The Write Place

Recently there was a hypothetical that was a sign of the times circulating among Protestants on Twitter (which for some reason displays as X, go figure). This was instigated in a poll by Tom Buck. The question was simple, if a husband tells his wife she must wear a red dress, should she? I will attempt to answer this in a more constructive way than Doug Wilson, or than the odd rigid biblicist and non-contextual way that Joel Webbon did in saying she should.

The first and obvious point to clarify is one of utmost agreement in Reformed circles. A husband’s authority is a derived authority. He only has authority over his wife insofar as it is granted to him by God, and so long as it does not cross into taking authority that only belongs to God.

²² Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. ²³ For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. ²⁴ Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Ephesians 5:24

The wife is to submit to her husband as to the Lord, this is to model the Gospel. Likewise, this is from his derived authority and is to love his wife as Christ loved the Church. Can you see what else this carries with it? That the husband is modelling Christ. When the husband is unchristlike, she has an actual duty to not follow through. At such a point he has abused his authority and overstepped it, playing God rather than modelling God’s love for his people. For his sake as much as her own, she needs to honor God here and disobey her husband.

Well let’s get into the Greek. In verse 24 as well something is missed when read in English. In Murican we do have passive (something happens to me) and active (I do something) tenses. What we lack is a “middle” tense that describes ones acting upon oneself. We have other ways of saying it that requires we use more words (for example, I dress myself), but we don’t put it into one word like Greek does. In Greek her submission is ὑποτάσσεται (middle, feminine, third and singular). A more detailed translation is she submits herself. This is not absolute but willful submission that does not degrade the intended permanence of the covenant. The will of the wife remains, she simply follows her husband’s will and leadership.

Next, we need to discuss what it means and looks like for her to submit to her husband in everything. We have established it is not to do whatever he says, there are limits. There are also two ways of saying everything. Are we looking at everything as particulars (every detail)? Or everything in categories (as head in all things of life)? The latter seems more of a fit. A husband is to be concerned with how his wife dresses but there is a form already given in scripture to guide them both.

⁵ “A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.
Deuteronomy 22:5

Both are told to dress in a way that is not confusing. What that looks like is an interesting discussion and varies some culture to culture. There is far more, including a religious and worldview aspect that may warrant its own article, part of which Peter Jones details well, as does James Lindsay. The thrust of this argument however is that the two are to play their own roles, right down to their dress.

Women are told to dress modestly, and he is to guard her body and reputation. If they disagree, they can look to scripture and the governing authorities (family leaders, church elders, state office holders if necessary) who can play their own role in application.

I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, ¹⁰ but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

1 Timothy 2:9

Before someone goes fundamentalist solo meo with this passage, notice.

 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
Revelation 21:2

Notice God adorned the church? Maybe that makes it clearer what’s going on in 1 Timothy 2:9. The culture at the time was extremely classist and gaudy clothing was worn to publicly boast about your position (see how it is gold, pearls, expensive clothes etc). This is unacceptable in the church, much like dressing immodestly. It is not the adorning that is the issue, it was the heart that produced the excess. What we are told about things like dress in scripture is the wonderfully simple and clear principles that we can apply in any age. If either partner is dressed inappropriately according to what God has said, each has a responsibility to do something about it. The husband is expected to lead in this.

But to tell her she has to wear only the things he wants or likes? Let’s try a little test. What if he wants her to wear nothing when he is around?

I hope you can see how that comes with totalizing control over every minute detail in a woman’s life. If it doesn’t today it leads to it tomorrow and models that totalitarian rule.

This does raise the issue of whether or not those advocating for the Yes option are subordinationist. For those unfamiliar with the concept, the term refers to the relations between the persons of the Trinity. In these different subordinationist theologies (Arian, Nestorianism, Eternal Functional Subordination, Islam) the Son has a separate will that is, in effect, enslaved to that of the Father. This does not lead to a mutual relationship among equals in marriage. It becomes an imperial rule by the husband. The trinity has one will in agreement with order and distinction within it. This may be difficult for fallen humanity in any context to understand and model, but there can be equality in nature (and all that it entails) including distinction in economy (doing/roles). Subordinationism is prevalent in cults (yes like Islam and many Fundamentalists), used by manipulators and tyrants.

Manipulators and controlling personalities don’t just want authority in everything, they want control in all things. Joel Webbon ignorantly missed that the 1 Timothy 2:9 speaks of the categories of authority a husband has, not how tight his grip can be. Where his authority exists is not the same question as how much authority he has or what it looks like. If it was not a sin before, the husband cannot make it one.

There is a passage not often talked about that helps provide a greater sense of what is going on here.

For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

1 Corinthians 7:4

How sexist, the man has authority over his wife’s body. Keep reading everybody. The wife has authority over his too.

I had a friend who missed this. It was rather disturbing when he said his wife had no such authority over him sexually, and that she always had to follow his. She was not allowed to initiate according to him, only he was and that absolutely. That sticks with me. He made the mistake of assuming authority involves absolute control. I still wonder if he read this passage even once.

1 Corinthians 7:4 throws a wrench in submitting to your husband by doing all things exactly as he wants. It would appear there are limits on both because there is authority respective to each member of the marriage covenant.

Think of it this way, the submission is in the Lord with the intention of the husband modelling Christ. Would Christ make an adiaphora/amoral issue an issue of morality? What mind would a husband possess that would make him tell his wife to wear a red dress? How would she be sinning over a difference in preference?

Those (a minority thankfully) who said a wife must wear a red dress if her husband wants her too are missing the point, and misunderstanding the question of passages like Ephesians 5. Such rigid legalism may not be what lost Christianity the cultural consensus, but it is fuel on the fire in a confused world that will only get people burnt. Tom Buck did well in exposing the low biblical literacy among even the Conservative Evangelicals.

The husband’s duty likewise is to love the wife. One has to ask, is he loving her by taking such control for his own preference. Clearly, he would not be.

“The woman was made of a rib out of the side of Adam; not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved.”

Matthew Henry, Commentary on The Whole Bible: Genesis 2:21