I need to get out of the habit of looking at the CBMW website…this is their latest at Gender Blog with my thoughts underneath…
Is There Mutual Submission in Ephesians?
Jeff Breeding
November 27, 2009Here’s the question – in Ephesians 5:21, Paul writes that Christians are to “submit to one another.” So, do complementarians hold to “mutual submission?” Piper and Grudem provide a helpful answer:
Yes, we do. But “the way Paul teaches” mutual submission is not the way everyone today teaches it. Everything depends on what you mean by “mutual submission.” Some of us put more stress on reciprocity here than others. But even if Paul means complete reciprocity (wives submit to husbands and husbands submit to wives), this does not mean that husbands and wives should submit to each other in the same way. The key is to remember that the relationship between Christ and the church is the pattern for the relationship between husband and wife. Are Christ and the church mutually submitted? They aren’t if submission means Christ yields to the authority of the church. But they are if submission means that Christ submitted Himself to suffering and death for the good of the church. That, however, is not how the church submits to Christ. The church submits to Christ by affirming His authority and following His lead. So mutual submission does not mean submitting to each other in the same ways. Therefore, mutual submission does not compromise Christ’s headship over the church and it should not compromise the headship of a godly husband.
What is interesting here is that there is some willingness to admit that “mutual submission” might mean “complete reciprocity”. What Grudem and Piper now claim is that husbands and wives do not submit to each other in the same way. This is very different to Grudems article that I responded to during our Blog Conference. In that article he claimed that “one another” did not mean “one another”, but rather “some to others”, i.e. some do not submit to others.
Thankfully G & P are here to set us right! They point us to the example of Christ and the Church and ask, “Are Christ and the Church mutually submitted?” Answer, according to G & P is…very confused! Look at their answer carefully – I will break it down for us!
“Are Christ and the Church mutually submitted?”
“They aren’t if submission means Christ yields to the authority of the church”.
The silly thing about this statement is that it suggests that there is authority involved…but who came up with that? The term ‘authority’ is not used.
“But they are if submission means that Christ submitted Himself to suffering and death for the good of the church. That, however, is not how the church submits to Christ. The church submits to Christ by affirming His authority and following His lead.”
G & P want to use authority to distinguish between Christ’s submission and the submission of the church. There are several problems with this. Again, it has introduced ‘authority’ into the discussion. According to Grudem’s own research ‘origin’ is a valid meaning of ‘head’ – just as valid as ‘authority’. But the question remains, is this how the church submits to Christ – by affirming his authority? There is no doubt that the church recognise who Christ is – as the Son of God – but the church submits to Christ through loving (c.f. John 15:12, 17, 23-24, Romans 13:8-10, Philippians 2:1-2, 1 John 4:7-21). In regard to Christ’s authority, amazingly he has set it to one side preferring to be our friend (c.f. John 15:13-15) and brother (c.f. Galatians 3:25-29).
These statements do not back up G & P’s point! But further to this is how G & P have included authority into the issue. Authority is not mentioned in the passage, but rather how Jesus loved the church to the extent of laying down his life (Ephesians 5:25). This is submission (as admitted by G & P in what they have written), and this is what is expected of husbands. Should wives who have been asked to simply submit to their husbands be willing to lay down their lives for their husbands? I would imagine so. After all, Christ’s example to the church (not just husbands) is that we should all lay down our lives for others…Christ’s example is surely for all of us.
Related posts:
It’s interesting to note that the vaunted “plain reading” method is quickly discarded when the topic is women. If the text says “women keep silent” it’s so obvious and plain, but if it says “submit to one another” then Paul must certainly be qualifying it (even contradicting it!) in the verses to follow.
I read somewhere about a Roman law at the time called the marriage without hand, where the wife remained under the control of her father for life. If her husband mistreated her, the father could give her to another man. So it’s quite possible that Paul is telling Christian wives to ignore this law and be loyal to their husbands instead. The word hupotasso refers literally to documentation “attached” to a legal claim for the purpose of supporting it or giving it added validity. So she is to stand with her husband instead of her father.
But think about what this meant: she would be at her husband’s mercy, since she could no longer flee to her father. So Paul’s instructions to husbands take on a new light; since his wife was to support him, he was to love her. Note that Paul speaks of a husband treating his wife as any person would treat their own body. The head does not abuse or neglect the body, but support it. It is the love of Christ that is being emphasized, and the things Paul lists are expressions of that divine love, not attributes held by the husband alone, as if he is being elevated to deity!
And that is the great danger of taking “as to the Lord” to mean “obey him as if he were God!” In fact, it seems obvious that Paul is DE-emphasizing mastery and rule, as opposed to what a man of the time would naturally expect. Why would Paul need to tell such men to act more domineering, or women to act more subservient, when those were the social norms? Is it not the male supremacist view that “bows to culture” here?
And Paul interprets his own phrase about the “mystery” of Christ and the church by saying it’s all about unity of substance. Besides, it says the man joins to the woman. Why? Because it was Christ who joined to us; it was He who became human, not we becoming divine.
I could go on…
Oh, and the G and P argument that ruling is a way of submitting is nothing but double talk. Just wanted to add that.
It is true that the APPLICATION of the mutual submission principle works out differently in the lives of people, the one with more power is to temper that power and use it to serve the ones with less power.
Also, the mapping is the husband is head of his wife as Christ is head of the church. So the question becomes HOW is Christ the head of the church? The answer is given by the examples Paul gives, there is a basic principle is NOT taking an analogy (mapping) too far, else it breaks and CBMW takes it too far. We can see that by the examples of service that Paul gives, Christ when functioning as head serves the church. It is a basic principle of Scripture interpretation to NOT add to the text, and here CBMW, due to their masculinist glasses, adds to it in spades.
One needs to see that in the 1st century culture, the men were TOLD (by Aristotle and Roman law) that they were the boss, in ways that were like a mafia godfather. A husband could order a wife to abandon a child (to die) for any reason, such as the gender being female. There was no recourse in the courts for such decisions, the husband’s power was essentially absolute in his family. Does Paul even hint at endorsing this? No, he does not.
“This is very different to Grudems article that I responded to during our Blog Conference. In that article he claimed that “one another” did not mean “one another”, but rather “some to others”, i.e. some do not submit to others.”
This is why I see CBMW as a sort of online Christian Talmud. They are constantly doing this which is why non egal doctrine is so confusing and legalistic…
and if you follow them close enough for a long period, can you see clearly they are REACTING to what is being dicussed quite a bit on egal blogs…. But in a way they can control the milieu. They are getting creamed on Eph 5:21 (and other passages) and they know it. they depend on the fact that folks will submit to their authoritative teaching, their titles, etc and not be Bereans.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17346242/Knight-on-a-White-Horse
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18003008/Full-Rights-of-Sons-Chapter-XV-The-Middle-of-the-Road-How-Safe-is-It
Kathryn,
I read your Knight article. You are correc that (my term) symmetry in relationship ala Christ supports women, as they are historically under men.
You might wish to read David Instone-Brewer’s works on divorce in 1st century context to see this even more clearly.
Since the whole book of Ephesians flows together as one message, it is difficult to know just where Paul takes up the subject we focus on in chapter five, verses 22-33. But at the beginning of chapter four Paul introduces the specific issue of how to live the Christian life. His subject is -since we are one with Christ, how can we make that a greater reality in our daily lives?
Having just finished a prayer requesting God to fill the Ephesian believers with all his fullness Paul begins, “As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received.” (Ephesians 4:1) Then Paul goes on to describe “a life worthy of the calling…”
“Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.” (Ephesians 5:1-2) This restatement of the servanthood principle is addressed to all believers.
What is love? The Scriptures answer:
“This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.” (I John 3:16)
“This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.” (I John 4:10-12)
“God is love.” (I John 4:16)
“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. …And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.” (1 Corinthians 13:4-8,13)
After we are told to love we find another restatement of the servanthood principle, “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” (Ephesians 5:2 1) Once again, we are to exercise servanthood through submission out of respect for the servanthood which Christ exercised on our behalf. We should submit because Christ submitted.
The meaning of both love and submission is dying to self and living to God. “Your attitude
should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, …he humbled himself and became obedient to death – even death on a cross!” (Philippians 2:5-8) This is how Christ loved us. He “gave himself up…to God.” (Ephesians 5:2) This is how we are to submit to him. We “offer our bodies as living sacrifices…to God.” (Romans 12:1) Jesus did it. We must do it … because he did it.
This confirmation of the servanthood principle as the path for all Christians is Paul‟s introduction to his directives to husbands and wives. “Wives, submit to your husbands…”(Ephesians 5:22). “Husbands, love your wives,…”(Ephesians 5:25).
…
In summary, the central message of Ephesians 4 and 5 is the eternal truth of the oneness of Christ and His Church through servanthood.
The verses of Ephesians 5:22-33 are just one example of how this oneness is to be lived out and made visible. Marriage is the temporal union of male and female into one flesh which pictures the broader eternal truth of the union of Christ and his church into one body. This oneness is realized through the love and submission of servanthood.
These verses are indeed beautiful. Here the believer is raised to the lofty heights of being one with Jesus Christ and all other believers in one body. Here we learn that the institution of marriage has been endowed with the privilege of picturing this oneness. Through it all the beauty of servanthood shines as men and women renewed in the likeness of their creator (Ephesians 4:23-24) become like Jesus and “live a life of love….” (Ephesians 5:1-2).
…
from
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17699550/Full-Rights-of-Sons-Chapter-VIIthe-Head-of-the-Body-Eph-52233
Don,
Thanks for taking a look at the Knight article. I’ll check out David Instone-Brewer’s works.