Does the Bible Really Demand Gender Roles? | Ephesians 6:1-9 - Conrad Macintyre

Sermon Outline

1. 0:07:26 1. Verses 1-4 — Children and Fathers: A Hierarchy with an Expiry Date
   promise. What is that promise? That is might go well with you! That you would get long life! The promise of the Lord to children that follow His direction is Flourishing! Spoiler alert: flourishing is—I believe—the key that sits at the heart of this entire 'Household Codes' passage. But we'll get more into that later. But it gets even more interesting when we get to the other half of this pair. Because Paul tells children to obey their parents, but then, instead of addressing parents he only addresses fathers. Why? Are mothers allowed to provoke their children? Are mothers allowed to ignore the discipline and instruction of the Lord? No, of course not! But here's the key: at this time fathers had the ultimate and final authority over the members of their household—including their children. Fathers could approve, deny, or even arrange marriages for their children. Fathers could control the transfer and ownership of family property. Fathers could "expose" unwanted infants, which means leave them out to die if he didn't want them. The mother had no power to do any of these things, nor could she intervene in the father's wishes. So why does Paul only address fathers after telling children to honour both parents? Because Paul is addressing the one who has all the power in the home! And what does Paul tell the father to actually do with all that power? First of all, don't be an authoritarian bully! It's not all about you! Paul is telling these authority holders that their job is not to establish or demand that authority—even after telling children to "obey", to do as they are told. There is no subsequent call to fathers to enforce that authority. Paul doesn't envision because-I-said-so parenting. Instead Paul pushes these men to equip their children—to train them. To provide a home for them that features Godly discipline and Godly instruction. Do you see what the primary source of guidance is? Its not the honour of the father (which was typical of the time). It's not the honour of the household (a reflection of the father's "greatness"). The primary source of guidance is the Lord. The father's job is to show his children the Lord and the Lord's truth! A good father will tell his children what Paul told the church in Corinth, "Follow me as I follow Christ". And finally, there is an implication here that these children will grow up. They will mature. They will no longer need to be told what to do. This is a real Biblical hierarchy. Paul is not shy about it. He names it, roots it in Scripture, and attaches a promise to it. The authority is real — and it is temporary. Paul does not envision a fifty-year-old man still obligated to obey his elderly father because the fifth commandment has no retirement clause. This is the only hierarchy in the "Household Codes" that Paul explicitly roots in Scripture. And he builds an expiry date right into it. We are going to need to remember that. 5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ, 6 not with a slavery performed merely for looks, to please people, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the soul. 7 Render service with enthusiasm, as for the Lord and not for humans, 8 knowing that whatever good we do, we will receive the same again from the Lord, whether we are enslaved or free. 9 And, masters, do the same
2. 0:12:05 2. Verses 5-9 — Slaves and Masters: Dignity Without Escape
   same to them. Stop threatening them, for you know that both of you have the same Lord in heaven, and with him there is no partiality. Like women and children, it is noteworthy that Paul addresses slaves directly — and understandably so, since our best estimates suggest around 30% of the Ephesian church were likely slaves. And yet, despite being adults fully capable of making their own moral choices, Paul still tells them to obey. That same strong word used of children. And not just to obey, but to obey with deep respect, sincerity, and determination — in the same way that they would obey Christ. Now I need to pause and address a common talking point about ancient Roman slavery. People sometimes point out that slaves could occasionally hold skilled positions — doctors, tutors, administrators — and that some were eventually able to buy their freedom. And while those things did happen, they are often overstated in order to make Paul's words feel more comfortable to modern readers. The reality is that Roman slavery was not some kind of benevolent social safety net. Most slaves entered slavery as prisoners of war, through kidnapping and piracy, or because they were born into it. Many were forced into brutal labour in fields, quarries, and mines, where life expectancy could be very short. Female slaves were frequently used to satisfy the sexual desires of their owners, and legally every slave was considered property. Unlike the protections that existed within the Law of Moses, Roman slaves had very few meaningful legal safeguards. Ancient slavery was not a kinder or more civilised version of the American South. It was different in structure. It was still a system built on the ownership and exploitation of human beings. And these are the people Paul tells to obey. Let that sink in for a moment. Today many pastors soften this passage by quickly translating it into modern employer-employee relationships and moving on. And I understand the impulse — but it really does deeply undercut the gravity of what Paul is actually saying. The slaves in the Ephesian church were being told to return to lives of genuine suffering. Some would go back to the fields or the mines. Others — including women and smaller men — would endure the indignities of sexual exploitation, clinging to the hope of a glorious future upon the Lord's return, because that hope was the only thing their masters could not take from them. Paul offers no escape. What he offers instead is this: Christ sees you. And the reward waiting for you is identical to what is waiting for any free person who also trusts in Christ. "Whatever good we do, we will receive the same again from the Lord, whether we are enslaved or free." And this — Christian — is why we are called to display Godly character rather than obsessing over getting what we think we are owed. Not "how do I get mine?" but "how do I live as Christ in whatever place I find myself?" Then Paul turns to the slaveholders: "do the same to them." In a world where masters held the power of life and death over another human being, Paul calls the Christian master to govern himself with the same sincerity, goodwill, and accountability to Christ he just demanded of the slave. Stop threatening. Stop coercing. Because you answer to the same Lord they do — and with him there is no partiality. For some of those slaves, their master may have been the only reflection of Christ they ever encountered. Paul is calling the slaveholder to be as worthy of that as he can be. Why? Because this earth is just the pre-show! Our time here is short compared to eternity. And we are all on a level playing field when we stand before the Lord and Master of us all. Yet Paul nowhere calls for the release of slaves, nor the abolition of slavery itself. He had the opportunity. He didn't take it. That is also worth remembering. Now, I promised you I would share where I land on this issue and I will, but first I need to address the two major camps so you can
3. 0:17:35 3. The Complementarian Case — and Its Problems
   can know what they say, and where I think they run into difficulties. We'll start with the complementarians. This group believes that while men and women are equal in dignity and value before the Lord, they have distinct roles in the church and in the home. This position is held by many serious and thoughtful theologians, and it has a lot going for it. The complementarian reads this passage and sees Paul assigning different roles to husbands and wives based on the relationship between Christ and the church. She reads, "the husband is the head of the wife" and sees a God-given order. She will correctly state that Paul nowhere dismantles this structure, and she will argue that Scripture is consistent from Genesis to Revelation—consistently depicting male leadership in the home and in the church. But we're not done yet — because the complementarian also seems to have the neurological, social and biological sciences mostly in her corner. Steven Pinker—a non-Christian and self-described feminist—has presented research which shows that men tend to prioritize full-time career, success at work, creating something new, and lots of money. Whereas women tend to prioritize part-time work options, living close to family, strong friendships, and meaningful spiritual lives. In fact in a 2018 study (and subsequent 2019 update) Drs Stoet and Geary found that in countries with higher gender equality, women tended to prefer traditionally-female careers, and vice-versa. So the complementarian looks at that whole package and says, "see?" The roles Paul describes align with how God actually made us. Men tend toward leadership and provision. Women tend toward nurture and relationship. The design and the data point the same direction. Pretty compelling. Right? Well, there are a few issues. First, the science problem. Advocates for this view tend to look at averages in the data and then say apply them to everyone, universally. The problem is that capability and preference data are not by a black-and-white choice. They are actually overlapping ranges. Too over-simplify for the sake of the argument: if we had a spectrum of aggressiveness from 0-100, men might be on the scale from 10-100 with the 'average' man being 55. And women might be on the same scale from 5-95 with their average being 50. But 30-40% of all women would still be more aggressive than an 'average' man. Second, the biblical consistency problem. Complementarians have a bad habit of over-stating how obvious the so-called 'plain reading' of many of these texts are, often forcing them to come up with all kinds of special rules and exceptions to deal with Miriam, Deborah, Hulda, Phoebe, Priscilla, Junia, and others. Even in this passage—Ephesians 5:21-6:9—Paul has given us three pairs: wives and husbands, children and fathers, slaves and masters. The complementarian wants to read the marriage section as a structure which is both permanent and divinely instituted. But does this hold up across the other two? Remember what we noticed earlier in the children’s section: their obedience is the only hierarchy explicitly rooted in Scripture—in the fifth commandment. And yet it comes with a built-in expiry date. If the husband’s headship is rooted in Scripture and meant to continue indefinitely, why doesn’t Paul say so? Slave obedience, on the other hand, is rooted not in Scripture but in the cultural reality of the Roman household. There is no expiry date. Paul does not say "obey until you earn your freedom." He does not call for abolition. He simply addresses people in their moment and tells them how to live faithfully there. So the only hierarchy Paul explicitly roots in Scripture has an expiry date. The one rooted in culture does not. What does that tell us about the marriage section, which Paul never roots in Scripture, but which he uses the mystery of Christ and the church to describe? And one more thing worth noticing. Complementarians often point to the phrase "as to the Lord" in the wives section as evidence that God is endorsing the structure itself — that this hierarchy pleases him as a permanent divine design. But Paul uses virtually identical language with slaves. If "as to the Lord" signals divine endorsement of the marriage hierarchy, it signals the same for slavery. And I have yet to meet a complementarian willing to follow that road all the way home. Third, the practical logic problem. When you attempt to follow the complementarian hierarchy logic into various areas of life you end up in some weird places. For example: Steve Farrar — on page 180 of his 1990 book Point Man — goes in search of submission relationships endorsed by God in Scripture. He lands on children. And pets. His proof text is Genesis 1:28. Let's read that together... 28 God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” Mike Winger released over 40 hours of material on his YouTube channel defending Complementarianism. And while discussing what roles a women could hold in the church he tried to address volunteering at youth group. But if a woman cannot have authority over a man, when is she no longer qualified to volunteer at youth group? Winger explores puberty, legal age of majority, and the amusingly vague "adulting". Ultimately—finding all three metrics inadequate as a cutoff—Winger threw up his hands and moved on to something else without offering any reasonable answer to a question that will face any youth group that allows women to help out. Lastly, in the opening chapter of the nearly 800-page "Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood" Pastor John Piper—one of the most widely-respected and thoughtful voices in all of contemporary Christendom puts forward this scenario: [I]t is simply impossible that from time to time a woman not be put in a position of influencing or guiding men. For example, a housewife in her backyard may be asked by a man how to get to the freeway. At that point she is giving a kind
4. 0:26:01 4. The Egalitarian Case — and Its Problems
   kind of leadership. She has superior knowledge that the man needs and he submits himself to her guidance. But we all know that there is a way for that housewife to direct the man in which neither of them feels their mature femininity or masculinity compromised. I am not caricaturing these men. I am quoting them. At some point the logic of permanent, gender-based hierarchy brings more confusion than clarity—unless we are willing to go the John MacArthur route and tell women to "Go home". Typically the other side of this debate is held by Egalitarians. This group believes that gender does not dictate role or authority either in the home or the church. Now, for as much as the complementarian likes to tease the egalitarian for 'mental gymnastics', the fact is that both groups have to make interpretive decisions, and egalitarians generally require fewer exceptions or special cases to keep their reading consistent across Scripture. For example: the egalitarian reads Ephesians 5 and he notes that Paul’s only explicit appeal to Scripture is Genesis 2, which emphasizes unity, not hierarchy. The egalitarian will also note that the marriage section is fundamentally about unity and mutual self-giving, not organizational structure. He observes that the gospel's own logic—written by Paul himself—states, "there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." This certainly seems to paint a picture of equality in Christ. The complementarian must contend with the fact similar hierarchy arguments were historically used to defend slavery. The egalitarian has no such problem because he was never arguing for permanent hierarchy in the first place. The egalitarian points to women being the first to proclaim the risen Christ — commissioned by Jesus himself to carry the resurrection news to the male disciples. Or to women like Abigail, Jael, and the Shunammite woman — each of whom acted with independent moral judgment within their households, often against or without their husbands, and each of whom God rewarded for it. The egalitarian also has no logical outworking problem to be avoided. If women can fully participate in all areas at home and in the church, there is no need to spend hours debating when they should be required to step aside. Wow, this sounds great! So easy. Right? Well, there are two big problems I see on the egalitarian side as well. The first problem is the trajectory argument. It is often claimed by egalitarians that Paul is carefully and meticulously crafting a trajectory argument. The idea is that Paul has a vision of equality in the future that will be achieved if people just interpret his instructions carefully and understand what he means beyond what he plainly states. Cards on the table: I would love if this was true, but no matter how I read these passages, I just don't see it. Paul thought Jesus was returning any moment, the only future utopia he was envisioning was heaven. In his Biblical letters Paul addresses people in their moment and tells them how to live faithfully there. Frankly, I think a trajectory argument is something people are finding because they want it to be there. The second problem is the science. Some egalitarian scholars—like Dr Lewis-Hall in her contribution to the mammoth book "Discovering Biblical Equality"—argue that meaningful psychological and preferential differences between men and women are largely a product of social conditioning, and that no meaningful differences exist between men and women. Lots of issues with this idea. Issue 1: The Stoet and Geary data strongly challenges that claim. In the most gender-equal societies on earth, the differences in preference don't disappear — they increase. If these patterns were purely socially constructed, that is exactly the opposite of what we would expect to find. And the fact that there is that overlapping data does nothing to erase real averages. The truth is that no matter how nurturing a guy might be, there
5. 0:31:33 5. Synthesis — The Gospel's Question Is Motive, Not Structure
   there will still be more women who have an equal or greater nurturing instinct. Issue 2: Genesis 1 seems to think that men and women are meaningfully different in some purposeful way. When it wasn't good for the man to be alone, God didn't make a second man — he made a woman. And it has to be something more than biological reproduction, because that still wouldn't explain why the difference matters relationally. The social science consistently shows that children flourish best in stable homes with both biological parents present, which—at minimum—suggests that male and female bring something distinct and complementary to the table, not just interchangeable parenting units. Issue 3: Frankly—and I recognize I'm opening a door here I don't have time to walk through this morning—if men and women are genuinely interchangeable in every meaningful sense, it becomes very difficult to give a coherent Christian account of why male-female marriage matters at all. That's a conversation for another day. But it's worth noting that the stakes of getting this question right extend further than most people realize. Okay, so, two camps: both with good evidence and real problems. Neither one seems like a slam-dunk solution. So what do we do? So here is where I land. And I want to be clear that this is not a clever attempt to avoid the question — it is my honest answer after years of sitting with this text and an absurd amount of reading over the last 3 weeks. Paul was not building an architecture to stand the test of time. He was doing what good pastors do — meeting people where they are. The Christians in Ephesus were not waiting for a theology of gender equality to be slowly constructed over two millennia. They were waiting for Jesus to come back. And Paul was helping them hold their households together, maintain their witness in a suspicious culture, and keep the gospel central while they waited. That is what the household codes are. Remember what we noticed in the slavery section: Paul had the opportunity to call for abolition, and he didn’t. Instead, Paul offered pastoral wisdom for a specific moment. Not a blueprint or a constitution, just a letter. And here is the thing about letters — they address the situation of the recipient, not the situation of every reader who will ever encounter them. When Paul tells slaves to obey their masters with sincerity and enthusiasm, he is not endorsing slavery as a permanent divine institution. He is telling these slaves, in this moment, how to live as Christ in the place they actually find themselves. Nobody in this room reads that section and concludes that God has permanently ordained a master class and a slave class. We understand instinctively that Paul was speaking into a cultural reality, not sanctifying it forever. The marriage section deserves the same honest reading. But—and this is the part I do not want you to miss—that does not mean the Gospel is silent on what marriage should look like. It just means the Gospel's answer is deeper than either camp has fully named. The complementarian is right that men and women are genuinely, meaningfully different. Not interchangeable. Not identical. This pattern exists. But here is what he misses: a pattern is not a prescription. The ranges overlap — enormously. The egalitarian is right that the gospel's own logic presses toward equality. Neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female. That is not a trajectory argument — it is a present reality in Christ. The ground at the foot of the cross is level. And the egalitarian is right to be suspicious of any system that consistently advantages the same people who built and defend it. It is worth noticing that the people most comfortable defending hierarchical systems have historically been the people most likely to benefit from them. That said, the trajectory argument is still not in Paul. So how do I pull all of these threads together? Each of you pursue the flourishing of the other. That is it. That is the whole thing. That's the conclusion of the spoiler alert I gave way back in 6:3. Men, if you insist
6. 0:37:13 6. Conclusion — The Patient on the Table
   insist on being the leader because "God said so", you aren't worried about the flourishing of your bride — you are worried about yourself. But if you genuinely feel a desire, need, and capability to lead, then here is what that actually looks like: lay it down first. Pursue her flourishing with everything you have. And when she sees that posture — a man who wants to lead but chooses her first — she will know what you need. And she will gift it to you. But don't do it with a transactional ulterior motivation, do it because that's what Christ would do. See, the structure of your marriage is not the point. The motive is. Two couples can occupy identical-looking arrangements and only one of them is living the gospel — the one where both people are genuinely, sacrificially consumed with the flourishing of the other. If that leads you to a traditional arrangement, live it freely and joyfully — not because God assigned it, but because it is the truest expression of who you both are. If it results in a stay-at-home dad and high-powered attorney mom, awesome. So long as each of you is fully contributing — and doing it for the other, not for yourself. What the gospel produces — when it is actually allowed to do its work — is not a particular structure. It is a particular kind of person. A person who has been so captured by the self-giving love of Christ that the question of who leads becomes genuinely less interesting than the question of whether the other person is flourishing. Egalitarians have worked so hard to make Paul build a trajectory argument that they may have missed something more surprising: Paul didn't need to. Paul was never meant to be the wind in the sails of equality, the Gospel was already doing that. Instead, Paul was simply doing what faithful pastors do — helping people live well in the moment they were actually in. The gospel would do the rest. It always has. It always will. Which brings us neatly back to our MASH episode. Hawkeye and Borelli barking at each other, trying to assert dominance, and trying to save Captain Kramer's life—in that order. Then a bomb goes off and sends both men to the floor, Hawkeye strains his wrist, Borelli breaks his arm. What do they do? Because of the gravity of the situation that now presents itself, with a life hanging in the balance the two surgeons—each with only a single usable hand—are forced to put their heads down and get back to work. Hawkeye works the left side. Borelli works the right. The surgery is a success, Captain Kramer will make it. And when it's over, giddy with relief, they congratulate each other as Dr. Left and Dr. Right. But take note that they didn't resolve their differences or decide who was correct. What changed wasn't their positions—it was their priority. The patient on the table became more important than the argument above it. And it turned out that what each of them had—different as it was—was exactly what the other one needed. Here is what I want you to take home. The church is the patient on the table. And the world is watching to see whether we will spend ourselves serving it or arguing about how. Two thousand years after Paul wrote these words, complementarians and egalitarians are still squaring off over the same operating table — and both of them have real training, real instincts, real reasons for their positions. I have tried to show you this morning that neither camp is simply being an idiot. The complementarian reads patterns in Scripture and sees them confirmed in biology and social science. The egalitarian follows the gospel's own logic through the full sweep of Scripture and sees a consistent arc bending toward the dignity and full participation of every image-bearer. But here is what neither camp can give you, because only the Gospel can: A husband and wife who are genuinely, sacrificially, joyfully consumed with the flourishing of the other do not need a court to arbitrate their roles. The structure will emerge from the love. It will look different in different marriages. It may look quite traditional in yours — and that is not a failure of imagination. Or it may have a different division of duties and responsibilities than either of you grew up with—that does not mean a failure of faithfulness. What the Gospel asks is not "which structure" but "which motive". Not "who am I leading", but "who am I becoming". If I have not convinced you this morning — if you are leaving more committed to your camp than when you arrived — I want to say one more thing, and I want to say it plainly: This is not worth dividing over. The world will not know we are Christians by our position on gender roles. Jesus tells us that the world will know we are Christians by our love. So first love your spouse. First love your church. First love the person sitting next to you who reads these passages differently than you do. Then, if you must, you can debate the theology. Lord Jesus, thank You for the love You have shown us—the love that lays itself down for the good of another. Form that same love in us. Guard our homes, our marriages, and our church from pride, rivalry, and the need to be right. Teach us instead to pursue the flourishing of those around us. Where there is tension, bring humility. Where there is confusion, bring wisdom. Where there is disagreement, let love remain stronger than our differences. May our lives together reflect the self-giving love You showed us at the cross. And may the world see that love and know that we belong to You. Amen. Benediction — John 13:34-35

Key Themes