Unbelievers are rather brutish in thought and behavior, and tend to apply the corresponding principles and priorities when it comes to mate selection. But the fact that Christians are not wild animals demands that they look to higher standards for guidance in the area of courtship and marriage.
There is an episode in Alice in Wonderland, where our protagonist asks the Cheshire Cat for directions:
"Cheshire Puss…Would you
tell me, please, which way I ought to go
from here?"
"That depends a good deal on where you want to get to," said the Cat.
"I don't much care where – " said Alice.
"Then it doesn't matter which way you go," said the Cat.
" – so long as I get somewhere," Alice added as an
explanation.
"Oh, you're sure to do that," said the Cat, "if you only walk long
enough."1
If one has no idea what he is or should be looking for in a mate, then it seems to matter little which direction he takes in terms of the selection process, and it is not important what he ends up with. The Christian, on the other hand, is given authoritative guidelines, providing him with the conception of the kind of family he should be seeking to establish. Once there is a telos, or purpose, the individual elements become focused and directed aright.
In what follows, I intend to outline several characteristics of a biblical wife. Most requirements are common to all Christians – just as no believer should be a liar, a dishonest woman is unfit as a candidate for marriage. What we are interested in are the especially important and relevant characteristics that a man should seek. Although the information provided here will benefit married or unmarried women, as well as married men, I will write primarily with the unmarried male in mind who is looking for directions in this area.
As mentioned, the God-given telos for marriage governs the criteria by which a woman is deemed appropriate to be a Christian's wife. Without going into the details, I will here only list several examples that indicate God's purpose for the union of a man and a woman. Genesis 2:18 indicates that the wife is to be a "suitable helper" to the man. This alone carries tremendous implications for the type of woman that one may or may not marry. Surely, all feminists are excluded; the same is true with every woman whose personal ambitions – be it social, financial, or vocational in nature – will threaten the agenda the husband sets for the family.
Another revealed purpose for a marriage worthy of divine approval is that God is "seeking godly offspring" (Malachi 2:15). A man considering a woman for marriage should be confident that she would be a positive contribution to such a program. It is with this sort of biblical precepts in mind, although the above does not exhaust them, that I present the general principle that a biblical wife should be reverent, obedient, and competent; these words are interchangeable with spiritual, submissive, and capable in the present study. We will now consider the meaning and implications of each.
The word reverent may seem very broad if used loosely, but here I have a definite meaning in mind. First, the word should indicate a legitimate spirituality, which by it we mean the woman in question must be a Christian. This in itself creates great difficulty, since most people in churches nowadays are not genuine Christians, and even those who are truly regenerated may be at such a low level of sanctification that the spiritual life in them is hardly detectable.
It may seem that this is my suggested answer to everything, but it only serves to illustrate the consistency of biblical theology, that the first step to learning how to find a mate is to go study theology. If a man cannot make basic distinctions between true and false professions of faith, he cannot even begin to pick a woman to be his wife. At this point, if we may be so bold, we assume that the man himself is a true Christian.
2 Corinthians 6:14-15 applies to a number of situations, including marriage: "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?" The Christian and the non-Christian submit to two antithetical ultimate authorities, and to the extent that they live consistently with their opposing worldviews, conflicts will arise within the relationship.
But if both the man and the woman have God's verbal revelation, the Scripture, as their first and ultimate principle of reasoning and conduct, then any dispute is resolved through an appeal to it. Although, as will be indicated below, the final decisions in the home is in the power of the husband, he is not the God of the wife, since they both look to a third and higher authority, which is the word of God. This same authority has imposed an authority structure upon the family, with the husband as the head; but he governs the home through divine precepts, and not his own independent thinking and preference. This way, conflicts are also resolvable, and resolvable in a way that is objectively right; disagreements are, in the final analysis, not central but peripheral.
This is not so if one is a believer and the other is not. There is no gray area between being a Christian and a non-Christian – one either has faith in the gospel message, or he does not. James writes, "You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God" (James 4:4). These are strong words – you are either a friend of God, or you are his enemy. There is no neutral ground. If you claim to have no opinion, you are still his enemy. Jesus remarks, "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters" (Matthew 12:30).
Everyone who does not obey Christ defies him; everyone who does not love him, hates him. For two people who disagree on such a fundamental level to unite in the most sacred of all relationships between two mortals is disastrous. Relevant statistics, such as the divorce rates, should be well-known to the reader so that I will not need to produce evidence at this point. However, statisticians and pollers, who have no interest in Christian theology, seem to have shown that the divorce rates among evangelical Christians are about the same as the non-Christians, or even higher.
This only reinforces my earlier emphasis that we must learn to distinguish between true and false professions of faith. Even without a close examination of those sampled, we may assume that most of them were in fact nominal Christians only – that is, non- Christians who consider themselves to be genuine believers. The reason we may say this is that the Bible commands reconciliation and not divorce among believers, and only allows for the latter option in the case of adultery. Or, it may be that there is a high rate of adultery among professing Christians, in which case our point is once again demonstrated, that most of them are not true Christians at all.
Since we are not interested in statistics at this point, we will not consider other possibilities here, such as the cases where one becomes a Christian after marriage, and the unbelieving one refuses to remain in the relationship. In any case, such instances cannot account for the high divorce rates among professing Christians, but the figures make sense when we realize that most of them have never been regenerated by God. On the other hand, consistent obedience and application of biblical precepts by both husband and wife guarantee the permanence of the sacred union; failure only occurs when there is a breach of divine precepts.
So a marriage candidate must be a true Christian. To ignore this biblical teaching is to risk suffering a lifetime of heartache and frustration, but the desire to obey the commands of God should be sufficient in itself to prevent us from making such an error. We may now make an additional observation on the meaning of being reverent, which is in reality only an extension of what has already been said.
Romans 8:7 states, "The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so." Just as a sinful mind cannot submit to God's precepts, a mind made spiritual through regeneration and is growing in maturity in sanctification can and does obey the laws of God. As verse 5 explains, "Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires."
A "spiritual" person is not one taken up in mysticism and esoteric knowledge, but one whose mind is "set on what the Spirit desires" as revealed to us in the Scripture. Therefore, when we say that a woman must be spiritual, we are saying that she must be a good Christian, or one whose thoughts and actions are in conformity with the Bible.
When speaking to the women concerning marriage, Paul writes, "A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord" (1 Corinthians 7:39). Technically, God's precepts do not prevent one from marrying anyone he wishes as long as the other person is a Christian. However, given this biblical decree, in practice it appears necessary to exclude backslidden Christians, since while the person remains in such a state, one cannot be certain that she is a genuine believer.
Of course, if the individual in question returns to the Lord, and shows true signs of faith and repentance, then she becomes a legitimate candidate for a Christian marriage. This is why I say that a Christian may only marry another good Christian – it is to prevent one from finding an excuse to marry nominal Christians who are not believers at all. It is important not to go beyond biblical precepts in defining a legitimate marriage candidate, while being careful to obtain assurance that its full meaning is enforced.
If being spiritual means to submit under God's precepts, then our second characteristic of obedience appears to go under this broad requirement, and it does. A spiritual person is also obedient to legitimate authorities. But here I am bringing up this point particularly in regards to the woman's relationship with her husband.
After the fall of man as recorded in Genesis 3, God says to the woman, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you" (v. 16). One common, yet unlikely, understanding of the verse takes it as saying that the woman will experience great desire for her husband sexually, or at least for his companionship, which seems to be unrelated to the last clause of the sentence. Reflecting this view, the Living Bible says, "You shall welcome your husband's affections, and he shall be your master."
Another interpretation of this verse amounts to reading it as, "Your desire will be to dominate your husband, but he will rule over you." Judging from a similar expression in Genesis 4:7, this is better. Matthew Poole elaborates and writes:
…thy desires shall be referred or submitted to thy husband's will and pleasure to grant or deny them, as he sees fit…And this punishment was…very grievous to her, because women's affections use to be vehement, and it is irksome to them to have them restrained or denied. Seeing, for want of thy husband's rule and conduct, thou wast seduced by the serpent, and didst abuse that power I gave thee together with thy husband to draw him to sin, thou shalt now be brought down to a lower degree, for he shall rule thee; not with that sweet and gentle hand which he formerly used, as a guide and counsellor only, but by a higher and harder hand, as a lord and governor, to whom I have now given a greater power and authority over thee than he had before, (which through thy pride and corruption will be far more uneasy unto thee than his former empire was,) and who will usurp a further power than I have given him, and will, by my permission, for thy punishment, rule thee many times with rigour, tyranny, and cruelty, which thou wilt groan under, but shalt not be able to deliver thyself from it.2
There are those who assert that prior to the Fall, man and woman had equal authority in the marriage relationship, and it was only after the woman had sinned that the man was given to rule over her as punishment. Poole's comments above, although generally correct, may be misunderstood as granting support to such a position, since he does not assert the distinct authority the man has over the woman even before the Fall, even though he provides a weak acknowledgment to it.
Poole admits that the man ruled the family before the Fall, but nevertheless with a "sweet and gentle hand." And now God gives him "greater power and authority…than he had before," implying that he had power over the woman at the start. However, it is doubtful that Adam was "a guide and counsellor only" to the woman. Biblical evidence indicates that he was a lot more.
Some claim that the subordination of the woman is only a result of sin, and has been negated entirely after the death and resurrection of Christ. But if this is so, sickness and death also originated because of sin, and by the same logic should be now completely absent from human experience, at least for the Christians. The point is that even if it is true that God has subjected the woman under the man purely due to sin, it does not necessarily follow, unless the Bible indicates such, that the authority structure in the home has been abolished.
In any case, Paul teaches that the authority of the husband over his wife is not only a result of sin, but is a creation ordinance. That is, by the nature and order of the creation of man and woman, the husband is granted authority over the wife: "For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man" (1 Corinthians 11:8-9); "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve" (1 Timothy 2:11-13). Any ordinance of God instituted due to the very nature of creation is still in effect, as long as we remain human beings.
There are those who understand Genesis 3:16 as a predictive declaration that the marriage relationship from that time forward would be one in which the man and woman each seeks the dominant position; that is, to sinfully take control. This interpretation presupposes that neither the husband nor the wife should dominate, but given other passages on family structure in both the Old and New Testaments, we cannot accept this presupposition or its resultant interpretation of this verse. One may say that although the verse does not deny the right of the husband to rule the home, it is predictive of the tyrannical use of authority; that is, while the woman seeks domination, the man abuses his place in the home. I am unconvinced by this interpretation; while some men undoubtedly abuse their authority, the text in question does not state or imply this.
Being careful not to give a simplistic generalization of it, at least an important aspect of the feminist movement, and also feminist theology, is to alter the established structure of the marriage relationship. But in the name of equality, the efforts of these ungodly souls often result in the erosion of the most basic unit of society, the family. From the beginning, God has designed that the man be the head of the home, but sin has generated in the woman an urge to usurp the husband's authority, to be liberated from his rule, and thus defies the family structure imposed by God himself. But the joy and hope of both men and women rest in knowing and obeying biblical commands, and not in fighting against them.
The leadership of man in the family has been a controversial issue, both within theological circles and without. As we will see shortly, the reason for much heated debate is not because Scripture is unclear on the subject, but rather due to the ideological climate of the day, the sinful tendency of human beings (in this case, the women) to resent legitimate authority, and actual instances of abuse of authority on the part of the husbands. But none of these reasons negates God's divine precepts.
The authority given to the husband can be abused; however, God's word regulates the husband's power in the home, and provides directions as to the way he must treat his wife: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" (Ephesians 5:25). And a related portion of my Systematic Theology states, "Do not underestimate what God is demanding from men here – they are to love the wives in the same way that Christ loves his church, which is characterized by his sacrificial death on her behalf. Paul is commanding men to love their wives enough to die for them. To the extent that one does not possess such love for his wife, he is less than a real biblical man. Personally, my estimation of a man will never rise higher than his love for God, the Bible, and his wife."3
So by insisting on the wife's submission, we are by no means excusing the husband for his own faults. Even though we may readily acknowledge the responsibility of the husband, and real instances of abuse, the woman's obligation to submit under God-ordained authority remains unchanged. The greatest cause for denying the biblical authority structure for the family is sin, the now inherent tendency of women to defy even legitimate authority. Instead of overcoming divine precepts, this simply proves God's decree as true, "Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." This is a desire, says Keil & Delitzsch, "bordering upon disease."4
Now we will examine several additional biblical passages on the subject. The first one is 1 Peter 3:1-6, which says, "Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear."
First, the passage shows that not only are wives to subject themselves to Christian husbands, but they must be submissive even if the men are unbelievers. Of course, elsewhere we find that a Christian woman may only marry another Christian man (1 Corinthians 7:39). And thus Peter here addresses women who became Christians after they were married to an unbelieving man.
The part concerning submissiveness enters into the discussion when the apostle says that the men may be "won over without words." However, this does not mean that a person may bring another to faith in Christ without verbally communicating the gospel message. It is popular to assume nowadays that "action speaks louder than words," but this is contrary to the biblical position.
Notice that these husbands, to whom Peter exhorts the wives to submit, are said to have already rejected the gospel as verbally communicated, whether by the wives or by someone else. Thus, the intellectual content of the Christian faith has already been conveyed to these men, while they have refused to give it their assent. Peter, then, is telling the wives that God may yet subsequently use their "purity and reverence" as the means by which to impress and convert their husbands, so that they may give assent to what they have already heard. Thus, this passage presupposes the preaching of the gospel.
Peter continues to note that a life characterized by submission, purity, and reverence is what makes a woman truly beautiful. Against the standards of the world, Christianity emphasizes inner beauty, so that a woman's true worth is not limited or defined by her appearance. On the other hand, even one whose outward features mesmerize most men may nevertheless be grotesque and wicked on the inside. But since the power of inward transformation is only available through the gospel, it follows that no unregenerate woman is truly beautiful.
Even the best-looking women possess only a beauty that is superficial and fleeting, while "unfading beauty" belongs to one with a "gentle and quiet spirit." This is truly a rare trait in our day. As Proverbs 21:9, 19 says, "Better to live on a corner of the roof than share a house with a quarrelsome wife…Better to live in a desert than with a quarrelsome and ill-tempered wife" Concerning Delilah, it is recorded in Judges 16 that, "With such nagging she prodded [Samson] day after day until he was tired to death" (v. 16). In another place, the Bible says, "A quarrelsome wife is like a constant dripping on a rainy day; restraining her is like restraining the wind or grasping oil with the hand" (Proverbs 27:15-16; also 19:13). Drip…Drip…Drip!
A "gentle and quiet spirit" will not only prevent the husbands from jumping out the window, but Peter says that it is also "of great worth in God's sight" (1 Peter 3:4). What appears to be a Venus in the eyes of men is more often a Medusa in the sight of God. Part of sanctification involves learning how to see people and things as God sees them: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter" (Isaiah 5:20).
While natural beauty may fade, the inner beauty only possible for a Christian can develop and increase throughout one's lifetime, and even persist after death. Paul says, "Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day" (2 Corinthians 4:16). A woman who does not possess inner beauty will in the end have nothing. Likewise, a person who cannot see beyond developing his physical health and figure lacks wisdom: "For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come" (1 Timothy 4:8).
Parenthetically, contrary to some, I affirm that although physical beauty is relatively unimportant, and possesses no spiritual value, it is nevertheless a blessing from God. For example, we read that when Job's fortune was restored to him, God also gave him daughters who were described as physically attractive: "The LORD blessed the latter part of Job's life more than the first. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand donkeys. And he also had seven sons and three daughters. The first daughter he named Jemimah, the second Keziah and the third Keren- Happuch. Nowhere in all the land were there found women as beautiful as Job's daughters, and their father granted them an inheritance along with their brothers" (Job 42:12-15).
Peter continues, "For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear" (1 Peter 3:5-6). How did they make themselves beautiful? "They were submissive to their own husbands." Even though Sarah was "a very beautiful woman" (Genesis 12:14) in terms of appearance, Peter cites her case as an example of the priority of achieving inner beauty through submissiveness. Being physically attractive is not enough – Sarah made herself beautiful because she "obeyed Abraham and called him her master."
Just as Christians become the children of Abraham through faith in Christ (Galatians 3:7), women should pattern themselves after Sarah in her obedience. Peter does not ignore the existence of abusive husbands, but he says, "You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear" (v. 6). The ungodly behavior of the husbands does not excuse the wives from following the precepts of God. The biblical instruction is to "do what is right and do not give way to fear" in the context of being submissive to one's husband, so that "if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives" (v. 1-2).
Proceeding to the next passage, we will read from Ephesians 5: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church…Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything…However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband" (Ephesians 5:22-24, 33).
The complete passage from verse 22 to 33 contains rich content and demands sophisticated exegesis to fully expound, but for our narrow purpose at this point, such is not necessary. The portion quoted is quite self-explanatory if not for the many attempts by commentators to subvert the clear meaning of this passage. Watch as one such scholar tries to escape the force of Paul's words:
To submit meant to yield one's own rights. If the relationship called for it, as in the military, the term could connote obedience, but that meaning is not called for here. In fact, the word 'obey' does not appear in Scripture with respect to wives, though it does with respect to children (6:1) and slaves (6:5).5
While submission is here defined as "to yield one's own rights," a more popular notion of the term, when contrasted with "obedience," has submission as referring to one of humility and respect in terms of the wife's attitude, as opposed to conformity to the husband's wishes in behavior. Therefore, under this latter definition, it is conceivable that a wife may disobey her husband at every point, while being fully submissive to him, simply because she possesses a respectful attitude. Both of these explanations are problematic given the context of the passage and the existence of other biblical verses that contradict them.
But before we attempt a refutation, let us examine one more argument against the wife's obligation to obey that will subsequently backfire against them. It may be argued that since verse 21 – which says, "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ" – defines the context of the passage as one that teaches mutual submission, verse 22 cannot be telling the wives to obey their husbands, just as mutual submission among Christians does not imply mutual obedience.
However, this line of reasoning misses the point of the passage. Even if we allow for the understanding that verse 21 defines the context for 5:22-6:9, the content of the passage makes clear that mutual submission does not mean the same thing in every relationship. The meaning and basis of mutual submission between husbands and wives, parents and children, and masters and slaves are not the same in every case.
For example, Paul says that the wives should obey their husbands because "the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church" (v. 23). This is not true in regards to any other human relationship – whether between Christians, parents and children, or masters and slaves. Now, if the wives should submit to their husbands in the same sense as the church submits to Christ, it is not possible that we are simply referring to the yielding of one's own rights or a respectful attitude. The church is supposed to render absolute obedience to Christ in both thought and action; likewise, the meaning of submission in the marriage relationship means that the wives must be both respectful in attitude and obedient in her action and behavior.
The husband's part in marriage is also defined, not as one of obedience, but sacrificial love: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" (v. 25). To say that "mutual submission" means the same thing for everyone in every relationship is to ignore all these details in this biblical text. Thus, Paul is not saying that wives should respect but need not obey their husbands, while only the children and slaves need to obey. He is indicating that wives must obey their husbands, children their parents, and slaves their masters.
Even more embarrassing is the claim that "the word 'obey' does not appear in Scripture with respect to wives, though it does with respect to children (6:1) and slaves (6:5)." First, although the word translated "submit" (hypotassō) in verse 22 is different from the one translated "obey" (hypakouō) in 6:1 and 6:5, in itself it carries the meaning of obedience.
For example, the same word hypotassō is used in Luke 2:51, but this time the translation in the NIV reflects the meaning of obedience: "Then [Jesus] went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them." But hypakouō is used in Ephesians 6:1 where it says, "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right." Does our commentator dare insinuate that Jesus merely submitted to his parents in his attitude, but did not do what they say? If so, did Jesus obey the commandment, "Honor your father and mother," as cited to be the basis for the children's obedience in Ephesians 6:2? Evidently, our commentator has confused his exegesis through his agenda to protect the wives from having to obey their husbands.
But that is not the best part. Recall that he has stated, "the word 'obey' does not appear in Scripture with respect to wives." By that, we may assume he means that hypakouō is never used in Scripture when referring to wives, but only hypotassō. However, hypakouō is used to describe Sarah in the passage we have already looked at, 1 Peter 3:5-6: "For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed [hypakouō] Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear."
Since Sarah was the wife of Abraham, and she obeyed (hypakouō) her husband, and Christian wives are told to emulate her, with her obedience to Abraham as the specified object of imitation, it necessarily follows that hypakouō must be equally applied to all Christian wives. Whether hypakouō or hypotassō is used, the Bible is saying that wives must be subject to, be respectful toward, and obey their husbands – nothing less.
If wives protest that this is too difficult to do, let them be reminded that the duty of the husband is much more challenging: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" (Ephesians 5:25). The command is not for the husbands to merely show affection, but to love the wives to the death, and cherish her more than his own life and welfare.
Many women are difficult to love, especially the rebellious ones. If God had not generated divine love within our hearts, it would indeed be humanly impossible to love as Christ loves. At any rate, it is best for both the husband and the wife to follow God's precepts, seeing that perhaps it is easier to obey a loving husband, and to love an obedient wife. But even then, each is accountable to God regardless of what the other does, as affirmed by the apostle Peter (1 Peter 3:1-7). That a husband is unloving does not excuse the wife's disobedience.
Given the above arguments and explanations, the extended translation of Kenneth Wuest on this passage is justified: "The wives, be putting yourselves in subjection with implicit obedience to your own husbands as to the Lord, because a husband is head of the wife as the Christ is Head of the Church…as the Church subjects itself in obedience to the Christ, in this manner also the wives should subject themselves in obedience to their husbands in all things…let her be continually treating her husband with deference and reverential obedience" (Ephesians 5:22-33).6
Just to quickly dismiss a popular but erroneous objection to the biblical authority structure for the family, many cite Galatians 3:28 to argue against all gender "inequality" or distinctions: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Since in Christ, there is "neither…male nor female," the argument is made that neither should there be any role distinction nor difference in authority within the marriage relationship.
However, if this is the intended meaning of the verse, it would be pointless for Paul to write, "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord," and "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ" (Ephesians 5:22, 6:5). In addition, if the verse may be applied in this manner, then by the same reasoning homosexual marriages are also permitted, since gender becomes utterly irrelevant in marriage. But Scripture roundly condemns homosexuality as sin and the consequent of a depraved mind (Romans 1:24-28).
Therefore, Galatians 3:28 does not abolish all gender distinctions, and certainly not those that Scripture explicitly asserts, such as the authority structure of the family. When read in context, it becomes obvious that the verse refers to the equality of every elect individual in his ready access to justification by faith: "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Galatians 3:26-29).
Every person regardless of race, gender, and social status has equal access to salvation in Christ through faith, although in actuality only the elect will obtain it (Romans 11:7). The verse in question carries no reference to gender equality or role distinctions in any other setting. However, it is important to note that nowhere does Scripture say that women are inherently inferior as human beings. In fact, since Genesis 1:27 tells us that both men and women have been made in God's image, they are inherently equal as human beings: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." Nevertheless, God has willed it so that women are to be subordinate to their husbands within the marriage relationship.
We have only examined three biblical passages in some detail – Genesis 3:16, 1 Peter 3:1-6, and Ephesians 5:22-33 – but there are many more that state or imply the divinely instituted authority structure in the family as expounded above. After listing a number of relevant passages on the subject, Elizabeth Handford writes, "If you are intellectually honest, you have to admit that it is impossible to find a single loophole, a single exception, an 'if' or 'unless.' The Scriptures say, without qualification, to the open-minded reader, that a woman ought to obey her husband."7 A wife must obey her husband, Paul says, "so that no one will malign the word of God" (Titus 2:5); a disobedient wife thus brings shame to the kingdom of God.
To be a biblical wife, a reverent and obedient woman also needs to be competent. Unlike the first two, this characteristic is at least a partially functional necessity within the marriage relationship, and not entirely a moral trait, although part of what is meant, such as diligence, remains a moral issue. I grant that a spiritual and obedient woman may at the same time not be very capable, but this deficiency will prove to be a great hindrance to her fulfilling her role as a wife, which is to be a helper to her husband.
Proverbs 31:10-31 consists of a poem, constructed acrostically using all twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet, in which the writer extols the virtues of a "fully-capable"8 wife. Here is the passage in full:
A wife of noble character who can find? She is worth far more than rubies. Her husband has full confidence in her and lacks nothing of value. She brings him good, not harm, all the days of her life. She selects wool and flax and works with eager hands. She is like the merchant ships, bringing her food from afar. She gets up while it is still dark; she provides food for her family and portions for her servant girls. She considers a field and buys it; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard. She sets about her work vigorously; her arms are strong for her tasks. She sees that her trading is profitable, and her lamp does not go out at night. In her hand she holds the distaff and grasps the spindle with her fingers. She opens her arms to the poor and extends her hands to the needy. When it snows, she has no fear for her household; for all of them are clothed in scarlet. She makes coverings for her bed; she is clothed in fine linen and purple. Her husband is respected at the city gate, where he takes his seat among the elders of the land. She makes linen garments and sells them, and supplies the merchants with sashes. She is clothed with strength and dignity; she can laugh at the days to come. She speaks with wisdom, and faithful instruction is on her tongue. She watches over the affairs of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness. Her children arise and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her: "Many women do noble things, but you surpass them all." Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised. Give her the reward she has earned, and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.
I will only take time to list several elementary observations here, leaving it to the reader to perform a deeper reading and contemplation on the text.
The passage pictures a woman who has been given great latitude in decision-making by her husband. From the contents of the passage, we may observe that his "full confidence" in her is not only based on a knowledge of her pure motives, but also on an assurance concerning her capability as a helper in the household. A helper she may be, but the text lists an astounding array of qualities and abilities unequaled by many men, so that a scholar commenting on it says, "This lady's standard is not implied to be within the reach of all, for it presupposes unusual gifts and material resources."9
Although I partly agree with the first part of the commentator's statement, I have doubts concerning the reasons he gives for making the lady in the text too much of an exception. Surely, the abilities attributed to her are unusual by today's standards; it is rare for them to appear in the same person. The majority of women would be excluded only by considering if there is found "faithful instruction" (v. 26) on their tongues. In other words, it seems the scholar reads the passage too much with today's women in mind.
Nevertheless, none of the tasks described are superhuman in nature, and inherently impossible for a woman to do – except that she "fears the LORD," which can only be a result of God's grace and election. Instead of saying that the passage "presupposes unusual gifts," we should rather admit that it presupposes responsible parental instruction and training.
That said, I agree that in practice, the demands on the wife may be different to the degree that the "material resources" involved vary. Not every wife has the opportunity and responsibility to manage mansions, farms, servants, and real estate. But the principle within every household remains the same – the wife should be an able helper to her husband to the extent that there are assets and tasks regarding which to help him with.
Therefore, rather than the misleading, "This lady's standard is not implied to be within the reach of all," we should say that this lady's actual abilities are not required by every household. The scholar's statement is misleading since it ignores the point of the passage – this is the kind of wife the man should seek, that is, one that is competent to help the husband with his duties and assets. And one should probably think twice before marrying a person whom he knows will not be of much help to him.
Again, the passage is directed to men as direction in what sort of woman to marry, thus to exclude those who do not qualify, and not primarily for women to read as something to aspire to, although that would be a good use of the text also. Even the writer admits that such a woman is rare in that period: "A wife of noble character who can find? She is worth far more than rubies" (v. 10). No one ever said that the type of woman described is common. The above commentator's statement therefore misses the point, and tries to include candidates that is the point of the passage to exclude.
Now this woman is characterized by diligence: "She…works with eager hands…She gets up while it is still dark…She sets about her work vigorously…and her lamp does not go out at night. In her hand she holds the distaff and grasps the spindle with her fingers…She watches over the affairs of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness" (v. 13, 15, 17-19, 27). But she is diligent regarding a specific type of work; that is, "she watches over the affairs of her household."
It is not that there are no diligent women today, but they are only working hard to pursue their own personal ambitions, and not for the benefit of her husband or household. Since both she and her husband spend much of their time in advancing their respective careers, no one watches over the affairs of the household. In contrast, a woman of "noble character" is diligent because of her faithfulness and love for her husband and household.
Although it would be a useful discussion, this is not the place to fully expound the legitimate career goals of a woman. The emphasis is placed on her motivation and agenda; that is, regardless of whether she is pursuing a personal career, are her priorities structured around her husband and the family, or herself? In listing a few of the wife's responsibility in this regard, Martha Peace says to the woman,
Put him first over the children, your parents, friends, job, ladies' Bible studies, etc.…Willingly and cheerfully rearrange your schedule for him when necessary…Do whatever you can to make him look good, to accomplish his goals. Some examples are offer to run errands for him, organize your day to be available to help him with his projects…Consider his work (job, goals, hobbies, work for the Lord) as more important than your own…Think of specific ways that you can help him accomplish his goals. Examples are get up early in the mornings to help him get off to work having had a good breakfast, take care in recording telephone messages for him, anticipate any needs he may have in order to attain a specific goal, and keep careful records of money spent to keep up with the budget…Realize that just as God is glorified when man obeys Him, your husband is glorified when you obey your husband."10
Peace does not assume that the wife has no career of her own, but she says, "Put him first over…your…job…Consider his work…as more important than your own." At this point of our discussion, it is not necessary to settle to legitimacy of a woman having a career of her own, but the point is whether she is willing to put her husband's work and agenda before hers. Any resistance in this area betrays a character flaw on her part, and renders her that much less effective in being a helper to her husband.
Continuing with our passage, this woman is characterized by keen foresight, "When it snows, she has no fear for her household; for all of them are clothed in scarlet…She is clothed with strength and dignity; she can laugh at the days to come" (v. 21, 25). Instead of fretting about future contingencies, she can "laugh at the days to come." But her foresight reaches beyond the home: "She sees that her trading is profitable…She considers a field and buys it; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard" (v. 18, 16). Having decent business sense, she considers a field and buys it; she thinks well. And since "her trading is profitable," she is able to plant a vineyard "out of her earnings." She is able to bring additional income into the household besides what her husband earns.
There is another quality that is particularly important to me: "She speaks with wisdom, and faithful instruction is on her tongue" (v. 26). This means that she is able to teach the children, and carry fruitful conversations with her husband. Keil & Delitzsch observes, "Such graceful instruction she communicates now to this and now to that member of her household, for nothing that goes on in her house escapes her observation."11 And Jay Adams writes, "Indeed, she is well versed in biblical teaching and can speak wisely to others, including her children. She is not gruff, sarcastic, short-tempered or careless in speech."12
Different atmospheres within households, as defined by the husbands and circumstances, require the wives to be wise concerning different things. For example, because my work in Christian doctrine is also my greatest and only interest, I often enjoy carrying sustained dialogues with my wife that are highly theological and philosophical in nature. The intellectual demands of these conversations, including an uncommon precision in reasoning and word usage that I have also come to expect in daily speech, are such that most people will find them difficult, if not maddeningly intolerable. That she is able to repeatedly rise to the challenge brings me tremendous delight and pleasure, and makes her a truly fitting companion.
A woman should have the intellectual capability and knowledge to discuss the husband's work with him, even if it is only on an elementary level. For instance, if her husband is an engineer, and yet she has never been trained in this area, it would help their relationship for her to learn something about the subject, enough to engage in meaningful conversations with him regarding his work.
Without going into any details, this follows from the biblical teaching that the wife should be her husband's closest companion and confidant, so that he will require no outsiders to discuss his most intimate thoughts and plans. Due to the unique covenantal nature of marriage, it is unbiblical for a wife not to at the same time be his husband's best friend.
Since the husband's career occupies much of his time, the wife's ability to be a companion and helper to him will be limited if he is unable to share his triumphs and disappointments with her. I would say that the reverse is also true, that the husband should learn something regarding his wife's work. That said, all Christians should be able to discuss theology, if nothing else (Deuteronomy 11:18-21; Joshua 1:8; Malachi 3:16- 18).
We have not exhausted the contents of this passage, but will end with its own description of this amazing woman: "Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised" (v. 30). All the positive qualities listed regarding her have as their foundation the fear of the Lord. Likewise, the latter two characteristics I propose in this study – obedience and competence – depend wholly on the first characteristic of reverence. An irreverent woman (or man, for that matter) is good for nothing. But when a woman's works flow from her worshipful attitude toward God, "Her husband has full confidence in her and lacks nothing of value. She brings him good, not harm, all the days of her life" (v. 11-12). "Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting" – only the "unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit…is of great worth in God's sight" (1 Peter 3:4).
There are a number of things that one may observe in order to discover whether a particular woman possesses the qualities of reverence, obedience, and competence. Regarding reverence, one needs to consider if she exhibits signs of genuine regeneration and conversion. It is important that she demonstrates a consistent willingness in altering her thinking and lifestyle to better conform to biblical teaching. An eagerness to study and obey Scripture should be evident. Preferably, opportunities will be granted for the man to observe her under pressure of various sorts, since such occasions often succeed in exposing a false or temporary faith: "The one who received the seed that fell on rocky places is the man who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away" (Matthew 13:20-21). Remember, at the bare minimum, a woman must satisfy the biblical definition of a Christian before being considered a candidate for marriage.
As for obedience, it will be difficult to directly ascertain at the outset whether a woman will submit to her husband in particular. However, one may infer with some accuracy by observing if she obeys the legitimate authority figures that she currently lives under. For example, does she obey the government (Romans 13:1-5), her parents (Ephesians 6:1-3), pastor (Hebrews 13:17), and employer (1 Peter 2:18-19)?13 What is her general attitude toward rules and restrictions? Does she tend to follow closely verbal instructions, or does she often deviate from them? If it seems that she has problem submitting to most forms of authority, then it may also be difficult for her to obey her husband after marriage.
Now, a man does not have the full authority of a husband over the woman before marriage. However, once it is certain that the two will marry, a semblance but not the full version of the authority structure should being to emerge. This is because many decisions must usually be made before the marriage concerning life after marriage, such as the location of residence. It would be futile to allow the final decision to rest upon the husband only after marriage, since he would then have the authority to change any decision made before the marriage anyway.
Therefore, although the husband only receives full authority after marriage, a woman should begin to show deference, if not complete obedience, toward her fiancée even before marriage. This will also create an opportunity for the man to anticipate the attitude of the woman once they become married. Nevertheless, before marriage, the woman's obedience is first owed to her father (Numbers 30:3-15).
Competence is probably more easily assessed, since there are many outward signs that one may expect. The man should note whether the woman tends to be organized, clean, punctual, and knowledgeable. Superhuman abilities are of course not expected, so the man should not be overly picky, but rather look for general tendencies. It is essential for the woman to be able to understand and follow verbal instructions, especially from the authority figures to whom she currently owes obedience.
Minimal communication skills, sufficient so that she may convey her thoughts in a coherent manner, are required. Without them, meaningful dialogue with the husband is made difficult, and providing needed instructions for the children may be impossible. Basic abilities in household administration, accounting, sewing, and cooking should also be present. Other items should be added to the list as the husband's agenda for the family so requires.
With such high standards, one may despair of ever finding a woman who qualifies. While we must learn the biblical description of a Christian wife, and it is helpful to list definite items for the reader to consider, Scripture also explains that the rarity of such superior individuals is due to the effect of sin. The only chance that one may find a legitimate wife is among those who have been truly converted and transformed by the power of the gospel. But with the realization that every Christian, even those whose profession is genuine, are growing in sanctification, one must allow for certain deficiencies in his potential marriage partner.
Therefore, the above only serves to help the reader observe general tendencies in a woman, and thus infer the likelihood of having a successful marriage with her. In addition, some things that are currently lacking in a person may be developed after marriage, so there is no reason to wait until one finds a woman with no flaws whatsoever, or to delude oneself that such a woman exists. Nevertheless, no promise of positive development is possible unless the woman has been truly converted.
To address a question that may have arisen in the reader's mind, since this is supposed to be a study on the characteristics of a biblical wife, I have given little place to the significance of romantic love and personal preferences in the relationship between a man and a woman. Is it not important for the man to be fond of the woman in order to marry her? This is undoubtedly a legitimate consideration, and silence on this matter in the present study is not to be taken as a denial of its role. It is simply that our purpose prevents us from delving into this aspect of the matter. Also, the case against dating as practiced by most individuals has been excluded from this study, even though it is a most crucial topic as well.
The Bible says that a good wife is hard to find: "A wife of noble character who can find? She is worth far more than rubies" (Proverbs 31:10). She is reverent, obedient, and competent – she worships God as ruler over all; she obeys her husband as head of the home; she fulfills her role as helper to her husband. In our day, most women are irreverent, disobedient, and incompetent; if one can find a woman who even remotely fits the biblical description, he will know that he is favored by the Lord indeed.
Does it mean that one is not allowed to marry a woman unless she has all of the above characteristics? No – as mentioned, technically all she needs is to be a true Christian for the marriage to be permissible. But as the Cheshire Cat says to Alice, if all one wishes to accomplish is to get "somewhere," then it does not really matter which path he takes. If there is no definite end, then one path is just as good as another.
However, if a man designates a noble purpose for his marriage, the options will accordingly narrow, since the means to that end must then also be equally worthy. The biblical purpose for marriage, among other things, has in view the glory of God at the present, as well as the establishment of a godly heritage for subsequent generations to follow. Given this magnificent agenda, no longer is it true that just any Christian woman will do; rather, she must be reverent, obedient, and competent.
Endnotes: