The Relationship Between Husband and Wife

My Dear Sister,—Perhaps some persons may wonder that I should attempt to throw out my views on the important subject of marriage, and may conclude that I am altogether disqualified for the task, because I lack experience. However, I shall not undertake to settle the specific duties of husbands and wives, but only to exhibit opinions based on the word of God, and formed from a little knowledge of human nature, and close observation of the working of generally received notions respecting the dominion of man over woman.

My Dear Sister, Perhaps some people may wonder why I am sharing my views on the important subject of marriage. They may conclude that I am completely unqualified to do so because I lack experience. However, I will not try to settle the specific duties of husbands and wives. I will only present opinions based on the word of God and a little knowledge of human nature. These opinions also come from closely observing how commonly held ideas about men's dominion over women work in practice.

When Jehovah ushered into existence man, created in his own image, he instituted marriage as a part of paradisaical happiness: it was a divine ordination, not a civil contract. God established it, and man, except by special permission, has no right to annul it. There can be no doubt that the creation of Eve perfected the happiness of Adam; hence, our all-wise and merciful Father made her as he made Adam, in his own image after his likeness, crowned her with glory and honor, and placed in her hand, as well as in his, the sceptre of dominion over the whole lower creation. Where there was perfect equality, and the same ability to receive and comprehend divine truth, and to obey divine injunctions, there could be no superiority. If God had placed Eve under the guardianship of Adam, after having endowed her, as richly as him, with moral perceptions, intellectual faculties, and spiritual apprehensions, he would at once have interposed a fallible being between her and her Maker. He could not, in simple consistency with himself, have done this; for the Bible teems with instructions not to put any confidence in man.

When Jehovah brought man into existence, he created him in his own image. He established marriage as part of the happiness of paradise. Marriage was a divine ordination, not a civil contract. God established it, and man has no right to end it without special permission. There can be no doubt that Eve’s creation made Adam’s happiness complete. So our all-wise and merciful Father made her, as he made Adam, in his own image and likeness. He crowned her with glory and honor. He also gave her, as well as Adam, authority over all the lower creation. Adam and Eve were perfectly equal. They had the same ability to receive and understand divine truth and to obey divine commands. Where such equality existed, neither could be superior. God had given Eve moral understanding, intellectual powers, and spiritual understanding as rich as Adam’s. If he had placed her under Adam’s guardianship, he would have put a fallible being between her and her Maker. God could not have done this and remained consistent with himself. For the Bible is full of instructions not to put any trust in man.

The passage on which the generally received opinion, that husbands are invested by divine command with authority over their wives, as I have remarked in a previous letter, is a prediction; and I am confirmed in this belief, because the same language is used to Cain respecting Abel. The text is obscure; but on a comparison of it with subsequent events, it appears to me that it was a prophecy of the dominion which Cain would usurp over his brother, and which issued in the murder of Abel. It could not allude to any thing but physical dominion, because Cain had already exhibited those evil passions which subsequently led him to become an assassin.

As I noted in a previous letter, the passage behind the widely held belief that God commands husbands to rule their wives is a prediction. I am confirmed in this belief because the same language is used about Cain and Abel. The passage is unclear, but later events help explain it. It seems to me to predict that Cain would seize power over his brother, leading to Abel’s murder. It could refer only to physical power, because Cain had already shown the evil passions that later led him to murder.

I have already shown, that man has exercised the most unlimited and brutal power over woman, in the peculiar character of husband,—a word in most countries synonymous with tyrant. I shall not, therefore, adduce any further proofs of the fulfilment of that prophecy, ‘He will rule over thee,’ from the history of heathen nations, but just glance at the condition of woman in the relation of wife in Christian countries.

I have already shown that men have exercised the most unlimited and brutal power over women as husbands. In most countries, the word husband is synonymous with tyrant. Therefore, I will offer no more evidence from the history of heathen nations that the prophecy ‘He will rule over thee’ has been fulfilled. Instead, I will briefly look at the condition of women as wives in Christian countries.

‘Previous to the introduction of the religion of Jesus Christ, the state of society was wretchedly diseased. The relation of the sexes to each other had become so gross in its manifested forms, that it was difficult to perceive the pure conservative principle in its inward essence.’ Christianity came in, at this juncture, with its hallowed influence, and has without doubt tended to lighten the yoke of bondage, to purify the manners, and give the spiritual in some degree an empire over the animal nature. Still, that state which was designed by God to increase the happiness of woman as well as man, often proves the means of lessening her comfort, and degrading her into the mere machine of another’s convenience and pleasure. Woman, instead of being elevated by her union with man, which might be expected from an alliance with a superior being, is in reality lowered. She generally loses her individuality, her independent character, her moral being. She becomes absorbed into him, and henceforth is looked at, and acts through the medium of her husband.

‘Before the introduction of the religion of Jesus Christ, society was terribly diseased. Relations between the sexes had become so crude that their pure, preserving principle was difficult to see beneath the surface.’ Christianity arrived at this moment with its sacred influence. It has undoubtedly helped lighten the burden of bondage, improve manners, and give our spiritual nature some power over our animal nature. Still, marriage, which God designed to increase the happiness of both woman and man, often makes her less comfortable. It degrades her into a mere machine for another’s convenience and pleasure. One might expect a union with a superior being to elevate a woman, but her union with a man actually lowers her. She generally loses her individuality, her independent character, and her moral being. She becomes absorbed into her husband. From then on, she is viewed through him and acts through him.

In the wealthy classes of society, and those who are in comfortable circumstances, women are exempt from great corporeal exertion, and are protected by public opinion, and by the genial influence of Christianity, from much physical ill treatment. Still, there is a vast amount of secret suffering endured, from the forced submission of women to the opinions and whims of their husbands. Hence they are frequently driven to use deception, to compass their ends. They are early taught that to appear to yield, is the only way to govern. Miserable sophism! I deprecate such sentiments, as being peculiarly hostile to the dignity of woman. If she submits, let her do it openly, honorably, not to gain her point, but as a matter of Christian duty. But let her beware how she permits her husband to be her conscience-keeper. On all moral and religious subjects, she is bound to think and to act for herself. Where confidence and love exist, a wife will naturally converse with her husband as with her dearest friend, on all that interests her heart, and there will be a perfectly free interchange of sentiment; but she is no more bound to be governed by his judgment, than he is by hers. They are standing on the same platform of human rights, are equally under the government of God, and accountable to him, and him alone.

Among wealthy and comfortably situated people, women are spared heavy physical labor. Public opinion and the compassionate influence of Christianity also protect them from much physical abuse. Still, women endure a great deal of secret suffering because they are forced to submit to their husbands’ opinions and whims. As a result, they are often driven to use deception to get what they want. From an early age, they are taught that pretending to give in is the only way to control others. What a miserable falsehood! I condemn such ideas because they are especially hostile to women’s dignity. If a woman submits, let her do so openly and honorably, not to get her way, but as a Christian duty. But let her take care not to let her husband be the keeper of her conscience. On all moral and religious matters, she is bound to think and act for herself. Where confidence and love exist, a wife will naturally talk with her husband as her dearest friend about everything that matters to her. They will exchange their views freely. But she is no more bound to follow his judgment than he is to follow hers. They stand on the same footing in their human rights. Both are equally subject to God’s authority and accountable to him alone.

I have sometimes been astonished and grieved at the servitude of women, and at the little idea many of them seem to have of their own moral existence and responsibilities. A woman who is asked to sign a petition for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, or to join a society for the purpose of carrying forward the annihilation of American slavery, or any other great reformation, not unfrequently replies, ‘My husband does not approve of it.’ She merges her rights and her duties in her husband, and thus virtually chooses him for a savior and a king, and rejects Christ as her Ruler and Redeemer. I know some women are very glad of so convenient a pretext to shield themselves from the performance of duty; but there are others, who, under a mistaken view of their obligations as wives, submit conscientiously to this species of oppression, and go mourning on their way, for want of that holy fortitude, which would enable them to fulfil their duties as moral and responsible beings, without reference to poor fallen man. O that woman may arise in her dignity as an immortal creature, and speak, think and act as unto God, and not unto man!

I have sometimes been astonished and saddened by the servitude of women. Many seem to have little sense of their own moral existence and responsibilities. A woman may be asked to sign a petition to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia. Or she may be asked to join a society working to end American slavery or to advance another great reform. She often replies, ‘My husband does not approve of it.’ She gives up her rights and duties to her husband. In effect, she chooses him as her savior and king and rejects Christ as her ruler and redeemer. I know some women are glad to have such a convenient excuse for avoiding their duty. But others misunderstand their obligations as wives and submit to this kind of oppression out of conscience. They go on in sorrow because they lack the holy courage to fulfill their duties as moral and responsible beings, without regard to poor fallen man. Oh, may woman rise in her dignity as an immortal creature and speak, think, and act for God, not man!

There is, perhaps, less bondage of mind among the poorer classes, because their sphere of duty is more contracted, and they are deprived of the means of intellectual culture, and of the opportunity of exercising their judgment, on many moral subjects of deep interest and of vital importance. Authority is called into exercise by resistance, and hence there will be mental bondage only in proportion as the faculties of mind are evolved, and woman feels herself as a rational and intelligent being, on a footing with man. But women, among the lowest classes of society, so far as my observation has extended, suffer intensely from the brutality of their husbands. Duty as well as inclination has led me, for many years, into the abodes of poverty and sorrow, and I have been amazed at the treatment which women receive at the hands of those, who arrogate to themselves the epithet of protectors. Brute force, the law of violence, rules to a great extent in the poor man’s domicil; and woman is little more than his drudge. They are less under the supervision of public opinion, less under the restraints of education, and unaided or unbiased by the refinements of polished society. Religion, wherever it exists, supplies the place of all these; but the real cause of woman’s degradation and suffering in married life is to be found in the erroneous notion of her inferiority to man; and never will she be rightly regarded by herself, or others, until this opinion, so derogatory to the wisdom and mercy of God, is exploded, and woman arises in all the majesty of her womanhood, to claim those rights which are inseparable from her existence as an immortal, intelligent and responsible being.

There is perhaps less mental bondage among the poorer classes because their duties are more limited. They also lack the means to develop their minds and the chance to exercise their judgment on many moral questions of deep interest and vital importance. Authority is exercised when it meets resistance. Thus, mental bondage increases as women develop their minds and recognize themselves as rational, intelligent beings, equal to men. But among the lowest classes of society, women suffer intensely from their husbands’ brutality, as far as I have observed. For many years, both duty and inclination have led me into homes of poverty and sorrow. I have been amazed at how women are treated by those who claim the title of protectors. In poor men’s homes, brute force and violence rule to a great extent, and a woman is little more than her husband’s drudge. These men are less subject to public opinion and the restraints of education. They are neither helped nor influenced by the refinements of polite society. Wherever religion exists, it takes the place of all these influences. But the real cause of women’s degradation and suffering in marriage is the mistaken belief that women are inferior to men. Women will never be rightly regarded by themselves or others until this belief is rejected. It is deeply insulting to God’s wisdom and mercy. Women must rise in all the majesty of their womanhood to claim the rights inseparable from their existence as immortal, intelligent, and responsible beings.

Independent of the fact, that Jehovah could not, consistently with his character as the King, the Lawgiver, and the Judge of his people, give the reins of government over woman into the hands of man, I find that all his commands, all his moral laws, are addressed to women as well as to men. When he assembled Israel at the foot of Mount Sinai, to issue his commandments, we may reasonably suppose he gave all the precepts, which he considered necessary for the government of moral beings. Hence we find that God says,—‘Honor thy father and thy mother,’ and he enforces this command, by severe penalties upon those who transgress it: ‘He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death’—‘He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death’—Ex. 21: 15, 17. But in the decalogue, there is no direction given to women to obey their husbands: both are commanded to have no other God but Jehovah, and not to bow down, or serve any other. When the Lord Jesus delivered his sermon on the Mount, full of the practical precepts of religion, he did not issue any command to wives to obey their husbands. When he is speaking on the subject of divorce, Mark 16: 11, 12, he places men and women on the same ground. And the Apostle, 1st Cor. 7: 12, 13, speaking of the duties of the Corinthian wives and husbands, who had embraced Christianity, to their unconverted partners, points out the same path to both, although our translators have made a distinction. ‘Let him not put her away,’ 12—‘Let her not leave him,’ 13—is precisely the same in the original. If man is constituted the governor of woman, he must be her God; and the sentiment expressed to me lately, by a married man, is perfectly correct: ‘In my opinion,’ said he, ‘the greatest excellence to which a married woman can attain, is to worship her husband.’ He was a professor of religion—his wife a lovely and intelligent woman. He only spoke out what thousands think and act. Women are indebted to Milton for giving to this false notion, ‘confirmation strong as proof of holy writ.’ His Eve is embellished with every personal grace, to gratify the eye of her admiring husband; but he seems to have furnished the mother of mankind with just intelligence enough to comprehend her supposed inferiority to Adam, and to yield unresisting submission to her lord and master. Milton puts into Eve’s mouth the following address to Adam:

Apart from the fact that Jehovah could not give man authority to govern woman without contradicting his character as King, Lawgiver, and Judge of his people, I find that all his commands and moral laws are addressed to women as well as men. When he gathered Israel at the foot of Mount Sinai to give his commandments, we may reasonably suppose he gave all the rules he considered necessary for governing moral beings. Thus God says, ‘Honor your father and your mother.’ He enforces this command with severe penalties for those who break it: ‘Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.’ ‘Whoever curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.’ Ex. 21: 15, 17. But the Ten Commandments give women no instruction to obey their husbands. Both women and men are commanded to have no God but Jehovah and not to bow down to or serve any other. When the Lord Jesus delivered his Sermon on the Mount, full of practical religious teachings, he gave wives no command to obey their husbands. When he speaks about divorce, Mark 16: 11, 12, he places men and women on equal ground. The Apostle, in 1st Cor. 7: 12, 13, speaks of the duties of Corinthian wives and husbands who had embraced Christianity toward their partners who had not converted. He directs both to follow the same path, although our translators have made a distinction. ‘Let him not put her away,’ 12, and ‘Let her not leave him,’ 13, are exactly the same in the original. If man is appointed to govern woman, he must be her God. If so, a married man recently expressed a perfectly correct opinion to me: ‘In my opinion,’ he said, ‘the greatest excellence a married woman can attain is to worship her husband.’ He professed religion, and his wife was a lovely and intelligent woman. He merely said aloud what thousands think and act on. Women have Milton to thank for giving this false notion ‘confirmation strong as proof of holy writ.’ His Eve is adorned with every personal grace to please the eye of her admiring husband. But he seems to have given the mother of mankind just enough intelligence to understand her supposed inferiority to Adam and submit without resistance to her lord and master. Milton puts the following address to Adam in Eve’s mouth:

This much admired sentimental nonsense is fraught with absurdity and wickedness. If it were true, the commandment of Jehovah should have run thus: Man shall have no other gods before ME, and woman shall have no other gods before MAN.

This much admired sentimental nonsense is absurd and wicked. If it were true, Jehovah’s commandment should have said: Man shall have no other gods before me, and woman shall have no other gods before man.

The principal support of the dogma of woman’s inferiority, and consequent submission to her husband, is found in some passages of Paul’s epistles. I shall proceed to examine those passages, premising 1st, that the antiquity of the opinions based on the false construction of those passages, has no weight with me: they are the opinions of interested judges, and I have no particular reverence for them, merely because they have been regarded with veneration from generation to generation. So far from this being the case, I examine any opinions of centuries standing, with as much freedom, and investigate them with as much care, as if they were of yesterday. I was educated to think for myself, and it is a privilege I shall always claim to exercise. 2d. Notwithstanding my full belief that the apostle Paul’s testimony, respecting himself, is true, ‘I was not a whit behind the chiefest of the apostles,’ yet I believe his mind was under the influence of Jewish prejudices respecting women, just as Peter’s and the apostles were about the uncleanness of the Gentiles. ‘The Jews,’ says Clarke, ‘would not suffer a woman to read in the synagogue, although a servant, or even a child, had this permission.’ When I see Paul shaving his head for a vow, and offering sacrifices, and circumcising Timothy, to accommodate himself to the prepossessions of his countrymen, I do not conceive that I derogate in the least from his character as an inspired apostle, to suppose that he may have been imbued with the prevalent prejudices against women.

The main support for the belief that women are inferior and must therefore submit to their husbands comes from passages in Paul’s letters. I will examine those passages, but first I want to make two points. 1st, the age of opinions based on a false interpretation of those passages carries no weight with me. They are the opinions of judges with a personal interest in the matter. I have no special reverence for them merely because generations have revered them. On the contrary, I question opinions that are centuries old as freely and carefully as if they were new. I was taught to think for myself, and I will always claim the right to do so. 2d, I fully believe the apostle Paul’s testimony about himself: ‘I was not at all behind the greatest of the apostles.’ Yet I believe Jewish prejudices about women influenced his thinking. In the same way, Peter and the other apostles were influenced by prejudices about the uncleanness of the Gentiles. ‘The Jews,’ says Clarke, ‘would not allow a woman to read in the synagogue, although a servant, or even a child, had permission to do so.’ Paul shaved his head to fulfill a vow, offered sacrifices, and circumcised Timothy to accommodate the prejudices of his countrymen. In light of this, I do not believe I diminish his character as an inspired apostle in the least by suggesting that he may have absorbed the prevailing prejudices against women.

In 1st Cor. 11: 3, after praising the Corinthian converts, because they kept the ‘ordinances,’ or ‘traditions,’ as the margin reads, the apostle says, ‘I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.’ Eph. 5: 23, is a parallel passage. ‘For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church.’ The apostle closes his remarks on this subject, by observing, ‘This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the Church.’ I shall pass over this with simply remarking, that God and Christ are one. ‘I and my Father are one,’ and there can be no inferiority where there is no divisibility. The commentaries on this and similar texts, afford a striking illustration of the ideas which men entertain of their own superiority, I shall subjoin Henry’s remarks on 1st Cor. 11: 5, as a specimen: ‘To understand this text, it must be observed, that it was a signification either of shame, or subjection, for persons to be veiled, or covered in Eastern countries; contrary to the custom of ours, where the being bare-headed betokens subjection, and being covered superiority and dominion; and this will help us the better to understand the reason on which he grounds his reprehension, ‘Every man praying, &c. dishonoreth his head,’ i. e. Christ, the head of every man, by appearing in a habit unsuitable to the rank in which God had placed him. The woman, on the other hand, that prays, &c. dishonoreth her head, i. e. the man. She appears in the dress of her superior, and throws off the token of her subjection; she might with equal decency cut her hair short, or cut it off, the common dress of the man in that age. Another reason against this conduct was, that the man is the image and glory of God, the representative of that glorious dominion and headship which God has over the world. It is the man who is set at the head of this lower creation, and therein bears the resemblance of God. The woman, on the other hand, is the glory of the man: she is his representative. Not but she has dominion over the inferior creatures, and she is a partaker of human nature, and so far is God’s representative too, but it is at second hand. She is the image of God, inasmuch as she is the image of the man. The man was first made, and made head of the creation here below, and therein the image of the divine dominion; and the woman was made out of the man, and shone with a reflection of his glory, being made superior to the other creatures here below, but in subjection to her husband, and deriving that honor from him, out of whom she was made. The woman was made for the man to be his help meet, and not the man for the woman. She was, naturally, therefore, made subject to him, because made for him, for HIS USE AND HELP AND COMFORT.’

In 1 Corinthians 11:3, the apostle praises the Corinthian converts for keeping the “ordinances,” or “traditions,” as the margin reads. He then says, “I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God.” Ephesians 5:23 is a parallel passage: “For the husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is the head of the Church.” The apostle ends his remarks on this subject by saying, “This is a great mystery, but I speak about Christ and the Church.” I will pass over this, simply noting that God and Christ are one. “I and my Father are one,” and there can be no inferiority where there is no division. The commentaries on this and similar texts strikingly illustrate men’s ideas of their own superiority. I will add Henry’s remarks on 1 Corinthians 11:5 as an example: “To understand this text, we must note that in Eastern countries a veil or covering was a sign of either shame or submission. This is contrary to our custom, where being bareheaded signals submission, and being covered signals superiority and authority. This will help us better understand the reason for his criticism. ‘Every man praying, etc., dishonors his head,’ that is, Christ, the head of every man. He does so by appearing in clothing unsuited to the rank in which God has placed him. The woman, on the other hand, who prays, etc., dishonors her head, that is, the man. She appears in the clothing of her superior and casts off the sign of her submission. She might just as properly cut her hair short, or cut it off, as men commonly wore it in that age. “Another reason against this conduct was that the man is the image and glory of God. He represents the glorious authority and headship God has over the world. Man is placed at the head of this lower creation, and in that way resembles God. Woman, on the other hand, is the glory of man. She is his representative. She does have authority over the lower creatures. She also shares in human nature, and so she too is God’s representative, but at second hand. She is the image of God because she is the image of man. Man was made first and was made head of creation here below. In that way, he is the image of divine authority. Woman was made out of man and shone with a reflection of his glory. She was made superior to the other creatures here below, but subject to her husband. She received that honor from him, out of whom she was made. Woman was made for man, to be a suitable helper for him, and not man for woman. Naturally, then, she was made subject to him, because she was made for him, for HIS USE AND HELP AND COMFORT.”

We see in the above quotation, what degrading views even good men entertain of women. Pity the Psalmist had not thrown a little light on this subject, when he was paraphrasing the account of man’s creation. ‘Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honor. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet.’ Surely if woman had been placed below man, and was to shine only by a lustre borrowed from him, we should have some clear evidence of it in the sacred volume. Henry puts her exactly on a level with the beasts; they were made for the use, help and comfort of man; and according to this commentator, this was the whole end and design of the creation of woman. The idea that man, as man is superior to woman, involves an absurdity so gross, that I really wonder how any man of reflection can receive it as of divine origin; and I can only account for it, by that passion for supremacy, which characterizes man as a corrupt and fallen creature. If it be true that he is more excellent than she, as man, independent of his moral and intellectual powers, then every man is superior by virtue of his manship, to every woman. The man who sinks his moral capacities and spiritual powers in his sensual appetites, is still, as a man, simply by the conformation of his body, a more dignified being, than the woman whose intellectual powers are highly cultivated, and whose approximation to the character of Jesus Christ is exhibited in a blameless life and conversation.

The quotation above shows what degrading views of women even good men hold. It is a pity the Psalmist did not shed a little light on this subject when he restated the account of man’s creation. ‘You made him a little lower than the angels and crowned him with glory and honor. You gave him dominion over the works of your hands. You put all things under his feet.’ Surely, if woman had been placed below man and was meant to shine only with light borrowed from him, we would find clear evidence of it in the sacred volume. Henry puts woman on exactly the same level as the beasts. They were made for man’s use, help, and comfort. According to this commentator, that was also the whole purpose and design of woman’s creation. The idea that man, simply as a man, is superior to woman is so absurd that I wonder how any thoughtful man can accept it as divine in origin. I can explain it only by the passion for supremacy that characterizes man as a corrupt and fallen creature. If a man is more excellent than a woman simply because he is a man, regardless of his moral and intellectual powers, then every man is superior to every woman by virtue of being male. A man may sink his moral capacities and spiritual powers in his sensual appetites. Yet he is still, simply because of the shape of his body, a more dignified being than a woman whose intellectual powers are highly cultivated and whose blameless life and conduct show how closely she approaches the character of Jesus Christ.

But it is strenuously urged by those, who are anxious to maintain their usurped authority, that wives are, in various passages of the New Testament, commanded to obey their husbands. Let us examine these texts.

But those eager to maintain the authority they have seized insist that wives are commanded to obey their husbands in several passages of the New Testament. Let us examine these passages.

Accompanying all these directions to wives, are commands to husbands.

Along with all these directions to wives, there are commands to husbands.

I may just remark, in relation to the expression ‘weaker vessel,’ that the word in the original has no reference to intellect: it refers to physical weakness merely.

I would just note that the original word in ‘weaker vessel’ has nothing to do with intellect. It refers only to physical weakness.

The apostles were writing to Christian converts, and laying down rules for their conduct towards their unconverted consorts. It no doubt frequently happened, that a husband or a wife would embrace Christianity, while their companions clung to heathenism, and husbands might be tempted to dislike and despise those, who pertinaciously adhered to their pagan superstitions. And wives who, when they were pagans, submitted as a matter of course to their heathen husbands, might be tempted knowing that they were superior as moral and religious characters, to assert that superiority, by paying less deference to them than heretofore. Let us examine the context of these passages, and see what are the grounds of the directions here given to husbands and wives. The whole epistle to the Ephesians breathes a spirit of love. The apostle beseeches the converts to walk worthy of the vocation wherewith they are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with long suffering, forbearing one another in love. The verse preceding 5, 22, is ‘SUBMITTING YOURSELVES ONE TO ANOTHER IN THE FEAR OF GOD.’ Colossians 3, from 11 to 17, contains similar injunctions. The 17th verse says, ‘Whatsoever ye do in word, or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus.’ Peter, after drawing a most touching picture of Christ’s sufferings for us, and reminding the Christians, that he had left us an example that we should follow his steps, ‘who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth,’ exhorts wives to be in subjection, &c.

The apostles wrote to Christian converts and gave them rules for dealing with their unconverted spouses. No doubt it often happened that a husband or wife embraced Christianity while their spouse clung to paganism. Husbands might be tempted to dislike and despise wives who stubbornly held to their pagan superstitions. Wives, when they were pagans, had naturally submitted to their pagan husbands. But knowing they were morally and religiously superior, they might be tempted to assert that superiority. They might show their husbands less deference than before. Let us examine the context of these passages and see the reasons for the directions given to husbands and wives. The whole letter to the Ephesians expresses a spirit of love. The apostle urges the converts to live in a way worthy of their calling. They should be humble and gentle, patient, and tolerant of one another in love. The verse before Ephesians 5:22 says, ‘SUBMITTING TO ONE ANOTHER IN THE FEAR OF GOD.’ Colossians 3:11 to 17 gives similar instructions. Verse 17 says, ‘Whatever you do in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus.’ Peter draws a deeply moving picture of Christ’s sufferings for us. He reminds Christians that Christ left us an example to follow, ‘who committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.’ After this, Peter urges wives to submit, and so on.

From an attentive consideration of these passages, and of those in which the same words ‘submit,’ ‘subjection,’ are used, I cannot but believe that the apostles designed to recommend to wives, as they did to subjects and to servants, to carry out the holy principle laid down by Jesus Christ, ‘Resist not evil.’ And this without in the least acknowledging the right of the governors, masters, or husbands, to exercise the authority they claimed. The recognition of the existence of evils does not involve approbation of them. God tells the Israelites, he gave them a king in his wrath, but nevertheless as they chose to have a king, he laid down directions for the conduct of that king, and had him anointed to reign over them. According to the generally received meaning of the passages I have quoted, they directly contravene the laws of God, as given in various parts of the Bible. Now I must understand the sacred Scriptures as harmonizing with themselves, or I cannot receive them as the word of God. The commentators on these passages exalt man to the station of a Deity in relation to woman. Clarke says, ‘As the Lord Christ is the head, or governor of the church, and the head of the man, so is the man the head, or governor of the woman. This is God’s ordinance, and should not be transgressed. ‘As unto the Lord.’ The word church seems necessarily to be understood here: that is, act under the authority of your husbands, as the church acts under the authority of Christ. As the church submits to the Lord, so let wives submit to their husbands.’ Henry goes even further—‘For the husband is the head of the wife. The metaphor is taken from the head in the natural body, which being the seat of reason, of wisdom and of knowledge, and the fountain of sense and motion, is more excellent than the rest of the body.’ Now if God ordained man the governor of woman, he must be able to save her, and to answer in her stead for all those sins which she commits by his direction. Awful responsibility. Do husbands feel able and willing to bear it? And what becomes of the solemn affirmation of Jehovah? ‘Hear this, all ye people, give ear all ye inhabitants of the world, both low and high, rich and poor.’ ‘None can by any means redeem his brother, or give to God a ransom for him, for the redemption of the soul is precious, and man cannot accomplish it.’—French Bible.

After carefully considering these passages and others that use the words ‘submit’ and ‘subjection,’ I cannot help but believe the apostles intended to give wives the same advice they gave subjects and servants. They urged them to practice the holy principle Jesus Christ laid down: ‘Do not resist evil.’ But they did not acknowledge any right of governors, masters, or husbands to exercise the authority they claimed. Recognizing that evils exist does not mean approving of them. God tells the Israelites that he gave them a king in his wrath. Nevertheless, because they chose to have a king, he laid down rules for the king’s conduct and had him anointed to reign over them. As the passages I have quoted are generally understood, they directly contradict God’s laws in various parts of the Bible. I must understand the sacred Scriptures as consistent with themselves, or I cannot accept them as the word of God. The commentators on these passages raise man to the position of a God in relation to woman. Clarke says, ‘Just as the Lord Christ is the head, or governor, of the church and the head of man, so man is the head, or governor, of woman. This is God’s command, and it should not be violated. “As unto the Lord.” The word church seems necessarily to be understood here. That is, act under your husbands’ authority, as the church acts under Christ’s authority. Just as the church submits to the Lord, let wives submit to their husbands.’ Henry goes even further: ‘For the husband is the head of the wife. The metaphor comes from the head of the physical body. The head is the seat of reason, wisdom, and knowledge, and the source of sensation and movement. It is therefore superior to the rest of the body.’ Now, if God appointed man to govern woman, he must be able to save her. He must also be able to answer in her place for all the sins she commits at his direction. What an awesome responsibility. Do husbands feel able and willing to bear it? And what becomes of Jehovah’s solemn declaration? ‘Hear this, all you people. Listen, all you inhabitants of the world, both low and high, rich and poor.’ ‘No one can redeem his brother by any means, or pay God a ransom for him. For the redemption of the soul is precious, and man cannot accomplish it.’ French Bible.