Ephesians 5, 22-24. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands as unto the Lord. 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. Therefore, as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Amen. Thus far we read the Word of God. And our theme is submission as unto the Lord. Submission as unto the Lord. The Apostle, under the inspiration of the Spirit, in applying the great truths concerning the origin and development and purpose of the Church in the first three chapters, as he applies that truth, showing how Christians ought to walk worthy of the vocation of wherewith they are called as he says in chapter 4 verse 1. He has now stated the general duty in verse 21, submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. And now he comes down to particulars. So beginning at verse 21, verse 22, he deals with the different relationships that Christians, as others, sustain in this world. And so he begins with husbands and wives, or rather with wives and then husbands, since in each case he begins with the one under authority and then deals with the party exercising that authority. So he deals with wives, then husbands, children, then parents, servants and then masters. First of all then, a required submission. A required submission. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands. God created man, male and female. Male and female created him. The man is especially equipped to lead rather than the woman. And this principle finds various applications in the Word of God. This general fact that the man is to lead is established at creation and is not abrogated by the fall of man and is not abrogated by the facts of the effects of redeeming grace in this world. And it finds specific application in particular circumstances. In the church men are to teach and men are to govern the church and men are to lead in public prayer. That's the teaching of 1 Timothy chapter 2. And verse 8, I will therefore that men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands without wrath and doubting. And the word men there is different from that in the previous verses. In the previous verses, in verse 1, where he says prayers are to be made for all men, and again in verse 4, who will have all men to be saved and then in verse 5, for there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. There the word is Anthropos and the word means men as opposed to animals. The word is anthropos, that is mankind. It's that general word of man as opposed to other creatures. But when we come to verse 8, I will therefore that men pray The word is not Anthropos, he deliberately changes to the word Anna which means men as opposed to women. So it's quite a deliberate change, I will that men as opposed to women pray. Now it means leading in prayer as becomes obvious. Verse 9, the contrast, in like manner also that women adorn themselves in modest apparel and so on. So in the church men are to lead and in the church even some things permissible in the home are not allowed in the public congregation. For example, in 1 Corinthians 14 verse 35, And if they, that's the women, will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home, for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. so that God has appointed that the principle of male leadership should receive specific forms of application in the church. So male leadership finds particular ways appointed by God for its expression in the church. But likewise in the whole and especially in the marriage bond. it is the husband who is to lead. And so the apostle simply declares with divine authority, wives submit yourselves unto your own husband. When a woman leaves her father's house and joins herself to a man as his wife, she must accept his authority on a day-to-day basis. That's why a Christian woman because she, like Christian men, are sinners, they must consider before agreeing to marry a man whether there is, whether she is ready for this, whether she sees in that man a man whom she would find comparatively pleasing to submit to, because we're sinners, we're all sinners, and we must take that into account. For marriage entails the most fundamental expression of male nature and acceptance of the authority of scripture requires acceptance of this principle, this precept of the Word of God. Rejection of this has nothing to do with interpretation, it has everything to do with whether we accept the authority of scripture or whether we don't. But then secondly, the motive of submission. The motive of submission. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands as unto the Lord. As unto the Lord. Now when the apostle says, as unto the Lord, This does not mean simply in like manner to that submission which you give to the Lord in other things. In other words, submit to your husbands in the same way that you submit to the Lord. That's not what it's saying. What it's saying is, submit to your husbands as part of your submission to the Lord. So, if you are committed to submitting to the Lord, then within the marriage bond you must submit to your husband. When a wife resists her husband's authority, she resists the Lord and she sins against the Lord. Because it is the Lord who has set this requirement, wives submit to your own husband. It is This stems from the fact that the husband's authority is from the Lord and in a Christian woman, the fact that her husband's authority is from the Lord makes this not grievous. She loves the Saviour and therefore she wants to do what is right in His sight. And it is her Saviour who loved her and gave Himself for her. It is this Saviour who says to her, wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands. And to do it as unto Christ is not degradation or indignity in any way. It is never contrary to our interests or our dignity to do that which is right in the sight of the Lord. Never. And in any and every situation, what is pleasing to the Lord is always the question we must ask. not just in marriage but in everything, we must ask what honours the Lord. And within the marriage bond, a wife submitting to her husband honours the Lord and is what he requires of her. This means that even though the husband has awesome responsibilities to love his wife, and God willing we'll look at that in due course, Yet the wife's obligation to submit is not conditional upon her assessment of how well he is performing in his God-given duty to her. Her obligation to submit to her husband is not dependent on whether she thinks her husband is doing well or otherwise, in showing that love which he ought to her. In 1 Peter chapter 3 and verse 1. Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands, that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives. Here it is envisaged the wife has been converted, the husband has not, he has obviously heard the word and doesn't obey it, but her conversation, her manner of life is such that God may use that as the means of bringing her husband to the knowledge of Christ. But it evidently envisages that this believing wife will submit to the unbelieving husband. So even if the husband is not a Christian at all, never mind falling short in his duty, yet the obligation to submit stands. You get some idea of the principle in 1 Peter 2 and verse 18. Servants be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward so that the obligation to submit to God-appointed authority is not dependent on the worthiness of the character of the one exercising that authority. In other words, it is not a matter of a negotiated agreement between husband and wife. In other words, the husband is not to say to his wife, I love you, provided you submit. Nor is the wife to say, I'll submit provided you show more love to me. They are both to do their duty, their God-given duty, out of love to the Lord, whether the other fulfils their responsibility as they ought or not. So it's not a matter of negotiation. But in the case of the wife's duty to the husband, it is to be one of unconditional surrender to the revealed will of the Lord in holy scripture. It's what he says, and that's why she must do it. And whatever the failings of a husband, the Lord has never wronged any one of us in any way, and therefore we are to do what he says in loving gratitude to him. But then thirdly, the God-ordained parallel of submission. The God-ordained parallel of submission. Verse 23, 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. The God-ordained parallel of submission. We learn here firstly Christ is head of the church. Christ is head of the church. That means he is head in the governing sense, he is also head in the life-giving sense, the church's life comes from him, but here it's the sense of government and authority that is in view. And as the head governs the body, so Christ governs the church. Therefore the church is subject to Christ. So verse 24, therefore as the church is subject unto Christ. This truth is glorious, it's a truth that our forefathers were ready to lay down their lives for. That Christ is the head, the only rightful head of the church. and one of the reasons we believe that the Pope is the Antichrist and the man of sin is because he so systematically seeks to usurp the prerogatives that belong to Christ as the King and Head of the Church, that he seeks to take the place of our Lord Jesus Christ. That's why our Westminster Confession asserts that Christ is the Head of the Church that the Pope is in no sense the head of the Church but that he is that Antichrist and that man of sin and son of perdition that opposes and exalteth himself in the Church against all that is called God because no one in history has so meticulously and systematically sought to usurp the place of Christ as the head of the Church. But this truth is a marvellous and glorious truth and it has immense repercussions. If Christ is the Head of the Church, then the Church must submit to Christ's Word in Holy Scripture. If Christ is King in Zion, as we were singing in Psalm 2, then the Church must submit to Christ and the Scriptures are His Word. That means that the Church should be openly governed by the Word of the Lord. Openly so. This means the Church must be governed according to Christ's appointment. It must be governed according to the form of government which the King has appointed. Presbyterian church government is not simply a preference. One of the objections that the Covenanters had to the revolution settlement in Scotland was that it appointed Presbyterian church government in Scotland but merely as accommodating to the mind of the people. unlike England. The people like Presbyterianism, therefore, well, let's make the church Presbyterian. But the Covenanters said, no, that's not good enough. Not only must the church be governed in a Presbyterian way, but it must be governed in a Presbyterian way on the explicit basis that Presbyterian church government is of divine right and divine appointment in the Scriptures. because they were jealous for the kingship of Christ over the church. In other words they were saying this is the way the church must be governed and no other because this and this only is what Christ has appointed in his word. And the scriptural requirements for office must be upheld also. That is to say those who are appointed to office in the church must fulfil the scriptural requirements. That was another reason why the Covenanters dissented from the revolution settlement because there were men in office in the church who were nothing short of scoundrels and therefore they said this is not owning Christ's kingship over the church. But then Christ sets the boundaries of the church Christ sets the boundaries of the Church. No adult or infant must be included or excluded merely according to human decision and human will. The boundaries of the Church are defined by Scripture, by Christ the head of the Church in Scripture. Scripture is the only authority in determining who should be included and who should be excluded in the visible form of the Church of God. Whether we are thinking of initial admission or of discipline of an existing member and exclusion, it is the word of the King Christ, the head of the church, that must prevail. And so when we ask why did Abraham administer the ordinance of circumcision to the adults and infants that he did in Genesis 17, the answer is because the Lord, the head of the church, told him to. And it really is as simple as that. And in the Old Testament, those adults and those children whom the Lord said should be included in his church were to be included. And when we come into the New Testament, it's exactly the same. Those adults and those children whom the Lord requires to be included are to be included. And between the Old and the New Testament, the head of the church hasn't ejected the children, so they continue as part of the Church of God. The believing Israelite who lived during the transition from the Old into the New Testament, his children weren't put out by the head of the church. They were rather continued within the Church of God. And Christ confirmed that, saying, Suffer the little children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of God. of such is the kingdom, both in its invisible essence and its visible expression. So the boundaries of the church are appointed by Christ. Now he is the one who forms the members of the church in its inner essence, those who are born of the Spirit, but in terms of the outward form, who are to be admitted and who are to be excluded, His word must prevail. But then the worship of the church, the worship of the church, who decides how the Lord shall be worshipped in the Lord's church? Well, the Lord does, of course, and yet something that should be so obvious, so overtaken have we been by the man-centredness of this present age. Me and my need and what I feel and what I want that this obvious thing has been overlooked. If we're worshipping the Lord, then who tells us how to do it? If we want to know what honours the Lord, who tells us what honours the Lord? Well, the Lord does. If we want to worship the Lord in a manner pleasing to him and a manner which is for our good, well we must listen to the Lord to tell us. Otherwise, anything that we claim to be worship, which isn't of his appointing, is will-worship, doing our own thing, doing what we want. If all we're doing is doing what we feel like doing, or we like doing. The fact that we call it worship doesn't make it worship. The only person we're worshipping when we do our own thing is ourselves. We're saying we know and God should fit in. We must worship the Lord His way because the church is subject to Christ. Then the functions of the church. What are the functions of the church? Well, you see, we must exclude sinful activities. They are not the function of the Church, and that's true. But what about legitimate activities that the King of the Church has not appointed for the Church in its organised capacity? Has the Lord really appointed elders in the church to oversee an array of recreation and amusement? No, he hasn't. If Christians want recreation, let Christians have recreation, but let the church be the church. and let us ardently pursue as the Church the functions that Christ has appointed to it. And so the officers of the Church must act under Christ. They have authority from Christ. He is the Chief Shepherd, they are under shepherds. And therefore, before they tell the people of God what they should be doing. They must have their warrant from the Scriptures. This book is the rule book of the Church of God. And every body of elders should be able, before they say we should be doing this or that or the other in the Church, they should be able to turn in this book and say this is why. Because the King and Head of the Church has appointed it. and we have his authority for saying we should be doing it and what's more this king is our chief shepherd and he cares for us and if we do what he says it will be good for us. The church is subject to Christ. Whenever church governing bodies start to act outside of scripture or without reference to scripture or independently of the word of God. The church is on the slide. The church is on the slide. Whenever church governing bodies start pronouncing without reference to scripture, that church is on a downgrade. And history teaches us that, the Word of God teaches it, but history confirms that over and over again. Whenever a church body becomes preoccupied with its own authority rather than the authority of Scripture, then that church is in danger. But then this is a parallel. Yes, the church is subject to Christ. But the text goes on, so let the wives be to their own husbands. It is a God-ordained parallel. Who appointed the husband-wife relationship? Who created man male and female and appointed the ordinance of marriage? Well, the Lord did. And who appointed that there would be a church in this world and in the world to come? redeemed by the second person of the Godhead become man and bearing their guilt? Well, God did. But when did he plan these things? When did he plan the creation of man, male and female, with an institution of marriage? And when did he plan that man would fall and that there would be redemption through Christ and a church of the redeemed? that would have visible form in this world and would be a perfected church in that which is to come. When did he plan all these things? Well the answer is he planned them from all eternity. The plan was there as long as God has been there. God has no beginning and God's purpose is eternal. And so, this parallel was eternally ordained of God. Known unto God are all his works from the time of his birth. The marriage ordinance was not an afterthought. It wasn't that when it came to the sixth day, God was, as it were, planning as he went along. Not at all. It was always God's plan that man should be male and female. But then the existence of the Church was always God's plan. God had ordained not only creation but the fall and redemption through the Lord Jesus Christ before the foundation of the world. And God had appointed this parallel And so we find throughout the Old Testament the Lord speaks of his relationship to his church as that of a loving husband to a wife, often a very unfaithful and rebellious wife. Thy maker is thine husband, the Lord of hosts is his name. But then we have Hosea and the picture of the Lord as the long-suffering husband bearing with Israel for the son of Solomon. And Psalm 45, the relationship between Christ and His people. And what's true in the Old Testament is true in the New. In Revelation 19, we have the marriage supper of the Lamb. When Christ and His bride, when their their union will be brought to perfection forever. Or in Revelation 21 verse 2, the church is a bride adorned for her husband. What a contrast to the harlot, the great whore mentioned in Revelation, representing the false church, the Roman Antichrist. which is the highest expression, or the most blatant expression of anti-Christianity. And it's not without reason that the Antichrist is represented as a whore, whereas the faithful church, the true church is represented as a bride. Both represented as women, the one pure and faithful, the other corrupt. There is identity and yet contrast. Because you have one represented as the New Jerusalem and the other as Babylon, both cities but of a completely different character. That's why the Antichrist is not atheism or its false Christianity and in particular Roman Catholicism in the papers. So we must not think that the Lord, as it were, was looking around for parallels, for a suitable illustration for the relationship between Christ and the Church. as if God is like us and only thinks of one thing at a time and in a process. No, it's all. God from all eternity hath ordained creation, heaven, earth, heaven, earth, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, heaven, But then we have an anticipation of extra incentive. At the end of verse 23 it says, and he is the saviour of the body. Christ is the saviour of the body. And as would become clearer next time, God willing, this passage teaches what we call particular redemption. It teaches that Christ didn't come just to make salvation a possibility for everyone. he came to actually, effectually redeem a distinct, elect multitude of sins. He loved the Church, he gave himself for it. And that's already implied here when it says he is the saviour of the body. So why does the apostle say he is the saviour of the body at this point? After all, he's coming later on to Christ's love for the Church. Some see this as a contrast, that Christ is the saviour of the body, and whilst the husband cannot be the saviour of his wife, yet in other respects the parallel holds. So when we come to verse 24, the word translated therefore can sometimes mean nevertheless. So they take it as a contrast and they say Christ is the head of the church and he is also the saviour of the body. But even though the parallel doesn't hold on that point, yet nevertheless as the Church's subject under Christ. In other words, the headship idea, but not the saviourhood idea, holds as the parallel. But surely it's better to see this phrase as anticipating what follows. It's true that a husband cannot be the saviour of his wife in the sense that Christ is the saviour. of his body in the church. But Christ's saving of the church is the expression of his love. And the love of a husband is to be found after Christ's love for his church. And it is as if the apostle is already giving a hint of what is to come. That this husband whom the wife is to submit to as her head He is to seek, by God's grace, to be like Christ, the Church's head, in seeking the interest and the welfare and the good of his wife, to a point of, if necessary, giving himself for her. An unloving husband is to be obeyed, but a loving husband is more easily obeyed. and to rebel against a loving husband is more sinful. So then the apostle is already giving authority of the incentive, the additional incentive that a wife has of submitting to her husband, that her husband is passing that sacrifice to his love for the children. Then fourthly, the scope of submission, the scope of submission. Verse 24, Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives bring to their own husbands in every case. In every case. A wife's submission to her husband is not part time. It extends to all areas of life. It extends to all departments of life. And that's why it is so difficult. And yet, nonetheless, we find that in the name of God and for our good, everything is kept in truth, so that it is the whole of all areas of life, that this principle is. When it says, in everything, Does it mean that there is no left? Does it mean there is no left? Well, no, it doesn't. It does mean all areas. But there is a left. The obedience required is as to the Lord. That means the obedience due to a husband and a wife does not extend to disobey the commands of God. So in Acts chapter 4, Acts chapter 4, a different sphere of authority but the same principle applies. Acts chapter 4 verse 19, But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge you In chapter 5 verse 29, then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, we ought to obey God rather than men. It is a sinful thing to obey a command to sin. It is a sinful thing to obey a command to sin. This is true of all submission to authority. whether it's a wife's submission to her husband, children to parents, church members to church governors, citizens to the civil magistrate. Absolute authority belongs only to God. He has delegated a limited authority to men in these various spheres of life. And He has enjoined submission to the extent that it can be done without sin. To rebel without cause is sin, but to submit, to do what is sinful, is sin. So God requires obedience in all lawful things and disobedience in unlawful things. Well now, how can we apply this very briefly? First of all, if Christ is our Saviour, He is our Lord. And if He is our Lord, then we accept all of His Word. The rejection of biblical order that is apparent not just in society, but in the professing Church, is not due to greater insight into what the Scriptures mean, but greater hostility to what it does mean. The rejection of these things, of the male-female distinction in authority and so on, in the home, in the church, it is not due to greater insight as to the meaning of scripture, but greater hostility to what it obviously does mean. The appeal to supposed cultural argument That is, the idea that these things, especially these gender issues, that we can, as it were, sidestep the force of them by saying, well, that was simply an accommodation to things, to society as it was then. But it doesn't apply now because things have changed. This cultural argument is simply an excuse and a cover for conformity to the world. And that's all it is. Nothing else. The passages which deal with male-female distinctiveness in the home, in the church, they never argue from culture. None of them. They argue from the created order, the fall and the relationship between Christ and the Church, all of which are permanently relevant in all places, in all cultures and in all generations. None of them are temporary. And we must understand that if we concede to the cultural argument, by which I mean avoiding the application of scripture today to our situation on the grounds of supposed differences in culture between then and now, even when nothing in the passage or anywhere in scripture indicates that it has anything to do with culture. If we concede to that, then let me tell you where it really leads. The liberal churchmen love the cultural argument, and they don't just stop at gender issues. They apply it to doctrine as well. The doctrine of what Christ was doing on the cross. Liberals can talk about the love of God in Christ on the cross. And they do. And they say, of course, the actual message of the love of God in Christ on the cross is clear and permanent. But the couching of the doctrine of the cross in terms of atonement for sin and propitiation of an offended God, appeasing the wrath of God, the justice of God, that's just cultural baggage. And that has to go. And that's how the liberals can talk about the cross, the message of the love of God and of Jesus in the cross, and yet they don't mean what we mean at all. Because, they say, the way it's put in scripture is a reflection of the culture, the idea, the pagan idea of appeasing angry deity. and of course you end up with no gospel at all so when these things are under discussion and somebody says, oh well that's just Paul well it isn't just Paul Paul was writing scripture and the apostle Peter refers to Paul's letters as scripture and it isn't just Paul, it's the Holy Spirit speaking through the apostle Paul And if we can't rely on the scriptures to tell us how men and women should behave, how marriage should be ordered, or the affairs of the church or whatever, then we can't rely on scripture for anything. This passage is as much the word of God and as much infallibly true and applicable today as John 3.16 is. And if Ephesians 5.22-24 can't be trusted then neither can John 3.16 or anything else. In the end the issue is the authority of Scripture as the Word of God. But then one other thing before we finish. All God's commands are good for us. They're all good for us. Whatever he says is good for us. It's not only right and holy, but it's in our interest. And so in the home, in the church, in society, what the scriptures tell us to do in these different spheres, it's all for our good. If we're Christians, do we really imagine that the Son of God who loved us and gave himself for us, will give us bad commandments? And bad counsel? And things that will harm us? Do we imagine that when He says, wives submit yourselves unto your own husbands, that the Lord Jesus says that Because those women for whom he shed his blood, he wants to harm them? The whole idea is outrageous. If the Lord has said it, then it's good. He that spared not his own son, but delivered him up for us all, will he not with him also freely give us all things, including commandments concerning the home, the family, the church, marriage, and they're all good. Lord, thou art good, and thou doest good.