Learning to thrive in the new life Jesus offers us – 2 Corinthians 5:16-17

Mutual Submission is not a Myth

Ephesians 5:21-22

I’ve heard some Christians state that submission is always to a person in authority, and so, in reality, there is no such thing as mutual submission. Wayne Grudem is one of these Christians.[1] He states that mutual submission is a myth. He believes that submission “is always one-directional”, always to an authority, and “it is never ‘mutual’ in its force.” He believes this so strongly that he has written at least three pieces with the title of “The Myth of Mutual Submission”.[2] This post is a response to his article which was published in the Journal of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, October 1996, and is available online here.

There are many statements in Grudem’s article with which I disagree, and so, to avoid tedious reading, I’ve noted my main objections in point form, with additional information in the endnotes. But first, here is the New Testament verse under consideration:

“Submit (or, submitting) to one another out of reverence for Christ.”
Ephesians 5:21

~ Wayne Grudem opens his article by suggesting that Christian egalitarians (Christians who believe in mutual submission) try to avoid the force of Ephesians 5:22 by looking at the previous verse, verse 21.
Rather than avoiding the force, reading the other verses in the surrounding passage, including verse 21, elucidates the force and meaning of Ephesians 5:22.[3]

~ Grudem writes, “I think that the whole idea of ‘mutual submission’ as an interpretation of ‘be subject to one another’ in Ephesians 5:21 is a terribly mistaken idea.” He goes on to say that mutual submission “can be advocated only by failing to appreciate the precise meanings of the Greek words for ‘be subject to’ and ‘one another’.” (Grudem makes an error with the Greek grammar here. See endnote 4.)
The Greek word for submission hypotassō is used in Ancient Greek literature with a range of meanings. So I wonder how Grudem can be certain that his “precise meaning” is the correct one. Even Grudem admits that “the exact form submission takes, the way it works out in practice, will vary greatly as it applies to soldiers, to children[5], to servants, to the church, and to wives.”[6]

~ Grudem tries to show that mutuality cannot be part of a relationship where one person, or one party, submits to another, and, to prove his point, he lists some examples where “submit” is used in the New Testament. His observation from these examples is that “Husbands are never told to be subject (hypotassō) to wives, nor the government to citizens, nor masters to servants, nor the disciples to demons. Clearly parents are never told to be subject to their children!”
The five examples that Grudem gives here actually demonstrates, to some extent, the breadth of usage of the word “submit”. However, apart from the example of the disciples and demons, considerate husbands, governments, masters, and parents do submit to their wives, citizens, slaves, and children, even if they do so only occasionally.[7] Furthermore, “submit” is used in many other contexts in the New Testament, other than the ones Grudem supplies in his article. The meanings of “submit” and “submission” are not as cut and dried as Grudem indicates.

Moreover, in a few New Testament verses, the quality or temperament of being submissive is listed as a virtue for women without there being a clear indication that the submissiveness is specifically directed to someone or something with authority (1 Cor. 14:34; 1 Tim. 2:11). Similarly the cognate (or related) antonym (anupotaktos) is used for the quality or temperament of being rebellious without a clear indication that the rebellion is directed to someone or something in authority. The KJV translates this antonym as “unruly” in Titus 1:6 & 10. The NIV translates it as “wild” (Titus 1:6) and “rebellious” (Titus 1:10).

~ Commenting on Ephesians 5:21, Grudem says that our submission “to one another” has limits.
I agree with him on this.[8]  Submission to one another is a general principle and, as such, there may be occasions when it is inappropriate to submit to another believer. Grudem thinks the interpretation of verse 21 should be: “be subject ‘some to others’, not ‘everyone to everyone’.” Yet this is not what the verse says in Greek, and it is not how English versions translate it: the principle of mutual submission in verse 21 remains. It is up to us to use wisdom and discernment, and even plain common sense, in how we apply this verse. Wives should also use wisdom when submitting to their husbands. Even Grudem would acknowledge that wifely submission has limits.

~ Grudem, writing hypothetically, states that “The command that a husband should be subject to his wife would have been startling in an ancient male-dominated culture.”
Grudem is correct here. Women in the Greco-Roman world were used to being told to be submissive to their husbands—this was nothing new. But if men were told to be submissive to their wives this would have caused offense and, probably, confusion.[9] I suspect that even today the concept of being submissive to wives offends and confuses some Christian men. Paul and Peter do instruct husbands to be submissive to their wives, but they use different language (e.g. 1 Pet. 3:7). The concept of husbands submitting to wives was revolutionary for the Christians who lived in Greco-Roman society where the inferiority of women was a deeply-rooted belief. So Paul and Peter use nobler language to urge husbands to give themselves up for the well being of their wives. Laying down one’s life on behalf of another person is the ultimate act of submission, and yet that is what Jesus Christ has done for his beloved church, and that is what he calls husbands to do for their wives. Moreover, Christ’s example of humility, servanthood, submission, and sacrificial love are an example for all believers, male and female, married or single, to follow (e.g. Eph. 5:1-2).

~ Grudem believes that “a wife’s attitude of submission to her husband’s authority will be reflected in numerous words and actions each day which reflect deference to his leadership”. (Underline added.)
In this statement Grudem uses the word “deference”. “Deference” is a fine synonym for “submission”. I believe that submission—which encompasses deference, cooperation, loyalty, humility and respect—should be in all our relationships with believers. However, because of the unique union and bond of the marriage relationship, wives and husbands owe each other a greater degree of deference, loyalty and consideration, etc. I do not believe, however, that a wife’s deference has anything to do with authority. Despite what the church has taught for centuries, neither the New Testament, nor the Old Testament, teaches that God wants husbands to be the leaders or authorities of their wives.[10]

~ Grudem writes “Although some have claimed that the word [submission] can mean ‘be thoughtful and considerate; act in love’ (toward another), there is no hard evidence to show that any first-century Greek speaker would have understood it that way, for the term always implies a relationship of submission to an authority.” (Underline added.)
Here is some hard evidence from a first century Greek speaker, Clement of Rome, where submission does not imply submission to an authority: “Let us take the body as an example. The head without the feet is nothing, likewise, the feet without the head are nothing. Even the smallest parts of our body are necessary and useful to the whole body, yet all the members coalesce harmoniously and unite in mutual subjection, so that the whole body may be saved. So in our case let the whole body be saved in Christ Jesus, and let each of us be mutually subject to our neighbour, in proportion to each one’s spiritual gift.” 1 Clement 37:5-38:1.  [There’s more hard evidence in endnote 11.]

~ In his closing paragraph Grudem states “If hypotassō can be emptied of any idea of submission to authority, the New Testament’s ability to speak to our lives will be significantly impeded.”
I am certainly not saying that submission never speaks about submitting to authority. In some New Testament verses where hypotassō occurs the context is clearly about submitting to authority. It seems to me, however, that too many Christians have an unhealthy obsession with who has authority and who doesn’t have authority, and they have allocated authority and power in ways that are foreign to Jesus’ teachings on leadership and community. Also, it is important to note that there are degrees of authority and there are degrees of submission.

~ Grudem ends his article with “This egalitarian misunderstanding of Ephesians 5:21 carries with it a very large price.”
Mutual submission is neither an egalitarian concept nor a misunderstanding. Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp did not identify as egalitarians but they encouraged mutual submission among believers. [See endnote 11.] Furthermore, I cannot see that mutual submission has negative repercussions in church life or in marriage. I do not believe that Grudem’s concern of a “very large price” is valid. Conversely, the negative results of a patriarchy which insists on the unilateral submission of wives are all too evident. I believe it is Wayne Grudem who misunderstands Ephesians 5:21 and the concept of mutual submission. Mutual submission is not a myth. Rather, it is an ideal dynamic in relationships between members of the body of Christ, and between wives and husbands.

Q. Why is Wayne Grudem so keen to prove that mutual submission is a myth?
A. Because he realises, and acknowledges, that if verse 21 genuinely refers to mutual submission, one to another, this may influence the meaning of verse 22 which is about submission from wives.


Endnotes

[1] Dr Wayne Grudem is a well known theologian, seminary professor, and the author of a best-selling book on systematic theology.

[2] In Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, a book co-edited with John Piper, Grudem has written a chapter entitled “The Myth of Mutual Submission as an Interpretation of Ephesians 5:21”.  In this chapter, which is an expanded version of the article I critique here, Grudem admits to a form of mutual submission and writes, “If mutual submission means being considerate of one another, and caring for one another’s needs, and being thoughtful of one another, and sacrificing for one another, then of course I would agree that mutual submission is a good thing.” (p.223) Grudem goes on to say, however, that egalitarians have a different definition of mutual submission. His definition of mutual submission sounds just like mine, and I am an egalitarian.  Importantly, Grudem does not believe that this form of mutual submission is what is being spoken of in Eph. 5:21.
Grudem has also written a response to Gordon D. Fee’s paper on 1 Timothy 2:8-15 with a paper entitled “The Myth of Mutual Submission” which is available online here. (Grudem’s title, however, does not seem to match the content of this article.)

[3] I suggest that all Bible readers should look at the surrounding verses to help make sense of verse 22, especially as verses 18-22 may be one long sentence in the Greek, with verse 22 being just one part of a passage on spirit-filled worship and living.  The instruction in verse 22 follows a string of instructions which begins with “Do not be drunk with wine but be filled with the Spirit” (Eph. 5:18).  The main verb for the passage is in verse 18b “be filled”; in verses 19 onwards participles convey the verbal ideas.  The participles in 5:19-22 are: “speaking . . . singing and making music . . . giving thanks . . . being submissive . . .”

[4] I’ve noticed some minor errors with Grudem’s Greek. For instance, hypotassomenoi means “be subject” or “be submissive”, and allēlois means “to one another”.  Grudem, however, repeatedly writes “be subject to” and “one another”. (My underlines.)  Grudem has placed the “to” in the wrong place. This error also appears in his book Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood (e.g. p.226). Furthermore, Grudem gives the accusative form (four times) rather than either the dative form that occurs in Ephesians 5:21 (allēlois), or the usual lexical form (allēlōn). (I checked, and could not find a Greek NT that uses the accusative in this verse.) How can someone of Grudem’s stature be this clumsy with the Greek? Moreover, allēlois (lexical form: allēlōn) is a reciprocal pronoun. The LSJ (1996:69) give the definition of this word as “. . . to one another . . . hence, mutually, reciprocally”.  As Gilbert Bilezikian has said, “Being subject to one another’ is a very different relationship from ‘being subject to the other’.

[5] Children are never instructed to submit (hypotassō) to their parents in the New Testament; they are instructed to obey (hypakouō) their parents. Despite the fact that neither parents nor children are connected with any New Testament instruction for submission, Grudem uses them as examples a few times in his article.

[6] Hypotassō in its most literal sense means to “subordinate”. It is used this way in military contexts, and in some contexts of New Testament. However the military relationship between a superior and a lower ranking soldier should not be taken as a model for relationships between believers or for Christian marriage. The New Testament authors eschew the idea of rank, status, and a social hierarchy in the church, and the Bible does not speak about husbands and wives as being of different ranks, or of one being superior to the other. It is detrimental to apply the most literal meaning of hypotassō to marriage and other relationships among believers. In Thayer’s Lexicon a distinction is made between the military usage and non-military usage of hypotassō: “A Greek military term meaning ‘to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader’. In non-military use, it was ‘a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden’.” (Source)

[7] While parents are not instructed in the Bible to submit to their children, all good parents wisely and willingly submit to their children’s need and requests (Luke 11:11-13). [See endnotes 5 and 9]

[8] Our submission to the government is not without limits. There are enough examples of civil disobedience in the Bible, by godly people, to illustrate that submission to the government has limits (e.g. Exod. 1:17). Moreover, a democratic government (as opposed to the Roman government in NT times) has an obligation to genuinely represent the very people they are governing. A government that is acting democratically is a government by the people, for the people, and should be deferring to the wishes and needs of the people. The Bible shows us that submitting to legitimate religious authority even has limits (e.g. Acts 4:19).
The submission of wives to their own husbands also has limits. Abigail clearly went against her husband’s wishes, and she is commended for it. We are to use discernment and wisdom when implementing any biblical directive.

[9] Note that no Old Testament author, or Jesus, tells wives to submit to their husbands. It is mentioned only in some of the later letters written to Christians living in places dominated by Greco-Roman culture (Eph. 5:22-24; Col. 3:18; Tit. 2:5; 1 Pet. 3:1-6) . [More on this here.]

[10] There is simply no verse in the Bible that teaches that husbands are to be the rulers or authorities of their wives. It does say, however, that the husband is the kephalē (head) of his wife. I have written about kephalē in several article on this website. See below for links to these articles.

[11] Earlier in his letter Clement had commended the Corinthians saying, “Moreover, you were all humble and free from arrogance, submitting rather than demanding submission, more glad to give than to receive . . .” (1 Clement 2:1). A few decades later, in the first half of the second century, Ignatius wrote a sentence which included an instruction for submission to someone in authority as well as an instruction for mutual submission: “Submit to the bishop and to one another” (Magnesians 13:2). “To one another” (allēlois) in Magnesians 13:2 is identical to the word in Ephesians 5:21. [See endnote 4]  Polycarp wrote to the Philippians, “All of you be subject to one another . . .” (10:2)
While Ignatius (bishop of the church at Antioch) and Polycarp (bishop of the church at Smyrna) wrote in the second century and not the first, they clearly did not regard mutual submission as a myth. Instead, like Paul and Clement, they saw mutual submission as being vital for harmony and unity in the church. (These quotes from Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp are taken from The Apostolic Fathers, The Greek Texts and English Translations (3rd edition) edited and translated by Michael W. Holmes (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic 2007) )

Image credit: Screen shot from Bible Gateway.com

Posted October 18th, 2013 . Categories/Tags: Equality and Gender Issues, Equality in Marriage, , , ,

Unkind, judgemental, bizarre, and off-topic comments will be deleted.

12 comments on “Mutual Submission is not a Myth

  1. Don Johnson says:

    It is very important to not rip some text from its immediate context. The entire teaching unit (pericope, in technical terms) is Eph 5:15-6:9. This is an example where the chapter divisions can be unhelpful.

    Eph 5:22 begin the household codes with 6 examples from a 1st century household, but these are introduced in the context of walking in the Spirit with 4 examples. The 4 examples are in a chiasm with the outer 2 being among the members of the body of Christ and the inner 2 being from believers to God. Just as speaking or singing to one another with psalms and hymns is a mutual activity, so is submitting a mutual activity; Paul is giving us a hint on his intentions for those that see the structure.

    Also, Eph 5:22ff is a 1st century application of the Kingdom principle of mutual submission, we know this as today in the West we do not have slaves. As the slavery verses were so misused by slaveowners, we need to be extra careful in our interpretation of this passage, and Grudem fails the test.

  2. Grudem doesn’t like how he is asked to submit to others, because of his own definition of the word. Submit is always to authority.

    He looks to himself as authority, and having to be asked to step down off that ‘role’ is completely baffling to him. Sadly, he doesn’t look to others in the bible that were in ‘authority’ for his example. Take the example of the Zacchaeus that felt so convicted of his own behavior towards others that he gave back 4x the amount he took for them.

    Grudem might say he never stole, or short changed others as Zacchaeus did. He will miss the point.

    Zacchaeus was able to do what he did because of his power and authority…and other’s must submit to him as the tax collector. No doubt before Zacchaeus humbled himself once convicted his new ‘role’ would have been baffling to him as well prior to being convicted. I mean WHY would he submit to anyone when they know they must submit to him?

    I will never understand WHY he doesn’t see his definition of submission as some power perch. His teachings, attitude, and how he wishes others to live it out is just that. He can only view submission from his position of the power perch, and how others are to submit to him…being the authority, and royal teacher of the ‘biblical’ ways.

    Jesus doesn’t ask us to serve others from our power perch, because we as humans couldn’t do this with the proper attitude that is also called for. We couldn’t possibly look to others better than ourselves upon that power perch. No, it wouldn’t have a ‘force’ that he sees when others have to submit to him.

    God never asks others to grab on to it (authority, position, force, leadership, headship, etc), hold tightly, and not let go of their ‘top dude in charge’ status right? His authority and force is his service to others. Yet, Jesus said the opposite:

    45 While all the people were listening, Jesus said to his disciples, 46 “Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. 47 They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely.”

  3. Marg says:

    Thanks Don. Good information. It seems so odd for someone of Grudem’s stature to want to interpret a verse in isolation of the text.

    Hannah, I believe that Grudem is softening his stance. I sure hope so. It seems to me that his view doesn’t reflect the teachings or heart of Jesus. I hope all of us are open to learn and grow, and become more like our Saviour.

  4. NorrinRadd says:

    Footnote 9 was especially interesting. *thumbsup*

    I concur that 5:21 must necessarily be considered when interpreting the household codes. However, a recent realization of which I am becoming increasingly convinced is that we should also backtrack the “therefore” and “so” statements. That gives the distinct impression that the “unity” and “mutuality” teachings of Chapter 4, while not “part of” the pericope in ch.5-6, nevertheless lay some interpretive groundwork.

  5. Marg says:

    Thanks for the thumbsup, NorrinRadd.

    I agree about tracking back. The immediate context is very important. In fact the whole letter, and even the whole canon of scripture, should inform our interpretation of any single verse in the Bible.

  6. […] The NLT translators correctly see that submission is required of husbands too: Mutual submission, one to the other, is the ideal. They have made some interesting choices of wording in this passage, however, which makes it sound as though mutual submission is just for husbands and wives. Rather, it is for all Spirit-guided relationships, that is, mutual submission should be a feature of the relationships between all Christians. […]

  7. Grateful says:

    Thank you! This was a relief to read. As a woman, I am baffled how two verses in the Bible are so frequently used to exclude, diminish and devalue women. I frequently feel unsafe in the church because of this. But God’s love and His urging to submit one to another in love is something I am convinced of, because I’ve experienced it. It’s freeing, life giving, safe and loving. Not to mention compelling and a love that you want to be around.

  8. […] **This morning I noticed that Marg at New Life shared an older post of hers on submission. Check out her worthwhile and explanatory post on mutual submission: Mutual Submission is not a Myth. […]

  9. […] A critique of Wayne Grudem’s essay The Myth of Mutual Submission is here. […]

  10. […] Mutual Submission is not a Myth […]

  11. […] Mutual Submission is not a Myth […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

© 2009–2016   Margaret Mowczko | Powered by WordPress

More in Equality and Gender Issues, Equality in Marriage
Mutual Submission in Clement’s First Letter

In this post I show how Clement used the word kephalē (head) in his letter, in the context of mutual submission, and I...

Close