The following is the second post in our Blog Conference on Women and Ministry during which we’ll be hosting posts written by people from a range of viewpoints with the opportunity for you to interact with the material and discuss the implications for the Church and the gospel. You can read more about the conference by clicking here. In the following, Dave Woolcott addresses the question of submission between Christians and its implication for the gender discussion from this perspective.
There are a number of terms that are used in the gender debate that cause confusion. When we consider Ephesians 5, ‘submission’ is one such term. In this post I hope to respond to an article written by Wayne Grudem. Grudem recognises Ephesians 5:21 as important in how we understand the verses that follow, especially concerning wives submitting to their husbands. I hope to demonstrate how the concept of submission in Ephesians 5:21 is mutual, and that it is therefore in the context of mutual submission that Paul speaks to husbands and wives. I also hope to challenge us briefly in regards to the “type” of submission Jesus demonstrates.
Grudem, in his article “The Myth of Mutual Submission” claims that Paul’s statement in Ephesians 5:21, “Submit yourselves to one another because of your reverence for Christ” should be more accurately translated as “be subject some to others”. Grudem states that Ephesians 5:21 is not about “the ideas of mutual considerateness, thoughtfulness, and love”. He goes on to say, “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.”
One reason for Grudem holding this view is because he claims, “there is no hard evidence to show that any first-century Greek speaker would have understood it [hypotasso] that way, for the term always implies a relationship of submission to an authority.” Grudem therefore asks the question, “Why should we give hypotassō a meaning in Ephesians 5:21 which it is nowhere else shown to have? But if hypotassō always means “be subject to an authority,” then it is certainly a misunderstanding of Ephesians 5:21 to say it implies “mutual submission.”
Grudem has made this claim about the meaning of hypotasso in first-century Greek before, and this claim has been refuted by a number of people, including Suzanne McCarthy and Cheryl Schatz as outlined here, and so I will not deal with it again. Grudem, however, is not just concerned about how the term is used in first-century Greek literature, but also in the NT. He outlines the following:
“Look at how this word is used elsewhere in the New Testament:
Wanye Grudem
*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 (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 problem with Grudem’s thinking is that some of these relationships can be “reversed”.
*Jesus is not always subject to the authority of his parents (Luke 2:41-50, Mark 3:31-35, John 19:26)
*The demons are not always subject to the disciples (Mark 9:18)
*Citizens are not always subject to governing authorities (Acts 5:40-42)
*Christ submits to the needs of the universe (John 3:16, 13:3-5)
*Christ subjected himself to spiritual powers (Luke 4:1-13)
*Church members are not always subject to church leaders (1 Corinthians 16:15-16, 1 Peter 5:5)
*Wives are not always subject to their husbands (1 Corinthians 7:4)
*Jesus has submitted to the needs of the church (Ephesians 5:23)
*Masters choose to be subject to the needs of their slaves (Ephesians 6:9)
*God chooses to subject himself to the needs of his people (Hebrews 12:5-6)
Grudem next claims that the context of Ephesians 5 rules out “mutual submission”. This claim is made because, “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).” “Yet this argument only holds if verse 21 does not say, “Submit yourselves to one another”, a claim the Grudem is yet to back up! The context of the passage is mutual submission. For example, parents are told to live out their Christian duty to their children (6:4), just as their children are told to live out their Christian duty to their parents (6:1-3). That Christian duty, the context would suggest, it to submit to one another. We see the same in Paul’s instructions to slaves and their masters. Again, 6:5-8 is all about how slaves should submit to their masters, but he then says to masters in 6:9, “Masters, behave in the same way toward your slaves…” Although Grudem tries to deny it, the context does suggest mutual submission and submission to those who are not in authority over you, as well as to those who are.
Grudem claims that this, “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.” Yet mutual submission is not new, nor is it due to ‘feminist’ pressure in our culture. More than 400 years ago, Calvin in his commentary on Ephesians 5:21 wrote, “God has bound us strongly to each other, that no man ought to avoid subjection; and where love reigns, mutual services will be rendered”. Calvin helps us to make the link between Paul’s exhortation for us all to submit to one another with the new commandment that Jesus has given all his disciples, to love one another – “where love reigns, mutual services will be rendered!” The two are linked, which relates to Grudem’s next claim, 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”?“ Yet Paul does give the equivalent command to the husbands when he exhorts them to love their wives, just as Christ has loved the church (not to mention Ephesians 5:21!).
Grudem’s final argument takes us back to where we began; that “mutual submission” is not really about “mutual” submission. Grudem says that “one another” does not mean “everyone to everyone”, as some interpreters claim, in every verse it is used in. Grudem gives several examples of where “one another” does not mean “everyone to everyone”. Grudem’s claim that it does not mean this in every verse does not prove that Ephesians 5 is one such example, and none of Grudem’s examples offered are very compelling. To deal with just one example, he says, “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.”” I believe that in Grudem’s re-translation of this verse he distorts the meaning completely.
Firstly, the exhortation for us all to bear one another’s burdens means that no matter who has a burden, we are all exhorted to help. Secondly, Grudem has imported information into the verse – that the exhortation is only aimed at the more able, and that the less able are excused. If Paul had wanted to state this he could have, but he did not. Thirdly, Grudem neglects the remainder of the verse that says, “and in this way you will obey the law of Christ.” Does this mean only the more able can obey the law of Christ? Does it mean only the more able can love others? Of course not! Paul recognises that God equips us all to bear one another’s burdens (Col 1:11-12, 2 Tim 1:7).
I believe Grudem has confused submission with subordination. Here you can find an example of Grudem interchanging the words “submission” and “subordination” at will. Here, at the CBMW website (which Grudem is heavily involved in) you will find a large number of articles that confuse submission and subordination and use the terms interchangeably. In the original language, hypotasso means to “yield”, “submit” or “make yourself subject to”. It is about an act of will by the person submitting that has nothing to do with status or hierarchy, authority or power. Submission can be done to those who are or are not in authority over you, it can be done to “one another”. Subordination, however, has little to do with choice. It has everything to do with order, hierarchy, power and authority. It cannot be reversed (unless there is a shift of power), and it cannot be done to “one another” (as one person “A” cannot be below person “B”, while person “B” is below “A”). If Paul had said in Ephesian 5:21, “Be subordinate to one another”, I would agree with some of Grudem’s points, but this is not what Paul said.
Subordination is dictated by order, not choice, submission is all about choice with order not being relevant. The idea that men and women are “equal but different” is true, we are different, but we can only be equal if subordination is not a part of God’s design. On the other hand, submission allows us to be equal and different!
I believe that Calvin is right to connect submission to love. After all, it is love that led our Saviour to the cross, an act of willing submission to the Father, and a desire to bear our burdens for us (Romans 5:8). Paul, in Philippians 2:1-11 makes this connection. To understand submission in Ephesians 5:21-33 is to understand it as the outworking of love. It is about placing oneself below another, not due to a system of hierarchy, but due to the example given to us by Jesus (Mark 10:41-45). It is done freely and willingly, not because the person deserves it, or because they are entitled to it, but because of God’s love being perfected in us.
Dave Woolcott is the pastor at Ryde Presbyterian Church. Read more about our contributors here.
>> Next post on September 6th – John McClean on How men and women can work together in Church.
Related posts:
- Is There Mutual Submission in Ephesians?
- Female Teaching – Blog Conference Post #6
- 1 Timothy 2:11-15 – Universal sin or an Ephesian situation? – Blog Conference Post #4
- Final Thoughts for the Continuing Discussion – Blog Conference Post #7
- Women and Men: Equal but sometimes Different – Blog Conference Post #5
A while after I posted that, I did thought there’s something inappropriate in there. Would the Admin kindly moderate my post with some editing, please?
The pericope is from Eph 5:15 to Eph 6:9.
Here is another reason why mutual submission is being discussed in Eph 5:21. See the chiasm in Eph 5:18c to 5:22.
A4 but be filled by the Spirit,
B4 speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,
C4 singing and praising in your heart to the Lord,
C4′ giving thanks always for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
to God the Father,
B4′ submitting to one another in the fear of Messiah;
A4′ wives, [submitting to one another] to your own husbands as to the Lord.
The letters and numbers indicate a chiasm and B4 is paired with B4′; this is important because JUST as speaking in psalms is everyone to everyone so is submitting, contra Grudem.
This means the verb to be brought down into Eph 5:22 (by the verbs omission) is also mutual in effect.
Thanks for the input Don. I did read this somewhere else the other day (after I had written the post!).
What do you mean exactly by, “This means the verb to be brought down into Eph 5:22 (by the verbs omission) is also mutual in effect”?
My translation of Eph 5:21-22 … mutually submitting in the fear of Messiah; wives (mutually submitting) to your husbands as to the Lord.
The parentheses indicate that the verb is missing in the best manuscripts, as shown by UBS 4 Greek text. According to the rules of Greek grammar, this means you get the verb from the preceding clause. However, the verb in the earlier clause is “mutually submitting” as it has been carefully crafted by Paul. When the Bible refines or defines a word, we should use that refinement or definition. This is yet another reason to reject Grudem’s claims, as the Bible trumps other Greek usage.
Note that this also refutes the non-egal claim that the husband is never explictly told to submit to his wife; Eph 5:22 does that when translated appropriately, according to the refinement Paul made in Eph 5:21.
Note that this also tightly couples Eph 5:22 to Eph 5:21, so there is NO Biblical warrant to begin a new paragraph with Eph 5:22 as some Bibles do. This is also a clue that the pericope begins earlier, in Eph 5:15.
The order of addressing subjects is also a clue for those with an ear to hear, as it is wife, husband, children, parents, slaves, masters; which is the opposite ordering that would have been “normal” in Greco-Roman culture.
Furthermore, this pericope is one of Paul’s glosses on Aristotle’s Household codes as the 6 types of people exactly match. But the contrast with Aristotle is shocking.
Thanks Don!
I’m lost back here Dave at the mutual sumbission idea and I want to understand it properly before I move on to the other posts. (Although I have already read them!)
3 questions seeking to understand
1. Can you have mutual submission in an ordered relationship – eg that wives submit to husbands becuase they are the head of the marriage, but husbands may submit to wives in some circumstances? Or is this not mutual submission as you understand it?
2. ie, Does mutual submission for wives/husbands, infer no order (hierarchy) in the relationship? Or is mutial submission as you understand it still possible in an ordered relationship?
3. The slaves/masters – from your position – is it different because there is an order, and so slaves are to submit to masters in an unmutual way? Or is this still mutual submission?
Wayne
Re Grudem:
In terms of your interaction with Grudem, you list the ‘submission’ relationships e.g. Jesus to his parents,
but then say these are sometimes reveresed.
e.g. Jesus parent’s submit to him.
Isn’t this simply because when other relationships come into play the higher authority takes precedence over the first?
eg Jesus parents are responsible to lead him but Jesus submission to his heavenly father will mean possibly at times not obeying them.
So the second list of ‘reversed relationships’ that you give are not a list of ‘reveresed relationships’ at all, but a list of some ways that a person or thing under authority may at times need to disobey that authority to obey God.
Hi Wayne! Thanks for trying to understand me…I know I am not always clear!
1 – You can have mutual submission in any relationship.
There are falsely imposed forms of hierarchy (e.g. slavery). No example of hierarchy has anything to do with submission. I think we need to understand this distinction. Paul, I believe in Ephesians 5, is telling us that no matter what the relationship (with or without hierarchy/subordination) there is room for mutual submission.
2 – Mutual submission for husbands and wives makes no comment on hierarchy.
Socially, as most commentators will recognise, in Eph 5 Paul is speaking to people who believe there was hierarchy in marriage. Paul is actually asking husbands/wives, parent/children and slaves/masters to submit to one another even if society is dictating that their relationships are relationships of hierarchy.
3 – Paul is telling slaves and master to submit in a mutual way.
After all, he tells master to act towards their slaves in the same way as slaves to their masters. Perhaps if I can explain it this way…
Society said slavery was ok.
Paul did not argue with society, he undermined the very essence of slavery by saying masters and slaves should submit to each other.
You also ask in relation to Grudem, “Isn’t this simply because when other relationships come into play the higher authority takes precedence over the first?”
Perhaps sometimes if there is indeed a “higher authority”, but at other times it is because one chooses to submit, such as God choosing to serve his people, or Jesus choosing to humble himself to death on a cross.
You also said, “So the second list of ‘reversed relationships’ that you give are not a list of ‘reveresed relationships’ at all, but a list of some ways that a person or thing under authority may at times need to disobey that authority to obey God.”
Grudem was the one who used the term “reverse” and his point was that whenever the term hypotasso is used it is in regard to submitting to an authority where the “authority”, or “hierarchy” cannot be reversed. I am simply saying that is can be reversed, because the Gospel empowers us to reverse it! Jesus (the one whom we follow) did this. He chose to set aside his position (“…of his own free will he gave up all he had, and took the nature of a servant…he was humble and walked the path of obedience all the way to death – his death on the cross” Phil 2:7-8).
I think we need to understand submission in Ephesians 5 as the outworking of love. Love is not dictated to by hierarchy, authority or power. It does not show favour because of performance or position. Love simply wants what is best for the other. God loved us so much that even while we were sinners he sent Jesus to die for us.
I think it ironic that Grudem wanted to go to Galatians 6:2 as an example of how one another does not mean one another. Paul is saying exactly the same thing there that he is in Ephesians – “Help to carry one another’s burdens, and in this way you will obey the law of Christ.” What is the law of Christ? To love one another. How is it lived out? By bearing one another’s burdens, dare I say, by submitting to each others needs?
I hope this is helpful an clear Wayne…!
Wayne,
I think the point of Dave’s article was that hierarchy is invalid to submission. It is not something I have noticed has been thought about very much so it may seem odd at first reading.
I would like to add that in this context we do not need to analyse relationships on an order basis because submission does not equate with obedience of worldly authority. Rather it is something we do out of reverence for Christ Eph 5:21.
Submission is what we choose to do out of love to anyone whom it might benefit as a response to the love that Christ has placed in our hearts.
Of course it is not always in a persons best interest for us to submit and this may be the case whether someone is in authority over us or under us.
So I think the operative words for submission in Christ are *choose* and *love*.
It is interesting that Jesus said **if you love me you will obey my command** John14:15.
What is his command? To love God and others! Matthew 22:37-40.
Every time that we submit to others in the context of Ephesians 5:21 we are obeying the greatest commandments which all the law and the prophets hang on!
Everytime that we don’t submit eg to selfish/destructive desires that would not be out of reverence to Christ – then we are obeying the greatest commandment.
Whichever we are always in this way submitting to the needs (not necessarily wants) of the other, and the will of God.
Surely as spirit-filled believers this mutual submission can be in all our relationships.
[Dave]: “You can have mutual submission in any relationship
I concur with this. To me, ‘submission’ comes from humility, humbleness.
Thanks Dave I get it now. I’m not sure that I agree, it’s a redefining of a word I have used in a certain way so I’ll give it some research and thought.
No worries Wayne, I am glad I could clarify. I assume the word that you are referring to is “submission”? From my research I did not feel I was redefining the word, rather, using it according to its original meaning! Let me know if your research suggests some thing different, I would love t be challenged about my understanding if I am incorrect!
Dave
Dave
I feel that you contradict youself
“In the original language, hypotasso means to “yield”, “submit” or “make yourself subject to”. It is about an act of will by the person submitting that has nothing to do with status or hierarchy, authority or power. Submission can be done to those who are or are not in authority over you, it can be done to “one another”.
I agree that submission can be done to anyone and is an act of the will. The husband has no right to demand submission from his wife. However if one ‘makes themself subject to’ somebody else, does that not automatically give them authority?
And if submission has no authority, why is the church told to submit to Christ. Surely Christ has authority over the church…over us? Or perhaps we are equal with Christ in every way as your exposition of submission suggests. Maybe Christ has no right to demand submission from us?
I feel you mix ‘submission’ and ‘love’ into the same thing. They are correlated but not the same.
“And if submission has no authority, why is the church told to submit to Christ. Surely Christ has authority over the church…over us? Or perhaps we are equal with Christ in every way as your exposition of submission suggests. Maybe Christ has no right to demand submission from us?”
gab, We cannot ignore that there is Eph 5:21. It is there and applies to all believers. No one is excluded as Grudem claims.
However, the big problem comes when we start mapping humans to God and Jesus Christ.
Male humans are not God or Jesus Christ. It is a metaphor that is taken to extremes to map such things. All believers are fallen creatures saved by grace. No one is more ‘saved’ than another or given special anointing to put them in a special Christian caste system. All believers have anointing (1 John) and are given gifts to edify the Body by the Holy Spirit.
This authority you claim in humans negates quite a bit of other scripture that is quite clear: All the one antohers, not lording it over, the first will be last, being a servant, etc. That sort of ‘non authority’ is not so glamorous but it is what we are called to do.
Submission to one another should bring more submission, humility and love in God’s economy.
Thanks for the comments Gab. It is great to be challenged and stretched!
I do not believe that being subject to someone means you come under their authority when “subject to” is being used to translate hypotasso. This is because submitting is choosing to live for the needs of another person. That person might tell you to vacuum their house for them, but this might not be the best thing to do for them. Allowing someone to “lord it over” you is not the most loving thing to do for someone else!
Because submission is an act of will it does not give someone authority over you. I might choose to submit to my brother in Christ who needs to borrow my car in an emergency. How does this give him any authority over me? It is my car, I can have it back when I want, it does not mean that he can use it when he chooses.
I do not believe my post suggested that we are equal with Christ. I believe I said that we should be following Christ’s example and trying to become like him. Christ has every right to treat us as subordinate to him, but it would appear that Christ came as a servant and he chose to submit to our needs. I think this was the message in the foot washing thing, and then of course his death on the cross. He spoke about being the one who had come, not to sit at the table but to serve, he talked about the first being last and the last first. I think he saw himself therefore as the very last, which is why the Gospel is so amazing!
Finally, I have been careful not to mix submission and love too closely. I believe Amy made a comment where she tied the two together more tightly than I have. I think she was trying to illustrate to Wayne the link, and I do not disagree with what she was saying. I have meaintained that submission is an outworking of love, I would say that it is love being lived out. If you wanted to challenge me further about that please do, but I agree with you, they are not the same. You can submit out of compulsion, emotional manipulation, guilt or other reasons that are not love at all.
Dave
A note on hupotasso: it is in the passive voice and therefore means “to be attached to, to be a support of”, as in supporting documentation for a legal claim (see article here, esp. the reply “J. K. Gayle, February 18, 2009 at 1:09 “). It certainly does not mean “to obey an authority”.
Thanks Paula.
I might add that Paul is also talking about submitting “out of reverence for Christ” in Eph 5:21, and in this context submission is tied even more closely to love. When we do something out of reverence for Christ we are not doing it out of guilt or other motives devoid of love.
This also implies, Gab, that Christ is somewhat different to us. He is the one who humbled himself to death on a cross, and he is also the one that has been since lifted up by the Father (Phil 2:8-9).
Gab,
You said:
“The husband has no right to demand submission from his wife. However if one ‘makes themself subject to’ somebody else, does that not automatically give them authority?”
I think the fact that the person has made themselves subject to another is the key here. It does not automatically give a person authority – authority implies an obligation rather than a free choice.
When Jesus washed the disciples feet he did not place himself under their authority but willingly humbled himself/ made himself subject to them by doing what was a servant’s role. He had no obligation to do this.
I would suggest he did this out of love and by submitting out of reverence for Christ we are following His example.
Dave,
It is true that submission generally is not always out of love, however in the context of Eph 5:21 I think it is.
I will stress that I do not think submission and love are the same thing. I do think that submission out of reverence for Christ is motivated by love. My previous commment was all in the context of submission in Christ. I can see that it would have been helpful if I had stressed that point further.
Paula
I think your point about hypotasso being to attach to very applicable. As we submit to one another in an Ephesians 5 context we are connecting the body – and isn’t the theme of the letter to the Ephesians unity of the body in Christ?
I agree, Amy, the theme of Ephesians is about unity. I wrote a short document about how it explains the way Christians are to relate to each other. And of course there is the larger context of Paul’s writings, wherein he lists women right there with men when he commends people for exemplary service, and never gives out lists of spiritual gifts in “pink” and “blue”.
Following Eph 5:21 are 6 examples of how the mutual submission is supposed to work in the household. It can be seen that the Greek for the rest of the pericope are examples of the Eph 5:21 principle, see the Transline NT, for example.
In the 3 cases of the “unders” according to society, submission is not too surprising, what IS surprising is that husbands, parents and masters are also to submit, altho in different ways. This flattens any hierarchy that society may assume when fully realized.
I’m glad to see that others joined in! What can I possibly add? I’ll see if I can find somehting to disagree with just for fun?! ;P
Kathy – I was just thinking how we had missed you lately…and in th elight of your most recent comment I can see why we have missed you so much
It seems that people have a very negetive view of ‘authority’. I do not see authority to always assume hierarchy (hence why i dismiss the Anglican system). in fact it makes sense to me that someone in authority will ‘lead’ by example by being a servant, as Jesus did. This though does not negate their authority. Therefore i don’t see why it is hard for a woman to submit to her husband, when he loves her as Christ loves the Church. So to a degree there is a ‘mutual’aspect to the relationship, because the husband will WANT to serve his wife, not Lord it over her. However, it does not reduce his authority or leadership in my eyes.
It seems that egals see authority as negetive because so often it is- because we live in a sinful world. However i don’t see a ‘mutual’ submission as an answer to this problem. Please correct me if i see the egal position wrongly.
I am egal and accept authority, but it needs to be from God and not a tradition of man. And submission is NOT the same as obedience, see Daniel, who was always submissive to the king, but did not always obey the king.
The only time authority is mentioned in marriage is in 1 Cor 7 and it is explicitly mutual in that example. Paul deliberately makes many symmetries and this symmetrical structure is also supposed to tell us something.
No, it’s a matter of principle. If one adult has authority over another for life, that other is being treated like a child, and the one in authority is spoiled by having “final say” in any dispute. We might as well ask why any slave would find it difficult to submit to a kind master. It is the fact of slavery, not the manner, that makes it wrong. Likewise, the permanent treatment of an adult as a child is wrong, regardless of how benevolent the “adult” may be.
And there is nothing mutual about hierarchy. Authority is not a type of submission.
Ah schucks thanks, Dave! I’m still searching for something to disagree with lol!
And describing what submission is and is not by showing free will and choice I think takes the prize! ;P
Dave:
Amy:
Either wives must submit to their husbands and also everyone to one another without choice or freedom of will and out of obligation to authority, or not. If no one MUST submit then who has authority? Nice and simple.
Hi again Gab! Great to have your continued interest and comments!
I am really glad that you can recognise the mutuality in the Ephesians passage (“i don’t see why it is hard for a woman to submit to her husband, when he loves her as Christ loves the Church. So to a degree there is a ‘mutual’aspect to the relationship, because the husband will WANT to serve his wife, not Lord it over her.”).
I do not think anyone who has posted/commented on this blog would deny the Lordship of Jesus, and his authority as the Lord of Lords. What is in question is the authority of one person over another simply because they are male or female. What is being explored is whether or not a man has “authority” simply because he is a husband.
I might add that I agree with Paula and her comments, but I am not sure if we are all on the same page as to what “authority” actually refers to. For some of us, depending how we define “authority”, no human being is in authority over another. For some, your boss at work is in authority over you, but I do not think that this is the type of “authority” being discussed.
Ephesians 5, however, does not deal with authority (though some version translate “head” as “having authority over”). I do believe though that Eph 5 gives a model as to how relationships are to be lived out in this sinful world, and that is through mutual submission out of reverence for Christ.
You suggest that mutual submission is not the answer to relationships in this sinful world. I was curious, do you have an idea of what a solution might look like if it is not mutual submission?
Arrh…I think your argument requires a fine tuning. It is not a matter of principle that someone should not be under the authority of another person for life.
Rather, it’s a matter of principle that someone under the authority of another person should have an opportunity to get out of that situation. For instance- A slave be given an opportunity to free himself through awareness and education. If for any weird reason a slave chooses to be a slave for life and won’t accept liberation, would you still consider that wrong in principle? I’d call the free choice, albeit a strange one.
But above all, what about the mentally disabled? I am not concerned that a mentally disabled adult is treated like a child for life. He/She is probably a child for life in a sense. What worry me is — How do we make sure a mentally-disabled person that we know will be loved and cared for like a child, for the rest of his life. It’s a real concern.
When I said “for life”, I thought it was clear that there was no opportunity for escape.
But yes, I should have added that the adults in question are of sound mind, another thing I simply assumed the reader would understand.
As for the slave, freedom cannot come through education or awareness, because even an escaped slave is still considered someone else’s property. Rather, freedom could only come if the owner so chose. And for Christians, we are expressly told not to enslave ourselves voluntarily (Rom. 8:15, 1 Cor. 7:21, Gal. 4:7, 5:1). So the Christian woman is forbidden to make herself the property of her husband in any way.
Likewise, she must not be treated as a child, who must obey the rules of another adult simply because they are children. If the reason for the treatment is intrinsic, that is, due to a quality of being, it is NOT a “role”. So the wife who has rules made for her by her husband, simply because he is male and she is female, is not playing a role but being treated as an inferior being.
So when someone decrees (CBMW for example) that a woman must “joyfully” choose this treatment, they are not only violating scripture but encouraging women to follow Eve in her choice to “turn to her husband” instead of staying “in the garden” with direct access to God. That willingness to follow a man instead of God is Eve’s legacy, as opposed to inherited deceivableness.
IMHO, to teach hierarchy in the Body is to teach division in the Body, and we all know what scripture tells us about a divisive person.
Dave, just had a another read through your article
When you rebuttle Grudem on the reversal of roles, are your examples based around the same Greek word. I thought the point of Grudems list was to show that the use of ‘hypotasso’ in the NT is consistent with the Ephesians passage.
I’m just wondering with your reversals you have tried to prove that the relationships and thus ‘submission’ can be mutual or reversed, but have seemed to ignore the premise of what hypostasso actually means. So therefore does hypostasso have a mutual submission meaning anywhere in scripture?
You talked about the relationships being reversed but are any of your references based around hypostasso? If they are not (and i must admit i didn’t check every reference, but a few) how can you claim that this passage deals with mutual submission. Is that not reading a meaning into a greek inspired word that is not there anywhere else in the New Testament.
Some great questions Gab! With regards to the reversal of roles, let me explain what I was doing. Grudem was claiming that hypotasso meant a certain thing (submission to an authority) by claiming that it was used only in relationships that had authority – that could not be reversed. I, to show he was incorrect, demonstrated how the relationships could be reversed. I have not claimed that my examples all use the word hypotasso, as this was not my purpose. My purpose was to demonstrate that his statement that these relationships could not be reversed was false. As it happens, if you look at the examples I give, some do use hypotasso, and some are even the same verses that Grudem used, because I believe that his understanding of the passage was wrong.
This all linked back to Eph 5 because Grudem was claiming that hypotasso is only ever used in relationships where there is an authority that is being “submitted” to, because it is only used in terms of relationship that operate one way. I have shown that this thinking is fundamentally flawed.
I hope this helps!
Dave
Thanks Dave,
I haven’t read Grudem’s article so im shooting blind. BUt you are claiming that in it he saids, that all those relationships are NEVER reversed-this right?
I thought the point was, that hypotasso only has one meaning in the context of the NT and as such it would be the same in Ephesians. But i will go read his article to look at it closer. Thanks
Would you agree that where hypotasso is used in the NT is denotes authority apart from Eph which you obviously have a different opinion
Ok i have read the article!!!
If hypostasso does indeed mean ‘subject to’ i think your argument fails Dave, sorry.
Jesus’ parents are never hypostasso to Him
The disciples couldn’t cast the demon out in that text but still, the disciples are never hypostasso to the demons
Government authorities are never hypostasso to the people. The same could be said with all you references.
Therefore Grudem is correct when he states that the roles are never reversed. They vary sure, but are never reversed. I think Grudem sums up nicely about how it pans out ”
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.”
Therefore your second argument is false also because hypostasso can not mean what you imply it to mean. Both children and slaves are told to ‘obey’ not submit (different Greek word which Grudem points out)automatically disqualifying ‘mutual’ submission. There submission is authoritative. Notice the wife/husband is not the same as these. You tried to show how ‘submit’ and ‘love’ are linked. Indeed i agree they are, but their meanings are very different. If Paul wanted men to hypostasso to women why didn’t he say it. To claim that ‘love’ is exactly the same as hypostasso is false which i see as the premise of your argument.
Your third point was to show that Grudem distorts the use ‘allelous’. Hypothetically even if he has (although i think he hasn’t) the point he was making was that ‘allelous’ IS a greek word that is used in different contexts to show different meanings, therefore it could have various meaning in Eph 5:21.
The egal position sits on the ‘one another’ in this passage. Clearly with the Greek there is ambiguity in this word so you should not claim that it means one soul thing. It could mean either what you claim or what Grudem claims. Not solely one or the other, so when interpreting its meaning one must look at its context. You based the context on that word, rather than placing that word in the context which i think is bad when a word has several possible meanings.
Therefore the greek text, the context and the wider biblical picture agree with Grudem.
You concluded by linking ‘submission’ and ‘love’ again. I think this shows that there actually is no scriptual basis for the ‘mutual’ submission in this passage only weak analogies.
Hi again Gab!
1 – In my opinion hypatasso does not denote authority in any passage of scripture, including Eph 5.
2 – “You said, “Jesus’ parents are never hypostasso to Him
The disciples couldn’t cast the demon out in that text but still, the disciples are never hypostasso to the demons
Government authorities are never hypostasso to the people. The same could be said with all you references.”
Not sure if you read my previois comment. I never said that hypotasso was the word used in all these examples, but as I said at the other post where we are currently conversing, there are more words than hypotasso that can be used to demonstrate the same concept.
I thought at every election governments were subject to the people. I though during civil unrest where there is a revolution governments become subject to the people, and during referendums etc.
Jesus did not stay a “mummies boy” forever, and now as the prince of peace, I believe both Mary and Joseph are subject to Jesus. Don’t you?
Grudem is not correct when he says the roles are never reversed. Even the role of Christ submitting to the Father is reversed, when the Father gives everything to Jesus, who then gives it back to the Father so that God can be all in all. Sounds mutual!
3 – Now, with regards to children and slaves “obeying”, not “submitting”, is not the same concept being articulated?
You say, “Both children and slaves are told to ‘obey’ not submit (different Greek word which Grudem points out)automatically disqualifying ‘mutual’ submission. There submission is authoritative”. I am confused by this. If the word is “obey” and you want to make something of the difference, how does this make submission authoritative? It should be noted that obedience does not equal authority. I can obey my 8yo daughter when she asks me to do something. Obedience is also a choice, and also a state of the heart, not simply outward conformity i.e. submission!!
4 – You said, “If Paul wanted men to hypostasso to women why didn’t he say it. To claim that ‘love’ is exactly the same as hypostasso is false which i see as the premise of your argument.”
First up – Ephesians 5:21 – Paul did say it (not sure how many times we have to go over that!), and secondly, I never said that love was exactly the same as hypotasso. Please stop saying I have said things I have not said!
5 – You said, “You based the context on that word, rather than placing that word in the context which i think is bad when a word has several possible meanings.”
Did I? Actually I looked at the context and the word. I only chose one example of Grudem’s from the article (the Galatians 6 example) to refute in my post. I am happy to look at all of them if you like. He certainly made a false assumption about one another in the Galatians 6 passage which showed him rip the verse from its context so as to prove a point. I think Grudem is a long way from proving his point on the meaning of “one another”. All that said and done I acknowledged in my article that he has not proved it does not mean “everyone to everyone” in Ephesians. Has he?
6 – You finished by saying, “You concluded by linking ’submission’ and ‘love’ again. I think this shows that there actually is no scriptual basis for the ‘mutual’ submission in this passage only weak analogies.”
How does it show this? Do you not agree with Calvin? Do you not think submission is love being lived out? I thought you agreed with Cheryl on the other post. Have you now changed your mind? Is not being loving being Christlike?