2. We come back to St. Paul's conception of marriage to dissipate misconceptions. It is indeed absurd to speak as if St. Paul were, in this passage, mainly emphasizing the subjection of the woman, whether this be done from the conservative side 'to keep women in their place': or from the point of view of those who desire her emancipation, in order to represent St. Paul, and so Christianity as a whole, as giving to women a servile position. Over against the subjection of women, he sets, and indeed gives more space to emphasize, the self-sacrifice {220} and service which is due to her from the man. You cannot tear the one from the other. Like St. Peter so St. Paul would have the husband 'give honour to the wife--as to the weaker vessel' indeed, but also as 'joint heir of the grace of life[12].' In essential spiritual value men and women are equal. 'In Christ is neither male nor female.' St. Chrysostom rightly bases on this passage a powerful appeal to husbands to overcome their selfishness in their relation to their wives. There is nothing servile in the subordination required of the woman[13]. If 'the husband is the head of the wife, the head of the husband is Christ, and the head of Christ is God.' Christ even is subordinate. And the character of the headship of the husband {221} altogether excludes the idea that women are to be married in order to serve men's selfish interests or gratify their passions. Then we must notice that St. Paul is impressing upon us a moral ideal of which the two parts are inseparable. St. Paul says nothing to indicate that where the relations are not ideal--where the husband is selfish or brutal--law should not step in to protect the interests of the wife and secure her against the insults or cruelties or frauds of the husband. He is expressing a moral ideal[14]; while law must be largely content with preventing outrage and securing a background on which ideals can become possible. And just as St. Paul tells Christians that they are to obey magistrates as God's ministers--leaving it to be understood that when they command what is contrary to God's will, 'we ought to obey God rather than men'; so in the same way he speaks of the wife's (or child's or slave's) duty of subjection, leaving a similar reservation likewise to be tacitly understood. Obedience is to be 'in the Lord.'