Andrew Bartlett uses his skills as an international arbitrator to factually expose faulty reasoning in reviews against his book Men and Women in Christ: Fresh Light From the Biblical Texts in this short guest post on Michael Bird’s blog. I read Bartlett’s book 2 months ago, and this post on Michael Bird’s blog recalled something important I would like to add to the discussion.
Bartlett agrees with one aspect of what he terms a “soft complementarian” view of Ephesians 5. I agree with Andrew’s conclusion—but for a reason I have not seen anyone else raise, and a reason that agrees with egalitarian exegesis.
(Read the linked guest post above, first! It’s so good. Bartlett’s logic is balm to a brain embattled by regular onslaught of the opposite on this topic.)
Bartlett’s Proposal and Invitation
Andrew believes that “the husband is called to a first responsibility for self-sacrificial service” (63). He argues that Paul is calling the husband to sacrifice first just as Christ did for the church because, he says, the head-body metaphor is asymmetrical (64).
Many egalitarians disagree with an asymmetrical intent in Paul’s use of the head-body metaphor for reasons Bartlett discusses and agrees with in part (47-64).
On page 346 Bartlett invites the following:
“Those egalitarians who deny any special responsibility of the husband in marriage need to explain why in Ephesians 5, to teach how husband and wife should live, Paul uses the asymmetrical metaphor of head and body and the asymmetrical analogy of Christ and the church.”
I will offer an explanation for why the special responsibility to lead in self-sacrifice is not based on gender but predicated on power difference, after sharing another view on why Paul’s metaphor is not asymmetrical in the first place.
Interdependence, Unity, and Power Dynamics
I draw upon the work of Christy Hemphill in a Priscilla Papers article titled “Kephale is a Body Part: Unified Interdependence in Relationship in Ephesians 5” to build my response.
Head and body each need the other to function. The point of Paul’s head-body metaphor is interdependence and unity,(1) yet the power dynamics of first century culture lead to Bartlett’s conclusion that men must “serve first.” This husband-leadership can apply today—but not always. Allow me to explain.
My notes written in the margin of my book follow:
(P. 63) Next to Bartlett’s point calling men to a first responsibility
I wrote “yes, because he has physical and cultural power.”
Here’s what I mean: First century men had much more power. If a wife were to “serve first” by submitting as both are called to do, this would be what was already expected. The imperative to change falls on the one with cultural and physical power who is not expected to be humble and mutual in relationship.
(P. 64) Next to Bartlett’s comparison of asymmetrical relationships and the husband’s call to lead in self-sacrifice
I wrote: “Agreed, but this is not because the head-body metaphor is asymmetrical but because men hold advantage just as Jesus did and should follow Jesus’ example.”
Here’s what I mean: ‘Head-body’ is not asymmetrical in itself, as each part shares mutual need for the other, given the most straightforward understanding of the two (again, see Hemphill).(2)
Then we come to “level two” of applying this head-body metaphor.
For mutual benefit the one with more power must ‘lead’ by laying that power down to level the playing field—by serving the other “first.” If they do not, little changes toward God’s best in the relationship even if the “lower” party walks in submission.(3)
If the one positionally expected to lead does not submit, Ephesians 5:21 will not happen; the head and body will not meet the others’ needs, will not be following the example of Christ:
Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Ephesians 5:21(4)
In short, Andrew has the right point for first century application by calling husbands to lead in self-sacrifice, but egalitarians such as Mowczko and Payne are also correct to disagree with how he got there.
I agree with Bartlett’s conclusion but also agree that this is not Paul’s point of his metaphor, which Hemphill expertly explains, and that husbands are not called to lead in this way in every circumstance today.
Power is Often Asymmetrical
The point of the body metaphor is interdependence. Today power dynamics may be different from those of first century for many couples due to the family reputation, wealth, schooling, occupation, strengths, personality, etc, of each in the relationship.
The power dynamics may be more similar to first century’s for many other couples. Different circumstances can engender shifts in who holds prominence as well.
We can transfer Paul’s meaning faithfully by saying that whoever has primacy in a given situation should lower it to make Ephesians 5 mutuality possible. In this case the head and body work together to bless each other and accomplish a purpose.
Bartlett is correct that the men Paul was immediately addressing should “lead” by being the first to choose self-sacrificial love. This does not come innately from the head-body metaphor, because kephale did not mean “authority”—with which Bartlett agrees. The women were culturally expected to submit, which Paul affirms, yet the men were not culturally expected to submit, or to love, in any form whatsoever.
Submission is part of love; mutual submission defines godly relationship. Men and women are both to submit to one another in marriage (yes, that works!), with Christ as leader.
Conclusion
In each couple the person with higher power in a given situation must lead in self-sacrificial love for a head and body to function. There is more going on in Ephesians 5 for which I can recommend books and Mowczko’s blog.(5) This post was addressing one very specific argument in Bartlett’s book Men and Women In Christ: Fresh Light From the Biblical Texts where I found him to miss that one critical piece. Otherwise, his book is 
the Spirit’s fire in logic with intent to bring peace and highlight truth. Do read it—including Appendix 1!
Absolutely read to the end of Appendix 1. What he explains here is brilliant! Shalom 😇
………………………………………………………………………..
(1) “The point of correspondence between marriage and bodies that is explicated in the passage is that both husbands/wives and heads/bodies form a single whole.” Hemphil explains how “metaphors and figurative language are processed and how the shared cognitive context of conceptual metaphors affects understanding of figurative language” such as that used in Eph 5:21–33. “Instead of humoring the attempt to make it a debate over sentence-level syntax and semantics, egalitarian Bible scholars should take up some of the tools provided by the inference model of communication, discourse analysis, and cognitive linguistics.” Christy Hemphill, “Kephale is a Body Part” (Priscilla Papers Spring 2021), accessed March 12, 2022, https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/article/priscilla-papers-academic-journal/kephale-body-part-unified-interdependence.
(2) The body needs nourishment from the head; the head needs locomotion and dexterity from the body (to bring it the food, for one). First century Greeks did not widely see the head as leading a person but rather the heart (per Philip Payne in Man and Woman, One in Christ, also Greek philosophical views of the day). The people Paul wrote to would have understood the head and body to need one another. The point is interdependence and unity. See Christy Hemphill’s work in Priscilla Papers, linked in footnote 1.
(3) One exception to this comes in 1 Peter 3:1-7 where Paul is addressing Christian exiles stuck in dangerous political environments under non-Christian authorities (1 Peter 1:1, 6). In this non-ideal culture where many are transitioning to faith in Christ while their spouses are not, Paul teaches women to submit unilaterally so that their unbelieving husbands “may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives” (see 1 Peter 3:1-6). Certainly there can be benefit in this one-way submission, yet equally sure is that Paul is not addressing this to Christian couples as God’s best.
(4) In Greek Ephesians 5:21 starts with the participle “submitting,” as “submitting to one another” falls under the main imperative in verse 18: “Be filled with the Spirit.” I just kept it with the familiar wording for simplicity, but it is quite important that mutual submission is an outflow of being filled with the Spirit. Perhaps that’s the only way it can truly happen.
(5) See Payne regarding Ephesians 5 and kephale. See Mowczko on Ephesians 5 and kephale. For more resources see Part 2 in my Open Letter to the Leaders of the Christian and Missionary Alliance.
Coffee with Kristin 