Skip to content

‘Mutual submission’? Scrutinizing a lazy slogan

From The Briefing:

A furore has indeed erupted over the use of the dreaded ‘s’-word in certain proposed new marriage vows. The word ‘submit,’ of course, comes from the Bible (e.g. Ephesians 5:22-24); the proposed vows are an attempt to give couples the option of using biblical terminology in place of the traditional, often misunderstood, term in the prayer book: ‘obey.’ The inclusion of the ‘s’-word, however, has caught many people’s eye (and ire). It needs to be said that the word ‘submit’ can never be understood alone. The concept of submission in marriage is always part of a package deal. It’s one side of a double-sided coin: the other side is the husband’s responsibility to sacrifice himself for his wife, loving her tenderly and caring for her (e.g. Ephesians 5:25-30). That, in itself, should rule out any suggestion of abuse of women by men.

However, sometimes in their further desire to rule out any suggestion of abuse or power struggles in marriage, some Christians will refer to a catchy little slogan: ‘mutual submission.’ The slogan is supposed to be a summary of a verse which occurs just before the relevant passage in Ephesians:

“… submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.” (Ephesians 5:21)

When the slogan ‘mutual submission’ is used, it’s usually designed to make the following argument:

  1. Ephesians 5:21 clearly means that everyone must submit to everyone else without exception (‘mutual submission’)
  2. This ‘mutual submission’ in Ephesians 5:21 must be used to override / temper / change the meaning of the passage about submission in marriage.
  3. Thus husbands must submit to wives just as much as wives submit to husbands.

However, this logical argument is flawed.

Firstly, “…submitting to one another” does not necessarily mean that everyone must submit to everyone else without exception. It could mean that, but it doesn’t have to. The term ‘one another’ has a wide range of meanings. In some passages, the term ‘one another’ just means that some people are doing something to some other people. Revelation 6:4 talks about people “slaying one another”; it just means that some people were killing other people, not that everybody was killing everybody else simultaneously. The same goes for ‘judging’ in Romans 14:13. You can’t make a dogmatic decision about what “submitting to one another” means until you’ve read the rest of the passage.

Secondly, the idea that Ephesians 5:21 must be used to override / temper / change the meaning of Ephesians 5:22-24 is a very bad way to read the Bible. The tried-and-true method to read the Bible is to use the passages that we find clear to interpret the meaning of passages that we find unclear. But the ‘mutual submission’ argument does the exact opposite: it uses an ambiguous verse (“submitting to one another”) to override the complementarity which is spelt out clearly in the following verses. Ephesians 5:22-6:9 lists a number of different kinds of relationship (wife / husband; children / father; slaves / masters). In each relationship, the first party is called on to voluntarily submit, while the second party is called on to care for the first party in a way which has the first party’s best interests at heart. Submission and care are clearly related to each other, but they’re not the same thing. So “submitting to one another” can’t mean that everybody submits to everybody else.

By all means, let’s call on husbands to man up, to take their responsibilities seriously, to sacrifice themselves for their wives, to treat their wives with tender care and respect, and to hate any kind of abuse. But let’s not use ‘mutual submission’ to do it. In fact, I reckon we should avoid using the slogan entirely. It’s lazy, and it’s a bad way to read the Bible.

For more: check out Tim Challies’s summary of Peter O’Brien’s Ephesians commentary.


Comments at The Briefing.

Published inThe Briefing

Publications by Lionel Windsor:

  • Lift Your Eyes: Reflections on Ephesians

Recent blog posts

  • Holding child's handImitators of God (Ephesians 5:1–2)
    Christians are God’s dearly loved children, raised from death to life and secure with him, now and forever. This is what gives us the power to sacrifice.
  • Preaching sermons and shepherding the flock: What’s the connection?
    Lionel Windsor | 2 Feb 2015 | Priscilla and Aquila Conference | Moore College, Sydney I’m here republishing my 2015 paper, which originally appeared as a PDF and video. See here for more on the
  • Photo: NASA/ISS CrewThe Amazon Fires: A Gospel Response
    Unprecedented numbers of fires are now burning in the Amazon rainforest. How can the gospel of Jesus Christ be brought to bear on the situation?
  • Photo by Xan Griffin on UnsplashThe Victory of the Cross
    According to the Bible, Jesus’ death on the cross is God’s victory and triumph—a victory and triumph Christ shares with all who trust in him... (Audio)
  • Photo by Lina Trochez on UnsplashThe power of forgiveness (Ephesians 4:31–32)
    Believers are to forgive, as God has forgiven us. Forgiveness is not only possible for believers, it’s also powerful for our lives and relationships.
  • Photo by Brett Jordan on UnsplashWords with purpose (Ephesians 4:29–30)
    Christians have a whole new reason to speak. Instead of rotten words or selfish words, we are to speak good words: word that build and give grace.
  • Photo by Ben White on UnsplashThe gospel for criminals (Ephesians 4:28)
    Paul preaches the gospel to thieves. God’s grace gives us a new identity. That means we have work to do: not so we can take, but so we can give.
  • Sun setting on ruinsGrace and anger (Ephesians 4:26–27)
    Whether our anger is right or wrong, we can’t deny it’s there. But because we belong to Christ, we must make it a priority to deal with anger. How?
  • Is God Green? By Lionel WindsorIs God Green? Audio/video links
    Here are some links to audio and video for events I've spoken at recently based on my book: Is God Green?
  • Donald Robinson Selected Works volumes 3 and 4Donald Robinson on the Origins of the Anglican Church League
    History matters. It makes us question things we take for granted, it helps us to understand who we are, and it gives us a broader perspective on the issues we face today. One example – relevant for evangelical Anglicans, especially in Sydney – is an essay in Donald Robinson Selected Works, volume 4 (recently published by the Australian Church Record and Moore College). The essay is called “The Origins of the Anglican Church League” (pp. 125–52). It’s a republication of a paper given in 1976 by Donald Robinson (1922–2018), former Moore College Vice-Principal and later Archbishop of Sydney. In the paper, Robinson traces some of the currents and issues that led to the formation of the Anglican Church League in the early twentieth century. The essay is classic Donald Robinson: full of surprises, yet definitely still worth reading today to help us gain perspective on issues for evangelical Anglicans past and present.

On this site

All content copyright Lionel Windsor