Back to Online Material

45

The Responsibilities of the Husband

Eph. 5:23, 25-33

 

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. . . .

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

 

We come now in our study of the Christian home to the responsibilities that God has given to the husband. As we recall, the wife is a picture of the Church, for as the Church is under the spiritual leadership of Christ, the wife is to put herself under the spiritual leadership of the husband. We now discover that the husband is a picture of Christ, for as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself totally for it (or “her” as she is spoken of as being a bride), the husband is to love his wife and give himself totally for her. This, indeed, lifts marital love to the hightest level possible.

This principle continues to be a fascination to me. To every fellow husband I say, “Think of this! We are actually to be pictures of Christ.” If that doesn’t make a deep impression upon each of us, then there is something drastically wrong with our spiritual lives! How sickening are the “macho” attitudes and descriptions of manhood today. Sadly, this is true even among Christians, such as John Eldredge’s popular “Christian” book Wild At Heart, which is so full of errors and distortions of Scripture that it would take virtually another book to deal with all of them. In his view, men should get their patterns for living from the heroes in movies such as Braveheart, The Magnificent Seven, Die Hard, and Gladiator. In contrast, a man who will stand for Christ, love his wife and children, and strive for a godly home is a “real man.”

 

As we noted in our study of the wife, Paul dealt with the wife first because of the problem of submission, the problem of her by nature not wanting to be ruled. But may we now point out that the passage on the husband is three times as long as the one on the wife. This vividly shows that much greater responsibility (and, therefore, accountability) lies with him. We can’t fall back on excuses such as “pressures at work;” we are responsible. It goes with the territory.

We point out first that everything concerning the husband hinges on one word, a word that many men think makes them look weak if they feel or say—LOVE. At the foundation of this principle is that love is the tempering agent of the wife’s submission. Lest the husband be tempted to lord over his wife—which is easy to do with a submissive wife—God says to love and cherish her. As we’ll see, he is to have the same attitude toward her as Christ does the Church. Again, in today’s stress on “machoism,” sincere expressions of love toward one’s wife are considered to be a characteristic of weakness, or being “hen-pecked.” But it is totally ungodly for a Christian husband to fail to love his wife and to fail to express that love to her.

 

Let us present our study by looking at three major points concerning the husband: the will, way, and wealth in loving his wife.

 

I. The Will to Love Your Wife (v. 25a)

 

Husbands, love your wives,

 

Husbands, love your wives. What a concept!

 

Before continuing, let us once again review the history of the matter. In the opening chapters of Genesis we find a perfect union. The husband and wife were co-regents with the wife being the helper who joyfully supported her husband and the husband being the head who joyfully loved his wife. There was no struggle, no animosity, no competition, and no conflict. But then came the fall! Satan bypassed the leader and went to the follower. Eve usurped Adam’s leadership and Adam followed instead of leading. As a result came God’s curse. There came the marital struggle of the woman trying to rule and the man trying to suppress. The man was told he must labor hard to make a living and the woman was told she would be ruled and know great pain in child-birth.

 

Added to all that, we read in the book of Genesis of the terrible attacks upon the home. Right from the beginning Satan has tried to destroy God’s foundational institution. We read of polygamy as illustrated by Lamech (4:19, 23). We read also of Abraham’s adultery (16:1-3) and of the homosexuality in Sodom (19:4-11). We then are confronted with fornication and rape as illustrated in Shecham and Dinah (34:1-2), incest and prostitution in the story of Judah and Tamar (38:13-18), and the attempted sexual seduction of Joseph by Potiphar’s wife (39:7-12). Indeed, the attack on the home began early and has been going on ever since.

 

Well, God’s Word gives us the answer to all that. The answer is here in Ephesians 5, for we find here a reversal of the fall. Instead of reading the latest self-help book, or turning on Dr. Phil, all we need do is open the Word of God. Paul presents marriage as it was, not as it is, and his reason for doing so is because marriage can again be as it was. This will not come naturally but supernaturally. By nature a woman will not submit, and by nature a man will not love. But by Spirit-control (verse 18) each of us can have the will.

 

So, may we emphasize that the husband is commanded to love his wife. It’s interesting and significant that the command is not, “Husbands, rule your wives,” as one would expect in the Jewish atmosphere and Greco-Roman world of Paul’s day. Why? Because the wife’s submission must be voluntary or it is meaningless. Rather, the husband is to love her. The Greek construction is the Present Imperative, a command given with a military snap.

 

It is God’s will that a man love his wife, so it should also be the husband’s will. The pivotal truth here is that while most people think of love in terms of emotion, the principle here is God speaks of love as a matter of the will, as we’ll examine in the word agapē (love) later. Like any other aspect of our Christian walk, it takes our willful obedience to do the will of God. We’ll see this in more depth in our next point.

 

II. The Way to Love Your Wife (vs.25b-29)

 

even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

 

What are the specific ways God has prescribed in which the husband is to love his wife? The great 18th Century expositor John Gill challenges us with this tall order:

 

Husbands, love your wives, which consists in a strong and cordial affection for them; in a real delight and pleasure in them; in showing respect, and doing honour to them; in seeking their contentment, satisfaction, and pleasure; in a quiet, constant, and comfortable dwelling with them; in providing all things necessary for them; in protecting them from all injuries and abuses; in concealing their faults, and covering their infirmities; in entertaining the best opinion of their persons and actions; and in endeavouring to promote their spiritual good and welfare: this love ought to be hearty and sincere, and not feigned and selfish; it should be shown in private, as well as in public: it should be chaste and single, constant and perpetual; it should exceed that which is bore to neighbours, or even to parents, and should be equal to that a man bears to himself; though not so as to hinder, and break in upon love to God and Christ: many are the reasons why husbands should love their wives; they are given to be helps unto them; they are companions of them; they are wives of covenant; they are their own wives, yea, their own bodies, their own flesh, nay, as themselves; they are their image and their glory; and especially the example of Christ, in his love to his church and people, should engage to it.

 

So foundational is this love that John Calvin bluntly wrote, “The man who does not love his wife is a monster.”[1] Let us, therefore, further consider this love through two major emphases, each of which containing several principles.

 

The Three Types Of Love

 

We all know that there is only one word in English to express the concept of love.” This fact can be quite confusing. We might say, “I love fried chicken,” or, “I love our my dog, whose always in the back of my touch,” or, “I love my wife.” But we better not make these equal, right? The Greek, however, makes a distinction. The Greek eros speaks of a sensual passion. The Greek philos speaks of a tender affection for someone or something and denotes a fondness, an emotional feeling. The Greek agapē speaks of “a self-emptying self-sacrifice” and is a selfless, Divine love. It is this last type of love, in fact, which is found in our text and which must form the core of a marriage. Let us now be more specific in showing that a husband is required to possess and express two out of three of these three types of love. As he expresses these, his wife will respond to them and return them.

 

Erōs

 

Sadly, because of a lack of careful study of ancient Greek, some teachers say that eros, that is, physical love, is a valid type of love the Christian. Nothing could be further from the Truth, for eros goes far beyond what we think of simple physical relations.

 

We first need to understand the history of this word. It is from this word that the English “erotic” is derived. In Classical Greek erōs denoted the love between a man and a woman that involves longing, craving, and desire. The problem with it, however, is that it further speaks of a loss of will, discretion, and moderation on the way to ecstasy and was even tied in with the fertility worship of the pagans. Worse, there was in this word a “mystical understanding . . . whereby the Greeks sought to reach and go beyond normal human limitations in order to attain perfection.”[2] Another writer adds that the meaning of erōs (and the related eran) “had degenerated so that they stood for lower things. Christianity could hardly have annexed these words for its own uses.”[3]

 

It’s extremely significant, then, that erōs never appears in the New Testament. The reason is obvious—there is nothing positive about it. It’s totally divorced from any of the other types of deeper and more meaningful love. It’s not even used for the physical relationship of a husband and wife because their love transcends sex alone and certainly doesn’t contain any of the characteristics of this word.

 

That being said, there is nonetheless a place for the physical expression of love within marriage. God has, indeed, made provision for it and has put His approval and blessing upon it. Now, while we are going to deal with this subject, we a going to be discreet about it, as we have been in previous studies. There is far too much explicit “sex talk” from pulpits. We appreciate these words by Dr. J. Sidlow Baxter:

 

Let me here utter a protest against those preachers nowadays who seem to think that in order to appear modernly psychological or bravely attractive they must always bring sex into their public speaking. I, for one, am nauseated by it, and I believe that a long-suffering majority of others feel the same way. The jolting over-frankness with which some ministers and conference speakers talk about marital relationships and sex experience is disgusting.[4]

 

We heartily agree. I personally heard one well-known and popular speaker who spoke on the topic, “Maximum Sex” to a mixed audience. One of the milder expressions he used was “fun between the sheets.” This is simply lewd talk that is disguised as Christian teaching. And may we add, that kind of talk is quite unnecessary. There are several good books on the subject that keep the matter private, as God meant for it to be. In light of today’s sex-craze, we Christians should do all we can to restore the sacredness of the marital relationship. Dr. Baxter again encourages:

 

If for some acute reason sex matters simply must be publicly spoken of in some Christian service or conference, it should be done without descriptive detail, with very carefully restrained phrases, and with becoming reticence. That which belongs to private counseling is not for public display.[5]

 

Again, we agree, and we shall be discreet here, for as the reader knows, these expositions in Ephesians were taken right from the pulpit ministry.

 

While the physical relationship between a husband and wife should not include the excesses of eros, God’s Word nonetheless teaches that sexual expression within marriage is normal and is to be enjoyed. Contrary to some thinking, sex is not “dirty,” nor is it merely for procreation. God created sex to be the most intimate, the most personal, and the most beautiful of all human relationships. And, may we add, if God didn’t mean for us to enjoy sexual expression, then He would not have created us with the capacity to enjoy it. Let us consider several Biblical examples of this fact.

 

First, consider Adam and Eve. Even before the fall, Adam and Eve were told to “be fruitful and multiply.” As one ponders this, does it not occur to him that we always equate enjoyment and pleasure with fruitfulness? Indeed, each time we view fruitfulness in nature we view it with pleasure. Then after the fall we come across the well-known expression, “Adam knew Eve his wife” (Gen. 4:1). The Hebrew for “knew” is yāda‘ which means “perceiving with the senses.” It is similar to the Greek ginōskō, “to know by experience.” We certainly have here a picture of complete, intimate, knowledge of the marital partner.

 

Second, as mentioned in our study of marriage, we read in Solomon’s Song of the intimacy between him and his wife.

Third, consider Isaac and Rebekah (Gen. 26). We recall how Isaac deceived King Abimelech into believing that Rebekah was his sister instead of his wife. But one day the king observed Isaac “sporting with” (v. 8), that is, “caressing” Rebekah in a way one would not do with his sister. Isaac was wrong for not being more private, but the caressing itself was quite normal within marriage.

 

Fourth, we find something quite interesting in the Mosaic Law. Deuteronomy 24:5 tells us that a newly-married man was exempt from military service for the first year of his marriage. The purpose of this was so the couple could get to know one another and so they could fully enjoy one another.

 

Fifth, and perhaps the strongest teaching, is found in I Corinthians 7:2-5. The passage clearly teaches four things: (1) Both the husband and the wife have sexual needs which must be fulfilled within marriage; (2) When one marries, he (or she) gives his body to the other and thereby relinquishes control; (3) Both husband and wife are forbidden to refuse to meet the other’s needs; (4) All this is approved by God.

 

So, may we say, physical love is an important part of marital love. One extreme, however, is to base a relationship solely or even mostly upon sex. Now, we are not saying that there is anything wrong with initial physical attraction, but when this forms the foundation of a relationship, that relationship is destined to crumble sooner or later. No matter how thrilling the physical expression is, it will eventually wane if there is not something deeper in the relationship. The reason this is true is because physical love in God’s design is not “real love,” but rather is a manifestation of love, an expression of something that is deeper. Another extreme, on the other hand, is to completely disregard or neglect the physical expression of love. God’s design is for both husband and wife to have their needs met in this area, and a failure to do so will cause stress and frustration. What a wonderful balance!

To summarize, God meant marital sex to be the most personal and the most private expression of a person’s affection for his (or her) life-mate.

 

Philos

 

In English we find the word “Philadelphia,” the city of brotherly love. Well, this word speaks of a tender affection, a fondness, an emotional tie. At times, the word even refers to a kiss. The key here in regard to marriage is affectionate friendship. Every husband needs to be challenged with this question: “Is your wife your best friend?” Certainly, each of us will have one or two really close friends, but a husband’s best friend should be his wife, and a wife’s best friend should be her husband.

 

To put the matter as practically as possible, I ask every husband who reads this, “Is there a real affection and emotion for your wife?” Or, may we put it this way: “Are you ‘crazy’ about her.” When I met my wife, I thought she was without question the prettiest girl I’d ever seen. Quite soon I was crazy about her, and as the years pass, I grow progressively crazier. One of the greatest tragedies in marriages today is that the romance is gone. Each person has grown accustomed to the other; affection has dwindled. If this is gone from your marriage, you need to get it back. Now, we do not mean that you need to go out and buy a book that suggests many artificial ways to “put the spice back into life.” Such books, even those written by Christians, often miss the point. What is needed is for us to simply obey God and renew our affections for one another. May every husband ask himself: (1) “When was the last time I told my wife that I love her?” (2) “When was the last time I just took her in my arms and kissed her?” (3) “When was the last time we did something together, just the two of us?”

 

Granted, this might seem a little uncharacteristic at first. The story is told of the Irishman who was convicted by a sermon that he had been very remiss in expressing proper love and appreciation to his wife. He hurried home, burst into the kitchen, and delivered a speech of belated gratitude to his faithful wife standing at the sink. She stood transfixed, stared at him in utter bewilderment, then finally managed to say: ”Well, this is just too much. This morning I broke one of my best plates, I’ve had a splitting headache all day, and now you’ve come home drunk.”[6] Yes, it might feel a little out of character at first, but it will become second nature.

 

May we add, it is vital that children see this affection. Not only will it give them security and stability, it will also be something that they will take into their own future marriages.

 

Agapē

 

We have seen this word for love several times in our study of Ephesians. This refers to a selfless, all-giving love, or as we have defined it, “a self-emptying, self-sacrifice.” I enjoyed reading this comment on the parallel passage in Colossians (3:19) by one commentator:

 

Here the commandment to men is just as radical as that to women. . . . Such a command does not appear in any of the extra-Biblical household rules of the day. The novelty of such a religious command must have struck the Colossian Christians with great power. Husbands were commanded to love their wives! What a novel thought! The command was not to erotic love (as some would expect) or to friendship love, but to agapē love, which involves unceasing care and loving service for the wife’s entire well-being. The Christian ethic for a husband’s love for his wife was light-years beyond the formal domestic ethics of the day.[7]

 

Indeed, the thought that a husband should actually love his was revolutionary in Paul’s day. She’s not there just to give me legitimate children or to serve me, rather she is there for me to love and cherish. This thought actually leads us to the second emphasis in the way the husband is to love his wife.

 

The Characteristics Of Agapē Love

 

May we repeat once again, the husband’s love for his wife is to be a picture of Christ’s love for the Church. That is backdrop of all the Paul says, and the following five characteristics flow from that.

 

The Husband’s Love Is SACRIFICIAL (v. 25b)

even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

 

It’s significant that this is first. Think of what Christ did for the Church. He left heaven, came to earth, took on human form, suffered human infirmity, was spit upon, mocked, beaten, crowned with thorns, nailed to a cross, had a spear drilled into his side, and ultimately died. That was sacrificial love, and that is how the husband is to love his wife. As Jacob loved Rachel so much that he sacrificially worked fourteen years to win her (Gen. 29), the Christian husband is to give himself totally, to disregard his own will, his own needs, his own welfare, his own preferences, and even his own life if need be.

 

The word gave comes from a Greek word (paradidomi) that means “give over, commit, yield up, abandon.” Moreover, the Aorist Tense is used here, a one time, once-for-all abandoning of ourselves to our wives. One finds this in few marriages today. And how the world throws around the word “love!” We should appreciate the words from one expositor:

 

Love is not something theoretical. Love is not something merely to be talked about; love is not just something to be written about, not something merely about which you write poetry. Love is not merely the theme of some aria in an opera, or some great song, or this miserable “crooning,’ or whatever it is called. Love is not something you look at theoretically or externally. Love is the most practical thing in the world.[8]

 

Many people today say the word “love” but have absolutely no conception of what it means or implies. That is why we emphasize the fact that this agapē is not merely emotional; it is sacrificial. Such love can come only from the will.

How many Christians realize that marriage is actually doctrinal? Oh, how many Christians there are who dislike doctrine! We often hear today, “Oh, do not give us doctrine; we need something practical.” Consider these words by Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, one of the greatest doctrinal preachers who ever lived. He wrote this, in fact, in the context of what we are studying, the Christian home:

 

The most foolish of all Christians are those who dislike doctrine, and decry the importance of Theology and teaching. Does not that explain why they fail in practice?[9]

 

Doctrine and practice go hand-in-hand. One without the other is worthless, and a preacher who does not preach doctrine and apply that doctrine to everyday living is unqualified to stand in a pulpit. Why do so many marriages today fail? Why are so many homes a mess? Because they do not apply doctrinal principles. One doctrinal principle of marriage is this one about sacrifice. What is it doctrinal? Because it vividly shows us the doctrine of Christ’s atonement, His sacrificial death for us. That is, in fact, the foundational doctrine of Christianity and is, therefore, the foundational principle of marriage. If this sacrificial attitude is missing, your marriage will fail.

 

A story is told of the 6th Century B.C. Persian ruler Cyrus the Great that graphically illustrates this principle. History tells us that Cyrus was neither ordinary nor typical of the rulers of the ancient world. He was generous, lenient, and even tolerant. According to Ezra 1:1-4, for example, he freed the Jewish captives in Babylonia and allowed them to return to their homeland.

 

According to one of the Greek histories, the wife of one of Cyrus’ generals was accused of treachery and was condemned to die. As soon as the woman’s husband heard of what was happening, he rushed to the palace, burst into the throne room, threw himself to the floor before the king, and pleaded, “Oh, my Lord Cyrus, take my life instead of hers.” Cyrus replied, “Love like that must not be spoiled by death.” He let the wife go free and reunited the couple. As they happily left the palace, the husband commented to his wife, “Did you notice how kindly the king looked at you when he gave you the pardon?” The wife replied, “I had no eyes for the king. I saw only the man who was willing to die in my place.”[10] That is what Paul is talking about.

 

At this point, some of us might be tempted to say, “Ah, but you don’t know my wife; she doesn’t deserve that kind of love.” But to those we reply, “Neither do you!” None of us deserved the sacrificial love Christ showed to us, but He gave it anyway. So, practically speaking, Christian husband, when was the last time you made a sacrifice for your wife; when was the last time you did what she wanted to do, or went where she wanted to go? No, you might never be called upon to die for your wife, but as one wife told her husband, “Dear, I know you are willing to die for me; you’ve told me that many times. But while you’re waiting to die, could you just fill in some of the time helping me dry the dishes.”[11]

 

If there’s one thing I’ve learned in 32 years of marriage, it’s the fact that women appreciate the “little things” that a husband might do. Little things that men don’t think should matter a wit mean a great deal to a woman. It’s those little things that show them that we are thinking about them and really care. I wish I didn’t have to use myself as an illustration here, but I have no other example at hand. I usually stay up later than my wife at night, and one such night I noticed that the dishes were still in the dishwasher, so I just put them away and forgot all about it. The next morning I was in my study when my wife entered the room and said, “You put my dishes away!” I shrugged and said, “Yea, so what?” She responded, “You couldn’t have done anything more helpful. I don’t mind loading the dishwasher, but I hate unloading it.” I, therefore, have been doing that “little thing” ever since.

 

The Husband’s Love is SANCTIFYING (v. 26)

 

That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

 

We again see doctrine in this point. The Greek behind sanctify (hagios) means “set apart, holy, pure.” The word is actually twofold: to set apart from sin and unto God. Let us look at both of these thoughts.

 

First, the husband sets his wife apart from sin and the world to help her be pure and undefiled. I read an appalling story that illustrates this principle. Several years ago two ministers were interviewed on a popular talk show. When the host asked what they thought of Playboy magazine, one of them replied, “I think it is despicable. I wouldn’t read it or have it in my home. It dishonors God, it dishonors men and women, and it dishonors almost everything else that is good.” Well said. The other minister, however, responded this way: “I am an evangelical Christian, and I want you to know that my wife and I both read Playboy. In fact she gave me a subscription to it. After 18 years of marriage we thought we needed a little something to stimulate our relationship.”[12] That man not only defiled himself but his wife as well. Such erotic (erōs) desire is outside God’s will and is certainly not godly love.

 

The godly husband takes his wife out of the world and away from the past. He never does anything that exposes her unnecessarily to sin. If I might also interject, this is one of the dangers of a wife working outside the home. She is exposed to pressures and temptations that she was not designed to take. These are things from which the husband is to protect her.

 

Second, the husband sets the wife apart unto God through the Word of God. It’s truly amazing how some Bible students can read words but then totally miss their meaning. Many commentators say that the phrase the washing of water by the word refers to baptism, but the text doesn’t say that, nor is there a single thing in the context to support that idea. Words mean things, and Paul simply does not use the word “baptism” (baptizō). If Paul meant baptism, why didn’t he just say baptism? We must point out, in fact, that if we hold this view here, to be consistent we are compelled to hold it for Titus 3:5 as well, which is the only other place the Greek word behind washing (loutron) appears: “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” But is our salvation based upon the “baptism of regeneration?” God forbid! That is the heretical doctrine of baptismal regeneration! Nowhere does the New Testament teach that the physical act of baptism saves us, regardless of those who teach otherwise. Neither does baptism have anything to do with the doctrine of sanctification, which Paul has already mentioned. Being a Strict Baptist, John Gill would certainly view this as baptism if that were what it meant, but he writes:

 

[This is] not baptism, which is never expressed by washing; nor does it purify or cleanse from sin; nor is it the means of sanctification and regeneration, which ought to be before it; nor the grace of the Spirit, though that is often compared to water, and regeneration and sanctification are owing to it; yet the saints are not so cleansed from sin by it, as to be without spot or wrinkle; but the blood of Christ, which is the fountain to wash in, and which cleanses from all sin.

 

The proof of this is that Paul uses the Greek loutron, which does not mean “baptism” here or anywhere else.[13] Rather loutron refers to a basin or laver for washing and to the act of washing itself. It is derived from louō, to bathe.” It’s also significant that the definite article (“the”) is present in the Greek, which means that a specific washing is meant. As commentator William Barclay points out, Paul might have in mind here the Greek marriage custom where before the marriage ceremony the bride was bathed in a stream that was sacred to some god or goddess. “In Athens, for instance, the bride was bathed in the waters of the Callirhoe, which was sacred to the goddess Athene.”[14]

 

In any event, Paul goes on to say exactly what washing he’s talking about. The text could not be clearer. As Harry Ironside put it, “The words explain themselves.”[15] Using a beautiful metaphor, Paul says that the husband cleanses his wife with the washing of water by the word. It’s the Word of God that cleanses; it is the Word that sanctifies.

It’s also quite significant that the Greek behind word is not the usual logos (“Intelligence, word as the expression of that intelligence, discourse, saying”[16]), but rhēma, which refers to that which is spoken, a statement, a discourse. As one Greek authority puts it, while logos often refers to a “Christian proclamation as a whole in the New Testament, rhēma usually relates to individual words and utterances.”[17] It occurs, for example, in John 3:34 to refer to Jesus coming to “[speak] the words of God.” In 8:47, Jesus Himself declares to the religious leaders, “He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.” Oh yes, the religious leaders knew much about the Word of God, that is, the Old Testament, but knew nothing of the words of God. Paul also uses rhēma in Romans 10:17, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God,” as well as again here in Ephesians 6:17, where part of the Christian’s spiritual armor is “the word[s] of God.” In all these verses, then, the emphasis is not to the entire body of Scripture per se, rather individual utterances that proclaim various truths. It is, indeed, the words of God that comprise the Sword of the Spirit!

 

May we repeat, words mean things, and that is why they are my personal passion. Evangelicals say, “Oh, yes, we believe in the Word of God,” but the real question is, do we believe the WORDS of God, every one them, every jot and tittle? I submit that if the words of God really mattered to us, we wouldn’t have near as many problems as we do today, such as, the diluted Gospel, the seeker-sensitive movement, and various methods of ministry.

 

If I may also interject, another aspect of the words of God is seen in the controversy of modern translations of the Bible, such as the NIV (New International Version). The widespread acceptance of this translation continues to baffle and appall me. Utilizing the approach called “Dynamic Equivalence,” it sets aside the concept of a word-for-word translation with a thought-for-thought translation. In other words, as long as we get across the thought of the author, then the exact words aren’t really important.

 

In their publication The Story of the New International Version, the NIV translators not only admit to using Dynamic Equivalence, but they boast in it. They explain by writing that they “have striven for more than a word-for-word translation,” and that they have chosen to use “a minimum of literalism, paraphrase, or outright dynamic equivalence” (which they explain as the translator seeking to “express the meaning as the biblical writers would if they were writing in English today”).[18] This should set off alarms in the minds of God’s people. Look at four main points of that statement:

 

·        “Striven for more than a word-for-word translation.” MORE? Why do we need more than a word-for-word translation? And exactly who is going to add the more? And on whose authority are they going to add it? Frankly, I would rather you just tell me what God said, and no more than that.

·        “A minimum of literalism, paraphrase, or outright dynamic equivalence.” They purposely avoid being literal. Webster defines “literal” as, “In accordance with the strict meaning of a word or text; following the words of the original very closely.” And this is what they are trying to avoid?

·        “Paraphrase.” A “paraphrase” is the putting into your own words what someone else has said. The danger of this is so obvious that it doesn’t need explaining.

·        “Outright dynamic equivalence . . . [to] express the meaning as the biblical writers would if they were writing in English today.” In other words, we’ll just express the thoughts that the Scriptures writer were trying to convey. But again, how can we know their thoughts if we don’t know their words?

In stark contrast, the translators of the AV adopted a “verbal equivalence” or “formal equivalence” approach to translation, which renders the Greek and Hebrew words as closely as possible into English, even to the use of verb for verb, noun for noun, and so forth. Formal Equivalence is the only method of translation that is consistent with verbal inspiration, which focuses on the words of Scripture. The NIV routinely, on the other hand, changes nouns into verbs, adjectives into nouns, singulars into plurals, and so forth. Let’s compare, for example, II Corinthians 4:2:

 

KJV: But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.

 

NIV: Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.

 

The AV reads “dishonesty” (or “shame”) which is a noun and is correct for the Greek aischunē; while the NIV reads “shameful,” which is an adjective. The KJV also reads “manifestation,” which is a noun and is correct for the Greek phanerosis; while the NIV reads “setting forth,” which is a verb. We should add to this that the words “nor do we distort the word of God” is not the same as “nor handling the word of God deceitfully.” Further, the NIV doesn’t even translate the Greek word for “deceitfully” (doloō) at all, and therefore misses the idea that men purposely distort the Word of God. It’s possible to distort something unintentionally, so Paul makes it plain that some men do it deliberately.

 

The danger of “Dynamic Equivalence” is so obvious that it defies logic that anyone concerned with Biblical accuracy and authority would choose to use it. Without a word-for-word, literal approach, in which the Hebrew and Greek words are rendered as closely as possible into English, how on earth can we expect accuracy? And if we don’t have accuracy, how can we have authority?

 

The challenge, therefore, to husbands is staggering. The husband is to be the spiritual leader in the home, the who teaches the words of God. It is the husband (and father) who teaches spiritual values and the danger of the world’s values. It is the husband who teaches the authority that the Scripture has over us. It is the husband who teaches personal witnessing for Christ by his own example. It is the husband who teaches the importance of faithful attendance to the local church. It is the husband (and father) who teaches everything by the words, utterances, sayings, and doctrines of God.

 

How tragic it is that women are quite often the spiritual leaders in the home! One reason this occurs is that many men have been deluded into believing that being spiritual is not “manly.” On the contrary, it is the real man who stands for God’s Truth! In His high priestly prayer in John 17, the Lord Jesus prays to the Father, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth” (v. 17), and one of the means God uses to do so is through husbands and fathers. It is God’s Word[s] that sanctify.

 

The Husband’s Love is SPOTLESS (v. 27)

 

That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

 

Flowing out of this sanctifying love is a love that is pure, without spot, or wrinkle. Spot is spilos, which literally refers to a spot or stain and so metaphorically to a moral flaw. Likewise, there is no wrinkle (rhutis, from an obsolete verb rhuoō, to draw together), which is “indicative of age or disease.”[19] The picture this paints is that no matter how many years we’ve been married, the marriage has “no wrinkles,” that is, no appearance of age. Yes, we get old and show the ravages of age, but our marriage does not. I’ve speken to couples who have been married many year but who still say, “We’re still on our honeymoon.” Praise the Lord for such an attitude. Neither, Paul adds, should there be any other such defect.

 

The end result is that which is without blemish. Blemish translates amōmos, which we examined way back in 1:4— “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him”—and means “spotless, free from faultiness.” As we studied there, this word occurs in the Septua­gint in Leviticus 22:21 to show that a sacrificial animal was to have no spot or blemish. This is how we are to live—pure in attitude and action. This is the force of I Peter 1:16: “Be ye holy for I am holy.” Why did God choose us in Christ before the foundation of the world? Not just so we can go to Heaven, rather so we could be and would be holy in position and practice.

 

We see here, then, that the Church will be the holy, pure, spotless, Bride of Christ that He will present . . . to Himself. This is, indeed a glorious church. Glorious is endoxos, which literally means honored, glorious, splendid. Used metaphorically, however, as it is here, it pictures the Church “adorned in pure and splendid raiment as a bride.”[20] A wedding is a beautiful event, and most of can say that we’ve never seen an ugly bride. A bride is radiant. Likewise, the spiritual application to husbands and wives is sacred. She is to be his spotless, pure, unblemished bride. She is the beauty and the radiance in his life. She should always be “his bride.”

 

The Husband’s Love is STRONG (vs. 28-29a)

 

So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh;

 

How strong is the husband’s love for his wife? Simple—he loves her as he would love his own body. Why? Because she is part of him; they are “one flesh,” as Paul goes on to say in verse 31. Paul is obviously not implying the “self-love” that is popular in our day, rather simply the natural inclination every person has to self-awareness and self-preservation. One Greek authority puts the matter this way:

 

The relation of head and body means that the wife is part of the husband’s self. To love his wife, therefore, in this character as being his body, is to love himself. It is a love consequently, not merely of duty,—but of nature.”[21]

 

The natural thing for the Christian husband to do is to love his wife. It’s now automatic. Does any man hate himself? Would he mistreat, abuse, or harm his own body? Would he speak harshly to himself? Would he say something disrespectful or insulting of himself to someone else? Of course not. Likewise, the man who truly loves his wife would never think of doing any of this to her. There is undoubtedly only one thing worse than a man who abuses his wife, and that is a man who abuses a child. There is no excuse for such behavior, only the obvious reason of wickedness.

 

The Husband’s Love is SENSITIVE (v. 23b, 29b)

 . . . he is the saviour of the body. . . . but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

 

Continuing the previous principle, we see in verses 23b and 29b more of the husband’s physical care of his wife. While the spiritual care of verses 26-27 comes first and foremost, physical care is also of fundamental importance. As mentioned briefly in our study of the wife, verse 23b declares that the husband is the saviour of the body. The Greek behind saviour is sōtēr, which means savior, deliverer, and preserver. While there is some question as to who saviour refers to, the language clears it up. In ancient Greek, sōtēr was actually used of both the gods and men. The gods, such as Poseidon and especially Zeus, were called “saviors from the dangers of life and also protectors and preservers.” Men, however, “could also be saviours, in saving others from trouble and danger, and also in the case of doctors.” The term was even applied to philosophers, such as Epicurus, as well as statesman, and rulers.[22]

Here in our text, then, while Christ is most certainly the saviour of the body, that is, the Church, Paul’s obvious parallel, based on the Classical Greek, is that the husband is also the saviour of the body. One commentator puts it very well:

 

The Word savior (sōtēr) is never used in the NT except of Christ or God. But having recognized and safeguarded that vital truth, we may legitimately pursue the analogy and assume that Paul regards the husband, even if to an infinitely lesser degree, as the protector of the wife (cf. vv. 28, 29).[23]

 

In this sense, therefore, the husband is the protector, the preserver, the provider of the body (that is, the life) of the wife. Not only the language but also the whole context on the husband’s responsibility to love his wife demands this application. Paul is not just throwing in an independent statement about Jesus being the Savior of the Church, for what would be the point of that? The entire context is about husbands and wives. Rather he mentions Christ and the Church for express purpose to illustrate what the husband really is to his wife—her protector, preserver, and provider. This analogy, in fact, as one commentator puts it, “is precisely what the next verse says, completely ruling out other interpretations” [24] (“Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing”); again, the whole passage is an analogy.

 

We further see the husband’s sensitive love in verse 29b, where Paul says that the husband nourisheth and cherisheth his own flesh, and therefore his wife, even as the Lord the church. Notice that the same analogy of the Church and the wife from verse 23 is again used here.

 

The word nourisheth is the Greek ektrephō, “to nourish, promote health and strength, bring up, and educate.” This same word is used in reference to bringing up children in Ephesians 6:4. The emphasis is again on the spiritual, but it also deals specifically with physical nourishing. The root word (trephō) means “to feed,” and, therefore, reinforces the principle that he is the provider for the family.

 

Paul adds the word cherisheth, which translates a word that paints a beautiful picture. The Greek thalpō means “to impart warmth, to cherish and nurse.” Again, the world says to men, “Be macho,” but the word used here actually pictures a bird imparting body heat upon the nest. The husband (and father) is to provide the soft, warm place of comfort and nourishment. Yes, the wife adds the feminine touch and dresses up that nest, but it is the husband who provides it. And yes, it is God who ultimately provides all that, but He does it through the man of the house. This was God’s original design in creation, but the fall shattered it, and it is up to each of us, through Spirit-filling, to restore what was destroyed. May each of us as husbands ask ourselves, “Do I nourish and cherish my wife?”

 

Dr. Robert Seizer, in his book Mortal Lessons: Notes in the Art of Surgery, provides us with a beautiful illustration of such sensitivity. He tells of performing surgery to remove a tumor in which it was necessary to sever a facial nerve, leaving a young woman’s mouth permanently twisted in palsy. In Dr. Seizer’s own words:

 

Her young husband is in the room. He stands on the opposite side of the bed, and together they seem to dwell in the evening lamp light, isolated from me, private. Who are they, I ask myself, he and this wry-mouth I have made, who gaze at and touch each other so generously, greedily? The young woman speaks. “Will my mouth always be like this?” she asks. “Yes,” I say, “it will. It is because the nerve was cut.” She nods, and is silent. But the young man smiles. “I like it,” he says. “It is kind of cute.” All at once I know who he is. I understand, and I lower my gaze. One is not bold in an encounter with a god. Unmindful, he bends to kiss her crooked mouth, and I, so close, can see how he twists his own lips to accommodate to hers, to show her that their kiss still works.

It is possible to love your spouse as your own body. Practically, this means that the husband must do all he can to understand her world.[25]

 

That man understood what loving his wife means. I especially appreciated the statement, “The husband must do all he can to understand her world.” Not a single man on earth that totally understands a women; women are a complex creature. But it is always our desire to understand her; we are always working on it.

 

Let us take a moment to look at how Peter corroborates what Paul says here in Ephesians. We studied the opening verses of I Peter 3 in our study of the wife, but may we look now at verse 7:

 

Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

 

Peter gives us five attitudes the husband should have for his wife.

 

First, the husband is to “dwell” with his wife. “Dwell” translates sunoikeō, which speaks of “domestic association and [contact] of husband and wife.”[26] In other words, the husband is with his wife and not neglect her. The story is told of a farmer and his wife who were lying in bed during a storm when suddenly the funnel of a tornado lifted the roof right off their house and sucked their bed away with them still in it. The wife began to cry. The farmer yelled to her, “Woman, this is no time to cry.” But she yelled back that she couldn’t help it, as she was so happy. It was the first time they had been out together in twenty years![27]

 

The husband shouldn’t be “out with the boys” or spend so much time at work that she is neglected. This abuse is actually quite prevalent among preachers. There are what we could call “evangelical widows,” wives whose husbands are so involved in church duties or in traveling several months of the year in special meetings that the wife is left alone, or there are the missionaries who neglect the family for the sake of “ministry.”

 

We submit, without apology, that this practice is wrong! It is simply not Biblical. The analogy in our text demonstrates that just as Christ loves the Church and is with the Church and does not neglect it, the husband should be with his wife and not neglect her. A man’s first responsibility is his family. Anything else is no less than desertion, and God’s Word makes no such provision. I have personally seen more than one preacher’s home destroyed because of such neglect. Neither does the husband take his wife for granted. While she is a homemaker, she is not his housekeeper; while she manages the house, she is not his maid; and while she certainly serves, she is not his slave. She is his help meet.

 

Another aspect of the husband’s dwelling with his wife is that he is faithful to her. There is no greater betrayal of marriage than adultery, or as the world dubs it, “cheating.” As Christ is faithful to the Church, so is the husband to his wife. In his sermon, The Marriage Ring or the Mysteriousness and Duties of Marriage, the great 17th Century preacher Jeremy Taylor offered this charge regarding fidelity:

 

Above all . . . let him [the groom] preserve towards her an inviolable faith, and an unspotted chastity, for this is the marriage ring, it ties two hearts by an eternal band; it is like the cherubim’s flaming sword set for the guard of paradise. . . . Chastity is the security of love, and preserves all the mysteriousness like the secrets of a temple. Under this lock is deposited security of families, the union of affections, the repairer of accidental breaches.[28]

 

Second, the husband is to dwell with his wife “according to knowledge.” “Knowledge” is the Greek gnōsis, a special kind of experiential knowledge. One authority tells us that this word “here refers to an intelligent recognition of the marriage relationship.”[29] This, therefore, tells the husband that he is to be sensitive, understanding, and considerate. Obviously, then, he does not abuse his wife either physically or verbally.

 

Third, the husband is to “honour” his wife. The Greek here is timē, a strong word that means respect, esteem, dignity, and value. The verb form timaō literally means “to set a price on.” How many husbands view their wives as priceless. Or how many would swap them, let’s say for fifty million dollars? Significantly, slaves of ancient times had no timē, so a wife should not be treated like a slave. She is to be valued. She is to be treated as the husband’s most valuable asset.

 

Fourth, the husband protects his wife since she is the “weaker vessel.” We often hear the expression, “Chivalry is not dead,” but we submit that it is at the very least seriously crippled because of the battle of the sexes that rages today. God says that chivalry is an important ingredient in marriage. A husband should carry things for his wife; he should open doors for her; he should do things that lighten her load.

 

Fifth, the husband treats his wife as an equal, as the two are “heirs together.” As mentioned earlier in our study, this admonition was extremely significant in that day because of the low esteem women held. Like Paul, Peter makes a revolutionary statement, that the husband and wife are spiritual equals, both needing spiritual truth and growth.

What if the husband fails in one or more of these attitudes? His prayers are “hindered,” which translates ekkoptō, “to cut off” and, therefore, render fruitless. A man who mistreats his wife is cut off from God. No, he doesn’t lose his salvation, but he certainly breaks fellowship with God. How important, then, is the husband’s treatment of his wife.

This brings us to the last major principle in our study of the godly husband.

 

III. The Wealth in Loving Your Wife (vs. 30-33)

 

For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

 

Paul closes his thoughts on marriage by showing what tremendous wealth there is in a godly marriage. He shows us that there are blessings within marriage that transcend human thought and understanding. While we have all see unsaved people who have “good marriages,” as far as that goes, such marriages are still lacking because they do not know what God says about marriage. The tragedies are great when we disobey God in the area of marriage, but the blessings are equally great when we obey. Let us examine three specific riches mentioned here in our text: unity, love, and respect.

 

Unity (v. 30-32)

 

For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

 

Verse 30 introduces the thought Paul wants to convey: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. It’s really quite odd that there has been a dispute over the meaning of this verse for well over a millennia.