife's sanctification into consideration when he chooses his actions toward her. The egalitarian arguments I'm reading seem to indicate that a man should not do this.

Regarding the false assumption of intention, this is a general observation that many wives consider their husbands to have bad intentions; and this false assumption (coupled with hen sessions - and too many men have their rooster sessions too, so I'm not dissing anyone discriminantly here) likely lead to a eisegesis of the biblical texts. So this can fuel egalitarian sensibilities. That's what I mean by that.

I was typing on a phone in Venezuela and the text typed beyond the box was not resizeable. So I was trying to be brief, but it can make my observations difficult to follow sometimes. For that I apologize.

Loo,

First, I was not linking 1 Peter 3:7 to Genesis 3. They were two separate issues.

Second, why does it matter, for a Christian, how Jews interpret Adam's sin? Nevertheless, the concept of original sin is in the OT. For example, see Psalm 51:5 and Job 15:14.

Third, you seem to have a mocking attitude towards the accounts in Genesis. If I have misunderstood you, I apologize. However, if you think that Genesis is somehow not believable, then I urge you to think through this very carefully. Our Lord Himself referred to Genesis, for example in Matthew 19 on the question of divorce. It seems clear that Jesus was not treating it as a poem, but rather He was considering it to be an historical, factual account of God's relationship with man. In other words, God's instruction for us in Genesis 2 is something we must still obey today.

Point: Adam and Eve do very little with 21st C gender relations. They don't even have a whole lot to do with greek gender relations. Trying to tie Genesis 2 and 3 into Peter's comment on husbands/wives is a giant leap of logic, Peter isn't even considering Eve in his letter.

As for Adam as a source of sin, etc. Please show me where in the OLD testament Adam is a source of sin for the Jews? It really isn't a part of Judaism, and not a part of the early church's view of our source of sin (our sinful nature, which I assume you are referring to).

Inerrancy: so, you believe the sun circumnavigates the earth... and the last time you sinned you cut off the offending member of your physical body... and, etc. I am not talking about inerrancy, but interpretation.

If you are trying to say Peter is calling wives (not all women, just wives) weaker because of Eve's mistake - that is your interpretation, inerrancy has nothing to do with it - we all agree the Bible most likely said something similar in the original text in the original language - of which we have absolutely NO record of (the oldest surviving Old Testament texts on Genesis come from the dead sea scrolls, written shortly after Jesus' death, and some reliable copies, not originals, of the Masoretic and Septuagint texts - although their dates of lineage of Adam - Abraham do not match - one places the Genealogy a hundred years older than the other, but I digress). So, no we can't begin to unpack inerrancy, because we don't have the originals around anymore. We have pretty good copies though - at least from the Apostle Paul's time.

The ESV is not the most unbiased translation, but let's use it for now. Gen. 2:16 God only tells Adam not to EAT from the tree of Knowledge or he will die. Then, in Gen. 2:22 God takes Adam's rib and makes Eve. In Gen. 3:3 Eve, almost repeats what God told Adam to the (male, sinful) serpent. But, she doesn't quite repeat it. She adds: "neither shall you touch it, lest you die"

So, what do the Jews make of this story? In the older traditions, it was believed the serpent (male) was a large creature, walking on his hind legs. As he talks to Eve, he moves towards her, causing her to back up, into the tree, just as she finishes telling him she will die if she touches the tree. Oops. She doesn't die, so she figures, OK, may as well ignore that advice, and takes a fruit and eats it. Not that that means anything one way or another, it is just an interpretation of the story. But, you are convinced she heard this from God? why?. This is similar to Satan slightly twisting the words of God when he talks to Jesus in the desert. It has not traditionally been considered that Eve learned that she couldn't touch the tree directly from God, it has been debated whether it was Adam or that wily Serpent that told her not to touch it. Truth is, we could debate all day and we will never know for sure.

What I can't figure out is how weaker vessel becomes the "more easily deceived" vessel. Do you know Greek at all? Look, a vessel is a container. So, if we apply this to humans, the container would be the physical body. A container is made to hold something, so women may well have been considered baby vessels 2,000 years ago. But that is only one translation. The other common translation is the weaker sex. Either way, this is a physical condition, not a comment about how Eve was deceived.

Jim,

Your assertions are a tad sarcastic.

A) Of course a man is supposed to protect his wife. But I don't think that responsibility is exclusive to the husband.
B) If I understand what you mean by "supposed to consider actions...", then I need to ask who is the final arbiter of the appropriateness of these considered actions?

In your second paragraph could you clear up who is making the false assumption of intention? Wife? Husband? Egalitarians?

"Either way, I wouldn’t read gender relations into Adam and Eve – you will sink in the mire pretty quickly, as that isn’t addressing gender relations really, but the state of humanity with God. Trying to make a few passing comments into a rule to follow won’t end well."

Thank you, loo. I, too, find that distilling men and women into gender roles is a form legaizization that is not in keeping with the whole counsel of Scripture.

This calls for a poem. There is a better way ...


WOMEN LOVE YOUR HUSBANDS, MEN RESPECT YOUR WIVES
or BETWEEN THE LINES

Woman, look upon your husband
See how wondrously he is made
He is the image of God

He is a rocket aimed at the stars
A fire persisting through rain
Passionate as a young man’s dreams
Though as strong as iron
He can be as weak as flesh

Man, look upon your wife
See how marvelously she is made
She is the image of God

She is mystery
A light shining through the clouds
More beautiful than the flight of a thousand swan
Though the weaker vessel
She carries pain as though it was joy

Man and woman
Husband and wife
Each sealed in perfection
Each the art of God’s hand

Women, love your husbands
Men, respect your wives
Have I misread the scriptures?
Have I added to God’s holy word?

Maybe I have just read between the lines

LOL, Robert, are you from an IFBaptist church?

What do you do with the fact that the church wasn't Augustinian until about 400 years after Chrsit's death, and then, only in the western half and only commonly accepted in the 1100s?

See, no one even considered Adam as their "source" of sin. Human nature, sure, but Adam? Nah.

Is this why so many Calvinists are comps?

Back to the rest of Christiandom, I am the source of my sin, you are the source of your sin. Death was around long before Adam sinned - even to a literalist: Bacteria, necessary for digestion in the intestines, only lives 24 hours, yet is essential for food absorption. Even if you take Gen. 2 literally, Adam was around for a few days before plants/animals/naming them, etc. Also, that talking snakie creature wasn't exactly sinless before he went up to Eve. Just to be clear here: sin goes from male snake (male, mind you), to female human, to male human.

Now, Adam was the one who was told not to EAT from the tree of knowledge, right? Then God created Eve, right? And the male talking snake tells Eve if she TOUCHES the tree she won't die. Hun? Wah? Wait, who told Eve what here? Did Adam make it clear that she was forbidden to eat or to touch? She thinks she can't touch this tree. So, either a) She was a poor learner or b) She had a poor teacher. If we go with b) she wasn't deceived, she was mis-taught. Maybe those sinful male types are poor teachers of the law too? It's all in perspective my friend, all in perspective.

Do you know where Paul got his teachings on Adam and Eve? Do you know what the Psudeugraphia is? It was considered garbage by later canonization comities, but in Paul's day - it was the Scripture. Today, it would be heresy to put it in the same book as the Bible, but 2,000 years ago, Paul says it is useful for teaching.

If you want some food for thought on sin/male/female, etc. I would suggest looking into the Jewish teachings on this. It is, after all, from them that we get this text. If not, try Walter Bruggermann: Genesis. He's a Reformed Protestant, so you'll be fine. Either way, I wouldn't read gender relations into Adam and Eve - you will sink in the mire pretty quickly, as that isn't addressing gender relations really, but the state of humanity with God. Trying to make a few passing comments into a rule to follow won't end well.

loo,

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that husbands are not supposed to provide physical and spiritual protection to their wives?

Paul's teachings in 1 Tim 2:13-14 are part of the canon of scripture, which I believe to be inerrant. If you do not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, then we do not have a common basis on which to discuss this issue. Paul clearly states that Eve was deceived.

Moreover, in Genesis 3:2-3 (ESV) Eve's interaction with the serpent indicates that she clearly understood God's command regarding the tree:

And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’”

If you have a clear understanding of what God commands, but you choose to disobey it, that is sin.

Clay,

On other thought worth considering. If God did not intend for men and women to have different roles, then why are there different instructions for men and women, such as in Ephesians 5 and 1 Peter 3? Scripture does not say, "Hey, you married people, here is how your marriage is supposed to work." Instead, scripture tells one thing to men and another to women.

Also, we can look to the Godhead to see that Christ submits to the Father, and the Holy Spirit submits to the Son. They are equal, but with different roles.

I appreciate the civil way in which a controversial topic is being discussed.

I am trying to understand what God is saying through Peter. It's not about my interpretation. In the book "The Exemplary Husband," by Stuart Scott he says on p. 199 (revised edition):

The actual word in the Greek for "vessel" (skeuos) means useful container or instrument. The word "weaker" actually means strengthless or fragile. Some take the viewpoint that Peter is saying that the woman is the weaker person in the marriage (physically and/or emotionally). But if we look at one little phrase, Peter's meaning becomes clearer. That little phrase is "as" or "like". Peter is still telling us how we should honor our wives. We are to treat our wives in the way that we would a very delicate and useful vessel. In other words, we are to esteem her as valuable and handle her carefully. ...His point is that every husband needs to honor his wife by treating her as a delicate and precious possession.

I appreciate this very much. Thank you!

It sounds like the egalitarian arguments in the comments are thus:

A) Men are not supposed to protect their wives.
B) Men are not supposed to consider actions that agree with the sanctification that the Holy Spirit is working in the hearts of their wives.

Why would any wife have a problem with husbands protecting them or taking their sanctification into consideration? If there is a problem it's because some other flasely assumed intention on the husband's part is imported into the adherence to the meaning of the scriptural principles. It goes to a matter of trust and pride that kills godly marriages and destroys the testimony and biblical revelation given to the marital relationship.

That's the point at which it influences church roles, which was also mentioned. But that's off topic for this article.

To my thinking, the above verses would also apply to an egalitarian view of marriage. In fact, I don't see anything explicitly complementarian unless you view the wording "weaker vessel" as something other than the observation that men generally tend to be physically stronger than women. The rub comes if you extrapolate these verses to define roles and functions in the church.