THE MYTH OF MUTUAL SUBMISSION
This article was posted by our ministry
because its content is vitally needed today,
and because we appreciate the work of CBMW, especially that of
Dr. Grudem.
Please note, however, that Wayne is not associated with Biblical
Family Soulcare.
[Please be sure to see the list of CBMW members included below
. . .]
THE MYTH OF by Wayne Grudem, Ph.D.
Dr. Grudem holds degrees from Harvard, Westminster
Theological Seminary, and Cambridge University.
Prof. of Biblical and Systematic Theology
Trinity International University, Deerfield, IL
The Council on
Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
847-573-8210, office@cbmw.org,
http://www.cbmw.org
P.O. Box 7337 Libertyville, IL 60048
Dr. Grudem has served as president of the Evangelical Theological Society and as president and co-founder of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. He is a member of the Translation Oversight Committee for the English Standard Version of the Bible. He has written over sixty articles in both popular and academic journals. He has published Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, and The First Epistle of Peter (TNTC); coedited Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism; and edited Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?: Four Views.
How do egalitarians avoid the force of Ephesians 5:22, Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord ? Easy: they just look at verse 21, which says, Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. Then they say, Of course wives are to be subject to their husbands, but husbands are also to be subject to their wives.
The result is what they call mutual submission, and in their view that means that there is no unique authority or leadership role for the husband in a marriage. They redefine 'submission to mean something like considerateness, thoughtfulness, an attitude of love toward one another, putting the other person's interests above your own.
Of course no one can object to the ideas of mutual considerateness,
thoughtfulness, and love! These are clearly taught in the New
Testament. But are these ideas what this verse, Ephesians 5:21,
really means? I do not think so. In fact, 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. It
can be advocated only by failing to appreciate the precise meanings
of the Greek words for be subject to and one another. Once these
terms are understood correctly, I think the idea of mutual submission
in marriage will be seen to be a myth without foundation in Scripture
at all.
1. The meaning of be subject to -
The first reason I think some to others is a better understanding
of Ephesians 5:21 is the meaning of the Greek word hypotasso (
be subject to, submit to ). Although some have claimed that the
word 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.
Look at how this word is used elsewhere in the New Testament:
Jesus is subject to the authority of his parents (Luke 2:51)demons
are subject to the disciples (Luke 10:17: clearly the meaning
act in love, be considerate cannot fit here!)citizens are to be
subject to government authorities (Rom. 13:1,5; Tit. 3:1, 1 Pet.
2:13)the universe is subject to Christ (1 Cor. 15:27; Eph. 1:22)unseen
spiritual powers are subject to Christ (1 Pet. 3:22)Christ is
subject to God the Father (1 Cor. 15:28)church members are to
be subject to church leaders (1 Cor. 16:15-16 [cf. 1 Clement 42:4];
1 Pet. 5:5)wives are to be subject to their husbands (Col. 3:18;
Tit. 2:5; 1 Pet. 3:5; compare Eph. 5:22,24)the church is subject
to Christ (Eph. 5:24)servants are to be subject to their masters
(Tit. 2:9; 1 Pet. 2:18)Christians are subject to God (Heb. 12:9;
Jas. 4:7)
Here is the point: None of these relationships are ever reversed. Husbands are never told to be subject (hypotasso) 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! In fact, the term hypotasso is used outside the NT to describe the submission and obedience of soldiers in an army to those of superior rank (see, for example, Josephus, War 2.566, 578; 5.309; compare the adverb in 1 Clement 37:2). The Liddell-Scott-Jones Lexicon even defines hypotasso [passive] to mean be obedient (p. 1897).
Of course, the exact form submission takes, the way it works out in practice, will vary greatly as it applies to soldiers, to children, to servants, to the church, and to wives. Within a healthy Christian marriage, there will be large elements of mutual consultation and seeking of wisdom, and most decisions will come by consensus between husband and wife.
For a wife to be submissive to her husband will probably not often involve obeying actual commands or directives (though it will sometimes include this), for a husband may rather give requests and seek advice and discussion about the course of action to be followed (compare Phlm. 8-9). This is probably why Paul used the broader term be subject to when speaking to wives, rather than the specific word obey (hypakouo) , which he used for children (6:1) and for servants (6:5).
Nevertheless, 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 and an acknowledgment of his final responsibility-after discussion has occurred, where possible-to make decisions affecting the whole family.
But in spite of all these different forms of submission, one thing remains constant in every use of the word: it is never mutual in its force; it is always one-directional in its reference to submission to an authority.
So my question is this: Why should we give hypotasso a meaning in Ephesians 5:21 which it is nowhere else shown to have? But if hypotasso always means be subject to an authority, then it is certainly a misunderstanding of Ephesians 5:21 to say it implies mutual submission.
2. The rest of the context
The mutual submission interpretation also fails to adequately
take account of the context. In Ephesians 5:22-24, wives are not
told to be subject to everyone else, or to all husbands, or to
other wives, or to their neighbors or children, for the Greek
text clearly specifies a restriction, Wives, be subject to your
own husbands (idiois andrasin). Therefore what Paul has in mind
is not a vague kind of mutual submission where everybody is considerate
and thoughtful to everybody else, but a specific kind of submission
to an authority: the wife is subject to the authority of her own
husband.
Similarly, parents and children aren't told to practice mutual submission, but children are to be subject to ( obey ) their parents (Eph. 6:1-3), and servants are told to be subject to ( obey ) their masters (Eph. 6:5-8). In each case, the person in authority is not told to be subject to the one under authority, but Paul wisely gives guidelines to regulate the use of authority by husbands (who are to love their wives, Eph. 5:25-33), by parents (who are not to provoke their children to anger, Eph. 6:4), and by masters (who are to give up threatening their servants and remember that they too serve Christ, Eph. 6:9). In no case is there mutual submission ; in each case there is submission to authority and regulated use of that authority.
This clear evidence in the context is why people didn't see mutual submission in Ephesians 5:21 until feminist pressures in our culture led people to look for a way to avoid the force of Ephesians 5:22, Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For centuries, no one thought mutual submission was there in Ephesians 5:21, for they recognized that the verse teaches that we should all be subject to those whom God has put in authority over us-such as husbands, parents, or employers. In this way, Ephesians 5:21 was rightly understood to mean, being subject to one another (that is, some to others), in the fear of Christ.
3. The absence of any command for husbands to submit to
wives:
There is one more fact that egalitarians cannot explain well when
they propose mutual submission as an understanding of this verse.
They fail to account for the fact that, while wives are several
times in the New Testament told to be subject to their husbands
(Eph. 5:22-24; Col. 3:18; Tit. 2:5; 1 Pet. 3:1-6), the situation
is never reversed: husbands are never told to be subject to their
wives. Why is this, if Paul wanted to teach mutual submission
?
The command that a husband should be subject to his wife would have been startling in an ancient male-dominated culture. Therefore, if the New Testament writers thought that Christian marriage required husbands to submit to their wives, they would have had to say that very clearly in their writings-otherwise, no early Christians would have ever known that that was what they should do! But nowhere do we find such a command. It is surprising that evangelical feminists can claim that the New Testament teaches this when it is nowhere explicitly stated.
4. The meaning of one another:
So what reason can people give to argue for the mutual submission
interpretation in Ephesians 5:21? Their argument is based on the
expression, one another (the Greek pronoun allelous ). Here interpreters
say that the pronoun must mean everyone to everyone (that is,
that it must be exhaustively reciprocal, which means that it refers
to something that every single person does to every single other
person). To support this view, they quote a number of verses where
allelous does take that sense: we are all to love one another
(John 13:34) and be servants of one another (Gal. 5:13).
But here is the crucial mistake: interpreters assume that because allelous means everyone to everyone in some verses, it must mean that in all verses. When they assume that, they simply have not done their homework-they have not checked out the way the word is used in many other contexts, where it doesn't mean everyone to everyone, but some to others.
For example, in Revelation 6:4, so that men should slay one another means so that some would kill others (not so that every person would kill every other person, or so that every persons being killed would 'mutually' kill those who were killing them, which would make no sense!). In Galatians 6:2, Bear one another's burdens means not everyone should exchange burdens with everyone else, but some who are more able should help bear the burdens of others who are less able. In 1 Corinthians 11:33, when you come together to eat, wait for one another means some who are ready early should wait for others who are late.
There are many other examples where the word simply cannot mean that everyone does something to everyone else, because the sense of the context simply won't allow that meaning (see Matt. 24:10; Luke 2:15; 12:1; 24:32; etc.). In these verses allelous means, some to others. (The KJV often translated these passages, one to another or one for another, as in 1 Corinthians 11:33, When ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. Following this pattern, the KJV translated Ephesians 5:21, submitting yourselves one to another. )
5. Conclusion:
What then does one another mean in Ephesians 5:21? It means some
to others, not everyone to everyone. The meaning of hypotasso
, which always indicates one-directional submission to an authority,
prevents the sense everyone to everyone in this verse. And the
following context (wives to husbands, children to parents, servants
to masters) shows this understanding to be true.
Therefore, it is not mutual submission, but submission to appropriate authorities, which Paul is commanding in Ephesians 5:21. The idea of mutual submission in this passage is just a myth-widely believed, perhaps, but still a myth.
Is this important? Just ask yourself how important the idea of submission to authority is in the New Testament. If hypotasso can be emptied of any idea of submission to authority, the New Testament's ability to speak to our lives will be significantly impeded. This egalitarian misunderstanding of Ephesians 5:21 carries with it a very large price.
Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
- Board of Reference includes:
John MacArthur Jr., D.D., President of The Master's College and
Seminary
Charles Kelley, Ph.D. President New Orleans Baptist Theological
Seminary
D. James, Kennedy, D.D., Ph.D., Pastor Coral Ridge Presbyterian
Church
R. Albert Mohler, Jr. Ph.D. President of Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary
J.I. Packer, Ph.D. Author, internationally recognized Biblical
scholar
Paige Patterson, Ph.D. President of the Southern Baptist Convention
(SBC),
and of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (SEBTS)
Dennis Rainey, President Family Life Ministries
Adrian Rogers, Pastor Bellevue Baptist Church, & past president
of the SBC
R.C. Sproul, Ph.D., Author, Apologetic Philosopher, Ligonier's
Ministries
CBMW Council Members:
Gleason Archer, Ph.D. Professor of Old Testament Trinity International
James Borland Th.D. Prof.'of New Testament and Theology Liberty
University
Jack Cottrell Ph.D. Professor of Theology Cincinnati Bible College
& Seminary
W Robert Godfrey, Ph.D. President, Westminster Theological Seminary
Escondido. CA
Daniel Heimbach, Ph.D. Professor of Christian Ethics Southeastern
Baptist Seminary
H. Wayne House, Ph.D. Academic Dean/Professor of Theology Michigan
Theol Seminary
R. Kent Hughes. D.Min. Senior Pastor College Church. Wheaten,
Illinois
S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. Th.D. Minister, Believers Chapel, Dallas.
TX
Rhonda H. Kelley, Ph.D. Associate Director, Innovative Evangelism
Andreas Kostenberger Ph.D. Associate Professor of New Testament
SEBTS
Connie Marshner Editor, Child & Family Protection Inst.
John Piper, Dr. Theol. Senior Pastor Bethlehem Baptist Church,
Minneapolis. MN
James Stahr, Th.M. Bible Teacher: Former editor. Interest magazine
Bruce A. Ware, Ph.D. Assoc, Prof of Biblical and Systematic Theol
Trinity International
Donald Balasa. J.D. Attorney, Wildwood Illinois
Austin Chapman. BA.. M.B.A. Vice Chairman. The Northland Corporation
Lane T. Dennis. Ph.D. President, Crossway Books Wheaten, IL
Wayne A. Grudem. Ph.D. Prof. of Biblical and Systematic Theology
Trinity International
H. Wayne House Academic Dean and Professor of Theol. Michigan
Theological Sem.
Elliott Johnson, Th.D., Prof of Bible Exposition Dallas Theological
Seminary. Dallas. TX
Mary Kassian. M.C.A.O.T. Author & Women's Ministry Consultant
George W. Knight, lit. ThD. Adjunct Professor. Greenville Presbyterian
Theological
Beverly LaHaye President, Concerned Women for America Washington.
DC
Dorothy Patterson, D.Min. Homemaker; Adjunct Faculty. Southeastern
Baptist Seminary
Thomas A, Schreiner. Ph.D. Associate Professor of New Testament
Bethel Theol Seminary
Larry Walker. Dr. Theol. Prof. of Old Testament Mid-America Seminary
William Weinrich, Ph.D. Prof. Prof. of Church History Concordia
Seminary