Does Ephesians 5:21 teach mutual submission?

I’ve shared some thoughts on this question as well and tend to see some need for “mutual submission.” I would suggest that the “submit to one another” (Eph 5:21) describes the way that we should treat one another within the body of Christ in general. For wives “to submit to your own husbands” then is a more specific and distinct way that Christian wives should treat their husbands within their family relationship.

• Respect your Wife and Love Your Husband (post)
• Respect your Wife and Love Your Husband (audio, 6 min.)

It does teach mutual submission. Problem solved!

[TylerR]

It does teach mutual submission. Problem solved!

I’ll bet you were the kind of kid I would have wanted to punch in school! :)

It doesn’t teach mutual submission. Problem still solved. Or, I guess it depends upon what you mean by mutual submission, and then …

From Harold W. Hoehner’s commentary on Ephesians:

“How does mutual submission work? If A submits to B, then B is not submitting but ruling. It could be that A submits with respect to some things or areas to B, and, on the other hand, B submits to A in other things or areas.”

is that mutual submission imposes two difficulties on the reader. First, as the article hints with verse 23, the rest of Scripture makes the comparison of male headhip in human relationships to God’s headship over the Church. So unless Christ radically changes in the space of two verses—probably a couple of minutes for Paul’s quill—we have a problem with that hypothesis. Second, if we follow “mutual submission” with some examples of wives submitting to husbands, children to parents, slaves to masters, we might infer that those endorsing mutual submission were of the opinion that in ancient society, wives, children, and slaves ruled things. Obviously we know the opposite is true, historically speaking.

Sometimes I think we get too bogged down in the minutiae of word definitions to see the big picture. Not that I don’t think those minutiae aren’t valuable—I’m a bit of a word junkie myself—but there are times you can’t see the forest for the trees.

To some degree, I understand the “mutual submission” of Eph 5:21 to resemble what Paul explained elsewhere as “in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself” (Phil 2:3).

Eph. 5:21 concludes a thought which began in 5:15, and indeed in 5:1. Eph. 5:22 is Paul moving on to a particular subject; that of husband and wife. While believers are to submit to one another in deference (5:1-21), the wife is to submit to the husband as her “head” just as the Church submits to Christ (5:23-24). Christ does not submit to the Church, although in His earthly mission He washed the disciples’ feet. In like manner, the husband does not submit to the wife as though she were the head.

In 5:21 Paul is writing to the saints generally. In 5:22ff. He is writing to husbands and wives specifically.

I appreciate Paul’s brief comment above. Neatly summarizes the passage. I think the term “mutual submission” as it is bandied about by many actually confuses the biblical teaching of marriage. Burk is correct to point it out, Paul summarizes the passage well, in my opinion.

I think mutual submission is a valid idea because of the intention to strike a balance with these verses. I can’t think about this topic without remembering women who were/are dealing with the abuse of ‘submission’ by their husbands (and sometimes Christian men in general). I’ve known many women whose husbands were manipulative, demeaning, considered their wives to be their personal slaves, even to the point of using violence. My own husband is a recovering alcoholic and drug abuser, and during relapses, I have to walk a very fine line between submission and protecting myself physically, spiritually, and emotionally.

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.

It’s an extreme example, but Sapphira comes to mind during discussions like this—she and her husband hatched a plan together, but when questioned by Peter, she had to answer for herself. She could have chosen to ‘betray’ her husband and tell the truth. She continued the deception, and died, because she was responsible for her own actions.

As with many things, it’s not simple.

https://centralseminary.edu/submitting-to-each-other-a-response-to-denn…

Burk places more weight on his evidence than it will bear. First, though he appeals to the standard New Testament lexicon (BDAG), he neglects to mention that it includes as one definition of submit (Greek hupotasso) “submission in the sense of voluntary yielding in love.” This definition is fully compatible with “mutually serving each other” and “putting each other’s needs first.” One of the biblical references that the lexicon lists for this usage is Eph 5:21. Furthermore, Gerhard Delling’s discussion of this word devotes an entire paragraph to occurrences in which it connotes “readiness to renounce one’s own will for the sake of others … and to give precedence to others,” including, “mutual submission among Christians” (TDNT 8:45).

Second, Burk’s observations about the reciprocal pronoun are mostly flawed. People actually can mutually betray and hate each other (Matt 24:10), step on each other (Luke 21:1), accuse each other (Acts 19:38), deprive each other of marital rights (1 Cor 7:5), and wait for each other to eat (1 Cor 11:33). The one text that appears to support Burk’s argument is Rev 6:4, where people are caused to kill each other. Even here, it is not impossible for individuals to be committing mutually simultaneous murder. In any event, when the reciprocal pronoun is used for groups it uniformly indicates action that occurs indiscriminately among the members of the group, not action in which one specified party is acting upon a different specified party.

Third, Burk completely ignores evidence about how the apostolic fathers understood Paul’s command. For example, 1 Clement contains an exhortation that paraphrases Eph 5:21: “let each man be subject to his neighbor” (1 Cle 38:1‑2). Like Paul, 1 Clement illustrates this principle by using pairs of examples in which each member of the pair exhibits a kind of submission suitable to that party’s station. For example, the strong must not neglect the weak, and the weak must respect the strong. The rich must support the poor, and the poor must give thanks to God for the rich. In each of these pairs, both members are exhibiting mutual submission, though in different ways.

Fourth, if submission does mean serving the other and putting the other’s needs first, then Christ and the Church really do have a mutually submissive relationship. Christ served the interests of the Church when He “loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish” (Eph 5:25-27). For Burk to state that “[t] here is no reciprocal submission between Christ and his bride” is not evidence, but begging the question.

What, then, is Paul saying in Eph 5:21ff? The leading verb is found in Eph 5:18, where believers are commanded to stop being drunk with wine but to be filled with the Spirit. In a series of modal participles, Paul describes what Spirit filling looks like: speaking, singing, and making melody (Eph 5:19), giving thanks (Eph 5:20), and submitting to each other in the fear of the Lord (Eph 5:21). The passage expects an attitude of mutual submission from every Spirit-filled believer toward all other believers.

The problem is that such mutual submission is difficult to conceptualize—in Paul’s day no less than in ours. Rather than attempting to explain the concept, however, Paul chooses to illustrate it. He pictures submission in three pairs of relationships. Each pair involves an order of authority. Paul shows what submission looks like for each member in each pair.

For wives, mutual submission looks like submitting to their own husbands as to the Lord (Eph 5:22‑24)—and the change in wording is significant. For husbands, mutual submission looks like loving their wives as their own bodies and as Christ loved the church (Eph 5:25‑33). For children, mutual submission looks like obeying parents and honoring father and mother (Eph 6:1‑3). For fathers, mutual submission looks like not provoking their children to wrath but rearing them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph 6:4). For slaves, mutual submission looks like obeying their masters sincerely (Eph 6:5-8). For masters, mutual submission looks like treating slaves humanely and kindly (Eph 6:9).

I think that Burk is wrong to say that Eph 5:21 does not teach mutual submission. I also believe that egalitarians are wrong when they assume that mutual submission obviates authority structures. The most straightforward reading of Eph 5:21‑6:10 is that God does require mutual submission, but that mutual submission is fully compatible with the exercise of authority. As Paul illustrates, rightly mutual submission will manifest itself differently on each side of a relationship that involves ordered authority.

I think the term “mutual submission” is unhelpful, and perhaps one could say unbiblical. The way it is used often (if not always) emasculates men in their God given roles. It is interesting that it is usually only applied in marriage, whereas Paul goes on to teach about parents/children and masters/slaves. While Christians in each of these roles have an obligation to think of the needs of the others in the relationship, the order of the relationship is never subverted. Except in marriage.

so I agree with Bauder to some extent on this, but I still wish Christians would stop talking about “mutual submission”. It just muddies the waters

I insist on having the last word in every argument …

“Yes dear”!

I follow this rule:

I think Susan does a good job of explaining most of the reactions that I’ve seen to this concept when she wrote this:

I can’t think about this topic without remembering women who were/are dealing with the abuse of ‘submission’ by their husbands (and sometimes Christian men in general). I’ve known many women whose husbands were manipulative, demeaning, considered their wives to be their personal slaves, even to the point of using violence. My own husband is a recovering alcoholic and drug abuser, and during relapses, I have to walk a very fine line between submission and protecting myself physically, spiritually, and emotionally.

I know that this is a problem that I keep seeing as well. Teaching wives to submit to their husbands works well and doesn’t need to be explained when children grow up in stable nuclear Christian families. It’s what we teach to kids and women from horribly dysfunctional backgrounds (or relationships) that is where this gets difficult. Someone is writing a book titled “The Life-Saving Divorce”, and those are the people that are really, really struggling with the idea of submission and complementarianism.

I sympathize with Susan and pray that God will bless her patience above what she asks or thinks, but no woman should submit to a husband who tells her to sin, or makes her complicit in his sin through distorting God’s commands.

As for “mutual submission”, that is one meaning and fits Eph. 5:21. It does not fit Eph. 5:22 where Paul has turned from the general to the particular.

Some of these comments seem to be arguing with the passage instead of believing it. When we try to “right wrongs” by lessening the force of biblical commands we always end up making more problems than we solve.