Why does the Bible not command wives to Agape their husbands?

Question

I know there are lots of scriptures that instruct husbands to agape their wives but I notice there are none the other way around. The closest I’ve found is Titus 2:4 but the Greek word for love there is phileo. Can anyone can shed some biblical light on why this is? Thanks.

Answer 1

It's interesting that husbands are commanded to so love their wives as they love themselves - even laying down their lives for them - as Christ did for the Church (his 'body'). Yet wives are commanded to respect their husbands in that same section of scripture. As it's always a good idea to quote the verses being asked about, here's what they say:

"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it... So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hateth his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church... Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself." Ephesians 5:25, 28, 29, 33 K.J.V.

This kind of love is based on the Greek 'agape' form of love. It does not speak of sexual love but principled love, seeking the other's benefit, whether they deserve that or not. As for wives, this is what they are commanded in that same section:

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord... and the wife see that she reverence her husband." 5:22, 33 K.J.V.

And the Titus verse instructs the older women to teach the younger women in the congregation to be sober, to love their husbands, and to love their children. So, certainly, love for husbands is also included along with submission and reverence. As said, this is from the Greek 'phileo'-type of love, that for family. Again, it does not speak of sexual love.

Here's a very good reason for husbands showing the highest form of principled love to their wives, while wives are told to respect and obey their husbands. It's quite simple.

Women crave the assurance of knowing they are loved by their husbands; husbands thrive best on knowing they are respected and honoured. And when women do that, it becomes easy for the men to cherish them in the way women crave. Yet the tragedy of so many couples throughout history has been that men think sexual love is what 'love' means. It might to them, but it rarely does to women! They desire to be cherished, and that takes agape love.

Answer 2

It is a common claim that ἀγάπη means only a selfless, self-giving love and it is contrasted with other words that share a semantic range which describes 'love'. However, the words have much more overlap than is popularly assumed, and there are times when αγαπαω is used to denote a sexual love.

For instance, in the LXX of 2 Sam, Amnon is said to 'agape' his sister Tamar, before raping her and then despitefully casting her aside. (2 Sam 13:1. Depending on how one interprets the tale of Shechem and Dina, Gen 34:3 could also be used as an example of a sexual connotation to 'agape love.' In the song of songs, agape is a wounding kind of love (5:8) and the refrain of the book for the young women to not arouse 'love' until it pleases is often understood as a reference to inciting sexual desire (2:7, 3:5,8:4. For the sexual connotation see Fishbane's JPS Bible Commentary: Song of Songs and Lloyd's volume in the Tyndale Old Testament Commentary.

This diversity of semantic range is also true of φιλος, from which the injunction given in Titus is derived. See for instance John 16:27, which describes the Father's love for us,and most prominently in John 5:20 which describes the Father's love for the son. In Luke 16:14, the Pharisees φιλος money, and in 2 Tim 4:10, Demas is said to αγαπαω the present world. These last examples ought to demonstrate that both can be used flexibly to have a roughly equivalent meaning.

As such, there is no need for Titus 2:4 to be taken to be communicating a different sort of love of a wife for her husband than the husband for the wife. While there are different words being used, both have a semantic range which extends beyond the traditional '4 loves' model and have a very broad overlap.

My point is not to say that we should introduce a sexual connotation into every instance of agape, for instance, but to show that it doesn't automatically mean the idealized kind of love it is often associated with, and to demonstrate ways that Phileo can mean that very same kind of love that is said to be existing between the members of the Trinity. By demonstrating this overlap of semantic range, the root Phileo thus can be understood in such a way as to allow for Paul (or whomever) to be commanding that women do love their husbands the way that their husbands are to love them.

Answer 3

It is a fact that the NT was written entirely by men. Male writers probably did not feel comfortable giving emotional advice to females. Perhaps if any of the NT scriptures were written by women, we would have some examples of men being told to love (agape) their wives. In the meantime, as the OP mentions, Titus 2 does give women at least some "love" advice.

3 ...older women should be reverent in their behavior, not slanderers, not addicted to drink, teaching what is good, 4 so that they may train younger women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled, chaste, good homemakers, under the control of their husbands, so that the word of God may not be discredited.

But does this adequately guide even pious modern women? Certainly no woman should be under the control of a husband who abuses her or otherwise sins against God. To be honest, it must be admitted that the Bible lacks examples of harmonious God-centered families either in the Jewish scriptures or the New Testament. Jesus apparently did not marry, nor did he specifically advise couples as to how to keep God at the center of their marriage. Salvation is one thing; a good marriage quite another. NT writers focused on the individual's relationship with God; and the most prolific of them, Paul, had no experience of marriage. I hope it does not sound either sexist or unduly critical of the scriptures to conclude that we are lucky that women have a strong intuitive sense to understand their role as both wives to their husbands and daughters to God.