"Mutual Love and Submission in Marriage: Colossians 3:18-19 and Ephesians 5:21-33" (Ch 11) by I. Howard Marshall

I. Howard Marshall states his objection to following these texts as they are written in this modern world by his title in which "mutual" governs not only "love" but also, and more importantly, the word "submission." He argues that this "adjustment [of the given text] to changed circumstances is required, as can be seen by a consideration of the material about children and slaves." This is such a major turning point of his article that he warns against "a concealed hermeneutical trap for readers of this instruction. Since much of it can be seen as still appropriate in the modern world, it is tempting to assume that whatever Paul says here should be applied without significant modification to our situation" (187). For Marshall only the "submission" which Paul asks of the wives cannot be followed as stated, and that everything else in these passages is applicable (cf. the first two full paragraphs on 204).

His first appeal is to Paul's teaching on "children and parents" (Col 3:20-21). After saying that "[t]he instructions to parents and children appear to be common-sensical and Christian," he brings three charges against Paul that nullify this assumption long held by readers of the text. The first is that children are addressed as needing to obey their parents "to a more advanced age than would be natural for us" (188). He gives as his substantiation for this assertion the phrase "in the ancient world" and refers in footnote 5 for detail to A. T. Lincoln's Ephesians commentary.¹ In the beginning of that footnote Marshall cites P. T. O'Brien's Colossians commentary (and refers also to his Ephesians commentary) where he "states that Paul is probably addressing young children rather than those who are already grown up" but asserts that "he offers no evidence for this assumption" (188). But O'Brien does offer evidence when he cites Eph 6:4, which states that these children are to be brought "up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord."² These words imply that the children are under age and are being brought up by their parents. Furthermore, the

JBMW 10:1 (Spring 2005) p. 39

apostle has used the word "obey" rather than the word "honor" which is found in his quotation of the fifth commandment of the decalogue (Eph 6:2). Why has he done so? The answer would seem to lie in the fact that he has used a word more appropriate to children under age ("obey"), while the commandment has used a word more appropriate for children of every age ("honor"). Likewise the admonition, "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger" (Eph 6:3), is the foil of the "bringing up" command and finds its application most appropriately in the interaction the father has with his young children, as do especially the words of Col 3:21, "Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged." Paul is not writing what the ancient world believed or taught, but what Christians ought to do and be, and therefore the standard of that ancient world is not necessarily his.

Second, Marshall argues that "the father as patriarch had a much greater authority over sons and daughters than is the case today" (188). Whether this is true or not, or only true of the ancient world (for again Marshall gives no documentation), it presents a problem. Is this statement which Marshall has given as his understanding of what Paul meant once correct and now incorrect, or is it always wrong? And if neither is correct, what then does that make of Paul's teaching when he gave it? Was he teaching the will of God, or echoing the will of the ancient world? Is the text actually erroneous when it came from Paul's hand, or is it so only if read to be giving more authority than it actually did?

Third, he gives one final argument against Paul's statement: "Most significant, there is no mention here of love between parents and children" (188). Does Marshall really believe that this nullifies Paul's instruction for them both? Must Paul, or any other writer, say everything whenever he writes? Does not Paul write in Titus 2:4 about young women being taught "to love their husbands and children?" Does he think that Paul does not believe this?

Marshall turns next to "slaves and masters" (Col 3:22-4:1) to substantiate his case against living by the statements of Paul with reference to wives and husbands. But here we find a subtle switch in his argument. Whereas Paul's instruction about children and parents is grounded in his appeal to the moral law given in the Old Testament, his words of instruction about slaves and masters is not grounded in any external and abiding statement from God on this question of the existence of slavery. One could say that this instruction is not given for an age when slavery does not exist and therefore it in no way affects the other two categories (i.e., wives/husbands, children/parents). Furthermore, we need to be thankful that Paul gave to Christian slaves words of hope and instruction in their dire situation, rather than remain completely silent, or urge them to rebel. But even more significantly, we need to note that the apostle in his letter to Philemon (vv. 15-21) and in his words in 1 Cor 7:21c, "[b]ut if you [as a slave] can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the oppor-tunity,"³ has already stated God's truth that a slave does not have to be a slave. The words of Col 3:22-4:1 can indeed be used in the modern world, but when used they must be used without any of the overtones of the slavery situation because that social entity, as we have pointed out, has no normative authority from God. Marshall is quite correct that "[a] modern system of industrial relationships must draw its principles and practice from a wider consideration of scriptural teach-

JBMW 10:1 (Spring 2005) p. 40

ing than simply these two (and other related) passages" (189). But any change that may be noted about this passage does not thereby give any authority to change Paul's instructions about wives and husbands-which the apostle says are ordered and ordained by God by means of his actions at the creation (cf. 1 Cor 11:8; 14:33-34; 1 Tim 2:11-14) and which are based upon our relationship as a model of the relationship between the church and Christ (Eph 5:22-24) and which "is fitting in the Lord" (Col 3:18).

Marshall appeals also to "subjects and rulers," and says that it "presupposes . . . the existence of an imposed monarchical or aristocratic system of one kind or another" (189), and draws the conclusion that "the key elements in Romans 13 and elsewhere may be expressed differently in the different conditions that now exist, and that political thinking can go beyond the parameters that appear to exist there" (190). But does not this kind of conclusion fail to recognize that all the biblical teachings are expressed in the concrete settings of the times-cf. especially the Then Commandments which our Lord and the apostle Paul indicate are still our commandments to be followed explicitly today, even if we need to recognize that the ox and ass represent that which is entailed in them? Thus, as indicated by the Lord and Paul, the Then Commandments are a norm and standard for us Christians just as much as they were for the Israelites coming out of Egypt. We certainly cannot go beyond the parameters in them.

Furthermore, the statement in Romans 13 is not as concrete as it might be, but rather is stated in an ideological way that asserts God's providential care and control which is readily transferable to us. It says "and those that exist [the governing authorities] have been instituted by God" (v. 1). Is this not true today? (compare Marshall's implied "no").⁴ Is what the apostle asks of us Christians any less true? (Realizing that both then and now the words of the Peter and the apostles, must also be taken into account, "We must obey God rather than men" [Acts 5:28]).⁵ And therefore this appeal to rulers does not give liberty to undo the explicit words of Paul addressed to wives (or husbands) in Colossians and Ephesians. It is not acceptable to say that changes of our day mean that we may make changes to what is written in the Scriptures (cf. 190, "with changes in structures and relationships, there naturally come changes in the kinds of behavior required of Christians in them").

The items Marshall deals with in the Ephesians passage on "mutual submission" and "headship" have been addressed by those with whom he interacts in the footnotes (i.e., particularly Grudem and O'Brien). The space allotted for this article does not give us the option to go through the material on these issues again. But it would be a mistake not to call the reader's attention to the excellent and nuanced article by Grudem.⁵ He responds to the "mutual submission" argument of egalitarians that insists that throughout the Ephesians passage Paul is calling on husbands and wives mutually to submit to one another, even though the text does not speak of the husband submitting to his wife but does speak of the wife submitting to the leadership of her head, her husband.

What we need to say in conclusion is that Marshall assumes that the patriarchal structure of the first century is that which Paul is communicating, but then at times he realizes that Paul is not governed by this view but by a Christian view that asks for love from a husband (that, one may add, will take away the ef-

JBMW 10:1 (Spring 2005) p. 41

fect of the curse on his relation to his wife [cf. Gen 3:16, "he shall rule over you"], and, one may also add, make room for the submission from the wife that will not try to overthrow that God-given oversight [cf. p. 200]). Would that this truth would control his exegesis and not his assumption of the other perspective.

This assumption can be seen in several places in his exegesis and application of the very words and phrases of Paul. Take his treatment of the call to submission given to the wife. "The reader is left with no guidance as to what the Christian wife today [but also then!] should actually do" (192). "Here we note the quite remarkable stress on wives being submissive ‘in everything' to their husbands which is found in the parallel passage in Ephesians. . . . This would suggest that no area of a wife's life [then, as well as now] is outside the jurisdiction of her husband" (193). To what is Marshall objecting? Is it to the very words of Paul? It seems to be so, as we see him arguing from Peter's words about their joint heir-ship of grace (1 Pet 3:7), and then saying that the wife's submission "in everything" is impossible for the husband to expect. Listen to his own words: "It is impossible to see how taking joint heirship seriously can allow a husband to expect one-sided submission ‘in everything' from his wife" (203). Why did Paul not see that and therefore not write these words in his text? This view seems to be corroborated by the introductory words to Marshall's "Conclusion": "Paul wrote as he did about marriage because in his world he did not know any other form than the patriarchal. . . . The danger is to think that this validates the setup for all time" (204).

The greater danger is to assume that our twenty-first century approach gives us answers more relevant and truer than Paul's and thereby to jettison anything in Paul that does not fit with our own thinking. Marshall asserts, "Thus taking the authority of Scripture seriously may require us to introduce some fresh commands that go beyond the letter of Scripture as such" (201, n. 48). We need to remember that just as Paul stated that the Scriptures (the Old Testament) were "written for our instruction" (Rom 15:4), and therefore Peter could appeal to Sarah as a model for the wives of the first century A.D. ("you are her children," 1 Pet 3:6), so this truth can be said also about the New Testament. Therefore, we today may appeal to the apostles Peter and Paul for our instruction regarding husbands and wives. It is not by adding some fresh, or new, commands that go beyond the letter of Scripture, but by asking for the grace of God to enable us to live by the commands that he himself has given us that we will take seriously the authority of Scripture.