It’s not uncommon for pastors and Bible teachers to point to Ephesians 5:21 as evidence for what they call “mutual submission.” What is “mutual submission?” According to some interpreters, it is an attitude among Christians of willing service to one another. As we observe each other’s needs in the body of Christ, we “yield” to those needs and “submit” ourselves to each other as we fulfill those needs. It is “mutual” because all Christians are to take this posture to each other, not just one class of Christian toward another.
Many who contend for the “mutual submission” interpretation argue this call for mutual submission is vital to Paul’s instructions in the rest of chapter five because it guards the woman from being dominated by her husband as she “submits” to him (Eph 5:22). That is, while Scripture calls the wife to submit to her husband in some ways, so the husband is to submit to her in some ways. By maintaining the principle of mutual submission in applying Paul’s instruction for wives and husbands, we protect women from being overrun by their husbands and enduring a master-slave type of relationship.
While this is a common and popular interpretation of Paul’s words in Ephesians 5:21, I do not think it best accounts for the context or flow of Paul’s thought. In this article, I will offer three reasons why Ephesians 5:21 does not teach “mutual submission.”
Reason #1: The Problem of Hermeneutical Warrant
First, we don’t have hermeneutical warrant to switch between definitions between verses 21 and 22. “Submit” clearly means “yield to an authority” in verse 22, and the phrase “as to the Lord” and the following grounding clause, “For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church” (v. 23) confirms this interpretation. Within the marriage relationship, the husband bears a unique authority to lead his wife, and she is to follow his lead and yield to that God-given authority.
On what basis, then, can the word “submit” in verse 22 mean something entirely different in the verse immediately preceding it? How does “submit” mean “yield to an authority,” in verse 22, but mean “serve one another” in verse 21? We have not textual warrant to make this change in meaning—the shift in meaning must be assumed.
Actually, the word “submit” in verse 22 isn’t in the Greek text.1 The ESV, NIV, NLT, CSB, supply the word “submit” in order to help readers follow Paul’s argument from verse 21 where the word “submit” is used. The NASB inserts the phrase “be subject to” in italics in order to show that it is clearly implied in the text (see also the NRSV). These are all legitimate translational decisions, for the word “submit” is clearly implied from verse 21 into 22. In fact, the absence of the word “submit” in verse 22 makes the “mutual submission” interpretation far less likely. The text literally reads like this:
…submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, to your own husbands, as to the Lord.
Ephesians 5:21b-22, my translation.
Assuming that “submit” in verse 21 means “mutual submission,” some argue that we must carry this meaning over into verse 22 to help us understand what Paul means when he instructs wives to submit to their husbands. As I will address in more detail in a moment, however, it makes more sense to see Paul making a general statement (submit to one another out of reverence for Christ) and then explaining specifically what he means by that general statement in the following verses (5:22-6:5). Verse 22 provides the first category of submission that must exist among Christians: wives to their husbands. To argue that Ephesians 5:21 teaches “mutual submission” in light of the ensuing context (listing the three relationships that require submission from one party to another) seems to beg the question; that is, it must be assumed that’s what 5:21 means, because the context itself appears to conflict with that interpretation. At the very least, the context provides grounds for understanding Ephesians 5:21 differently than “mutual submission.”
Reason #2: The Definition of “Submit”
Second and related, the primary definition of the English word “submit” is “to yield to governance or authority” (Merriam-Webster) and “to give over or yield to the power or authority of another” (Dictionary.com). These definitions capture well what the Greek word denotes. Secondary definitions include, “to present or propose to another for review, consideration, or decision,” (Merriam-Webster) or to “permit oneself to be subjected to something” (Merriam-Webster), or “hand over formally” (Vocabulary.com).
To suggest, therefore, that submit in verse 21 has the connotation of “serving one another” in a way that “puts the other person first (Philippians 2:3)”, as one Bible teacher suggests, is to use the word in a way that it isn’t used in English. Submission by definition always requires an authority structure, even in the case of “submitting” a document for approval. So “mutual submission” can’t exist between husbands and wives (Eph 5:22-31), children and parents (Eph 6:1-4), or slaves and masters (Eph 6:5-9) because this authority structure always remains in place.
In other words, there can be no such thing as a mutual submission between two people where one is in authority and the other person is under their authority.
Therefore, because an authority structure is essential to the idea of submission, I don’t believe the phrase “mutual submission” is coherent. In other words, there can be no such thing as a mutual submission between two people where one is in authority and the other person is under their authority. A lieutenant, for example, can never, in terms of leadership and direction of the platoon, submit to the commands of a corporal. To do so would be to undermine the structure of the relationship and result on confusion for other soldiers. Authority structures are a God-given good that create order so that armies, business, institutions, and families can run smoothly.
But someone might argue that the model of a lieutenant with his subordinates is precisely how Christians are not supposed to act toward one another, as Jesus himself said:
You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.
Mark 10:42-45
But Jesus is not abolishing leadership in this passage. Rather, he is teaching his disciples that our leadership should not be characterized by self aggrandizement but by a desire to serve others for their good, just like Jesus served us for our good. Rather than undermining authority structures in his commitment to sacrificial service, Jesus was the perfect example of clear, decisive leadership as he served people for the glory of God and their eternal benefit.
Consider when Jesus washed his disciples’ feet while they were in the upper room just before his betrayal (John 13:1-20). In this example, Jesus served his disciples in a manner contrary to how teachers of his day would have served their disciples. No rabbi would have dreamed of washing the feet of his students, a task that was reserved for only the lowliest of servants. Yet, during the entire episode of Jesus washing his disciples’ feet, everyone in the room knew who the leader was: “You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am” (John 13:13). Indeed, when Peter attempted to correct Jesus for washing his feet (13:6), Jesus exercised his rightful authority, told Peter how things were going to go, and maintained his course (13:8-10).
Jesus, the perfect servant, was in full control and leading the group the entire time. There was no mutual submission in the upper room. Jesus was the leader, and Peter was his disciple, and Jesus would not yield to Peter’s ignorant assertions (see also Matt 16:21-23). As it turns out, Jesus’ resolve to maintain the authority structure between himself and his disciples would be for Peter’s ultimate blessing.
Reason #3: The Flow of Paul’s Argument
Third, it makes more sense in the context to read Paul this way: “Christians, you are all to submit to one another out of reference for Christ [a general statement] (v. 21)…[which specifically means] wives to husbands…children to parents…slaves to masters.” In all three cases, you have Christians submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. The wives are to submit to (“obey;” see 1 Pet 3:6) their husbands; children are to obey their parents (Eph 6:1), and slaves are to obey their masters (Eph 6:5). Wives are neither children nor slaves, just like slaves are neither wives nor children, so the nature of one’s submission will be different in each case. Nevertheless, there is an authority structure in each relationship that remains intact and fulfills Paul’s instruction in verse 21.2
Conclusion
For these reasons, therefore, I do not think Paul is teaching the idea of “mutual submission” in Ephesians 5:21. Actually, the phrase “mutual submission,” so long as it carries the connotation of equality of leadership, is logically incoherent. While some men do abuse their calling to lead their wives in the marriage, this is no reason to soften Paul’s instruction in verse 22 by introducing the confusing and exegetically unlikely concept of mutual submission in verse 21. Instead, let’s teach and train the men to love their wives like Christ loves the church, so that their wives will be happy to follow to their lead with respectful submission.
NOTES
1 But it may be in the original text. Some manuscripts contain the word “submit” in verse 22, while some others omit it. The United Bible Society did not include the word in the UBS 4 because they “preferred the shorter reading, which accords with the succinct style of the author’s admonitions,” among other reasons. See A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition (New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 571.
2 Some have argued that the “one another” of verse 21 implies reciprocity. Specifically, the submission of this passage must be “both ways” because that is how one anothers operate in the New Testament. For example, the command to love one another is reciprocal because both parties are expected to equally fulfill this command toward each other (e.g., 1 Pet 1:22). There are several New Testament examples, however, where “one another” does not imply reciprocity (e.g., 1 Cor 7:5; 11:33; Matt 24:10, etc.). In these instances, while the word translated “one another” (Greek: allelois) is used, the action between the two parties is one party toward the other, not reciprocal action. See Denny Burk, “Does Ephesians 5 Teach Mutual Submission, at CBMW.org, August 21, 2019, https://cbmw.org/2019/08/21/does-ephesians-521-teach-mutual-submission/.
