Text: Colossians 3:18-19
Text Introduction: Paul is still concerned to show how the virtue-clad Christians Colossae are to conduct themselves in their human relationships, to show how men and women transformed by Jesus Christ are to conduct themselves in an unsympathetic culture.
These verses resemble what is called “a household code,” documents popular in Roman and Greek literature in the first century. These codes provided instructions for how people were expected to live in a harmonious family. While what Paul writes is similar to these codes, there are some important differences since his version reflects the Christian world-view.
*************
Sermon Introduction: During the latter half of the nineteenth century, Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815-1902) was one of the most powerful voices in America on behalf of women’s rights, especially woman’s suffrage.
Born in 1815, she grew up in a nominal Christian home in western New York. When she was fifteen, Elizabeth heard evangelist Charles Finney and became concerned about her spiritual condition. When she told her father, a judge, about her concerns he was shocked. For a family member to undergo a “camp meeting” conversion would be a disgrace. So Elizabeth’s father and brother-in-law spirited her away to Niagara Falls. There, they reasoned with her, sowed doubt about her feelings, and cajoled her out of her conviction. Their deprogramming was so successful, she became an agnostic for the remainder of her life.[1] In time, the skeptic would become an opponent.
A graduate of Emma Willard’s Female Seminary in Troy, New York, Elizabeth Cady began promoting the causes of abolition and women’s rights during the 1830s. She continued doing so to varying degrees throughout her life, even after her marriage to Henry Stanton in 1840.
She helped to organize the nation’s first women’s rights convention in 1848 at Seneca Falls, preparing its “Declaration of Sentiments.” In the years before and after the convention, she spent much of her energy writing editorials, letters, and articles while she remained at home caring for her children. Her children grown, she began to take a more public role in promoting the cause of women’s suffrage.
She lectured across the Midwest, edited a journal, and eventually helped edit History of Woman’s Suffrage. She died in 1902.[2]
You know about her work on behalf of women’s suffrage, but you may not know that during the 1880s, Stanton began a project that culminated in The Woman’s Bible, published in 1895. In the volume, Stanton and her editorial team of women clergy, scholars, and pundits, presented what they believed to be the Bible’s position on women.
In the Introduction, Stanton sums up their conclusions. She says
The Bible teaches that woman brought sin and death into the world, that she precipitated the fall of the race, that she was arraigned before the judgment seat of Heaven, tried, condemned and sentenced. Marriage for her was to be a condition of bondage, maternity a period of suffering and anguish, and in silence and subjection, she was to play the role of a dependent on man’s bounty for all her material wants, and for all the information she might desire on the vital questions of the hour, she was commanded to ask her husband at home. Here is the Bible position of women briefly summed up.[3]
I bought a copy of The Woman’s Bible in a used bookstore. As I thumbed through it, I discovered the previous owner had used, as a bookmark, a little leaflet, much like a religious tract. However, “a non-religious tract” might be a better description. Entitled Why Women Need Freedom From Religion, it begins with the declaration: “Organized religion always has been and remains the greatest enemy of women’s rights.”[4] M. L. Gaylor, the tract’s author, goes on to conclude, “… the Bible is the handbook for the subjugation of women.”[5] While echoing Stanton’s basic conclusions about the Bible, Gaylor goes beyond Stanton by denouncing Jesus Himself for his treatment of women.
Stanton and Gaylor are part of a long line of writers who misunderstood and needlessly maligned Paul. They have painted the biblical writer who did more to improve the status of women than any person apart from Christ as a woman-hating sexist.
But if I were to spend my time this morning trying to defend Paul, I would be irresponsible. Instead, I would rather open up this passage in its larger context to help you see what Paul was saying to the Colossians and is saying to us.
When we discover what’s being said here, we will see that husbands and wives, dressed in the virtues of a Christ-transformed life, have the potential for a marriage marked by beauty and grace.
With that in mind, let’s look at
I
A WORD TO THE WIVES
I can think of no other word that can so quickly generate debate among Christian men and women than this one: Submit. And, frankly, there’s not a little controversy generated among women themselves about its meaning.
Some women look at it and say, “If I submit to my husband in everything, I can’t be held responsible for any failures our family may have—financial, social, or spiritual.” Other women, with a greater sense of self-worth and desire to participate in the decision-making processes of their family, say, “I love so much of what Paul says elsewhere, I’m so disappointed in what he says here.” Some women, who hold the Scriptures in a lower regard, say, “Paul was simply parroting the view of his day—what he has to say is wrong for us.” And, a few women, using a radical form of biblical interpretation, say, “Paul is perpetuating the violence of a male-dominated view of how women are to be treated.”
Would it surprise you it I told you I have heard or read every one of these opinions? Would I surprise you if I told you I believed none of those views really represent an accurate understanding of what Paul is saying?
But what if Paul had written something less objectionable to 21st century tastes? Suppose Paul had written something like this:
Wives,
you’re free, free, free;
you no longer have to live under your husband’s control.
For it is a wise saying,
worthy of all acceptance,
‘A woman needs a man,
like a fish needs a
chariot.’
Had Paul so written we might see notes like this in textbooks on Ancient Rome.
During the reign of Nero, a Jewish radical named Paul of Tarsus, a follower of a short-lived religion loosely associated with one Jesus of Nazareth, began to encourage women to break free from the domination of their husbands. As a result of Paul’s irresponsible teachings many poor women were beaten, divorced, or even executed by outraged husbands. These reprisals had the full approval of the Roman government which believed it had a vested interest in the preservation of order in the family.
While I believe the results would have been catastrophic had Paul been too radical in what he said to wives (or slaves, for that matter), I don’t want to leave the impression that Paul was simply being a pragmatist when he said “wives submit to your husbands.” To take that position would raise questions about the integrity of Paul and the lasting value of what he wrote. At the same time, I don’t want you to miss the revolutionary element in what Paul says.
We need to understand what he wrote, why he wrote it, and how it translates into our very, very different age.
There are few verses which so demand an understanding of their historical and cultural background than these.
In the New Testament world, particularly among the Greeks and Romans, the family was seen as the very foundation of a stable society. To promote this, the Romans gave complete authority over wives, children, and slaves to the male head of the household, who was known as the paterfamilias, “the family’s father.” His authority was so complete that in some cases he could extract his married daughter from her home should he choose.
With this authority came responsibility. The paterfamilias was expected to keep his family in line. Failure to do so reflected badly on him.
During the first century some Roman women began to seek greater freedoms than they had known before. Males in the Roman aristocracy were shocked at this development.
At the same time, when a number of women converted to the cult of Isis or to Judaism in the first century, a scandal erupted. In time, the government responded with severe reprisals. As a consequence, new religions in the Roman world were under suspicion because they were believed to lead women astray.
In response, some of these religions published their own household codes to show they were not subversive. Most of the codes simply repeated the accepted cultural standards.
Into this already tense situation came Christianity with its promise of equality for all regardless of age, race, or gender. It’s been suggested that when Christian women heard the remarkable things Paul was saying about them, they were tempted to be indiscreet in expressing that new freedom—especially before non-Christian relatives and neighbors.
So, when Paul calls Christian wives to submission he may, in part, be trying to forestall criticism and suspicion.
An observer hearing the bare bones of what Paul had written the Colossians might have reported that the “Christians” did not appear to be subversive.
At the same time it’s important that Paul does not define what it means to be submissive. If Paul was unwilling to do so, preachers, teachers, in-laws, and neighbors probably ought to be less eager to define what a submissive wife will look like.
Yet, given what Paul has said just a few verses before, I think we can see something of what Paul has in mind for the demeanor of the submissive wife.
COL 3:12 Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. [13] Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. [14] And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.
The expression of submission will be marked by these virtues.
With that in mind let’s consider…
II
A WORD TO HUSBANDS
Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.
If Paul’s one word to the wives is “submit,” his one word to husbands is “love.” If we are looking for the remarkable and revolutionary in this passage, it is here.
Romantic love was seldom the motivation for marriage. It wasn’t uncommon for men to develop deep affection for their wives but it came only after years of marriage. Often it did not come at all.
But Paul’s word for “love” is not the word for passion or even for close friendship. He speaks of agape, the love that always seeks the best for the other. It is an unselfish, caring love. As Paul reminded husbands in his Ephesian letter, it is the love modeled best by the sacrificial actions of Christ on behalf of his church.
Just how remarkable Paul’s word to the husbands is can be seen in the fact that most of the household codes simply say the husband is to govern his wife. Paul doesn’t say this; he says husbands are to love. In fact, the closest he comes to using such language is in First Timothy 3:4-12 where he says deacons are to “manage” their families, but even there the management seems more associated with the deacon’s control over his children, not his control over his wife.
Despite what some contemporary writers seem to imply, while Paul tells wives to submit to their husbands, he nowhere tells husbands to subdue their wives.
A few years ago, Campus Crusade adopted a new statement on the family for their organization. It included the following paragraph:
"In a marriage… the love between husband and wife will show itself in listening to each other's viewpoints, valuing each other's gifts, wisdom, and desires, honoring one another in public and in private, and always seeking to bring benefit, not harm, to
one another."[6]
When asked the reason for that statement, Crusade founder Bill Bright answered: "We felt we needed ... to explain that men are not to be dictators."
In commanding husbands to love their wives Paul was taking them beyond the ordinary standards of that society.
Often husbands had little or no respect for their wives. The common wisdom suggested that women were morally, intellectually, and socially inferior to men.
Jewish women were treated better than other women in most of the ancient cultures. Still a common morning prayer offered by many Jewish men said "Thank God I was not born a woman."
V. F. Calverton in Sex and Civilization writes about the Greek culture: "In...a civilization that has become known for its intellectual genius and progressive tendency, the position of women was a tragic spectacle... She was regarded as a form of property with rights no more exalted than that of a slave."
Charles Carlston points out that women were considered "basically uneducable and empty headed.” On ancient writer, upon meeting a particularly brilliant woman, complimented her by saying she thought like a man. Robert Briffault said, “The Greek woman was the most degraded and abject to be found in any civilized country of the western world."
In the Roman world men often postponed marriage until they were about thirty. Often they married very young women, sometimes no older than fourteen or fifteen. These wives were often the object of scorn simply because they had not had the opportunity to know as much as their husbands about the world at large.
In a culture in which wives may have had fewer educational opportunities it might have been easy for husbands to treat their wives as inferiors or to denigrate their lack of sophistication.
Now, Paul says husbands, clothed in the same virtues worn by their wives, are to love those wives with a love which, by its very nature, values and affirms them.
In Ephesians Paul focuses on the sacrificial element in agape; here, he focuses on the demeanor husbands should have toward their wives ("do not be harsh with them").
What does pikraino, the word translated “harsh” mean? It is used four times in the New Testament. The other three times it is used in the Book of Revelation, each time referring to something which was sour (e.g. a sour stomach).
Perhaps Paul was telling the Colossian husbands to stop being such sour pusses when they dealt with their wives. Maybe he meant, "Stop treating your wives in a way that will give them ulcers."
In any case, we need to remember that the opposite of sour is sweet. Husbands should be sweet-natured in dealing with their wives.
Whatever the meaning, it’s clear Paul’s word to the husbands was remarkable.
SOME FINAL OBSERVATIONS
Before I conclude, I want to offer some final observations.
1. While studying this passage I’ve come to admire Paul for what he didn’t say as much as for what he did say. Paul doesn’t try to micromanage anyone’s marriage. Each couple has the opportunity to work out the details of these commands in their own way.
2. I’m convinced this passage is not meant to be read in isolation from the rest of what the New Testament has to say about the equality of believers and the nature of marriage. Paul does not define what it means to submit in this passage, however, in the Ephesians 5:33 he offers “respect” as a synonym for the word submit found in verse 22.
I’m not sure all Paul had in mind, but he certainly didn’t have in mind placing wives in the servile position some have accused him of doing. In fact, as Craig Keener has written, “Paul’s view of women’s subordination even in this social situation could not be much weaker than it is.”
I’m not sure all Paul had in mind, but he certainly didn’t have in mind placing wives in the servile position some have accused him of doing. In fact, as Craig Keener has written, “Paul’s view of women’s subordination even in this social situation could not be much weaker than it is.”
3. In the final analysis, there are no simple formulas for a successful marriage. The Bible doesn’t even offer the ABCs of a happy marriage. What the Bible does ask is our trust. We must be on guard against those among either the liberals or the conservatives who would misrepresent what the Bible does say about marriage. If we let ourselves be talked out of trusting the Bible, our marriages will suffer.
4. Whatever the finer points of these commands, I think they must contain a call to mutual respect. In the first century some men believed women were, as a whole, morally dysfunctional; today some women make the same blanket statement about men. Paul allows neither position. The Biblical attitude toward both men and women warns against degrading humor or prejudicial name-calling.
5. Controversy will probably continue to swirl around these statements. When we understand Paul’s goals we can better resolve the controversy. John Stott helps us see that the command to "submit" and the command to "love" set marriage partners on the same pathway: "What does it mean to 'submit'? It is to give oneself up to somebody. What does it mean to 'love'? It is to give oneself up for somebody, as Christ 'gave himself up' for the church."
CONCLUSION
Few would doubt that marriages are in trouble today. Divorce is rampant. Abuse is so common that it is a national shame.
Paul’s key to building a strong marriage focused not on who was in charge but on whether or not both husband and wife really lived like they had been transformed by Jesus Christ.
[1] Elizabeth Griffith, In Her Own Right: The Life of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984, pp. 20-21.
[2] B. J. MacHaffie, “Stanton, Elizabeth Cady (1815-1902),” Dictionary of Christianity in America, ed. Daniel G. Reid, Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1990, p. 1129.
[3] Elizabeth Cady Stanton, “Introduction,” The Woman’s Bible, Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1993, p. 7.
[4] E. L. Gaylor, Why Women Need Freedom From Religion, Madison: Freedom From Religion Foundation, 1993, p.1.
[5] Ibid, p. 3.
[6] Campus Crusade had adopted a statement from the newly revised Baptist Faith and Message but felt the Southern Baptist document which asked wives to “graciously submit to their husbands” had not properly addressed the husband’s responsibilities.
