Does Ephesians 5:21 teach mutual submission?

Here’s a rule …:

But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— … But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. (1 Corinthians 7:32-34)

If you’re not up for that program: “An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. ” (vs 32)

This passage expressly tells us who submits to who!

But if it is, I only wanted to note that when a husband loves his wife like Jesus loves the church and is not harsh with them, then submission probably isn’t going to be a huge issue in the relationship.

And probably numerous other examples where the husband (on average) treated his wife well. Doesn’t always work out. Submission to God isn’t easy no matter what your role is.

My comment wasn’t aimed at you personally (sorry for any offense caused). I was just pointing out what the verse said.

As for the rest of you comment; I only wish that were true. But modern culture is not conducive to a biblical attitude of submission, and many Christian women do not submit as per the command. It is not an “I will if you will” thing. It is a direct command to both parties which they will both have to answer for individually before Christ. A woman who submits to her husband (as long as he is not expecting her to sin) will be rewarded, no matter how the husband obeys, and vice versa.

[dmyers]

Susan, your first comment was actually titled “Conditions.” In that comment, you said, “IMO, the expectation (and condition, from my POV) is that the husband will obey Christ and love his wife as himself.” If you’re retracting your insistence that the wife’s submission is conditioned on the husband’s Christ-like love, then we’re in agreement. But I didn’t put words in your mouth.

I explained the conditions in that paragraph “IMO, the expectation (and condition, from my POV) is that the husband will obey Christ and love his wife as himself. A wife is not required to submit in a way that violates her own God-given conscience or endangers her in some way in order to please her husband. “

Everyone in this thread has agreed with those conditions. I’ve never insisted that a wife’s submission hinges on her husband’s perfection as a leader, but Godly leadership is not “I say jump you say how high”. Bad leadership isn’t an excuse for bad followership, and vice versa. That’s why I’ve asked for some feedback on what is a proper exercise of authority in the home, because regardless of the order in which commands are given, if everything rises and falls on leadership, then everything rises and falls on leadership.

[Susan R]

dmyers wrote:

Susan, your first comment was actually titled “Conditions.” In that comment, you said, “IMO, the expectation (and condition, from my POV) is that the husband will obey Christ and love his wife as himself.” If you’re retracting your insistence that the wife’s submission is conditioned on the husband’s Christ-like love, then we’re in agreement. But I didn’t put words in your mouth.

I explained the conditions in that paragraph “IMO, the expectation (and condition, from my POV) is that the husband will obey Christ and love his wife as himself. A wife is not required to submit in a way that violates her own God-given conscience or endangers her in some way in order to please her husband. “

Everyone in this thread has agreed with those conditions. I’ve never insisted that a wife’s submission hinges on her husband’s perfection as a leader, but Godly leadership is not “I say jump you say how high”. Bad leadership isn’t an excuse for bad followership, and vice versa. That’s why I’ve asked for some feedback on what is a proper exercise of authority in the home, because regardless of the order in which commands are given, if everything rises and falls on leadership, then everything rises and falls on leadership.

Whether you realize it or not, you’re playing word games. Several people in this thread have explicitly disagreed with the first condition you stated (which you yourself explicitly identified as a condition), “that the husband will obey Christ and love his wife as himself.” As to your second set of conditions, the ones you italicize here for some reason, your formulation differs from and is much broader than the standard disclaimer about abuse or sin that we all endorse. We all agree that the wife has no obligation to sin at the direction of her husband, but that’s not necessarily synonymous with the wife’s subjective conscience. Why not just say the wife has no obligation to violate God’s Word at the instruction of her husband? Likewise, the phrase “endangers her in some way” is amorphous. Is that deliberate or unintentional? Your phrasing leaves the door wide open for the wife (or unwise friends) to claim subjective “endanger[ment] in some way” where objectively there is no such danger. For example, the husband (Christian or non-Christian) believes it’s best for the family to move to a different city. The wife refuses to submit because the move “endangers her in some way” — it requires attending a church she doesn’t care for, the schools aren’t as good, the crime level is higher, she’ll have more allergy problems, and so on ad infinitum. Why not just say she doesn’t have to submit to physical abuse, unless the intent is to keep the escape hatch as large as a barn door?

You keep saying “everything rises and falls on leadership.” No one else has said that. I haven’t said that. Saying that contradicts your professed agreement that the wife’s obligation to submit is independent of her husband’s obligation to lead or to love. You also re-insert your original “condition” by the back door by saying “Godly leadership is not ‘I say jump you say how high.’” It’s true that godly leadership is not that, and no one here has argued otherwise. But neither Ephesians 5 nor 1 Peter 3 nor any other submission/respect passage cited in this discussion conditions submission on “Godly leadership.” In fact, 1 Peter 3 explicitly excludes godly leadership as a condition because it’s addressing the wife of an unconverted, ungodly man.

dmyers wrote:

Why not just say the wife has no obligation to violate God’s Word at the instruction of her husband? Likewise, the phrase “endangers her in some way” is amorphous. Is that deliberate or unintentional? Your phrasing leaves the door wide open for the wife (or unwise friends) to claim subjective “endanger[ment] in some way” where objectively there is no such danger.

For example, the husband (Christian or non-Christian) believes it’s best for the family to move to a different city. The wife refuses to submit because the move “endangers her in some way” — it requires attending a church she doesn’t care for, the schools aren’t as good, the crime level is higher, she’ll have more allergy problems, and so on ad infinitum.

If any husband makes this move over his wife’s objections, with an authoritarian attitude … well, heh, heh, heh … Have fun! And, shame on him, too! This looks more like a dictatorship with sex, than a marriage.

…but I know of a situation where the husband bought a pick-up truck for work over his wife’s continued and well-grounded objections. I have seen other situations where the wife was only consulted on what color the new car would be. The husband took care of everything else because it was his God-ordained responsibility as her head.

He IS the head of the home, you know. And the wife DOES have to submit.

[TylerR]

dmyers wrote:

Why not just say the wife has no obligation to violate God’s Word at the instruction of her husband? Likewise, the phrase “endangers her in some way” is amorphous. Is that deliberate or unintentional? Your phrasing leaves the door wide open for the wife (or unwise friends) to claim subjective “endanger[ment] in some way” where objectively there is no such danger.

For example, the husband (Christian or non-Christian) believes it’s best for the family to move to a different city. The wife refuses to submit because the move “endangers her in some way” — it requires attending a church she doesn’t care for, the schools aren’t as good, the crime level is higher, she’ll have more allergy problems, and so on ad infinitum.

If any husband makes this move over his wife’s objections, with an authoritarian attitude … well, heh, heh, heh … Have fun! And, shame on him, too! This looks more like a dictatorship with sex, than a marriage.

Tyler, you’re spinning the example with negative details that aren’t there. Why is that? I thought about padding the example with various qualifiers of the husband’s good intentions, his diligence in investigating the pros and cons of the move for all concerned, etc. But the bottom line is that the wife’s obligation is to submit, as to the Lord, to her husband’s decision, even if he’s unsaved and is not taking anything spiritual into account. Certainly she can respectfully provide her thoughts and analysis and concerns. But if she ultimately doesn’t agree with the decision and he executes it, her obligation is to cooperate with a loving, respectful spirit. Your cavalier and snarky “Heh, have fun!” is a non-biblical (really, anti-biblical) endorsement of a Christian wife’s unChristian response. Shame on you, not the hypothetical husband. Attitudes like yours (her feelings trump his decisions — and the Bible) is a big part of the reason Christian marriages are so frequently little different from non-Christian, feminist influenced marriages.

Advice I would give (some specifics)

[all case of unsaved husband w believing wife]:

• H says: Don’t give $$ to church | W: OK, I won’t give $$ to church
• H beats wife | W: call police & file police report immediately
• H says: Don’t attend church | W: I must obey God - Hebrews 10:25
• H says: You attend too many services | W: I will attend Sunday am only
• H says: You are too busy volunteering at church | W: I will restrict my volunteerism to Sunday AM only

JP: All from my own experiences as a pastor

Per Jay’s example, it strikes me that what you’ve got there is more or less a dispute over financial propriety and priorities. If it were my family, for example, my wife would be right to be concerned, since (a) my boss just told me today to work from home if I needed 4 wheel drive to get to work and (b) my family budget does not exactly need the additional stress of paying for a $50k truck. I can imagine the “fun”, however, of bringing financial issues up for church discipline. Lots of people would be saying “is it getting hot in here? I’m sweating like anything!”.

That said, I do remember a church that looked up a prospective pastor’s financial stewardship in the hiring process—and it worked out wonderfully. The candidate, who was hired and is doing great as far as I know, saw that a previous action had been foolish and committed not to repeat the experience. Perhaps if we bring Matthew 18 in over the “smaller” things, we can approach it in the bigger things, too.

As Susan has said, I think people have different ideas about what “submission” and it’s corollary “leadership” look like. Inigio Montoya has some insight here!

I see attempts to impose a certain style (often, an authoritarian one) and make it the definition. What submission and leadership look like will change with couple.

I question how sacrificial and selflessly loving it would be to order your wife to move over her legitimate concerns!

I’m not sure if our disagreement is over substance or style. But, we certainly do disagree.

He should never have to “order” his wife to move — if that’s what he thinks is best, she should do it willingly and with a good attitude because (a) that’s her obligation, per, you know, God (and her own choice when she married him), (b) she should trust her husband’s good intentions toward her and the family, as well as his equipping by God to make the final decision when they aren’t in agreement, and (c) even if he’s wrong objectively, even if he’s not as concerned about her interests as he ought to be, submitting to him is submitting to God, whose power, good intentions toward her, and care for her cannot be doubted (assume the requisite footnote has been dropped here where I have to disclaim dragging her into objective sin and physical abuse, because otherwise that’s what you’ll come back with). The husband shouldn’t be an objective tyrant, but the Bible leaves no doubt that he’s the tiebreaker when they disagree — not her, not her feelings, not her concerns (legitimate or not). Since there’s apparently no situation conceivable to you in which her will isn’t determinative, it seems pretty obvious to me that we disagree on substance.

Got it. Take care.